A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Real Names vs. User Names

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 23rd 06, 09:00 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.soc
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default Real Names vs. User Names

"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message

[newsgroups restored]

Obviously, netiquette is not your forte.

You were impolite, so I was impolite back.

Impolite by trimming the huge x-post? That's a very strange definition
of "impolite".

I am not trimming anything, you are.

That's right, because excessive x-posting is *impolite*. Get it?

Just make sure you post to ARBR because that is where I am at. Also, I am
trying to save that group from dying on its' feet. That is why I import
posts from other newsgroups to ARBR, provided the subject is not too far

You do your original posts the
way you want to do them and I will to mine the way I want to do them.

Once you post in a public forum, anything goes. Unless you think this
is *your* usenet. LOL.

I have learned how to change the newsgroups too, so in the end your messages
to me will get read by the newsgroups I choose - which is all that matters
to me.

Surely that is fair.

Nope. Two wrongs don't make a right (even assuming that eliminating
the massive x-post is impolite.)

So, what netiquette were you talking about in the first place?

Look it up. DAGS on "crossposting" and do another on "full quoting".
Both are frowned upon, for the reasons given.

Yes, I agree by and large, but I am making an exception in the here and now
for the reason stated above.

That and your idiotic full-quoting. You're the last person who should
be making politeness determinations.

I am a gentleman and a scholar

The evidence so far suggests that you are neither.

We both know that is untrue, so why say it.

unlike every mountain biker who has ever

Another sweeping mischaracterization that renders the rest of your
opinions suspect.

Full-quoting is the only way to do things.

No. Threaded readers can give context if needed. If not, then
restoring context where it may have been inappropriately deleted is a

No one, but no one, will ever do what you suggest. It has to be right in
front of you or it is lost forever.

For all your claimed scholarship, you don't know very much about

I only know what I have learned in 3 years of having to deal with the
idiots, morons and imbeciles of Usenet. Are there any other types on Usenet?

That is unfortunately true, but I go back to when those trails were
built - over a hundred years ago in many instances.

"Built"? You're kidding, right? Many of the trails, and even roadways
we use, started as *game trails*. They weren't built, they were
co-opted by human hikers.

But you make my point for me better than I could myself. We humans are
nothing but animals ourselves.

You may be, but I am certainly not. "Game trails" refer specifically
to the kind of animals that regularly make and use those trails, your
pedantic obfuscation aside.

Humans make those same kind of trails exactly, unless engaged in

I have ridden game trails on private property that have only very
rarely seen a human, and those trails were perfect for riding.

Unless those original
trails have been upgraded, they are not suited for bikes.

How strange, then, that I can ride on game trails all day long. How is
that possible?

Only in certain types of terrain. Most trails will present an obstacle
coarse for bikes.

Actually, they don't. Game trails are smooth, with few obstacles and
no step transitions. Are you sure you've ever seen a real trail?

They can only be navigated with difficulty at best.

You're full of it. Every trail I've ever hiked, except some of the
purpose-built ones at national parks, have been suitable for bikers of
most skill levels.

Now we see why Vandeman rightly calls all mountain bikers LIARS!

In fact, I can ride on trails *too narrow* for comfortable walking. So
your unique definition of "trails suitable for biking" or "walking" is
questionable, at best.

It is not just a question of can you do it, but it is more a question of
should you do it.

A value judgement that I do not concede to the likes of you. But it
doesn't answer the question, does it?

It is the one and only real question that needs to be considered. Whether or
not to ride a bike on a hiking trail is nothing but a value judgement.
Unfortunately your sense of values is out to lunch along with the rest of

You are not experiencing nature at all when you are bent
on running an obstacle course.

Except the vast majority of cases where I'm actually on a trail, and
it's not any kind of obstacle course, but a path through the woods (or
desert, in some cases.) There are no obstacles, just smooth dirt, the
occasional root and rock, or a downed tree (for which I dismount and
climb over.)

As long as such trails do not permit bikes in wilderness areas, I can live
with them. But it would be better to walk all such trails in order to get in
tune with nature and your inner self. Do you not have a soul?

Funny, I smell the forest, hear the birds, and see the trees just fine.
Maybe you don't actually know anything about MTBing, hmm?

You would experince all of the above a hundred times better walking like a
human being instead of behaving like a circus clown on a bike.

Since you will unable to curtail those uses, you should find a way
get used to them.

It is very hard to get used to mountain bikers on hiking trails since
totally different mental attitudes are involved.

This is a strawman argument. And one made with absolutely no real
knowledge. You have no idea what "attitude" MTBers bring with them on
the trail.

It is easy as pie to see what their mental attitudes are from the way

Except you don't ever see them, do you?

And you've never seen *me* ride, so your generalization fails.

Mountain bikers are into
fun and games and hikers are into making pilgrimages to find Truth and

Neither of those characterizations is even close to being true for the
majority of the persons in the groups you mention.

You should really check the hypocrisy meter before you call other
people "liars".

I am going to follow Vandeman's lead on this question of honesty as he
seems to have had a world of experience with mountain bikers.

The only experience he has is via usenet. He baits them with
inflammatory language, then uses the responses as "proof" of his
preconcieved notions. At best, it's selection of stories to fit
conclusions already-reached - junk science.

What little I have read of Vandeman leads me to just the opposite conclusion
as yours. He seems to have a genuine feeling for preserving wildlife and
their habitat. Don't you? I think he has also had plenty of experience of
mountain bikers, as have I. Yes, some are responsible but very many are not.
But the bottom line is that neither he nor I like to have bikes on our
footpaths. They simply do not belong there. We go to wilderness to get away
from man and his machines, not to encounter them there.

When I go
hiking in the mountains, I make it a point to only hike in those areas in
which mountain bikers are prohibited.

Thus, you have no first-hand knowledge. Scholar, indeed. LOL.

You encounter mountain bikers while hiking on your way to the wilderness.
And you encounter the same slobs as you hike out of the wilderness. By the

The National Parks already are very restricted, and I'm not sure
there's much of a problem with this, from any quarter. But don't
imagine that somehow this will keep them pristine - if you've ever
hiked in Arches NP, you'll see that foot traffic only has made trails
over 10 feet wide in places - and that's a huge swath in terms of a
fragile ecosystem.

Yes, I recognize that there are plenty of slob hikers too. I blame the
National Park managers for not getting a better handle on managing the

Then I suggest, since there are about ten times more himers than
MTBers, that you focus your attention where the most good will be done.

Now we see why Vandeman rightly calls all mountain bikers LIARS!

The only trails I have ever seen that are unsuitable for mountain

were also not suitable for casual walkers. They were boulder field
scrambles, or small slot canyons where bikes just wouldn't fit.

And they weren't at very high altitudes.

The trails MOST suitable for MTBers are the higher-altitude trails
CO and UT.

So much for your blanket statement, eh?

Vandeman is right. Mountain bikers are the scum of the earth!

Of course, you don't like being overmastered by a superior intellect.
It's human nature. But name-calling will not change the fact that your
mistaken impression of what constitutes a superior biking trail is at
odds with what is actually a superior biking trail.

I have never seen a trail at high altitude that was suitable for bikes.

Then you've never been to Utah or Colorado. QED.

I spent over 10 years hiking those high altitude trails.

I don't believe you.

"I have never seen a trail at high altitude that was suitable for bikes." -
Ed Dolan

All wilderness areas and pristine natural areas will be forever closed
bikers. Vandeman and I will see to that.

No, you won't. Neither one of you has any sort of power to do that.
He doesn't have the intellectual capacity, and you don't understand how
politics works. But if you wish to imagine otherwise, OK by me. I'll
keep riding my bike in ever-expanding legal areas.

Ever hear of the Sierra Club?

Where Mike was kicked out as a leader, and banned from ever holding
leadership positions?

The one that has come to recognize that bicycles are acceptable in
wilderness settings? That Sierra Club?

Nope, never heard of them.

Me neither!

There are hundreds of environmental groups
working to keep bikes where they belong, on the roads.

Which hasn't done them any good, because MORE areas are being opened to
bikes, not less. Tough luck for you.

The pendulum swings you know, and it is destined to swing the other way
eventually (thanks to Vandeman) as we become ever more crowded for space to
get away from it all. Bikes will be increasingly banned from footpaths in
the future because of slob bikers. They are their own worst enemies.

In the end, it will
be scientists like Vandeman that will prevail because politicians come
go, but the science stays forever.

LOL. Vandeman is to science as Albert Einstein is to restrained
hairstyle. His brand of junk science is repudiated by real scientists.
Just look for any of his nature-related papers to be published in a
peer-reviewed journal. Go ahead and find one. I dare you.

Vandeman and I do not like bikes on footpaths. Get your own g.d. trails. So
what else is new?

May you perish for your blasphemy against the

LOL. Your threat is duly noted.

I want a bolt of lightning to strike you dead when you are on your bike
the wilderness.

I don't MTB during thunderstorms, so good luck with that wish. LOL.

Surely you
realize yourself that you would be better off dead than trespassing in my
sacred wilderness on your confounded bike.

Surely you realize you're an idiot for thinking it actually belongs to
you alone.

The wilderness belongs to hikers alone. I would like to see all equestrians
banned from trails used by hikers as well, but maybe that is hoping for too

Most trails ... are easily
destroyed by bikes.

Another unsupported assertion. Do you envirowackos know anything

Here we see an idiot trying to equate trails with roads.

Well, since I didn't do that, here we have another strawman. When
you're losing an argument, invent one for your opponent!

Nope, you were trying to equate trails with roads. Go back and read what
have previously written.

I have. Nowhere did I say they were the same thing. You do know what
the word "equate" means, right?

You started off by saying that a trail is like a road, only not so wide. A
trail is nothing like a road. End of discussion!

The public lands have to be managed so as not to create a lot of
among users.

Sure. That doesn't include excluding a group of users because *you
personally* don't like them. Most people get over that by the
grade. What's your excuse?

Go to a dictionary and look up the world 'conflict'.

Claiming conflict exists just because you wish to manufacture it does
not mean the land managers have to manage your preferences.

Bikes are banned from innumerable trails because of recognized conflicts.

The conflict exists solely within you. Get over yourself.

We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical

There are no physical conflicts, any more than there would be if it
were hikers using the trails in opposite directions. The "mental"
conflicts you claim exist only in your mind, and are thus not only
invalid, but hilarious.

"Go to a dictionary and look up the world 'conflict'." - Ed Dolan

"The conflict exists solely within you. Get over yourself." - E.P.

"Bikes are banned from innumerable trails because of recognized
conflicts." - Ed Dolan

Or on any public lands not designated "Wilderness". But no, cutting
even more trails doesn't make any sense. Keeping human impact down
while still providing recreation should be the ultimate goal.

"We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical
mental." - Ed Dolan

"Dolan is an delusional wacko." - Ed Pirrero

Quoting your own opinion doesn't make it valid.

"Go to a dictionary and look up the world 'conflict'." - Ed Dolan

"The conflict exists solely within you. Get over yourself." - E.P.

"Bikes are banned from innumerable trails because of recognized
conflicts." - Ed Dolan

Wow, more usenet courage. I wish I could be such a tough guy behind
computer screen. The internet is great - you can be tough AND

You are not worthy of wilderness.

More of your inane opinion. Luckily, I'm not bound by your singular
opinion. In fact, I scoff at it. If you were directly in my presence,
I think we both know that you'd be a bit more circumspect in your

Au contraire! I would never speak to you at all since I regard you as
nothing but a barbarian, little better than a New Guinea savage.

Thus, you have proved my point. The only way you feel courageous
enough to actually spew your drivel is behind the safety of your

What a craven coward you are.

Yup! Nothing but a New Guinea savage! But aren't all mountain bikers!


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

Have fun pretending your efforts matter,


Ed Pirrero is into nothing but making threats.


I counted at least 2 of them
in his above message.

Cite them.

And in the last analysis, when all else fails, they make threats
to do you bodily harm.


You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and you can't make a
civilized human being out of a mountain biker.

If by "civilized" you mean "as acceptable to Ed Dolan", then I prefer
the opposite. Arrogant usenet cowards aren't worth anything.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Real Names vs. User Names Ed Pirrero Recumbent Biking 6 May 23rd 06 09:00 AM
NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names Edward Dolan General 0 May 18th 06 05:24 AM
Real Names vs. User Names CowPunk Mountain Biking 1 May 12th 06 08:13 AM
Real Names vs. User Names landotter General 0 May 11th 06 04:03 PM
Real Names vs. User Names Werehatrack General 0 May 11th 06 03:06 PM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.