On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:54:34 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:50:18 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message ...
[...]

Ever hear of an all terrain vehicle? the U.S. Army spent a ton of
money to develop one. You know, a wheeled vehicle that will go almost
anywhere.

So obviously your assertion that wheels are for roads is just another
example of how stupid you really are.

So now you want all terrain vehicles on hiking trails? You are way beyond stupid; you are criminally stupid.

Ooh, you are so nimble. You say that wheels got to go on a road. I
tell you that the Government spent a lot of money to build a wheeled
vehicle that doesn't need a road and quick as a flash you say I want
all terrain vehicles on hiking trails.

You have got to be nimble to deal with Assholes like yourself. If I took my lead from you, we would end up arguing about who knows what. Try to stay focused on what is at issue here – bicycles on trails.

But you seem to ignore the fact that your statement that wheels were
for streets is simply a pile of rhetorical bull**** and either you are
an outright liar, or simply so stupid that you can't realize what a
silly statement you made.

It is not a silly statement when it is related to the issue under discussion – bicycles on trails. It puts things into perspective. All terrain vehicles fall into the same class as motorcycles which has already been dealt with multiple times on another thread on this newsgroup of which you are well aware. Try to stay current if that is possible.
[...]


Ah, but you didn't say that did you. You said wheels for streets.

What is really silly is your rapid change of subject. First you make a
positive statement; next someone demonstrates that your statement is
incorrect; and presto-chango you sashay obliquely off to a new
subject.

What is becoming extremely evident is that you really don't know what
you are talking about and are simply repeating stock phrases that
you've heard somewhere. Your "What's matter, can't walk" is a fine
example. Nearly every individual is capable of walking from about the
age of eight months.... but what this has to do with mountain bicycles
is a bit nebulas.

After all, a simple comparison of the general population, above the
age of eight months, and the users of public trails demonstrates the
fact that the vast majority of the walking population does not go
blundering about in the wilderness.

What's next? A discussion of how many Angels can dance on the head of
a needle and a comparison of that number with the number of spokes in
the rear wheel of a mountain bike and thus proving emphatically that
mountain bikes should not be ridden on public trails.

Doodles you are impressive. Impressively stupid.

--
Cheers,

John B.