My point exactly. You want to police how people choose to
enjoy nature. That's none of your business.

Hikers and equestrians are the only groups that count as far
as how trails are to be used.

More circular logic. Or, to be more blunt, lack of logic.

There is no backup for this statement ... it's just what you would like to be ... not what is.

We do indeed want to police any and all others.

Well, fortunately, you can't. They are not your trails to police.

Actually though it does. Mr. Vandeman simply knows more than
any other living person about the subject. That makes him the expert.

Utter and total rubbish. The guy's even more illogical than you.

I think I've done it repeatedly. I've pointed out the
numerous logical flaws in your arguments (appeal to authority, circular logic
and the like) not to mention the fact that you have no factual backup to your
premises and axioms.

You don't want to see that ... but I trust to others' intelligence
to do so.

I too trust to others' intelligence to discern the difference
between a self-serving argument that makes no sense and my very modest desire to
want to restore the status quo ante.

No, Ed, your very immodest desire to annex a public resource, for which everyone pays, for your sole use ...

Hells Bells, if I'm wrong, I will simply agree with my opponent.

Rubbish. I've caught you out directly contradicting yourself
but you still won't concede.

You have persuaded me of nothing.

I'm not talking about persuading you of anything. I am talking about the direct contradictions you commit .. stating one thing when it suits one purpose and the contrary when it doesn't.

And you're proud of that are you ? I regard profanity as
vulgar and beneath me and I certainly wouldn't write it in a public forum..

Public forums be damned! I am living in a free country and
will damn well say anything I please.

That's your right ... which I would support. But, in a free country, I am also perfectly free to consider that descending to profanity is a clear signal that you've lost the argument.

But you are quite right to be
cautious when around someone like me. I have argued with the scum of the earth
on these newsgroups on every conceivable topic, and when they get dirty I get
twice as dirty.

I don't need profanity to beat you ... just logic and a coherent position.

Am I smarter and better than you?

Very much doubt it. If that were the case you wouldn't make so many logical errors. Your whole position devolves to "I want this, I used to have it .... therefore it's right".

If all your arguments pertain only to California then, to be
candid, I don't really care. But I very much doubt that this is what you
mean ... you don't write "death to (Californian) mountainbiking" in your
signature do you ?

Everything happens in California first and is then exported to
the rest of the world. I mean death to all mountain biking on trails -
everywhere.

Contrary to what you might believe, California is not the world.

And, if you really don't understand that the tiny number of people
with whom you hike ... and I know it has to be tiny because you like solitude
and eschew large groups ... cannot count as representative of a community
encompassing tens (and globally hundreds) of millions then we should stop now
because you simply don't have enough intelligence to hold a reasoned
argument.

Most hikers hike alone or with just one other person. I seldom
meet groups. Only slobs like you like to hike or ride with others. What's the
matter? Can't stand you own company?

What's the matter Ed, can't interact normally with other people ?

Yes, Ed, it IS a matter of fairness. The general population
pays for, and indeed owns through the government, the resources to which we are
referring. Most of the trails were, as you well know, instituted for
travel and trade historically and are now a recreation resource for the
people. So, no, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that your preferred
use is 'best' and thereby exclude everyone else.

It is NOT a matter of fairness. Where did you ever get such a
crazy idea? It is a matter of BEST use. That is how every public resource is
managed. In fact, that is how every resource is managed, public or private. You
surely must be an idiot! There is nothing arbitrary about wanting to return to
the status quo ante.

Define 'best' ... to a standard that everyone is going to agree. You can't.. Your best is not mine. You have to look at the fundamental premise of what national parks are intended to do ... which is to provide recreation for people and preserve wildlife and the resource for future generations. So they are absolutely doing what they should ... trying to balance occasionally conflicting requirements so that, overall, the most number of people are satisfied. That is made very difficult if you have a small number of selfish and stubborn individuals, such as yourself, who seem to believe that they are, without the slightest logical justification, deserving of some special treatment.

All any of us can ever know are the local trails.

If you weren't so close minded to facts and data, instead
preferring your personal perspective on matters, then you would understand that
you CAN know something about the whole world. It just requires you to
read.

However, if you concede that you only know about your local trails
then I suggest you desist from commenting that you 'know' that hikers in my
locale resent bikers. You haven't the faintest clue how they feel.

Anyone walking a trail for recreation belongs to a universe of
common experience.

What total and utter nonsense. Everyone who goes hiking has the same experience ? What about family groups, ramblers clubs, trail runners, dog walkers and the numerous other users ?

I can assume that everyone everywhere is the same in that
regard.

Feel free to assume what you wish ... yet again, you're wrong but since you won't ever bother to check your assumptions you can continue in your ignorance.

It would be an inevitability if you did it long enough - like
100 or 1000 years maybe. That would never be true of
hiking.

Ah, more diversionary tactics ... that's not what you said
... and

death is an inevitability whatever you do within about 100 years
!

But let's say you have eternal life.

No, Ed, let's not ... because it's not true. Your point was
incorrect ... either have the guts to admit it or just drop the topic because
this is getting silly.

My point was correct. Everyone knows that life is not eternal,
but if it were then my point was made. What was my point? I am sure you have
lost it by now, but it was that biking on trails is much more dangerous than
hiking on trails and that if you did enough of it you would be far more likely
to suffer an injury than would hikers. Simple enough even for an idiot like you
to understand, but why must I go into such details in the first
place.

Because Ed, your memory is becoming somewhat 'convenient'. Let me refresh it for you, you wrote ...

" Mountain biking accidents happen because they are doing what all mountain bikers do. The only stupidity is taking up mountain biking in the first place. If you do it, you will suffer an injury or death. It is just a matter of time. It is in fact inevitable."

Whereas, as I showed and you eventually were forced to concede, the risk of a fatality or serious injury in a lifetime of mountainbiking is, in reality, very low indeed. So, if you take up mountainbiking you will probably live a long and healthy life.

So, the reason I focus on these, as you call them 'details, is that they prove you wrong.

That you then start talking nonsense about eternal life shows how desperate, or illogical, you are since, as you should know, any risk, however small, will become a near inevitability in infinite time.

You do not know how to read me, whereas I can read you
perfectly, but choose not to get bogged down in moronic details like you do.

I can read you perfectly; old, bigoted, lazy, profane and selfish

Anyone who will argue about details has already lost the reader. Details belong
in footnotes. How scholarly do you want to get?.

You're missing the difference between a detail and a key fact. Key facts, such as the facts that mountainbiking is actually pretty safe, that there are NOT many collisions and that most concede the need to share, demolish your arguments.

I have never heard of hiking having a


sporting/racing side?

Trail running ? Orienteering ? Ringing any bells
??

I have never seen any of that kind of foolishness except on
TV.

Ah, right, and in your world unless you see it personally it doesn't happen ?

Ed, you've admitted you only know your own, local trails ... so
you haven't the faintest idea how people feel on mine. And resenting why
I'm there is your problem ... in a democracy people don't get banned because
others resent them. There's a nasty word for that.

Walking a trail is a universal experience. Everyone does it
for the same reason - to connect with nature for a time. I can assume that all
hikers experience this connection with nature like I do.

No, you can't assume that at all. Particularly since, as you admit, you are largely solitary and enjoy your own company. How the hell would that permit you to empathise with anyone else ?


I have given you many
good reasons why bikers do not belong on trails with hikers.

No, you've given me your opinions .. unsupported by anything else.

It is indeed
resentment bordering on anger. It will increasingly be your problem whether you
want it or not.

I'm not going to worry about bitter, selfish and unpleasant people resenting perfectly reasonable activities. Give me a logical reason; risk of injury, insufficient space, too crowded etc etc then I'll agree a fair resolution is required but your mental health isn't my concern.

Your belief that everyone should be given a shot at using
trails is belied by the fact that even you do not want motorcycles on trails.

I didn't say that did I Ed ? I said they SHOULD get SOME access ... but much less because of environmental impact and risk to other trail users.

This points up the essential selfishness of your argument. Democracy does not
mean that everyone can do whatever they want.

No, of course it doesn't, it means that everyone gets some of what they want ... it's essentially the art of compromise.

Biking on trails is a conflict of MEANS and of PURPOSE with
those of hikers and equestrians. Who should have priority? I am arguing that
hikers were there first and deserve not only priority but exclusive usage..

Thank you for clarifying your essentially selfish position; I was there first, I liked being by myself, you lot can clear off.

The reality is that each new generation will have different preferences as to type of recreation. You don't, Canute like, get to stop the clock at a point in time that happens to suit you.

The
conflicts are a permanent fixture and are never going to go away. That is what
has to be recognized by one and all before any changes can take place on how
trails are managed. The bikes have got to go!

No, Ed, what needs to go are dogmatic people like you who won't compromise reasonably and actually prevent solutions being agreed and engender more extremism.

Research shows that real conflict is very rare ... the perception thereof is higher. What needs to be recognised is that there is no alternative to sharing; there is only one natural environment and we need to agree to share it and to protect it.