"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

You were happy to assert that you never lost a few posts ago ...
having been shown that this isn't the case are you indulging in diversionary
tactics again ?

Edward Dolan wrote:

Your logic is not my logic and your idea of winning and losing
is not my idea of winning and losing.

My idea of winning is convincing the most people of the validity of my arguments ... and pointing out the flaws in yours. What's your idea ?

My idea is to present common sense arguments about what trails are best suited for – and it sure as hell ain’t mountain biking! I depend on how a normal person thinks and feels, not on what an Asshole mountain bikers like you thinks and feels.

I am finding you similarly tiresome ... because you seem to
believe that just because YOU hold a certain opinion or feel a certain way that
this, axiomatically, should be accepted as valid by everyone else without the
slightest objective justification.

I have backed up my opinions and feelings with plenty of
substance.

No, Ed, that's what you have NEVER done. You've stated your own feelings clearly and repeatedly but you have never shown that any significant percentage of the trail-using population agrees with you and recently you've moved from your claim to represent hikers to now only representing what you term 'serious hikers'.

I am your prototypical hiker. My opinions reflect those of all serious hikers. You are the prototypical insane Asshole mountain biker who does not know **** from shinola.

Your MEANS and PURPOSE are not mine ... nor are they those of a
trails runner, or a rambling group or a family party or a packing company.

So, I understand fully what you mean by that ... but I reject it
utterly as any basis for allocating shares to a public resource.

Others may use trails for other than perfect reasons, but as
long as they do not unduly interfere with us superior hikers, then we let it
pass. Mostly they are not numerous in any event. Bikers belong to an entirely
different class of beings. They are like locusts and destroy whatever they
touch. Public resources have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may
want. Democracy is for idiots.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill

Any self-appointed, so-called superior elite tends to have a limited lifespan before the rest of the population figure them out for the self-serving, corrupt, greedy and mediocre individuals they really are.

Thanks for the elementary lesson in polysci. However, public resources STILL have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may
want. Democracy is for idiots in the sense that it never reproduces any high culture. Of course, you Europeans would know all about elites having been infested with them for most of your existence on this earth. The English especially were not far removed from a caste system until recently.

I have simply stated who gets precedence on trails and bike
paths. Never bikers because they are moving faster than walkers. It is the same
reason why a pedestrian gets preference to a motor vehicle.

And I have never argued the principles of precedence ... when on my bike I do give way to hikers and riders. However, that has nothing to do with what you're promoting ... which is excluding bikes from trails.

It is exactly the same thing. Bikes go too fast for walkers and should therefore be banned from trails. Bikes on trails are at best a nuisance and at worse an accident waiting to happen.
[...]

The only spent force here is you and your ilk. We serious
hikers will put up with less serious hikers as long as they are walking. What we
will not put up with are bikers because they are on contraptions with wheels.
Wheels belong on roads.

Ed, if you were not a spent force you wouldn't be arguing about this on moribund newsgroups ... you would actually be out there making change happen. In reality, as you well know, more and more trails are open to bikers and more and more people are taking up biking rather than hiking. History belongs to those who show up ... and your 'serious' hikers for whom bikes are anathema are an old, declining footnote.

I am doing what I can to support Mr. Vandeman. He is the true warrior who makes things happen. I am just a bystander who is getting ready to leave this vale of tears and frankly could care less how all this eventually plays out. The only thing I know for sure is that you and your ilk are never going to get the last word with me as long as I am above ground because you and your ilk are not only wrong on the issue, but are criminal scofflaws into the bargain.
[...]

I will engage, reasonably, with reasonable people but not with
fanatics.

The only fanatic here is you. I only want what has been
customary and traditional for over 150 years to continue. You are the interloper
and the usurper.

Oh do grow up ... you're old enough for god's sake. The world is not as it was 150 years ago and nor will it be in 150 years time. If you won't accept the lessons of history then history will simply roll right over you (possibly on a bike :-) ).

The natural environment relatively untouched by man is our primeval connection with the world from time immemorial. It cannot be change without us being changed. You have all of civilized society to roam in. Wilderness belongs to those of us who wish to touch our roots since that is how we evolved as human beings. In wilderness is the preservation of the world.
[...]

All of the above are few and far between. In any event, they
are least walking and not cheating like bikers on wheels.

Not germane to the point. The point, I reiterate, is that not everyone is seeking solitude and therefore not everyone has the visceral and illogical reaction you do to the mere presence of a bike.

You can bike anywhere except on trails in a natural environment. That is reserved for hikers whether they seek solitude or not.
[...]

My attitude is the dominant attitude of all hikers. It is
never going change because of the essential conflicts of means and purpose.
Until we can get your dumb asses off our trails I think what hikers will have to
do is resort more and more to designated wilderness areas where bikes are
absolutely banned.

Ah, Ed, you dissemble. You admitted that it is the attitude of the newly designated group of 'serious' hikers. Where only you get to determine what 'serious' means in this context.

There are people on the trails for all kinds of purposes aside from solitude ...

Others can be tolerated as long as they are walking. Bikers are on contraptions with wheels and cannot be tolerated.

I have in my possiosn hundreds of reports of conflicts and
accidents that say just the opposite. In a contest between hikers and bikers,
bikers will win every time because hikers soon find that there is no sharing of
trails. The effect of bikers on trails is to permantly remove hikers. It is
already happening everywhere (except apparently in your cozy little area of
England).

Yet you were able to post numerous videos which showed bikers and hikers co-existing without conflict. I wonder why that is Ed ? Could it be that, maybe, you're wrong ?

Explain ? What do you mean explain ? I've said,
repeatedly, that accidents will occur ... as they do in any field of
endeavour. I've even posted links to reports on the details of the nature
and occurrence of different types of accident. Let's cut to the chase ....
things go wrong, people make mistakes ... accidents happen. Same for
hiking, biking, walking down the stairs ... or the street, Mark Shand would
vouch for that if he were still here.

I have asked you to post all your hiking/camping accidents at
which point I will explain the accidents (given enough details). You cannot
explain all the accidents attendant on bikes on trails other than the sheer
stupidity of it in the first place. These biking accidents on trails are bound
happen. It would be a miracle if they didn't happen. Who is Mark
Shand?

And I've posted the list ... from the Lake District Mountain Rescue Annual Report. Seems to show rather too many hiker accidents for your liking though :-).

The natural world is not a sanitised play area for people so, whether on foot or bike, accidents will happen.

As to Mark Shand ... he was an environmental and wildlife activist, and the brother of the Duchess of Cornwall ... and he died in New York very recently from falling over after exiting a revolving door.

Accidents will happen because of various kinds of stupidity. 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.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great