Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???

"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

That's a good question. I gotta go with the hikers first because
Vandeman's issue is that rubber and dirt are a bad mix. Hoofs, as bad
he says they are, are an otherwise natural combination once the human
element is removed.

I much prefer to hike trails where there are no horses. They can ruin
hiking trails just as much as jeeps can. Ideally horses would have
their own trails apart from those of hikers. If a hiker wanted to hike
a horse trail, that would be OK, but horses would be forbidden on
hiking trails.

YOU should have your own trail. That would solve everything. YOU are the
misfit around here that can't get along with anybody else. Of course,
you have spent your life in seclusion and solitude without benefit of a
good wife and a house full of kids, it's no wonder you are a social
outcast. Indeed, you are not an outcast per se, because you are not
thrown out, you refuse to come in.

YOU need to learn how to get along.

I get along just fine with other single hikers and other single cyclists.
I do not like groups of hikers or groups of cyclists or groups of
anything. People are at their worse when part of a group.

So, you don't get along.

You can't control whether there are one or one hundred in the outdoorsmen
that you encounter. Since you can't control then you don't get along. You
claim to get along under conditions that you demand, but we only have your
word on that.

I steer clear of groups. What is so difficult about that?

Women are a special breed of human and it takes way too much of an
investment of time and energy for me to ever waste any of either on them.
The reason why I am Great (and you aren't) is because I spend all of my
time contemplating the eternal verities. To tell the truth, I really only
like to commune with the eagles on high mountain tops.

So, you don't get along.

I get along with the eagles on high mountain tops just fine.

It is easy to be liked and to get along with others. Just be agreeable. I
respect Mr. Vandeman because he has chosen a hard way. He is NOT
agreeable and he does NOT care about getting along with others when
matters of grave importance are at stake. He is a crusader, I am not.

But you are the one defining "agreeable." When I define agreeable, then I
come to the conclusion that you are anti-social and don't get along; all
you do is repeatedly reinforce the conclusion. If I was your shrink, my
best advise to you (for $150.00 per hour) is to get a life.

You would be the easiest person in the world to get along with. All I would
ever have to do is to agree with you and smile while doing so. But I do not
feel good about myself when I am manipulating fools like you. Nay, it is
better to be true to myself.

By the way, no man ever needs kids. That is a woman thing. A man is a
fool to want what he does not need.

Or, to put that another way, you don't get along.

Kids should be seen and not heard. When I hear them, I absent myself.

You are the poster child for not getting along. Just accept the skin
you're in and deal with it. By all reasonable standards, you're a loser.
It's okay, but stop inflicting yourself on the rest of us. Be lonely in
silence because you chose lonely as a lifestyle.

I am alone, but never lonely. How am I a loser? You need others and are
therefore dependent on them for their good will. You should try being alone.
It would do wonders for your self-knowledge. Let's face it, most humans are
not worth any bother. My suggestion is to try eagles.

These newsgroups need someone like me to kick sorry asses. If I didn't do
it, no one would. Then Tom Sherman would lord it over the rest of you.

Alas, no one understands us hermits!

Regards,

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

"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
[...]
It is hard work to hike and not everyone wants to do it. But those are
the terms if you want wilderness to remain wilderness.

It's hard work to ride a bike. It's not particularly hard work to drive a
Jeep -- unless drinking beer and smoking cigars is counted as being
hard -- but the enjoyment of the wilderness where the road is already
more than 100 years old is still the same, except for the beer and cigars
part.

It is much harder to hike than it is to bike. As long as you stay on the
road, enjoy your outdoor experience, but it is NOT wilderness.

You do not get to define "enjoyment of wilderness." Sorry. But when you do
that, then I enjoy on your terms. You enjoy on your terms, I'll enjoy on
mine. You may not understand the enjoyment that I experience and you might
go so far as to suggest that there can be no enjoyment in the way I do it,
or bike riders do it, but YOU only get to define your parameters, not
mine. I've been doing wilderness for a very long time, and when visitors
stay on-trail, the wilderness does just fine no matter how they use the
trail, and suffers when anybody (even hikers) go off-trail. "Trail" is the
operative word here, no matter what Vandeman brainswashes you into
thinking.

Wilderness can only be enjoyed on its terms, i.e., on foot. Once you
introduce other conveyances, you are far removed from wilderness. I want you
and mountain bikers nowhere near wilderness. I want you in nature parks that
have been designed and are being managed for such as yourself.

I am concerned with the wilderness itself, not just the trails. We must
tread softly there as in a great cathedral. Bikes and jeeps are the wrong
mentalities. Very strange that you cannot understand such a simple concept
as respect for the earth and its natural history.

If you want to play, then find a playground. Wilderness is not a playground.
We have parks for that.

Mr. Vandeman is a purist. I am not. But I want to keep wilderness pure and
this requires purity of mind and spirit, something I have never witnessed in
a mountain biker who thinks it is "fun" to ride a trail.

You are confusing nature parks with wilderness.

I suffer no such confusion.

That is exactly the confusion you are suffering. A wilderness will not
contain any roads. If it does, it is not wilderness.

Regards,

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

On 11/30/2010 6:22 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
"Jeff wrote in message
...

"Tºm Shermªn™ " wrote in
message ...
On 11/29/2010 9:26 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:

I'm gonna say this for the last time, Vandeman doesn't care where
mountain
bikes are operated _as long as_ it is on the highway. If there is dirt
involved, Vandeman is against it.

He doesn't give a rat's ass about your piddly little complaints of
"hiking
trails." When he gets his dream of tires off of the dirt, he'll come
after
your boots next.

Hikers before or after equestrians?

That's a good question. I gotta go with the hikers first because
Vandeman's issue is that rubber and dirt are a bad mix. Hoofs, as bad he
says they are, are an otherwise natural combination once the human element
is removed.

I much prefer to hike trails where there are no horses. They can ruin hiking
trails just as much as jeeps can. Ideally horses would have their own trails
apart from those of hikers. If a hiker wanted to hike a horse trail, that
would be OK, but horses would be forbidden on hiking trails.

Jeeps do not leave manure on the trail.

Horses are damn big animals and I don't like to be anywhere near them -
ever!

Indeed, a panicked horse can easily cripple or kill a person.

Horses are also easily spooked by recumbent riders, in my experience.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 11/30/2010 8:16 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
Kids should be seen and not heard. When I hear them, I absent myself.
[...]

Hear! Hear! [1]

"If your kid is raising a ruckus in a public place, and someone says
something nasty to you about it, YOU DESERVE IT. KEEP YOUR GODDAMNED
BRATS UNDER CONTROL." - Nate Nagel

[1] Pun intended.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 11/30/2010 8:50 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
It is much harder to hike than it is to bike.[...]

One a per distance basis, yes. On a per time basis, no.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

"Tºm Shermªn™ °_°" " wrote in
message ...
On 11/30/2010 8:50 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
It is much harder to hike than it is to bike.[...]

One a per distance basis, yes. On a per time basis, no.

The above comment brought me up short. I recall that I have hiked many 10
hour days and such days are tiring, but biking a 10 hour day is truly
exhausting (even on a recumbent). I hate 10 hour days of doing anything
except sleeping.

Regards,

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

On 11/30/2010 11:26 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 11/30/2010 6:22 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
"Jeff wrote in message
...

"Tºm Shermªn™ " wrote in
message ...
On 11/29/2010 9:26 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:

I'm gonna say this for the last time, Vandeman doesn't care where
mountain
bikes are operated _as long as_ it is on the highway. If there is dirt
involved, Vandeman is against it.

He doesn't give a rat's ass about your piddly little complaints of
"hiking
trails." When he gets his dream of tires off of the dirt, he'll come
after
your boots next.

Hikers before or after equestrians?

That's a good question. I gotta go with the hikers first because
Vandeman's issue is that rubber and dirt are a bad mix. Hoofs, as bad he
says they are, are an otherwise natural combination once the human
element
is removed.

I much prefer to hike trails where there are no horses. They can ruin
hiking
trails just as much as jeeps can. Ideally horses would have their own
trails
apart from those of hikers. If a hiker wanted to hike a horse trail, that
would be OK, but horses would be forbidden on hiking trails.

Jeeps do not leave manure on the trail.

Horses are damn big animals and I don't like to be anywhere near them -
ever!

Indeed, a panicked horse can easily cripple or kill a person.

Horses are also easily spooked by recumbent riders, in my experience.


recumbent riders?

On 12/01/2010 08:17 AM, VtSkier wrote:
On 11/30/2010 11:26 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 11/30/2010 6:22 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
"Jeff wrote in message
...

"Tºm Shermªn™ " wrote in
message ...
On 11/29/2010 9:26 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:

I'm gonna say this for the last time, Vandeman doesn't care where
mountain
bikes are operated _as long as_ it is on the highway. If there is
dirt
involved, Vandeman is against it.

He doesn't give a rat's ass about your piddly little complaints of
"hiking
trails." When he gets his dream of tires off of the dirt, he'll come
after
your boots next.

Hikers before or after equestrians?

That's a good question. I gotta go with the hikers first because
Vandeman's issue is that rubber and dirt are a bad mix. Hoofs, as
bad he
says they are, are an otherwise natural combination once the human
element
is removed.

I much prefer to hike trails where there are no horses. They can ruin
hiking
trails just as much as jeeps can. Ideally horses would have their own
trails
apart from those of hikers. If a hiker wanted to hike a horse trail,
that
would be OK, but horses would be forbidden on hiking trails.

Jeeps do not leave manure on the trail.

Horses are damn big animals and I don't like to be anywhere near them -
ever!

Indeed, a panicked horse can easily cripple or kill a person.

Horses are also easily spooked by recumbent riders, in my experience.


recumbent riders?

Oh, recumbent bicycle riders.

I thought this was a discussion about how bad Mountain
Bikers are. I can't think of anything any worse than a
recumbent bicycle in Mountain Biking conditons.

On Nov 29, 10:36*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"Tºm Shermªn™ °_°" " wrote in
...

On 11/29/2010 9:26 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:

I'm gonna say this for the last time, Vandeman doesn't care where
mountain
bikes are operated _as long as_ it is on the highway. If there is dirt
involved, Vandeman is against it.

He doesn't give a rat's ass about your piddly little complaints of
"hiking
trails." When he gets his dream of tires off of the dirt, he'll come
after
your boots next.

Hikers before or after equestrians?

I am not happy about horses on hiking trails either. That is a legacy from
the Old West and should be done away with. Either hike on your own two feet
or stay the hell out of wilderness.

The idea that everyone should have access to wilderness by whatever means is
lunacy. That is the sort of thinking that destroys wilderness and makes of
life something ugly, nasty, brutish, short - and poor!

Jeff Strickland thinks land managers are capable of deciding who can do what
where without any input from geniuses like Mr. Vandeman and Myself.

AND you and Mikey think you are capable of decidein for lan managers
and the masses what they can do what and where ... the two lonely pots
calling the kettle black. THe conundrum continues.

Hells
Bells, he would like to drive his jeep on hiking trails if he could. Types
like him have destroyed the natural beauty of this country. Saint Edward the
Great has consigned him to the lowest depths of Hell for his desecrations to
God's Creation. He is essentially a despoiler of Sacred Wilderness.

Thus spake Zarathustra!

Regards,

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

On Nov 30, 7:48*pm, "Jeff Strickland" wrote:
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message

...



"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
. ..

That's a good question. I gotta go with the hikers first because
Vandeman's issue is that rubber and dirt are a bad mix. Hoofs, as bad
he says they are, are an otherwise natural combination once the human
element is removed.

I much prefer to hike trails where there are no horses. They can ruin
hiking trails just as much as jeeps can. Ideally horses would have their
own trails apart from those of hikers. If a hiker wanted to hike a horse
trail, that would be OK, but horses would be forbidden on hiking trails.

YOU should have your own trail. That would solve everything. YOU are the
misfit around here that can't get along with anybody else. Of course, you
have spent your life in seclusion and solitude without benefit of a good
wife and a house full of kids, it's no wonder you are a social outcast..
Indeed, you are not an outcast per se, because you are not thrown out,
you refuse to come in.

YOU need to learn how to get along.

I get along just fine with other single hikers and other single cyclists.
I do not like groups of hikers or groups of cyclists or groups of
anything. People are at their worse when part of a group.

So, you don't get along.

You can't control whether there are one or one hundred in the outdoorsmen
that you encounter. Since you can't control then you don't get along. You
claim to get along under conditions that you demand, but we only have your
word on that.

Women are a special breed of human and it takes way too much of an
investment of time and energy for me to ever waste any of either on them.
The reason why I am Great (and you aren't) is because I spend all of my
time contemplating the eternal verities. To tell the truth, I really only
like to commune with the eagles on high mountain tops.

So, you don't get along.

It is easy to be liked and to get along with others. Just be agreeable. I
respect Mr. Vandeman because he has chosen a hard way. He is NOT agreeable
and he does NOT care about getting along with others when matters of grave
importance are at stake. He is a crusader, I am not.

But you are the one defining "agreeable." When I define agreeable, then I
come to the conclusion that you are anti-social and don't get along; all you
do is repeatedly reinforce the conclusion. If I was your shrink, my best
advise to you (for $150.00 per hour) is to get a life.

By the way, no man ever needs kids. That is a woman thing. A man is a fool
to want what he does not need.

Or, to put that another way, you don't get along.

You are the poster child for not getting along. Just accept the skin you're
in and deal with it. By all reasonable standards, you're a loser. It's okay,
but stop inflicting yourself on the rest of us. Be lonely in silence because
you chose lonely as a lifestyle.

You tell him Jeff. I've told Ed much the same many times as have
others, but the message falls on the deaf ears of the egomaniacal,
misanthropic recluse. Disenfranchised from reality, Dolan is a
socially detached societal dropout by choice who should brave his
demons in solitude.