Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

Indeed, I leave it to any reader to decide who is right and
who is wrong on the issues after reading everything that has been said in this
thread. I am calling you an idiot because your arguments are beside any rational
common sense point.

Ah, you mean because instead of citing opinion and aphorisms I actually try and find facts to backup my arguments or refute yours ? Common sense is, very frequently, wrong or outdated.

Common sense predates any finding of facts. After all, there are zillions of facts in the world. Without common sense how do you decide which facts are relevant.

You want to ride your bike on hiking trails and that is the
sum total of it. If others think that is OK, then I hope you meet one another on
the trail and have a ****ing bad time. I will never be on any trail you and your
ilk are on. That is all I know for sure!

If that were the case then I would simply assert it and not care about environmental impact nor concede that some trails should not be ridden.

Your concessions are minimal and not worth discussing. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

The only disgraceful character here is you. That you can’t see
it is because besides being an idiot you have no shame - as well as no sense of
common decency.

I thought that, a few short posts ago, you were decrying the fact that I clearly wasn't an idiot and was therefore evil in persisting in my opinions and actions ?

No one is ever a COMPLETE idiot. You are only an idiot where values and priorities are concerned. Wilderness and natural scenery is a precious resource that needs to be preserved and protected above all else. It cannot be playground for cyclists.

Decency involves compromise Ed ... which, to date, I've not seen from you. Decency accepts that others have valid points of view which differ from one's own.

I do not accept that you have a valid point of view. There are zillions of miles of roads (all kinds of roads) for you and your bicycle. You are a scofflaw for wanting to ride your bike on trails which were not designed for bikes and which conflict with other traditional usages. Like I said, if you were a decent human being, you would acknowledge that - and get the hell off of my sacred trails ... unless you want to walk them like everybody else.

Trail are for walkers. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

Ah, you mean because instead of citing opinion and aphorisms I
actually try and find facts to backup my arguments or refute yours ?*
Common sense is, very frequently, wrong or outdated.

Common sense predates any finding of facts. After all, there
are zillions of facts in the world. Without common sense how do you decide which
facts are relevant.

With intelligence ... rather than prejudice.

Your concessions are minimal and not worth discussing.

So you say, but they are still concessions ... what are you prepared to concede ?

I thought that, a few short posts ago, you were decrying the fact
that I clearly wasn't an idiot and was therefore evil in persisting in my
opinions and actions ?

No one is ever a COMPLETE idiot. You are only an idiot where
values and priorities are concerned. Wilderness and natural scenery is a
precious resource that needs to be preserved and protected above all else.. It
cannot be playground for cyclists.*

But it's fine as a playground for hikers ? If you are prepared to permit RECREATIONAL use, which you did earlier in the thread, then you have already conceded the key point.

Decency involves compromise Ed ... which, to date, I've not seen
from you.* Decency accepts that others have valid points of view which
differ from one's own.

I do not accept that you have a valid point of view.

Then you are not 'decent'. I have politely expressed a differing opinion to yours without ad-hominem attack and with backup facts to support my position. I suggest you tackle the facts and the logic rather than the point of view which derives from them.

There are
zillions of miles of roads (all kinds of roads) for you and your bicycle. You
are a scofflaw for wanting to ride your bike on trails which were not designed
for bikes and which conflict with other traditional usages.

How can I be a scofflaw when I ride legally ?

Why should I not ride on public land if I do no more harm than hikers and act with consideration towards other users ?

Like I said, if you
were a decent human being, you would acknowledge that - and get the hell off of
my sacred trails ... unless you want to walk them like everybody
else.

As ever, Ed, I have to point out that they're not yours and they never were.. Buy your own land and decide what to do with it ... no complaints. Don't try and annexe public resources.

Trail are for walkers. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

An assertion without facts ... particularly since most of them were generated by pack animals in the first instance. You didn't make the trails, you don't own the trails and yet you feel as if you have some privileged right of access and to refuse others that access.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

No one is ever a COMPLETE idiot. You are only an idiot where
values and priorities are concerned. Wilderness and natural scenery is a
precious resource that needs to be preserved and protected above all else. It
cannot be playground for cyclists.

But it's fine as a playground for hikers ? If you are prepared to permit RECREATIONAL use, which you did earlier in the thread, then you have already conceded the key point.

There are all kinds of recreations, most of which are incompatible with other recreations. It is why every sport has its own playing field. The way you play with words marks you as a tiresome fool.

Decency involves compromise Ed ... which, to date, I've not seen
from you. Decency accepts that others have valid points of view which
differ from one's own.

I do not accept that you have a valid point of view.

Then you are not 'decent'. I have politely expressed a differing opinion to yours without ad-hominem attack and with backup facts to support my position. I suggest you tackle the facts and the logic rather than the point of view which derives from them.

Your “politeness” is nothing but a cover–up for the ultimate rudeness – riding your bike on a hiking trail. Like every cry baby that ever was, you want to do what you want to do and to hell with others who say that it conflicts with what they want to do – and have been doing long before you born. The only determinative fact here is that you are a born yesterday idiot!

There are
zillions of miles of roads (all kinds of roads) for you and your bicycle. You
are a scofflaw for wanting to ride your bike on trails which were not designed
for bikes and which conflict with other traditional usages.

How can I be a scofflaw when I ride legally ?

Why should I not ride on public land if I do no more harm than hikers and act with consideration towards other users ?

Just being on a bike on a hiking trail is rude and shows a complete lack of consideration for others. The “legalities” of what you do will have to be changed. Mr. Vandeman is working on that. In the meantime, I treat you and your ilk the way you deserve to be treated – with the same lack of consideration that you show to others.

Like I said, if you
were a decent human being, you would acknowledge that - and get the hell off of
my sacred trails ... unless you want to walk them like everybody
else.

As ever, Ed, I have to point out that they're not yours and they never were. Buy your own land and decide what to do with it ... no complaints. Don't try and annexe public resources.

As usual, you trip on words. “Public” does not mean that everyone can do whatever they want.

Trail are for walkers. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

An assertion without facts ... particularly since most of them were generated by pack animals in the first instance. You didn't make the trails, you don't own the trails and yet you feel as if you have some privileged right of access and to refuse others that access.

It is why equestrians are permitted on most trails. Bikers are Johnny come latelies. They are interlopers and disrupt what has been the traditional uses of trails. Bikers have no more right to trails than do motorcyclists. The fact that you think they do marks you for the scoundrel that you are.

You like to ponder the meanings of words. Why not spend some time on the words “incompatible use”. That is what bikes are to hikers on trails.

We hikers HATE bikers on our sacred trails! Trails are for walkers. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

But it's fine as a playground for hikers ?* If you are
prepared to permit RECREATIONAL use, which you did earlier in the thread, then
you have already conceded the key point.

There are all kinds of recreations, most of which are
incompatible with other recreations. It is why every sport has its own playing
field. The way you play with words marks you as a tiresome fool.

Nice change of tack. You decry riders on trails because it's a recreational use. Now, when the inconsistency of your position is highlighted you say that it's not that it's recreation, it's that it is incompatible. This, despite that fact that I've produced many examples where shared use works fine.

Your “politeness” is nothing but a cover–up for the ultimate
rudeness – riding your bike on a hiking trail. Like every cry baby that ever
was, you want to do what you want to do and to hell with others who say that it
conflicts with what they want to do – and have been doing long before you born.
The only determinative fact here is that you are a born yesterday
idiot!

Ed, it does not conflict with what you want to do. No-one is suggesting that you stop hiking, simply that you accept that others have a valid right to share the same resource. The only one being a cry baby is you ... "They're MY trails, I was here first and I'm not sharing" !

Just being on a bike on a hiking trail is rude and shows a
complete lack of consideration for others. The “legalities” of what you do will
have to be changed. Mr. Vandeman is working on that. In the meantime, I treat
you and your ilk the way you deserve to be treated – with the same lack of
consideration that you show to others.

Well, actually, I show due consideration to others on the trail ... I don't inconvenience them and they don't inconvenience me. There's not much I can do about absolutists who have simply decided they don't want to see bikes there.

You'll just have to learn to live with it I guess, unless Vandeman suddenly becomes massively more successful in his campaign than he has been in the last 20 years.

As ever, Ed, I have to point out that they're not yours and they
never were.* Buy your own land and decide what to do with it ... no
complaints.* Don't try and annexe public resources.

As usual, you trip on words. “Public” does not mean that
everyone can do whatever they want.

Who said that everyone could do whatever they wanted ? Not me. I simply pointed out that they are definitely NOT yours.

An assertion without facts ... particularly since most of them
were generated by pack animals in the first instance.* You didn't make the
trails, you don't own the trails and yet you feel as if you have some privileged
right of access and to refuse others that access.

It is why equestrians are permitted on most trails. Bikers are
Johnny come latelies. They are interlopers and disrupt what has been the
traditional uses of trails. Bikers have no more right to trails than do
motorcyclists. The fact that you think they do marks you for the scoundrel that
you are.

More ad-hominem and fact-free bile. People have a right to the trails provided that they are used prudently and protected for future generations, other users and managed environmentally sensitively.

Change is a constant; things that we used to think were fine we now eschew and new things become accepted. Perhaps you've become too old and set in your ways to appreciate that ?

You like to ponder the meanings of words. Why not spend some
time on the words “incompatible use”. That is what bikes are to hikers on
trails.

If it's always incompatible how come shared use works fine where I live ?

We hikers HATE bikers on our sacred trails! Trails are for
walkers. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

We riders are a nicer bunch; we're happy to share with hikers and equestrians and don't find our enjoyment is spoiled by those enjoying the trail in a different manner. Being, in the main, younger and fitter we're quite capable of walking but prefer the experience of riding a bike.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

But it's fine as a playground for hikers ? If you are
prepared to permit RECREATIONAL use, which you did earlier in the thread, then
you have already conceded the key point.

There are all kinds of recreations, most of which are
incompatible with other recreations. It is why every sport has its own playing
field. The way you play with words marks you as a tiresome fool.

Nice change of tack. You decry riders on trails because it's a recreational use. Now, when the inconsistency of your position is highlighted you say that it's not that it's recreation, it's that it is incompatible. This, despite that fact that I've produced many examples where shared use works fine.

One thing a trail is not is a recreation for cyclists ... anymore than it is a recreation for motorcyclists. All recreations are not created equal.

Your “politeness” is nothing but a cover–up for the ultimate
rudeness – riding your bike on a hiking trail. Like every cry baby that ever
was, you want to do what you want to do and to hell with others who say that it
conflicts with what they want to do – and have been doing long before you born.
The only determinative fact here is that you are a born yesterday
idiot!

Ed, it does not conflict with what you want to do. No-one is suggesting that you stop hiking, simply that you accept that others have a valid right to share the same resource. The only one being a cry baby is you ... "They're MY trails, I was here first and I'm not sharing" !

But it IS a conflict. Until you recognize that, we are never going to get anywhere. Someone riding a motorcycle on a trail would also be a conflict – as even you recognized. Just enlarge your vision.

Mr. Vandeman is constantly sending reports about the kind of conflicts that regularly occur. But all you are ever reading is mountain biker propaganda.

Just being on a bike on a hiking trail is rude and shows a
complete lack of consideration for others. The “legalities” of what you do will
have to be changed. Mr. Vandeman is working on that. In the meantime, I treat
you and your ilk the way you deserve to be treated – with the same lack of
consideration that you show to others.

Well, actually, I show due consideration to others on the trail ... I don't inconvenience them and they don't inconvenience me. There's not much I can do about absolutists who have simply decided they don't want to see bikes there.

You'll just have to learn to live with it I guess, unless Vandeman suddenly becomes massively more successful in his campaign than he has been in the last 20 years.

We hikers will NEVER live with it. We will resent and hate you for what you are doing to an increasingly precious resource. The main thing we have to do is educate land managers, many of whom are nincompoops and near idiots – beside being cowards for caving to mountain biker bullies.

As ever, Ed, I have to point out that they're not yours and they
never were. Buy your own land and decide what to do with it ... no
complaints. Don't try and annexe public resources.

As usual, you trip on words. “Public” does not mean that
everyone can do whatever they want.

Who said that everyone could do whatever they wanted ? Not me. I simply pointed out that they are definitely NOT yours.

Cyclists are not even the ball park when it comes to who owns the trails .... anymore than motorcyclists are.

An assertion without facts ... particularly since most of them
were generated by pack animals in the first instance. You didn't make the
trails, you don't own the trails and yet you feel as if you have some privileged
right of access and to refuse others that access.

It is why equestrians are permitted on most trails. Bikers are
Johnny come latelies. They are interlopers and disrupt what has been the
traditional uses of trails. Bikers have no more right to trails than do
motorcyclists. The fact that you think they do marks you for the scoundrel that
you are.

More ad-hominem and fact-free bile. People have a right to the trails provided that they are used prudently and protected for future generations, other users and managed environmentally sensitively.

Change is a constant; things that we used to think were fine we now eschew and new things become accepted. Perhaps you've become too old and set in your ways to appreciate that ?

I will see your point of view better when you admit motorcycles and all terrain vehicles to the trails also. The fact is that you are unable to make any distinctions that make any sense. Just because you can ride a bike on a trail does not mean you have a right to do it. It’s not my fault that the land managers are nincompoops and near idiots, besides being cowards.

You like to ponder the meanings of words. Why not spend some
time on the words “incompatible use”. That is what bikes are to hikers on
trails.

If it's always incompatible how come shared use works fine where I live ?

Do you ever talk to any hikers or do you just talk to your fellow scum bucket bikers? Shared use is an abomination if it scares hikers away from trails. **** you and your shared use! Get your own g.d. trails! Better yet, use the roads which are designed for wheels.

We hikers HATE bikers on our sacred trails! Trails are for
walkers. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

We riders are a nicer bunch; we're happy to share with hikers and equestrians and don't find our enjoyment is spoiled by those enjoying the trail in a different manner. Being, in the main, younger and fitter we're quite capable of walking but prefer the experience of riding a bike.

You can experience riding your bike on the zillions of miles of roads and streets that exist in the world. That is what they are there for. Trails are not for the likes of you – unless you want to walk them like everybody else.

Trails are for walkers. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:42:01 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

But it's fine as a playground for hikers ? If you are
prepared to permit RECREATIONAL use, which you did earlier in the thread, then
you have already conceded the key point.

There are all kinds of recreations, most of which are
incompatible with other recreations. It is why every sport has its own playing
field. The way you play with words marks you as a tiresome fool.

Nice change of tack. You decry riders on trails because it's a recreational use. Now, when the inconsistency of your position is highlighted you say that it's not that it's recreation, it's that it is incompatible. This, despite that fact that I've produced many examples where shared use works fine.

One thing a trail is not is a recreation for cyclists ... anymore than it is a recreation for motorcyclists. All recreations are not created equal.

Your “politeness” is nothing but a cover–up for the ultimate
rudeness – riding your bike on a hiking trail. Like every cry baby that ever
was, you want to do what you want to do and to hell with others who say that it
conflicts with what they want to do – and have been doing long before you born.
The only determinative fact here is that you are a born yesterday
idiot!

Ed, it does not conflict with what you want to do. No-one is suggesting that you stop hiking, simply that you accept that others have a valid right to share the same resource. The only one being a cry baby is you ... "They're MY trails, I was here first and I'm not sharing" !

But it IS a conflict. Until you recognize that, we are never going to get anywhere. Someone riding a motorcycle on a trail would also be a conflict – as even you recognized. Just enlarge your vision.

Mr. Vandeman is constantly sending reports about the kind of conflicts that regularly occur. But all you are ever reading is mountain biker propaganda.

Just being on a bike on a hiking trail is rude and shows a
complete lack of consideration for others. The “legalities” of what you do will
have to be changed. Mr. Vandeman is working on that. In the meantime, I treat
you and your ilk the way you deserve to be treated – with the same lack of
consideration that you show to others.

Well, actually, I show due consideration to others on the trail ... I don't inconvenience them and they don't inconvenience me. There's not much I can do about absolutists who have simply decided they don't want to see bikes there.

You'll just have to learn to live with it I guess, unless Vandeman suddenly becomes massively more successful in his campaign than he has been in the last 20 years.

We hikers will NEVER live with it. We will resent and hate you for what you are doing to an increasingly precious resource. The main thing we have to do is educate land managers, many of whom are nincompoops and near idiots – beside being cowards for caving to mountain biker bullies.

As ever, Ed, I have to point out that they're not yours and they
never were. Buy your own land and decide what to do with it ... no
complaints. Don't try and annexe public resources.

As usual, you trip on words. “Public” does not mean that
everyone can do whatever they want.

Who said that everyone could do whatever they wanted ? Not me. I simply pointed out that they are definitely NOT yours.

Cyclists are not even the ball park when it comes to who owns the trails ... anymore than motorcyclists are.

An assertion without facts ... particularly since most of them
were generated by pack animals in the first instance. You didn't make the
trails, you don't own the trails and yet you feel as if you have some privileged
right of access and to refuse others that access.

It is why equestrians are permitted on most trails. Bikers are
Johnny come latelies. They are interlopers and disrupt what has been the
traditional uses of trails. Bikers have no more right to trails than do
motorcyclists. The fact that you think they do marks you for the scoundrel that
you are.

More ad-hominem and fact-free bile. People have a right to the trails provided that they are used prudently and protected for future generations, other users and managed environmentally sensitively.

Change is a constant; things that we used to think were fine we now eschew and new things become accepted. Perhaps you've become too old and set in your ways to appreciate that ?

I will see your point of view better when you admit motorcycles and all terrain vehicles to the trails also. The fact is that you are unable to make any distinctions that make any sense. Just because you can ride a bike on a trail does not mean you have a right to do it. It’s not my fault that the land managers are nincompoops and near idiots, besides being cowards.

You like to ponder the meanings of words. Why not spend some
time on the words “incompatible use”. That is what bikes are to hikers on
trails.

If it's always incompatible how come shared use works fine where I live ?

Do you ever talk to any hikers or do you just talk to your fellow scum bucket bikers? Shared use is an abomination if it scares hikers away from trails. **** you and your shared use! Get your own g.d. trails! Better yet, use the roads which are designed for wheels.

We hikers HATE bikers on our sacred trails! Trails are for
walkers. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

We riders are a nicer bunch; we're happy to share with hikers and equestrians and don't find our enjoyment is spoiled by those enjoying the trail in a different manner. Being, in the main, younger and fitter we're quite capable of walking but prefer the experience of riding a bike.

You can experience riding your bike on the zillions of miles of roads and streets that exist in the world. That is what they are there for. Trails are not for the likes of you – unless you want to walk them like everybody else.

Trails are for walkers. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


Hey there St. Dolittle, why are you spending all this time indoors
pecking away on your computer. Why aren't you out in the great
outdoors protecting your glorious trails from the fiendish cyclists?

Oh well, I suppose it is just the way things are these days. All noise
but no action.

St. Edward Dolittle, the loud mouth and the feeble acts.
--
Cheers,

John B.

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:42:01 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

But it's fine as a playground for hikers ? If you are
prepared to permit RECREATIONAL use, which you did earlier in the thread, then
you have already conceded the key point.

There are all kinds of recreations, most of which are
incompatible with other recreations. It is why every sport has its own playing
field. The way you play with words marks you as a tiresome fool.

Nice change of tack. You decry riders on trails because it's a recreational use. Now, when the inconsistency of your position is highlighted you say that it's not that it's recreation, it's that it is incompatible. This, despite that fact that I've produced many examples where shared use works fine.

One thing a trail is not is a recreation for cyclists ... anymore than it is a recreation for motorcyclists. All recreations are not created equal.

Your “politeness� is nothing but a cover–up for the ultimate
rudeness – riding your bike on a hiking trail. Like every cry baby that ever
was, you want to do what you want to do and to hell with others who say that it
conflicts with what they want to do – and have been doing long before you born.
The only determinative fact here is that you are a born yesterday
idiot!

Ed, it does not conflict with what you want to do. No-one is suggesting that you stop hiking, simply that you accept that others have a valid right to share the same resource. The only one being a cry baby is you ... "They're MY trails, I was here first and I'm not sharing" !

But it IS a conflict. Until you recognize that, we are never going to get anywhere. Someone riding a motorcycle on a trail would also be a conflict – as even you recognized. Just enlarge your vision.

Mr. Vandeman is constantly sending reports about the kind of conflicts that regularly occur. But all you are ever reading is mountain biker propaganda.

Just being on a bike on a hiking trail is rude and shows a
complete lack of consideration for others. The “legalities� of what you do will
have to be changed. Mr. Vandeman is working on that. In the meantime, I treat
you and your ilk the way you deserve to be treated – with the same lack of
consideration that you show to others.

Well, actually, I show due consideration to others on the trail ... I don't inconvenience them and they don't inconvenience me. There's not much I can do about absolutists who have simply decided they don't want to see bikes there.

You'll just have to learn to live with it I guess, unless Vandeman suddenly becomes massively more successful in his campaign than he has been in the last 20 years.

We hikers will NEVER live with it. We will resent and hate you for what you are doing to an increasingly precious resource. The main thing we have to do is educate land managers, many of whom are nincompoops and near idiots – beside being cowards for caving to mountain biker bullies.

As ever, Ed, I have to point out that they're not yours and they
never were. Buy your own land and decide what to do with it ... no
complaints. Don't try and annexe public resources.

As usual, you trip on words. “Public� does not mean that
everyone can do whatever they want.

Who said that everyone could do whatever they wanted ? Not me. I simply pointed out that they are definitely NOT yours.

Cyclists are not even the ball park when it comes to who owns the trails ... anymore than motorcyclists are.

An assertion without facts ... particularly since most of them
were generated by pack animals in the first instance. You didn't make the
trails, you don't own the trails and yet you feel as if you have some privileged
right of access and to refuse others that access.

It is why equestrians are permitted on most trails. Bikers are
Johnny come latelies. They are interlopers and disrupt what has been the
traditional uses of trails. Bikers have no more right to trails than do
motorcyclists. The fact that you think they do marks you for the scoundrel that
you are.

More ad-hominem and fact-free bile. People have a right to the trails provided that they are used prudently and protected for future generations, other users and managed environmentally sensitively.

Change is a constant; things that we used to think were fine we now eschew and new things become accepted. Perhaps you've become too old and set in your ways to appreciate that ?

I will see your point of view better when you admit motorcycles and all terrain vehicles to the trails also. The fact is that you are unable to make any distinctions that make any sense. Just because you can ride a bike on a trail does not mean you have a right to do it. It’s not my fault that the land managers are nincompoops and near idiots, besides being cowards.

You like to ponder the meanings of words. Why not spend some
time on the words “incompatible use�. That is what bikes are to hikers on
trails.

If it's always incompatible how come shared use works fine where I live ?

Do you ever talk to any hikers or do you just talk to your fellow scum bucket bikers? Shared use is an abomination if it scares hikers away from trails. **** you and your shared use! Get your own g.d. trails! Better yet, use the roads which are designed for wheels.

We hikers HATE bikers on our sacred trails! Trails are for
walkers. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

We riders are a nicer bunch; we're happy to share with hikers and equestrians and don't find our enjoyment is spoiled by those enjoying the trail in a different manner. Being, in the main, younger and fitter we're quite capable of walking but prefer the experience of riding a bike.

You can experience riding your bike on the zillions of miles of roads and streets that exist in the world. That is what they are there for. Trails are not for the likes of you – unless you want to walk them like everybody else.

Trails are for walkers. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

Hey there St. Dolittle, why are you spending all this time indoors
pecking away on your computer. Why aren't you out in the great
outdoors protecting your glorious trails from the fiendish cyclists?

Oh well, I suppose it is just the way things are these days. All noise
but no action.

St. Edward Dolittle, the loud mouth and the feeble acts.

You are a flatulent hippopotamus, that and nothing more! But thanks for repeating my entire post. That way many who have kill filed me will read my words of wisdom which they would otherwise miss to their everlasting sorrow.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

Nice change of tack.* You decry riders on trails because it's
a recreational use.* Now, when the inconsistency of your position is
highlighted you say that it's not that it's recreation, it's that it is
incompatible.* This, despite that fact that I've produced many examples
where shared use works fine.

One thing a trail is not is a recreation for cyclists ...
anymore than it is a recreation for motorcyclists. All recreations are not
created equal.

No, they are not. But cycling and hiking are very similar in their impacts whereas motorcycling is not. Hence the former two should be permitted more widely and the latter restricted. Do apply some logic.

Ed, it does not conflict with what you want to do.* No-one is
suggesting that you stop hiking, simply that you accept that others have a valid
right to share the same resource.* The only one being a cry baby is you ...
"They're MY trails, I was here first and I'm not sharing" !

But it IS a conflict. Until you recognize that, we are never
going to get anywhere.

Axiomatically, no, it's not a conflict. A conflict can only exist between people.

The majority of hikers and bikers get on fine without conflict so, clearly, there is no need for there to be conflict.

That YOU find it conflicting is YOUR problem.

Someone riding a motorcycle on a trail would also be a
conflict – as even you recognized. Just enlarge your vision.

I didn't say it would be 'a conflict', I said it should be restricted because of impact on other users and the environment. That's not the same.

Mr. Vandeman is constantly sending reports about the kind of
conflicts that regularly occur. But all you are ever reading is mountain biker
propaganda.

No, Vandeman, who is still active on alt.mountain-bike, very rarely posts anything about conflicts. I've not seen one thread on that topic in the last few months. He posts gleefully about injuries.

You stated that there were frequent collisions in a specific locale yet, when asked to provide some proof, funnily enough you didn't have any.

Is this ringing any bells yet ? YOU are the one perceiving the conflict .... and probably only you and a small handful of zealots. The vast majority of cyclists and hikers get along just fine.

You'll just have to learn to live with it I guess, unless Vandeman
suddenly becomes massively more successful in his campaign than he has been in
the last 20 years.

We hikers will NEVER live with it. We will resent and hate you
for what you are doing to an increasingly precious resource. The main thing we
have to do is educate land managers, many of whom are nincompoops and near
idiots – beside being cowards for caving to mountain biker bullies.

There is no 'we hikers' Ed ... who is backing you up here ? Vandeman ? That's it.

You might hate and resent it, the vast majority don't care one whit.

Who said that everyone could do whatever they wanted ?* Not
me.* I simply pointed out that they are definitely NOT yours.

Cyclists are not even the ball park when it comes to who owns
the trails ... anymore than motorcyclists are.

The people own the trails; the use thereof is a separate matter.

Change is a constant; things that we used to think were fine we
now eschew and new things become accepted.* Perhaps you've become too old
and set in your ways to appreciate that ?

I will see your point of view better when you admit
motorcycles and all terrain vehicles to the trails also.

Fine, then you might be able to see it now. SOME, emphasis on the SOME, access for motorcycles and ATVs is justified. But, very restricted because of the impacts on other users and on the environment.

The fact is that you
are unable to make any distinctions that make any sense. Just because you can
ride a bike on a trail does not mean you have a right to do it. It’s not my
fault that the land managers are nincompoops and near idiots, besides being
cowards.

Ed, my distinctions are based on quantifiable differences. Not, like yours, simply on your perceptions as to what is aesthetic and right. Weight, power, noise and speed; all orders of magnitude different for a motorcycle and all within pretty close proximity for hikers and bikers.

If it's always incompatible how come shared use works fine where I
live ?

Do you ever talk to any hikers or do you just talk to your
fellow scum bucket bikers?

Yes, Ed, I do. If you were paying attention then you might remember that I mentioned that I also hike. That's why I can say, at least based on my experience, that there is no conflict ... at least where I live.

You are looking for others to share your perception; they don't.

That being the case, you might want to at least consider the possibility that the problem lies with you.

Shared use is an abomination if it scares hikers away
from trails. **** you and your shared use! Get your own g.d. trails! Better yet,
use the roads which are designed for wheels.

And does it Ed ? I don't think so.

You can experience riding your bike on the zillions of miles
of roads and streets that exist in the world. That is what they are there for.
Trails are not for the likes of you – unless you want to walk them like
everybody else.

So you say ... but since you can't backup your assertions with anything other than your own, somewhat extreme, views I think that, for the moment, I will continue to ignore your proscription and ride where I am legally permitted.

I would suggest, again, that your life would be rather more enjoyable if you just went out and enjoyed the trails and permitted others to do so too.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Nice change of tack. You decry riders on trails because it's
a recreational use. Now, when the inconsistency of your position is
highlighted you say that it's not that it's recreation, it's that it is
incompatible. This, despite that fact that I've produced many examples
where shared use works fine.

One thing a trail is not is a recreation for cyclists ...
anymore than it is a recreation for motorcyclists. All recreations are not
created equal.

No, they are not. But cycling and hiking are very similar in their impacts whereas motorcycling is not. Hence the former two should be permitted more widely and the latter restricted. Do apply some logic.

Cycling and motorcycling on a hiking trail are not that dissimilar. They have more in common than do cycling and hiking. What do they have in common you ask? Wheels! And those wheels put you in a different universe than walking.

Ed, it does not conflict with what you want to do. No-one is
suggesting that you stop hiking, simply that you accept that others have a valid
right to share the same resource. The only one being a cry baby is you ...
"They're MY trails, I was here first and I'm not sharing" !

But it IS a conflict. Until you recognize that, we are never
going to get anywhere.

Axiomatically, no, it's not a conflict. A conflict can only exist between people.

Conflicts can exist between any two things that people do. You are a word dumb idiot!

The majority of hikers and bikers get on fine without conflict so, clearly, there is no need for there to be conflict.

Sez you, NOT me!

That YOU find it conflicting is YOUR problem.

You will find it your problem some day when a hiker whips your dumb ass for being on a trail on a bike.

Someone riding a motorcycle on a trail would also be a
conflict – as even you recognized. Just enlarge your vision.

I didn't say it would be 'a conflict', I said it should be restricted because of impact on other users and the environment. That's not the same.

Whether you say it or not, it clearly would be a conflict for any number of reasons. Are you really this stupid or are you just pretending to be stupid?

Mr. Vandeman is constantly sending reports about the kind of
conflicts that regularly occur. But all you are ever reading is mountain biker
propaganda.

No, Vandeman, who is still active on alt.mountain-bike, very rarely posts anything about conflicts. I've not seen one thread on that topic in the last few months. He posts gleefully about injuries.

You stated that there were frequent collisions in a specific locale yet, when asked to provide some proof, funnily enough you didn't have any.

Is this ringing any bells yet ? YOU are the one perceiving the conflict ... and probably only you and a small handful of zealots. The vast majority of cyclists and hikers get along just fine.

Mr. Vandeman’s posts are all about conflicts. His reasons for opposing bikes on trails is more general and far reaching than mine. I have zeroed in on the one thing that concerns me the most ... the conflicts (both physical and mental) between various trail users. Equestrians and hikers are being scared off the trails because of all the close calls that bikers like you cause. Bikers scare off other trail users. It is why I have nothing but contempt for the whole lot of you.

You'll just have to learn to live with it I guess, unless Vandeman
suddenly becomes massively more successful in his campaign than he has been in
the last 20 years.

We hikers will NEVER live with it. We will resent and hate you
for what you are doing to an increasingly precious resource. The main thing we
have to do is educate land managers, many of whom are nincompoops and near
idiots – beside being cowards for caving to mountain biker bullies.

There is no 'we hikers' Ed ... who is backing you up here ? Vandeman ? That's it.

You might hate and resent it, the vast majority don't care one whit.

This is what happens when you read nothing but biker propaganda. Your brain turns to mush.

Who said that everyone could do whatever they wanted ? Not
me. I simply pointed out that they are definitely NOT yours.

Cyclists are not even the ball park when it comes to who owns
the trails ... anymore than motorcyclists are.

The people own the trails; the use thereof is a separate matter.

Constituted authority manages the trails. The people only own anything in the abstract, never in the concrete reality. The land mangers who permit cyclists on trails will have to be reeducated, or else given the boot.

Change is a constant; things that we used to think were fine we
now eschew and new things become accepted. Perhaps you've become too old
and set in your ways to appreciate that ?

I will see your point of view better when you admit
motorcycles and all terrain vehicles to the trails also.

Fine, then you might be able to see it now. SOME, emphasis on the SOME, access for motorcycles and ATVs is justified. But, very restricted because of the impacts on other users and on the environment.

It is the impact on other users that is critical. That is what it is about with bicycles too. The reason you can’t see it is because you want to do what you want to do for your own selfish reasons. Please don’t ever talk to me about how considerate you are of other trail users. Just being on a trail with a bike is the ultimate rudeness.

The fact is that you
are unable to make any distinctions that make any sense. Just because you can
ride a bike on a trail does not mean you have a right to do it. It’s not my
fault that the land managers are nincompoops and near idiots, besides being
cowards.

Ed, my distinctions are based on quantifiable differences. Not, like yours, simply on your perceptions as to what is aesthetic and right. Weight, power, noise and speed; all orders of magnitude different for a motorcycle and all within pretty close proximity for hikers and bikers.

The order of magnitude is somewhat different, but bicycles and motorcycles have much in common when it comes to conflicts with hikers and equestrians.
I have the same objections to bicycles being on trails as you do for motorcycles being on trails - and pretty much for the same reasons too. Very odd that you can’t see this from my perspective.

By the way, the aesthetics and purpose for being on a trail far outweigh all other considerations. They are what determine your ‘right’ to be on a trail in the first place.

If it's always incompatible how come shared use works fine where I
live ?

Do you ever talk to any hikers or do you just talk to your
fellow scum bucket bikers?

Yes, Ed, I do. If you were paying attention then you might remember that I mentioned that I also hike. That's why I can say, at least based on my experience, that there is no conflict ... at least where I live.

There may be no conflict in your mind, but there is plenty of conflict in other people’s minds.

You are looking for others to share your perception; they don't.

Hikers do not like bikers on trails for multiple reasons. Nothing you can ever say is going to change that.

That being the case, you might want to at least consider the possibility that the problem lies with you.

Popular hiking trails are being ruined all over the US by bikers. Only very remote trails in the hinterlands are still unsullied by bikers.

Shared use is an abomination if it scares hikers away
from trails. **** you and your shared use! Get your own g.d. trails! Better yet,
use the roads which are designed for wheels.

And does it Ed ? I don't think so.

???

You can experience riding your bike on the zillions of miles
of roads and streets that exist in the world. That is what they are there for.
Trails are not for the likes of you – unless you want to walk them like
everybody else.

So you say ... but since you can't backup your assertions with anything other than your own, somewhat extreme, views I think that, for the moment, I will continue to ignore your proscription and ride where I am legally permitted.

I would suggest, again, that your life would be rather more enjoyable if you just went out and enjoyed the trails and permitted others to do so too.

It is not possible to enjoy a trail when you are in fear of a cyclist running you over. Once a few hikers and/or equestrians are killed by bikers, things will rapidly began to change about where cyclists can ride.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 13:07:18 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:42:01 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

But it's fine as a playground for hikers ? If you are
prepared to permit RECREATIONAL use, which you did earlier in the thread, then
you have already conceded the key point.

There are all kinds of recreations, most of which are
incompatible with other recreations. It is why every sport has its own playing
field. The way you play with words marks you as a tiresome fool.

Nice change of tack. You decry riders on trails because it's a recreational use. Now, when the inconsistency of your position is highlighted you say that it's not that it's recreation, it's that it is incompatible. This, despite that fact that I've produced many examples where shared use works fine.

One thing a trail is not is a recreation for cyclists ... anymore than it is a recreation for motorcyclists. All recreations are not created equal.

Your “politeness” is nothing but a cover–up for the ultimate
rudeness – riding your bike on a hiking trail. Like every cry baby that ever
was, you want to do what you want to do and to hell with others who say that it
conflicts with what they want to do – and have been doing long before you born.
The only determinative fact here is that you are a born yesterday
idiot!

Ed, it does not conflict with what you want to do. No-one is suggesting that you stop hiking, simply that you accept that others have a valid right to share the same resource. The only one being a cry baby is you ... "They're MY trails, I was here first and I'm not sharing" !

But it IS a conflict. Until you recognize that, we are never going to get anywhere. Someone riding a motorcycle on a trail would also be a conflict – as even you recognized. Just enlarge your vision.

Mr. Vandeman is constantly sending reports about the kind of conflicts that regularly occur. But all you are ever reading is mountain biker propaganda.

Just being on a bike on a hiking trail is rude and shows a
complete lack of consideration for others. The “legalities” of what you do will
have to be changed. Mr. Vandeman is working on that. In the meantime, I treat
you and your ilk the way you deserve to be treated – with the same lack of
consideration that you show to others.

Well, actually, I show due consideration to others on the trail ... I don't inconvenience them and they don't inconvenience me. There's not much I can do about absolutists who have simply decided they don't want to see bikes there.

You'll just have to learn to live with it I guess, unless Vandeman suddenly becomes massively more successful in his campaign than he has been in the last 20 years.

We hikers will NEVER live with it. We will resent and hate you for what you are doing to an increasingly precious resource. The main thing we have to do is educate land managers, many of whom are nincompoops and near idiots – beside being cowards for caving to mountain biker bullies.

As ever, Ed, I have to point out that they're not yours and they
never were. Buy your own land and decide what to do with it ... no
complaints. Don't try and annexe public resources.

As usual, you trip on words. “Public” does not mean that
everyone can do whatever they want.

Who said that everyone could do whatever they wanted ? Not me. I simply pointed out that they are definitely NOT yours.

Cyclists are not even the ball park when it comes to who owns the trails ... anymore than motorcyclists are.

An assertion without facts ... particularly since most of them
were generated by pack animals in the first instance. You didn't make the
trails, you don't own the trails and yet you feel as if you have some privileged
right of access and to refuse others that access.

It is why equestrians are permitted on most trails. Bikers are
Johnny come latelies. They are interlopers and disrupt what has been the
traditional uses of trails. Bikers have no more right to trails than do
motorcyclists. The fact that you think they do marks you for the scoundrel that
you are.

More ad-hominem and fact-free bile. People have a right to the trails provided that they are used prudently and protected for future generations, other users and managed environmentally sensitively.

Change is a constant; things that we used to think were fine we now eschew and new things become accepted. Perhaps you've become too old and set in your ways to appreciate that ?

I will see your point of view better when you admit motorcycles and all terrain vehicles to the trails also. The fact is that you are unable to make any distinctions that make any sense. Just because you can ride a bike on a trail does not mean you have a right to do it. It’s not my fault that the land managers are nincompoops and near idiots, besides being cowards.

You like to ponder the meanings of words. Why not spend some
time on the words “incompatible use”. That is what bikes are to hikers on
trails.

If it's always incompatible how come shared use works fine where I live ?

Do you ever talk to any hikers or do you just talk to your fellow scum bucket bikers? Shared use is an abomination if it scares hikers away from trails. **** you and your shared use! Get your own g.d. trails! Better yet, use the roads which are designed for wheels.

We hikers HATE bikers on our sacred trails! Trails are for
walkers. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

We riders are a nicer bunch; we're happy to share with hikers and equestrians and don't find our enjoyment is spoiled by those enjoying the trail in a different manner. Being, in the main, younger and fitter we're quite capable of walking but prefer the experience of riding a bike.

You can experience riding your bike on the zillions of miles of roads and streets that exist in the world. That is what they are there for. Trails are not for the likes of you – unless you want to walk them like everybody else.

Trails are for walkers. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

Hey there St. Dolittle, why are you spending all this time indoors
pecking away on your computer. Why aren't you out in the great
outdoors protecting your glorious trails from the fiendish cyclists?

Oh well, I suppose it is just the way things are these days. All noise
but no action.

St. Edward Dolittle, the loud mouth and the feeble acts.

You are a flatulent hippopotamus, that and nothing more! But thanks for repeating my entire post. That way many who have kill filed me will read my words of wisdom which they would otherwise miss to their everlasting sorrow.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


My God! You can't be insinuating that people actually dare to kill
file you and ignore your intelligent and timely pleas to stay off the
trails and thus preserve them for the few that spend a casual Sunday
strolling over a mile or so on a public trail and your efforts to deny
these, public, trails to all others.

Amazing!
--
Cheers,

John B.