On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:26:55 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:32:30 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:17:49 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
Because the other problems would take much more effort than just
being a keyboard scientist. He choses to spend his time on a very
minor "problem"
MILLIONS of mountain bikers shredding trails every week is not
"minor". Get real.
But Mike, you have stated that the population is not important! You're
contradicting yourself.
No, I didn't, LIAR. I said it's not relevant in comparing the impacts
of mountain biking with those of hiking.
A comparison of the effects of aspirin and Tylenol doesn't require a
count of the number of pills in the world. DUH!
Mike, on July 25 you wrote:
"Nonsense. If we give someone a bike, we multiply their impact by
several times. QED
How many OTHER people are mountain biking or hiking is totally
irrelevant to his impact."
Yet now you say that 'millions of mountain bikers shredding the trails
is not "minor." Get real.'"
So what is it?
You really ARE dense, aren't you? Mountain biking increases one's
impacts. In total, mountain bikers have a very significant impact.
There's no conflict there. DUH!
A mountain bike may increase one's impacts (though there is room to
debate depending on what you are comparing it to and to use "increase"
means there is some form of comparison going on), but you are
extrapolating that to the entire population of "mountain bikers" while
trying to say the number of bikers is irrelevant. If "mountain bikers"
as a group have a significant impact, then the number of participants
must be relevant.
Is there a point there?
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande