Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

"EdwardDolan" wrote in message ...

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...
[...]

I suppose at least his [Ed Dolan the Great] outpourings are evidence of one thing:
Conditions in psychiatric hospitals must be considerably improved over
those that prevailed in past years, as now they appear to even have
internet access provided for the inmates.

There were some truly crazy folks on this newsgroup many years ago. In fact, a few of them were even dangerous. All kinds of shenanigans were being let loose. Whereas I, on the other hand, have always been a model of sanity and probity. Emulate My Greatness and you will never go wrong.

Humor aside, I would like to add some historical perspective to RBS and the other cycling newsgroups which were once so dominant on Usenet.

I got to posting to the cycling newsgroups because of a Mr. Tom Sherman. He was from Illinois at the time and was by far the most intelligent poster to all the cycling newsgroups. He was a civil engineer and was spot on with his technical posts. I never disputed with him on any of those. However, he was a total nut on political matters. The newsgroups at the time were dominated by liberals. It drove me crazy. Most cyclists I knew were not liberals, yet that was all I was seeing on the cycling newsgroups. I determined to bring some balance to the cycling newsgroups, and that is what I did with a vengeance.

I began by challenging him on his political posts and I think we went for the longest thread in Usenet history on the Iraq War. However, there was one other problem on Usenet at the time. Many were using it as a chat room. That is not what Usenet was for, so I went about eliminating them one by one. We ended up with a more spare newsgroup, but one that was anything but friendly. Rancor was the mode from then on.

The cycling newsgroups were destroyed because of a lack of moderators. In order to have a moderated newsgroup you have got to have moderators that are smarter than the posters. That never happened. There was a gradual deterioration and anyone with any intelligence dropped Usenet. We were left with nothing but trolls and idiots. I left the newsgroups also with many final farewells and much slamming of doors. Revulsion was the order of the day.

Now no one cares about newsgroups, It is why we are such a small group. However, I do appreciate any and all who are posting to RBS. I will be here for you until I depart this vale of tears in the not too distant future. I am here for just one purpose – fun and games. Anyone who is posting to Usenet for any other purpose is a fool.

Any of you who think I am a nut are badly mistaken. I have to leaven some humor into my posts in order to keep from becoming an ogre. Name calling will always result in nothing but more name calling. It is a futile tactic since I have now got the hide of a rhinoceros. It is best to post content because you will never win when it comes to name calling. I grew up in a household where when my father came into a room his first words were “God Damn It�. Think you can beat that?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:46:48 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 00:00:24 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
[...]

You might indeed be surprised who is reading these posts. After all, this is RBS which covers quite a compass of subjects.
[...]
Yes, I'm sure that there are literally "multitudes" of people who are
awaiting with baited breath for the illustrious Ed to open his mouth
and drop yet another pearl of wisdom.

At least in your imagination.

The rest of us likely a have a bit closer relationship with reality.

RBS has fallen on hard times as has all of Usenet. But you should have seen it in the olden days. There were hundreds of posts weekly from dozens of ever changing members. Newsgroups were once exciting places to be. But all un-moderated newsgroups were doomed from the get go. I said so at the time and I have been proven right. But then everything I say is always correct. You should listen more and blather less.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

And certainly you are correct. Why, your mere presence proves. A
mentally challenged nit-wit posting on the Internet? Preposterous!
--
Cheers,

John B.

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:46:48 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
[...]

RBS has fallen on hard times as has all of Usenet. But you should have seen it in the olden days. There were hundreds of posts weekly from dozens of ever changing members. Newsgroups were once exciting places to be. But all un-moderated newsgroups were doomed from the get go. I said so at the time and I have been proven right. But then everything I say is always correct. You should listen more and blather less.

And certainly you are correct. Why, your mere presence proves. A
mentally challenged nit-wit posting on the Internet? Preposterous!

Don‘t be so hard on yourself. After all, being terminally stupid is not a mortal sin.

Post content or get lost. What an Asshole!

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

There are thousands of folks in the hiking and equestrian
communities complaining about bikes on trails for a variety of reasons. Try to
get real if that is even remotely possible!

Where Ed ? How come, when surveys are actually completed, these thousands become a small handful ?

Why would a single death render the position untenable ?*
People fall over on the street and die, people fall down stairs and in showers
and die.* Funnily enough, we don’t ban pavements, stairs and showers.

There are still plenty of idiots who think that bicycles and
pedestrians are OK with one another, even on nature trails let alone sidewalks.

It works fine where I live and in most of the world.

A single death from a collision will wake up all the sleepy heads and the land
managers who don’t think it could ever happen. Some lawsuits may help clarify
matters also.

Why Ed ? This is a statement but there is no logic as to why this should be the case. Pedestrians and cyclists are frequently killed by motorists yet cars are not banned. We all accept that there is a reasonable degree of risk and, as a fatality from a biker/hiker collision is highly unlikely, it is not negligent to permit them both in the same place.

There are tons of reports from plenty of folks who are unhappy
at the way trails are being managed. It all depends on who you ask
apparently.

Do you really not understand the difference between frequenting email groups of like-minded individuals and doing a random sample of the people actually using a trail ? Unless you take a representative, random sample you can determine nothing as to the sentiments of the trail using population. Look it up, it's called confirmation bias.

The conclusions you presented were all cockeyed. I never read
reports where conclusions were as wrongheaded as yours were.

They weren't my conclusions, I merely referenced them. However, you are tackling the result of proper research without providing anything to actually tackle the conclusions beyond your belief system. I'm not trying to be insulting but, sorry, your opinion (and that's all it is) is not a basis for deciding anything.

How many external papers and backup data have I referenced in this
thread … go back and count them.* It’s not hard to do a survey.* Your
problem is you don’t like the results but that doesn’t invalidate the
approach.

Not applicable! Your so-called data only exists in your own mind.

Why Ed ? The main research paper I referenced goes exactly to the points raised in this discussion. As the data is externally available I don't think it could be said to be in my mind.

Nothing but mountain biker propaganda. It would be funny if it
weren’t so pitiful.

Another assertion without facts. The paper was written by a researcher working for the government.

MY big picture is also the big picture of tens of thousands of
others who are not into biking on hiking trails.

Prove it ! Your small circle does not count as 'thousands'.

It is just part of My Greatness. Try not to envy me too much.
It is bad for one’s health. Envy is the one vice that gives no
pleasure.

I don't envy you in the slightest, why would I ? I never assert any greatness; I prefer others to do that as it's rather more valuable and valid.

No – God Damn It – It is IMPOSSIBLE to ride slowly enough on a trail meant
for hiking because you have to pay TOTAL attention to what is under your tires.

No, Ed, that just isn't true. Particularly when climbing it is rather helpful to take your mind off the pain by looking around.

A cyclist can only enjoy nature when he is STOPPED! Are you really this stupid
or only pretending?

Again, this isn't true. There are many aspects of nature and most of them can definitely be enjoyed from the seat of a bicycle.

Ownership doesn't matter if it is public ownership. It is how
it is managed that counts. One never needs to take into account all segments of
the public. Land must be managed for best use by authorized managers. This will
automatically exclude vast segments of the public. However, once it has been
decided that trails are for walkers and not for bikers, then everyone is free to
use the trail, but only for walking. Elementary, my dear Watson!

Be careful ! You may find that there are actually more bikers than hikers in some areas and, in that case, "best use" might see you excluded. I suggest, instead, you stop being so damn bigoted and figure out how to share reasonably.

Where did you ever get the idea that public ownership entitles
everyone to its use? Is that an interpretation peculiar to England?

"Public property is property, which is dedicated to the use of the public. It is a subset of state property. The term may be used either to describe the use to which the property is put, or to describe the character of its ownership (owned collectively by the population of a state)."

Quad Erat Demonstrandum

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

There are thousands of folks in the hiking and equestrian
communities complaining about bikes on trails for a variety of reasons. Try to
get real if that is even remotely possible!

Where Ed ? How come, when surveys are actually completed, these thousands become a small handful ?

Instead of giving credence to mountain biker skewed surveys, you need to see what land managers and park superintendents are getting on their desks in the way of complaints.
[...]

A single death from a collision will wake up all the sleepy heads and the land
managers who don’t think it could ever happen. Some lawsuits may help clarify
matters also.

Why Ed ? This is a statement but there is no logic as to why this should be the case. Pedestrians and cyclists are frequently killed by motorists yet cars are not banned. We all accept that there is a reasonable degree of risk and, as a fatality from a biker/hiker collision is highly unlikely, it is not negligent to permit them both in the same place.

Nope, the reason being because it is so easily preventable by a sane management policy. There is no good reason why bikes should be on trails to begin with. As far as I know no hiker has ever collided with another hiker and killed him.

There are tons of reports from plenty of folks who are unhappy
at the way trails are being managed. It all depends on who you ask
apparently.

Do you really not understand the difference between frequenting email groups of like-minded individuals and doing a random sample of the people actually using a trail ? Unless you take a representative, random sample you can determine nothing as to the sentiments of the trail using population. Look it up, it's called confirmation bias.

There have been no surveys of what you are referencing that are worth paying any attention to. Even if there were, it would not negate the complaints from the actual users of the trails. Such complaints are much more important because of specificity factors. Surveys just ask generalized stupid questions and all they ever get are generalized stupid answers.

The above response answers all your following objections to my statements below also. Hence I will maximally delete for the sanity of us all.
[...]

No – God Damn It – It is IMPOSSIBLE to ride slowly enough on a trail meant
for hiking because you have to pay TOTAL attention to what is under your tires.

No, Ed, that just isn't true. Particularly when climbing it is rather helpful to take your mind off the pain by looking around.

Here is the main issue which if you had any sense you would have paid more attention to because it goes to the heart of my objection to bikes on trails. But you have a knack for sliding over the important stuff for focusing on minor stuff which no one cares about except you. You do not know how to get real about what is important.

A cyclist can only enjoy nature when he is STOPPED! Are you really this stupid
or only pretending?

Again, this isn't true. There are many aspects of nature and most of them can definitely be enjoyed from the seat of a bicycle.

Mr. Vandeman is quite right to call you and your ilk liars for making such outrageous stamtents. The fact is that the minute a biker takes his eyes off of what is under his tires while riding his bike on a hiking trail, he is in a world of trouble and mishap.

BECAUSE a biker riding his bike on a hiking trail MUST pay TOTAL attention to what is under his tires, he is doing something entirely different than what a hiker is doing. He is riding a trail for fun and games. He is not involved with nature in any way except for overcoming obstacles in the trail. He is a thrill seeker, not a nature lover. He is committing a sacrilegious act while in the company of hikers and equestrians. It is why bikers on trails are considered barbarians at best and criminals at worst.
[...]

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

Where Ed ?* How come, when surveys are actually completed,
these thousands become a small handful ?

Instead of giving credence to mountain biker skewed surveys,
you need to see what land managers and park superintendents are getting on their
desks in the way of complaints.

Oh for goodness sake; you aren't really this foolish are you ? Unless the complaints are from a significant percentage of the user community they are immaterial; you will never satisfy all the people all the time so some people will always object. The people who shout loudest should not get their way just because they're shouting.

You keep asking why the land managers aren't giving credence to your views; it's because the level of correspondence is way below what would constitute a material percentage of users.

Nope, the reason being because it is so easily preventable by
a sane management policy. There is no good reason why bikes should be on trails
to begin with.

Ed, I've given you lots of good reasons why bikers should be allowed access to trails.

There have been no surveys of what you are referencing that
are worth paying any attention to. Even if there were, it would not negate the
complaints from the actual users of the trails. Such complaints are much more
important because of specificity factors. Surveys just ask generalized stupid
questions and all they ever get are generalized stupid answers.

I'm all for specific questions ... but applied to a representative sample of the user community, not the slightly lunatic fringe who view the land as 'theirs' and will concede nothing to anyone else.

The above response answers all your following objections to my
statements below also. Hence I will maximally delete for the sanity of us
all.

Ah, so you can't refute the correct definition of public resources, which doesn't support your proposition nor the fact that the research was not conducted by mountain biker organisations but, instead, an impartial third party researcher paid by the government.

You're trying to dismiss real research using simply your own belief system and assertions ... it won't work.

Here is the main issue which if you had any sense you would
have paid more attention to because it goes to the heart of my objection to
bikes on trails. But you have a knack for sliding over the important stuff for
focusing on minor stuff which no one cares about except you. You do not know how
to get real about what is important.

Ed, what is important to you is not necessarily important to me and vice versa. You seem to believe that any issue that exercises you is axiomatically important. The real world doesn't work that way.

A cyclist can only enjoy nature when he is STOPPED! Are you really
this stupid

or only pretending?

Again, this isn't true.* There are many aspects of nature and
most of them can definitely be enjoyed from the seat of a bicycle.

Do you mountainbike Ed ? I think not.

Don't presume to tell me what I can and cannot enjoy from the saddle of my bike. I've been polite but this is now getting annoying; I've told you that I enjoy the sights, smells and sensations of being in a natural environment.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Where Ed ? How come, when surveys are actually completed,
these thousands become a small handful ?

Instead of giving credence to mountain biker skewed surveys,
you need to see what land managers and park superintendents are getting on their
desks in the way of complaints.

Oh for goodness sake; you aren't really this foolish are you ? Unless the complaints are from a significant percentage of the user community they are immaterial; you will never satisfy all the people all the time so some people will always object. The people who shout loudest should not get their way just because they're shouting.

Until you take into account all the complaints you are irrelevant. No one but an idiot pays any attention to mountain biker propaganda.

You keep asking why the land managers aren't giving credence to your views; it's because the level of correspondence is way below what would constitute a material percentage of users.

I have stated repeatedly in the course of this thread that many land managers are nincompoops and cowards. They do not have a clue about how to handle criminal mountain biker thugs. Give me the authority and a park to supervise I would show you exactly how they should be handled.

Nope, the reason being because it is so easily preventable by
a sane management policy. There is no good reason why bikes should be on trails
to begin with.

Ed, I've given you lots of good reasons why bikers should be allowed access to trails.

Nope, bikers need to get their own trails. There are no good reasons whatsoever why hikers should share trails with cyclists. It is an irreconcilable conflict – or have I already said that a few hundred times by now.

There have been no surveys of what you are referencing that
are worth paying any attention to. Even if there were, it would not negate the
complaints from the actual users of the trails. Such complaints are much more
important because of specificity factors. Surveys just ask generalized stupid
questions and all they ever get are generalized stupid answers.

I'm all for specific questions ... but applied to a representative sample of the user community, not the slightly lunatic fringe who view the land as 'theirs' and will concede nothing to anyone else.

Thousands of complaints from all over the country are pouring in to the park authorities on a daily basis during the summer season.

The above response answers all your following objections to my
statements below also. Hence I will maximally delete for the sanity of us
all.

Ah, so you can't refute the correct definition of public resources, which doesn't support your proposition nor the fact that the research was not conducted by mountain biker organisations but, instead, an impartial third party researcher paid by the government.

There are no such parties. Everyone has an interest and an ax to grind.

You're trying to dismiss real research using simply your own belief system and assertions ... it won't work.

There is no real research, only mountain biker propaganda camouflaged as ‘research’.

Here is the main issue which if you had any sense you would
have paid more attention to because it goes to the heart of my objection to
bikes on trails. But you have a knack for sliding over the important stuff for
focusing on minor stuff which no one cares about except you. You do not know how
to get real about what is important.

Ed, what is important to you is not necessarily important to me and vice versa. You seem to believe that any issue that exercises you is axiomatically important. The real world doesn't work that way.

Bikers and hikers are doing entirely different things on trails. If and when you admit motorcycles on trails, then and only then will you have some credibility. Your inconsistencies on this issue alone mark you as a hypocrite.

A cyclist can only enjoy nature when he is STOPPED! Are you really
this stupid

or only pretending?

Again, this isn't true. There are many aspects of nature and
most of them can definitely be enjoyed from the seat of a bicycle.

Do you mountainbike Ed ? I think not.

Yes, I tried it ... only once. It was my worst venture into nature ever! It was then and there that I realized mountain bikers were not at all doing what I as a hiker was accustomed to doing – enjoying and appreciating nature.

Don't presume to tell me what I can and cannot enjoy from the saddle of my bike. I've been polite but this is now getting annoying; I've told you that I enjoy the sights, smells and sensations of being in a natural environment.

You enjoy that only when STOPPED. It is not possible to do anything else when you are riding your bike on a trail except to negotiate the trail. You are lying about this like all mountain bikers lie all the time about what they are doing. Unfortunately for you, we hikers know exactly what you are doing – and you are NOT doing the same thing that we hikers are doing.

Mr. Vandeman is quite right to call you and your ilk liars for
making such outrageous stamtents. The fact is that the minute a biker takes his
eyes off of what is under his tires while riding his bike on a hiking trail, he
is in a world of trouble and mishap.

Simply not true, when riding slowly or uphill one's attention can be quite happily diverted. Do hikers never trip because they missed a rock on the trail because they were looking to the side ? A degree of attention is required, and the faster you go the more required, but it's not total much of the time.

Cycling on a hiking trail is extremely dangerous. Even advanced riders manage to injure and kill themselves. If a hiker trips, no great harm is done. If a cyclist goes over the handle bars, his life is at risk depending on how he lands. I have never seen a cyclist on a trail that moved along slowly. They are always going as fast as they can no matter the grade.

He is riding a trail for fun and games. He
is not involved with nature in any way except for overcoming obstacles in the
trail. He is a thrill seeker, not a nature lover.

Do you have a point ? Who are you to mandate how someone else enjoys a public resource ?

GET YOUR OWN GOD DAMN TRAILS! Hiking trails are for hikers.

He is committing a
sacrilegious act while in the company of hikers and equestrians. It is why
bikers on trails are considered barbarians at best and criminals at
worst.

.. by you. I think the rest of the world has a different view.

ALL advanced hikers agree with me and all decent bikers will have a bad conscience about cycling on a hiking trail.

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

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

Oh for goodness sake; you aren't really this foolish are you
?* Unless the complaints are from a significant percentage of the user
community they are immaterial; you will never satisfy all the people all the
time so some people will always object.* The people who shout loudest
should not get their way just because they're shouting.

Until you take into account all the complaints you are
irrelevant. No one but an idiot pays any attention to mountain biker
propaganda.

I didn't say you shouldn't take account of complaints; I said you need to consider what percentage of the user community they come from.

No one but an idiot pays any account to propaganda .. and you spout a lot of it without the slightest justification.

You keep asking why the land managers aren't giving credence to
your views; it's because the level of correspondence is way below what would
constitute a material percentage of users.

I have stated repeatedly in the course of this thread that
many land managers are nincompoops and cowards. They do not have a clue about
how to handle criminal mountain biker thugs. Give me the authority and a park to
supervise I would show you exactly how they should be handled.

You have one Ed, your own garden. It's your land, do whatever you wish with it. As regards public land, you have no particular rights over anyone else thank goodness. Characterising people who simply wish to enjoy a resource to which they are equally entitled as 'criminals' doesn't help your case.

Ed, I've given you lots of good reasons why bikers should be
allowed access to trails.

Nope, bikers need to get their own trails. There are no good
reasons whatsoever why hikers should share trails with cyclists. It is an
irreconcilable conflict – or have I already said that a few hundred times by
now.

Yes, you have indeed said it many times; what you have singularly failed to do is justify it.

I'm all for specific questions ... but applied to a representative
sample of the user community, not the slightly lunatic fringe who view the land
as 'theirs' and will concede nothing to anyone else.

Thousands of complaints from all over the country are pouring
in to the park authorities on a daily basis during the summer
season.

Firstly, what from what percentage of users and secondly, let's see some then Ed. Or are we going to get your usual assertion of thousands that then turns into a small handful from similarly exercised individuals ?

Face it, you don't have a leg to stand on ... the vast majority are quite happy to share reasonably. Create a dangerous situation and they'll carp, quite justifiably, but otherwise people are generally reasonable.

Ah, so you can't refute the correct definition of public
resources, which doesn't support your proposition nor the fact that the research
was not conducted by mountain biker organisations but, instead, an impartial
third party researcher paid by the government.

There are no such parties. Everyone has an interest and an ax
to grind.

They do, but properly constructed surveys can be carefully adjusted to be as close to objective as possible. You're happy to just live in your own echo chamber and assume everyone else shares it ... they don't.

There is no real research, only mountain biker propaganda
camouflaged as ‘research’.

How is impartial, third party research suddenly mountain biker propaganda ? Just because it doesn't agree with your propositions ?

Go and do some real research yourself if you disagree; but don't expect me to simply accept your opinions as fact.

Ed, what is important to you is not necessarily important to me
and vice versa.* You seem to believe that any issue that exercises you is
axiomatically important.* The real world doesn't work that way.

Bikers and hikers are doing entirely different things on
trails. If and when you admit motorcycles on trails, then and only then will you
have some credibility. Your inconsistencies on this issue alone mark you as a
hypocrite.

What inconsistency Ed ? I use the power, weight, speed and noise of a use to create a continuum (only children usually look for absolutes). Given a motorcycle's place on that continuum access if more restricted (but not banned entirely).

As for your assertion that I'm a hypocrite ... how ? Have I stated one thing and done another ? I don't think so.

Do you mountainbike Ed ?* I think not.

Yes, I tried it ... only once. It was my worst venture into
nature ever! It was then and there that I realized mountain bikers were not at
all doing what I as a hiker was accustomed to doing – enjoying and appreciating
nature.

The hubris is incredible. You seem to believe that your way to enjoy nature is the one and only that should be permitted. Get some humility and realise that the world does not revolve around only you and that other people can enjoy the natural world in different ways.

Don't presume to tell me what I can and cannot enjoy from the
saddle of my bike.* I've been polite but this is now getting annoying; I've
told you that I enjoy the sights, smells and sensations of being in a natural
environment.

You enjoy that only when STOPPED. It is not possible to do
anything else when you are riding your bike on a trail except to negotiate the
trail. You are lying about this like all mountain bikers lie all the time about
what they are doing. Unfortunately for you, we hikers know exactly what you are
doing – and you are NOT doing the same thing that we hikers are
doing.

How do you know Ed ? You haven't a clue. You just admitted that you mountainbiked once. As a complete beginner, at anything, of course all your attention must be allocated to the task. When you first drive a car you have to give it every bit of attention, once you are competent you are able to have conversations and process other information. Same for mountainbiking .... after a while it is perfectly possible to divert some attention to matters other than falling off.

And, again, so what if we're not doing what hikers are doing ? We're back to your arrogance that your way is the only way ... which I will never concede.

I really think we need to stop this. You can't justify your position other than by circular logic because it all comes down to your opinions.

I would defend your right to have them and to state them publicly ... but they get very little credence from me.

And, because all you've got is your opinions we keep getting circular logic from you. You state that land managers are nincompoops ... but your only rationale for that is that they aren't doing what you want them to. Hardly a proof.

You state that there are thousands of collissions and complaints and hikers are massively exercised; but then you can't produce anything to back that up.

Seriously, either go and get some real data ... or just accept that these are only your opinions and you are very unlikely to get anyone else to agree with you bereft some real data or logic.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Oh for goodness sake; you aren't really this foolish are you
? Unless the complaints are from a significant percentage of the user
community they are immaterial; you will never satisfy all the people all the
time so some people will always object. The people who shout loudest
should not get their way just because they're shouting.

Edward Dolan wrote:

Until you take into account all the complaints you are
irrelevant. No one but an idiot pays any attention to mountain biker
propaganda.

I didn't say you shouldn't take account of complaints; I said you need to consider what percentage of the user community they come from.

A good complaint is a good complaint. Most users do not complain no matter what is transpiring. Percentages don’t matter.
[...]

Thousands of complaints from all over the country are pouring
in to the park authorities on a daily basis during the summer
season.

Firstly, what from what percentage of users and secondly, let's see some then Ed. Or are we going to get your usual assertion of thousands that then turns into a small handful from similarly exercised individuals ?

“A good complaint is a good complaint. Most users do not complain no matter what is transpiring. Percentages don’t matter.” – Ed Dolan
[...]

Face it, you don't have a leg to stand on ... the vast majority are quite happy to share reasonably. Create a dangerous situation and they'll carp, quite justifiably, but otherwise people are generally reasonable.

Ah, so you can't refute the correct definition of public
resources, which doesn't support your proposition nor the fact that the research
was not conducted by mountain biker organisations but, instead, an impartial
third party researcher paid by the government.

There are no such parties. Everyone has an interest and an ax
to grind.

They do, but properly constructed surveys can be carefully adjusted to be as close to objective as possible. You're happy to just live in your own echo chamber and assume everyone else shares it ... they don't.

No more so than you. Your pleading for surveys will get you nowhere since it is all just mountain biker propaganda. You do not have a clue about what is going on in the hiking community. When cycling on trails gets more and more restricted you will be blindsided by it. That is always the fate of those who choose to remain willfully ignorant.

There is no real research, only mountain biker propaganda
camouflaged as ‘research’.
[...]

Bikers and hikers are doing entirely different things on
trails. If and when you admit motorcycles on trails, then and only then will you
have some credibility. Your inconsistencies on this issue alone mark you as a
hypocrite.

What inconsistency Ed ? I use the power, weight, speed and noise of a use to create a continuum (only children usually look for absolutes). Given a motorcycle's place on that continuum access if more restricted (but not banned entirely).

If you will permit motorcyclists on any trail that is being used by non-motorcyclists, then you are beyond the pale – a true idiot! Too bad you are not smart enough to include a bicycle in your continuum since its power, weight, speed and noise are also out of bounds as far as hikers are concerned.

As for your assertion that I'm a hypocrite ... how ? Have I stated one thing and done another ? I don't think so.

Nope, you are not a hypocrite after all, just an idiot!

Do you mountainbike Ed ? I think not.

Yes, I tried it ... only once. It was my worst venture into
nature ever! It was then and there that I realized mountain bikers were not at
all doing what I as a hiker was accustomed to doing – enjoying and appreciating
nature.

The hubris is incredible. You seem to believe that your way to enjoy nature is the one and only that should be permitted. Get some humility and realise that the world does not revolve around only you and that other people can enjoy the natural world in different ways.

Bikers enjoy nature entirely differently from hikers ... which is why bikers need to get their own trails.

Don't presume to tell me what I can and cannot enjoy from the
saddle of my bike. I've been polite but this is now getting annoying; I've
told you that I enjoy the sights, smells and sensations of being in a natural
environment.

You enjoy that only when STOPPED. It is not possible to do
anything else when you are riding your bike on a trail except to negotiate the
trail. You are lying about this like all mountain bikers lie all the time about
what they are doing. Unfortunately for you, we hikers know exactly what you are
doing – and you are NOT doing the same thing that we hikers are
doing.

How do you know Ed ? You haven't a clue. You just admitted that you mountainbiked once. As a complete beginner, at anything, of course all your attention must be allocated to the task. When you first drive a car you have to give it every bit of attention, once you are competent you are able to have conversations and process other information. Same for mountainbiking ... after a while it is perfectly possible to divert some attention to matters other than falling off.

And, again, so what if we're not doing what hikers are doing ? We're back to your arrogance that your way is the only way ... which I will never concede.

Yes, you and your ilk do not care if you conflict with what hikers and equestrians are doing. The only arrogant asshole here is you!

I really think we need to stop this. You can't justify your position other than by circular logic because it all comes down to your opinions.

The only circular logic is yours. Your appeal to surveys and data is pitiful.

I would defend your right to have them and to state them publicly ... but they get very little credence from me.

Being willfully ignorant is your primary characteristic.

And, because all you've got is your opinions we keep getting circular logic from you. You state that land managers are nincompoops ... but your only rationale for that is that they aren't doing what you want them to. Hardly a proof.

Managers are not doing what they were primarily charged with as managers - preserving the natural resource. That makes them nincompoops.

You state that there are thousands of collissions and complaints and hikers are massively exercised; but then you can't produce anything to back that up.

I will be posting hundreds of such notices in another thread shortly. Stay tuned!

Seriously, either go and get some real data ... or just accept that these are only your opinions and you are very unlikely to get anyone else to agree with you bereft some real data or logic.

The proper venue for bikers are specially constructed trails near resorts where they can do their rides for thrills and spills and not impinge on the world of hikers and equestrians. As you would say, this is axiomatic.

It does indeed come down to opinions and mine are infinitely superior to yours. In fact, yours are just plain wrongheaded. Your appeal to various outside opinions in the form of surveys and data do not in any way impact on my opinions. Politics will eventually settle the issue one way or another. I predict separate trail systems eventually, one for hikers and equestrians and another for bikers. It is just common sense, something that you totally lack.

I will be posting reports from the hiking community from time to time in another thread on this newsgroup in order to counter mountain biker propaganda.

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

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

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

I didn't say you shouldn't take account of complaints; I said you
need to consider what percentage of the user community they come from.

A good complaint is a good complaint. Most users do not
complain no matter what is transpiring. Percentages don’t matter.

Nonsense. If a thousand people use a trail and only one complains about what is transpiring then, however good the complaint, that suggests that it's a minority view.

... but properly constructed surveys can be carefully
adjusted to be as close to objective as possible.* You're happy to just
live in your own echo chamber and assume everyone else shares it ... they
don't.

No more so than you. Your pleading for surveys will get you
nowhere since it is all just mountain biker propaganda. You do not have a clue
about what is going on in the hiking community.

The information that I do have about the hiking community which, by the way, I also belong to is that the vast majority have no issue with sharing trails in most circumstances. The surveys that have been conducted support that view. If you want to disprove it then provide me with some data ... tell me what is going on in the hiking community ... but with real figures not just your 'thousands' which has been rather discredited. Otherwise, it's just hearsay from you and, as I'm sure you're aware, hearsay isn't admissible in evidence .. for good reason.

Bikers enjoy nature entirely differently from hikers ...

Probably a factual statement for a significant percentage.

which is why bikers need to get their own trails.

This proposition does not follow from the fact. Lots of people do lots of different things on trails and are there for different reasons.