A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Mountain Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old December 11th 06, 04:35 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
S Curtiss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 459
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 23:46:19 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


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


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

Where in my signature do you see the word "cancer"? Idiot.

Then what danger are you referring to if not previous (and controversial)
studies linking cell phones to cancer?


"Benign" tumors on the auditory nerve (done in Sweden). Breakdown of
the blood-brain barrier. Etc.

Non-conclusive in light of more recent information. Hardly scientific to
cast opinions in concrete as information constantly changes...


Ads
  #82  
Old December 11th 06, 05:20 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:13:07 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:45:32 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:14:21 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:43:12 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:11:18 -0700, Paul Cassel
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
Mountain
bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights.
Neither do hiking shoes.
Maybe if you didn't wear shoes, you'd have a leg to stand on.
Otherwise, you are just being a hypocrite.
No, the point is that - by engaging in an activity shown to do equal
damage to trails
Repeating that lie doesn't make it true.

That "lie" is backed up by
scientists who are accredited
and publish in peer-reviewed
journals.
Name ONE such scientist. (Hint: you can't.)
Mike, I'm not going to do your
homework for you. You know the
references I am referring to
very well, as you've cited
them in the pieces of trash
you continually post here.
(Just as I said: you can't!!!!!)
It's on your site. Try reading
YOUR OWN bibliography, moron.


Then you should have no trouble finding a peer-reviewed study, IF one
exists. You CAN'T, which is why you haven't answered. Put up or shut
up.


Wilson and Seney is published
in MRD, which is
peer-reviewed. AMONG OTHERS.
Don't you read the **** you
write, Mike?


"Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is the leading
interdisciplinary and development-oriented journal " In other words,
it is PRO-DEVELOPMENT, NOT an unbiased scientific journal.

Even "peer-reviewed" studies can be full of CRAP, as that one is:

This study is frequently cited by mountain bikers as proof that
mountain biking doesn't cause more impact than hiking. But it has a
number of defects that call its conclusions into question. The authors
used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made available" by
the various treatments. They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment
yield produced by the simulated rainstorms at the downslope end of
each plot", which they claim "correlates with erosion" (they don't say
what the correlation coefficient is). This doesn't seem like a good
measure of erosion. For example, if a large rock were dislodged, the
very weak "simulated rainfall" wouldn't be capable of transporting it
into the collecting tray; only very fine particles would be collected.
In fact, they admit that the simulator's "small size meant that the
kinetic energy of the simulated rainfall events was roughly one-third
that of natural rainstorms". Another reason to suspect that the
measurements aren't valid is that "none of the relationships between
water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil moisture, trail
roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant".

If they used a VALID measure of erosion, explain why there was no
correlation with slope! Everyone knows that erosion increases with
slope. That has been shown by other studies, although it's also common
sense.

Just because you don't agree
with the *actual research*
doesn't change it. How can you
be so blind?

I mean, everything you say
flies in the face of real
science. Your idiotic thread
on cell phones causing cancer,
for example. You cannot argue
with data! Yet you continue
your flaming diatribes . .
with no results except for a
rather large peanut gallery
telling you to take a hike . .
or drop off the planet.

You do not, and your
opinion is therefore
meaningless. Get the picture?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
  #83  
Old December 11th 06, 05:23 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:12:06 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:00:02 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:23:36 -0800, cc wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Do you want me to spell it out
for you, moron? Describing
negative experiences with
mountain bikers is being
honest. Extrapolating those
experiences to EVERY mountain
biker is bigotry.
Nope, it's called "observation".
Again, you have done nothing
to demonstrate anything but
wild speculation. Observation
does in no case warrant such
ridiculous extrapolation or
zealous rhetoric. If you were
a scientist, you would realize
this. Obviously, you are not.
Observations are the foundation of science. DUH!
Yes, but only when applied
within the framework of a
scientific methodology (which
has been employed in various
studies that show mountain
biking to be of comparable
impact to hiking).


1. That's a LIE. Those studies were all seriously flawed, as you well
know.


Again, you mistake your
opinion of the studies with
one that is relevant. Your
voice is meaningless, as we
have established.


Nine international scientific conferences that heard my paper would
disagree. NOT ONE of the scientists found any flaw in my paper, either
then or now.

2. "Comparable" is not a scientific term. ANY two objects are
"comparable". It means nothing.


Obviously the meaning I
implied was "similar".
Grasping at straws, as usual.


Nope, "similar" is ALSO not scientific. It is not quantitative. Thanks
for demonstrating your total ignorance of science. But what can one
expect from someone afraid to use his real name?! Stand up and be a
man!

Try a
dictionary, asshole.

Yes. This has been amply established.
===

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
  #84  
Old December 11th 06, 08:06 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Chris Foster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 18:38:42 GMT, wizardB wrote:

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

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

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


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

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...06/12/03/SPG4O
MO5321.DTL&hw=Tom+Stienstra&sn=001&sc=1000
So where's the lie? (Hint: there aren't any. That's why you didn't
quote any.)
Wrong, you poor wannabe naturalist.
Your unsubstantiated opinion is the LIE.
Yu haven't cited evidence to back any of your claims. Ever.
Your website is not proof.
But you can't help it. There is no evidence that supports any of
your claims.
No legitimate agenmcy will give you the time of day.
That is why your sad little impotent quest gets played out on AMB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know that's a lie.

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

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

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

So what? He can still walk.

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

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


Irrelevant. Horses, like many other animals, evolved in North
America and have a right to be here. Bikes have NO rights.

Once again proving your an idiot horses were brought to North America
by the Spaniards you dolt


Yes, but THE HORSE evolved in North America long before that! DUH!



True, but then died out along with the along with the mammoths and saber-
tooth tigers. The horses of today are not descendants of horses that
were native to North America. Do they still have rights?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

Actually, the US Constitution is the only document that gives US citizens
any 'rights' in the United States. If you think I am wrong, fly to Cuba
and start spewing your bull **** there, see how long you end up in
prison.

Horses are not mentioned in the Constitution, so they don't have any
rights at all.



Mike
To be credible, you need proof/evidance Something not written by
yourself that others agee with

Yawn......did you say something???

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #85  
Old December 11th 06, 08:35 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
cc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:13:07 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:45:32 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:14:21 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:43:12 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:11:18 -0700, Paul Cassel
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
Mountain
bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights.
Neither do hiking shoes.
Maybe if you didn't wear shoes, you'd have a leg to stand on.
Otherwise, you are just being a hypocrite.
No, the point is that - by engaging in an activity shown to do equal
damage to trails
Repeating that lie doesn't make it true.

That "lie" is backed up by
scientists who are accredited
and publish in peer-reviewed
journals.
Name ONE such scientist. (Hint: you can't.)
Mike, I'm not going to do your
homework for you. You know the
references I am referring to
very well, as you've cited
them in the pieces of trash
you continually post here.
(Just as I said: you can't!!!!!)
It's on your site. Try reading
YOUR OWN bibliography, moron.
Then you should have no trouble finding a peer-reviewed study, IF one
exists. You CAN'T, which is why you haven't answered. Put up or shut
up.

Wilson and Seney is published
in MRD, which is
peer-reviewed. AMONG OTHERS.
Don't you read the **** you
write, Mike?


"Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is the leading
interdisciplinary and development-oriented journal "


snip irrelevant opinion

Mike, I didn't ask for your
opinion, because I don't care
about it (because it's biased,
unmeritorious opinion).

I did, however, give you a
research study that was
peer-reviewed. So it's now
your turn to shut up.

If you want someone to listen
to your POS "literature
review", why don't you submit
it for peer review and have it
published? I'm not sure you
are aware, but there are
journals dedicated to review
articles of this nature. If
you're able to get it
published, come on back and
maybe we'll read it. We both
know that will never happen,
however, as your article is
nothing but bigoted, zealous
rhetoric. Get it?


Just because you don't agree
with the *actual research*
doesn't change it. How can you
be so blind?

I mean, everything you say
flies in the face of real
science. Your idiotic thread
on cell phones causing cancer,
for example. You cannot argue
with data! Yet you continue
your flaming diatribes . .
with no results except for a
rather large peanut gallery
telling you to take a hike . .
or drop off the planet.

You do not, and your
opinion is therefore
meaningless. Get the picture?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  #86  
Old December 11th 06, 08:38 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
JP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 300
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?


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



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


Specious nonsense. Bikes do not ride without a cyclist atop.
Cyclists have rights. Idiot.


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

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


You know that's a lie.


Not so. Pedestrian traffic in the woods is not always single file.
The footprint of the bike is cushioned by a wide tire, lessening the
impact of human weight on the surface. In addition the bicycle rolls along
the
surface, it doesn't travel in a series of impacts like the pedestrian.


Your continues rants don't make it so. LIAR!!!

4. Mountain bikes don't teach kids to beat on nature, that's anouther BS
LIE.


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


Nonsense LIAR. That is a self serving opinion.



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


So what? He can still walk.


The point is he can't. He hobbles in severe pain.
But you really don't care. This is not about access wilderness, protection
of nature or
and of the rest of your phony hypothesis.
Pure and simple, you are anti bike for reasons yet undisclosed.
When you stop lying perhaps real dialogue can ensue.


Irrelevant. Horses, like many other animals, evolved in North America
and have a right to be here. Bikes have NO rights.


Horses are plains aniimals. Their "rights" are not the topic of discussion.
The destruction they cause to trails is the point you conveniently evade.
That is the result of the rider directing the animal where it does not
belong.
The bike rider can use trails responsibly, the horse rider cannot.
Additionally the bike rider can always control his bicycle.
Not so the horse rider. But your lies ignore that.


Doesn't matter really. You are a solitary voice, impotent in your quest.
The only attention you get is here, in AMB.
What a pathetic way to spend your time.

Gotta go. I'm bored with you now. Yawn..............................


  #87  
Old December 11th 06, 08:46 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
cc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:12:06 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:00:02 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:23:36 -0800, cc wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Do you want me to spell it out
for you, moron? Describing
negative experiences with
mountain bikers is being
honest. Extrapolating those
experiences to EVERY mountain
biker is bigotry.
Nope, it's called "observation".
Again, you have done nothing
to demonstrate anything but
wild speculation. Observation
does in no case warrant such
ridiculous extrapolation or
zealous rhetoric. If you were
a scientist, you would realize
this. Obviously, you are not.
Observations are the foundation of science. DUH!
Yes, but only when applied
within the framework of a
scientific methodology (which
has been employed in various
studies that show mountain
biking to be of comparable
impact to hiking).
1. That's a LIE. Those studies were all seriously flawed, as you well
know.

Again, you mistake your
opinion of the studies with
one that is relevant. Your
voice is meaningless, as we
have established.


Nine international scientific conferences that heard my paper would
disagree. NOT ONE of the scientists found any flaw in my paper, either
then or now.


Mike, conferences are not
forums for serious peer-review
(as in "get this **** out of
here", which is surely what
everyone in those forums was
thinking). Questions are
generally directed at
elucidating details of the
studies. In any case, these
are NOT PEER-REVIEWED, as you
are well aware. End of story.
You present opinion, and
nothing more. Try DOING
RESEARCH. You are not a
scientist, and by calling
yourself one you insult the
entire community.


2. "Comparable" is not a scientific term. ANY two objects are
"comparable". It means nothing.

Obviously the meaning I
implied was "similar".
Grasping at straws, as usual.


Nope, "similar" is ALSO not scientific. It is not quantitative. Thanks
for demonstrating your total ignorance of science.


Well, first of all, comparable
and similar are both
acceptable in this context,
despite your semantic
flailing. You may argue over
the details, but both are
acceptable to imply that
effects are on the same order
of magnitude, and therefore
comparable and similar.

Secondly, I don't need to
defend myself as a scientist
in this situation. You do,
however, if you wish to attain
any credibility. (Hint: you
have none). I will say,
however, I was first published
in a peer-reviewed journal at
much less than half your age.
So your argument holds no water.

But what can one
expect from someone afraid to use his real name?! Stand up and be a
man!


Mike, I - unlike you - have a
career in science ahead of me.
God forbid some freaking
lunatic like you decide to do
something stupid.

Need I point out the irony in
you pointing out that you are
a man ?!


Try a
dictionary, asshole.

Yes. This has been amply established.
===

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  #88  
Old December 11th 06, 08:55 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
JP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 300
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?


"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message
ups.com...



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

\

The references (I found them too) were opinion, presented by various
commenters.
Nothing hard and fast, except that there are no rules



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



Only in a case like this where we are going point to point.
If only one point is being addressed, which is more common on USENET
top posting makes the most sense, it saves one having to scan through
previously
read material looking for one or two lines.


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


I don't need controlling personalities to direct my research.
You are free to look up what you wish of course.


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



Your opinion on top-posting differs from mine and I'm sure the difference
will continue.
My practice reflects my logical POV, and how I absorb information.
Since there are no rules anyhow this discussion is merely about preference.

And in clarification, I did not flame MV.
I responded to him in the language of his own kind, as a courtesy,
in order that he could more readily understand the post.
Interestingly you did not take your criticism of poor netiquette to him.
Maybe that means you approve of his method of posting?

JP


  #89  
Old December 11th 06, 09:56 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Ed Pirrero
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 785
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?


JP wrote:
"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message
ups.com...



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


Right. There are also no rules against belching in public or chewing
with your mouth open.

People are polite out of consideration for others, not because of some
law or other.



The references (I found them too) were opinion, presented by various
commenters.
Nothing hard and fast, except that there are no rules



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


I agree that top-posting is common. All sorts of rude behavior is
common (cell phone conversations in public, fer instance), but that
doesn't make it less rude.

Proper trimming avoids having to wade through all sorts of previous
crap.


Only in a case like this where we are going point to point.
If only one point is being addressed, which is more common on USENET
top posting makes the most sense, it saves one having to scan through
previously
read material looking for one or two lines.


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


Nice non sequitur. Full-quoting is boorish, and top-posters full-quote
more often than not.

I don't need controlling personalities to direct my research.
You are free to look up what you wish of course.


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


Yeah, logic. When books are read back-to-front, top-posting becomes
logical.


Your opinion on top-posting differs from mine and I'm sure the difference
will continue.
My practice reflects my logical POV, and how I absorb information.
Since there are no rules anyhow this discussion is merely about preference.


I don't post replies to Vandeman. He's an idiot, and doesn't deserve
the attention.

I hope you found this to be more readable, after all, interspersed
postings make more sense if you post in the logical place, which is
above the quoted text, right? Oh, wait...

And in clarification, I did not flame MV.
I responded to him in the language of his own kind, as a courtesy,
in order that he could more readily understand the post.
Interestingly you did not take your criticism of poor netiquette to him.
Maybe that means you approve of his method of posting?



E.P.

A: Top-posters

Q: What's the nmost annoying thing in usenet?

  #90  
Old December 12th 06, 04:45 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:27:07 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 23:37:29 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:
Yeah, by taking trails away from the majority, and giving them over
to
exclusive use by a minority: mountain bikers.
Exaggeration. Sensationalism. Fabrication. Show us where cyclists have
"exclusive use" of the public trail system.

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

It isn't. It's decreasing. National parks are losing visitors.
I didn't say National Parks. I said the OUTDOORS. Can't you read? National
Parks are brcoming difficult to visit (higher gas prices) while interest
in
other options are becoming more available.
Numbers are also fluctuating but not so drastically as being claimed.
While
they do show a trend lending to an overall decline, the factors involved
do
not include off-road cycling chasing people out


You are lying again. I have seen numerous parks where hikers &
equestrians were driven out by the presence of mountain bikers.

Anecdotal and meaningless.


BS. Anecdotal evidence was enough to win the 1994 federal lawsuit
against IMBA and close trails to bikes.

Your opinions automatically suspect cycling with
total disregard to any other factors.

(most National Parks do not
allow off-road cycling). It is the more local and available public access
land that is attracting people with a wide variety of outdoor options.
Your attempt to throw cycling under the bus as a cause for National Parks'
decline is simply a stupid gesture of impotence.

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


===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 




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
"Girls gone wild" bus hits cyclist Werehatrack General 2 July 27th 06 02:49 PM
Muni "warm-up" routine(s) and best time of day to ride. terrybigwheel Unicycling 10 May 23rd 06 04:25 AM
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") spin156 Techniques 15 November 28th 05 08:21 PM
Payback Time or "Mr. Armstrong, your check has come due" matabala Racing 1 August 23rd 05 04:49 PM
"Challenges In One's Time Of Life Are Extraordinary" on 4-14-84 [email protected] Australia 0 January 4th 05 04:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.