|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Tom Sherman change subject headings?
"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
... "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. I steer clear of groups. What is so difficult about 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. I get along with the eagles on high mountain tops just fine. 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. You would be the easiest person in the world to get along with. All I would ever have to do is to agree with you and smile while doing so. But I do not feel good about myself when I am manipulating fools like you. Nay, it is better to be true to myself. 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. Kids should be seen and not heard. When I hear them, I absent myself. 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. I am alone, but never lonely. How am I a loser? You need others and are therefore dependent on them for their good will. You should try being alone. It would do wonders for your self-knowledge. Let's face it, most humans are not worth any bother. My suggestion is to try eagles. These newsgroups need someone like me to kick sorry asses. If I didn't do it, no one would. Then Tom Sherman would lord it over the rest of you. Alas, no one understands us hermits! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???
"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message [...] 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. It is much harder to hike than it is to bike. As long as you stay on the road, enjoy your outdoor experience, but it is NOT wilderness. 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. Wilderness can only be enjoyed on its terms, i.e., on foot. Once you introduce other conveyances, you are far removed from wilderness. I want you and mountain bikers nowhere near wilderness. I want you in nature parks that have been designed and are being managed for such as yourself. I am concerned with the wilderness itself, not just the trails. We must tread softly there as in a great cathedral. Bikes and jeeps are the wrong mentalities. Very strange that you cannot understand such a simple concept as respect for the earth and its natural history. If you want to play, then find a playground. Wilderness is not a playground. We have parks for that. Mr. Vandeman is a purist. I am not. But I want to keep wilderness pure and this requires purity of mind and spirit, something I have never witnessed in a mountain biker who thinks it is "fun" to ride a trail. You are confusing nature parks with wilderness. I suffer no such confusion. That is exactly the confusion you are suffering. A wilderness will not contain any roads. If it does, it is not wilderness. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Why do people keep dangerous pets?
On 11/30/2010 6:22 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
"Jeff 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. Jeeps do not leave manure on the trail. Horses are damn big animals and I don't like to be anywhere near them - ever! Indeed, a panicked horse can easily cripple or kill a person. Horses are also easily spooked by recumbent riders, in my experience. -- Tēm ShermĒn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Children
On 11/30/2010 8:16 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
[...] Kids should be seen and not heard. When I hear them, I absent myself. [...] Hear! Hear! [1] "If your kid is raising a ruckus in a public place, and someone says something nasty to you about it, YOU DESERVE IT. KEEP YOUR GODDAMNED BRATS UNDER CONTROL." - Nate Nagel [1] Pun intended. -- Tēm ShermĒn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Why Is the Supply of Considerate Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???
On 11/30/2010 8:50 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
[...] It is much harder to hike than it is to bike.[...] One a per distance basis, yes. On a per time basis, no. -- Tēm ShermĒn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Why Is the Supply of In-Considerate Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???
"Tēm ShermĒn °_°" " wrote in
message ... On 11/30/2010 8:50 PM, Edward Dolan wrote: [...] It is much harder to hike than it is to bike.[...] One a per distance basis, yes. On a per time basis, no. The above comment brought me up short. I recall that I have hiked many 10 hour days and such days are tiring, but biking a 10 hour day is truly exhausting (even on a recumbent). I hate 10 hour days of doing anything except sleeping. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Why do people keep dangerous pets?
On 11/30/2010 11:26 PM, Tēm ShermĒn °_° wrote:
On 11/30/2010 6:22 PM, Edward Dolan wrote: "Jeff 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. Jeeps do not leave manure on the trail. Horses are damn big animals and I don't like to be anywhere near them - ever! Indeed, a panicked horse can easily cripple or kill a person. Horses are also easily spooked by recumbent riders, in my experience. recumbent riders? |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Why do people keep dangerous pets?
On 12/01/2010 08:17 AM, VtSkier wrote:
On 11/30/2010 11:26 PM, Tēm ShermĒn °_° wrote: On 11/30/2010 6:22 PM, Edward Dolan wrote: "Jeff 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. Jeeps do not leave manure on the trail. Horses are damn big animals and I don't like to be anywhere near them - ever! Indeed, a panicked horse can easily cripple or kill a person. Horses are also easily spooked by recumbent riders, in my experience. recumbent riders? Oh, recumbent bicycle riders. I thought this was a discussion about how bad Mountain Bikers are. I can't think of anything any worse than a recumbent bicycle in Mountain Biking conditons. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Tom Sherman stoop below himself?
On Nov 29, 10:36*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"Tēm ShermĒn °_°" " wrote in ... 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? I am not happy about horses on hiking trails either. That is a legacy from the Old West and should be done away with. Either hike on your own two feet or stay the hell out of wilderness. The idea that everyone should have access to wilderness by whatever means is lunacy. That is the sort of thinking that destroys wilderness and makes of life something ugly, nasty, brutish, short - and poor! Jeff Strickland thinks land managers are capable of deciding who can do what where without any input from geniuses like Mr. Vandeman and Myself. AND you and Mikey think you are capable of decidein for lan managers and the masses what they can do what and where ... the two lonely pots calling the kettle black. THe conundrum continues. Hells Bells, he would like to drive his jeep on hiking trails if he could. Types like him have destroyed the natural beauty of this country. Saint Edward the Great has consigned him to the lowest depths of Hell for his desecrations to God's Creation. He is essentially a despoiler of Sacred Wilderness. Thus spake Zarathustra! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Tom Sherman change subject headings?
On Nov 30, 7:48*pm, "Jeff Strickland" wrote:
"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. You tell him Jeff. I've told Ed much the same many times as have others, but the message falls on the deaf ears of the egomaniacal, misanthropic recluse. Disenfranchised from reality, Dolan is a socially detached societal dropout by choice who should brave his demons in solitude. |
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 09:15 PM |