"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news:WNfkg.3242$FR1.994@dukeread05...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news:5PSdnbd_w92K6A3ZnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
[...]
The above is nothing but pure idiocy by Curtiss and I will no longer
bother with such drivel.

Is Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota, aka Conan the Librarian, chasing his
own tail...? He states he will have nothing more to do with "such
drivel" then replies with practically the same message the very next
day. How much "drivel" is "such drivel"? How "great" is that? Not so
much, methinks...

Curtiss will never win this kind of game with me because I am just so
g.d. Great (besides being a Great Saint) and he is nothing but a
pip-squeak. He proves that every time he attempts of answer the great
Mike Vandeman. Yes, Vandeman is also great, but of course not so Great as
Me.

We hikers will stick together because we have souls unlike mountain
bikers who are soulless. And we will eternally condemn mountain bikers
for their desecration of the wilderness and for their overall all
slobbiness and general uncouthness.

Still can't resist a response to "such drivel"...? And... LOL, you
"eternally condemn mountain bikers" who are "soulless"...? Another "not
so great" response from Conan the Librarian, aka "ed dolan, the not so
great", "faint edward the grating - order of the curly fries"

As long as Curtiss does not come up with anything new, all he will get from
me is my drivel. Since my drivel is better than his drivel, he will lose.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"SMS" wrote in message
...
S Curtiss wrote:

Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer
no corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited
persons, and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal
agencies, and mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to
present to a handful of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even
reference until they are over, and you insist on your definitions and
generalizations... No worries at all for those of us who live in
reality!

That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain biking
is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort to the
type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has never
produced any citations or references for his position, because none exits.

At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the back
country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest about the
reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like MV and ED.
No one would think any worse of them if they would simply say, "we find it
annoying to have to share trails with other users," and it would be a
breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.

And the room erupts with applause... Standing ovation!
Curtain... Scene... Someone say "wrap" and hit the lights...

"cc" wrote in message ...
Mike Vandeman wrote:
[...]
Give up and crawl back into your hole. The worst of all sins is lack
of any sense of humor. You are boring all of us to death.

Says who? Sorry if your opinion here doesn't mean a goddamned thing, Mike,
but as you are quite aware, the remainder of the NG, wih the possible
exception of Ed, wishes you would fall off the planet . ..

"As long as [CC] does not come up with anything new, all he will get from me
is my drivel. Since my drivel is better than his drivel, he will lose." - Ed
Dolan

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"SMS" wrote in message
...
S Curtiss wrote:

Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer
no corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited
persons, and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal
agencies, and mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to
present to a handful of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even
reference until they are over, and you insist on your definitions and
generalizations... No worries at all for those of us who live in
reality!

That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain biking
is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort to the
type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has never
produced any citations or references for his position, because none exits.

At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the back
country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest about the
reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like MV and ED.
No one would think any worse of them if they would simply say, "we find it
annoying to have to share trails with other users," and it would be a
breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.

My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking
trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental
attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These
attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day.
That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
believe I can say it any clearer than that.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:

My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking
trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental
attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These
attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day.
That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
believe I can say it any clearer than that.

You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are
not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
trails.

I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers
to not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists
would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn
to share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the
trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.

The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy
hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail
impact that have no basis in fact.

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:48:48 -0700, SMS wrote:

You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are
not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
trails.

Thats what a designated hiking trail is - a trail where biking (typically
everything except hiking) is banned. As a mountain biker, I agree that
bikers should stay off of them.

Ed has stated that his issue is that he thinks we "want" to ride them.
Well sometimes I do, but I'm not sure what the pennance for wanting to
ride a hiking trail is. Say thirty "hail Ed"s and sacrifice a granola bar?

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:21:04 -0400, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news:5PSdnbd_w92K6A3ZnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@prairiewave .com...

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news:fJYjg.16$FR1.7@dukeread05...
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news:3LCjg.30022$ZW3.28943@dukeread04...

There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife,
but the impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to
conflict as much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental
attitudes and how one views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the
impact issue with regard to trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly
concerned about the mental and spiritual dimensions of how different
users view wilderness. Frankly, I would not have such a big issue
with mountain bikers if I thought they viewed wilderness with
respect. Instead, I see too many who are only into wilderness for
fun and games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for them, not
a pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers.

What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us
a break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is
recreation) does not invalidate my choice of recreation.

Hiking is not just a recreation like mountain biking is. It is
somewhat spiritual and requires wilderness for its' platform. There is
so little wilderness left that it is criminal of you to want to
deprive us hikers of our last refuge from the dirty rotten scoundrels
of the world.

The above is nothing but boilerplate by Dolan and has by now become
meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel.

The above is nothing but pure idiocy by Curtiss and I will no longer
bother with such drivel.

Is Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota, aka Conan the Librarian, chasing his
own tail...? He states he will have nothing more to do with "such drivel"
then replies with practically the same message the very next day. How
much "drivel" is "such drivel"? How "great" is that? Not so much,
methinks...

Curtiss will never win this kind of game with me because I am just so g.d.
Great (besides being a Great Saint) and he is nothing but a pip-squeak. He
proves that every time he attempts of answer the great Mike Vandeman. Yes,
Vandeman is also great, but of course not so Great as Me.

We hikers will stick together because we have souls unlike mountain bikers
who are soulless. And we will eternally condemn mountain bikers for their
desecration of the wilderness and for their overall all slobbiness and
general uncouthness.

Still can't resist a response to "such drivel"...? And... LOL, you
"eternally condemn mountain bikers" who are "soulless"...? Another "not so
great" response from Conan the Librarian, aka "ed dolan, the not so great",
"faint edward the grating - order of the curly fries"

Your cheap imitation of Ed The Great is just that: a cheap,
ineffective imitation.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:57:22 -0700, SMS
wrote:

S Curtiss wrote:

Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer no
corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited persons,
and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal agencies, and
mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to present to a handful
of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even reference until they are
over, and you insist on your definitions and generalizations... No worries
at all for those of us who live in reality!

That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain
biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort
to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has
never produced any citations or references for his position, because
none exits.

At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the
back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest
about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like
MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply
say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and
it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.

I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough,
and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:48:48 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Edward Dolan wrote:

My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking
trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental
attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These
attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day.
That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
believe I can say it any clearer than that.

You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are
not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
trails.

I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers
to not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists
would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn
to share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the
trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.

The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy
hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail
impact that have no basis in fact.

Yawn.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:57:22 -0700, SMS
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:


Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer no
corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited persons,
and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal agencies, and
mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to present to a handful
of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even reference until they are
over, and you insist on your definitions and generalizations... No worries
at all for those of us who live in reality!

That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain
biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort
to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has
never produced any citations or references for his position, because
none exits.

At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the
back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest
about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like
MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply
say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and
it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.


I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough,
and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it?

Same for you, hypocrite. You
should practice talking in the
mirror! The last couple of
days have been amazing. First,
Cervantes. Now this ! You're
incredible . . .