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

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 30th 14, 09:00 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS ! Unless and

until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the
case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your
appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go

there for
your own purposes.


Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog


of a brain, we are at an impasse.


I have never said they are all equal. The impasse is

because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you insist on
asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It isn't ....
that's just your opinion.

I am asserting that they are different, so different in fact
that they can't be done on the same trails.


Indeed you are asserting it ... but you've never proved it because it's not the case. There are thousands of shared trails which work fine. Not all, but most. Your definition of 'not working' includes the fact of a bike simply being there so, axiomatically, your opinion of difference is extreme.


It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on the same trail. If you weren’t such a moron, you would understand that simple fact.

You
disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist would

disturb and
destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what you

are
doing -
engaging in a sport - but on a different level.


I agree that, in your case, there is a degree of

conflict.

So, we need to find a compromise. As I've already said, I'm not

at all

averse to having some hiker only trails and some biker only

trails.

However, what I am vehemently against is your attempt to annexe the

entire

trails network for your recreation only.




Bikers will have to get their own trails. That is the only


compromise I am willing to make. There can be no sharing of trails.

Walkers and

morons on wheels do not mix.


No, some trails will be shared and some will be hiker or

biker only as suits local conditions. I don't care what compromises you
are willing, or not willing, to make; your opinion counts for nothing because
you are an extremist and I only ever negotiate with reasonable people.

You only negotiate with people who are willing to meet you
half way, even when half way is the wrong way. If it is simply a matter of
opinions, then I AM asserting that my opinion is infinitely superior to yours
and should be given preference due to its sanity and reasonableness.
Checkmate!


You seem to be assuming, in your usual hubristic fashion, that your pronouncements carry some weight and that I need to negotiate with you ! I don't. I don't care what you think because you are unreasonable and have shown youself, over and over again, to be a selfish and massively hubristic. As such, I will negotiate, if I need to do so, with the land managers. You can do whatever you wish ... I don't care because you don't own the trails and have no power to determine how they're used.


The land managers will have to be educated. For the moment, they are almost as dumb as you are.

All recreations are NOT
equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman. I am

the
expert on
what trails are for based on philosophical considerations.




I have never said that all recreations are equal ... I think



mountainbiking is a better recreation than hiking ... and, yes, I do

engage in

both.




You keep opining that hiking is better but fail to understand

that

this is simply your opinion which, therefore, no one else is required

to

share. You are going to keep flailing around unless and until

you accept

that different people have different opinions and that, no, you are

not

axiomatically right anymore than anyone else is ether.




I don't much care which is better - hiking or biking. But I am


stating as clearly as I can that they are DIFFERENT! One is a sport

and the

other is an appreciation of nature. Like you, I do both.


So, they are different. I agree. So what

? What are the logical implications thereof ? Given that they are
both recreations undertaken by people for the purposes of enjoyment, rather than
necessity, they have equal status in terms of rights to use a limited, publicly
owned resource.

So What ? So they CONFLICT - you dumb *******! What is there
about conflict that you don't understand? I have already told you that not all
recreations are equal, They most especially are not equal if they cannot be done
together on the same trail. One has got to go. Elementary, my dear
Watson!


Again with the hubris. Given that a huge number of trails ARE shared I can dispose of your assertion in five seconds. In most locations it works fine. The conflict, for the most part, exists in your head ... a location I don't care about.


There is just no way around the conflicts. Just as there is no way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be permitted on hiking trails --- because of the conflicts of both means and purpose which applies equally to bikes. Too bad you can’t grasp this most elementary rationale. Until you do, you might as well be whistling Dixie!

You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth where

the
natural
scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and

practical

usages.


Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are man-made

constructions to allow people to get to natural places but, in and of
themselves, they are a corruption too.


If you really cared about nature that much then you would

eschew

hiking too.


No, that would be taking things too far. However, Mr. Vandeman
might find some sense in that proposition. He cares more about the

wildlife than
you or I do.


So, you just admitted that you don't want to give up

hiking ... irrespective of the impact on nature ... because you enjoy it.

Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any
of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints.


The science suggests that mountainbiking and hiking have similar impacts. Unsurprising since the power is exactly the same ... one human. I very much doubt whether nature cares whether it's footprint or a tyre print. Same impact.


Nope, not true because of mechanical advantage, but I leave the impact on trails to Mr. Vandeman who is the world expert on that issue.

I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads
here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is

you.


I didn't put the words in your mouth ... it was you who wrote

that
the presence of a mountainbike on a trail caused you "Mental

Torture".

It is "mental torture" and it would be for you too if you had
a decent regard for nature relatively undisturbed by mankind.


You're doing the exact same disturbing yourself !


"Hiking with its trails has the least impact on
nature of any of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints." -
Ed Dolan


You can say the same thing again ... woop de do. Doesn't make it correct though.

I call you an extremist because you are. You want to

never
have to share a trail with a mountainbiker. That's just not
feasible. I'm not saying you have to share them all though ...

because,
unlike you, I'm not an extremist.


I repeat myself endlessly on this, but you are the only
extremist here with your rank disregard for the sacredness of trails.

You are
trespassing in my church. You are a desecrator and a barbarian. Your

own
grandfather would disown you!


If it were your church then you'd have a point ... but

it's not. You're trying to build your 'church' on public land.
Trails are not sacred; most of them arose as transport in previous
centuries. You've simply adopted them for your activity and are now
objecting because others want to use them for different activities.

I welcome others into my church provided they are willing to
walk. All others can go to Hell! What bikers want to use nature for does not
fall into my realm, nor does it fall into the realm of any other hikers. The
origin of trails does not matter, They are now being preserved for hiking, the
most human and simple of means of connecting with nature. You are a barbarian
not to understand this.


Ed, it's NOT your church to decide who to welcome and who to bar. We will never reach a solution on this because, as far as you're concerned, you own rights to public land which are not conferred on others. I assert no greater, or lesser, ownership than anyone else ... so I accept that what I want has to be a compromise with what others want. You think I'm a barbarian ? I don't care what you think. I think you're a selfish, hubristic and unreasonable sociopath.


For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not relevant. Public lands with its trails must be managed for best use. Trails are indeed my church and the church of all hikers. It is not your church because you do not regard it as a church, but as a race track for your ****ing sport of mountain biking. You are even leading your own children to your ****ed-up sport. You will rue that if and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I have warned you. There are none so stupid as those who will not heed a warning.

I must admit I am sociopath when it comes to mountain bikers on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be dead and rotting in cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain bikers who ride their bikes on trails I would **** on their graves.

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
  #12  
Old October 31st 14, 12:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:08:47 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Blackblade considered Wed, 29 Oct 2014
04:39:22 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS ! Unless and
until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the
case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your
appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go
there for
your own purposes.

Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog

of a brain, we are at an impasse.

I have never said they are all equal. The impasse is
because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you insist on
asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It isn't ...
that's just your opinion.

I am asserting that they are different, so different in fact
that they can't be done on the same trails.


Indeed you are asserting it ... but you've never proved it because it's not the case. There are thousands of shared trails which work fine. Not all, but most. Your definition of 'not working' includes the fact of a bike simply being there so, axiomatically, your opinion of difference is extreme.

You
disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist would
disturb and
destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what you
are
doing -
engaging in a sport - but on a different level.

I agree that, in your case, there is a degree of
conflict.

So, we need to find a compromise. As I've already said, I'm not
at all

averse to having some hiker only trails and some biker only
trails.

However, what I am vehemently against is your attempt to annexe the
entire

trails network for your recreation only.



Bikers will have to get their own trails. That is the only

compromise I am willing to make. There can be no sharing of trails.
Walkers and

morons on wheels do not mix.

No, some trails will be shared and some will be hiker or
biker only as suits local conditions. I don't care what compromises you
are willing, or not willing, to make; your opinion counts for nothing because
you are an extremist and I only ever negotiate with reasonable people.

You only negotiate with people who are willing to meet you
half way, even when half way is the wrong way. If it is simply a matter of
opinions, then I AM asserting that my opinion is infinitely superior to yours
and should be given preference due to its sanity and reasonableness.
Checkmate!


As drooling (along with his false idol vandal man) has shown himself
repeatedly to be neither sane or reasonable, it is indeed checkmate.
He's lost.

On the other hand, his fantasy has resulted in him having someone
(Blackblade) to talk with. Without his constant bemoaning the use of
"trails" by multiple types of users he would be totally alone.
--
Cheers,

John B.
  #13  
Old November 3rd 14, 01:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 218
Default Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.

Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS !
Unless and until you can show that you NEED to be there this is
axiomatically the case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go there for your own purposes.


Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog of a brain, we are at an impasse.


I have never said they are all equal. The

impasse is because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you insist on asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It
isn't ... that's just your opinion.

I am asserting that they are different, so different in fact
that they can't be done on the same trails.


Indeed you are asserting it ... but you've never

proved it because it's not the case. There are thousands of shared trails
which work fine. Not all, but most. Your definition of 'not
working' includes the fact of a bike simply being there so, axiomatically, your
opinion of difference is extreme.

It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on the same
trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would understand that simple
fact.


Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which I, for one, don't share and I doubt too many others do either.

The fundamental dichotomy facing us is either we open more and more trails to suit single-use groups or ... we share. Sharing creates some issues but unless we want to use up even more of the natural world it has to be the preferred option.

You have opined, again and again, that sharing isn't possible. Since it works quite well in most locations I guess what you should have written is that sharing isn't possible ... for you. And, given that you have proven yourself selfish to the core, why the **** should anyone care about you and your wants ?

You
disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist

would
disturb and
destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what

you
are
doing -
engaging in a sport - but on a different level.


I agree that, in your case, there is a degree of

conflict.


So, we need to find a compromise. As I've already said, I'm

not
at all
averse to having some hiker only trails and some biker only

trails.


However, what I am vehemently against is your attempt to annexe

the
entire
trails network for your recreation only.


Bikers will have to get their own trails. That is the only
compromise I am willing to make. There can be no sharing of

trails.
Walkers and
morons on wheels do not mix.


No, some trails will be shared and some will be hiker

or
biker only as suits local conditions. I don't care what

compromises you
are willing, or not willing, to make; your opinion counts for nothing

because
you are an extremist and I only ever negotiate with reasonable

people.

You only negotiate with people who are willing to meet you
half way, even when half way is the wrong way. If it is simply a

matter of
opinions, then I AM asserting that my opinion is infinitely superior

to yours
and should be given preference due to its sanity and reasonableness.


Checkmate!


You seem to be assuming, in your usual hubristic

fashion, that your pronouncements carry some weight and that I need to negotiate
with you ! I don't. I don't care what you think because you are
unreasonable and have shown youself, over and over again, to be selfish and
massively hubristic. As such, I will negotiate, if I need to do so, with
the land managers. You can do whatever you wish ... I don't care because
you don't own the trails and have no power to determine how they're used.

The land managers will have to be educated. For the moment,
they are almost as dumb as you are.


You know something ? When everyone you're speaking with, in a position of some authority, is telling you that you're wrong and that you need to share ... they just might be right. You're not a redoubtable missionary for the sanctity of the trails Ed, you're a selfish loner who just wants what you want and b****r everyone else.

All recreations are NOT
equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman.

I am the expert on what trails are for based on philosophical
considerations.

I have never said that all recreations are equal ... I

think
mountainbiking is a better recreation than hiking ... and, yes, I

do
engage in
both.


You keep opining that hiking is better but fail to

understand
that
this is simply your opinion which, therefore, no one else is

required
to
share. You are going to keep flailing around unless and

until
you accept
that different people have different opinions and that, no, you

are
not
axiomatically right anymore than anyone else is ether.


I don't much care which is better - hiking or biking. But I am
stating as clearly as I can that they are DIFFERENT! One is a

sport
and the
other is an appreciation of nature. Like you, I do both.


So, they are different. I agree. So what


? What are the logical implications thereof ? Given that

they are
both recreations undertaken by people for the purposes of enjoyment,

rather than
necessity, they have equal status in terms of rights to use a limited,

publicly
owned resource.


So What ? So they CONFLICT - you dumb *******! What is there
about conflict that you don't understand? I have already told you that

not all
recreations are equal, They most especially are not equal if they

cannot be done
together on the same trail. One has got to go. Elementary, my dear
Watson!


Again with the hubris. Given that a huge number

of trails ARE shared I can dispose of your assertion in five seconds. In
most locations it works fine. The conflict, for the most part, exists in
your head ... a location I don't care about.

There is just no way around the conflicts.


Yes, Ed, there is. The way around is for all users to acknowledge others' valid desires to use a public resource and to understand how their activity impacts on others. We can then, on a location by location basis, figure out the best solution.

As I have said, and provided locations to back it up, sharing works fine in a lot of places.

Just as there is no
way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be permitted on hiking trails
--- because of the conflicts of both means and purpose which applies equally to
bikes. Too bad you can't grasp this most elementary rationale. Until you do, you
might as well be whistling Dixie!


I agree, you can't have powered vehicles sharing certain spaces because of the huge difference in power, weight and speed. However, clearly, some spaces/places can be shared .. and should be.

You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth

where
the
natural
scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and

practical
usages.


Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are

man-made
constructions to allow people to get to natural places but, in

and of
themselves, they are a corruption too.
If you really cared about nature that much then you

would
eschew
hiking too.


No, that would be taking things too far. However, Mr. Vandeman
might find some sense in that proposition. He cares more about

the
wildlife than
you or I do.


So, you just admitted that you don't want to give up

hiking ... irrespective of the impact on nature ... because you enjoy

it.

Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any
of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints.


The science suggests that mountainbiking and hiking

have similar impacts. Unsurprising since the power is exactly the same ....
one human. I very much doubt whether nature cares whether it's footprint
or a tyre print. Same impact.

Nope, not true because of mechanical advantage, but I leave
the impact on trails to Mr. Vandeman who is the world expert on that
issue.

I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel

roads
here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is
you.


I didn't put the words in your mouth ... it was you who

wrote
that
the presence of a mountainbike on a trail caused you "Mental

Torture".


It is "mental torture" and it would be for you too if you had
a decent regard for nature relatively undisturbed by

mankind.

You're doing the exact same disturbing yourself

!

"Hiking with its trails has the least impact on
nature of any of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only

footprints." -

Ed Dolan


You can say the same thing again ... woop de do. Doesn't make it
correct though.


And, even if it's minimal, it's still disturbing unnecessarily since you don't need to be there. You're just going for recreational purposes.

I call you an extremist because you are. You want

to
never
have to share a trail with a mountainbiker. That's just not
feasible. I'm not saying you have to share them all though

...
because,
unlike you, I'm not an extremist.


I repeat myself endlessly on this, but you are the only
extremist here with your rank disregard for the sacredness of

trails.
You are
trespassing in my church. You are a desecrator and a barbarian.

Your
own
grandfather would disown you!


If it were your church then you'd have a point ...

but
it's not. You're trying to build your 'church' on public

land.
Trails are not sacred; most of them arose as transport in previous
centuries. You've simply adopted them for your activity and are

now
objecting because others want to use them for different

activities.

I welcome others into my church provided they are willing to
walk. All others can go to Hell! What bikers want to use nature for

does not
fall into my realm, nor does it fall into the realm of any other

hikers. The
origin of trails does not matter, They are now being preserved for

hiking, the
most human and simple of means of connecting with nature. You are a

barbarian
not to understand this.


Ed, it's NOT your church to decide who to welcome and

who to bar. We will never reach a solution on this because, as far as
you're concerned, you own rights to public land which are not conferred on
others. I assert no greater, or lesser, ownership than anyone else ... so
I accept that what I want has to be a compromise with what others want.
You think I'm a barbarian ? I don't care what you think. I think
you're a selfish, hubristic and unreasonable sociopath.

For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not relevant.


Of course it's relevant you idiot. If I own something and have to pay for its' upkeep then I have certain rights. I am not going to accept that I have to pay for something which a self-righteous minority then informs me I cannot use because it doesn't happen to suit their agenda.

Public
lands with its trails must be managed for best use. Trails are indeed my church
and the church of all hikers. It is not your church because you do not regard it
as a church, but as a race track for your ****ing sport of mountain biking.


The land managers are doing their best to manage for genuinely best use, as defined by the clearly stated objectives of the parks service. Funnily enough, those objectives don't specifically include satisfying one Ed Dolan !

If you want to have a 'church' then do it on your own land. On public lands, you have to share.

You
are even leading your own children to your ****ed-up sport. You will rue that if
and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I have warned you. There are
none so stupid as those who will not heed a warning.


I will take no lessons from you in terms of safety. You acknowledged that roads are far more dangerous but would still displace bikers from trails onto roads because you want to enjoy the trails in solitude.

I find your references to children totally and utterly sociopathic; that anyone would think it appropriate to wish death or serious injury to a child simply to advance a narrow recreational activity preference is horrendous. You should apologise, but of course you won't, because you genuinely don't understand, much less care, about anyone else.

I must admit I am sociopath when it comes to mountain bikers
on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be dead and rotting in
cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain bikers who ride their bikes on
trails I would **** on their graves.


Well, yes, if someone was hiking or riding on my land I might feel rather aggrieved too ... oh no, wait, these AREN'T your trails are they Ed ? No, in fact they're public land ! So, you can relax ... no one is riding on your trails at all.
  #14  
Old November 7th 14, 06:15 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.

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

Edward Dolan wrote:

It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on the same
trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would understand that simple
fact.


Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which I, for one, don't share and I doubt too many others do either.


But your opinion is that of an Asshole Mountain Biker. In other words, your opinion ain’t worth ****!

The fundamental dichotomy facing us is either we open more and more trails to suit single-use groups or ... we share. Sharing creates some issues but unless we want to use up even more of the natural world it has to be the preferred option.


The preferred option is to kick your dumb biker ass off of ALL trails used by hikers.

You have opined, again and again, that sharing isn't possible. Since it works quite well in most locations I guess what you should have written is that sharing isn't possible ... for you. And, given that you have proven yourself selfish to the core, why the **** should anyone care about you and your wants ?


The fact is that sharing does not work well anywhere, most especially if trails become the least bit crowded. What a ****ing Dumb Asshole you are!
[...]

The land managers will have to be educated. For the moment,
they are almost as dumb as you are.


You know something ? When everyone you're speaking with, in a position of some authority, is telling you that you're wrong and that you need to share ... they just might be right. You're not a redoubtable missionary for the sanctity of the trails Ed, you're a selfish loner who just wants what you want and b****r everyone else.


The land mangers are not only as dumb as you are, but they are also cowards. They cave to whomever brings the most power to bear despite whatever their original mission might have been. It is why even our National Parks are forever in jeopardy of being ruined by fools like you.
[...]

Just as there is no
way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be permitted on hiking trails
--- because of the conflicts of both means and purpose which applies equally to
bikes. Too bad you can't grasp this most elementary rationale. Until you do, you
might as well be whistling Dixie!


I agree, you can't have powered vehicles sharing certain spaces because of the huge difference in power, weight and speed. However, clearly, some spaces/places can be shared .. and should be.


Bicycles for hikers fall into the same class as motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles. Trails are strictly for walkers.
[...]

For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not relevant.


Of course it's relevant you idiot. If I own something and have to pay for its' upkeep then I have certain rights. I am not going to accept that I have to pay for something which a self-righteous minority then informs me I cannot use because it doesn't happen to suit their agenda.


The public lands are being managed by governmental agencies which have very specific missions which are written into law. National Parks and Wilderness Areas are managed quite differently than National Forests and BLM areas because of their different missions. The only idiot here, as usual, is yourself ... and the land mangers who are not upholding their lawful missions.

Public
lands with its trails must be managed for best use. Trails are indeed my church
and the church of all hikers. It is not your church because you do not regard it
as a church, but as a race track for your ****ing sport of mountain biking.


The land managers are doing their best to manage for genuinely best use, as defined by the clearly stated objectives of the parks service. Funnily enough, those objectives don't specifically include satisfying one Ed Dolan !


If you want to have a 'church' then do it on your own land. On public lands, you have to share.


If the land managers were doing their jobs properly, the very first thing they would do is ban bikes from all trails used by hikers. You can’t share what can’t be shared.

You
are even leading your own children to your ****ed-up sport. You will rue that if
and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I have warned you. There are
none so stupid as those who will not heed a warning.


I will take no lessons from you in terms of safety. You acknowledged that roads are far more dangerous but would still displace bikers from trails onto roads because you want to enjoy the trails in solitude.


Some roads are dangerous, others aren’t. Young people who ride bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads regardless of your nutty ideas.

I find your references to children totally and utterly sociopathic; that anyone would think it appropriate to wish death or serious injury to a child simply to advance a narrow recreational activity preference is horrendous. You should apologise, but of course you won't, because you genuinely don't understand, much less care, about anyone else.


The only pathology being presented here is yours. You don’t even care enough about the safety of your own children to prevent them from riding on trails. You and yours deserve whatever happens.

Here is a recent media report from the UK for you to contemplate:

http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/ne...oors_accident/

12-year-old boy airlifted to hospital with spinal injuries after
Darwen Moors accident

The teenage boy was flown to Royal Manchester Children's Hospital in
the air ambulance
share on Facebook

First published Thursday 30 October 2014 in News
Last updated 07:23 Thursday 30 October 2014 by Lawrence Dunhill,
Health Reporter

MOUNTAIN bikers have been urged to take care on slippery gravel track
on Darwen Moors after a 12-year-old boy was airlifted to hospital.

The boy was knocked unconscious and suffered suspected head, spinal
and pelvic injuries after falling in an area known as 'Lyon's Den' on
Tuesday afternoon.

It comes after a similar accident on the track earlier this month, in
which a 34-year-old man suffered an open fracture to his elbow.

MORE TOP STORIES:

Bolton Mountain Rescue Team attended Tuesday's incident at about 3pm,
where they stretchered the boy to an air ambulance, before he was
flown to Royal Manchester Children's Hospital.

The boy, from Darwen, had been out riding with his dad and younger brother.

There was a torrential downpour as the emergency crews arrived, so
they deployed a casualty shelter at the scene whilst treatment was
given by the air ambulance staff.

Steve Fletcher, a member of the rescue team, said: "We've had quite a
few mountain biking incidents in that area around Tockholes.

"I'm a mountain biker myself and that bit of track is quite stony and
loose and can get very greasy.

"I would urge people to take extra care there, especially when it's wet."

There have now been nine mountain biking accidents attended by Bolton
Mountain Rescue Team so far this year, compared to 10 during 2013.

A spokesman for the North West Air Ambulance was unable to give
further details of the boy's condition.

However, he was thought to have regained consciousness.

I must admit I am a sociopath when it comes to mountain bikers
on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be dead and rotting in
cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain bikers who ride their bikes on
trails I would **** on their graves.


Well, yes, if someone was hiking or riding on my land I might feel rather aggrieved too ... oh no, wait, these AREN'T your trails are they Ed ? No, in fact they're public land ! So, you can relax ... no one is riding on your trails at all.


Trails on public lands are OUR trails, They are not yours for doing whatever you want on them. Trails belong to hikers, not to Asshole mountain bikers. A generation ago everyone in the world knew that – even your sainted grandfather!

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


  #15  
Old November 7th 14, 06:37 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any
of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints.


The science suggests that mountainbiking and hiking have similar impacts. Unsurprising since the power is exactly the same ... one human. I very much doubt whether nature cares whether it's footprint or a tyre print. Same impact.


What science would that be? Mr. Vandeman is the world class expert on the impact of cycling on trails and he asserts that the tires of bikes on trails is much more damaging then any hiker’s boots.

Everything I've seen in the way of research actually shows that if

suitable tyres are used, the damage caused by cyclists is less than
that caused by hikers.
Rolling does less damage than stomping, and hiking boots are
particularly damaging.

You obviously have not seen how bikers ride their bikes on trails. Speed is everything and they regard a trail as nothing but an obstacle course for their ****ing sport. Try to get real if that is even remotely possible.
[...]

Particularly when the footprints are deeper than the tyre prints.

I've never seen cyclists kick steps out of slopes to make them easier
to climb, but hikers seem to regard it as normal and reasonable
behaviour to hack holes in the environment.

Hikers are not interested in improving trails, only in navigating them without falling. Bikers on the other hand are not only into “improving” trails, but of making entirely separate trails strictly for their own use against park policy. They are notorious for that. It is why I call them criminals. You must be living in some kind of crazy fantasyland.
[...]

Heck, he can't even agree with himself, never mind anyone else.

So the constituency he represents is only himself (and maybe the
convicted criminal vandal man).

Try to post only content. You will not win any name calling contest with me.

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


  #16  
Old November 7th 14, 06:44 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message ...
[...]

On the other hand, his fantasy has resulted in him having someone

(Blackblade) to talk with. Without his constant bemoaning the use of
"trails" by multiple types of users he would be totally alone.

I have never known a hiker who will admit to liking bikers on trails. I am far from alone. I simply say what all other hikers are thinking but are too polite to voice. Hikers are gentlemen; bikers are thugs and criminals ... besides being the scum of the earth of course.

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


  #17  
Old November 10th 14, 03:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 218
Default Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.

It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on the
same
trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would understand

that simple
fact.


Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which I, for

one, don't share and I doubt too many others do either.

But your opinion is that of an Asshole Mountain Biker. In
other words, your opinion ain't worth ****!


Or, to phrase it differently, you can't tackle the logic so you resort to profanity and ad hominem ... again. Nice going Ed, I'm sure you'll convert thousands to your point of view with that approach /sarcasm.

The fundamental dichotomy facing us is either we open

more and more trails to suit single-use groups or ... we share. Sharing
creates some issues but unless we want to use up even more of the natural world
it has to be the preferred option.

The preferred option is to kick your dumb biker ass off of ALL
trails used by hikers.


I'm sure it is your preferred option ... and that's why I don't care one iota what you want anymore. With every utterance you show yourself as the entitled, hubristic, selfish and ignorant individual you are.

You have opined, again and again, that sharing isn't

possible. Since it works quite well in most locations I guess what you
should have written is that sharing isn't possible ... for you. And, given
that you have proven yourself selfish to the core, why the **** should anyone
care about you and your wants ?

The fact is that sharing does not work well anywhere, most
especially if trails become the least bit crowded. What a ****ing Dumb Asshole
you are!


Works fine in Swinley Forest, Porridge Pot, Minley Manor, Forest of Dean, Exmoor, Scotland .. and many other places I'm aware of.

The land managers will have to be educated. For the

moment,
they are almost as dumb as you are.


You know something ? When everyone you're

speaking with, in a position of some authority, is telling you that you're wrong
and that you need to share ... they just might be right. You're not a
redoubtable missionary for the sanctity of the trails Ed, you're a selfish loner
who just wants what you want and b****r everyone else.

The land mangers are not only as dumb as you are, but they are
also cowards. They cave to whomever brings the most power to bear despite
whatever their original mission might have been. It is why even our National
Parks are forever in jeopardy of being ruined by fools like you.


But I thought you claimed that hikers were massively in the majority Ed ? I think you said that there were between 10,000 and 1,000,000 hikers for every biker. As such, surely you would have more power to bring to bear ?

Or are you spouting nonsense again ?

Just as there is no
way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be

permitted on hiking trails
--- because of the conflicts of both means and purpose

which applies equally to
bikes. Too bad you can't grasp this most elementary

rationale. Until you do, you
might as well be whistling Dixie!


I agree, you can't have powered vehicles sharing

certain spaces because of the huge difference in power, weight and speed.
However, clearly, some spaces/places can be shared .. and should
be.

Bicycles for hikers fall into the same class as motorcycles
and all-terrain vehicles. Trails are strictly for walkers.


No, Ed, trails are for people.

For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not

relevant.

Of course it's relevant you idiot. If I own

something and have to pay for its' upkeep then I have certain rights. I am
not going to accept that I have to pay for something which a self-righteous
minority then informs me I cannot use because it doesn't happen to suit their
agenda.

The public lands are being managed by governmental agencies
which have very specific missions which are written into law. National Parks and
Wilderness Areas are managed quite differently than National Forests and BLM
areas because of their different missions. The only idiot here, as usual, is
yourself ... and the land mangers who are not upholding their lawful
missions.


The National Parks Service mission statement says "the Service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations . . . by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

I don't read, in there, anything about preserving the chosen recreation of one Mr E Dolan. So, no, the land managers are staying true to their actual mission rather than the one you would like them to adopt.

Public
lands with its trails must be managed for best use.

Trails are indeed my church
and the church of all hikers. It is not your church

because you do not regard it
as a church, but as a race track for your ****ing sport

of mountain biking.

The land managers are doing their best to manage for

genuinely best use, as defined by the clearly stated objectives of the parks
service. Funnily enough, those objectives don't specifically include
satisfying one Ed Dolan !

If you want to have a 'church' then do it on your own

land. On public lands, you have to share.

If the land managers were doing their jobs properly, the very
first thing they would do is ban bikes from all trails used by hikers. You can't
share what can't be shared.


You can't share ... that's the fundamental issue. The land managers are doing their jobs just fine and most people can share without any major issues.. Only arrogant and sociopathic individuals think they can have everything they want and damn everyone else.

You
are even leading your own children to your ****ed-up

sport. You will rue that if
and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I have

warned you. There are
none so stupid as those who will not heed a

warning.

I will take no lessons from you in terms of

safety. You acknowledged that roads are far more dangerous but would still
displace bikers from trails onto roads because you want to enjoy the trails in
solitude.

Some roads are dangerous, others aren't. Young people who ride
bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads regardless of your nutty
ideas.


Mine don't ... they ride exclusively on trails. No roads.

I find your references to children totally and

utterly sociopathic; that anyone would think it appropriate to wish death or
serious injury to a child simply to advance a narrow recreational activity
preference is horrendous. You should apologise, but of course you won't,
because you genuinely don't understand, much less care, about anyone
else.

The only pathology being presented here is yours. You don't
even care enough about the safety of your own children to prevent them from
riding on trails. You and yours deserve whatever happens.


So, how is it uncaring to allow them to cycle in a SAFER location ? Not safe, I know that, but far far safer than on the road.

Here is a recent media report from the UK for you to
contemplate:


Shall I reciprocate with 3 reports of hiker problems for you to contemplate ? They do, after all, outnumber the biking ones by a factor of roughly 3.

Or would you prefer to read about road bike deaths ?

What a sick puppy you are.

I must admit I am a sociopath when it comes to mountain

bikers
on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be dead

and rotting in
cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain bikers

who ride their bikes on
trails I would **** on their graves.


Well, yes, if someone was hiking or riding on my land

I might feel rather aggrieved too ... oh no, wait, these AREN'T your trails are
they Ed ? No, in fact they're public land ! So, you can relax ... no
one is riding on your trails at all.

Trails on public lands are OUR trails, They are not yours for
doing whatever you want on them. Trails belong to hikers, not to Asshole
mountain bikers. A generation ago everyone in the world knew that - even your
sainted grandfather!


No, Ed, the trails do not belong to hikers. They belong to people ... and you can state the converse as many times as you like ... but it's still untrue.
  #18  
Old November 10th 14, 03:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 218
Default Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.


Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any
of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only

footprints.

The science suggests that mountainbiking and hiking have

similar impacts. Unsurprising since the power is exactly the same ... one
human. I very much doubt whether nature cares whether it's footprint or a
tyre print. Same impact.

What science would that be? Mr. Vandeman is the world class
expert on the impact of cycling on trails and he asserts that the tires of bikes
on trails is much more damaging then any hiker's boots.


It would be all the real science that vandeman tries, and fails, to discredit in this article http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm

Funny how real research trumps opinion and armchair quarterbacking by lobbyists like vandeman and you isn't it ?

  #19  
Old November 14th 14, 04:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on the

same
trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would understand

that simple
fact.


Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which I, for

one, don't share and I doubt too many others do either.

But your opinion is that of an Asshole Mountain Biker. In
other words, your opinion ain't worth ****!


Or, to phrase it differently, you can't tackle the logic so you resort to profanity and ad hominem ... again. Nice going Ed, I'm sure you'll convert thousands to your point of view with that approach /sarcasm.


When you endlessly repeat yourself that is all you are ever going to get. Learn how to move the conversation along.

The fundamental dichotomy facing us is either we open

more and more trails to suit single-use groups or ... we share. Sharing
creates some issues but unless we want to use up even more of the natural world
it has to be the preferred option.

The preferred option is to kick your dumb biker ass off of ALL
trails used by hikers.


I'm sure it is your preferred option ... and that's why I don't care one iota what you want anymore. With every utterance you show yourself as the entitled, hubristic, selfish and ignorant individual you are.


“When you endlessly repeat yourself that is all you are ever going to get. Learn how to move the conversation along.” – Ed Dolan

You have opined, again and again, that sharing isn't

possible. Since it works quite well in most locations I guess what you
should have written is that sharing isn't possible ... for you. And, given
that you have proven yourself selfish to the core, why the **** should anyone
care about you and your wants ?

The fact is that sharing does not work well anywhere, most
especially if trails become the least bit crowded. What a ****ing Dumb Asshole
you are!


Works fine in Swinley Forest, Porridge Pot, Minley Manor, Forest of Dean, Exmoor, Scotland .. and many other places I'm aware of.


It works fine for you, but not for hikers. Trust me on this, they hate your guts!

The land managers will have to be educated. For the

moment,
they are almost as dumb as you are.


You know something ? When everyone you're

speaking with, in a position of some authority, is telling you that you're wrong
and that you need to share ... they just might be right. You're not a
redoubtable missionary for the sanctity of the trails Ed, you're a selfish loner
who just wants what you want and b****r everyone else.

The land mangers are not only as dumb as you are, but they are
also cowards. They cave to whomever brings the most power to bear despite
whatever their original mission might have been. It is why even our National
Parks are forever in jeopardy of being ruined by fools like you.


But I thought you claimed that hikers were massively in the majority Ed ? I think you said that there were between 10,000 and 1,000,000 hikers for every biker. As such, surely you would have more power to bring to bear ?


As with everything under the sun organization is the key. There are of course many times more hikers than bikers and those numbers will tell in the end.

Or are you spouting nonsense again ?


Just as there is no
way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be

permitted on hiking trails
--- because of the conflicts of both means and purpose

which applies equally to
bikes. Too bad you can't grasp this most elementary

rationale. Until you do, you
might as well be whistling Dixie!


I agree, you can't have powered vehicles sharing

certain spaces because of the huge difference in power, weight and speed.
However, clearly, some spaces/places can be shared .. and should
be.

Bicycles for hikers fall into the same class as motorcycles
and all-terrain vehicles. Trails are strictly for walkers.


No, Ed, trails are for people.


“Or are you spouting nonsense again ?” – your own words!

For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not

relevant.

Of course it's relevant you idiot. If I own

something and have to pay for its' upkeep then I have certain rights. I am
not going to accept that I have to pay for something which a self-righteous
minority then informs me I cannot use because it doesn't happen to suit their
agenda.

The public lands are being managed by governmental agencies
which have very specific missions which are written into law. National Parks and
Wilderness Areas are managed quite differently than National Forests and BLM
areas because of their different missions. The only idiot here, as usual, is
yourself ... and the land mangers who are not upholding their lawful
missions.


The National Parks Service mission statement says "the Service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations . . . by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."


I don't read, in there, anything about preserving the chosen recreation of one Mr E Dolan. So, no, the land managers are staying true to their actual mission rather than the one you would like them to adopt.


The key phrase is “in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired”. I will admit I much prefer the Wilderness Area ethic compared to the National Park one.

Public
lands with its trails must be managed for best use.

Trails are indeed my church
and the church of all hikers. It is not your church

because you do not regard it
as a church, but as a race track for your ****ing sport

of mountain biking.

The land managers are doing their best to manage for

genuinely best use, as defined by the clearly stated objectives of the parks
service. Funnily enough, those objectives don't specifically include
satisfying one Ed Dolan !

If you want to have a 'church' then do it on your own

land. On public lands, you have to share.

If the land managers were doing their jobs properly, the very
first thing they would do is ban bikes from all trails used by hikers. You can't
share what can't be shared.


You can't share ... that's the fundamental issue. The land managers are doing their jobs just fine and most people can share without any major issues. Only arrogant and sociopathic individuals think they can have everything they want and damn everyone else.


The reports of conflicts are pouring in by the thousands. Note the latest wrinkle:

From: "Janet Peterson"
Subject: Eagles at Lake Folsom
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 23:45:18 -0800

ParkWatchReport is a web-based service that can now be accessed from any smartphone, laptop, desktop computer, tablet or iPad. It serves the needs of land managers who operate on small budgets and limited staff by collecting reports from the public electronically (including photos and GPS locations) of incidents like speeding bikes, fallen trees, untidy bathrooms, leaky water fountains, injured wildlife, fire hazards, and safety concerns.

Until now a comprehensive data base of such reports has never been developed and as a result problems like trail conflict have never truly been addressed. Without hard facts land managers have a difficult time 1) finding/identifying offenders 2) justifying additional law enforcement support, 3) getting greater restrictions placed on offensive/dangerous types trail users, 4)boosting fines to an effective point, etc.

ParkWatchReport gives the public the ability to deliver an accurate, first-hand account of what life is like on our public trails. They are dangerous and people who are justifiably concerned about injuries like equestrians, senior citizens, mom’s with youngsters, dog walkers, etc no longer enjoy using the trails. This is sad. To bring civility and enjoyment back the public can file a report in under three minutes from their smartphone and a permanent record of their report is 1) retained by the land manager with jurisdiction and 2) by ParkWatchReport, LLC. The offense is now on record and a land manger is informed and therefore accountable.

The goal of ParkWatchReport is to see rules, restrictions, penalties and trail designations revised to reflect what is in the best interest of the majority of trails users by providing land managers with the irrefutable and unbiased data they need substantiate the needed changes.

This is the short version of the answer to your question “how does it work?” For a longer answer, I’ve attached an Overview, a draft sent to Trail Blazer Magazine, and a flier for potential sponsors for the Mt Tam Site. In addition to the parkwatchreport.com site you might also like to check out the Eldorado.parkwatchreport.com site which was launched Nov 1 by the El Dorado Parks and Rec dept.

Thanks for your interest.

Janet Peterson
ParkWatchReport
(530) 878-4750


As a side note, Mt Tamalpais will be subscribing to the newest version of ParkWatchReport in order to collect data on the dangerous and illegal activities on the trails and the park in general. This should prove to be very helpful to both the rangers and the hikers/equestrians that have been run off the Mt Tam trails by mt bikers.

You
are even leading your own children to your ****ed-up

sport. You will rue that if
and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I have

warned you. There are
none so stupid as those who will not heed a

warning.

I will take no lessons from you in terms of

safety. You acknowledged that roads are far more dangerous but would still
displace bikers from trails onto roads because you want to enjoy the trails in
solitude.

Some roads are dangerous, others aren't. Young people who ride
bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads regardless of your nutty
ideas.


Mine don't ... they ride exclusively on trails. No roads.


Your kids will soon relate more to their peer group than a nut like you.

I find your references to children totally and

utterly sociopathic; that anyone would think it appropriate to wish death or
serious injury to a child simply to advance a narrow recreational activity
preference is horrendous. You should apologise, but of course you won't,
because you genuinely don't understand, much less care, about anyone
else.

The only pathology being presented here is yours. You don't
even care enough about the safety of your own children to prevent them from
riding on trails. You and yours deserve whatever happens.


So, how is it uncaring to allow them to cycle in a SAFER location ? Not safe, I know that, but far far safer than on the road.


Residential streets are safe. Hiking trails are only safe for hikers, not for bikers regardless of age.

Here is a recent media report from the UK for you to
contemplate:


Shall I reciprocate with 3 reports of hiker problems for you to contemplate ? They do, after all, outnumber the biking ones by a factor of roughly 3.


Or would you prefer to read about road bike deaths ?


What a sick puppy you are.


I will enjoy reading some day that you have managed to kill yourself by doing something stupid – like riding your bike on a hiking trail.

I must admit I am a sociopath when it comes to mountain

bikers
on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be dead

and rotting in
cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain bikers

who ride their bikes on
trails I would **** on their graves.


Well, yes, if someone was hiking or riding on my land

I might feel rather aggrieved too ... oh no, wait, these AREN'T your trails are
they Ed ? No, in fact they're public land ! So, you can relax ... no
one is riding on your trails at all.

Trails on public lands are OUR trails, They are not yours for
doing whatever you want on them. Trails belong to hikers, not to Asshole
mountain bikers. A generation ago everyone in the world knew that - even your
sainted grandfather!


No, Ed, the trails do not belong to hikers. They belong to people .... and you can state the converse as many times as you like ... but it's still untrue.


People ... doing what! You make no sense whatever.

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


  #20  
Old November 14th 14, 05:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.

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

Edward Dolan wrote:

What science would that be? Mr. Vandeman is the world class
expert on the impact of cycling on trails and he asserts that the tires of bikes
on trails is much more damaging then any hiker's boots.


It would be all the real science that vandeman tries, and fails, to discredit in this article http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm


Funny how real research trumps opinion and armchair quarterbacking by lobbyists like vandeman and you isn't it ?


What “real research” would that be?

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


 




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
For your amusement Peter Howard Techniques 0 January 28th 08 08:26 AM
For my own amusement BT Humble Australia 15 June 28th 07 11:38 PM
rural amusement asterope Australia 27 October 12th 06 01:25 AM
Curiosity and amusement: a Poll oldhickory Racing 1 August 10th 06 02:22 PM
Amusement Park Unicyclist? The_SkunkMan Unicycling 12 August 22nd 04 12:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.