|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
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. 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 |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:20:41 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:47:23 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:05:49 GMT, "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? Yes, if it harms the majority. But mountain bikers already have access to every trail, so they aren't being discriminated against, in spite of what they say. Mike, enough of this semantic bull****. It's gone on long enough. For the purposes of this argument - and many others - a mountain biker is referred to as such when he is on a bike. Not according to the dictionary. I'm sorry. Which dictionary do you own? The MJV version? Welcome to "reality". Take your pick. A mountain biker is someone who habiltally rides a bike off-road. You don't stop being a mountain biker just because you get off your bike. DUH! Just like you don't stop being a moron when you're not spewing garbage. However, if you STFU then it doesn't matter if you're a complete jackass! Don't you get it? When I am on a trail and not on my bike, I am a hiker. So yes, a mountain biker is discriminated against when he is told he cannot take his bike on trails. BS. Hikers & equestrians also can't take a bike on trails. THE EXACT SAME RULE APPLIES TO EVERYONE, so there can't be any discrimination. You have done absolutely nothing to address the point I brought up. As usual. Imagine telling a homosexual that he/she is not discriminated against -- as long as they don't practice. It's just stupid and you know it. Yet, you continue as usual . . You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot. === 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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
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). 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 === 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 |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
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. 2. "Comparable" is not a scientific term. ANY two objects are "comparable". It means nothing. 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 === 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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
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. 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 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
On 10 Dec 2006 12:38:17 -0800, "Beej" wrote:
On Dec 10, 9:54 am, Mike Vandeman wrote: So you don't know the difference between a bike and a biker?!!! You really ARE stupid, aren't you? Please. This is Usenet, and I'm a veteran. Mike, you've been trying to rid the world of mountain bikes for what, ten years? 12. Keep fighting the good fight, I say! -Beej === 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 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
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. 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. Try a dictionary, asshole. Yes. This has been amply established. === |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
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? 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 |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
"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. 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. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 23:43:47 -0500, "S Curtiss" wrote: As long as mountain bikers are friendly, courteous, and respectful to other trail users, they'll always be welcomed. BS. It's the BIKES we object to. There's nothing dangerous about not smiling. There is no "we" that is objecting. It is YOU and an extremist minority that has never been satisfied and vilify everything outside of your narrow view with nothing but emotion and opinion. The huge number of multi-use trails in the country speaks for itself in this regard. Yes - They do! -Beej === 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! HEADLINE NEWS ITEM THIS WEEK The study, published this week in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, is the largest yet to find no bad news about the safety of cell phones and the radio-frequency energy they emit. LIAR! That was ONLY about CANCER! DUH! === Awwww... still clinging to anything negative despite the evidence of the positive. I would suggest you call a friend to remove any sharp objects and abuseable medications from your home. Being that negative on everything could be a sign. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 07:21 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 03:04 PM |