The high cost of mountain biking!

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

I also came across a post that you [Ed Dolan the Great], your very own
self, apparently
posted some time ago wherein you said:

"Some of you have me down for a troll, but you have got that most
awfully wrong. Until just recently, I did not even know myself what I
was doing..."

I encourage anyone still resident on this newsgroup to read any and all
posts I have ever sent to Usenet. I only ask that you show enough
intelligence to read the entire threads so as to get the context of whatever
is said. I do not expect John B.(Bull****ter) to do this as he seems to just
want to explore the subject of faggots, the one thing that he is apparently
an expert on.

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 20:29:30 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

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

The John B.(Bull****) usual crap not even read other than to note the extent
of it.

Do you suppose for one minute that I or anyone else is dumb enough to read
anything you write? You are the poorest and the craziest ******* ever to
post to this newsgroup. I would feel sorry for you if you weren't such a
faggot, the one subject on which you showed some expertise.

Post content or get lost!


Well, dooley I see that you have progressed a bit from your usual cut
and paste antics. But your post is your usual mix of fantasies,
exaggerations and lies.

You say, "You are the poorest and the craziest ******* ever to
post to this newsgroup".

But in U.S. terms I believe I must be a rich man as I have read that
the "average American family" has $15,000 in credit card debts -I have
zero. That they owe $168,614 in mortgages - I have, over the years
owned three houses but have zero mortgages. That they have $27,141 in
auto debts - I have zero. In fact right now, I am sitting at the
computer typing, debtless.

So apparently you got that one wrong.

As for "craziest" that seems debatable. After all I don't have any
sort of urge to shout from the roof tops that a Bi cycle has wheels.

I've always thought that the average American could probably figure
out from the name of the thing that it had wheels, and perhaps the
brighter sparks could figure out how many it had.

But, apparently I was wrong, and if you are right, then the average
American is really a stupid lout, deeply in debt, and if you are any
example, doesn't know anything at all.

If you didn't have such a filthy mouth I could's even work up a little
sympathy for you. After all a bloke who's life's desire seems to
inform the public that a bicycle has wheels is not really a top line
thinker. Quite the opposite, one might say.

And "Content! Content! You shout. And then do one of your cut and
paste jobs as though you had, just discovered gravity. Good Lord, you
are not only ignoble, but ignorant.

And all this bumpht you post about hiking, primeval forests and all
the other drivel that you sp;out. If you were ever dropped in to a
real forest primeval you would never get back to civilization.

And how do I know? Well I have actually, unlike you, spent some time
in places where no man may have ever walked before.

No, your version of primeval is with nice smooth trails for you to
walk on, and sweet little Adirondack cabins for you to sleep in and of
course "safe" water supplies.

And, I discovered just yesterday that you "hikers" are buying into the
wheel game. I see :The Honey Badger Wheel", "the wheel for pack
hunters, hikers, parents, preppers, and people who love the outdoors.
Carries kids, gear, and big game with ease not muscle"

And, oh yes, there is "The Pack Wheel" - The new Pull Yoke attaches to
the Pack Wheel in seconds. With this new attachment and the help from
a buddy the speed up steep terrain, can be increased.

And last but not least we have the "MONOWALKER Hiking trailer, the
backpack that you tow"

So essentially the vision of "primeval" now includes wheels.

"Content, content? What a silly joke you are.
--
cheers,

John B.

"John B." wrote in message
...

On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 20:29:30 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

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

The John B.(Bull****) usual crap not even read other than to note the
extent
of it.

Do you suppose for one minute that I or anyone else is dumb enough to read
anything you write? You are the poorest and the craziest ******* ever to
post to this newsgroup. I would feel sorry for you if you weren't such a
faggot, the one subject on which you showed some expertise.

Post content or get lost!

Well, dooley I see that you have progressed a bit from your usual cut
and paste antics. But your post is your usual mix of fantasies,
exaggerations and lies.

You say, "You are the poorest and the craziest ******* ever to
post to this newsgroup".

But in U.S. terms I believe I must be a rich man as I have read that
the "average American family" has $15,000 in credit card debts -I have
zero. That they owe $168,614 in mortgages - I have, over the years
owned three houses but have zero mortgages. That they have $27,141 in
auto debts - I have zero. In fact right now, I am sitting at the
computer typing, debtless.

So apparently you got that one wrong.

You are finally posting some content, but it has nothing to do with the
purpose of this newsgroup. You need to read what others have posted to this
newsgroup in the past to see where you fall short. That is what I meant by"
poorest and craziest". Try to come up to an acceptable standard.

As for "craziest" that seems debatable. After all I don't have any
sort of urge to shout from the roof tops that a Bi cycle has wheels.

I've always thought that the average American could probably figure
out from the name of the thing that it had wheels, and perhaps the
brighter sparks could figure out how many it had.

The above is NOT content. You seem not to know the difference? To want to
discuss a signature does indeed mark you as poor and crazy.

But, apparently I was wrong, and if you are right, then the average
American is really a stupid lout, deeply in debt, and if you are any
example, doesn't know anything at all.

If you didn't have such a filthy mouth I could's even work up a little
sympathy for you. After all a bloke who's life's desire seems to
inform the public that a bicycle has wheels is not really a top line
thinker. Quite the opposite, one might say.

"The above is NOT content. You seem not to know the difference? To want to
discuss a signature does indeed mark you as poor and crazy."- Ed Dolan

The filthy mouth comes from not wanting the lowest common denominator to
prevail on this newsgroup. You would be surprised at how many scumbags I
have gotten rid of by being even filthier than they could imagine. Getting
personal with someone of My Greatness is a huge mistake as many have
discovered to their discomfort. Be civil and I will be civil, but you also
have to be intelligent. If you are an idiot, then you will be called out
for one.

And "Content! Content! You shout. And then do one of your cut and
paste jobs as though you had, just discovered gravity. Good Lord, you
are not only ignoble, but ignorant.

Take note of the name of this newsgroup. You must either post content or get
lost. It really is just that simple.

And all this bumpht you post about hiking, primeval forests and all
the other drivel that you sp;out. If you were ever dropped in to a
real forest primeval you would never get back to civilization.

That is true. I am not into survival, but rather into appreciating a natural
scene relatively untouched by man. That is what 100% of hikers are doing and
what 100% of mountain bikers are NOT doing. They are doing a sport, which is
an inherent conflict of both means and purpose with what hikers are doing.
It is why they cannot coexist on the same trails.

And how do I know? Well I have actually, unlike you, spent some time
in places where no man may have ever walked before.

No, your version of primeval is with nice smooth trails for you to
walk on, and sweet little Adirondack cabins for you to sleep in and of
course "safe" water supplies.

The above can be only too true, but it is irrelevant to the problem of
hikers vs. bikers.

And, I discovered just yesterday that you "hikers" are buying into the
wheel game. I see :The Honey Badger Wheel", "the wheel for pack
hunters, hikers, parents, preppers, and people who love the outdoors.
Carries kids, gear, and big game with ease not muscle"

And, oh yes, there is "The Pack Wheel" - The new Pull Yoke attaches to
the Pack Wheel in seconds. With this new attachment and the help from
a buddy the speed up steep terrain, can be increased.

And last but not least we have the "MONOWALKER Hiking trailer, the
backpack that you tow"

So essentially the vision of "primeval" now includes wheels.

All of the above is illegal in wilderness areas and it should be prohibited
everywhere on single track trails. Positively no wheels on trails! Trails
are for trekking on your own two legs with no assistance. If you can't
manage that, as I no longer can, then stay home and look at TV and type
messages on your computer to Usenet. Thankfully, I can still ride a bicycle
(recumbents only) which I do regularly almost every day. But It would never
occur to me to ride a bicycle on a single track trail. Trails in natural
areas are for hikers. Roads and streets are for bikers.

"Content, content? What a silly joke you are.

Nope, post content like you did here and you will find me responsive. Name
calling is the most childish thing one can do on Usenet, but I decided long
ago I was not going to let the lowest common denominator prevail here on
RBS. You need to get off of my signature, which is never going to change,
and move on if you ever want to learn anything. I think we could have some
interesting exchanges if you stayed on content.

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

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

And how do I know? Well I have actually, unlike you, spent some time
in places [West Papua?] where no man may have ever walked before.
[...]

Allow me to disabuse you of that notion. There is no place on earth where
man has not trod, except areas of Antarctica. Every other place has been
thoroughly explored and perhaps settled at one time or another by mankind.

When the Europeans came to the New World, every square inch of the New World
was already inhabited by man, even the forbidding Amazon rain forest. The
natives had to be gotten rid of in order to have European settlement. This
was mostly accomplished by disease, but it was still amazing that Cortez
could overcome the Aztecs with such a minimal number of soldiers.

Your fabled isle of New Guinea was similarly totally inhabited by man. The
island was full of various tribes and languages from time immemorial and I
assure you there was no part of that island that was not trod by man. By far
the most difficult area of the earth to settle was the high Arctic, yet the
Eskimos did it. And the Bedouins conquered the Sahara. New Guinea was a
paradise compared to those areas.

The US was settled in just a few generations when the country moved west –
and it was thoroughly settled. Not a square inch of land was unaccounted for
by 1900. Even Russian Siberia has been thoroughly explored and settled by
native peoples. The Russians, not being Americans, have not settled vast
areas of Siberia, but that does not mean it is empty and untrod by man.

Only Antarctica is empty except for a few scientific stations. To go to a
place “where no man may have ever walked before,� think various planets and
‘other worlds’. Mars would be a good choice.

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 08:54:30 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

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

And how do I know? Well I have actually, unlike you, spent some time
in places [West Papua?] where no man may have ever walked before.
[...]

Allow me to disabuse you of that notion. There is no place on earth where
man has not trod, except areas of Antarctica. Every other place has been
thoroughly explored and perhaps settled at one time or another by mankind.


Is that true? Or just another of your current fantasias.

You see Dooley, whole sections of places like New Guinea and even
parts of Australia, as well as the Sahara desert and Arabia's "Empty
Quarter" simply have no water or food. And as stupid as mankind
generally is it is very difficult to believe that anyone plods over
hill and dale in deep jungle or desert without food and water. For
what purpose?

In jungles, for example, there is very little to eat, very few animals
that can be hunted and while there are birds they are way up there in
top of the trees and very, very hard to get to.

In fact the strategy that the British used successfully against the
Communists guerrilla in Malaysia was to deny them access to towns
where food could be obtained.

Of course in desert regions there isn't any water (I suppose that's
why they are "deserts"). And while it is perfectly logical, sitting
home in front of the T.V. to imagine one's self trudging through the
deserts in search of the Queen of Shiba's gold, it doesn't work well
in practice.

If, instead of sitting home watching the T.V. you actually traveled to
any of these remote regions you would find that the bulk of the poor
primitive people are located along rivers and streams where there is
an abundance of water and at least fish to eat. And even the Danu
people, a stone age culture, in West Guinea who live as high as 3,000
- 4,000 ft. above sea level and depend on agriculture for survival
live along streams and rivers.


When the Europeans came to the New World, every square inch of the New World
was already inhabited by man, even the forbidding Amazon rain forest. The
natives had to be gotten rid of in order to have European settlement. This
was mostly accomplished by disease, but it was still amazing that Cortez
could overcome the Aztecs with such a minimal number of soldiers.

Your imagination is running away with you.

"The population figure for indigenous peoples in the Americas before
the 1492 voyage of Christopher Columbus has proven difficult to
establish. Scholars rely on archaeological data and written records
from settlers from the Old World. Most scholars writing at the end of
the 19th century estimated the pre-Columbian population as low as 10
million; by the end of the 20th century most scholars gravitated to a
middle estimate of around 50 million"

50 million people on a land mass of 34.93 million square
kilometers....28% of the world's land mass? That is an average
population of 1.4 per square kilometer.

Your thesis is not very reliable.

Your fabled isle of New Guinea was similarly totally inhabited by man. The
island was full of various tribes and languages from time immemorial and I
assure you there was no part of that island that was not trod by man. By far
the most difficult area of the earth to settle was the high Arctic, yet the
Eskimos did it. And the Bedouins conquered the Sahara. New Guinea was a
paradise compared to those areas.

Again you speak without knowledge. In fact there aren't many people in
New Guinea. No where that I worked, in roughly 5 years in the country,
was there a town or village. The Danu, one of the largest tribes seem
to have about 90,000 members, and the entire populating of W. New
Guinea is estimated at 3.6 million and the population density seems to
be 10 per sq. Km. Anthropologists describe the people as primarily
living in villages along the rivers.

In short Doolie you are talking rubbish. Not facts. Not even educated
conjecture. Or one might say, no knowledge and a vivid imagination.

And yes, you can holler and shout, "I'm right, I'm right" all you
want, but I'm going to say, quietly and gentlemanly, "show us the
facts, show us the facts". And do please do note the word "facts". Not
simply shouting "I'm Right", but actual documented facts.... something
that seems extremely lacking in any of your conversations.
--
cheers,

John B.

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

And how do I know? Well I have actually, unlike you, spent some time
in places [West Papua?] where no man may have ever walked before.
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

Allow me to disabuse you of that notion. There is no place on earth where
man has not trod, except areas of Antarctica. Every other place has been
thoroughly explored and perhaps settled at one time or another by mankind.

Is that true? Or just another of your current fantasias.

You see Dooley, whole sections of places like New Guinea and even
parts of Australia, as well as the Sahara desert and Arabia's "Empty
Quarter" simply have no water or food. And as stupid as mankind
generally is it is very difficult to believe that anyone plods over
hill and dale in deep jungle or desert without food and water. For
what purpose?

Such places as you describe have not been settled for the reasons you point
out, but that does not mean they have not been thoroughly explored. I
assure you that no area of the earth(except Antarctica) has not been
thoroughly explored by the natives living near by no matter how hostile to
human settlement. When homo sapiens left his birthplace (Africa), it was not
long before the entire earth was explored, if not settled. Certain areas had
to wait for perhaps a land bridge, but by the time the Europeans discovered
the New World, if was if not 100% settled
most assuredly 100% explored. You seem not to understand the nature of man.

In jungles, for example, there is very little to eat, very few animals
that can be hunted and while there are birds they are way up there in
top of the trees and very, very hard to get to.

In fact the strategy that the British used successfully against the
Communists guerrilla in Malaysia was to deny them access to towns
where food could be obtained.

Of course in desert regions there isn't any water (I suppose that's
why they are "deserts"). And while it is perfectly logical, sitting
home in front of the T.V. to imagine one's self trudging through the
deserts in search of the Queen of Shiba's gold, it doesn't work well
in practice.

If, instead of sitting home watching the T.V. you actually traveled to
any of these remote regions you would find that the bulk of the poor
primitive people are located along rivers and streams where there is
an abundance of water and at least fish to eat. And even the Danu
people, a stone age culture, in West Guinea who live as high as 3,000
- 4,000 ft. above sea level and depend on agriculture for survival
live along streams and rivers.

The kind of agriculture practiced in New Guinea was not capable of
supporting a large population, but even so, the land was being fully
occupied given the kind of economy that was available to them. Any
elementary course in anthropology will explain why primitive peoples live
where they live, but you were claiming that there are areas of the earth
that were untrod by man. That is what I am disputing, not that some areas
were difficult, if not impossible to settle. Only Antarctica was relatively
untrod by man.

When the Europeans came to the New World, every square inch of the New
World
was already inhabited by man, even the forbidding Amazon rain forest. The
natives had to be gotten rid of in order to have European settlement. This
was mostly accomplished by disease, but it was still amazing that Cortez
could overcome the Aztecs with such a minimal number of soldiers.

Your imagination is running away with you.

"The population figure for indigenous peoples in the Americas before
the 1492 voyage of Christopher Columbus has proven difficult to
establish. Scholars rely on archaeological data and written records
from settlers from the Old World. Most scholars writing at the end of
the 19th century estimated the pre-Columbian population as low as 10
million; by the end of the 20th century most scholars gravitated to a
middle estimate of around 50 million"

50 million people on a land mass of 34.93 million square
kilometers....28% of the world's land mass? That is an average
population of 1.4 per square kilometer.

Your thesis is not very reliable.

The New World was settled to the max according to how those native peoples
were making a living off the land. You only get huge populations when you
have an economy that is based on intensive agriculture. If the economy is
based on hunting and gathering or very primitive agriculture, you will not
normally be able to support a large population. The New World was fully
populated prior to Columbus. It is very curious to me that you think vast
areas of the world were never thoroughly explored by mankind. Only
Antarctica fits that description.

Your fabled isle of New Guinea was similarly totally inhabited by man. The
island was full of various tribes and languages from time immemorial and I
assure you there was no part of that island that was not trod by man. By
far
the most difficult area of the earth to settle was the high Arctic, yet the
Eskimos did it. And the Bedouins conquered the Sahara. New Guinea was a
paradise compared to those areas.

Again you speak without knowledge. In fact there aren't many people in
New Guinea. No where that I worked, in roughly 5 years in the country,
was there a town or village. The Danu, one of the largest tribes seem
to have about 90,000 members, and the entire populating of W. New
Guinea is estimated at 3.6 million and the population density seems to
be 10 per sq. Km. Anthropologists describe the people as primarily
living in villages along the rivers.

New Guinea, like every other area of the world, was fully populated in
accordance with the economy that prevailed there. An island the size of New
Guiana with millions of people will have examined every square inch of that
island. The brute fact of geography itself will determine how many people
the land will support. Tropical areas only look rich and fertile, but they
are not. New Guinea was supporting as many people as it could support.
Besides reading some anthropology you should perhaps read Malthus, although
I think primitive people were better at controlling their population than we
are.

In short Doolie you are talking rubbish. Not facts. Not even educated
conjecture. Or one might say, no knowledge and a vivid imagination.

Everything I have stated is based on facts which are well known to every
anthropologist. No imagination was required. The only absurd statement that
has been made here is by you - that there are areas of the earth which have
never been trod by man. Only Antarctica fills that bill.
[...]

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 21:59:58 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

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


Such places as you describe have not been settled for the reasons you point
out, but that does not mean they have not been thoroughly explored. I
assure you that no area of the earth(except Antarctica) has not been
thoroughly explored by the natives living near by no matter how hostile to
human settlement. When homo sapiens left his birthplace (Africa), it was not
long before the entire earth was explored, if not settled. Certain areas had
to wait for perhaps a land bridge, but by the time the Europeans discovered
the New World, if was if not 100% settled
most assuredly 100% explored. You seem not to understand the nature of man.

In jungles, for example, there is very little to eat, very few animals
that can be hunted and while there are birds they are way up there in
top of the trees and very, very hard to get to.

In fact the strategy that the British used successfully against the
Communists guerrilla in Malaysia was to deny them access to towns
where food could be obtained.

Of course in desert regions there isn't any water (I suppose that's
why they are "deserts"). And while it is perfectly logical, sitting
home in front of the T.V. to imagine one's self trudging through the
deserts in search of the Queen of Shiba's gold, it doesn't work well
in practice.

If, instead of sitting home watching the T.V. you actually traveled to
any of these remote regions you would find that the bulk of the poor
primitive people are located along rivers and streams where there is
an abundance of water and at least fish to eat. And even the Danu
people, a stone age culture, in West Guinea who live as high as 3,000
- 4,000 ft. above sea level and depend on agriculture for survival
live along streams and rivers.

The kind of agriculture practiced in New Guinea was not capable of
supporting a large population, but even so, the land was being fully
occupied given the kind of economy that was available to them. Any
elementary course in anthropology will explain why primitive peoples live
where they live, but you were claiming that there are areas of the earth
that were untrod by man. That is what I am disputing, not that some areas
were difficult, if not impossible to settle. Only Antarctica was relatively
untrod by man.

My goodness Dooley, first I say that there is not much to eat in
jungles and note that in jungle areas the population is centered
around rivers.

And now you astound us by telling us that "the land was being fully
occupied given the kind of economy that was available to them". One
does like original thinking.... even when it is wrong.

Unless you somehow think that subsistence agriculture is an economy.
For your edification:

Economy - "the system of production and distribution and consumption".

One can only speculate whether raising sweet potatoes and then eating
them actually constitutes "distribution", although I suspect that you
will argue that it does as if you don't you will look even more
foolish than you usually do. Or perhaps you feel that the expression
"from hand to mouth" actually describes a distribution system.


When the Europeans came to the New World, every square inch of the New
World
was already inhabited by man, even the forbidding Amazon rain forest. The
natives had to be gotten rid of in order to have European settlement. This
was mostly accomplished by disease, but it was still amazing that Cortez
could overcome the Aztecs with such a minimal number of soldiers.

Your imagination is running away with you.

"The population figure for indigenous peoples in the Americas before
the 1492 voyage of Christopher Columbus has proven difficult to
establish. Scholars rely on archaeological data and written records
from settlers from the Old World. Most scholars writing at the end of
the 19th century estimated the pre-Columbian population as low as 10
million; by the end of the 20th century most scholars gravitated to a
middle estimate of around 50 million"

50 million people on a land mass of 34.93 million square
kilometers....28% of the world's land mass? That is an average
population of 1.4 per square kilometer.

Your thesis is not very reliable.

The New World was settled to the max according to how those native peoples
were making a living off the land. You only get huge populations when you
have an economy that is based on intensive agriculture. If the economy is
based on hunting and gathering or very primitive agriculture, you will not
normally be able to support a large population. The New World was fully
populated prior to Columbus. It is very curious to me that you think vast
areas of the world were never thoroughly explored by mankind. Only
Antarctica fits that description.

You argument is noted, and ignored as stupidity.

You argue that what were essentially small groups of hunter gatherers
explored the entire surface of the U.S.

The conterminous U.S. covers an area of some 3,119,884 square miles
and we know that the "Indians" as they were termed actually lived in a
very small part of the land. And, just as in New Guinea today, if you
went tramping around and entered an area claimed as part of another
tribe's territory, they killed you.

The actual population sizes of the original "Indian" population is
difficult to find. One study states that " even semi-accurate
pre-Columbian population figures are impossible to obtain" and I read
estimates for "the number of indigenous people in N. America prior to
1492" ranging from 2.1 to 18 million. A variation of 850% ? Scientific
fact?

I did come across a study of the Cherokees, who were forcibly removed
from their native homelands. The article states, in part, that in 1835
"The vast majority of the Cherokees, however, remained in their
ancestral homelands". In 1838 the U.S. Army forcibly remove the
Cherokees from their homelands and moved them to the West. The article
goes on to state that "Approximately 20,000 Cherokees were marched
west over what would soon be known as the "Trail of Tears."

So essentially the "vast majority" of a large Indian tribe was about
20,000 individuals.

The Battle of the Little Big Horn is pretty well documented and the
most definitive estimate I can find is "from 1,500 to 2,500 Indian
warriors". Custer's Crow scouts told him it was "the largest native
village they had ever seen". Other sources refer to it as "the largest
Indian gathering in history".

I can't find details of Western Indian family life in the 1800's but
I suspect that a family of husband, wife and two children might be a
reasonable average, If so than the size of the "largest Indian
Gathering in history" would have been in the neighborhood of from
6,000 to 10,000 people.

It would appear, at least from an very quick analysis of two large
Indian gatherings that the indigenous people were actually rather few
in number when compared with the enormous spaces that you seem to
believe that they were scampering about exploring.

In short, Dooly, you have no facts to back up your assertions and to
paraphrase someone or another, A verbal claim is as good as the paper
it is written on.

Again you speak without knowledge. In fact there aren't many people in
New Guinea. No where that I worked, in roughly 5 years in the country,
was there a town or village. The Danu, one of the largest tribes seem
to have about 90,000 members, and the entire populating of W. New
Guinea is estimated at 3.6 million and the population density seems to
be 10 per sq. Km. Anthropologists describe the people as primarily
living in villages along the rivers.

New Guinea, like every other area of the world, was fully populated in
accordance with the economy that prevailed there. An island the size of New
Guiana with millions of people will have examined every square inch of that
island. The brute fact of geography itself will determine how many people
the land will support. Tropical areas only look rich and fertile, but they
are not. New Guinea was supporting as many people as it could support.
Besides reading some anthropology you should perhaps read Malthus, although
I think primitive people were better at controlling their population than we
are.

Well, if you believe that exposing female babies so they die and an
overall infant morality of 12.5% (during the period I was there) as
population control than I guess you are right.



In short Doolie you are talking rubbish. Not facts. Not even educated
conjecture. Or one might say, no knowledge and a vivid imagination.

Everything I have stated is based on facts which are well known to every
anthropologist. No imagination was required. The only absurd statement that
has been made here is by you - that there are areas of the earth which have
never been trod by man. Only Antarctica fills that bill.
[...]

You claim that every notion that pops into your mind is "based on
facts which are well known to every anthropologist". You may as well
claim that your every thought is direct "from God's lips to your
ears", and given the proof you provide equally as believable.

But then, as Dr, Gobbels said, "tell a big enough lie and tell if
often enough and people will believe it". And it does typify you
arguments, "Everyone knows"; "it stands to reason"; "all the
authorities agree"; "the facts are well known". All spoken in a loud
authoritative voice and all without a shred of any proof, except, of
course, "Doolan says so".

I am reminded of a quote that seems to typify your posts"
'"He was one of those who have an opinion on everything. Unfortunately
they disappear when held up to the light."


Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

The usual Dooley battle cry is "Content! Content!" which obviously is
not applicable to his posts.

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

Doodles, you missed a word there. The word "Pretender" is necessary
following the word "Great" to preserve the veracity of the statement.
--
cheers,

John B.

"John B." wrote in message
...

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 21:59:58 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

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


Such places as you describe have not been settled for the reasons you point
out, but that does not mean they have not been thoroughly explored. I
assure you that no area of the earth (except Antarctica) has not been
thoroughly explored by the natives living near by no matter how hostile to
human settlement. When homo sapiens left his birthplace (Africa), it was
not
long before the entire earth was explored, if not settled. Certain areas
had
to wait for perhaps a land bridge, but by the time the Europeans discovered
the New World, it was if not 100% settled
most assuredly 100% explored. You seem not to understand the nature of
man.

In jungles, for example, there is very little to eat, very few animals
that can be hunted and while there are birds they are way up there in
top of the trees and very, very hard to get to.

In fact the strategy that the British used successfully against the
Communists guerrilla in Malaysia was to deny them access to towns
where food could be obtained.

Of course in desert regions there isn't any water (I suppose that's
why they are "deserts"). And while it is perfectly logical, sitting
home in front of the T.V. to imagine one's self trudging through the
deserts in search of the Queen of Shiba's gold, it doesn't work well
in practice.

If, instead of sitting home watching the T.V. you actually traveled to
any of these remote regions you would find that the bulk of the poor
primitive people are located along rivers and streams where there is
an abundance of water and at least fish to eat. And even the Danu
people, a stone age culture, in West Guinea who live as high as 3,000
- 4,000 ft. above sea level and depend on agriculture for survival
live along streams and rivers.

The kind of agriculture practiced in New Guinea was not capable of
supporting a large population, but even so, the land was being fully
occupied given the kind of economy that was available to them. Any
elementary course in anthropology will explain why primitive peoples live
where they live, but you were claiming that there are areas of the earth
that were untrod by man. That is what I am disputing, not that some areas
were difficult, if not impossible to settle. Only Antarctica was relatively
untrod by man.

My goodness Dooley, first I say that there is not much to eat in
jungles and note that in jungle areas the population is centered
around rivers.

In fact, there is not much to eat in the jungle, and it doesn't matter where
a population is centered. What matters is how much land surrounding them
they have access to. Try not to be such an idiot if that is possible.

And now you astound us by telling us that "the land was being fully
occupied given the kind of economy that was available to them". One
does like original thinking.... even when it is wrong.

Unless you somehow think that subsistence agriculture is an economy.
For your edification:

Economy - "the system of production and distribution and consumption".

One can only speculate whether raising sweet potatoes and then eating
them actually constitutes "distribution", although I suspect that you
will argue that it does as if you don't you will look even more
foolish than you usually do. Or perhaps you feel that the expression
"from hand to mouth" actually describes a distribution system.

Subsistence agriculture is an economy of course. Hunting and gathering is
also an economy. Any way a society makes a living is an economy. Don’t look
now, but your ignorance is showing big time.

When the Europeans came to the New World, every square inch of the New
World
was already inhabited by man, even the forbidding Amazon rain forest. The
natives had to be gotten rid of in order to have European settlement. This
was mostly accomplished by disease, but it was still amazing that Cortez
could overcome the Aztecs with such a minimal number of soldiers.

Your imagination is running away with you.

"The population figure for indigenous peoples in the Americas before
the 1492 voyage of Christopher Columbus has proven difficult to
establish. Scholars rely on archaeological data and written records
from settlers from the Old World. Most scholars writing at the end of
the 19th century estimated the pre-Columbian population as low as 10
million; by the end of the 20th century most scholars gravitated to a
middle estimate of around 50 million"

50 million people on a land mass of 34.93 million square
kilometers....28% of the world's land mass? That is an average
population of 1.4 per square kilometer.

Your thesis is not very reliable.

The New World was settled to the max according to how those native peoples
were making a living off the land. You only get huge populations when you
have an economy that is based on intensive agriculture. If the economy is
based on hunting and gathering or very primitive agriculture, you will not
normally be able to support a large population. The New World was fully
populated prior to Columbus. It is very curious to me that you think vast
areas of the world were never thoroughly explored by mankind. Only
Antarctica fits that description.

You argument is noted, and ignored as stupidity.

You argue that what were essentially small groups of hunter gatherers
explored the entire surface of the U.S.

Of courses they did. That is how they made their living. They had to wander
the earth with the seasons and to follow the animals if they wanted to keep
eating. Are you just pretending stupidity or is it for real?

The conterminous U.S. covers an area of some 3,119,884 square miles
and we know that the "Indians" as they were termed actually lived in a
very small part of the land. And, just as in New Guinea today, if you
went tramping around and entered an area claimed as part of another
tribe's territory, they killed you.

Which just goes to show how intensely the land was regarded as property. It
is what you made your living off of.

The actual population sizes of the original "Indian" population is
difficult to find. One study states that " even semi-accurate
pre-Columbian population figures are impossible to obtain" and I read
estimates for "the number of indigenous people in N. America prior to
1492" ranging from 2.1 to 18 million. A variation of 850% ? Scientific
fact?

I did come across a study of the Cherokees, who were forcibly removed
from their native homelands. The article states, in part, that in 1835
"The vast majority of the Cherokees, however, remained in their
ancestral homelands". In 1838 the U.S. Army forcibly remove the
Cherokees from their homelands and moved them to the West. The article
goes on to state that "Approximately 20,000 Cherokees were marched
west over what would soon be known as the "Trail of Tears."

So essentially the "vast majority" of a large Indian tribe was about
20,000 individuals.

That is a huge number depending on how you are making a living. Hunter
gathers, just like any large animal, need a huge territory just so they can
get enough to eat.

The Battle of the Little Big Horn is pretty well documented and the
most definitive estimate I can find is "from 1,500 to 2,500 Indian
warriors". Custer's Crow scouts told him it was "the largest native
village they had ever seen". Other sources refer to it as "the largest
Indian gathering in history".

I can't find details of Western Indian family life in the 1800's but
I suspect that a family of husband, wife and two children might be a
reasonable average, If so than the size of the "largest Indian
Gathering in history" would have been in the neighborhood of from
6,000 to 10,000 people.

That is a huge number depending on how you are making a living. Hunter
gathers, just like any large animal, need a huge territory just so they can
get enough to eat.

It would appear, at least from an very quick analysis of two large
Indian gatherings that the indigenous people were actually rather few
in number when compared with the enormous spaces that you seem to
believe that they were scampering about exploring.

All of the above is irrelevant to the point that I am making – that every
square inch of the land mass of the Americas was thoroughly explored by
indigenous peoples. If they could settle the land, they did. If they could
not settle the land, they moved on.That is what occurred on every
continent – except Antarctica. Early man prior to the invention/discovery of
agriculture was nomadic in the extreme because early man was a hunter and a
gatherer and nothing else. You are an idiot to argue otherwise.

In short, Dooly, you have no facts to back up your assertions and to
paraphrase someone or another, A verbal claim is as good as the paper
it is written on.

The only idiot here is you.

Again you speak without knowledge. In fact there aren't many people in
New Guinea. No where that I worked, in roughly 5 years in the country,
was there a town or village. The Danu, one of the largest tribes seem
to have about 90,000 members, and the entire populating of W. New
Guinea is estimated at 3.6 million and the population density seems to
be 10 per sq. Km. Anthropologists describe the people as primarily
living in villages along the rivers.

New Guinea, like every other area of the world, was fully populated in
accordance with the economy that prevailed there. An island the size of
New
Guiana with millions of people will have examined every square inch of that
island. The brute fact of geography itself will determine how many people
the land will support. Tropical areas only look rich and fertile, but they
are not. New Guinea was supporting as many people as it could support.
Besides reading some anthropology you should perhaps read Malthus, although
I think primitive people were better at controlling their population than
we
are.

Well, if you believe that exposing female babies so they die and an
overall infant morality of 12.5% (during the period I was there) as
population control than I guess you are right.

Early man had many ways of controlling their population. Try to remember
that the main task of any society is to feed itself. However, we commit
abortion in our society today for no other purpose than not wanting to
inconvenience the mother with a pregnancy. How barbaric is that?

In short Doolie you are talking rubbish. Not facts. Not even educated
conjecture. Or one might say, no knowledge and a vivid imagination.

Everything I have stated is based on facts which are well known to every
anthropologist. No imagination was required. The only absurd statement that
has been made here is by you - that there are areas of the earth which
have
never been trod by man. Only Antarctica fills that bill.
[...]

You claim that every notion that pops into your mind is "based on
facts which are well known to every anthropologist". You may as well
claim that your every thought is direct "from God's lips to your
ears", and given the proof you provide equally as believable.

Be sure to read my most recent post on this newsgroup entitled “Guns,Germs
and Steel�. And be god damn sure to look at the video. You badly need some
education.

But then, as Dr, Gobbels said, "tell a big enough lie and tell if
often enough and people will believe it". And it does typify you
arguments, "Everyone knows"; "it stands to reason"; "all the
authorities agree"; "the facts are well known". All spoken in a loud
authoritative voice and all without a shred of any proof, except, of
course, "Doolan says so".

Be sure to read my most recent post on this newsgroup entitled “Guns,Germs
and Steel�. And be god damn sure to look at the video. You badly need some
education.

I am reminded of a quote that seems to typify your posts"
'"He was one of those who have an opinion on everything. Unfortunately
they disappear when held up to the light."

Be sure to read my most recent post on this newsgroup entitled “Guns,Germs
and Steel�. And be god damn sure to look at the video. You badly need some
education.

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

John B. wrote:

You see Dooley, whole sections of places like New Guinea and even
parts of Australia, as well as the Sahara desert and Arabia's "Empty
Quarter" simply have no water or food. And as stupid as mankind
generally is it is very difficult to believe that anyone plods over
hill and dale in deep jungle or desert without food and water. For
what purpose?

OK, so let’s discuss the Sahara Desert in the context of “there are places
where no man has ever walked�. Did you know that the Sahara was not always
a desert? It was once a savanna that had water and animals and hence people.
This was a long time ago and it is thought that those early hunter-gatherers
later settled in Egypt when the desertification began. It is thought that an
oscillation of the earth every 11,000 years causes this phenomenon, so maybe
the Sahara will some day be a savanna again.

But now you begin to see how absurd is your statement that there are areas
of the earth that no man has ever walked. Man, like Kilroy, has at one time
or another been everywhere (except Antarctica).

Modern day hikers have no illusions about recreating primitive conditions,
but the desire to preserve relatively primitive areas for spiritual
recreation makes total sense. It is as close as we can get to our roots. And
the recreation needs to be man on foot, not man on a machine. Wilderness
areas are for pilgrimage, not for fun and games (sport). That you can’t see
this makes you a true barbarian – a man without culture. I am quite right to
despise you.

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 16:28:05 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

John B. wrote:

OK, so let’s discuss the Sahara Desert in the context of “there are places
where no man has ever walked”. Did you know that the Sahara was not always
a desert? It was once a savanna that had water and animals and hence people.
This was a long time ago and it is thought that those early hunter-gatherers
later settled in Egypt when the desertification began. It is thought that an
oscillation of the earth every 11,000 years causes this phenomenon, so maybe
the Sahara will some day be a savanna again.

But now you begin to see how absurd is your statement that there are areas
of the earth that no man has ever walked. Man, like Kilroy, has at one time
or another been everywhere (except Antarctica).


I've sort of been holding off replying as I've been trying to puzzle
out whether you are really as stupid as you seem to be or whether you
simply live in some parallel universe where "reality" is whatever you
would like it to be.

But be that as it may, to take up the question of the lush Sahara,
teeming with life and little foot prints.

I did a bit of research and it seems pretty well agreed that the
Sahara may well have received a much higher rain fall in time past
than it does today and the time estimates seem to agree that the place
had reached its highest level of rainfall, and this plant growth and
"lushness" about 8,000 years BCE.

A bit more research shows that the two most agreed upon estimates of
human population on the planet is Hyde (published 2007) and Durand
(1974) who both agree that 5.0 million in -8000 is a likely figure.

A check on the earth habitable land area comes up with 63,699,062 km.
sq. Based on those figures there was, on an average one human for
every 12.7 sq. km. in 8000 bce.

Today's Sahara Desert covers some 9,400,000 sq. Km. so based on world
population estimates the total population of the Sahara might have
been as high as 750,000, which sounds like a lot of people until you
realize that is roughly equal to Fort Worth Texas sat in the middle of
the U.S. and not another person on the continent.

And you believe that these approximately 750,000 people were
scampering about, running here and there all over the place.

You totally ignore the difficulties that primitive groups have in just
getting enough to eat, not to mention all the rest of the
inconveniences of staying alive. Child and female morality, for
example, is extremely high in primitive societies.

Nope Dooley, we will have to mark this one up to a vivid imagination.


Modern day hikers have no illusions about recreating primitive conditions,
but the desire to preserve relatively primitive areas for spiritual
recreation makes total sense. It is as close as we can get to our roots. And
the recreation needs to be man on foot, not man on a machine. Wilderness
areas are for pilgrimage, not for fun and games (sport). That you can’t see
this makes you a true barbarian – a man without culture. I am quite right to
despise you.

Well, I accept your term "relatively primitive" although one has to
wonder just how greatly a world with flush toilets, hot and cold
running water and paved foot paths can relate to "primitive"?

And what about all the mosquito's, deer fly's, yellow jacket hornets
midges and ticks in your relatively primitive world? I suspect that
you don't have any in your relative reality. Probably fog them every
evening.

And of course, no savage animals, no wolves, bears or catamounts in
your (relatively) primitive wilderness, I'm sure. Maybe a cute little
bunny rabbit or Bambi the deer (neglecting the fact that neither are
actually forest denizens) but certainly nothing dangerous.

Sorry, Dooley but you strike out again. You see a real wilderness
contains all kind of things. Yellow Jackets, mosquitoes and all kind
of creepy crawly things. right along side, heck, sometime right in it,
the big majestic redwood tree.

In fact, one of the ways that those big Red Wood trees got spread all
over the place is by those loveable little birds. You see the redwood
cone falls down and after decomposing a little exposes the seeds. The
nice birdies eat the seeds, but unfortunately the seed covers are hard
to digest so many seeds pass right through the birds digestive system
undigested.

An interesting thing about the Red Wood seed is that it doesn't want
to be buried like other seeds. Just drop it right there on the ground
and it is perfectly happy while if you bury it down deep away from the
sunlight and it dies. One might even say that over hundreds of
thousands of years the whole Red Wood reproduction system has depended
on bird ****. Horrible but true.

Given that your "relative primitive" has no basis in reality what you
might do is visit
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...ilence-714.jpg

They have a wide selection of colored woodland photos. Just down load
one, up on the wide screen, set a 10 inch table fan to blow in your
face and open a bottle of pine scented Air Wick
http://www.airwick.us/products/
And there you would be. A virtual Forest.

Complete with air conditioning, flush toilets, mosquito screens, no
birds crapping on the floor and no mountain bikes. Nirvana!

And, it might be added, it will fit right in with your other imagined
realities.









Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

--
cheers,

John B.