"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news:s5Zhg.20105$B42.16069@dukeread05...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news:y_idndsQZYQCxxvZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...

Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
period!

In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some
areas of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness",
multi-use is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative
efforts and techniques are in place. And enforced.

I'd
like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and
reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They
only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's
impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on
odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and
bicyclists during the week, and equestrians every February 30th.

DUH!

Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real
why don't you?

Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you...

I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact.
While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are
plenty of others that are not from an organization that has a
self-interest angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason
he posts content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can
make up for the lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.

Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from
mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I
am not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned
about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be
there.

If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike
in an area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see
bicycles. You do have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can
not, or are not allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a
bicycle is on a trail that you would not hike anyway, that is your call.

The hiking trails were there from time immemorial for hikers and
equestrians. Mountain bikers are very late comers and as such have less
right to the trails than hikers and equestrians. You need to adjust to us
being on the trails and not vice versa. It is matter of priorities based
on who was there first.

People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
regardless of activity, is the priority.
Besides, if you took a moment and read the "rules of the trails" you would
see that cyclists should give yield to hikers / equestrians. But the facts
are unimportant as long as you can inflame with silly blanket statements
only to see your own comments.

Curtiss no doubt like me knows all about the joy of reading his own words.

Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors.
It has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle.
Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the
mountain bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I
can only converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a
philosopher.

You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We
have shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or
foundation in "fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his
opinions, that is up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is a
major contradiction: You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion
then proclaiming yourself to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again,
it is also your statement that your persistance on usenet has little to
do with actual information.

Nope, Vandeman is the expert from the hiker's point of view. Who cares
about the mountain biker's point of view.

Which half of the above statement is true? Based on your own comments
about usenet, how can we take the word of an idiot about anything?
Below - your statement from another thread
"Usenet is by and for idiots, that is why! Half the time I do not even
believe any of what I am saying, let alone fools like you" - Ed Dolan

Curtiss is finally starting to get on to me!

I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels
and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil.

Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get
picked up by the Mother Ship?

I believe the Devil is making Curtiss do and say bad things.

I believe "the great" needs his little pills.....

It is truly amazing the amount of pills that I am taking. Up to the age of
50 I never had to take any medications at all, but now my medications
multiply after every visit to a doctor. Almost all of my medications stem
from my high blood pressure. I have to keep my wits about me to even set up
the proper schedule for taking them. I can clearly see that the only
solution for what ails me is death. Yea, that will solve all of my problems,
even this rather minor one I am presently having with Curtiss on Usenet.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota