Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

Hiking trails exist in natural areas and are easily negotiable
by humans on foot. Bike paths exist in developed areas and are designed for
wheels mainly. Always glad to help out the mentally impaired.

Very funny. How about answering the question ? A trail in a natural area can easily be used for either.

It is becoming more and more a daily experience of hikers
having just one close call after another. Come to Aspen and find out for
yourself. A mountain biker just killed himself the other day on a trail at Vail.
That indeed was good news! You should be reading Mr. Vandeman’s
emails/newsletters instead of mountain biker **** magazines.

Well, if it is, as you say, a daily occurrence then there will be lots of records of such interactions won’t there ? Perhaps you could post a link to show them ?

It is also a matter of aesthetics .... which I know is beyond
you!

Aesthetics is axiomatically subjective so we are just not going to agree.

Mr. Vandeman finds dozens of such incidents on a monthly basis
– more than enough to give everyone pause. What he finds equally significant are
the high numbers of mountain bikers who injure and kill themselves riding
on trails without any help from hikers. I will admit it makes for boring reading
because the accidents are always the same. At least hikers when they have
accidents make for more interesting reading.

Mr Vandeman found data to support a death rate of 0.00123 per million miles travelled; an order of magnitude safer than driving or riding a bicycle on the road. He trawls the web feverishly looking for such incidents and finds a handful. This, when set against the millions mountainbiking worldwide, suggests that it’s pretty safe.

What motorcycles and bicycles have in common is that they are
both mechanical contrivances. That right there is enough to disqualify them from
my sacred trails.

By what logic ? Even if they are both ‘mechanical’ so is a tool. I am presuming you’re not so messianic as to ban all accoutrements ? People are toolmakers, it’s what put us at the top of the evolutionary tree. However, an unpowered and a powered tool are very different.

Secondarily, it’s not ‘your’ trail and you’ve not justified why mechanical contrivances should be banned.


What they also have in common is the ‘fun and games’ mentality
of their operators.

So, you’re in favour of thoughtcrime entering the statutes ? There can be only one way for people to appreciate nature ?

The one and only reason for trails in this day and age
is for an appreciation of nature. There are no other purposes for trails that
are suited for hikers. Get your own trails and use them for whatever other
purposes you want.

So you keep saying, without justification.

A Great Saint like Myself is beyond the reach of a mere
church. We exist on an equal level with God Almighty.

In which case, why don’t you just smite the heathen mountainbikers ?

I can spot and smell a liberal from a mile away. It is one of
the hallmarks of a Genius like Me!

Well, you missed. I’m a social liberal but a fiscal and political conservative.

You bring up the same old rot over and over. What is polite
about that?

No, I disagree with you over and over. As you’re hardly objective it’s for the other good denizens to determine whose arguments they find more compelling. That is not impolite; that is not letting you get away with circular logic or unsupported conclusions.

The only arguments that are circular are your own self-serving
ones for doing what you want to do regardless of how it affects anyone else. But
like all liberals, you know only your own justifications in your limited skewed
view of the world.

I sought an accommodation and suggested some approaches to compromise. If I were purely self-serving why would I bother ?

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...

Blackblade considered Wed, 31 Jul 2013
09:26:30 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]

What motorcycles and bicycles have in common is that they are
both mechanical contrivances. That right there is enough to disqualify them from
my sacred trails.

By what logic ? Even if they are both ‘mechanical’ so is a tool. I am presuming you’re not so messianic as to ban all accoutrements ? People are toolmakers, it’s what put us at the top of the evolutionary tree. However, an unpowered and a powered tool are very different.

Secondarily, it’s not ‘your’ trail and you’ve not justified why mechanical contrivances should be banned.

And if they are, leave your hiking boots behind.

Hiking boots are no more a mechanical contrivance than is anything else you carry on your person for the purpose of a hike. The key words there are “carry� and “purpose�.
[...]

The only arguments that are circular are your own self-serving
ones for doing what you want to do regardless of how it affects anyone else. But
like all liberals, you know only your own justifications in your limited skewed
view of the world.

I sought an accommodation and suggested some approaches to compromise. If I were purely self-serving why would I bother ?

The only accommodation he needs is of the extremely secure kind, with
no metal cutlery.
If he keeps up his ranting he may get it, too.
Although maybe they get internet access and he already has?

And this boob complains about my logic and wants to kill file others. I suggest he kill file himself since he brings absolutely nothing to the discussion but a childish bile. I am very good at that too, but with me it is a put on and with him it is genuine.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

The incidents are piling up one on top of another. All you
need do is broaden your perspective.

Where Ed ? I'm happy to broaden my perspective ... but you're not helping me are you. You made a statement that incidents were happening daily and the evidence thereby piling up. Where ? Show this evidence to me please .... if it's that ubiquitous surely there is some record of it online ?

More ad-hominem ?

Everything is tit for tat with me.

I attacked your propositions, not you.

There are approximately 50 million mountain bikers in the
USA.* I have no idea how many ride on which type of trail ... do you
?

Yes ... only a few. Most mountain bikes are ridden on streets
and roads as they should be.

Groan. More generalities and inanities. Numbers ? Sources ? Proof ? No ?????

It is mainly older people who are dying of heart disease. The
fact remains that mountain biking on single track trails is extremely risky.
Only a fool would argue to the contrary.

No, Ed, only someone who had done the maths and figured out the death rate .... which when compared with other activities shows it to be pretty safe.

And, unfortunately, no it's not just the old who are dying of heart disease ... the profile of deaths are getting ever younger (source: World Health Organisation).


Bicycles on single track trails are an incompatible use which
conflicts with walkers.

On some trails, yes, on the majority no.


Bicycles are mechanical contrivances which go much
faster than anyone can walk.

True. Isn't a reason to ban them though.


Bicycle are destructive of the trails themselves.

No more so than hiking.

The predominate mental attitude of cyclists on trails is one of fun and
games, not appreciation of nature as it is for walkers.

You don't know why all walkers are there and, in any case, it's irrelevant. Whilst you might feel that the only valid use of a trail is for the appreciation of nature it's a free country and not everyone has to think as you do.

Cyclists on trails are slobs
and barbarians whereas walkers are gentlemen and civilized.

Not worth responding to ... characterising millions of people as having the same attributes is so obviously wrong.

The only circular logic here is yours. Hey, I want to bike on
trails because I want to bike on trails. Selfish and childish to the core!

No, Ed, that's misrepresentation. My proposition, which I've stated again and again, is that a public resource should be shared, reasonably, by the groups who wish to use it.

You are wrong on all
counts. Cyclists need to get their own trails, at which point I don’t
give a damn what they do or don’t do. **** ‘em all I say!*

I've been wrong many times in my life ... but bereft facts and logic to backup your position I won't be changing my mind.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

The incidents are piling up one on top of another. All you
need do is broaden your perspective.

Where Ed ? I'm happy to broaden my perspective ... but you're not helping me are you. You made a statement that incidents were happening daily and the evidence thereby piling up. Where ? Show this evidence to me please ... if it's that ubiquitous surely there is some record of it online ?

A good place to start would be Mr. Vandeman’s emails provided you are fortunate enough to get on his list. Another good way would be to do a Google search on the Internet under an appropriate subject heading. Hikers are constantly being harassed and injured by thug mountain bikers.

More ad-hominem ?

Everything is tit for tat with me.

I attacked your propositions, not you.

When an attack borders on being terminally stupid, then you are going to get what you deserve. It is part of My Greatness!

There are approximately 50 million mountain bikers in the
USA. I have no idea how many ride on which type of trail ... do you
?

Yes ... only a few. Most mountain bikes are ridden on streets
and roads as they should be.

Groan. More generalities and inanities. Numbers ? Sources ? Proof ? No ?????

You must be an idiot almost on Tom Sherman's level. Facts could be shoved up your dumb ass and it wouldn't make any difference. Why not try some common sense for a change.

It is mainly older people who are dying of heart disease. The
fact remains that mountain biking on single track trails is extremely risky.
Only a fool would argue to the contrary.

No, Ed, only someone who had done the maths and figured out the death rate ... which when compared with other activities shows it to be pretty safe.

Only morons put any trust in a statistic. Half the time, who knows what is being measured.

And, unfortunately, no it's not just the old who are dying of heart disease ... the profile of deaths are getting ever younger (source: World Health Organisation).

“It is mainly older people who are dying of heart disease.” – Ed Dolan
[...]

The predominate mental attitude of cyclists on trails is one of fun and
games, not appreciation of nature as it is for walkers.

You don't know why all walkers are there and, in any case, it's irrelevant. Whilst you might feel that the only valid use of a trail is for the appreciation of nature it's a free country and not everyone has to think as you do.

The mark of Cain is upon you. “Hey, I want to do what I want to do.” You are a childish boob who only knows the language of force. Mr. Vandeman and I are working on that. We will get all you kiddies banned from our sacred hiking trails sooner or later. It is just a matter of time.

Cyclists on trails are slobs
and barbarians whereas walkers are gentlemen and civilized.

Not worth responding to ... characterising millions of people as having the same attributes is so obviously wrong.

Not millions – only jerks like you who think you have a right to something you have no right to. What's the matter? Can’t walk?

The only circular logic here is yours. Hey, I want to bike on
trails because I want to bike on trails. Selfish and childish to the core!

No, Ed, that's misrepresentation. My proposition, which I've stated again and again, is that a public resource should be shared, reasonably, by the groups who wish to use it.

And I have stated previously again and again that a public resource must must be managed intelligently, not stupidly for the likes of you and your ilk. What you are doing is nothing short of vandalism, physical and mental, to a scarce and precious resource. There is no requirement that everything must be shared. Are you just pretending to be stupid or is it for real?

You are wrong on all
counts. Cyclists need to get their own trails, at which point I don’t
give a damn what they do or don’t do. **** ‘em all I say!

I've been wrong many times in my life ... but bereft facts and logic to backup your position I won't be changing my mind.

Of course not. You are a selfish spoiled child who wants to do what you want to do We adults will have to take you in hand and teach you the ways of the world.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...

Blackblade considered Tue, 6 Aug 2013
07:24:21 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]

Yes ... only a few. Most mountain bikes are ridden on streets
and roads as they should be.

Groan. More generalities and inanities. Numbers ? Sources ? Proof ? No ?????

Well, the clue is in the name.
If they were supposed to be used on streets and roads, they wouldn't
be lugging all that weight of suspension and wide tyres around.

Even so, most mountain bikes are ridden on streets and roads. In fact, for awhile road bikes seemed on their way out altogether. Fortunately, they are making a slight comeback.

It is mainly older people who are dying of heart disease. The
fact remains that mountain biking on single track trails is extremely risky.
Only a fool would argue to the contrary.

No, Ed, only someone who had done the maths and figured out the death rate ... which when compared with other activities shows it to be pretty safe.

Safer than not doing it, in fact. At least 6 times safer.

And, unfortunately, no it's not just the old who are dying of heart disease ... the profile of deaths are getting ever younger (source: World Health Organisation).

And the reason is that they don't get out and start doing decent
aerobic exercise at the age they still can. If you leave it until you
need it, it's too late by a decade of two.

Exercise will not save you. However, it is important to keep moving. Too much sitting is deadly.

From Ecclesiastes:

11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Bicycles on single track trails are an incompatible use which
conflicts with walkers.

On some trails, yes, on the majority no.


Bicycles are mechanical contrivances which go much
faster than anyone can walk.

True. Isn't a reason to ban them though.

Only partially true.
Downhill, they may be faster on a route they know.
Otherwise, they are about the same speed as a fell-runner.
And they are hardly silent when going downhill at full chat on rough
ground, so you can easily hear them coming.

Bicycles are many times faster than anyone walking – period! Bicycles can either be noisy or silent. They do not belong on the same trails as hikers.

Bicycle are destructive of the trails themselves.

No more so than hiking.

Rather less so - a rolling contact is far better than the plodding of
hikers.
In general, the degree of trail damage is proportional to the power
available, but any hard or sharp edges to the footprint magnify
damage, so horses hooves and the heels of hiking boots cause damage
far above the level that would normally be expected for a user of that
power level.

Trails can be so badly damaged by bicycle wheels that hikers have trouble walking on such trails, especially in sharp bends.

The predominate mental attitude of cyclists on trails is one of fun and
games, not appreciation of nature as it is for walkers.

You don't know why all walkers are there and, in any case, it's irrelevant. Whilst you might feel that the only valid use of a trail is for the appreciation of nature it's a free country and not everyone has to think as you do.

And even if that were the only valid reason, it's just as possible to
do so on a bike as on foot. Sometimes easier, since the silence that
is possible at lower speeds (which Dolan-the-Dimwit decries for the
way it might surprise hikers) does not disturb wildlife as much
either.

We have all seen how bikers behave on trails. The only dimwits here are bikers who think they have a right to trails used by hikers. Mr. Vandeman is the world expert on how bikers disturb and damage wildlife, not Phil W Lee.

Cyclists on trails are slobs
and barbarians whereas walkers are gentlemen and civilized.
[...]

He's missing the fact that cyclists HAVE their own trails (which they
willingly share with hikers), and it is him and his pals who are
trying to monopolise them for pedestrian only use. If they want
exclusive trails, they can build them.

We already had our trails from time immemorial. The interlopers are the bikers. The kind of hikers that will want to use biker trails are those who are brain dead. Further, it is an admission that biker trails are different than hiker trails. That is why bikers need to get their own trails which will be expressly designed for wheels.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

A good place to start would be Mr. Vandeman’s emails provided
you are fortunate enough to get on his list. Another good way would be to do a
Google search on the Internet under an appropriate subject heading. Hikers are
constantly being harassed and injured by thug mountain bikers.

Vandeman's list, which he gleans from internet feeds across the globe, shows a tiny number of incidents proportional to the overall number of rides happening every day.

You've gone from stating that there are incidents every day at a specific location then, when called to provide facts to back that assertion, you have reverted to generalities. You will forgive me if I therefore consider your assertion, at least for the moment, disproved (or unproven).

When an attack borders on being terminally stupid, then you
are going to get what you deserve. It is part of My Greatness!

So, you simply want to justify ad-hominem. Fine, interesting definition of "My Greatness". Looks to me like "My inability to argue points convincingly which means I will attack the messenger instead".

You must be an idiot almost on Tom Sherman's level. Facts
could be shoved up your dumb ass and it wouldn't make any difference. Why not
try some common sense for a change.

Why don't you try and provide some facts to backup your position and see where that gets you ? So far, all I'm getting is baseless assertions and circular logic.

“It is mainly older people who are dying of heart disease.” – Ed
Dolan

Great example of circular logic Ed. You simply restate your assertion. Did you bother to go to the World Health Organisation website to actually check the data ? I guess not. Risk of death from heart disease has risen, in the developed world, in the last ten years in the 25-44 and 45-54 age sectors. Your assertion is REFUTED.

The mark of Cain is upon you. “Hey, I want to do what I want
to do.” You are a childish boob who only knows the language of force. Mr.
Vandeman and I are working on that. We will get all you kiddies banned from our
sacred hiking trails sooner or later. It is just a matter of time.

Childish Ed. For a stated atheist you employ quite a lot of religious absolutism to your rhetoric.

Have I ever advocated the use of force ? No, I leave that to you and Vandeman with your language of conflict and sick satisfaction in the death and injury of others.

Not millions – only jerks like you who think you have a right
to something you have no right to. What's the matter? Can’t walk?

I have no right to a PUBLIC resource ? Your sense of entitlement is rather overwhelming.

And I have stated previously again and again that a public
resource must must be managed intelligently, not stupidly for the likes of you
and your ilk. What you are doing is nothing short of vandalism, physical and
mental, to a scarce and precious resource. There is no requirement that
everything must be shared. Are you just pretending to be stupid or is it for
real?

You have stated it, and I've refuted it, again and again. Your argument comes down to "I don't like it" and you seem to believe that this justifies your position. You've thrown loads of assertions but, when challenged, you can't back them up which might, if you think about it, cause you to rethink the assertions;

There are loads of hiker/biker accidents so it's too dangerous : REFUTED
It's more environmentally damaging than hiking : REFUTED
It's aesthetically unappealing to you : INVALID REASONS TO ALLOCATE PUBLIC RESOURCE
It's an 'incorrect' use of a public resource : NO FACTS TO BACKUP ASSERTION

Right now I feel as if I'm arguing with a religious fanatic. You know the type; you beat them logically but, when it comes down to it, they simply tell you that this is just because you don't really understand and that their belief system allows them to know that they're right.

I'm sorry, but that's what I'm getting here and I'm starting to think it's a waste of time arguing. A fanatic can't be swayed by logic ... it's a belief system.

I can throw facts and logic at you all day and, at the end, you'll still think you're right even if I demolish every assertion.

Of course not. You are a selfish spoiled child who wants to do
what you want to do* We adults will have to take you in hand and teach you
the ways of the world.

Oh, I'm being selfish am I ? I'm the one who readily conceded that some trails shouldn't be shared. You're the one who's asserting that all hiking trails are for your exclusive use. Your greatness is definitely slipping Ed ... go get some facts to backup your assertions and I might listen again .... but, right now, I'm about done with you.

On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 02:34:09 -0700 (PDT), Blackblade
wrote:

A good place to start would be Mr. Vandeman’s emails provided
you are fortunate enough to get on his list. Another good way would be to do a
Google search on the Internet under an appropriate subject heading. Hikers are
constantly being harassed and injured by thug mountain bikers.

Vandeman's list, which he gleans from internet feeds across the globe, shows a tiny number of incidents proportional to the overall number of rides happening every day.

You've gone from stating that there are incidents every day at a specific location then, when called to provide facts to back that assertion, you have reverted to generalities. You will forgive me if I therefore consider your assertion, at least for the moment, disproved (or unproven).

In the local vernacular it is referred to as "bull****".

When an attack borders on being terminally stupid, then you
are going to get what you deserve. It is part of My Greatness!

So, you simply want to justify ad-hominem. Fine, interesting definition of "My Greatness". Looks to me like "My inability to argue points convincingly which means I will attack the messenger instead".


It is a term used in attempt to define oneself as more important then
one actually is/are.


You must be an idiot almost on Tom Sherman's level. Facts
could be shoved up your dumb ass and it wouldn't make any difference. Why not
try some common sense for a change.

Why don't you try and provide some facts to backup your position and see where that gets you ? So far, all I'm getting is baseless assertions and circular logic.


He has given you all he has.

“It is mainly older people who are dying of heart disease.” – Ed
Dolan

Great example of circular logic Ed. You simply restate your assertion. Did you bother to go to the World Health Organisation website to actually check the data ? I guess not. Risk of death from heart disease has risen, in the developed world, in the last ten years in the 25-44 and 45-54 age sectors. Your assertion is REFUTED.


To research the WHO will likely destroy his assertion and then where
would he be?

The mark of Cain is upon you. “Hey, I want to do what I want
to do.” You are a childish boob who only knows the language of force. Mr.
Vandeman and I are working on that. We will get all you kiddies banned from our
sacred hiking trails sooner or later. It is just a matter of time.

Childish Ed. For a stated atheist you employ quite a lot of religious absolutism to your rhetoric.

You must be wrong Sir. How can an atheist become a saint as he loudly
proclaims himself to be.

Have I ever advocated the use of force ? No, I leave that to you and Vandeman with your language of conflict and sick satisfaction in the death and injury of others.

Apparently Vandeman is soft pedaling the use of force since his
conviction.

Not millions – only jerks like you who think you have a right
to something you have no right to. What's the matter? Can’t walk?

I have no right to a PUBLIC resource ? Your sense of entitlement is rather overwhelming.

Well no! At least in the view of some.

And I have stated previously again and again that a public
resource must must be managed intelligently, not stupidly for the likes of you
and your ilk. What you are doing is nothing short of vandalism, physical and
mental, to a scarce and precious resource. There is no requirement that
everything must be shared. Are you just pretending to be stupid or is it for
real?

You have stated it, and I've refuted it, again and again. Your argument comes down to "I don't like it" and you seem to believe that this justifies your position. You've thrown loads of assertions but, when challenged, you can't back them up which might, if you think about it, cause you to rethink the assertions;

I think he has a very valid point there. Howsoever to be fair it would
appear that those who profess to be the overlords of the trails and
deny their use to the public should be too proud to accept public
money for their "private property" and be prepared to provide any and
all financial support for the maintenance and construction of said
trails.

There are loads of hiker/biker accidents so it's too dangerous : REFUTED
It's more environmentally damaging than hiking : REFUTED
It's aesthetically unappealing to you : INVALID REASONS TO ALLOCATE PUBLIC RESOURCE
It's an 'incorrect' use of a public resource : NO FACTS TO BACKUP ASSERTION

Right now I feel as if I'm arguing with a religious fanatic. You know the type; you beat them logically but, when it comes down to it, they simply tell you that this is just because you don't really understand and that their belief system allows them to know that they're right.

I'm sorry, but that's what I'm getting here and I'm starting to think it's a waste of time arguing. A fanatic can't be swayed by logic ... it's a belief system.

I can throw facts and logic at you all day and, at the end, you'll still think you're right even if I demolish every assertion.

Of course not. You are a selfish spoiled child who wants to do
what you want to do* We adults will have to take you in hand and teach you
the ways of the world.

We Adults? Rather we criminals, isn't it? I seem to have this
recollection of your lord and master being convicted some time ago.

Oh, I'm being selfish am I ? I'm the one who readily conceded that some trails shouldn't be shared. You're the one who's asserting that all hiking trails are for your exclusive use. Your greatness is definitely slipping Ed ... go get some facts to backup your assertions and I might listen again ... but, right now, I'm about done with you.
--
Cheers,

Miguel

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

A good place to start would be Mr. Vandeman’s emails provided
you are fortunate enough to get on his list. Another good way would be to do a
Google search on the Internet under an appropriate subject heading. Hikers are
constantly being harassed and injured by thug mountain bikers.

Vandeman's list, which he gleans from internet feeds across the globe, shows a tiny number of incidents proportional to the overall number of rides happening every day.

You've gone from stating that there are incidents every day at a specific location then, when called to provide facts to back that assertion, you have reverted to generalities. You will forgive me if I therefore consider your assertion, at least for the moment, disproved (or unproven).

Glean you own reports. They are there for the gleaning. I NEVER do anyone else’s work for them!

When an attack borders on being terminally stupid, then you
are going to get what you deserve. It is part of My Greatness!
[...]

“It is mainly older people who are dying of heart disease.” – Ed
Dolan

Great example of circular logic Ed. You simply restate your assertion. Did you bother to go to the World Health Organisation website to actually check the data ? I guess not. Risk of death from heart disease has risen, in the developed world, in the last ten years in the 25-44 and 45-54 age sectors. Your assertion is REFUTED.

“It is mainly older people who are dying of heart disease.” – Ed Dolan

The mark of Cain is upon you. “Hey, I want to do what I want
to do.” You are a childish boob who only knows the language of force. Mr.
Vandeman and I are working on that. We will get all you kiddies banned from our
sacred hiking trails sooner or later. It is just a matter of time.

Childish Ed. For a stated atheist you employ quite a lot of religious absolutism to your rhetoric.

I am calling you a moral bankrupt for what you do to trails with your bike.

Have I ever advocated the use of force ? No, I leave that to you and Vandeman with your language of conflict and sick satisfaction in the death and injury of others.

You are the transgressor. The only force I am advocating is authorized force. However, hikers would be well advised to enter wilderness areas with a concealed weapon on their person since so many bikers are thugs.

Not millions – only jerks like you who think you have a right
to something you have no right to. What's the matter? Can’t walk?

I have no right to a PUBLIC resource ? Your sense of entitlement is rather overwhelming.

No right at all. Public resources must be allocated according to intelligent management. That lets you and your ilk out.

And I have stated previously again and again that a public
resource must must be managed intelligently, not stupidly for the likes of you
and your ilk. What you are doing is nothing short of vandalism, physical and
mental, to a scarce and precious resource. There is no requirement that
everything must be shared. Are you just pretending to be stupid or is it for
real?

You have stated it, and I've refuted it, again and again. Your argument comes down to "I don't like it" and you seem to believe that this justifies your position. You've thrown loads of assertions but, when challenged, you can't back them up which might, if you think about it, cause you to rethink the assertions;

There are loads of hiker/biker accidents so it's too dangerous : REFUTED
It's more environmentally damaging than hiking : REFUTED
It's aesthetically unappealing to you : INVALID REASONS TO ALLOCATE PUBLIC RESOURCE
It's an 'incorrect' use of a public resource : NO FACTS TO BACKUP ASSERTION

Nothing has been refuted. Whoever heard of anyone who takes the “refutations” of mountain bikers seriously. You are nothing but a hot air windbag who wouldn’t know a fact if it jumped up and bit you on your ass. And your logic is as screwy as your facts.

Right now I feel as if I'm arguing with a religious fanatic. You know the type; you beat them logically but, when it comes down to it, they simply tell you that this is just because you don't really understand and that their belief system allows them to know that they're right.

Your logic is as twisted as your morality ... self serving to the core. Have you no shame!

I'm sorry, but that's what I'm getting here and I'm starting to think it's a waste of time arguing. A fanatic can't be swayed by logic ... it's a belief system.

I agree that there is no point in going over the same old issues over and over.

I can throw facts and logic at you all day and, at the end, you'll still think you're right even if I demolish every assertion.

The only assertions that are being demolished are yours. Let’s leave it to the readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions.

Of course not. You are a selfish spoiled child who wants to do
what you want to do We adults will have to take you in hand and teach you
the ways of the world.

Oh, I'm being selfish am I ? I'm the one who readily conceded that some trails shouldn't be shared. You're the one who's asserting that all hiking trails are for your exclusive use. Your greatness is definitely slipping Ed ... go get some facts to backup your assertions and I might listen again ... but, right now, I'm about done with you.

I should be so lucky that you are done with me! The fact is that I just plain don’t like mountain bikers doing their thing on hiking trails. And I don’t like those who defend what it is they do. You are wrongheaded about everything having to do with this subject. And yes, you are indeed selfish ... and morally corrupt to boot. Purgatory awaits you in the next world.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

"Miguel" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 02:34:09 -0700 (PDT), Blackblade
wrote:

Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]

When an attack borders on being terminally stupid, then you
are going to get what you deserve. It is part of My Greatness!

So, you simply want to justify ad-hominem. Fine, interesting definition of "My Greatness". Looks to me like "My inability to argue points convincingly which means I will attack the messenger instead".

It is a term used in attempt to define oneself as more important then
one actually is/are.

Mountain bikers who ride their bikes on hiking trails are guilty of criminal trespass. That makes them the scum of the earth. I like to call them as I see them.
[...]

“It is mainly older people who are dying of heart disease.� – Ed
Dolan

Great example of circular logic Ed. You simply restate your assertion. Did you bother to go to the World Health Organisation website to actually check the data ? I guess not. Risk of death from heart disease has risen, in the developed world, in the last ten years in the 25-44 and 45-54 age sectors. Your assertion is REFUTED.

To research the WHO will likely destroy his assertion and then where
would he be?

How about researching your brain to see if you have one?

“It is mainly older people who are dying of heart disease.� – Ed Dolan

The mark of Cain is upon you. “Hey, I want to do what I want
to do.� You are a childish boob who only knows the language of force. Mr.
Vandeman and I are working on that. We will get all you kiddies banned from our
sacred hiking trails sooner or later. It is just a matter of time.

Childish Ed. For a stated atheist you employ quite a lot of religious absolutism to your rhetoric.

You must be wrong Sir. How can an atheist become a saint as he loudly
proclaims himself to be.

It is indeed a deep study. Only a Great Saint like Me can be an atheist. That way I can argue with secularist nincompoops like you without being subject to your liberal bigotry.
[...]

And I have stated previously again and again that a public
resource must must be managed intelligently, not stupidly for the likes of you
and your ilk. What you are doing is nothing short of vandalism, physical and
mental, to a scarce and precious resource. There is no requirement that
everything must be shared. Are you just pretending to be stupid or is it for
real?

You have stated it, and I've refuted it, again and again. Your argument comes down to "I don't like it" and you seem to believe that this justifies your position. You've thrown loads of assertions but, when challenged, you can't back them up which might, if you think about it, cause you to rethink the assertions;

I think he has a very valid point there. Howsoever to be fair it would
appear that those who profess to be the overlords of the trails and
deny their use to the public should be too proud to accept public
money for their "private property" and be prepared to provide any and
all financial support for the maintenance and construction of said
trails.

The cost of trail building and maintenance does not amount to a hill of beans. But still I am glad someone is concerned about how public money is spent.
[...]

Oh, I'm being selfish am I ? I'm the one who readily conceded that some trails shouldn't be shared. You're the one who's asserting that all hiking trails are for your exclusive use. Your greatness is definitely slipping Ed ... go get some facts to backup your assertions and I might listen again ... but, right now, I'm about done with you.

Maybe Miguel can make some new points. Your points are just too absurd for any more words.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

You've gone from stating that there are incidents every day at a
specific location then, when called to provide facts to back that assertion, you
have reverted to generalities.* You will forgive me if I therefore consider
your assertion, at least for the moment, disproved (or unproven).

Glean you own reports. They are there for the gleaning. I
NEVER do anyone else’s work for them!

It's YOUR work Ed ... you're making the assertion, you back it up. Looks to me like you can't so now we get bluster.

I am calling you a moral bankrupt for what you do to trails
with your bike.

Now I'm really laughing. Riding a bicycle is a sign of moral bankruptcy ?

I don't do any more to trails on my bike than you do on your feet.

You are the transgressor. The only force I am advocating is
authorized force. However, hikers would be well advised to enter wilderness
areas with a concealed weapon on their person since so many bikers are
thugs.

What am I transgressing Ed ? I'm doing something you don't like. So what ? You don't, fortunately, get to make the law.

There are loads of hiker/biker accidents so it's too dangerous :
REFUTED
It's more environmentally damaging than hiking : REFUTED
It's aesthetically unappealing to you : INVALID REASONS TO ALLOCATE PUBLIC
RESOURCE
It's an 'incorrect' use of a public resource : NO FACTS TO BACKUP
ASSERTION

Nothing has been refuted. Whoever heard of anyone who takes
the “refutations” of mountain bikers seriously. You are nothing but a hot air
windbag who wouldn’t know a fact if it jumped up and bit you on your ass. And
your logic is as screwy as your facts.

Well, I'm not the one who asserted that there were loads of interactions in a location and then couldn't back it up. Hot air maybe ? :-)

Face it, you don't have anything; you simply don't like mountainbikes on trails, it's that simple. You have nothing to back that up as a logical conclusion ... it's just your personal prejudice.

Your logic is as twisted as your morality ... self serving to
the core. Have you no shame!

I do believe I'm winning ... the level of ad-hominem is usually in direct proportion to your failure to justify your premises.

The only assertions that are being demolished are yours.
Let’s leave it to the readers of this thread to draw their
own conclusions.

More than happy to do so.

The fact is that I just plain don’t like mountain bikers doing their thing on
hiking trails. And I don’t like those who defend what it is they do.

I get that ... that's my point ... you don't have any valid, objective reasons for this prejudice ... you just feel this way. What you don't get is that there is no moral imperative on me, or others, to pander to your prejudice.

You are
wrongheaded about everything having to do with this subject. And yes, you are
indeed selfish ... and morally corrupt to boot. Purgatory awaits you in the
next world.

So, I'm selfish because I won't conform to your desires for exclusivity ? Try arguing that one logically.

Let's end this ... we're both happy to let others judge the 'winner' of the debate and, in the end, that's all that matters since I doubt we're going to move each other very far.