"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Nope, they are NOT serious if they will put up with bikers on

trails.

Logical fail. Circular logic.

It is a tautology rather.

In either case, it's a logical fail. You can't define Serious Hikers as being ones who don't like bikes on trails and then have, as your conclusion, that Serious Hikers don't like bikes.

So, your premise is invalidated.

The only thing that is invalidated is your thinking about the point. You obviously do understand the nature of a tautology.
[...]

It is important to hold yourself aloof from any objects or
people you are going to examine in detail. You must learn to think a priori.
Science and any infection with facts will lead you astray and into the marshes.
It is enough to merely reflect on things in a general way and thereby come to a
definitive knowledge about whatever it is you are reflecting upon. It is HOW
Aristocrats like Myself approach phenomena.

Hmmm. I had wondered whence some of your more preposterous propositions originated. Now I know. You make it up without any reference to the real world.

The way I think is only for superior types like Myself. If you try it you will end up in the marshes, bogged down in the mud.

By the way, why you feel it necessary to respond to my every sentence indicates that you are unable to get to the essence of an argument. Note how I delete your feeble objections to My Greatness.
[...]

That is an easy question to resolve. Who has the superior
culture? The cultures we need to look at are the aristocratic, the bourgeoisie
and the proletariat. I think you are either bourgeois or a prol whereas I am an
aristocrat. Therefore it follows that I am right and you are wrong. It is simply
a question of who has the superior culture. We must always defer to our betters.
Christ ... that is something that every Englishman ought to know as his
birthright. After all, England once had a caste/class system almost as rigid as
India.

Well, you are occasionally good for a laugh if nothing else.

Actually there is a universal truth stated in my above paragraph. How indeed do you decide what is superior to what is inferior? Appeal to science and some miscellaneous facts? Don’t make me laugh!
[...]

All bikers have to do is get off their bikes and walk the
trails like everyone else. That is the only compromise possible because of
inherent conflicts.

No, Ed, it is clearly not the only compromise possible. We could agree, as is the case in Snowdonia, to split access by time. We could agree to have some shared and some activity specific trails. There are myriad potential solutions. The fact that you're an extremist who won't accept any of them shouldn't dissuade the reasonable majority from reaching accomodation.

The conflicts are irreconcilable.

Even if those bikers don't cause you any physical discomfort nor
inconvenience you in any way you are still adamant that you don't want them
there.

Yes, because they are interfering with what I and all serious
hikers are DOING! We are contemplating nature and we are NOT engaging in a sport
of thrills and spills like bikers are DOING! Trails cannot be all things to all
activities. Selfishness has nothing to do with it from the hiking perspective.

No Ed, they're doing nothing to prevent you contemplating nature. You're doing that to yourself with your ridiculous hypersensitivity to bikes.

Not hypersensitivity ... just common sense.
[...]

By riding your bike on trails used by hikers you are more than
just impacting my nose. You are impacting my freedom to enjoy what trails were
designed for. They certainly were not designed for bikes. You have confused bike
paths with trails. Bike paths have variously smooth surfaces to accommodate
wheels. The are safe for bikes whereas trails are not safe for bikes. Hence, all
the accidents resulting in serious injuries and deaths.

How am I impacting your freedom Ed ? Am I stopping you going anywhere you wish to go ? Am I stopping you contemplating nature and the eternal verities ? No, I'm doing none of those things. You're doing it to yourself.

As I've already said, your mental health and inability to ignore distractions is not my problem.

A cyclist riding a contraption on a trail is a major distraction. Your presence on trails on a bike will shortly be your major problem when hikers decide to take you on face to face. It will become a question of how much unpleasantness do you want to put up with. Since bikers are such thugs, I recommend that hikers go armed with a concealed firearm on their person just in case the thugery comes to the fore.

Your biking on trails interferes with hikers. It destroys the hiking
experience.

No, Ed, it doesn't. It simply annoys people like you who
don't want bikes on trails. You're hypersensitised to bikes ... you need
to perhaps reflect on what you just wrote about freedom.

One person's freedom is another person's prison. Bikers scare
off hikers from trails and have an even more deleterious effect on
equestrians.

So what happened about your definition of Freedom Ed ? You hypocrite. You want your freedoms to trump everyone elses.

Bikers have no right to be on hiking trails - period! They are transgressors and usurpers. If the god damn ****ing land and park managers weren’t such idiots, they would KNOW that!
[...]

A worst use will always drive out a best use. The same
situation does not prevail on a trail as in a restaurant because of inherent
conflicts. I can sit in a noisy restaurant even if I don't like it and no one
cares much one way or the other. But I cannot hike a trail that is being overrun
with bikers because it conflicts with my purpose and my means. Purpose -
contemplation of nature; Means - walking one step at a time. Elementary my dear
Watson!

Ed, you CAN hike a trail with bikers there just as you CAN sit in a crowded restaurant. I don't care about your purpose or means. To make the point, redefine your purpose and means for the restaurant ... purpose - enjoying a quiet meal, means - table in a quiet restaurant. You've just created the same, spurious, rationale as you do for the trails.

The above example is not an irreconcilable conflict whereas trail use is. I cannot hike a trail if it is being overrun with bikers. Means and purpose determine everything. It is what trails are all about.

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