View Single Post
  #8  
Old May 30th 06, 06:24 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why People Mountain Bike: "the adventure of the ride is what gets my juices flowing"


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:48:34 +1000, davebee
wrote:


first off lets do what mike never does and snip some of the crap Not
that he makes it easy cutting into the middle of sentances to post his
comments. Apologies for not colour coding it for those using an email
browser. I come in through cyclingforums because of the added security.
Jeesh.

davebee Wrote:


MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his
acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled
by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least.
Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the
accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the
extent that wilderness should be protected.



MV Wrote:

And wildlife. You forgot that part.

wilderness, wildlife... whats the diffence?


I'm glad you admit not knowing the difference.

The wilderness implies the
area and everything contained therin.


Right, but not all habitat is wilderness. DUH![/color]

I'm glad you admit KNOWING the difference... finally. Now you can stop
treating all areas as if they are designated wilderness in your statements.
You can also, since you acknowledge "not all habitat is wilderness", stop
misrepresenting the legal and acceptable use of trail systems by non-hikers.
You can also, since you acknowledge "not all habitat is wilderness", stop
citing your references to wilderness habitat when referring to access for
off-road cycling in non-wilderness areas.

Your obtuseness requires that
everybody spells things out to you as if you are a 2 year old child
with mental health problems. And then you pounce ont he omission of a
single word or a slightly inadequate description. At least FOR THE MOST
PART people try to explain things for you without resorting to personal
insults.

davebee Wrote:
you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas.


MV Wrote:
This I agree with, howevert here is absolutely no reason to allow BIKES
off-road. THEY aren't alive, and don't need recreation. Are you really
THAT dense?


There is no need to be rude. The bicycle of course is a tool for people
to use to aid their enjoyment of the outside. because you fail to grasp
the idea perhaps you should consider this. I assume when you go walking
you wear a pair of hiking boots. Your boots are comparable to my bike,
given so much as they are a tool to aid your enjoyment. Likewise your
boots do not require recreation.


Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto
tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we
allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land
manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't any!)

We've had this discussion (over and over and over...)
"Apparently, your opinion even supercedes reality. Land managers across the
country are working with cycling organizations to enhance cooperation among
all user groups. The Bureau of Land Management has a national action plan in
place just for the purpose. The BLM recognizes the benefits of off-road
cycling and your opinions of off-road cycling and the reasons given
supporting the benefits of off-road cycling are a non-issue.
It is simple. You try to close your eyes and cover your ears by placing your
OPINION as a determining factor as what is valid. However, it has been
PROVEN to those who make the decisions that off-road cycling offers benefits
of health, increased awareness of the importance of preservation,
cooperative maintenance, economic benefits and more.
Your OPINION as to the validity of these benefits is null. Your OPINION of
off-road cycling is null. All you have is your OPINION resting on a
carefully selected foundation of chosen information."
-----------




Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home