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

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old May 28th 14, 09:22 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

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

Edward Dolan wrote:

We do indeed want to police any and all others.


Well, fortunately, you can't. They are not your trails to police.


I am counting on bikers to be their own worst enemies. They will lose access to trails because of their swinishness and boorishness. People, like water, will always find its own level.
[...]

I too trust to others' intelligence to discern the difference
between a self-serving argument that makes no sense and my very modest desire to
want to restore the status quo ante.


No, Ed, your very immodest desire to annex a public resource, for which everyone pays, for your sole use ..


It doesn’t matter that it is a public resource or that everyone pays. Irrelevant and immaterial – which I have explained to you many times before.
[...]

And you're proud of that are you ? I regard profanity as

vulgar and beneath me and I certainly wouldn't write it in a public forum.

Public forums be damned! I am living in a free country and
will damn well say anything I please.


That's your right ... which I would support. But, in a free country, I am also perfectly free to consider that descending to profanity is a clear signal that you've lost the argument.


Be too much of a dunderhead and you will get your sorry ass kicked. It has nothing to do with argument, but it does have to do with brainless repetition and attention to meaningless details. We both have our ways of being disrespectful and profanity is not as bad as your pretended obtuseness.

But you are quite right to be
cautious when around someone like me. I have argued with the scum of the earth
on these newsgroups on every conceivable topic, and when they get dirty I get
twice as dirty.


I don't need profanity to beat you ... just logic and a coherent position.


I am still waiting for some logic and a coherent position from you that I can connect with, but I am not holding my breath.

Am I smarter and better than you?


Very much doubt it. If that were the case you wouldn't make so many logical errors. Your whole position devolves to "I want this, I used to have it ... therefore it's right".


Since you did not include my entire paragraph to which you were responding above, allow me tell you to go **** yourself. You did not even indicate that you had deleted some of what I had said. Only a scoundrel picks a sentence out of a paragraph to respond to. Keep doing this and you will get some profanity that will not stop.

If all your arguments pertain only to California then, to be

candid, I don't really care. But I very much doubt that this is what you
mean ... you don't write "death to (Californian) mountainbiking" in your
signature do you ?

Everything happens in California first and is then exported to
the rest of the world. I mean death to all mountain biking on trails -
everywhere.

[...]

Contrary to what you might believe, California is not the world.


Jesus Christ! I did not know that!

And, if you really don't understand that the tiny number of people

with whom you hike ... and I know it has to be tiny because you like solitude
and eschew large groups ... cannot count as representative of a community
encompassing tens (and globally hundreds) of millions then we should stop now
because you simply don't have enough intelligence to hold a reasoned
argument.

Most hikers hike alone or with just one other person. I seldom
meet groups. Only slobs like you like to hike or ride with others. What's the
matter? Can't stand you own company?


What's the matter Ed, can't interact normally with other people ?


All travel and hiking is best done alone. Otherwise one is too busy interacting with others to give proper attention to what it is you are there for in the first place. If you had ever read any travel books by travelers (not tourists), you would know this.

Yes, Ed, it IS a matter of fairness. The general population

pays for, and indeed owns through the government, the resources to which we are
referring. Most of the trails were, as you well know, instituted for
travel and trade historically and are now a recreation resource for the
people. So, no, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that your preferred
use is 'best' and thereby exclude everyone else.

It is NOT a matter of fairness. Where did you ever get such a
crazy idea? It is a matter of BEST use. That is how every public resource is
managed. In fact, that is how every resource is managed, public or private. You
surely must be an idiot! There is nothing arbitrary about wanting to return to
the status quo ante.


Define 'best' ... to a standard that everyone is going to agree. You can't. Your best is not mine. You have to look at the fundamental premise of what national parks are intended to do ... which is to provide recreation for people and preserve wildlife and the resource for future generations. So they are absolutely doing what they should ... trying to balance occasionally conflicting requirements so that, overall, the most number of people are satisfied. That is made very difficult if you have a small number of selfish and stubborn individuals, such as yourself, who seem to believe that they are, without the slightest logical justification, deserving of some special treatment.


The “best” of anything is left to the experts to tell us what it is. As always, you are confusing and conflating “best” with “most”. If you thought about it more, even you would not want that.

All any of us can ever know are the local trails.


If you weren't so close minded to facts and data, instead

preferring your personal perspective on matters, then you would understand that
you CAN know something about the whole world. It just requires you to
read.

However, if you concede that you only know about your local trails

then I suggest you desist from commenting that you 'know' that hikers in my
locale resent bikers. You haven't the faintest clue how they feel.

Anyone walking a trail for recreation belongs to a universe of
common experience.


What total and utter nonsense. Everyone who goes hiking has the same experience ? What about family groups, ramblers clubs, trail runners, dog walkers and the numerous other users ?


I think only trail runners don’t know why they are doing what they are doing. Everyone else is wanting to connect with nature the same as me. The experience may be qualitatively different for everyone of course, but they are all wanting to do the same thing – to connect with nature. It is only bikers who do not fit this profile.

I can assume that everyone everywhere is the same in that
regard.


Feel free to assume what you wish ... yet again, you're wrong but since you won't ever bother to check your assumptions you can continue in your ignorance.


Is it OK if I assume you are an Asshole?
[...]

My point was correct. Everyone knows that life is not eternal,
but if it were then my point was made. What was my point? I am sure you have
lost it by now, but it was that biking on trails is much more dangerous than
hiking on trails and that if you did enough of it you would be far more likely
to suffer an injury than would hikers. Simple enough even for an idiot like you
to understand, but why must I go into such details in the first
place.


Because Ed, your memory is becoming somewhat 'convenient'. Let me refresh it for you, you wrote ...


" Mountain biking accidents happen because they are doing what all mountain bikers do. The only stupidity is taking up mountain biking in the first place. If you do it, you will suffer an injury or death. It is just a matter of time. It is in fact inevitable."


Whereas, as I showed and you eventually were forced to concede, the risk of a fatality or serious injury in a lifetime of mountainbiking is, in reality, very low indeed. So, if you take up mountainbiking you will probably live a long and healthy life.


I conceded no such thing. Where did that come from?

So, the reason I focus on these, as you call them 'details, is that they prove you wrong.


That you then start talking nonsense about eternal life shows how desperate, or illogical, you are since, as you should know, any risk, however small, will become a near inevitability in infinite time.


Is it OK if I call you a Moron?

I clearly stated that if you mountain bike long enough an accident was inevitable. The key words there are “long enough” and “inevitable”. What is there about that you do not understand. There is nothing safe about mountain biking. I have hundreds of report on my computer showing just how dangerous it is. The fact that you think it is safe is nuts. Of course the risk of death is low even on the battleground in time of war. But mountain biking accidents are everyday and everywhere and as common as mud.

I suggest you not argue derails with me since you do not know how to do it. You have never refuted a single thing I have ever said. All you do is just disagree with a **** poor argument that makes no sense at all.

You do not know how to read me, whereas I can read you
perfectly, but choose not to get bogged down in moronic details like you do.


I can read you perfectly; old, bigoted, lazy, profane and selfish


You have just described yourself perfectly, Keep up the good work!

Anyone who will argue about details has already lost the reader. Details belong
in footnotes. How scholarly do you want to get?.


You're missing the difference between a detail and a key fact. Key facts, such as the facts that mountainbiking is actually pretty safe, that there are NOT many collisions and that most concede the need to share, demolish your arguments.


All your key facts are wrong. Maybe you should just go for the details after all so you won’t look like a complete idiot.
[...]

Walking a trail is a universal experience. Everyone does it
for the same reason - to connect with nature for a time. I can assume that all
hikers experience this connection with nature like I do.


No, you can't assume that at all. Particularly since, as you admit, you are largely solitary and enjoy your own company. How the hell would that permit you to empathise with anyone else ?


Is it OK if I call you a Jackass? What does being solitary have to do with not being able to assume what is common to all mankind. Of course I do admit I have nothing much in common with mountain bikers who ride their bikes on hiking trails. That level of jackassery I leave to assholes like you.
[...]

Your belief that everyone should be given a shot at using
trails is belied by the fact that even you do not want motorcycles on trails.


I didn't say that did I Ed ? I said they SHOULD get SOME access ... but much less because of environmental impact and risk to other trail users.


It is OK if I call you a Numskull? It is hard to contest such stupidity as yours. I want to know why you are excluding motorcycles from trails. Everything I have against bikes on trails is equally applicable to motorcycles on trails. What a god damn ****ing selfish lout you are!

This points up the essential selfishness of your argument. Democracy does not
mean that everyone can do whatever they want.


No, of course it doesn't, it means that everyone gets some of what they want ... it's essentially the art of compromise.


Good, now compromise and permit motorcycles on your trails .... you ****ing hypocrite!

Biking on trails is a conflict of MEANS and of PURPOSE with
those of hikers and equestrians. Who should have priority? I am arguing that
hikers were there first and deserve not only priority but exclusive usage.


Thank you for clarifying your essentially selfish position; I was there first, I liked being by myself, you lot can clear off.


The reality is that each new generation will have different preferences as to type of recreation. You don't, Canute like, get to stop the clock at a point in time that happens to suit you.


We do indeed get to do precisely that since it is a matter of not only best use, but of only use.

The
conflicts are a permanent fixture and are never going to go away. That is what
has to be recognized by one and all before any changes can take place on how
trails are managed. The bikes have got to go!


No, Ed, what needs to go are dogmatic people like you who won't compromise reasonably and actually prevent solutions being agreed and engender more extremism.


The only extremists I know about are louts and slobs like you who want to wreck everything.

Research shows that real conflict is very rare ... the perception thereof is higher. What needs to be recognised is that there is no alternative to sharing; there is only one natural environment and we need to agree to share it and to protect it.


Yep, there is indeed only one natural environment and those of us who care about it do not what it destroyed by the likes of you and your ilk. You can ride your bikes on streets and roads of which this world has an infinite number. Nature is precious and must be preserved above all else.

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


Ads
  #212  
Old May 29th 14, 11:08 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

No, Ed, your very immodest desire to annex a public resource, for
which everyone pays, for your sole use ..

It doesn't matter that it is a public resource or that
everyone pays. Irrelevant and immaterial - which I have explained to you many
times before.


No, you've not done a single thing to validate such a position ... you've simply stated it, again and again, because it is what you would like to be the case. The general population is not going to pay for a parks service which doesn't cater to their needs.

And you're proud of that are you ? I regard profanity

as

vulgar and beneath me and I certainly wouldn't write it in a public

forum.



Public forums be damned! I am living in a free country and


will damn well say anything I please.




That's your right ... which I would support. But, in a free

country, I am also perfectly free to consider that descending to profanity is a
clear signal that you've lost the argument.



Be too much of a dunderhead and you will get your sorry ass
kicked.


Indeed ... so I suggest you stop being a dunderhead and try and find some objective backup for your opinions or, if you can't, realise that you are quite simply wrong.

I don't need profanity to beat you ... just logic and a coherent

position.

I am still waiting for some logic and a coherent position from
you that I can connect with, but I am not holding my breath.


Then, clearly, you haven't the faintest idea what logic looks like. Facts, premises and logic. You seem to think that opinion, anecdote and appeal to authority will suffice instead ... which is not the case.

Am I smarter and better than you?


Very much doubt it. If that were the case you wouldn't make

so many logical errors. Your whole position devolves to "I want this, I
used to have it ... therefore it's right".

Since you did not include my entire paragraph to which you
were responding above, allow me tell you to go **** yourself. You did not even
indicate that you had deleted some of what I had said. Only a scoundrel picks a
sentence out of a paragraph to respond to. Keep doing this and you will get some
profanity that will not stop.


Then I will simply ignore you. I have no time for foul-mouthed bigots.

If all your arguments pertain only to California then, to be



candid, I don't really care. But I very much doubt that this is

what you

mean ... you don't write "death to (Californian) mountainbiking" in

your

signature do you ?




Everything happens in California first and is then exported to


the rest of the world. I mean death to all mountain biking on trails -



everywhere.


[...]



Contrary to what you might believe, California is not the

world.



Jesus Christ! I did not know that!


Oh you did did you ? So why did you write "first California then the world" (paraphrased for brevity) ?

What's the

matter? Can't stand you own company?


What's the matter Ed, can't interact normally with other people

?

All travel and hiking is best done alone. Otherwise one is too
busy interacting with others to give proper attention to what it is you are
there for in the first place. If you had ever read any travel books by travelers
(not tourists), you would know this.


If that's how you like to enjoy your hiking and travel then fine. I prefer, usually, to enjoy experiences with friends and family. It is simply a preference, not axiomatically better or worse.

Yes, Ed, it IS a matter of fairness. The general

population

pays for, and indeed owns through the government, the resources to

which we are

referring. Most of the trails were, as you well know, instituted

for

travel and trade historically and are now a recreation resource for

the

people. So, no, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that your

preferred

use is 'best' and thereby exclude everyone else.




It is NOT a matter of fairness. Where did you ever get such a


crazy idea? It is a matter of BEST use. That is how every public

resource is

managed. In fact, that is how every resource is managed, public or

private. You

surely must be an idiot! There is nothing arbitrary about wanting to

return to

the status quo ante.




Define 'best' ... to a standard that everyone is going to

agree. You can't. Your best is not mine. You have to look at
the fundamental premise of what national parks are intended to do ... which is
to provide recreation for people and preserve wildlife and the resource for
future generations. So they are absolutely doing what they should ...
trying to balance occasionally conflicting requirements so that, overall, the
most number of people are satisfied. That is made very difficult if you
have a small number of selfish and stubborn individuals, such as yourself, who
seem to believe that they are, without the slightest logical justification,
deserving of some special treatment.

The "best" of anything is left to the experts to tell us what
it is. As always, you are confusing and conflating "best" with "most". If you
thought about it more, even you would not want that.


Sometimes, this is correct. And the professional land managers (experts) have made their determination and come up with compromises which don't entirely suit you, or me. However, that's probably the best that can be done in the circumstances.

Anyone walking a trail for recreation belongs to a universe of


common experience.


What total and utter nonsense. Everyone who goes hiking has

the same experience ? What about family groups, ramblers clubs, trail
runners, dog walkers and the numerous other users ?

I think only trail runners don't know why they are doing what
they are doing. Everyone else is wanting to connect with nature the same as me.
The experience may be qualitatively different for everyone of course, but they
are all wanting to do the same thing - to connect with nature. It is only bikers
who do not fit this profile.


You're not even consistent within one post. A few sentences above you stated that hiking and travel was best done alone. Now, you claim that social groups are actually seeking exactly the same experience as lone hikers ?

Some bikers are seeking to enjoy the natural environment, others are looking more for 'thrills' ... but to assume you know what everyone wants is errant nonsense.

Feel free to assume what you wish ... yet again, you're wrong but

since you won't ever bother to check your assumptions you can continue in your
ignorance.

Is it OK if I assume you are an Asshole?


I had already made a similar determination about you ... and, as I've said repeatedly, I really don't care what you think anymore so go right ahead.

My point was correct. Everyone knows that life is not eternal,


but if it were then my point was made. What was my point? I am sure

you have

lost it by now, but it was that biking on trails is much more

dangerous than

hiking on trails and that if you did enough of it you would be far

more likely

to suffer an injury than would hikers. Simple enough even for an idiot

like you

to understand, but why must I go into such details in the first


place.


Because Ed, your memory is becoming somewhat 'convenient'.

Let me refresh it for you, you wrote ...

" Mountain biking accidents happen because they are doing what all

mountain bikers do. The only stupidity is taking up mountain biking in the first
place. If you do it, you will suffer an injury or death. It is just a matter of
time. It is in fact inevitable."

Whereas, as I showed and you eventually were forced to concede,

the risk of a fatality or serious injury in a lifetime of mountainbiking is, in
reality, very low indeed. So, if you take up mountainbiking you will
probably live a long and healthy life.

I conceded no such thing. Where did that come from?


"You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself" - Ed Dolan

Written shortly after you claimed that death was a near inevitability.

QED.

So, the reason I focus on these, as you call them 'details, is

that they prove you wrong.

That you then start talking nonsense about eternal life shows how

desperate, or illogical, you are since, as you should know, any risk, however
small, will become a near inevitability in infinite time.

Is it OK if I call you a Moron?


It's a free country. However, rather than call you one, I prefer to show the rest of the world what you really are by pointing out your errors.

I clearly stated that if you mountain bike long enough an
accident was inevitable. The key words there are "long enough" and "inevitable".


Yes, but your 'long enough' would be orders of magnitude longer than the human lifetime ... moron ! As such, you CAN'T live long enough for it to become a (near) inevitability so your point is refuted.

What is there about that you do not understand. There is nothing safe about
mountain biking.


1.54 injuries per 1,000 exposures is not 'safe' ... but it's safer than skiing, rugby, driving and american football. So, yes, it's relatively safe.

I have hundreds of report on my computer showing just how
dangerous it is. The fact that you think it is safe is nuts.


And, should I choose to do so, I could provide millions of reports on car accidents. Is driving safe or not Ed ?

I suggest you not argue derails with me since you do not know
how to do it. You have never refuted a single thing I have ever said. All you do
is just disagree with a **** poor argument that makes no sense at
all.


Suggestion rejected. You make so many detail errors and outright contradictory posts that someone has to highlight your nonsense.

I can read you perfectly; old, bigoted, lazy, profane and

selfish

You have just described yourself perfectly, Keep up the good
work!


Ah, we've descended to the language of the playground. Nice work Ed !

You're missing the difference between a detail and a key

fact. Key facts, such as the facts that mountainbiking is actually pretty
safe, that there are NOT many collisions and that most concede the need to
share, demolish your arguments.

All your key facts are wrong. Maybe you should just go for the
details after all so you won't look like a complete idiot.


Well then, if you think they're wrong, why don't you prove it instead of simply saying it again and again. If you think mountainbiking is more dangerous than 1.54/1,000 exposures ... prove it ! If you think there are more than 0.00123 fatalities per million miles ... prove it !

You're never going to win a logical argument when you have no facts to support your arguments.

Walking a trail is a universal experience. Everyone does it


for the same reason - to connect with nature for a time. I can assume

that all

hikers experience this connection with nature like I do.


No, you can't assume that at all. Particularly since, as you

admit, you are largely solitary and enjoy your own company. How the hell
would that permit you to empathise with anyone else ?

Is it OK if I call you a Jackass? What does being solitary
have to do with not being able to assume what is common to all mankind. Of
course I do admit I have nothing much in common with mountain bikers who ride
their bikes on hiking trails. That level of jackassery I leave to assholes like
you.


Let's make this really simple so you understand it. What evidence do you have that, universally, hikers walk on trails for the same reasons as you ?

Your belief that everyone should be given a shot at using


trails is belied by the fact that even you do not want motorcycles on

trails.

I didn't say that did I Ed ? I said they SHOULD get SOME

access ... but much less because of environmental impact and risk to other trail
users.

It is OK if I call you a Numskull? It is hard to contest such
stupidity as yours. I want to know why you are excluding motorcycles from
trails. Everything I have against bikes on trails is equally applicable to
motorcycles on trails. What a god damn ****ing selfish lout you
are!


I didn't say I was excluding motorcycles from trails totally ... stop misrepresenting me. I said that their access had to be much more controlled because of their environmental impact. There need to be some resources where people CAN ride motorcycles.

This points up the essential selfishness of your argument. Democracy

does not

mean that everyone can do whatever they want.


No, of course it doesn't, it means that everyone gets some of what

they want ... it's essentially the art of compromise.

Good, now compromise and permit motorcycles on your trails
.... you ****ing hypocrite!


I agree that some trails motorcycles should be allowed on ... that's always been my position. Care to apologise for misrepresentation ?

Biking on trails is a conflict of MEANS and of PURPOSE with


those of hikers and equestrians. Who should have priority? I am

arguing that

hikers were there first and deserve not only priority but exclusive

usage.

Thank you for clarifying your essentially selfish position; I was

there first, I liked being by myself, you lot can clear off.

The reality is that each new generation will have different

preferences as to type of recreation. You don't, Canute like, get to stop
the clock at a point in time that happens to suit you.

We do indeed get to do precisely that since it is a matter of
not only best use, but of only use.


I think the real world evidence is that you don't Ed. That's why you castigate the land managers for not policing the trails as you would wish to do.

No, Ed, what needs to go are dogmatic people like you who won't

compromise reasonably and actually prevent solutions being agreed and engender
more extremism.

The only extremists I know about are louts and slobs like you
who want to wreck everything.


Do you actually have a point or is this just name calling ?

Research shows that real conflict is very rare ... the perception

thereof is higher. What needs to be recognised is that there is no
alternative to sharing; there is only one natural environment and we need to
agree to share it and to protect it.

Yep, there is indeed only one natural environment and those of
us who care about it do not what it destroyed by the likes of you and your ilk.
You can ride your bikes on streets and roads of which this world has an infinite
number. Nature is precious and must be preserved above all else.


Oh, so you'd be happy to give up hiking would you Ed since that would preserve nature far better ?

Mountainbiking is similarly impacting on nature as hiking so we are 'destroying' it to the same degree. In actual fact, of course, both hiking and biking are the tiniest pinpricks in terms of natural degradation in comparison with all the other indignities inflicted on nature by the human species.

  #213  
Old May 30th 14, 02:57 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

No, Ed, your very immodest desire to annex a public resource, for

which everyone pays, for your sole use ..


Edward Dolan wrote:

It doesn't matter that it is a public resource or that
everyone pays. Irrelevant and immaterial - which I have explained to you many
times before.


No, you've not done a single thing to validate such a position ... you've simply stated it, again and again, because it is what you would like to be the case. The general population is not going to pay for a parks service which doesn't cater to their needs.


Nonsense, the public pays for all sorts of things which they either don’t use or can’t use because dedicated to special purposes – such as trails for hiking.
[...]

Am I smarter and better than you?


Very much doubt it. If that were the case you wouldn't make

so many logical errors. Your whole position devolves to "I want this, I
used to have it ... therefore it's right".

Since you did not include my entire paragraph to which you
were responding above, allow me tell you to go **** yourself. You did not even
indicate that you had deleted some of what I had said. Only a scoundrel picks a
sentence out of a paragraph to respond to. Keep doing this and you will get some
profanity that will not stop.


Then I will simply ignore you. I have no time for foul-mouthed bigots.


You will either post correctly or you will reap my whirlwind. Learn how to delete and don't pick out single sentences from my paragraphs to respond to. You have been warned. I have no time for scoundrels!
[...]

All travel and hiking is best done alone. Otherwise one is too
busy interacting with others to give proper attention to what it is you are
there for in the first place. If you had ever read any travel books by travelers
(not tourists), you would know this.


If that's how you like to enjoy your hiking and travel then fine. I prefer, usually, to enjoy experiences with friends and family. It is simply a preference, not axiomatically better or worse.


All the great travel books have been written by lone travelers (Paul Theroux). After all, they are traveling, not touring. Hells Bells, you can’t even bike alone. Pathetic and pitiful!
[...]

The "best" of anything is left to the experts to tell us what
it is. As always, you are confusing and conflating "best" with "most". If you
thought about it more, even you would not want that.


Sometimes, this is correct. And the professional land managers (experts) have made their determination and come up with compromises which don't entirely suit you, or me. However, that's probably the best that can be done in the circumstances.


The land mangers are not the experts on how the natural environment and wilderness should be managed. I could give you a whole list of names of prominent wilderness conservationists who know best what the natural environment is for, but it would go right over your head.

Anyone walking a trail for recreation belongs to a universe of


common experience.


What total and utter nonsense. Everyone who goes hiking has

the same experience ? What about family groups, ramblers clubs, trail
runners, dog walkers and the numerous other users ?

I think only trail runners don't know why they are doing what
they are doing. Everyone else is wanting to connect with nature the same as me.
The experience may be qualitatively different for everyone of course, but they
are all wanting to do the same thing - to connect with nature. It is only bikers
who do not fit this profile.


You're not even consistent within one post. A few sentences above you stated that hiking and travel was best done alone. Now, you claim that social groups are actually seeking exactly the same experience as lone hikers ?


They are, but they are not achieving it as effectively as lone hikers.

Some bikers are seeking to enjoy the natural environment, others are looking more for 'thrills' ... but to assume you know what everyone wants is errant nonsense.


Bikers are interfering with what everyone else is doing. Bikers can enjoy the natural environment by getting off their bikes and walking like everyone else. But they are seeking thrills, a gross and base conflict of purpose with what hikers are doing.
[...]

" Mountain biking accidents happen because they are doing what all

mountain bikers do. The only stupidity is taking up mountain biking in the first
place. If you do it, you will suffer an injury or death. It is just a matter of
time. It is in fact inevitable."

Whereas, as I showed and you eventually were forced to concede,

the risk of a fatality or serious injury in a lifetime of mountainbiking is, in
reality, very low indeed. So, if you take up mountainbiking you will
probably live a long and healthy life.

I conceded no such thing. Where did that come from?


"You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself" - Ed Dolan


Written shortly after you claimed that death was a near inevitability.


QED.


I claimed that accidents were inevitable, not necessarily death. If you knew how to read, you would know that I am saying that mountain bikers are so god damn ****ing dumb that they do indeed manage to kill themselves whereas if they weren’t so god damn ****ing dumb they would have to work at it. But you do not know how to read.

A paragraph will have a central thought. If you knew how to read, you would know that you must respond to that central thought. Instead you get lost on peripheral details and waste everyone’s time, including your own, because I can’t be taken in by that kind of stupidity. Most of the points you like to make are on details and not worth a response. I will simply delete your nonsensical details in the future since I value my time even if you don’t value your time.
[...]

I suggest you not argue derails with me since you do not know
how to do it. You have never refuted a single thing I have ever said. All you do
is just disagree with a **** poor argument that makes no sense at
all.


Suggestion rejected. You make so many detail errors and outright contradictory posts that someone has to highlight your nonsense.


I will no longer bother with what you consider “detail errors” or “contradictions”. Go for my main thought every time or else go **** yourself. I have wasted enough time on an idiot like you who does not know how to read anything.
[...]

It is OK if I call you a Numskull? It is hard to contest such
stupidity as yours. I want to know why you are excluding motorcycles from
trails. Everything I have against bikes on trails is equally applicable to
motorcycles on trails. What a god damn ****ing selfish lout you
are!


I didn't say I was excluding motorcycles from trails totally ... stop misrepresenting me. I said that their access had to be much more controlled because of their environmental impact. There need to be some resources where people CAN ride motorcycles.


Motorcycles need to be excluded from all trails totally – you dumb jackass – just like bikes need to be excluded from all trails totally - you dumb jackass! There are plenty of roads for bikes and motorcycles. That fact that you don’t think so marks you as the dumbest jackass I have ever encountered on any newsgroup. Ask your fellow mountain bikers if they want to share trails with motorcyclists? Your jackassery passes all understanding!
[...]

Yep, there is indeed only one natural environment and those of
us who care about it do not what it destroyed by the likes of you and your ilk.
You can ride your bikes on streets and roads of which this world has an infinite
number. Nature is precious and must be preserved above all else.


Oh, so you'd be happy to give up hiking would you Ed since that would preserve nature far better ?


We hikers take only pictures and leave only footprints.

Mountainbiking is similarly impacting on nature as hiking so we are 'destroying' it to the same degree. In actual fact, of course, both hiking and biking are the tiniest pinpricks in terms of natural degradation in comparison with all the other indignities inflicted on nature by the human species.


Mr. Vandeman is the expert on the physical impact of bikes on trails. I am concerned solely with the impact of bikes on hikers – period! We don’t want bikes on trails because what they are doing is a conflict with what we are doing.

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


  #214  
Old May 30th 14, 10:56 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

No, you've not done a single thing to validate such a position ...
you've simply stated it, again and again, because it is what you would like to
be the case. The general population is not going to pay for a parks
service which doesn't cater to their needs.

Nonsense, the public pays for all sorts of things which they
either don't use or can't use because dedicated to special purposes - such as
trails for hiking.


Public parks are dedicated to public recreation ... that's their purpose. The public pays for them and, quite rightly, expects to be permitted reasonable access.

Then I will simply ignore you. I have no time for

foul-mouthed bigots.

You will either post correctly or you will reap my whirlwind.
Learn how to delete and don't pick out single sentences from my paragraphs to
respond to. You have been warned. I have no time for scoundrels!


I will respond in any way I think fit to your posts. If you don't like it I think you can think of a suitable epithet to apply.

All travel and hiking is best done alone. Otherwise one is too


busy interacting with others to give proper attention to what it is

you are

there for in the first place. If you had ever read any travel books by

travelers

(not tourists), you would know this.


If that's how you like to enjoy your hiking and travel then

fine. I prefer, usually, to enjoy experiences with friends and
family. It is simply a preference, not axiomatically better or
worse.

All the great travel books have been written by lone travelers
(Paul Theroux). After all, they are traveling, not touring. Hells Bells, you
can't even bike alone. Pathetic and pitiful!


What the hell does authoring books have to do with it !??

Please, do tell me, WHY you think you are entitled to tell other people how to enjoy themselves ? I'm not telling you what to do, but you seem determined to dictate to everyone else how they use their public parks and land.

The "best" of anything is left to the experts to tell us what


it is. As always, you are confusing and conflating "best" with "most".

If you

thought about it more, even you would not want that.


Sometimes, this is correct. And the professional land

managers (experts) have made their determination and come up with compromises
which don't entirely suit you, or me. However, that's probably the best
that can be done in the circumstances.

The land mangers are not the experts on how the natural
environment and wilderness should be managed. I could give you a whole list of
names of prominent wilderness conservationists who know best what the natural
environment is for, but it would go right over your head.


Ed, you said let the experts decide and most of the land managers have professional training and in some cases degrees pertinent to their positions. So, clearly, they meet your requirements to have more expertise than you or I.

You suggested an approach but, as ever, you simply can't countenance others having differing views to you so now you want to pick the experts. Laughable.

You're not even consistent within one post. A few sentences

above you stated that hiking and travel was best done alone. Now, you
claim that social groups are actually seeking exactly the same experience as
lone hikers ?

They are, but they are not achieving it as effectively as lone
hikers.


Rolling on floor laughing. Is that really the best you can do ?

Bikers are interfering with what everyone else is doing.


No, Ed, they're interfering with your peace of mind ... which is your problem. Normal hikers get to enjoy their experience without worrying.

Whereas, as I showed and you eventually were forced to

concede,

the risk of a fatality or serious injury in a lifetime of

mountainbiking is, in

reality, very low indeed. So, if you take up mountainbiking you

will

probably live a long and healthy life.


I conceded no such thing. Where did that come from?


"You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself" - Ed

Dolan

Written shortly after you claimed that death was a near

inevitability.

QED.


I claimed that accidents were inevitable, not necessarily
death. If you knew how to read, you would know that I am saying that mountain
bikers are so god damn ****ing dumb that they do indeed manage to kill
themselves whereas if they weren't so god damn ****ing dumb they would have to
work at it. But you do not know how to read.


I read what you actually write ... it appears you can't transcribe what is in your head efficiently to text.

You wrote

"The fact remains that those who bike on hiking trails (not bike paths) will eventually come to a bad end because it is extremely dangerous." - Ed Dolan

Memory going again Ed ?

A paragraph will have a central thought. If you knew how to
read, you would know that you must respond to that central thought. Instead you
get lost on peripheral details and waste everyone's time, including your own,
because I can't be taken in by that kind of stupidity. Most of the points you
like to make are on details and not worth a response. I will simply delete your
nonsensical details in the future since I value my time even if you don't value
your time.


I am here purely for amusement. As I said, I shall choose to respond to you in any way I deem appropriate consistent with the rules of the forum.

If you write nonsense then I will call you on it. Clear ?

I suggest you not argue derails with me since you do not know


how to do it. You have never refuted a single thing I have ever said.

All you do

is just disagree with a **** poor argument that makes no sense at



all.


Suggestion rejected. You make so many detail errors and

outright contradictory posts that someone has to highlight your nonsense.

I will no longer bother with what you consider "detail errors"
or "contradictions". Go for my main thought every time or else go **** yourself.
I have wasted enough time on an idiot like you who does not know how to read
anything.


And I've probably wasted way too much time with someone who simply cannot see that their views and opinions are not supported by any facts and are, quite simply, bigotry.

There is a big wide world out there ... go out and enjoy it and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing. If you see a bike, take a deep breath, and simply ignore it ... it's not going to hurt you.

I didn't say I was excluding motorcycles from trails totally ...

stop misrepresenting me. I said that their access had to be much more
controlled because of their environmental impact. There need to be some
resources where people CAN ride motorcycles.

Motorcycles need to be excluded from all trails totally - you
dumb jackass - just like bikes need to be excluded from all trails totally - you
dumb jackass! There are plenty of roads for bikes and motorcycles. That fact
that you don't think so marks you as the dumbest jackass I have ever encountered
on any newsgroup. Ask your fellow mountain bikers if they want to share trails
with motorcyclists? Your jackassery passes all understanding!


If you care to rephrase as a coherent point then I'll respond ... if you descend to playground name-calling I'm going to ignore you until you can be civil.

Oh, so you'd be happy to give up hiking would you Ed since that

would preserve nature far better ?

We hikers take only pictures and leave only
footprints.


"A 1975 survey of land managers reported substantial erosion on mountain trails during the previous decade that was attributed to dramatic increases in horse and foot travel on trails not designed to accomodate higher volumes of traffic" - Godin and Leonard, 1979

So, no, you're wrong ... you cause erosion and also, as your idiotic pal vandeman is fond of pointing out, you disturb wildlife that doesn't like human presence.

All activities have some deleterious effect on nature.

I am concerned solely with the impact of bikes on hikers - period! We
don't want bikes on trails because what they are doing is a conflict with what
we are doing.


Yawn ! So you've said a million times. Don't you get tired of it ?

And, as I've said many times now too, I don't care what you and vandeman want. You're not reasonable people so there is no compromise that will satisfy you ... hence, I'm simply going to ignore you.

  #215  
Old June 1st 14, 06:08 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

No, you've not done a single thing to validate such a position ...

you've simply stated it, again and again, because it is what you would like to
be the case. The general population is not going to pay for a parks
service which doesn't cater to their needs.


Edward Dolan wrote:

Nonsense, the public pays for all sorts of things which they
either don't use or can't use because dedicated to special purposes - such as
trails for hiking.


Public parks are dedicated to public recreation ... that's their purpose. The public pays for them and, quite rightly, expects to be permitted reasonable access.


Public parks also stipulate who can do what where and under what conditions. All kinds of rules and regulations govern public parks.

Then I will simply ignore you. I have no time for

foul-mouthed bigots.

You will either post correctly or you will reap my whirlwind.
Learn how to delete and don't pick out single sentences from my paragraphs to
respond to. You have been warned. I have no time for scoundrels!


I will respond in any way I think fit to your posts. If you don't like it I think you can think of a suitable epithet to apply.


I will compare what you have posted in response to my preceding post and you had better not be pulling single sentences out of my paragraphs.
[...]

All the great travel books have been written by lone travelers
(Paul Theroux). After all, they are traveling, not touring. Hells Bells, you
can't even bike alone. Pathetic and pitiful!


What the hell does authoring books have to do with it !??


When I am recreating (hiking) I am usually a traveler far from home. And I do it alone for the same reason that people who write travel books also do their traveling alone. Having to travel or hike or bike with others is a distraction from my purpose for doing what I am doing. If I want social intercourse, there are other venues for that.

Please, do tell me, WHY you think you are entitled to tell other people how to enjoy themselves ? I'm not telling you what to do, but you seem determined to dictate to everyone else how they use their public parks and land.


Trails are there for walkers, not for bikers. Most developed parks will have plenty of roads and bike paths for cycling. There is never any reason why a bike should be on a hiking trail. If the park managers and administrators had the brains they were born with, they would see to it.
[...]

The land mangers are not the experts on how the natural
environment and wilderness should be managed. I could give you a whole list of
names of prominent wilderness conservationists who know best what the natural
environment is for, but it would go right over your head.


Ed, you said let the experts decide and most of the land managers have professional training and in some cases degrees pertinent to their positions. So, clearly, they meet your requirements to have more expertise than you or I.


You suggested an approach but, as ever, you simply can't countenance others having differing views to you so now you want to pick the experts. Laughable.


There is vast literature authored by men far wiser than you and I who have devoted their lives to the preservation of wild places. Many of these men were responsible for the original setting aside of these wild places. They are the experts, not necessarily the administrators of such places. Of course some administrators are better than others, but as a group they cannot be relied upon to do what is best, either for the present or for future generations. Even National Park administrators often want to develop the park entrusted to their temporary care, never seeming to realize that their first duty is simply preservation of what is already there. Most development is an abomination. It is possible for man to even ruin something like the Grand Canyon NP, impossible as that might seem. All you have to do is just keep chipping away at it, like permitting mountain bikes on hiking trails.
[...]

I claimed that accidents were inevitable, not necessarily
death. If you knew how to read, you would know that I am saying that mountain
bikers are so god damn ****ing dumb that they do indeed manage to kill
themselves whereas if they weren't so god damn ****ing dumb they would have to
work at it. But you do not know how to read.


I read what you actually write ... it appears you can't transcribe what is in your head efficiently to text.


You wrote


"The fact remains that those who bike on hiking trails (not bike paths) will eventually come to a bad end because it is extremely dangerous." - Ed Dolan


Memory going again Ed ?


Nope, but your ability to read has certainly gone. I am not going to ever spell out everything for you. Either learn how to read or get lost!

A paragraph will have a central thought. If you knew how to
read, you would know that you must respond to that central thought. Instead you
get lost on peripheral details and waste everyone's time, including your own,
because I can't be taken in by that kind of stupidity. Most of the points you
like to make are on details and not worth a response. I will simply delete your
nonsensical details in the future since I value my time even if you don't value
your time.


Argumentative nonsensical blather deleted here to keep others who might be following any of this from going nuts.
[...]

Motorcycles need to be excluded from all trails totally - you
dumb jackass - just like bikes need to be excluded from all trails totally - you
dumb jackass! There are plenty of roads for bikes and motorcycles. That fact
that you don't think so marks you as the dumbest jackass I have ever encountered
on any newsgroup. Ask your fellow mountain bikers if they want to share trails
with motorcyclists? Your jackassery passes all understanding!

[...]

If you care to rephrase as a coherent point then I'll respond ... if you descend to playground name-calling I'm going to ignore you until you can be civil.


Coherence is lost on someone like you who does not know how to read. Anyone who would permit motorcycles on hiking trails is too god damn stupid to even be acknowledged.

Oh, so you'd be happy to give up hiking would you Ed since that

would preserve nature far better ?

We hikers take only pictures and leave only
footprints.


"A 1975 survey of land managers reported substantial erosion on mountain trails during the previous decade that was attributed to dramatic increases in horse and foot travel on trails not designed to accomodate higher volumes of traffic" - Godin and Leonard, 1979


So, no, you're wrong ... you cause erosion and also, as your idiotic pal vandeman is fond of pointing out, you disturb wildlife that doesn't like human presence.


The erosion cause by walkers is minimal and does not interfere with future walkers. The erosion caused by bikers can make trails unworkable for walkers.

All activities have some deleterious effect on nature.


But minimal for hikers compared to bikers. But you are stupid enough to even permit motorcycles on some trails. Stupid is as stupid does.

I am concerned solely with the impact of bikes on hikers - period! We
don't want bikes on trails because what they are doing is a conflict with what
we are doing.


Yawn ! So you've said a million times. Don't you get tired of it ?


And, as I've said many times now too, I don't care what you and vandeman want. You're not reasonable people so there is no compromise that will satisfy you ... hence, I'm simply going to ignore you.


That is what everyone says who has lost to a superior argument and a superior intelligence. I am very pleased to be associated with someone like Mr.Vandeman (a scholar and a gentleman) and I would be ashamed to be associated with someone like you who would even permit motorcycles on some hiking trails. You are truly beyond the pale ... just like all your ilk – louts, scoundrels and thugs!

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


  #216  
Old June 2nd 14, 11:25 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

Public parks are dedicated to public recreation ... that's their
purpose. The public pays for them and, quite rightly, expects to be
permitted reasonable access.

Public parks also stipulate who can do what where and under
what conditions. All kinds of rules and regulations govern public
parks.


Indeed. And the rules and regulations, quite correctly, permit mountainbiking in most locations.

I will respond in any way I think fit to your posts. If you

don't like it I think you can think of a suitable epithet to apply.

I will compare what you have posted in response to my
preceding post and you had better not be pulling single sentences out of my
paragraphs.


I reiterate, I reserve the right to respond in any way I deem fit.

All the great travel books have been written by lone travelers


(Paul Theroux). After all, they are traveling, not touring. Hells

Bells, you

can't even bike alone. Pathetic and pitiful!




What the hell does authoring books have to do with it !??




When I am recreating (hiking) I am usually a traveler far from
home. And I do it alone for the same reason that people who write travel books
also do their traveling alone. Having to travel or hike or bike with others is a
distraction from my purpose for doing what I am doing. If I want social
intercourse, there are other venues for that.


What is your point ? The fact that you like solitude is entirely immaterial as regards to what other people want to do !

Please, do tell me, WHY you think you are entitled to tell other

people how to enjoy themselves ? I'm not telling you what to do, but you
seem determined to dictate to everyone else how they use their public parks and
land.

Trails are there for walkers, not for bikers. Most developed
parks will have plenty of roads and bike paths for cycling. There is never any
reason why a bike should be on a hiking trail. If the park managers and
administrators had the brains they were born with, they would see to
it.


You didn't answer the question. WHY are you entitled to dictate how people should enjoy a public resource ?

The land mangers are not the experts on how the natural


environment and wilderness should be managed. I could give you a whole

list of

names of prominent wilderness conservationists who know best what the

natural

environment is for, but it would go right over your head.


Ed, you said let the experts decide and most of the land managers

have professional training and in some cases degrees pertinent to their
positions. So, clearly, they meet your requirements to have more expertise
than you or I.

You suggested an approach but, as ever, you simply can't

countenance others having differing views to you so now you want to pick the
experts. Laughable.

There is vast literature authored by men far wiser than you
and I who have devoted their lives to the preservation of wild places. Many of
these men were responsible for the original setting aside of these wild places.
They are the experts, not necessarily the administrators of such places. Of
course some administrators are better than others, but as a group they cannot be
relied upon to do what is best, either for the present or for future
generations. Even National Park administrators often want to develop the park
entrusted to their temporary care, never seeming to realize that their first
duty is simply preservation of what is already there. Most development is an
abomination. It is possible for man to even ruin something like the Grand Canyon
NP, impossible as that might seem. All you have to do is just keep chipping away
at it, like permitting mountain bikes on hiking trails.


Ed, again you are not addressing the point. The impartial managers who ARE managing the resources are simply not giving you exactly what you want. On that basis, and that basis alone, you think they should be replaced with others who you believe would agree with your position. The reality is that the reasonably objective managers currently in place are doing their best to share a limited resource fairly.

I claimed that accidents were inevitable, not necessarily


death. If you knew how to read, you would know that I am saying that

mountain

bikers are so god damn ****ing dumb that they do indeed manage to kill



themselves whereas if they weren't so god damn ****ing dumb they would

have to

work at it. But you do not know how to read.


I read what you actually write ... it appears you can't transcribe

what is in your head efficiently to text.

You wrote


"The fact remains that those who bike on hiking trails (not bike

paths) will eventually come to a bad end because it is extremely dangerous." -
Ed Dolan

Memory going again Ed ?


Nope, but your ability to read has certainly gone. I am not
going to ever spell out everything for you. Either learn how to read or get
lost!


No, Ed, you DON'T get to redefine the English language to suit yourself. If you write something, I suggest you ensure that it's consistent with your position - it frequently isn't !

You're more than happy to throw out ridiculous assertions and, only when challenged, do you then say that wasn't what you meant. You wrote that mountainbikers would inevitably come to a bad end ... you then conceded that this wasn't the case and it was unlikely that they would die.

Your problem is that, when it comes to injuries and fatalities, that your fundamental premise ... that mountainbiking is extremely dangerous ... is provably false. It is safer than driving, rugby, skiing and many other activities. You can throw all the blather you wish at it but you can't change that fundamental truth.

If you care to rephrase as a coherent point then I'll respond ...

if you descend to playground name-calling I'm going to ignore you until you can
be civil.

Coherence is lost on someone like you who does not know how to
read. Anyone who would permit motorcycles on hiking trails is too god damn
stupid to even be acknowledged.


I reiterate .. make a coherent point, without profanity, and I'll respond ....

Oh, so you'd be happy to give up hiking would you Ed since

that

would preserve nature far better ?




We hikers take only pictures and leave only


footprints.


"A 1975 survey of land managers reported substantial erosion on

mountain trails during the previous decade that was attributed to dramatic
increases in horse and foot travel on trails not designed to accomodate higher
volumes of traffic" - Godin and Leonard, 1979

So, no, you're wrong ... you cause erosion and also, as your

idiotic pal vandeman is fond of pointing out, you disturb wildlife that doesn't
like human presence.

The erosion cause by walkers is minimal and does not interfere
with future walkers. The erosion caused by bikers can make trails unworkable for
walkers.


Not true. There are major erosion problems at many sites where there are a large number of hikers. See this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/890579.stm

An individual mountainbiker or hiker has minimal, roughly equivalent impact on the environment. Large numbers of either will cause erosion.

All activities have some deleterious effect on nature.


But minimal for hikers compared to bikers. But you are stupid
enough to even permit motorcycles on some trails. Stupid is as stupid
does.


Hikers and bikers are roughly equivalent in terms of trail erosion impact .... happy to refer you to all the research and literature if you wish. Motorbikes have a much higher impact of course. However, I do not believe that a blanket ban on motorbikes will work ... there must be some place for them too ... albeit more restricted than others.

I am concerned solely with the impact of bikes on hikers - period! We



don't want bikes on trails because what they are doing is a conflict

with what

we are doing.


Yawn ! So you've said a million times. Don't you get

tired of it ?

And, as I've said many times now too, I don't care what you and

vandeman want. You're not reasonable people so there is no compromise that
will satisfy you ... hence, I'm simply going to ignore you.

That is what everyone says who has lost to a superior argument
and a superior intelligence.


Lost, to you ? Now you really are being funny. You can't even put together a coherent, rational argument that doesn't rely, fundamentally, on your own personal preferences.

I am very pleased to be associated with someone
like Mr.Vandeman (a scholar and a gentleman) and I would be ashamed to be
associated with someone like you who would even permit motorcycles on some
hiking trails. You are truly beyond the pale ... just like all your ilk - louts,
scoundrels and thugs!


My group, this Saturday, included two CEOs, one IT Project Manager, one CFO, two doctors and an army Major. You're asserting that we're the louts, scoundrels and thugs ? None of us have criminal convictions,none of us have sought conflict and we simply enjoy our weekly rides together without inconveniencing anyone else. You, on the other hand, prefer to associate with a borderline sociopath and convicted criminal such as vandeman. Good luck with that.

  #217  
Old June 3rd 14, 12:51 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Public parks are dedicated to public recreation ... that's their

purpose. The public pays for them and, quite rightly, expects to be
permitted reasonable access.


Edward Dolan wrote:

Public parks also stipulate who can do what where and under
what conditions. All kinds of rules and regulations govern public
parks.


Indeed. And the rules and regulations, quite correctly, permit mountainbiking in most locations.


This is where I came in a hundred posts ago with my complaint against the stupidity of what the managers were incorrectly permitting.

I will respond in any way I think fit to your posts. If you

don't like it I think you can think of a suitable epithet to apply.

I will compare what you have posted in response to my
preceding post and you had better not be pulling single sentences out of my
paragraphs.


I reiterate, I reserve the right to respond in any way I deem fit.


If you pull single sentences out of my paragraphs to respond to, then we will be off on a tangential issue which you will lose because such posting is universally recognized as the behavior of a scoundrel and a cad. Your deviltry will be pitted against My Saintliness. Think you can win an argument when it is going to be all about the correct manner of posting on a newsgroup?
[...]

When I am recreating (hiking) I am usually a traveler far from
home. And I do it alone for the same reason that people who write travel books
also do their traveling alone. Having to travel or hike or bike with others is a
distraction from my purpose for doing what I am doing. If I want social
intercourse, there are other venues for that.


What is your point ? The fact that you like solitude is entirely immaterial as regards to what other people want to do !


Listen up you confounded jackass! You remarked previously that since I hike alone I possibly can’t get along with others – so I am telling you why I prefer to hike alone. Jeez, you can‘t follow anything! Go back a few posts and look it up! I am way too lazy to ever do anything like that myself.

Please, do tell me, WHY you think you are entitled to tell other

people how to enjoy themselves ? I'm not telling you what to do, but you
seem determined to dictate to everyone else how they use their public parks and
land.

Trails are there for walkers, not for bikers. Most developed
parks will have plenty of roads and bike paths for cycling. There is never any
reason why a bike should be on a hiking trail. If the park managers and
administrators had the brains they were born with, they would see to
it.


You didn't answer the question. WHY are you entitled to dictate how people should enjoy a public resource ?


The resource itself dictates that. I can clearly see what the resource is and you can’t.
[...]

There is vast literature authored by men far wiser than you
and I who have devoted their lives to the preservation of wild places. Many of
these men were responsible for the original setting aside of these wild places.
They are the experts, not necessarily the administrators of such places. Of
course some administrators are better than others, but as a group they cannot be
relied upon to do what is best, either for the present or for future
generations. Even National Park administrators often want to develop the park
entrusted to their temporary care, never seeming to realize that their first
duty is simply preservation of what is already there. Most development is an
abomination. It is possible for man to even ruin something like the Grand Canyon
NP, impossible as that might seem. All you have to do is just keep chipping away
at it, like permitting mountain bikes on hiking trails.


Ed, again you are not addressing the point. The impartial managers who ARE managing the resources are simply not giving you exactly what you want. On that basis, and that basis alone, you think they should be replaced with others who you believe would agree with your position. The reality is that the reasonably objective managers currently in place are doing their best to share a limited resource fairly.


The park mangers are not doing their jobs correctly. I blame them more than I do those who like you are simply taking advantage of their dereliction of duty.
[...]

Nope, but your ability to read has certainly gone. I am not
going to ever spell out everything for you. Either learn how to read or get
lost!


No, Ed, you DON'T get to redefine the English language to suit yourself. If you write something, I suggest you ensure that it's consistent with your position - it frequently isn't !


You're more than happy to throw out ridiculous assertions and, only when challenged, do you then say that wasn't what you meant. You wrote that mountainbikers would inevitably come to a bad end ... you then conceded that this wasn't the case and it was unlikely that they would die.


You want to take every world literally and then give them all equal importance, and that can never be the case when you are reading anything that borders on being literature. You simply don’t know how to read me and I suspect not anyone else either. You pounce on words which are not even germane to what I am saying. Less statistics and more poetry would teach you how to read.

Deaths from mountain biking are rare but not unheard of. Serious injuries from mountain biking are common as mud. I put “death and injuries” together because they go together, but not because they are equal in numbers. If you knew how to read, that is how you would have read it without making an issue of deaths. You sir are an idiot!

Your problem is that, when it comes to injuries and fatalities, that your fundamental premise ... that mountainbiking is extremely dangerous .... is provably false. It is safer than driving, rugby, skiing and many other activities. You can throw all the blather you wish at it but you can't change that fundamental truth.


Riding a bike on a trail is indeed a sport, but such an activity has no business being on a trail used by hikers. That is not what trails are for. Mountain biking compared to hiking, which is not a sport, is extremely dangerous. It is even dangerous compared to other sports. It is not the same thing as driving a car, but it is similar to alpine skiing, another outdoor sport that is dangerous.
[...]

All activities have some deleterious effect on nature.


But minimal for hikers compared to bikers. But you are stupid
enough to even permit motorcycles on some trails. Stupid is as stupid
does.


Hikers and bikers are roughly equivalent in terms of trail erosion impact ... happy to refer you to all the research and literature if you wish. Motorbikes have a much higher impact of course. However, I do not believe that a blanket ban on motorbikes will work ... there must be some place for them too ... albeit more restricted than others.


Bikers need to be restricted from trails for the same reason that motorcyclists need to be restricted from trails. No difference whatsoever. I have seen trails ruined by biker traffic and have never seen the same from hiker traffic. The erosion, even if not quantitatively different (highly doubtful), is qualitatively different because feet and wheels are different from one another.
[...]

I am very pleased to be associated with someone
like Mr.Vandeman (a scholar and a gentleman) and I would be ashamed to be
associated with someone like you who would even permit motorcycles on some
hiking trails. You are truly beyond the pale ... just like all your ilk - louts,
scoundrels and thugs!


My group, this Saturday, included two CEOs, one IT Project Manager, one CFO, two doctors and an army Major. You're asserting that we're the louts, scoundrels and thugs ? None of us have criminal convictions,none of us have sought conflict and we simply enjoy our weekly rides together without inconveniencing anyone else. You, on the other hand, prefer to associate with a borderline sociopath and convicted criminal such as vandeman. Good luck with that.


It is your associations that matter, not who or what you are personally. Mountain bikers are what they are and nothing you say can disguise that truth. They have a universally bad reputation because of how they are impact hikers and equestrians. Mr. Vandeman’s morality is so far ahead of yours that it lies in a different universe. I am a Great Saint and just love to discuss moral issues. Bottom line, you and your ilk ride your bikes on trails used by hikers. This is a mortal sin for which you and your ilk will burn in Hell for all eternity (of course, only if there is a life after death).

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

  #218  
Old June 3rd 14, 05:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

Public parks also stipulate who can do what where and under

what conditions. All kinds of rules and regulations govern public



parks.


Indeed. And the rules and regulations, quite correctly,

permit mountainbiking in most locations.

This is where I came in a hundred posts ago with my complaint
against the stupidity of what the managers were incorrectly
permitting.


Indeed you did. And in all that blather you've done precisely nothing to explain WHY the managers were doing so incorrectly.

You complain that you don't like bikes on trails and then assert that all serious hikers feel the same way. However, you've done nothing to prove that and, as I am a hiker too and know a fair few hikers, I am not going to believe your blank assertion without backup. I think it's just you and a few extremists who have a bee in your bonnets about bikes.

You conveniently forget that Parks' core objectives are to provide recreation, preserve wildlife and protect the resource. Against those objectives, of course they're going to allow mountainbiking if that's what a significant percentage of the population, who pay for the parks, want to do. They are not going to pander to extremists like you who won't share one iota.

You then come up with the most laughable concept of all ... "Best Use" ... but your best use is simply what you want to do.

I will respond in any way I think fit to your posts. If

you

don't like it I think you can think of a suitable epithet to

apply.



I will compare what you have posted in response to my


preceding post and you had better not be pulling single sentences out

of my

paragraphs.


I reiterate, I reserve the right to respond in any way I deem

fit.

If you pull single sentences out of my paragraphs to respond
to, then we will be off on a tangential issue which you will lose because such
posting is universally recognized as the behavior of a scoundrel and a cad. Your
deviltry will be pitted against My Saintliness. Think you can win an argument
when it is going to be all about the correct manner of posting on a
newsgroup?


Ed, the standard for newsgroups is that, when challenged to support a position, you are able to justify it with facts and logic. When challenged you simply assert 'I KNOW it's true'. So don't start whinging when I point out the massive fallacies you commit.

When I am recreating (hiking) I am usually a traveler far from


home. And I do it alone for the same reason that people who write

travel books

also do their traveling alone. Having to travel or hike or bike with

others is a

distraction from my purpose for doing what I am doing. If I want

social

intercourse, there are other venues for that.




What is your point ? The fact that you like solitude is

entirely immaterial as regards to what other people want to do !



Listen up you confounded jackass! You remarked previously that
since I hike alone I possibly can't get along with others - so I am telling you
why I prefer to hike alone. Jeez, you can't follow anything! Go back a few posts
and look it up! I am way too lazy to ever do anything like that
myself.


Unlike you, I DO refer back to what was previously said. And the original question was WHY you think you are able to represent what other hikers think, particularly when you tend to hike alone as you report.

So, yet again, you have attempted to obfuscate and deviate from the topic to avoid the obvious conclusion that you can't justify what you asserted.

What you like to do, or avoid, is ENTIRELY IMMATERIAL to the question of what the majority of trail users wish to do. You're dancing around the question because you can't answer it ... as usual.

Please, do tell me, WHY you think you are entitled to tell

other

people how to enjoy themselves ? I'm not telling you what to do,

but you

seem determined to dictate to everyone else how they use their public

parks and

land.




Trails are there for walkers, not for bikers. Most developed


parks will have plenty of roads and bike paths for cycling. There is

never any

reason why a bike should be on a hiking trail. If the park managers

and

administrators had the brains they were born with, they would see to



it.




You didn't answer the question. WHY are you entitled to

dictate how people should enjoy a public resource ?



The resource itself dictates that. I can clearly see what the
resource is and you can't.


The resource dictates nothing ... clearly I CAN ride on trails shared with hikers since I do so every week.

I reiterate ... WHY do you think you are entitled to dictate to others as to how they use a public resource. And don't say it's 'Best Use' because, as we both know, that's just what you want to do ... and is in no way a justification. I could just as easily state that "Trails must be managed to optimise user satisfaction" ... with every bit as much validity if it's just opinion.

There is vast literature authored by men far wiser than you


and I who have devoted their lives to the preservation of wild places.

Many of

these men were responsible for the original setting aside of these

wild places.

They are the experts, not necessarily the administrators of such

places. Of

course some administrators are better than others, but as a group they

cannot be

relied upon to do what is best, either for the present or for future



generations. Even National Park administrators often want to develop

the park

entrusted to their temporary care, never seeming to realize that their

first

duty is simply preservation of what is already there. Most development

is an

abomination. It is possible for man to even ruin something like the

Grand Canyon

NP, impossible as that might seem. All you have to do is just keep

chipping away

at it, like permitting mountain bikes on hiking trails.




Ed, again you are not addressing the point. The impartial

managers who ARE managing the resources are simply not giving you exactly what
you want. On that basis, and that basis alone, you think they should be
replaced with others who you believe would agree with your position. The
reality is that the reasonably objective managers currently in place are doing
their best to share a limited resource fairly.

The park mangers are not doing their jobs correctly. I blame
them more than I do those who like you are simply taking advantage of their
dereliction of duty.


WHY are they not doing their jobs correctly Ed ? If their remit is as I stated above, which is it, then they're doing what they should ... trying to fairly apportion a scarce resource to satisfy as many as possible.

For your world to make any sense one would have to accept that your pronouncements on what is the 'best' and 'right' use of a trail have the status of fact. It doesn't, it's simply your opinion and you've not even shown that a significant percentage of the hiking population share it.
Nope, but your ability to read has certainly gone. I am not


going to ever spell out everything for you. Either learn how to read

or get

lost!


No, Ed, you DON'T get to redefine the English language to suit

yourself. If you write something, I suggest you ensure that it's
consistent with your position - it frequently isn't !

You're more than happy to throw out ridiculous assertions and,

only when challenged, do you then say that wasn't what you meant. You
wrote that mountainbikers would inevitably come to a bad end ... you then
conceded that this wasn't the case and it was unlikely that they would
die.

You want to take every world literally and then give them all
equal importance, and that can never be the case when you are reading anything
that borders on being literature. You simply don't know how to read me and I
suspect not anyone else either. You pounce on words which are not even germane
to what I am saying. Less statistics and more poetry would teach you how to
read.


Good grief. Maybe you should try the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Defence ... get a qualified poet to certify that beauty = truth and then assert that life is guilty for failing to be either !

You are not writing literature Ed ... you're debating in a forum. You intentionally want to generalise simply because, deep down, you know that everything you're saying just comes down to 'because that's what I want'.

And, lastly, if you are trying to write poetry I suggest you desist ... it's awful !

Deaths from mountain biking are rare but not unheard of.
Serious injuries from mountain biking are common as mud. I put "death and
injuries" together because they go together, but not because they are equal in
numbers. If you knew how to read, that is how you would have read it without
making an issue of deaths. You sir are an idiot!

Your problem is that, when it comes to injuries and fatalities,

that your fundamental premise ... that mountainbiking is extremely dangerous ...
is provably false. It is safer than driving, rugby, skiing and many other
activities. You can throw all the blather you wish at it but you can't
change that fundamental truth.

Riding a bike on a trail is indeed a sport, but such an
activity has no business being on a trail used by hikers. That is not what
trails are for. Mountain biking compared to hiking, which is not a sport, is
extremely dangerous. It is even dangerous compared to other sports. It is not
the same thing as driving a car, but it is similar to alpine skiing, another
outdoor sport that is dangerous.


Racing a bike is a sport, simply riding it is not. Just as running to win a race is a sport whilst going for a walk is not. However, they are all recreations and there is no objective rationale to ban them. Your 'best use' is nonsense.

And, no, mountainbiking is much safer than alpine skiing ... it's much more akin to cross country skiing.

All activities have some deleterious effect on nature.


But minimal for hikers compared to bikers. But you are stupid


enough to even permit motorcycles on some trails. Stupid is as stupid



does.


Hikers and bikers are roughly equivalent in terms of trail erosion

impact ... happy to refer you to all the research and literature if you
wish. Motorbikes have a much higher impact of course. However, I do
not believe that a blanket ban on motorbikes will work ... there must be some
place for them too ... albeit more restricted than others.

Bikers need to be restricted from trails for the same reason
that motorcyclists need to be restricted from trails. No difference whatsoever.
I have seen trails ruined by biker traffic and have never seen the same from
hiker traffic. The erosion, even if not quantitatively different (highly
doubtful), is qualitatively different because feet and wheels are different from
one another.


If you're never seen hiker trails ruined by erosion I take it that Snowdon wasted their 1.5million on reinforcing the trails to repair them after hiker damage ?

  #219  
Old June 3rd 14, 10:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]
Edward Dolan wrote:

This is where I came in a hundred posts ago with my complaint
against the stupidity of what the managers were incorrectly
permitting.


Indeed you did. And in all that blather you've done precisely nothing to explain WHY the managers were doing so incorrectly.


Conflict of both means and purpose - with plenty of details provided for dunderheads like you who can't figure out anything on your own.

You complain that you don't like bikes on trails and then assert that all serious hikers feel the same way. However, you've done nothing to prove that and, as I am a hiker too and know a fair few hikers, I am not going to believe your blank assertion without backup. I think it's just you and a few extremists who have a bee in your bonnets about bikes.


It is very convenient to believe what you want to believe even though others are telling you that what you believe is nuts.

You conveniently forget that Parks' core objectives are to provide recreation, preserve wildlife and protect the resource. Against those objectives, of course they're going to allow mountainbiking if that's what a significant percentage of the population, who pay for the parks, want to do. They are not going to pander to extremists like you who won't share one iota.


The only extremists I know about are mountain bikers who are interlopers and usurpers. That is the beauty of anything public paid for by taxes – there is seldom any relationship between who is paying and what you are getting. I could give you thousands of examples of that truism.

You then come up with the most laughable concept of all ... "Best Use" ... but your best use is simply what you want to do.


Best use is what any person with an iota of common sense would acknowledge it to be. This lets you out.
[...]

If you pull single sentences out of my paragraphs to respond
to, then we will be off on a tangential issue which you will lose because such
posting is universally recognized as the behavior of a scoundrel and a cad. Your
deviltry will be pitted against My Saintliness. Think you can win an argument
when it is going to be all about the correct manner of posting on a
newsgroup?


Ed, the standard for newsgroups is that, when challenged to support a position, you are able to justify it with facts and logic. When challenged you simply assert 'I KNOW it's true'. So don't start whinging when I point out the massive fallacies you commit.


Always post the complete paragraph that you are responding to and I will take it from there. I do not chop your paragraphs and I do not expect my paragraphs to be chopped either. You also need to learn to delete material you are not responding to. Why burden the reader unnecessarily?
[...]

Listen up you confounded jackass! You remarked previously that
since I hike alone I possibly can't get along with others - so I am telling you
why I prefer to hike alone. Jeez, you can't follow anything! Go back a few posts
and look it up! I am way too lazy to ever do anything like that
myself.


Unlike you, I DO refer back to what was previously said. And the original question was WHY you think you are able to represent what other hikers think, particularly when you tend to hike alone as you report.


Nope, you have to go back a few steps further to arrive at the point I was making in response to your remark ... something about why I prefer to hike alone is because I can’t get along with others? I told you why I like to hike alone and enlarged on it ... but of course it was just another case of casting pearls before swine because you can’t keep track of whatever moronic points you are trying to make.
[...]

You didn't answer the question. WHY are you entitled to

dictate how people should enjoy a public resource ?

The resource itself dictates that. I can clearly see what the
resource is and you can't.


The resource dictates nothing ... clearly I CAN ride on trails shared with hikers since I do so every week.


I reiterate ... WHY do you think you are entitled to dictate to others as to how they use a public resource. And don't say it's 'Best Use' because, as we both know, that's just what you want to do ... and is in no way a justification. I could just as easily state that "Trails must be managed to optimise user satisfaction" ... with every bit as much validity if it's just opinion.


The resource itself dictates what is best use to all except idiots like you.
[...]

The park mangers are not doing their jobs correctly. I blame
them more than I do those who like you are simply taking advantage of their
dereliction of duty.


WHY are they not doing their jobs correctly Ed ? If their remit is as I stated above, which is it, then they're doing what they should ... trying to fairly apportion a scarce resource to satisfy as many as possible.


For your world to make any sense one would have to accept that your pronouncements on what is the 'best' and 'right' use of a trail have the status of fact. It doesn't, it's simply your opinion and you've not even shown that a significant percentage of the hiking population share it.


All serious hikers and equestrians hate to have bikes on trails. It is just that simple. Why? It is conflict of means and purpose. Trails cannot be all things to all people. Trails not only have a best use, but in some cases an only use. Designated Wilderness Areas in the US exemplify this to perfection.
[...]

You want to take every world literally and then give them all

equal importance, and that can never be the case when you are reading anything
that borders on being literature. You simply don't know how to read me and I
suspect not anyone else either. You pounce on words which are not even germane
to what I am saying. Less statistics and more poetry would teach you how to
read.


Good grief. Maybe you should try the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Defence ... get a qualified poet to certify that beauty = truth and then assert that life is guilty for failing to be either !


You are not writing literature Ed ... you're debating in a forum. You intentionally want to generalise simply because, deep down, you know that everything you're saying just comes down to 'because that's what I want'.


And, lastly, if you are trying to write poetry I suggest you desist .... it's awful !


See – you pounced on the words ‘literature’ and ‘poetry’, as though that was my central thought. God, you are such a sucker and so easily lead. Even so I grade my prose superior to yours.

I do generalize because I have enough intellect to be able to do that. Too bad it is beyond you!

Deaths from mountain biking are rare but not unheard of.
Serious injuries from mountain biking are common as mud. I put "death and
injuries" together because they go together, but not because they are equal in
numbers. If you knew how to read, that is how you would have read it without
making an issue of deaths. You sir are an idiot!

Your problem is that, when it comes to injuries and fatalities,

that your fundamental premise ... that mountainbiking is extremely dangerous ...
is provably false. It is safer than driving, rugby, skiing and many other
activities. You can throw all the blather you wish at it but you can't
change that fundamental truth.

Riding a bike on a trail is indeed a sport, but such an
activity has no business being on a trail used by hikers. That is not what
trails are for. Mountain biking compared to hiking, which is not a sport, is
extremely dangerous. It is even dangerous compared to other sports. It is not
the same thing as driving a car, but it is similar to alpine skiing, another
outdoor sport that is dangerous.


Racing a bike is a sport, simply riding it is not. Just as running to win a race is a sport whilst going for a walk is not. However, they are all recreations and there is no objective rationale to ban them. Your 'best use' is nonsense.


I have already told you that not all recreations are equal. Riding a bike on a trail in the mountains is a sport and is akin to alpine skiing. Trails were designed specifically for walking humans and walking horses. That is the best use and the only use to all but idiots like you.

And, no, mountainbiking is much safer than alpine skiing ... it's much more akin to cross country skiing.


Not in the mountains it ain’t!
[...]

Bikers need to be restricted from trails for the same reason
that motorcyclists need to be restricted from trails. No difference whatsoever.
I have seen trails ruined by biker traffic and have never seen the same from
hiker traffic. The erosion, even if not quantitatively different (highly
doubtful), is qualitatively different because feet and wheels are different from
one another.


If you're never seen hiker trails ruined by erosion I take it that Snowdon wasted their £1.5million on reinforcing the trails to repair them after hiker damage ?


I have seen plenty of trails damaged by hikers, but they are still passable. Trails that suffer the most damage from hikers will lie close to resorts or trail heads and are due to hikers taking shortcuts from the trail. There is also a certain amount of natural water erosion which takes place hikers or no hikers. On the other hand, a trail destroyed by bikers is often not passable by hikers except by scrambling.

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


  #220  
Old June 5th 14, 06:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

This is where I came in a hundred posts ago with my complaint

against the stupidity of what the managers were incorrectly


permitting.


Indeed you did. And in all that blather you've done

precisely nothing to explain WHY the managers were doing so incorrectly.

Conflict of both means and purpose - with plenty of details
provided for dunderheads like you who can't figure out anything on your
own.


No dice Ed. It may conflict with YOUR means and purpose ... but those are NOT the objectives of the parks service.

You complain that you don't like bikes on trails and then assert

that all serious hikers feel the same way. However, you've done nothing to
prove that and, as I am a hiker too and know a fair few hikers, I am not going
to believe your blank assertion without backup. I think it's just you and
a few extremists who have a bee in your bonnets about bikes.

It is very convenient to believe what you want to believe even
though others are telling you that what you believe is nuts.


Indeed ... and I AM telling you that what you believe is nuts. Does anyone on this forum agree with you ? Not noticeably (aside from vandeman perhaps but let's not go there). Do the land managers agree with you ? Clearly not or they would act differently. Do the vast majority of hikers agree with you. Based on my experience of hikers, also clearly not but were you to provide proof of this I would consider it.

So, yes, perhaps yet again you should try applying your own axioms to yourself and considering your position.

You conveniently forget that Parks' core objectives are to provide

recreation, preserve wildlife and protect the resource. Against those
objectives, of course they're going to allow mountainbiking if that's what a
significant percentage of the population, who pay for the parks, want to
do. They are not going to pander to extremists like you who won't share
one iota.

The only extremists I know about are mountain bikers who are
interlopers and usurpers. That is the beauty of anything public paid for by
taxes - there is seldom any relationship between who is paying and what you are
getting. I could give you thousands of examples of that truism.


I am calling you an extremist because you ally yourself with the vandemans and cravers of this world and, more importantly, because you persist in holding your views as being representative of the moderate norm despite no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. You are calling me an extremist simply as an epithet.

You then come up with the most laughable concept of all ... "Best

Use" ... but your best use is simply what you want to do.

Best use is what any person with an iota of common sense would
acknowledge it to be. This lets you out.


Whose common sense Ed ? Yours ?? It is, I would assert, axiomatically true that a resource designated for public recreation should be shared, on some rational and sensible basis - not everything of course, with as many of the public as possible. That's common sense ... but apparently not to you.

Listen up you confounded jackass! You remarked previously that


since I hike alone I possibly can't get along with others - so I am

telling you

why I prefer to hike alone. Jeez, you can't follow anything! Go back a

few posts

and look it up! I am way too lazy to ever do anything like that


myself.


Unlike you, I DO refer back to what was previously said. And

the original question was WHY you think you are able to represent what other
hikers think, particularly when you tend to hike alone as you report.

Nope, you have to go back a few steps further to arrive at the
point I was making in response to your remark ... something about why I prefer
to hike alone is because I can't get along with others? I told you why I like to
hike alone and enlarged on it ... but of course it was just another case of
casting pearls before swine because you can't keep track of whatever moronic
points you are trying to make.


Ed, read the bloody posts ... in order. I wrote, on May 22, the following ....

"And, if you really don't understand that the tiny number of people with whom you hike ... and I know it has to be tiny because you like solitude and eschew large groups ... cannot count as representative of a community encompassing tens (and globally hundreds) of millions then we should stop now because you simply don't have enough intelligence to hold a reasoned argument.."

To which you responded ...

"Most hikers hike alone or with just one other person. I seldom meet groups.. Only slobs like you like to hike or ride with others. What's the matter? Can't stand you own company?"

So, yet again, the facts contradict you. The core thrust of the argument is against your claim to represent all hikers and, given that you admit you prefer to hike alone or in small groups, you have admitted that your interaction with a huge global community of hikers is therefore minimal.

The comment about your inability to get along socially with others was an anecdotal aside only.

You didn't answer the question. WHY are you entitled to



dictate how people should enjoy a public resource ?




The resource itself dictates that. I can clearly see what the


resource is and you can't.




The resource dictates nothing ... clearly I CAN ride on trails

shared with hikers since I do so every week.



I reiterate ... WHY do you think you are entitled to dictate to

others as to how they use a public resource. And don't say it's 'Best Use'
because, as we both know, that's just what you want to do ... and is in no way a
justification. I could just as easily state that "Trails must be managed
to optimise user satisfaction" ... with every bit as much validity if it's just
opinion.



The resource itself dictates what is best use to all except
idiots like you.


So, you have no logical argument whatsoever to justify WHY you should get to determine who uses the trails.
The park mangers are not doing their jobs correctly. I blame


them more than I do those who like you are simply taking advantage of

their

dereliction of duty.


WHY are they not doing their jobs correctly Ed ? If their

remit is as I stated above, which is it, then they're doing what they should ...
trying to fairly apportion a scarce resource to satisfy as many as
possible.

For your world to make any sense one would have to accept that

your pronouncements on what is the 'best' and 'right' use of a trail have the
status of fact. It doesn't, it's simply your opinion and you've not even
shown that a significant percentage of the hiking population share it.

All serious hikers and equestrians hate to have bikes on
trails. It is just that simple. Why? It is conflict of means and purpose. Trails
cannot be all things to all people. Trails not only have a best use, but in some
cases an only use. Designated Wilderness Areas in the US exemplify this to
perfection.


Ed, don't keep making the same inane statements and avoiding the question.

I'm not anti-wilderness ... I'm not advocating bike access everywhere. I'm simply advocating sensible and proportionate sharing of a public resource.

Deaths from mountain biking are rare but not unheard of.


Serious injuries from mountain biking are common as mud. I put "death

and

injuries" together because they go together, but not because they are

equal in

numbers. If you knew how to read, that is how you would have read it

without

making an issue of deaths. You sir are an idiot!




Your problem is that, when it comes to injuries and

fatalities,

that your fundamental premise ... that mountainbiking is extremely

dangerous ...

is provably false. It is safer than driving, rugby, skiing and

many other

activities. You can throw all the blather you wish at it but you

can't

change that fundamental truth.




Riding a bike on a trail is indeed a sport, but such an


activity has no business being on a trail used by hikers. That is not

what

trails are for. Mountain biking compared to hiking, which is not a

sport, is

extremely dangerous. It is even dangerous compared to other sports. It

is not

the same thing as driving a car, but it is similar to alpine skiing,

another

outdoor sport that is dangerous.


No, Ed, real data suggests that alpine skiing is 3-4 times more dangerous in terms of injuries per exposure than mountainbiking (source British Medical Journal, referenced earlier in this thread).

Racing a bike is a sport, simply riding it is not. Just as

running to win a race is a sport whilst going for a walk is not. However,
they are all recreations and there is no objective rationale to ban them.
Your 'best use' is nonsense.

I have already told you that not all recreations are equal.
Riding a bike on a trail in the mountains is a sport and is akin to alpine
skiing. Trails were designed specifically for walking humans and walking horses.
That is the best use and the only use to all but idiots like you.


You are going around in circles Ed. Justify why it's 'best use' without reference to your own statements ... find somewhere reputable that provides data to backup this position. I think you'll find it tricky when compared to the Parks' publicly stated objectives.

And, no, mountainbiking is much safer than alpine skiing ... it's

much more akin to cross country skiing.

Not in the mountains it ain't!


Why do you think they're called 'mountain' bikes ?

I have seen trails ruined by biker traffic and have never seen the

same from

hiker traffic. The erosion, even if not quantitatively different

(highly

doubtful), is qualitatively different because feet and wheels are

different from

one another.


If you're never seen hiker trails ruined by erosion I take it that

Snowdon wasted their 1.5million on reinforcing the trails to repair them after
hiker damage ?

I have seen plenty of trails damaged by hikers, but they are
still passable. Trails that suffer the most damage from hikers will lie close to
resorts or trail heads and are due to hikers taking shortcuts from the trail.
There is also a certain amount of natural water erosion which takes place hikers
or no hikers. On the other hand, a trail destroyed by bikers is often not
passable by hikers except by scrambling.


Ed, you are really losing it ...

"I have seen trails ruined by biker traffic and have never seen the same from hiker traffic." - Ed Dolan

"I have seen plenty of trails damaged by hikers, but they are still passable." - Ed Dolan

Which is it Ed ?

 




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
Pleasures of cycling in the Netherlands Partac[_10_] UK 28 May 28th 12 09:10 PM
The joys of cycling in London Simon Mason[_4_] UK 2 November 2nd 11 05:17 PM
The joys of cycling as seen through the eyes of a runner Simon Mason[_4_] UK 0 August 11th 11 08:24 AM
The pleasures of illegal cycling Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_] UK 37 June 2nd 09 03:58 PM
one of the joys of cycling... greggery peccary General 56 March 12th 05 02:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.