The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

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

Edward Dolan wrote:

There is no MORAL right to bike on a hiking trail. Only
Assholes transgress and despoil natural beauty. The law is frequently an Ass in
all jurisdictions.

Oh do get over yourself ... it's getting very tiresome. Who are you to try and determine what is moral ?

I am a Great Saint and therefore more than qualified to pass on what is moral and what is immoral. You are immoral because you are doing is just plain evil. I am moral because I am a Great Saint!
[...]

"Ownership has nothing to do with it. All public land
is managed for best use - or have l already said that a couple of dozen times?"
- Ed Dolan

Best use isn't decided by you Ed.

It is decided by people like me who have some education and culture, not by slobs like you.

They are going to have to carve out a separate
trail system for themselves. We hikers do not want bikers on our
trails.

I already disposed of your 'we hikers' assertion Ed.
You do not speak for the vast majority of hikers. Your words and views are
your own.

My words and views are those of all serious hikers, the kind
of hikers that trails were meant for in the first instance.

I'm not going over that all over again. You are a largely solitary man, by your own admission, and therefore interact with a tiny number of others. As such, you are in no position to assume that your views are in the slightest bit representative of other hikers.

Most hikers tend to be solitary types, even if they are hiking with others. Trails are where we can be at one with nature and closest to God (if He exists). The very last thing any hiker needs on the trail is a god damn cyclist doing his ****ing sport. Find a race track for what you want to do.

And, to repeat myself, most of the trails were originally meant for people travelling from point A to point B ... not as recreation for elitist and self regarding people like you.

It doesn’t matter what trails were for originally. For the past hundred years or so they have been given over to hikers. That is because our forefathers had some brains, unlike the present generation of idiots like you.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.�
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

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

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

Interesting that drooling Dolan is now espousing more damage to the
environment, just so that he can have his own trails in solitary
splendour.

Mr. Vandeman is the expert on damage to the trails. Compared to him the rest of us are blooming idiots.

We can now look forward to him having a circular argument with
himself. Maybe that's the Dolan equivalent of a divide by zero error, and he
will need outside intervention in order to function. It would explain a lot.

Post content or get lost. What an Asshole!

Now go **** yourself and quit bothering the honorable members of this noble newsgroup.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.�
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

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

There is no MORAL right to bike on a hiking trail. Only
Assholes transgress and despoil natural beauty. The law is frequently
an Ass in
all jurisdictions.

Oh do get over yourself ... it's getting very tiresome. Who
are you to try and determine what is moral ?

I am a Great Saint and therefore more than qualified to pass
on what is moral and what is immoral. You are immoral because you are doing is
just plain evil. I am moral because I am a Great Saint!

You are a. a hubristic a******e and b. committing, yet again, circular logic so provably wrong

"Ownership has nothing to do with it. All public land
is managed for best use - or have l already said that a couple of
dozen times?"

Best use isn't decided by you Ed.

It is decided by people like me who have some education and
culture, not by slobs like you.

You've not shown an ounce of education or culture Ed. You're profane, hubristic, innumerate and can't argue logically using precepts and logic. No wonder the land managers ignore you.

They are going to have to carve out a separate
trail system for themselves. We hikers do not want bikers on our
trails.

I already disposed of your 'we hikers' assertion
Ed.

You do not speak for the vast majority of hikers. Your words and
views are
your own.

My words and views are those of all serious hikers, the kind
of hikers that trails were meant for in the first instance.

I'm not going over that all over again. You are a largely
solitary man, by your own admission, and therefore interact with a tiny number
of others. As such, you are in no position to assume that your views are
in the slightest bit representative of other hikers.

Most hikers tend to be solitary types, even if they are hiking
with others. Trails are where we can be at one with nature and closest to God
(if He exists). The very last thing any hiker needs on the trail is a god damn
cyclist doing his ****ing sport. Find a race track for what you want to
do.

So, you just reiterated my point; you are solitary and don't socialise with others. As such, your views are your own ... you have no idea what the majority view is since you've never sought to find out.

And, to repeat myself, most of the trails were originally meant
for people travelling from point A to point B ... not as recreation for elitist
and self regarding people like you.

It doesn't matter what trails were for originally. For the
past hundred years or so they have been given over to hikers. That is because
our forefathers had some brains, unlike the present generation of idiots like
you.

So "It doesn't matter what the trails were for originally" ? Great, then clearly it's fine for them to be used for mountainbiking. If it's fine for you to annex them then why is it any different for a different use ?

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

Edward Dolan wrote:

It is decided by people like me who have some education and
culture, not by slobs like you.

You've not shown an ounce of education or culture Ed. You're profane, hubristic, innumerate and can't argue logically using precepts and logic. No wonder the land managers ignore you.

I am giving you what you have deserved all of your life – some straight talk about how stupid you are. ALL mountain bikers are slobs. It is in their DNA.
[...]

Most hikers tend to be solitary types, even if they are hiking
with others. Trails are where we can be at one with nature and closest to God
(if He exists). The very last thing any hiker needs on the trail is a god damn
cyclist doing his ****ing sport. Find a race track for what you want to
do.

So, you just reiterated my point; you are solitary and don't socialise with others. As such, your views are your own ... you have no idea what the majority view is since you've never sought to find out.

My views are those of all serious hikers, who by nature tend to be solitary. We solitary types occasionally get together and exchange views, but it is not really necessary because I KNOW what all serious hikers want on the trail – some communion with nature. We can’t get that with bikers whizzing around us.

And, to repeat myself, most of the trails were originally meant
for people travelling from point A to point B ... not as recreation for elitist
and self regarding people like you.

It doesn't matter what trails were for originally. For the
past hundred years or so they have been given over to hikers. That is because
our forefathers had some brains, unlike the present generation of idiots like
you.

So "It doesn't matter what the trails were for originally" ? Great, then clearly it's fine for them to be used for mountainbiking. If it's fine for you to annex them then why is it any different for a different use ?

You simply do not know how to read. I stated that for the past hundred years or so they have been given over to hikers. That statement assumes for anyone who can read that that use should continue forever. Learn how to read between the lines if that is even remotely possible.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.�
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

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

It is decided by people like me who
have some education and
culture, not by slobs like
you.

You've not shown an ounce of
education or culture Ed. You're profane, hubristic, innumerate and can't
argue logically using precepts and logic. No wonder the land managers
ignore you.

I am giving you what you have
deserved all of your life - some straight talk about how stupid you are. ALL
mountain bikers are slobs. It is in their DNA.

Most hikers tend to be solitary
types, even if they are hiking
with others. Trails are where we can
be at one with nature and closest to God
(if He exists). The very last thing
any hiker needs on the trail is a god damn
cyclist doing his ****ing sport. Find
a race track for what you want to
do.

So, you just reiterated my point;
you are solitary and don't socialise with others. As such, your views are
your own ... you have no idea what the majority view is since you've never
sought to find out.

My views are those of all serious
hikers, who by nature tend to be solitary. We solitary types occasionally get
together and exchange views, but it is not really necessary because I KNOW what
all serious hikers want on the trail - some communion with nature. We can't get
that with bikers whizzing around us.

I think you'll find that you are rather a small minority these days ... but, anyway, I enjoy communing with nature too and am not unsympathetic to the notion that some trails be designated 'quiet'. However, you want the whole bloody trail network allocated to you alone !

And, to repeat myself, most
of the trails were originally meant
for people travelling from point A to
point B ... not as recreation for elitist
and self regarding people like
you.

It doesn't matter what trails were
for originally. For the
past hundred years or so they have
been given over to hikers. That is because
our forefathers had some brains,
unlike the present generation of idiots like
you.

So "It doesn't matter what the
trails were for originally" ? Great, then clearly it's fine for them to be
used for mountainbiking. If it's fine for you to annex them then why is it
any different for a different use ?

You simply do not know how to read.
I stated that for the past hundred years or so they have been given over to
hikers. That statement assumes for anyone who can read that that use should
continue forever. Learn how to read between the lines if that is even remotely
possible.

Oh, I know how to read ... you're just to dumb to understand. You shot yourself in the foot right at the outset by admitting that hiking was a use which came along AFTER the trails were already extant.

Given that use was changed for the recreation of hiking there is no logical reason why it can't be changed again to permit other recreations too. Your hundred years argument is pointless ... mountainbikes didn't exist a hundred years ago just as, three hundred years ago, very few individuals hiked for recreation.

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

Edward Dolan wrote:

My views are those of all serious
hikers, who by nature tend to be solitary. We solitary types occasionally get
together and exchange views, but it is not really necessary because I KNOW what
all serious hikers want on the trail - some communion with nature. We can't get
that with bikers whizzing around us.

I think you'll find that you are rather a small minority these days .... but, anyway, I enjoy communing with nature too and am not unsympathetic to the notion that some trails be designated 'quiet'. However, you want the whole bloody trail network allocated to you alone !

Bikers need to get their own trails where they can do their sport. We hikers who commune with nature do not want them on OUR trails.
[...]

You simply do not know how to read.
I stated that for the past hundred years or so they have been given over to
hikers. That statement assumes for anyone who can read that that use should
continue forever. Learn how to read between the lines if that is even remotely
possible.

Oh, I know how to read ... you're just to dumb to understand. You shot yourself in the foot right at the outset by admitting that hiking was a use which came along AFTER the trails were already extant.

Given that use was changed for the recreation of hiking there is no logical reason why it can't be changed again to permit other recreations too. Your hundred years argument is pointless ... mountainbikes didn't exist a hundred years ago just as, three hundred years ago, very few individuals hiked for recreation.

Some changes destroy forever what was precious. We do not want trails ever to be for anything but for the contemplation of nature. Cyclists are doing a sport which has no place on hiking trails. You are mixing the profane with the sacred.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.�
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

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

My views are those of all serious
hikers, who by nature tend to be solitary. We solitary types
occasionally get
together and exchange views, but it is not really necessary because I
KNOW what
all serious hikers want on the trail - some communion with nature. We
can't get
that with bikers whizzing around us.

I think you'll find that you are rather a small minority these
days ... but, anyway, I enjoy communing with nature too and am not unsympathetic
to the notion that some trails be designated 'quiet'.* However, you want
the whole bloody trail network allocated to you alone !

Bikers need to get their own trails where they can do their
sport. We hikers who commune with nature do not want them on OUR
trails.

Did you build them ... no.

Do you own the land ... no.

Does the mission of the Parks Authority give you special status ... no.

Therefore, I think you'll find, they are definitely NOT your trails.

You simply do not know how to read.
I stated that for the past hundred years or so they have been given
over to
hikers. That statement assumes for anyone who can read that that use
should
continue forever. Learn how to read between the lines if that is even
remotely
possible.

Oh, I know how to read ... you're just to dumb to
understand.* You shot yourself in the foot right at the outset by admitting
that hiking was a use which came along AFTER the trails were already
extant.

Given that use was changed for the recreation of hiking there is
no logical reason why it can't be changed again to permit other recreations
too.* Your hundred years argument is pointless ... mountainbikes didn't
exist a hundred years ago just as, three hundred years ago, very few individuals
hiked for recreation.

Some changes destroy forever what was precious. We do not want
trails ever to be for anything but for the contemplation of nature. Cyclists are
doing a sport which has no place on hiking trails. You are mixing the profane
with the sacred.

Get over yourself ! You may feel it's a 'profane' use but no one agrees with you. This is the language of extremism.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

My views are those of all serious
hikers, who by nature tend to be solitary. We solitary types
occasionally get
together and exchange views, but it is not really necessary because I
KNOW what
all serious hikers want on the trail - some communion with nature. We
can't get
that with bikers whizzing around us.

I think you'll find that you are rather a small minority these
days ... but, anyway, I enjoy communing with nature too and am not unsympathetic
to the notion that some trails be designated 'quiet'. However, you want
the whole bloody trail network allocated to you alone !

Bikers need to get their own trails where they can do their
sport. We hikers who commune with nature do not want them on OUR
trails.

Did you build them ... no.

Do you own the land ... no.

Does the mission of the Parks Authority give you special status ... no.

Therefore, I think you'll find, they are definitely NOT your trails.

Hiking trails were developed and maintained for the past hundred years or so to serve hikers and equestrians. Bikers are a recent intrusion and do not belong on hiking trails anymore than motorized vehicles do. The fact is they are OUR trails – and most definitely not yours!

You simply do not know how to read.
I stated that for the past hundred years or so they have been given
over to
hikers. That statement assumes for anyone who can read that that use
should
continue forever. Learn how to read between the lines if that is even
remotely
possible.

Oh, I know how to read ... you're just to dumb to
understand. You shot yourself in the foot right at the outset by admitting
that hiking was a use which came along AFTER the trails were already
extant.

Given that use was changed for the recreation of hiking there is
no logical reason why it can't be changed again to permit other recreations
too. Your hundred years argument is pointless ... mountainbikes didn't
exist a hundred years ago just as, three hundred years ago, very few individuals
hiked for recreation.

Some changes destroy forever what was precious. We do not want
trails ever to be for anything but for the contemplation of nature. Cyclists are
doing a sport which has no place on hiking trails. You are mixing the profane
with the sacred.

Get over yourself ! You may feel it's a 'profane' use but no one agrees with you. This is the language of extremism.

All hikers agree with me There is nothing extreme about wanting to preserve what has always been available for hikers. The only barbarian and extremist here is you!

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great