|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
More Abusive Email from a Typical Mountain Biker
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:04:01 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:29:33 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote in message : [snip perfectly reasonable message from retired park ranger] Looks to me like Ranger Grisak was bending over backwards to be fair to you. Not many people would treat a bigot like you with such courtesy. The closing remark is in fact a suggestion that your equilibrium might be restored by doing what you claim to love most, retreating into the wilderness for a while. But we all know that, as the bear said, you're not here for the hunting... Guy Hmm, we just had another study published in the UK on the incidence of obesity amongst school kids... certainly not the first, but disturbing in it's conclusions none the less. With child obesity jumping 50 percent between 1995 and 2002 in England (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/news...IN-OBESITY.xml) it seems to me that any form of exercise that captures the imagination of young people should be encouraged. Whilst mountain biking does have an environmental impact on a micro scale (as does walking/hiking/horse riding and any other activity man does, particularly in large numbers in convenient areas near cities), in comparison to the damage caused by industry, it is relatively small. A few individuals on their bikes are don't seem likely to cause the Antarctic to thaw, destroy the world's marine ecosystems or result in the next pea soup fog. I am in support of fragile or noteworthy areas being off-bounds to bikes. In fact, I support the notion that such areas should be inaccessible to all trail uses, as any human intervention (other than that sanctioned by an appropriate body for research) will have a detrimental impact. However, I cannot see why trails near urban areas that have been used by others users for tens, perhaps hundreds of years should not be shared by mountain bikers. For me, mountain biking is a perfectly legitimate way to get some fresh air, exercise and adrenalin. I realise that bikes are not a natural part of the environment and they may perturb some of the other more sensitive trail users. That's one reason why I ride respectfully and always allow them to pass first. However, putting mountain bikers on the spot on this matter seems to smack of double-standards as not many of the other trail users seem to worry about taking the latest and greatest gore-tex clothes, cell-phones or aluminium trekking-poles with them, none of which could be considered natural in any way. Mike's basic tenant is that mountain biking off-road in any situation causes damage to the environment. This seems unacceptable to him. I on the other hand think that a minor impact is acceptable in the interests of maintaining (or returning to) a healthy human population for which exercise is a way of life. The environment is in grave danger, but not from the threat of mountain biking. On the one hand I admire Mike's tenacity to fight for the environment, on the other I despair the direction he has taken, which seems to be to tackle the least pressing issues first. If he would fight the important battles, he may well find allies amongst mountain bikers that would help him reduce auto dependence, lobby to reduce air pollution, encourage industry/individuals to reduce energy consumption and shout for clean fuel technologies. However, until then, he will continue to repeat a banal argument about something that, in 20-30 years when the climate has changed considerably, will not be of the slightest relevance. To me, this does not seem a great use of his time. If things go unabated, within a short period of time (on an evolutionary scale), much of what he is trying to protect may well perish as the climate changes. In the mean time, the unhealthy lifestyles that many lead well cause a lot of suffering for unfortunate individuals at a great deal of cost to taxpayers (or in the USA, health insurance premiums) in the drugs and medical treatment. As far as I can see, very few of those issues are going be due to fat tyres. Sam. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sam Williams wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:04:01 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:29:33 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote in message : [snip perfectly reasonable message from retired park ranger] Looks to me like Ranger Grisak was bending over backwards to be fair to you. Not many people would treat a bigot like you with such courtesy. The closing remark is in fact a suggestion that your equilibrium might be restored by doing what you claim to love most, retreating into the wilderness for a while. But we all know that, as the bear said, you're not here for the hunting... Guy Hmm, we just had another study published in the UK on the incidence of obesity amongst school kids... certainly not the first, but disturbing in it's conclusions none the less. snip rational pleasant suggestions and observations taxayers (or in the USA, health insurance premiums) in the drugs and medical treatment. As far as I can see, very few of those issues are going be due to fat tyres. Sam. Nice, Sam. But we know this, he knows this, the rest of the bloody world knows this. But he doesn't take any notice and you may as well **** into the wind as try to argue with MV. Don't say we didn't warn you. I was once like you too. -- Westie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hate Mail from ANOTHER Typical Mountain Biker | Gary S. | Mountain Biking | 5 | April 5th 05 05:51 AM |
Typical Mountain Demonstrates Their Character | Gary S. | Mountain Biking | 3 | February 25th 05 11:19 PM |
money | lilly | General | 0 | January 7th 05 12:07 AM |
Abusive Email from a Typical Mountain Biker | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 9 | February 22nd 04 07:47 PM |
Fascinating Abusive SPAM from a Typical Mountain Biker | BB | Mountain Biking | 1 | January 16th 04 08:03 AM |