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

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:59:20 -0700, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:22:32 -0700, cc wrote:


Edward Dolan wrote:

"cc" wrote in message ...


Edward Dolan wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news:jobb92doebg5qh5qj7k7j8tlpei5a5f4hr@4ax. com...
[...]



I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
be asked to give such a paper.


Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.


Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
polemic and do something USEFUL!!


I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.

Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.

You haven't a degree, which
you already admitted. And no,
working as a librarian does
NOT count.

I do have a research degree,
but it doesn't matter.


Right. It also takes honesty, which is sorely lacking among mountain
bikers.


Mike, I am stating my opinion.
My interpretation of the
facts. I am being honest, and
I think you are wrong. Get
it straight, idiot. At least
when I state my OPINION I am
clear about it. That is a
requisite of science.
Something which you clearly
know nothing about.

That last sentence is an ASSERTION OF FACT that is FALSE. That is
known as a "lie". You didn't say it was an opinion. So, no, you are
NOT honest, nor do you know anything about science.

What did they teach you in
school Mike? How to write your
name? It certainly wasn't how
to do research or interpret
data . . . ever heard of the
"scientific method" ?
===
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 Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:59:20 -0700, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:22:32 -0700, cc wrote:



Edward Dolan wrote:


"cc" wrote in message ...



Edward Dolan wrote:



"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news:jobb92doebg5qh5qj7k7j8tlpei5a5f4hr@4ax .com...
[...]




I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
be asked to give such a paper.


Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.


Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
polemic and do something USEFUL!!


I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.

Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.

You haven't a degree, which
you already admitted. And no,
working as a librarian does
NOT count.

I do have a research degree,
but it doesn't matter.


Right. It also takes honesty, which is sorely lacking among mountain
bikers.


Mike, I am stating my opinion.
My interpretation of the
facts. I am being honest, and
I think you are wrong. Get
it straight, idiot. At least
when I state my OPINION I am
clear about it. That is a
requisite of science.
Something which you clearly
know nothing about.

Bah . . that is clearly an
opinion based on the data of
your inane conversation, which
are strong, as it happens.
You're grasping at straws.



That last sentence is an ASSERTION OF FACT that is FALSE. That is
known as a "lie". You didn't say it was an opinion. So, no, you are
NOT honest, nor do you know anything about science.


What did they teach you in
school Mike? How to write your
name? It certainly wasn't how
to do research or interpret
data . . . ever heard of the
"scientific method" ?

===
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 in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:55:35 -0700, SMS
wrote:

S Curtiss wrote:

At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
"experience" that is his determining factor.

Yes, it's refreshing to see some honesty about that. I think that many
hikers would agree that they don't like the disruption of their
experience. Still, it's a mistake to believe that mountain bikers don't
also like the "experience" of solitude.

You have to sidestep that and
try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
information
and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure.

Yes, I think that's why MV always loses these arguments. He's trying to
base his dislike of mountain bikes on something other than the
disruption of his hiking enjoyment.

Since every study has shown that mountain bikers don't disrupt wildlife,
or cause more trail damage, than hikers, he'd be well advised to at
least be honest enough to take the same approach as Dolan in his
arguments against mountain bikes.

I AM being honest. That's exactly what drives mountain bikers so
crazy! They can't believe that anyone could be less selfish than they
are!
What drives us is your constant insistence that your OPINIONS are fact, that
your view of environmental protection or access is the ONLY viewpoint
possible and that you inflate the importance of your OPINIONS by referencing
yourself and some conferences that allowed you 15 minutes to read your
statements. We continue to band together nationwide with other groups and
organizations to cooperate on access, stewardship and voice against total
destruction of the areas we enjoy from sprawl and construction. Your
OPINIONS of the activity (off-road cycling) is not a filter to determine the
mental state of anyone involved in that activity.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:41:01 -0700, SMS
wrote:

S Curtiss wrote:

I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into
fun
and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground.
We
hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little
grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know
about
you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it.

You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain
bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a
vote to
elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to
portray
all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives as
you.

At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large
groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when
the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've
been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude.

Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four
people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to
mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers tend
to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other to
engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding without
talking.

There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are prohibited,

It SOUNDS good, but I have never been on a hiking trail that didn't
have mountain bike tracks on it from illegal mountain biking. And, no,
it is NOT just A FEW bad apples. There are plenty to go around....

What an easy and meaningless comment! Especially since you consider ALL
mountain biking to be illegal! Your OPINION is not a filter in determining
the legality of cyclists' access.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:59:20 -0700, cc wrote:

Mike, I am stating my opinion.
My interpretation of the
facts. I am being honest, and
I think you are wrong. Get
it straight, idiot. At least
when I state my OPINION I am
clear about it. That is a
requisite of science.
Something which you clearly
know nothing about.

That last sentence is an ASSERTION OF FACT that is FALSE. That is
known as a "lie". You didn't say it was an opinion. So, no, you are
NOT honest, nor do you know anything about science.

You mean the same "lie" that you use to reference the knowledge or
comrehension skills of the "average mountain biker"? Why can you make a
blanket statement about someone's credentials, but someone else can not make
that same statement concerning you? Your "PhD" does not give you some sort
of license on knowledge or information. Hell - Its not even in the field you
claim to be an "expert" in! Your OPINION that you are an "expert" is not a
filter to determine the validity of anyone else's opinions or statements.

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news:9UAlg.6673$FR1.6123@dukeread05...

[newswgroups trimmed]

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news:O7ydnesHu7fefQnZnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...

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.

So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and mysticism
and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in many places
without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared use areas may
have cyclists. Choose your environment.

My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and
hikers do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so
much to do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but
rather on the kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness.
"We" bring...? Don't you mean "you" bring. I've seen many trails... Not
one has a voting booth to select you as a spokesman.

I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun
and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground.
We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little
grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about
you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it.

You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain
bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a vote
to elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to
portray all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives
as you. Nonsense.
Besides, I have a grasp on your motives and mentality, I just do not
accept that is the same for everyone who hikes.

Curtiss, I would like you and Vandeman to trim the following newsgroups from
your posts:

rec.bicycles.misc, alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent

All you need do is just delete the above groups from the headers of your
posts. It is very simple to do and only takes a second.

It is now apparent to me that we there is no one on the above two groups who
are interested in the slightest with your ongoing war. I will continue to
monitor rec.bicycles.soc and that group along with alt.mountain-bike go
together. I will NOT however monitor alt.mountain-bike because I consider
everyone there to be an idiot. However, I will see your posts and Vandeman's
posts on rec.bicycles.soc and can respond from that group if I so choose.
The important thing is to eliminate rec.bicycles.misc and
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent from your posts.

Regards,

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

"Edward Dolan" wrote in
:


"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news:9UAlg.6673$FR1.6123@dukeread05...

[newswgroups trimmed]

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news:O7ydnesHu7fefQnZnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...

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.

So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and
mysticism and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in
many places without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared
use areas may have cyclists. Choose your environment.

My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and
hikers do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not
have so much to do with impacts on the trail itself or even on
wildlife, but rather on the kind of attitudes we bring to nature and
to wilderness.
"We" bring...? Don't you mean "you" bring. I've seen many trails...
Not one has a voting booth to select you as a spokesman.

I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into
fun and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a
playground. We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that
you have so little grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will
ever have to know about you. I called you soulless once before and I
meant it.

You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for
"mountain bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not
recall a vote to elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself.
You are trying to portray all persons who take a walk in the woods to
have the same motives as you. Nonsense.
Besides, I have a grasp on your motives and mentality, I just do not
accept that is the same for everyone who hikes.

Curtiss, I would like you and Vandeman to trim the following
newsgroups from your posts:

rec.bicycles.misc, alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent

All you need do is just delete the above groups from the headers of
your posts. It is very simple to do and only takes a second.

It is now apparent to me that we there is no one on the above two
groups who are interested in the slightest with your ongoing war. I
will continue to monitor rec.bicycles.soc and that group along with
alt.mountain-bike go together. I will NOT however monitor
alt.mountain-bike because I consider everyone there to be an idiot.



We all feel you are an idiot, but yet we still continue to post to you.





However, I will see your posts and Vandeman's posts on
rec.bicycles.soc and can respond from that group if I so choose. The
important thing is to eliminate rec.bicycles.misc and
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent from your posts.

Regards,

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





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Chris Foster" wrote in message
05.47...

[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

Curtiss [and others], I would like you and Vandeman to trim the following
newsgroups from your posts:

rec.bicycles.misc, alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent

All you need do is just delete the above groups from the headers of
your posts. It is very simple to do and only takes a second.

It is now apparent to me that we there is no one on the above two
groups who are interested in the slightest with your ongoing war. I
will continue to monitor rec.bicycles.soc and that group along with
alt.mountain-bike go together. I will NOT however monitor
alt.mountain-bike because I consider everyone there to be an idiot.

We all feel you are an idiot, but yet we still continue to post to you.

These mountain bike threads can continue to be posted to RBS where we can
see them and reply to them if we so choose.

My main newsgroup will be ARBR and to a much lesser degree RBS and RBM.
However, these threads having to do with mountain bikes on hiking trails
should no longer be posted to ARBR and RBM as there is no one on these two
groups that is interested in the subject and consequently those threads are
not wanted.

By the way, everyone in the entire world knows that Ed Dolan the Great is
not an idiot, but it is lots of fun for him to pretend to be an idiot from
time to time. He does this for the amusement and edification of all the real
idiots who infest these newsgroups like the pox.

Regards,

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


However, I will see your posts and Vandeman's posts on
rec.bicycles.soc and can respond from that group if I so choose. The
important thing is to eliminate rec.bicycles.misc and
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent from your posts.

On 20 Jun 2006 15:06:41 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:41:01 -0700, SMS
wrote:

S Curtiss wrote:

I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are
into fun and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is
a playground. We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that
you have so little grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will
ever have to know about you. I called you soulless once before and
I meant it.

You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for
"mountain bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do
not recall a vote to elect you as a spokesman for anyone but
yourself. You are trying to portray all persons who take a walk in
the woods to have the same motives as you.

At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large
groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when
the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've
been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude.

Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four
people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to
mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers
tend to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other
to engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding
without talking.

There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are
prohibited,

It SOUNDS good, but I have never been on a hiking trail that didn't
have mountain bike tracks on it from illegal mountain biking. And, no,
it is NOT just A FEW bad apples. There are plenty to go around....


I have, plenty of them. I have NEVER seen mountain bike tracks in RMNP.

Good.

but rarely will you find solitude until you're very far from the trail
head.
===
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
===
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

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news:9UAlg.6673$FR1.6123@dukeread05...

[newswgroups trimmed]

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news:O7ydnesHu7fefQnZnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...

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.

So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and mysticism
and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in many places
without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared use areas may
have cyclists. Choose your environment.

My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and
hikers do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have
so much to do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but
rather on the kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness.
"We" bring...? Don't you mean "you" bring. I've seen many trails... Not
one has a voting booth to select you as a spokesman.

I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun
and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground.
We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little
grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about
you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it.

You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain
bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a vote
to elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to
portray all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives
as you. Nonsense.
Besides, I have a grasp on your motives and mentality, I just do not
accept that is the same for everyone who hikes.

Curtiss, I would like you and Vandeman to trim the following newsgroups
from your posts:
WTF... Why did you add them in the first place? I never did... I hit
reply and send. If you want to change usenet and broaden discussion, then
say something interesting! But do NOT come to me to fix your blunder. I read
your silly apologetic drivel about making ARBR more lively... You were
surprised about the focused interest in the NGs? Why do you thing they have
different titles? Hanging with Vandeman has dumbed you down, dude!

rec.bicycles.misc, alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent

All you need do is just delete the above groups from the headers of your
posts. It is very simple to do and only takes a second.


It is now apparent to me that we there is no one on the above two groups
who are interested in the slightest with your ongoing war. I will continue
to monitor rec.bicycles.soc and that group along with alt.mountain-bike go
together. I will NOT however monitor alt.mountain-bike because I consider
everyone there to be an idiot.
....that was, however, smart enough to not post mountain bike topics to ARBR

However, I will see your posts and Vandeman's
posts on rec.bicycles.soc and can respond from that group if I so choose.
The important thing is to eliminate rec.bicycles.misc and
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent from your posts.
Have at it. You made the mess - You clean it up. And I'll enjoy watching the
"not so great" Conan the Librarian push the broom.