Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:14:00 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

He made reference to my mother explaining to me the definition of "virgin"
after vehemently stating that he has not used the word to describe a
photograph. What was the reason for having my mother explain to me what the
word "virgin" means? Regardless, he was proven to have lied in his
statement.

He has called me a liar on numerous occasions.

that's not "name-calling", but FACT.

Stating that he does not resort to name calling is totally inaccurate.

Saying that he doesn't adhere
"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bruce Jensen wrote:
Ed Pirrero wrote:

Really? Which part is opinion?

I see one in there, besides the invective.

E.P.

I pointed out two of them, which you snipped. The rest are left to the
readers' perceptions.

OK, now I see the other one. "Much" of what he wrote wasn't opinion.
Less than half of his points were opinion. I do agree that the
invective makes for difficult reading.

Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular
course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out.
Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts"
as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things
as "junk" science.

No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not
entitled to their own set of facts.

E.P.


===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:28:25 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in
Wild
Areas. The article
suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000

Yeah, by taking trails away from the majority, and giving them over to
exclusive use by a minority: mountain bikers.
Exaggeration. Sensationalism. Fabrication. Show us where cyclists have
"exclusive use" of the public trail system.

It's a proposal.
It's an OPINION. Please explain how interest in the outdoors (including
hiking) continues to GROW if off-road cyclists are chasing everyone away.

It isn't. It's decreasing. National parks are losing visitors.
I didn't say National Parks. I said the OUTDOORS. Can't you read? National
Parks are brcoming difficult to visit (higher gas prices) while interest in
other options are becoming more available.
Numbers are also fluctuating but not so drastically as being claimed. While
they do show a trend lending to an overall decline, the factors involved do
not include off-road cycling chasing people out (most National Parks do not
allow off-road cycling). It is the more local and available public access
land that is attracting people with a wide variety of outdoor options.
Your attempt to throw cycling under the bus as a cause for National Parks'
decline is simply a stupid gesture of impotence.

It hasn't happened, luckily. But every hiking trail
with lots of mountain bikers on it will eventually drive away all the
hikers.
OPINION. It is easy to say sensational things in attempts to sway emotion
and public attention. Fortunately, it also easy to locate the TRUTH about
outdoor cooperation and safety.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 4 Dec 2006 10:44:07 -0800, "Beej" wrote:

On Dec 4, 9:03 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
by taking trails away from the majority, and giving them over to
exclusive use by a minority: mountain bikers. There is no user
conflict. the conflict is merely over the presence of BIKES, which are
not users.

It'd be like one of those trails where only mountain bikers were
allowed, but not mountain bikes. :-)

Fortunately, most people are pretty nice. Lots of friendly hikers are
out there when I bike, and lots of friendly bikers are out there when I
hike.

I like the multi-use single track in China Camp--everyone seems to get
along just fine, there.

Of course, because most of the hikers & equestrians who don't like
being around mountain bikers were driven out of the park!
He just stated the multi-use option is working and that everyone gets along
fine. Can't you read? Your denying the statements of an eye witness has NO
merit.

I'm not convinced this bikes-only route is the
way to go. It seems like it would breed resentment instead of a spirit
of cooperation.

As long as mountain bikers are friendly, courteous, and respectful to
other trail users, they'll always be welcomed.

BS. It's the BIKES we object to. There's nothing dangerous about not
smiling.
There is no "we" that is objecting. It is YOU and an extremist minority that
has never been satisfied and vilify everything outside of your narrow view
with nothing but emotion and opinion.

The huge number of
multi-use trails in the country speaks for itself in this regard.

Yes - They do!

-Beej
===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
fond of!

HEADLINE NEWS ITEM THIS WEEK
The study, published this week in the Journal of the National Cancer
Institute, is the largest yet to find no bad news about the safety of cell
phones and the radio-frequency energy they emit.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:01:30 GMT, jason
wrote:
Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
fond of!


hey mikey take a look, cell phones DONT cause cancer. Is the rest of
your research and facts as accurate?

Where in my signature do you see the word "cancer"? Idiot.
Then what danger are you referring to if not previous (and controversial)
studies linking cell phones to cancer?

http://www.wrcbtv.com/news/index.cfm?sid=4926

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/heal...p?newsid=58298
===
Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
fond of!
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman wrote:






Do you want me to spell it out for you, moron? Describing negative experiences with mountain bikers is being honest. Extrapolating those experiences to EVERY mountain biker is bigotry.



Nope, it's called "observation".

Oh, but CC....Mike here is the king of extrapolation...after all, one data point at the end of a analysis range (see his "literature review") can be extrapolated to mean that if a bike goes off road, it'll cut a trench like the Grand Canyon on the 501st pass! As someone with a math degree, Mike, surely you should recognize the difficulties of a one point extrapolation and be seeking more data points!

Btw Mike, trying to extrapolate your personal observations (which I would suggest are biased, based on your previously posted [ad nauseaum] "literature review") of the behaviours of a select sub-set of mountain bikers does not mean that your observations are consistent with the behaviours or actions of mountain bikers as a whole...or did you forget that lesson about sample size from statistics?

Michael Halliwell

On Dec 8, 9:04 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
Of course, because most of the hikers & equestrians who don't like
being around mountain bikers were driven out of the park!

I can only imagine it's a minority of hikers and equestrians who have
been driven out because a) tons of hikers and equestrians use multi-use
parks and b) those driven out are not a political force to be reckoned
with.

And you have my sympathy, because being in the minority sucks. But in
this particular case, I'm not going to join you.

BS. It's the BIKES we object to.

Sorry, Mike, but I don't buy into this whole biker/bike semantic
dichotomy. As far as I'm concerned for the purposes of any debate
involving mountain biking, a mountain biker without a mountain bike is
a hiker. So when I say "mountain biker", you can read that with the
understanding that I mean "hiker on a mountain bike".

And you're welcome to readdress my point with that terminology in mind,
if you so desire.

-Beej

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:47:23 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:05:49 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:

2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build
more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers
off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of
recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise.
So being fair to minorities is a bad thing?
Yes, if it harms the majority. But mountain bikers already have access
to every trail, so they aren't being discriminated against, in spite
of what they say.

Mike, enough of this semantic bull****. It's gone on long enough. For
the purposes of this argument - and many others - a mountain biker is
referred to as such when he is on a bike.

Not according to the dictionary.

I'm sorry. Which dictionary do
you own? The MJV version?
Welcome to "reality".


When I am on a trail and not
on my bike, I am a hiker. So yes, a mountain biker is discriminated
against when he is told he cannot take his bike on trails.

BS. Hikers & equestrians also can't take a bike on trails. THE EXACT
SAME RULE APPLIES TO EVERYONE, so there can't be any discrimination.

You have done absolutely
nothing to address the point I
brought up. As usual.


Imagine telling a homosexual that he/she is not discriminated against --
as long as they don't practice. It's just stupid and you know it. Yet,
you continue as usual . .

You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot.

===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:14:05 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:44:36 -0800, cc wrote:

Roberto Baggio wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:

2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build
more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers
off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of
recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise.
So being fair to minorities is a bad thing?

You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot.
No, just honest -- something mountain bikers wouldn't understand.

Do you want me to spell it out
for you, moron? Describing
negative experiences with
mountain bikers is being
honest. Extrapolating those
experiences to EVERY mountain
biker is bigotry.

Nope, it's called "observation".

Again, you have done nothing
to demonstrate anything but
wild speculation. Observation
does in no case warrant such
ridiculous extrapolation or
zealous rhetoric. If you were
a scientist, you would realize
this. Obviously, you are not.



Try a
dictionary, asshole.

Yes. This has been amply established.
===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

JP wrote:
Did. Nothing hard and fast about top-posting but here's a tidbit you might
wish to review.

Really? I found several references that discourage it. And nothing
but that wiki article on pointing out errors.

If you read from top to bottom, that's the only reason to post in a
fashion that reads like a conversation.

Not only that, but leaving the rest untrimmed *really* violates
netiquette. Full-quoting is another term to look up.

Unfortunately, full-quoting AND top-posting often go hand-in-hand.
Trim what you're not replying to, post underneath, in logical reading
order, and give credibility to your flames of MJV by not name-calling.
Everyone gets what they want, right?

E.P.

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:52:02 GMT, "JP" wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 03:52:22 GMT, "JP" wrote:

wrote in message
ps.com...
Mike Vandeman wrote:
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:


Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in Wild
Areas. The article
suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000
So where's the lie? (Hint: there aren't any. That's why you didn't
quote any.)
Wrong, you poor wannabe naturalist.
Your unsubstantiated opinion is the LIE.
Yu haven't cited evidence to back any of your claims. Ever.
Your website is not proof.
But you can't help it. There is no evidence that supports any of your
claims.
No legitimate agenmcy will give you the time of day.
That is why your sad little impotent quest gets played out on AMB

1. Citizens have the right to use wilderness areas, our taxes support them.

Nope, restrictions are allowed. That's why Yosmite National Park
doesn't allow mountain biking.

That use includes two wheeled non-motorized vehicles. I spooked horses
running on trails...LIAR!!!!

2. Hikers have no more right to trails than bikes, regardless of your
opinion.

\Bikes don't habve any rights. Hikers do.

Neither do horses. If an equestrian cannot control their animal they do not
belong in public. LIAR!!!

3. Bikes are no more harmful to the environment than pedestrian use, in fact
hikers like wider trails.

You know that's a lie.

Your continues rants don't make it so. LIAR!!!
4. Mountain bikes don't teach kids to beat on nature, that's anouther BS
LIE.

Yes, they do. That's exactly what they do.

5. Being able to ride a mopuntain bike is not evidence of being able to
walk.
Floyd Landis, who won the TDF, would be unable to walk a mile on a hiking
trail.

So what? He can still walk.

But he could ride them if he wished. Another specious remark by Lying MIke
Vandeman.
And there are thousands like him, with joint damage etc who cannot hike yet
can ride. LIAR!!!

Your biggest LIE of course is the one where you neglect to mention the
damage
caused by equestrian use. HORSES destroy trails!!! But you have a hard-on
for mountain bikes so you will colntinue to LIE!!!

Irrelevant. Horses, like many other animals, evolved in North America
and have a right to be here. Bikes have NO rights.
Once again proving your an idiot horses were brought to North America by
the Spaniards you dolt
Yawn......did you say something???

===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande