|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Why Is the Supply of HANDSAW assailants ENDLESS???
"Tēm ShermĒn °_°" " wrote in message ... On 11/29/2010 9:26 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote: I'm gonna say this for the last time, Vandeman doesn't care where mountain bikes are operated _as long as_ it is on the highway. If there is dirt involved, Vandeman is against it. He doesn't give a rat's ass about your piddly little complaints of "hiking trails." When he gets his dream of tires off of the dirt, he'll come after your boots next. Hikers before or after equestrians? That's a good question. I gotta go with the hikers first because Vandeman's issue is that rubber and dirt are a bad mix. Hoofs, as bad he says they are, are an otherwise natural combination once the human element is removed. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... "Jeff Strickland" wrote in message ... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message [...] Both Mr. Vandeman and I are well acquainted with what mountain bikers do and say. Why you defend them is a mystery to me since you I'm gonna say this for the last time, Vandeman doesn't care where mountain bikes are operated _as long as_ it is on the highway. If there is dirt involved, Vandeman is against it. Say it as often as you please, that doesn't make it true. Forestry fire roads are ideal for mountain bikes. Hiking trails are not. Says YOU, but not Vandeman. That's the point. I agree with you on this one, but Vandeman does not. He is not your ally, he is your adversary. He doesn't give a rat's ass about your piddly little complaints of "hiking trails." When he gets his dream of tires off of the dirt, he'll come after your boots next. Mr. Vandeman does not want you driving your jeep off road. Neither do I. Other than that, I don't know what you are talking about. You don't know, or don't want to know? Pull your head out of your ass and look around at the many works of Mr. Vandeman. His own words are that you should sit at home on the couch and only go to a museum to see a display of what the wilderness looks like. Vandeman is all about gates and fences to keep everybody out all of the time. That is his agenda. Period. It is not your agenda, as far as I can tell. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???
"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... "Jeff Strickland" wrote in message ... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message [...] Both Mr. Vandeman and I are well acquainted with what mountain bikers do and say. Why you defend them is a mystery to me since you I'm gonna say this for the last time, Vandeman doesn't care where mountain bikes are operated _as long as_ it is on the highway. If there is dirt involved, Vandeman is against it. Say it as often as you please, that doesn't make it true. Forestry fire roads are ideal for mountain bikes. Hiking trails are not. Says YOU, but not Vandeman. That's the point. I agree with you on this one, but Vandeman does not. He is not your ally, he is your adversary. Once a road is established, no matter how primitive, you no longer have a wilderness. He doesn't give a rat's ass about your piddly little complaints of "hiking trails." When he gets his dream of tires off of the dirt, he'll come after your boots next. Mr. Vandeman does not want you driving your jeep off road. Neither do I. Other than that, I don't know what you are talking about. You don't know, or don't want to know? Pull your head out of your ass and look around at the many works of Mr. Vandeman. His own words are that you should sit at home on the couch and only go to a museum to see a display of what the wilderness looks like. Nonsense! Vandeman is all about gates and fences to keep everybody out all of the time. That is his agenda. Period. It is not your agenda, as far as I can tell. Mr. Vandeman and I want everyone to enjoy wilderness, but on its own terms, i.e., on foot. No contrivances whatsoever! The only one here who needs to pull his head out of his ass is you. It is OK for you not to like someone, but it is not OK to misrepresent his position. One further point. Mr. Vandeman obviously is not here to defend himself. Your continued attacks on him are unseemly and mark you as no gentleman. Have you no shame? Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Tom Sherman change subject headings?
"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
... "Tēm ShermĒn °_°" " wrote in message ... On 11/29/2010 9:26 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote: I'm gonna say this for the last time, Vandeman doesn't care where mountain bikes are operated _as long as_ it is on the highway. If there is dirt involved, Vandeman is against it. He doesn't give a rat's ass about your piddly little complaints of "hiking trails." When he gets his dream of tires off of the dirt, he'll come after your boots next. Hikers before or after equestrians? That's a good question. I gotta go with the hikers first because Vandeman's issue is that rubber and dirt are a bad mix. Hoofs, as bad he says they are, are an otherwise natural combination once the human element is removed. I much prefer to hike trails where there are no horses. They can ruin hiking trails just as much as jeeps can. Ideally horses would have their own trails apart from those of hikers. If a hiker wanted to hike a horse trail, that would be OK, but horses would be forbidden on hiking trails. Horses are damn big animals and I don't like to be anywhere near them - ever! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Tom Sherman change subject headings?
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... That's a good question. I gotta go with the hikers first because Vandeman's issue is that rubber and dirt are a bad mix. Hoofs, as bad he says they are, are an otherwise natural combination once the human element is removed. I much prefer to hike trails where there are no horses. They can ruin hiking trails just as much as jeeps can. Ideally horses would have their own trails apart from those of hikers. If a hiker wanted to hike a horse trail, that would be OK, but horses would be forbidden on hiking trails. YOU should have your own trail. That would solve everything. YOU are the misfit around here that can't get along with anybody else. Of course, you have spent your life in seclusion and solitude without benefit of a good wife and a house full of kids, it's no wonder you are a social outcast. Indeed, you are not an outcast per se, because you are not thrown out, you refuse to come in. YOU need to learn how to get along. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... "Jeff Strickland" wrote in message ... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... "Jeff Strickland" wrote in message ... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message [...] Both Mr. Vandeman and I are well acquainted with what mountain bikers do and say. Why you defend them is a mystery to me since you I'm gonna say this for the last time, Vandeman doesn't care where mountain bikes are operated _as long as_ it is on the highway. If there is dirt involved, Vandeman is against it. Say it as often as you please, that doesn't make it true. Forestry fire roads are ideal for mountain bikes. Hiking trails are not. Says YOU, but not Vandeman. That's the point. I agree with you on this one, but Vandeman does not. He is not your ally, he is your adversary. Once a road is established, no matter how primitive, you no longer have a wilderness. He doesn't give a rat's ass about your piddly little complaints of "hiking trails." When he gets his dream of tires off of the dirt, he'll come after your boots next. Mr. Vandeman does not want you driving your jeep off road. Neither do I. Other than that, I don't know what you are talking about. You don't know, or don't want to know? Pull your head out of your ass and look around at the many works of Mr. Vandeman. His own words are that you should sit at home on the couch and only go to a museum to see a display of what the wilderness looks like. Nonsense! Vandeman is all about gates and fences to keep everybody out all of the time. That is his agenda. Period. It is not your agenda, as far as I can tell. Mr. Vandeman and I want everyone to enjoy wilderness, but on its own terms, i.e., on foot. That makes it YOUR terms. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Tom Sherman change subject headings?
"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... That's a good question. I gotta go with the hikers first because Vandeman's issue is that rubber and dirt are a bad mix. Hoofs, as bad he says they are, are an otherwise natural combination once the human element is removed. I much prefer to hike trails where there are no horses. They can ruin hiking trails just as much as jeeps can. Ideally horses would have their own trails apart from those of hikers. If a hiker wanted to hike a horse trail, that would be OK, but horses would be forbidden on hiking trails. YOU should have your own trail. That would solve everything. YOU are the misfit around here that can't get along with anybody else. Of course, you have spent your life in seclusion and solitude without benefit of a good wife and a house full of kids, it's no wonder you are a social outcast. Indeed, you are not an outcast per se, because you are not thrown out, you refuse to come in. YOU need to learn how to get along. I get along just fine with other single hikers and other single cyclists. I do not like groups of hikers or groups of cyclists or groups of anything. People are at their worse when part of a group. Women are a special breed of human and it takes way too much of an investment of time and energy for me to ever waste any of either on them. The reason why I am Great (and you aren't) is because I spend all of my time contemplating the eternal verities. To tell the truth, I really only like to commune with the eagles on high mountain tops. It is easy to be liked and to get along with others. Just be agreeable. I respect Mr. Vandeman because he has chosen a hard way. He is NOT agreeable and he does NOT care about getting along with others when matters of grave importance are at stake. He is a crusader, I am not. By the way, no man ever needs kids. That is a woman thing. A man is a fool to want what he does not need. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???
"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message [...] Mr. Vandeman and I want everyone to enjoy wilderness, but on its own terms, i.e., on foot. That makes it YOUR terms. It is hard work to hike and not everyone wants to do it. But those are the terms if you want wilderness to remain wilderness. You are confusing nature parks with wilderness. One is designed by and for humans, the other is designed by nature for its creatures. That is a huge difference which you seem unable to appreciate. You are more to be pitied than condemned. I do not regard you as an extremist, but rather in the common majority. Admittedly Mr. Vandeman and I are in the minority. But is there no place for minority interests? Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Tom Sherman change subject headings?
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... "Jeff Strickland" wrote in message ... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... That's a good question. I gotta go with the hikers first because Vandeman's issue is that rubber and dirt are a bad mix. Hoofs, as bad he says they are, are an otherwise natural combination once the human element is removed. I much prefer to hike trails where there are no horses. They can ruin hiking trails just as much as jeeps can. Ideally horses would have their own trails apart from those of hikers. If a hiker wanted to hike a horse trail, that would be OK, but horses would be forbidden on hiking trails. YOU should have your own trail. That would solve everything. YOU are the misfit around here that can't get along with anybody else. Of course, you have spent your life in seclusion and solitude without benefit of a good wife and a house full of kids, it's no wonder you are a social outcast. Indeed, you are not an outcast per se, because you are not thrown out, you refuse to come in. YOU need to learn how to get along. I get along just fine with other single hikers and other single cyclists. I do not like groups of hikers or groups of cyclists or groups of anything. People are at their worse when part of a group. So, you don't get along. You can't control whether there are one or one hundred in the outdoorsmen that you encounter. Since you can't control then you don't get along. You claim to get along under conditions that you demand, but we only have your word on that. Women are a special breed of human and it takes way too much of an investment of time and energy for me to ever waste any of either on them. The reason why I am Great (and you aren't) is because I spend all of my time contemplating the eternal verities. To tell the truth, I really only like to commune with the eagles on high mountain tops. So, you don't get along. It is easy to be liked and to get along with others. Just be agreeable. I respect Mr. Vandeman because he has chosen a hard way. He is NOT agreeable and he does NOT care about getting along with others when matters of grave importance are at stake. He is a crusader, I am not. But you are the one defining "agreeable." When I define agreeable, then I come to the conclusion that you are anti-social and don't get along; all you do is repeatedly reinforce the conclusion. If I was your shrink, my best advise to you (for $150.00 per hour) is to get a life. By the way, no man ever needs kids. That is a woman thing. A man is a fool to want what he does not need. Or, to put that another way, you don't get along. You are the poster child for not getting along. Just accept the skin you're in and deal with it. By all reasonable standards, you're a loser. It's okay, but stop inflicting yourself on the rest of us. Be lonely in silence because you chose lonely as a lifestyle. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... "Jeff Strickland" wrote in message ... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message [...] Mr. Vandeman and I want everyone to enjoy wilderness, but on its own terms, i.e., on foot. That makes it YOUR terms. It is hard work to hike and not everyone wants to do it. But those are the terms if you want wilderness to remain wilderness. It's hard work to ride a bike. It's not particularly hard work to drive a Jeep -- unless drinking beer and smoking cigars is counted as being hard -- but the enjoyment of the wilderness where the road is already more than 100 years old is still the same, except for the beer and cigars part. You do not get to define "enjoyment of wilderness." Sorry. But when you do that, then I enjoy on your terms. You enjoy on your terms, I'll enjoy on mine. You may not understand the enjoyment that I experience and you might go so far as to suggest that there can be no enjoyment in the way I do it, or bike riders do it, but YOU only get to define your parameters, not mine. I've been doing wilderness for a very long time, and when visitors stay on-trail, the wilderness does just fine no matter how they use the trail, and suffers when anybody (even hikers) go off-trail. "Trail" is the operative word here, no matter what Vandeman brainswashes you into thinking. You are confusing nature parks with wilderness. I suffer no such confusion. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS????? | Mike Vandeman[_4_] | Mountain Biking | 4 | January 21st 10 10:15 PM |