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

It doesn't matter that it is a public resource or that
everyone pays. Irrelevant and immaterial - which I have explained to you many
times before.

No, you've not done a single thing to validate such a position ... you've simply stated it, again and again, because it is what you would like to be the case. The general population is not going to pay for a parks service which doesn't cater to their needs.

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.



Be too much of a dunderhead and you will get your sorry ass
kicked.

Indeed ... so I suggest you stop being a dunderhead and try and find some objective backup for your opinions or, if you can't, realise that you are quite simply wrong.

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

I am still waiting for some logic and a coherent position from
you that I can connect with, but I am not holding my breath.

Then, clearly, you haven't the faintest idea what logic looks like. Facts, premises and logic. You seem to think that opinion, anecdote and appeal to authority will suffice instead ... which is not the case.

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".

Since you did not include my entire paragraph to which you
were responding above, allow me tell you to go **** yourself. You did not even
indicate that you had deleted some of what I had said. Only a scoundrel picks a
sentence out of a paragraph to respond to. Keep doing this and you will get some
profanity that will not stop.

Then I will simply ignore you. I have no time for foul-mouthed bigots.

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.



Jesus Christ! I did not know that!

Oh you did did you ? So why did you write "first California then the world" (paraphrased for brevity) ?

What's the

matter? Can't stand you own company?

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

All travel and hiking is best done alone. Otherwise one is too
busy interacting with others to give proper attention to what it is you are
there for in the first place. If you had ever read any travel books by travelers
(not tourists), you would know this.

If that's how you like to enjoy your hiking and travel then fine. I prefer, usually, to enjoy experiences with friends and family. It is simply a preference, not axiomatically better or worse.

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.

The "best" of anything is left to the experts to tell us what
it is. As always, you are confusing and conflating "best" with "most". If you
thought about it more, even you would not want that.

Sometimes, this is correct. And the professional land managers (experts) have made their determination and come up with compromises which don't entirely suit you, or me. However, that's probably the best that can be done in the circumstances.

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 think only trail runners don't know why they are doing what
they are doing. Everyone else is wanting to connect with nature the same as me.
The experience may be qualitatively different for everyone of course, but they
are all wanting to do the same thing - to connect with nature. It is only bikers
who do not fit this profile.

You're not even consistent within one post. A few sentences above you stated that hiking and travel was best done alone. Now, you claim that social groups are actually seeking exactly the same experience as lone hikers ?

Some bikers are seeking to enjoy the natural environment, others are looking more for 'thrills' ... but to assume you know what everyone wants is errant nonsense.

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.

Is it OK if I assume you are an Asshole?

I had already made a similar determination about you ... and, as I've said repeatedly, I really don't care what you think anymore so go right ahead.

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.

I conceded no such thing. Where did that come from?

"You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself" - Ed Dolan

Written shortly after you claimed that death was a near inevitability.

QED.

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.

Is it OK if I call you a Moron?

It's a free country. However, rather than call you one, I prefer to show the rest of the world what you really are by pointing out your errors.

I clearly stated that if you mountain bike long enough an
accident was inevitable. The key words there are "long enough" and "inevitable".

Yes, but your 'long enough' would be orders of magnitude longer than the human lifetime ... moron ! As such, you CAN'T live long enough for it to become a (near) inevitability so your point is refuted.

What is there about that you do not understand. There is nothing safe about
mountain biking.

1.54 injuries per 1,000 exposures is not 'safe' ... but it's safer than skiing, rugby, driving and american football. So, yes, it's relatively safe.

I have hundreds of report on my computer showing just how
dangerous it is. The fact that you think it is safe is nuts.

And, should I choose to do so, I could provide millions of reports on car accidents. Is driving safe or not Ed ?

I suggest you not argue derails with me since you do not know
how to do it. You have never refuted a single thing I have ever said. All you do
is just disagree with a **** poor argument that makes no sense at
all.

Suggestion rejected. You make so many detail errors and outright contradictory posts that someone has to highlight your nonsense.

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

You have just described yourself perfectly, Keep up the good
work!

Ah, we've descended to the language of the playground. Nice work Ed !

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.

All your key facts are wrong. Maybe you should just go for the
details after all so you won't look like a complete idiot.

Well then, if you think they're wrong, why don't you prove it instead of simply saying it again and again. If you think mountainbiking is more dangerous than 1.54/1,000 exposures ... prove it ! If you think there are more than 0.00123 fatalities per million miles ... prove it !

You're never going to win a logical argument when you have no facts to support your arguments.

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 ?

Is it OK if I call you a Jackass? What does being solitary
have to do with not being able to assume what is common to all mankind. Of
course I do admit I have nothing much in common with mountain bikers who ride
their bikes on hiking trails. That level of jackassery I leave to assholes like
you.

Let's make this really simple so you understand it. What evidence do you have that, universally, hikers walk on trails for the same reasons as you ?

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.

It is OK if I call you a Numskull? It is hard to contest such
stupidity as yours. I want to know why you are excluding motorcycles from
trails. Everything I have against bikes on trails is equally applicable to
motorcycles on trails. What a god damn ****ing selfish lout you
are!

I didn't say I was excluding motorcycles from trails totally ... stop misrepresenting me. I said that their access had to be much more controlled because of their environmental impact. There need to be some resources where people CAN ride motorcycles.

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.

Good, now compromise and permit motorcycles on your trails
.... you ****ing hypocrite!

I agree that some trails motorcycles should be allowed on ... that's always been my position. Care to apologise for misrepresentation ?

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.

We do indeed get to do precisely that since it is a matter of
not only best use, but of only use.

I think the real world evidence is that you don't Ed. That's why you castigate the land managers for not policing the trails as you would wish to do.

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.

The only extremists I know about are louts and slobs like you
who want to wreck everything.

Do you actually have a point or is this just name calling ?

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.

Yep, there is indeed only one natural environment and those of
us who care about it do not what it destroyed by the likes of you and your ilk.
You can ride your bikes on streets and roads of which this world has an infinite
number. Nature is precious and must be preserved above all else.

Oh, so you'd be happy to give up hiking would you Ed since that would preserve nature far better ?

Mountainbiking is similarly impacting on nature as hiking so we are 'destroying' it to the same degree. In actual fact, of course, both hiking and biking are the tiniest pinpricks in terms of natural degradation in comparison with all the other indignities inflicted on nature by the human species.