Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

[Edward Dolan]

"SMS" > wrote in message
...

[newsgroups restored]

> Chris Foster wrote:
>> SMS > wrote in news:447df1d2$0$96953
>> :
>>
>>> http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/SprungImpacts.html
>>
>> WOW Nice article. Pretty much contradicts what MV has been saying.
>>
>>
>> All on these peer reviewed articles diwsagree with you Mike, while you
>> have been wasting your time arguing here with us, real people are doing
>> real
>
> Well, I hike a helluva lot more than I mountain bike, and I've got to tell
> you that despite the fact that mountain biking is no worse than hiking in
> terms of trail erosion and effect on wildlife, it really isn't pleasant to
> have to be constantly on the alert for bicycles.

The last phrase of the sentence above says it all. Something that mountain
bikers will never understand.

> However I accept that trail use should not be limited to hikers.

Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
period!

I'd
> like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and reservoirs
> with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They only allow
> powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's impractical for
> trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on odd-weekend days, hikers
> only on even-weekend days, hikers and bicyclists during the week, and
> equestrians every February 30th.

DUH!

Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
don't you?

> I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
> reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact.
> While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are plenty
> of others that are not from an organization that has a self-interest
> angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason he posts
> content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make up for the
> lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.

Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain
biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am not that
concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned about mountain
bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.

Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors. It
has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle.
Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the mountain
bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I can only
converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a philosopher.

I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show contrary
results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels and slobs
like SMS are on the side of the Devil.

By the way, I take great pride in my many posts to the various newsgroups
being almost entirely content free. That is for lesser minds, not for Great
Ones like Myself.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "SMS" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> [newsgroups restored]
>
>> Chris Foster wrote:
>>> SMS > wrote in news:447df1d2$0$96953
>>> :
>>>
>>>> http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/SprungImpacts.html
>>>
>>> WOW Nice article. Pretty much contradicts what MV has been saying.
>>>
>>>
>>> All on these peer reviewed articles diwsagree with you Mike, while you
>>> have been wasting your time arguing here with us, real people are doing
>>> real
>>
>> Well, I hike a helluva lot more than I mountain bike, and I've got to
>> tell you that despite the fact that mountain biking is no worse than
>> hiking in terms of trail erosion and effect on wildlife, it really isn't
>> pleasant to have to be constantly on the alert for bicycles.
>
> The last phrase of the sentence above says it all. Something that mountain
> bikers will never understand.

Wrong. Of course we understand it. Just as we have to be aware of others on
the trail. It is not possible to be absolutely sure there are no other
people around. Hikers, equestrians, other cyclists... Of course we are
constantly aware. Of our surroundings, of where we are going, who or what we
are approaching... Recreation lands require this awareness. Solitude is
not necessarily the goal for all persons, especially in multi-use and
recreation areas. "Wilderness" is far more suitable for your type of hiking
in which solidtude and reflection are your reasons for being there.
>
>> However I accept that trail use should not be limited to hikers.
>
> Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
> period!

In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some areas
of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness", multi-use
is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative efforts and
techniques are in place. And enforced.
>
> I'd
>> like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and
>> reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They
>> only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's
>> impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on
>> odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and bicyclists
>> during the week, and equestrians every February 30th.
>
> DUH!
>
> Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
> don't you?
Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you...
>
>> I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
>> reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact.
>> While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are plenty
>> of others that are not from an organization that has a self-interest
>> angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason he posts
>> content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make up for the
>> lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.
>
> Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain
> biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am not that
> concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned about mountain
> bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.

If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike in an
area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see bicycles. You do
have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can not, or are not
allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a bicycle is on a trail
that you would not hike anyway, that is your call.
>
> Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors. It
> has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle.
> Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the mountain
> bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I can only
> converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a philosopher.
You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We have
shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or foundation in
"fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his opinions, that is
up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is a major contradiction:
You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion then proclaiming yourself
to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again, it is also your statement that
your persistance on usenet has little to do with actual information.
>
> I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
> contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels
> and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil.
Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get picked
up by the Mother Ship?
>
> By the way, I take great pride in my many posts to the various newsgroups
> being almost entirely content free. That is for lesser minds, not for
> Great Ones like Myself.
>
The gauntlet of wisdom thrown as like an angry monkey, again, from Conan the
Librarian .

[SMS]

Edward Dolan wrote:

> Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
> period!

They are not "hiking" trails, they are simply trails. I may not like
equestrians messing up the trails, and while hiking I may not like
bicycles on the trails, but hikers have no claim to exclusive use of the
trails, at least not based on impact to the trail or wildlife.

> Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
> don't you?

It works very well for water sports. Personally I don't think it's all
that big a deal, but some hikers like MV have lost all connection with
reality when it comes to mountain bikes on trails.

> Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain
> biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject.

Oh please. If he's the expert, he would certainly have at least _one_
study, _one_ reference to support his position. He doesn't have
anything. He's good at ranting, but he has no facts or logic to support
his position.

> I am not that
> concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned about mountain
> bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.

Yet in case after case, mountain bikers have prevailed in defending
their right to be on the trails, and parks continue to open more trails
to bicyclists. In most cases, the park management has done a good job in
their trail designations.

> I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show contrary
> results to his.

Of course you will. Facts and logic have no meaning to you. You base
everything on emotion. "You can't have a debate with someone who is
willing to make up the facts."

[SMS]

S Curtiss wrote:

> In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some areas
> of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness", multi-use
> is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative efforts and
> techniques are in place. And enforced.

In reality, hikers are allied strongly with other human-powered users
(XC skiers, mountain bikers, etc), in trying to prevent motorized
intrusion (snow-mobiles, off-road vehicles, etc.). There are very few
hikers that are as clueless as MV or Ed, when it comes to addressing the
real threats to trails and to the back-country.

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" > wrote in message
news:hSZgg.19924$B42.8297@dukeread05...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "SMS" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> [newsgroups restored]
>>
>>> Chris Foster wrote:
>>>> SMS > wrote in news:447df1d2$0$96953
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/SprungImpacts.html
>>>>
>>>> WOW Nice article. Pretty much contradicts what MV has been saying.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All on these peer reviewed articles diwsagree with you Mike, while you
>>>> have been wasting your time arguing here with us, real people are doing
>>>> real
>>>
>>> Well, I hike a helluva lot more than I mountain bike, and I've got to
>>> tell you that despite the fact that mountain biking is no worse than
>>> hiking in terms of trail erosion and effect on wildlife, it really isn't
>>> pleasant to have to be constantly on the alert for bicycles.
>>
>> The last phrase of the sentence above says it all. Something that
>> mountain bikers will never understand.
>
> Wrong. Of course we understand it. Just as we have to be aware of others
> on the trail. It is not possible to be absolutely sure there are no other
> people around. Hikers, equestrians, other cyclists... Of course we are
> constantly aware. Of our surroundings, of where we are going, who or what
> we are approaching... Recreation lands require this awareness. Solitude
> is not necessarily the goal for all persons, especially in multi-use and
> recreation areas. "Wilderness" is far more suitable for your type of
> hiking in which solidtude and reflection are your reasons for being there.
>>
>>> However I accept that trail use should not be limited to hikers.
>>
>> Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
>> period!
>
> In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some
> areas of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness",
> multi-use is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative efforts
> and techniques are in place. And enforced.
>>
>> I'd
>>> like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and
>>> reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They
>>> only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's
>>> impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on
>>> odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and
>>> bicyclists during the week, and equestrians every February 30th.
>>
>> DUH!
>>
>> Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
>> don't you?
>
> Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you...
>>
>>> I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
>>> reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact.
>>> While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are plenty
>>> of others that are not from an organization that has a self-interest
>>> angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason he posts
>>> content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make up for
>>> the lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.
>>
>> Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from
>> mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am
>> not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned
>> about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.
>
> If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike in
> an area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see bicycles.
> You do have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can not, or are
> not allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a bicycle is on a
> trail that you would not hike anyway, that is your call.

The hiking trails were there from time immemorial for hikers and
equestrians. Mountain bikers are very late comers and as such have less
right to the trails than hikers and equestrians. You need to adjust to us
being on the trails and not vice versa. It is matter of priorities based on
who was there first.

>> Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors.
>> It has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle.
>> Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the mountain
>> bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I can only
>> converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a philosopher.
>
> You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We
> have shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or
> foundation in "fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his
> opinions, that is up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is a
> major contradiction: You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion
> then proclaiming yourself to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again, it
> is also your statement that your persistance on usenet has little to do
> with actual information.

Nope, Vandeman is the expert from the hiker's point of view. Who cares about
the mountain biker's point of view.

>> I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
>> contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels
>> and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil.
>
> Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get
> picked up by the Mother Ship?

I believe the Devil is making Curtiss do and say bad things.
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"SMS" > wrote in message
...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
>> period!
>
> They are not "hiking" trails, they are simply trails. I may not like
> equestrians messing up the trails, and while hiking I may not like
> bicycles on the trails, but hikers have no claim to exclusive use of the
> trails, at least not based on impact to the trail or wildlife.

Nope, the trails were originally constructed for hikers and equestrians, not
for mountain bikers. If they had been constructed for cyclists, they would
be far different than what they are.

>> Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
>> don't you?
>
> It works very well for water sports. Personally I don't think it's all
> that big a deal, but some hikers like MV have lost all connection with
> reality when it comes to mountain bikes on trails.
>
>> Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from
>> mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject.
>
> Oh please. If he's the expert, he would certainly have at least _one_
> study, _one_ reference to support his position. He doesn't have anything.
> He's good at ranting, but he has no facts or logic to support his
> position.

It is common sense that cyclists and hikers have very different impacts on
trails. Frankly, I do not need any studies to show me anything in that
regard. My own observations are sufficient.

>> I am not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned
>> about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.
>
> Yet in case after case, mountain bikers have prevailed in defending their
> right to be on the trails, and parks continue to open more trails to
> bicyclists. In most cases, the park management has done a good job in
> their trail designations.

It is nothing but pure politics, but that does not make it right. Very many
trails are not suited at all for cyclists, and it will send me into a rage
to see a cyclist trying to negotiate such a trail. However, many lowland
trails will work for cyclists, but still it would be better if they were
walking those trails. It is a matter of philosophy more than anything else.

>> I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
>> contrary results to his.
>
> Of course you will. Facts and logic have no meaning to you. You base
> everything on emotion. "You can't have a debate with someone who is
> willing to make up the facts."

My contempt for facts is boundless. I do not worship them like you do. Facts
are for me to play with. I can make of them what I will.

Never confuse facts with logic. They are not the same at all. Philosophy 101
anyone?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Beach Runner]

Let's deal with priorities.

1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests.
2: Stop roads.
3: Stop motorized vehicles.
4: Protect wildlife.
5: Prevent polutants and runoff.

[Edward Dolan]

"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Let's deal with priorities.
>
> 1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests.
> 2: Stop roads.
> 3: Stop motorized vehicles.
> 4: Protect wildlife.
> 5: Prevent polutants and runoff.

Yes, Beach Runner has got it exactly right. The whole issue of mountain
bikes on hiking trails is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things.
Perspective is everything - and the broader the perspective, the better.

When I get too narrowly focused on something I have a tendency to go to
extremes. I blame it all on Curtiss. He is a genius at driving me to
distraction.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
news:y_idndsQZYQCxxvZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>
>>> Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
>>> period!
>>
>> In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some
>> areas of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness",
>> multi-use is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative efforts
>> and techniques are in place. And enforced.
>>>
>>> I'd
>>>> like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and
>>>> reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They
>>>> only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's
>>>> impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on
>>>> odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and
>>>> bicyclists during the week, and equestrians every February 30th.
>>>
>>> DUH!
>>>
>>> Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
>>> don't you?
>>
>> Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you...
>>>
>>>> I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
>>>> reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact.
>>>> While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are
>>>> plenty of others that are not from an organization that has a
>>>> self-interest angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason
>>>> he posts content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make
>>>> up for the lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.
>>>
>>> Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from
>>> mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am
>>> not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned
>>> about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.
>>
>> If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike in
>> an area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see bicycles.
>> You do have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can not, or are
>> not allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a bicycle is on a
>> trail that you would not hike anyway, that is your call.
>
> The hiking trails were there from time immemorial for hikers and
> equestrians. Mountain bikers are very late comers and as such have less
> right to the trails than hikers and equestrians. You need to adjust to us
> being on the trails and not vice versa. It is matter of priorities based
> on who was there first.

People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
regardless of activity, is the priority.
Besides, if you took a moment and read the "rules of the trails" you would
see that cyclists should give yield to hikers / equestrians. But the facts
are unimportant as long as you can inflame with silly blanket statements
only to see your own comments.
>
>>> Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors.
>>> It has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle.
>>> Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the
>>> mountain bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I
>>> can only converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a
>>> philosopher.
>>
>> You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We
>> have shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or
>> foundation in "fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his
>> opinions, that is up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is a
>> major contradiction: You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion
>> then proclaiming yourself to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again, it
>> is also your statement that your persistance on usenet has little to do
>> with actual information.
>
> Nope, Vandeman is the expert from the hiker's point of view. Who cares
> about the mountain biker's point of view.

Which half of the above statement is true? Based on your own comments about
usenet, how can we take the word of an idiot about anything?
Below - your statement from another thread
"Usenet is by and for idiots, that is why! Half the time I do not even
believe any of what I am saying, let alone fools like you" - Ed Dolan

>
>>> I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
>>> contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels
>>> and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil.
>>
>> Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get
>> picked up by the Mother Ship?
>
> I believe the Devil is making Curtiss do and say bad things.

I believe "the great" needs his little pills.....

[SMS]

Beach Runner wrote:
> Let's deal with priorities.
>
> 1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests.
> 2: Stop roads.
> 3: Stop motorized vehicles.
> 4: Protect wildlife.
> 5: Prevent polutants and runoff.

People like Vandeman and Dolan play right into the hands of the real
enemies of recreation that are many of the logging companies, and the
manufacturers of snow-mobiles, and ATVs. If they can get the
self-powered recreation users fighting among themselves, then there is
no unified constituency to go after the real abusers of the land.

You'd think that by now MV would have given up, in all these years he's
never been able to supply a single source that backs up his position.

[SMS]

S Curtiss wrote:

> People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
> regardless of activity, is the priority.

Well-stated.

It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
might desire, a question of which users there are more of.

Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over
another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
cyclists.

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" > wrote in message
news:s5Zhg.20105$B42.16069@dukeread05...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> news:y_idndsQZYQCxxvZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>>
>>>> Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
>>>> period!
>>>
>>> In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some
>>> areas of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness",
>>> multi-use is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative
>>> efforts and techniques are in place. And enforced.
>>>>
>>>> I'd
>>>>> like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and
>>>>> reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They
>>>>> only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's
>>>>> impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on
>>>>> odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and
>>>>> bicyclists during the week, and equestrians every February 30th.
>>>>
>>>> DUH!
>>>>
>>>> Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real
>>>> why don't you?
>>>
>>> Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you...
>>>>
>>>>> I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
>>>>> reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact.
>>>>> While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are
>>>>> plenty of others that are not from an organization that has a
>>>>> self-interest angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason
>>>>> he posts content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can
>>>>> make up for the lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.
>>>>
>>>> Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from
>>>> mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I
>>>> am not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned
>>>> about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be
>>>> there.
>>>
>>> If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike
>>> in an area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see
>>> bicycles. You do have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can
>>> not, or are not allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a
>>> bicycle is on a trail that you would not hike anyway, that is your call.
>>
>> The hiking trails were there from time immemorial for hikers and
>> equestrians. Mountain bikers are very late comers and as such have less
>> right to the trails than hikers and equestrians. You need to adjust to us
>> being on the trails and not vice versa. It is matter of priorities based
>> on who was there first.
>
> People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
> regardless of activity, is the priority.
> Besides, if you took a moment and read the "rules of the trails" you would
> see that cyclists should give yield to hikers / equestrians. But the facts
> are unimportant as long as you can inflame with silly blanket statements
> only to see your own comments.

Curtiss no doubt like me knows all about the joy of reading his own words.

>>>> Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors.
>>>> It has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle.
>>>> Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the
>>>> mountain bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I
>>>> can only converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a
>>>> philosopher.
>>>
>>> You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We
>>> have shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or
>>> foundation in "fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his
>>> opinions, that is up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is a
>>> major contradiction: You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion
>>> then proclaiming yourself to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again,
>>> it is also your statement that your persistance on usenet has little to
>>> do with actual information.
>>
>> Nope, Vandeman is the expert from the hiker's point of view. Who cares
>> about the mountain biker's point of view.
>
> Which half of the above statement is true? Based on your own comments
> about usenet, how can we take the word of an idiot about anything?
> Below - your statement from another thread
> "Usenet is by and for idiots, that is why! Half the time I do not even
> believe any of what I am saying, let alone fools like you" - Ed Dolan

Curtiss is finally starting to get on to me!

>>>> I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
>>>> contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels
>>>> and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil.
>>>
>>> Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get
>>> picked up by the Mother Ship?
>>
>> I believe the Devil is making Curtiss do and say bad things.
>
> I believe "the great" needs his little pills.....

It is truly amazing the amount of pills that I am taking. Up to the age of
50 I never had to take any medications at all, but now my medications
multiply after every visit to a doctor. Almost all of my medications stem
from my high blood pressure. I have to keep my wits about me to even set up
the proper schedule for taking them. I can clearly see that the only
solution for what ails me is death. Yea, that will solve all of my problems,
even this rather minor one I am presently having with Curtiss on Usenet.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"SMS" > wrote in message
...
>S Curtiss wrote:
>
>> People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
>> regardless of activity, is the priority.
>
> Well-stated.
>
> It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
> might desire, a question of which users there are more of.
>
> Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
> bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over
> another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
> they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
> cyclists.

There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but the
impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict as
much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one
views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue with regard to
trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about the mental and
spiritual dimensions of how different users view wilderness. Frankly, I
would not have such a big issue with mountain bikers if I thought they
viewed wilderness with respect. Instead, I see too many who are only into
wilderness for fun and games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for
them, not a pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"SMS" > wrote in message
...
> Beach Runner wrote:
>> Let's deal with priorities.
>>
>> 1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests.
>> 2: Stop roads.
>> 3: Stop motorized vehicles.
>> 4: Protect wildlife.
>> 5: Prevent polutants and runoff.
>
> People like Vandeman and Dolan play right into the hands of the real
> enemies of recreation that are many of the logging companies, and the
> manufacturers of snow-mobiles, and ATVs. If they can get the self-powered
> recreation users fighting among themselves, then there is no unified
> constituency to go after the real abusers of the land.

The problem we hikers have with mountain bikers is more a skirmish than
anything else. SMS is quite right to take note of who the major violators of
nature and wilderness are.
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 01:51:34 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote:

>
>"SMS" > wrote in message
...
>
>[newsgroups restored]
>
>> Chris Foster wrote:
>>> SMS > wrote in news:447df1d2$0$96953
>>> :
>>>
>>>> http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/SprungImpacts.html
>>>
>>> WOW Nice article. Pretty much contradicts what MV has been saying.
>>>
>>>
>>> All on these peer reviewed articles diwsagree with you Mike, while you
>>> have been wasting your time arguing here with us, real people are doing
>>> real
>>
>> Well, I hike a helluva lot more than I mountain bike, and I've got to tell
>> you that despite the fact that mountain biking is no worse than hiking in
>> terms of trail erosion and effect on wildlife, it really isn't pleasant to
>> have to be constantly on the alert for bicycles.
>
>The last phrase of the sentence above says it all. Something that mountain
>bikers will never understand.
>
>> However I accept that trail use should not be limited to hikers.
>
>Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
>period!
>
>I'd
>> like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and reservoirs
>> with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They only allow
>> powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's impractical for
>> trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on odd-weekend days, hikers
>> only on even-weekend days, hikers and bicyclists during the week, and
>> equestrians every February 30th.
>
>DUH!
>
>Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
>don't you?
>
>> I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
>> reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact.
>> While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are plenty
>> of others that are not from an organization that has a self-interest
>> angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason he posts
>> content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make up for the
>> lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.
>
>Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain
>biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am not that
>concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned about mountain
>bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.
>
>Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors. It
>has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle.
>Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the mountain
>bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I can only
>converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a philosopher.
>
>I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show contrary
>results to his.

You needn't worry. Nostudy can ever find mountain biking no more
harmful than hiking. Never has, never will. The best they can do is
lie.

Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels and slobs
>like SMS are on the side of the Devil.
>
>By the way, I take great pride in my many posts to the various newsgroups
>being almost entirely content free. That is for lesser minds, not for Great
>Ones like Myself.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:26:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" >
wrote:

>
>"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>news:y_idndsQZYQCxxvZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>>
>>>> Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
>>>> period!
>>>
>>> In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some
>>> areas of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness",
>>> multi-use is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative efforts
>>> and techniques are in place. And enforced.
>>>>
>>>> I'd
>>>>> like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and
>>>>> reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They
>>>>> only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's
>>>>> impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on
>>>>> odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and
>>>>> bicyclists during the week, and equestrians every February 30th.
>>>>
>>>> DUH!
>>>>
>>>> Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
>>>> don't you?
>>>
>>> Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you...
>>>>
>>>>> I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
>>>>> reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact.
>>>>> While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are
>>>>> plenty of others that are not from an organization that has a
>>>>> self-interest angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason
>>>>> he posts content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make
>>>>> up for the lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.
>>>>
>>>> Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from
>>>> mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am
>>>> not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned
>>>> about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.
>>>
>>> If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike in
>>> an area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see bicycles.
>>> You do have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can not, or are
>>> not allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a bicycle is on a
>>> trail that you would not hike anyway, that is your call.
>>
>> The hiking trails were there from time immemorial for hikers and
>> equestrians. Mountain bikers are very late comers and as such have less
>> right to the trails than hikers and equestrians. You need to adjust to us
>> being on the trails and not vice versa. It is matter of priorities based
>> on who was there first.
>
>People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
>regardless of activity, is the priority.

You are still pretending not to get it? We have no problem hiking with
mountain bikers, as long as they don't bring a bike with them. This is
not a matter of consideration, but of bike impacts that you continue
to deny.

>Besides, if you took a moment and read the "rules of the trails" you would
>see that cyclists should give yield to hikers / equestrians. But the facts
>are unimportant as long as you can inflame with silly blanket statements
>only to see your own comments.

The fact is, bikers always demand that hikers yield to them: hikers
have to get out of the way, or bikers can't get by! DUH!

>>>> Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors.
>>>> It has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle.
>>>> Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the
>>>> mountain bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I
>>>> can only converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a
>>>> philosopher.
>>>
>>> You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We
>>> have shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or
>>> foundation in "fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his
>>> opinions, that is up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is a
>>> major contradiction: You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion
>>> then proclaiming yourself to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again, it
>>> is also your statement that your persistance on usenet has little to do
>>> with actual information.
>>
>> Nope, Vandeman is the expert from the hiker's point of view. Who cares
>> about the mountain biker's point of view.
>
>Which half of the above statement is true? Based on your own comments about
>usenet, how can we take the word of an idiot about anything?
>Below - your statement from another thread
>"Usenet is by and for idiots, that is why! Half the time I do not even
>believe any of what I am saying, let alone fools like you" - Ed Dolan
>
>>
>>>> I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
>>>> contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels
>>>> and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil.
>>>
>>> Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get
>>> picked up by the Mother Ship?
>>
>> I believe the Devil is making Curtiss do and say bad things.
>
>I believe "the great" needs his little pills.....
>
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:56:38 -0700, SMS >
wrote:

>S Curtiss wrote:
>
>> People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
>> regardless of activity, is the priority.
>
>Well-stated.

BS. You are still pretending not to get it? We have no problem hiking
with mountain bikers, as long as they don't bring a bike with them.
This is not a matter of consideration, but of bike impacts that you
continue to deny.

>It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
>might desire, a question of which users there are more of.
>
>Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>bicyclists than hikers,

BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain
biking has much greater impacts than hiking.

you cannot argue for access of one group over
>another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
>they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
>cyclists.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On 7 Jun 2006 15:10:00 -0700, "Beach Runner" >
wrote:

>
>Let's deal with priorities.
>
>1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests.
>2: Stop roads.
>3: Stop motorized vehicles.
>4: Protect wildlife.

That required stopping mountain biking.

>5: Prevent polutants and runoff.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:53:16 -0700, SMS >
wrote:

>Beach Runner wrote:
>> Let's deal with priorities.
>>
>> 1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests.
>> 2: Stop roads.
>> 3: Stop motorized vehicles.
>> 4: Protect wildlife.
>> 5: Prevent polutants and runoff.
>
>People like Vandeman and Dolan play right into the hands of the real
>enemies of recreation that are many of the logging companies, and the
>manufacturers of snow-mobiles, and ATVs. If they can get the
>self-powered recreation users fighting among themselves,

That fighting was started by mountain bikers, who insist on riding
where they don't belong. Tell the truth.

then there is
>no unified constituency to go after the real abusers of the land.
>
>You'd think that by now MV would have given up, in all these years he's
>never been able to supply a single source that backs up his position.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Beach Runner]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:53:16 -0700, SMS >
> wrote:
>
> >Beach Runner wrote:
> >> Let's deal with priorities.
> >>
> >> 1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests.
> >> 2: Stop roads.
> >> 3: Stop motorized vehicles.
> >> 4: Protect wildlife.
> >> 5: Prevent polutants and runoff.
> >
> > That fighting was started by mountain bikers, who insist on riding
> where they don't belong. Tell the truth.
>
Well, than stop the fighting, there are remendous dangers we all must
unit
against.

1: Selling our national forests for the profit of a select few.
2: Logging and the destruction of habitat, and the loss of the forest.
T
his also increases runoff and erosion.
3: Oil drilling and mining in our forests.
4: Ending motorized vehicles in the parks.

These are critical issues, once lost, cause long term or permanent
devastation.

Let's face it, most people do nothing but use a remote control.
All the human powered activities, use a biki, hike,
run or jog, cross country ski,
and other human powered activities are all healthy and wonderful.

We are witnessing the largest mass extinction in history,
mostly from the loss of habitat.
Similarly, trees are a carbon sink, preventing global warming
and of course, maintaining soil integrity.

We face a real danger. The enemy is real, powerful, and rich.
Politicians are in the pocket of developers,
industrialists, oil companies and the like, and few care about the
ramifications of their short term profits. The less united, activite,
and motivated we are, the more
everyone will lose. And it won't be just us, it will be
everyone, wildlife, the environment,
and our children and our children's children.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote:

>
>"SMS" > wrote in message
...
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>
>>> People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
>>> regardless of activity, is the priority.
>>
>> Well-stated.
>>
>> It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
>> might desire, a question of which users there are more of.
>>
>> Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>> bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over
>> another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
>> they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
>> cyclists.
>
>There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but the
>impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict as
>much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one
>views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue with regard to
>trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about the mental and
>spiritual dimensions of how different users view wilderness.

I care about that, too, but I know that if I try to talk about it, it
will be over the mountain bikers' heads.

Frankly, I
>would not have such a big issue with mountain bikers if I thought they
>viewed wilderness with respect. Instead, I see too many who are only into
>wilderness for fun and games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for
>them, not a pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On 9 Jun 2006 12:17:42 -0700, "Beach Runner" >
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:53:16 -0700, SMS >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Beach Runner wrote:
>> >> Let's deal with priorities.
>> >>
>> >> 1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests.
>> >> 2: Stop roads.
>> >> 3: Stop motorized vehicles.
>> >> 4: Protect wildlife.
>> >> 5: Prevent polutants and runoff.
>> >
>> > That fighting was started by mountain bikers, who insist on riding
>> where they don't belong. Tell the truth.
>>
>Well, than stop the fighting, there are remendous dangers we all must
>unit
>against.
>
>1: Selling our national forests for the profit of a select few.
>2: Logging and the destruction of habitat, and the loss of the forest.
> T
>his also increases runoff and erosion.
>3: Oil drilling and mining in our forests.
>4: Ending motorized vehicles in the parks.
>
>These are critical issues, once lost, cause long term or permanent
>devastation.
>
>Let's face it, most people do nothing but use a remote control.
>All the human powered activities, use a biki, hike,
>run or jog, cross country ski,
>and other human powered activities are all healthy and wonderful.
>
>We are witnessing the largest mass extinction in history,
>mostly from the loss of habitat.

Mountain biking destroys habitat and teaches kids that the rough
treatment of nature is acceptable. Those are the kids that go on to be
big destroyers of the environment.

>Similarly, trees are a carbon sink, preventing global warming
>and of course, maintaining soil integrity.
>
>We face a real danger. The enemy is real, powerful, and rich.
>Politicians are in the pocket of developers,
>industrialists, oil companies and the like, and few care about the
>ramifications of their short term profits. The less united, activite,
>and motivated we are, the more
>everyone will lose. And it won't be just us, it will be
>everyone, wildlife, the environment,
>and our children and our children's children.

Then stop biking in nature, and the fight will be over. It's really
that simple. That shows where your priorities are: you would rather
mountain bike than work with real environmentalists to protect the
environment.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[cc]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"SMS" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
>>>>regardless of activity, is the priority.
>>>
>>>Well-stated.
>>>
>>>It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
>>>might desire, a question of which users there are more of.
>>>
>>>Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>>>bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over
>>>another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
>>>they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
>>>cyclists.
>>
>>There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but the
>>impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict as
>>much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one
>>views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue with regard to
>>trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about the mental and
>>spiritual dimensions of how different users view wilderness.
>
>
> I care about that, too, but I know that if I try to talk about it, it
> will be over the mountain bikers' heads.
>

or completely irrelevant.

[SMS]

Beach Runner wrote:

>>> Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>>> bicyclists than hikers,
>> BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain
>> biking has much greater impacts than hiking.
>>
> As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.

Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is
important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in
order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false
assumptions.

Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single
credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or
wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers. One study does show
a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not
significant enough to base a ban on hikers on.

Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary,
where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic
primary. This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign
contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls,
coming soon to a greenbelt near you.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:43:25 -0700, cc > wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"SMS" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
>>>>>regardless of activity, is the priority.
>>>>
>>>>Well-stated.
>>>>
>>>>It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
>>>>might desire, a question of which users there are more of.
>>>>
>>>>Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>>>>bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over
>>>>another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
>>>>they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
>>>>cyclists.
>>>
>>>There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but the
>>>impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict as
>>>much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one
>>>views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue with regard to
>>>trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about the mental and
>>>spiritual dimensions of how different users view wilderness.
>>
>>
>> I care about that, too, but I know that if I try to talk about it, it
>> will be over the mountain bikers' heads.
>>
>
>or completely irrelevant.

So people's feelings are irrelevant? What planet do you come from?
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On 9 Jun 2006 23:25:30 -0700, "Beach Runner" >
wrote:

>
>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:56:38 -0700, SMS >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >S Curtiss wrote:
>> >
>> >> People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
>> >> regardless of activity, is the priority.
>> >
>> >Well-stated.
>>
>> BS. You are still pretending not to get it? We have no problem hiking
>> with mountain bikers, as long as they don't bring a bike with them.
>> This is not a matter of consideration, but of bike impacts that you
>> continue to deny.
>>
>> >It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
>> >might desire, a question of which users there are more of.
>> >
>> >Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>> >bicyclists than hikers,
>>
>> BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain
>> biking has much greater impacts than hiking.
>>
>As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.
>
>> you cannot argue for access of one group over
>> >another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
>> >they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
>> >cyclists.
>> ===
>The differences are basically trivial in the big picture. You are on
>the same
>side in the big picture.

Not if you mountain bike. It's a form of development (habitat
destruction).

>> 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.)
>>
>That is really wonderful! But habitat can be shared, if it's not
>logged,
>roads are built, chemicals are introduced, and developed.
>
>> 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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:15:10 -0700, SMS >
wrote:

>Beach Runner wrote:
>
>>>> Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>>>> bicyclists than hikers,
>>> BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain
>>> biking has much greater impacts than hiking.
>>>
>> As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.
>
>Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is
>important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in
>order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false
>assumptions.
>
>Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single
>credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or
>wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers.

That's a bald-faced lie -- something mountain bikers are famous for.
This study says mountain bikers have greater impacts on elk than
hikers:

Wisdom, M. J. ), Alan A. Ager ), H.
K. Preisler ), N. J. Cimon ), and
B. K. Johnson ), "Effects of off-road recreation on
mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004.

One study does show
>a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not
>significant enough to base a ban on hikers on.

That "study" is pure BS, which anyone can see by simply reading it.

>Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary,
>where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic
>primary.

You apparently believed the lies in his opponents' ads. Do your
homework. The Sierra Club supported him for good reason.

This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign
>contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls,
>coming soon to a greenbelt near you.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[cc]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:43:25 -0700, cc > wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"SMS" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
>>>>>>regardless of activity, is the priority.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well-stated.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
>>>>>might desire, a question of which users there are more of.
>>>>>
>>>>>Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>>>>>bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over
>>>>>another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
>>>>>they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
>>>>>cyclists.
>>>>
>>>>There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but the
>>>>impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict as
>>>>much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one
>>>>views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue with regard to
>>>>trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about the mental and
>>>>spiritual dimensions of how different users view wilderness.
>>>
>>>
>>>I care about that, too, but I know that if I try to talk about it, it
>>>will be over the mountain bikers' heads.
>>>
>>
>>or completely irrelevant.
>
>
> So people's feelings are irrelevant? What planet do you come from?
> ===

Obviously not the same one you are on. That has been amply established.

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
news:6omdncHra9kswxTZnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>
> "SMS" > wrote in message
> ...
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>
>>> People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
>>> regardless of activity, is the priority.
>>
>> Well-stated.
>>
>> It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
>> might desire, a question of which users there are more of.
>>
>> Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>> bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over
>> another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
>> they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
>> cyclists.
>
> There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but
> the impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict
> as much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one
> views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue with regard to
> trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about the mental and
> spiritual dimensions of how different users view wilderness. Frankly, I
> would not have such a big issue with mountain bikers if I thought they
> viewed wilderness with respect. Instead, I see too many who are only into
> wilderness for fun and games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for
> them, not a pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers.
What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us a
break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is recreation)
does not invalidate my choice of recreation. The nationwide cooperative
efforts of different groups sharing resources and recognizing the diversity
of access validates my choices. (and my opinions, and the "science" and
research that supports them with support from the agencies that oversee and
enforce the rulings)

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:26:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>>news:y_idndsQZYQCxxvZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>>>
>>>>> Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
>>>>> period!
>>>>
>>>> In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some
>>>> areas of National Forests, and public lands not designated
>>>> "wilderness",
>>>> multi-use is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative
>>>> efforts
>>>> and techniques are in place. And enforced.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd
>>>>>> like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and
>>>>>> reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft.
>>>>>> They
>>>>>> only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's
>>>>>> impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on
>>>>>> odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and
>>>>>> bicyclists during the week, and equestrians every February 30th.
>>>>>
>>>>> DUH!
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real
>>>>> why
>>>>> don't you?
>>>>
>>>> Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
>>>>>> reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail
>>>>>> impact.
>>>>>> While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are
>>>>>> plenty of others that are not from an organization that has a
>>>>>> self-interest angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason
>>>>>> he posts content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> up for the lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from
>>>>> mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I
>>>>> am
>>>>> not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned
>>>>> about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be
>>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>> If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike
>>>> in
>>>> an area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see bicycles.
>>>> You do have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can not, or
>>>> are
>>>> not allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a bicycle is on
>>>> a
>>>> trail that you would not hike anyway, that is your call.
>>>
>>> The hiking trails were there from time immemorial for hikers and
>>> equestrians. Mountain bikers are very late comers and as such have less
>>> right to the trails than hikers and equestrians. You need to adjust to
>>> us
>>> being on the trails and not vice versa. It is matter of priorities based
>>> on who was there first.
>>
>>People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
>>regardless of activity, is the priority.
>
> You are still pretending not to get it? We have no problem hiking with
> mountain bikers, as long as they don't bring a bike with them. This is
> not a matter of consideration, but of bike impacts that you continue
> to deny.
Your OPINIONS on these alleged effects is not a filter to validate or deny
access.
>
>>Besides, if you took a moment and read the "rules of the trails" you would
>>see that cyclists should give yield to hikers / equestrians. But the facts
>>are unimportant as long as you can inflame with silly blanket statements
>>only to see your own comments.
>
> The fact is, bikers always demand that hikers yield to them: hikers
> have to get out of the way, or bikers can't get by! DUH!

"always"...? Generalization. No basis in fact. Your exaggerated claim is
not valid.
>
>>>>> Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other
>>>>> factors.
>>>>> It has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this
>>>>> battle.
>>>>> Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the
>>>>> mountain bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that
>>>>> I
>>>>> can only converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a
>>>>> philosopher.
>>>>
>>>> You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We
>>>> have shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or
>>>> foundation in "fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his
>>>> opinions, that is up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is
>>>> a
>>>> major contradiction: You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion
>>>> then proclaiming yourself to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again,
>>>> it
>>>> is also your statement that your persistance on usenet has little to do
>>>> with actual information.
>>>
>>> Nope, Vandeman is the expert from the hiker's point of view. Who cares
>>> about the mountain biker's point of view.
>>
>>Which half of the above statement is true? Based on your own comments
>>about
>>usenet, how can we take the word of an idiot about anything?
>>Below - your statement from another thread
>>"Usenet is by and for idiots, that is why! Half the time I do not even
>>believe any of what I am saying, let alone fools like you" - Ed Dolan
>>
>>>
>>>>> I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
>>>>> contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of
>>>>> Angels
>>>>> and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil.
>>>>
>>>> Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get
>>>> picked up by the Mother Ship?
>>>
>>> I believe the Devil is making Curtiss do and say bad things.
>>
>>I believe "the great" needs his little pills.....
>>
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:56:38 -0700, SMS >
> wrote:
>
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>
>>> People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
>>> regardless of activity, is the priority.
>>
>>Well-stated.
>
> BS. You are still pretending not to get it? We have no problem hiking
> with mountain bikers, as long as they don't bring a bike with them.
> This is not a matter of consideration, but of bike impacts that you
> continue to deny.
Bike impacts that you continue to ALLEGE as an OPINION.
>
>>It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
>>might desire, a question of which users there are more of.
>>
>>Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>>bicyclists than hikers,
>
> BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain
> biking has much greater impacts than hiking.
Really? Then give us the names of the ones who support your OPINIONS and
have reviewed and commented on your presentations.
>
> you cannot argue for access of one group over
>>another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
>>they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
>>cyclists.
> ===

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:15:10 -0700, SMS >
> wrote:
>
>>Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>>>> Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>>>>> bicyclists than hikers,
>>>> BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain
>>>> biking has much greater impacts than hiking.
>>>>
>>> As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.
>>
>>Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is
>>important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in
>>order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false
>>assumptions.
>>
>>Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single
>>credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or
>>wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers.
>
> That's a bald-faced lie -- something mountain bikers are famous for.
> This study says mountain bikers have greater impacts on elk than
> hikers:
>
> Wisdom, M. J. ), Alan A. Ager ), H.
> K. Preisler ), N. J. Cimon ), and
> B. K. Johnson ), "Effects of off-road recreation on
> mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
> Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004.

The results from that study say something slightly different which you
ignore:
"Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass were highest for ATV
riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by mountain bike riding (17
yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding and hiking (both about 15
yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon run, movement rates of elk again
were highest during ATV riding (13 yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by
horseback riding (about 11 yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and mountain
bike riding (about 10 yards/minute [9 m/min])."

Relatively the same in comparison. A slight difference in the "morning" but
the same for the afternoon. You do NOT get to interpret data and exaggerate
the results out of context.
>
> One study does show
>>a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not
>>significant enough to base a ban on hikers on.
>
> That "study" is pure BS, which anyone can see by simply reading it.

Studies you can twist and use are valid, the others are pure BS...? Pure
Vandeman!
>
>>Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary,
>>where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic
>>primary.
>
> You apparently believed the lies in his opponents' ads. Do your
> homework. The Sierra Club supported him for good reason.
>
> This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign
>>contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls,
>>coming soon to a greenbelt near you.
> ===

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 01:51:34 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote:
>>
>>I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
>>contrary
>>results to his.
>
> You needn't worry. Nostudy can ever find mountain biking no more
> harmful than hiking. Never has, never will. The best they can do is
> lie.
Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer no
corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited persons,
and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal agencies, and
mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to present to a handful
of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even reference until they are
over, and you insist on your definitions and generalizations... No worries
at all for those of us who live in reality!


>
> Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels and slobs
>>like SMS are on the side of the Devil.
>>
>>By the way, I take great pride in my many posts to the various newsgroups
>>being almost entirely content free. That is for lesser minds, not for
>>Great
>>Ones like Myself.
>>

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:32:18 -0400, "S Curtiss" >
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:15:10 -0700, SMS >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Beach Runner wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>>>>>> bicyclists than hikers,
>>>>> BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain
>>>>> biking has much greater impacts than hiking.
>>>>>
>>>> As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.
>>>
>>>Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is
>>>important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in
>>>order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false
>>>assumptions.
>>>
>>>Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single
>>>credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or
>>>wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers.
>>
>> That's a bald-faced lie -- something mountain bikers are famous for.
>> This study says mountain bikers have greater impacts on elk than
>> hikers:
>>
>> Wisdom, M. J. ), Alan A. Ager ), H.
>> K. Preisler ), N. J. Cimon ), and
>> B. K. Johnson ), "Effects of off-road recreation on
>> mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
>> Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004.
>
>The results from that study say something slightly different which you
>ignore:
>"Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass were highest for ATV
>riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by mountain bike riding (17
>yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding and hiking (both about 15
>yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon run, movement rates of elk again
>were highest during ATV riding (13 yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by
>horseback riding (about 11 yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and mountain
>bike riding (about 10 yards/minute [9 m/min])."
>
>Relatively the same in comparison. A slight difference in the "morning" but
>the same for the afternoon. You do NOT get to interpret data and exaggerate
>the results out of context.

You conveniently omitted the statistical results, which is the basis
for science.

>> One study does show
>>>a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not
>>>significant enough to base a ban on hikers on.
>>
>> That "study" is pure BS, which anyone can see by simply reading it.
>
>Studies you can twist and use are valid, the others are pure BS...? Pure
>Vandeman!
>>
>>>Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary,
>>>where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic
>>>primary.
>>
>> You apparently believed the lies in his opponents' ads. Do your
>> homework. The Sierra Club supported him for good reason.
>>
>> This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign
>>>contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls,
>>>coming soon to a greenbelt near you.
>> ===
>
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:32:18 -0400, "S Curtiss" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:15:10 -0700, SMS >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Beach Runner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>>>>>>> bicyclists than hikers,
>>>>>> BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain
>>>>>> biking has much greater impacts than hiking.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.
>>>>
>>>>Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is
>>>>important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in
>>>>order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false
>>>>assumptions.
>>>>
>>>>Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single
>>>>credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or
>>>>wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers.
>>>
>>> That's a bald-faced lie -- something mountain bikers are famous for.
>>> This study says mountain bikers have greater impacts on elk than
>>> hikers:
>>>
>>> Wisdom, M. J. ), Alan A. Ager ), H.
>>> K. Preisler ), N. J. Cimon ), and
>>> B. K. Johnson ), "Effects of off-road recreation on
>>> mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
>>> Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004.
>>
>>The results from that study say something slightly different which you
>>ignore:
>>"Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass were highest for ATV
>>riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by mountain bike riding (17
>>yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding and hiking (both about 15
>>yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon run, movement rates of elk
>>again
>>were highest during ATV riding (13 yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by
>>horseback riding (about 11 yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and
>>mountain
>>bike riding (about 10 yards/minute [9 m/min])."
>>
>>Relatively the same in comparison. A slight difference in the "morning"
>>but
>>the same for the afternoon. You do NOT get to interpret data and
>>exaggerate
>>the results out of context.
>
> You conveniently omitted the statistical results, which is the basis
> for science.
You conveniently expect that statement to mean anything? Statistics are only
as relevant as the data and the context of the scope of that data. You can
not extrapolate "statistical" results from this study based only on your own
definitions of what those statistics should include.
>
>>> One study does show
>>>>a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not
>>>>significant enough to base a ban on hikers on.
>>>
>>> That "study" is pure BS, which anyone can see by simply reading it.
>>
>>Studies you can twist and use are valid, the others are pure BS...? Pure
>>Vandeman!

No reply here...? So "statistical results" that counter your opinions are
pure BS as opposed to "statistical results" you can create from another
study twisted to favor you opinion...?
>>>
>>>>Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary,
>>>>where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic
>>>>primary.
>>>
>>> You apparently believed the lies in his opponents' ads. Do your
>>> homework. The Sierra Club supported him for good reason.
>>>
>>> This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign
>>>>contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls,
>>>>coming soon to a greenbelt near you.
>>> ===
>>
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[SMS]

S Curtiss wrote:

> Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer no
> corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited persons,
> and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal agencies, and
> mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to present to a handful
> of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even reference until they are
> over, and you insist on your definitions and generalizations... No worries
> at all for those of us who live in reality!

That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain
biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort
to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has
never produced any citations or references for his position, because
none exits.

At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the
back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest
about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like
MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply
say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and
it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.

[S Curtiss]

"SMS" > wrote in message
...
>S Curtiss wrote:
>
>> Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer
>> no corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited
>> persons, and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal
>> agencies, and mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to
>> present to a handful of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even
>> reference until they are over, and you insist on your definitions and
>> generalizations... No worries at all for those of us who live in
>> reality!
>
> That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain biking
> is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort to the
> type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has never
> produced any citations or references for his position, because none exits.
>
> At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
> are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
> still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the back
> country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest about the
> reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like MV and ED.
> No one would think any worse of them if they would simply say, "we find it
> annoying to have to share trails with other users," and it would be a
> breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.

And the room erupts with applause... Standing ovation!
Curtain... Scene... Someone say "wrap" and hit the lights...

[Edward Dolan]

"SMS" > wrote in message
...
>S Curtiss wrote:
>
>> Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer
>> no corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited
>> persons, and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal
>> agencies, and mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to
>> present to a handful of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even
>> reference until they are over, and you insist on your definitions and
>> generalizations... No worries at all for those of us who live in
>> reality!
>
> That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain biking
> is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort to the
> type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has never
> produced any citations or references for his position, because none exits.
>
> At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
> are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
> still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the back
> country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest about the
> reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like MV and ED.
> No one would think any worse of them if they would simply say, "we find it
> annoying to have to share trails with other users," and it would be a
> breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.

My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking
trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental
attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These
attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day.
That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
believe I can say it any clearer than that.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[SMS]

Edward Dolan wrote:

> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking
> trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental
> attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These
> attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day.
> That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
> believe I can say it any clearer than that.

You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are
not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
trails.

I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers
to not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists
would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn
to share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the
trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.

The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy
hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail
impact that have no basis in fact.

[BB]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:48:48 -0700, SMS wrote:

> You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are
> not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
> Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
> trails.

Thats what a designated hiking trail is - a trail where biking (typically
everything except hiking) is banned. As a mountain biker, I agree that
bikers should stay off of them.

Ed has stated that his issue is that he thinks we "want" to ride them.
Well sometimes I do, but I'm not sure what the pennance for wanting to
ride a hiking trail is. Say thirty "hail Ed"s and sacrifice a granola bar?

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:57:22 -0700, SMS >
wrote:

>S Curtiss wrote:
>
>> Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer no
>> corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited persons,
>> and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal agencies, and
>> mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to present to a handful
>> of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even reference until they are
>> over, and you insist on your definitions and generalizations... No worries
>> at all for those of us who live in reality!
>
>That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain
>biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort
>to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has
>never produced any citations or references for his position, because
>none exits.
>
>At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
>are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
>still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the
>back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest
>about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like
>MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply
>say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and
>it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.

I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough,
and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it? :)
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:48:48 -0700, SMS >
wrote:

>Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking
>> trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental
>> attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These
>> attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day.
>> That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
>> believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>
>You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are
>not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
>Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
>trails.
>
>I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers
>to not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists
>would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn
>to share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the
>trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.
>
>The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy
>hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail
>impact that have no basis in fact.

Yawn.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[cc]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:57:22 -0700, SMS >
> wrote:
>
>
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer no
>>>corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited persons,
>>>and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal agencies, and
>>>mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to present to a handful
>>>of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even reference until they are
>>>over, and you insist on your definitions and generalizations... No worries
>>>at all for those of us who live in reality!
>>
>>That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain
>>biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort
>>to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has
>>never produced any citations or references for his position, because
>>none exits.
>>
>>At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
>>are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
>>still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the
>>back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest
>>about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like
>>MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply
>>say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and
>>it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.
>
>
> I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough,
> and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it? :)

Same for you, hypocrite. You
should practice talking in the
mirror! The last couple of
days have been amazing. First,
Cervantes. Now this ! You're
incredible . . .

[Chris Foster]

Mike Vandeman > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:48:48 -0700, SMS >
> wrote:
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to
>>> share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the
>>> different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation
>>> in the out of doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are
>>> as different as night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want
>>> bikers on hiking trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer
>>> than that.
>>
>>You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are
>>not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
>>Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use
>>the trails.
>>
>>I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers
>>to not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists
>>would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to
>>learn to share, and work together to keep the real problem users off
>>the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.
>>
>>The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd
>>enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories
>>about trail impact that have no basis in fact.
>
> Yawn.

Did you say something?? Acutally you didnt. Just more MV BS

> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Jason]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough,
> and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it? :)


Its the same technique that you and ed use mikey, keep pounding at it
often enough it much be true.

[SMS]

Jason wrote:
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
> > I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough,
>> and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it? :)
>
>
> Its the same technique that you and ed use mikey, keep pounding at it
> often enough it much be true.

Except I post referenced facts, while MV never has any references or
citations for his statements. I think we all know who is more believable!

[Edward Dolan]

"SMS" > wrote in message
...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share
>> hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different
>> mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of
>> doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as
>> night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking
>> trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>
> You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are not
> hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails. Unless
> a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the trails.

Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking trails.
Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things up for
hikers.

> I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers to
> not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists would
> prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn to
> share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the trails,
> the motorized ATV vehicles.

I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some trails
for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black Hills of
South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing too much damage
as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first place. The same goes for
the North Woods. But I do not like to see bikes in pristine mountain and
desert areas of the West which have always been thought of as wilderness.

> The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy
> hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail
> impact that have no basis in fact.

I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I leave
that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are irreconcilable
differences with how bikers and hikers view nature and wilderness. That is
the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife is of
secondary importance.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:06:34 -0700, SMS >
wrote:

>Jason wrote:
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> > I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough,
>>> and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it? :)
>>
>>
>> Its the same technique that you and ed use mikey, keep pounding at it
>> often enough it much be true.
>
>Except I post referenced facts, while MV never has any references or
>citations for his statements. I think we all know who is more believable!

You actually posted JUNK SCIENCE. Some of us can tell the difference.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote:

>
>"SMS" > wrote in message
...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share
>>> hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different
>>> mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of
>>> doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as
>>> night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking
>>> trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>
>> You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are not
>> hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails. Unless
>> a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the trails.
>
>Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking trails.
>Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things up for
>hikers.
>
>> I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers to
>> not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists would
>> prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn to
>> share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the trails,
>> the motorized ATV vehicles.
>
>I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some trails
>for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black Hills of
>South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing too much damage
>as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first place. The same goes for
>the North Woods. But I do not like to see bikes in pristine mountain and
>desert areas of the West which have always been thought of as wilderness.
>
>> The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy
>> hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail
>> impact that have no basis in fact.
>
>I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I leave
>that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are irreconcilable
>differences with how bikers and hikers view nature and wilderness.

I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is that
it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician saying
"can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get along;
it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their bikes,
mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are at least
TOLERABLE idiots and liars. :)

That is
>the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife is of
>secondary importance.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[jason]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> You actually posted JUNK SCIENCE. Some of us can tell the difference.


Yes many of us can which is why you're science always gets slammed down
hard. It's junk science, heck even calling it science is a stretch.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:57:49 GMT, jason >
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
> > You actually posted JUNK SCIENCE. Some of us can tell the difference.
>
>
>Yes many of us can which is why you're science always gets slammed down
>hard. It's junk science,

And how would you know? Qualifications, please! This should be good
for a laugh.

> heck even calling it science is a stretch.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "SMS" > wrote in message
> ...
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>
>>> Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer
>>> no corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited
>>> persons, and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal
>>> agencies, and mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to
>>> present to a handful of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even
>>> reference until they are over, and you insist on your definitions and
>>> generalizations... No worries at all for those of us who live in
>>> reality!
>>
>> That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain
>> biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort to
>> the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has never
>> produced any citations or references for his position, because none
>> exits.
>>
>> At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
>> are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
>> still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the back
>> country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest about the
>> reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like MV and ED.
>> No one would think any worse of them if they would simply say, "we find
>> it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and it would be a
>> breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.
>
> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share
> hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different
> mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of
> doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as
> night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking
> trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that.
So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and mysticism and
pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in many places without
bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared use areas may have cyclists.
Choose your environment.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"SMS" > wrote in message
...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share
>>>> hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different
>>>> mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of
>>>> doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as
>>>> night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking
>>>> trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>>
>>> You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are
>>> not
>>> hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
>>> Unless
>>> a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
>>> trails.
>>
>>Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking
>>trails.
>>Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things up for
>>hikers.
>>
>>> I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers
>>> to
>>> not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists would
>>> prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn to
>>> share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the trails,
>>> the motorized ATV vehicles.
>>
>>I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some
>>trails
>>for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black Hills of
>>South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing too much damage
>>as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first place. The same goes for
>>the North Woods. But I do not like to see bikes in pristine mountain and
>>desert areas of the West which have always been thought of as wilderness.
>>
>>> The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy
>>> hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail
>>> impact that have no basis in fact.
>>
>>I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I leave
>>that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are irreconcilable
>>differences with how bikers and hikers view nature and wilderness.
>
> I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is that
> it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician saying
> "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get along;
> it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their bikes,
> mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are at least
> TOLERABLE idiots and liars. :)
At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
"experience" that is his determining factor. You have to sidestep that and
try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting information
and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure. It is OBVIOUS
your goal is to have your "experience" as you like it. Nature and wildlife
is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool you use to gain that which you desire.
If it weren't you would be more concerned about the permanent distruction
caused by building than whining about a few bikes.
>
> That is
>>the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife is of
>>secondary importance.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>aka
>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:57:22 -0700, SMS >
> wrote:
>
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>
>>> Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer
>>> no
>>> corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited
>>> persons,
>>> and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal agencies,
>>> and
>>> mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to present to a
>>> handful
>>> of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even reference until they
>>> are
>>> over, and you insist on your definitions and generalizations... No
>>> worries
>>> at all for those of us who live in reality!
>>
>>That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain
>>biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort
>>to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has
>>never produced any citations or references for his position, because
>>none exits.
>>
>>At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
>>are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
>>still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the
>>back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest
>>about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like
>>MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply
>>say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and
>>it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.
>
> I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough,
> and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it? :)
It obviously hasn't worked for you. You've been doing it for over 10 years.
Your OPINION of information different from your presentations is not a
filter for the validity of that information or the character of the
researchers.
> ===

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:06:34 -0700, SMS >
> wrote:
>
>>Jason wrote:
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> > I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often
>>> enough,
>>>> and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it? :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Its the same technique that you and ed use mikey, keep pounding at it
>>> often enough it much be true.
>>
>>Except I post referenced facts, while MV never has any references or
>>citations for his statements. I think we all know who is more believable!
>
> You actually posted JUNK SCIENCE. Some of us can tell the difference.

Your OPINION of the activity is not a valid filter for determing the
validity of the science or data that may show different conclusions than
your OPINIONS.
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:57:49 GMT, jason >
> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> > You actually posted JUNK SCIENCE. Some of us can tell the difference.
>>
>>
>>Yes many of us can which is why you're science always gets slammed down
>>hard. It's junk science,
>
> And how would you know? Qualifications, please! This should be good
> for a laugh.
And do not point us back to your own website.
>
>> heck even calling it science is a stretch.
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss" >
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"SMS" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share
>>>>> hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different
>>>>> mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of
>>>>> doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as
>>>>> night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking
>>>>> trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>>>
>>>> You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are
>>>> not
>>>> hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
>>>> Unless
>>>> a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
>>>> trails.
>>>
>>>Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking
>>>trails.
>>>Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things up for
>>>hikers.
>>>
>>>> I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers
>>>> to
>>>> not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists would
>>>> prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn to
>>>> share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the trails,
>>>> the motorized ATV vehicles.
>>>
>>>I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some
>>>trails
>>>for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black Hills of
>>>South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing too much damage
>>>as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first place. The same goes for
>>>the North Woods. But I do not like to see bikes in pristine mountain and
>>>desert areas of the West which have always been thought of as wilderness.
>>>
>>>> The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy
>>>> hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail
>>>> impact that have no basis in fact.
>>>
>>>I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I leave
>>>that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are irreconcilable
>>>differences with how bikers and hikers view nature and wilderness.
>>
>> I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is that
>> it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician saying
>> "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get along;
>> it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their bikes,
>> mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are at least
>> TOLERABLE idiots and liars. :)
>At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
>"experience" that is his determining factor.

It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife.

You have to sidestep that and
>try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting information
>and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure. It is OBVIOUS
>your goal is to have your "experience" as you like it. Nature and wildlife
>is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool you use to gain that which you desire.
>If it weren't you would be more concerned about the permanent distruction
>caused by building than whining about a few bikes.

People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that
issue?

>> That is
>>>the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife is of
>>>secondary importance.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>aka
>>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>>
>> ===
>> 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.)
>>
>> 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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[SMS]

S Curtiss wrote:

> At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
> "experience" that is his determining factor.

Yes, it's refreshing to see some honesty about that. I think that many
hikers would agree that they don't like the disruption of their
experience. Still, it's a mistake to believe that mountain bikers don't
also like the "experience" of solitude.

> You have to sidestep that and
> try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting information
> and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure.

Yes, I think that's why MV always loses these arguments. He's trying to
base his dislike of mountain bikes on something other than the
disruption of his hiking enjoyment.

Since every study has shown that mountain bikers don't disrupt wildlife,
or cause more trail damage, than hikers, he'd be well advised to at
least be honest enough to take the same approach as Dolan in his
arguments against mountain bikes.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:37:28 GMT, jason >
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
> > And how would you know? Qualifications, please! This should be good
>> for a laugh.
>
>
>My qualifications are just as good as yours are.

Ah, I see that you hesitate to state your qualifications.... We know
what that means: they are BS. Come on, tell us what they are, oh
Shifty One.

Oh by the way refresh
>my memory what is your phd in again? Something to do with how Asians and
>black people taste things as I recall. Ya your qualified to speak on the
>environment with that one. Isn't that the equilivent of underwater
>basket weaving?
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:55:35 -0700, SMS >
wrote:

>S Curtiss wrote:
>
>> At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
>> "experience" that is his determining factor.
>
>Yes, it's refreshing to see some honesty about that. I think that many
>hikers would agree that they don't like the disruption of their
>experience. Still, it's a mistake to believe that mountain bikers don't
>also like the "experience" of solitude.
>
>> You have to sidestep that and
>> try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting information
>> and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure.
>
>Yes, I think that's why MV always loses these arguments. He's trying to
>base his dislike of mountain bikes on something other than the
>disruption of his hiking enjoyment.
>
>Since every study has shown that mountain bikers don't disrupt wildlife,
>or cause more trail damage, than hikers, he'd be well advised to at
>least be honest enough to take the same approach as Dolan in his
>arguments against mountain bikes.

I AM being honest. That's exactly what drives mountain bikers so
crazy! They can't believe that anyone could be less selfish than they
are!
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" > wrote in message
news:F5Ykg.6583$FR1.4103@dukeread05...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "SMS" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you
>>>> offer no corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by
>>>> accredited persons, and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by
>>>> federal agencies, and mountain biking continues to grow, and you
>>>> continue to present to a handful of other "presenters" at conferences
>>>> you don't even reference until they are over, and you insist on your
>>>> definitions and generalizations... No worries at all for those of us
>>>> who live in reality!
>>>
>>> That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain
>>> biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort
>>> to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has
>>> never produced any citations or references for his position, because
>>> none exits.
>>>
>>> At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
>>> are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
>>> still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the
>>> back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest
>>> about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like
>>> MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply
>>> say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and
>>> it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.
>>
>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share
>> hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different
>> mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of
>> doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as
>> night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking
>> trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>
> So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and mysticism
> and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in many places
> without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared use areas may have
> cyclists. Choose your environment.

My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and hikers
do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so much to
do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but rather on the
kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness.

I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun and
games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We
hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little grasp
of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about you. I
called you soulless once before and I meant it.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:10:24 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote:

>
>"S Curtiss" > wrote in message
>news:F5Ykg.6583$FR1.4103@dukeread05...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "SMS" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you
>>>>> offer no corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by
>>>>> accredited persons, and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by
>>>>> federal agencies, and mountain biking continues to grow, and you
>>>>> continue to present to a handful of other "presenters" at conferences
>>>>> you don't even reference until they are over, and you insist on your
>>>>> definitions and generalizations... No worries at all for those of us
>>>>> who live in reality!
>>>>
>>>> That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain
>>>> biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort
>>>> to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has
>>>> never produced any citations or references for his position, because
>>>> none exits.
>>>>
>>>> At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
>>>> are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
>>>> still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the
>>>> back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest
>>>> about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like
>>>> MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply
>>>> say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and
>>>> it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.
>>>
>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share
>>> hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different
>>> mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of
>>> doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as
>>> night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking
>>> trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>
>> So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and mysticism
>> and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in many places
>> without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared use areas may have
>> cyclists. Choose your environment.
>
>My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and hikers
>do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so much to
>do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but rather on the
>kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness.
>
>I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun and
>games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We
>hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little grasp
>of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about you. I
>called you soulless once before and I meant it.

Mountain bikers try to claim that they are just "hikers on wheels",
but we know better. They are more like THUGS on wheels.

Another funny phrase is "human-powered", as though that is supposed to
make them benign. A switchblade is human powered. So are a butcher
knife, brass knuckles, a baseball bat, a battering ram, mace, and
sarin gas. That is the sense in which they are "human-powered".

>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:10:24 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote:

>
>"S Curtiss" > wrote in message
>news:F5Ykg.6583$FR1.4103@dukeread05...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "SMS" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you
>>>>> offer no corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by
>>>>> accredited persons, and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by
>>>>> federal agencies, and mountain biking continues to grow, and you
>>>>> continue to present to a handful of other "presenters" at conferences
>>>>> you don't even reference until they are over, and you insist on your
>>>>> definitions and generalizations... No worries at all for those of us
>>>>> who live in reality!
>>>>
>>>> That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain
>>>> biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort
>>>> to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has
>>>> never produced any citations or references for his position, because
>>>> none exits.
>>>>
>>>> At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
>>>> are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
>>>> still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the
>>>> back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest
>>>> about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like
>>>> MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply
>>>> say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and
>>>> it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.
>>>
>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share
>>> hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different
>>> mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of
>>> doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as
>>> night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking
>>> trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>
>> So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and mysticism
>> and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in many places
>> without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared use areas may have
>> cyclists. Choose your environment.
>
>My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and hikers
>do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so much to
>do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but rather on the
>kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness.

True, but without wildlife (living things), there would be nowhere
worth hiking. That is the long view.

>I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun and
>games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We
>hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little grasp
>of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about you. I
>called you soulless once before and I meant it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[jason]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>>My qualifications are just as good as yours are.
>
>
> Ah, I see that you hesitate to state your qualifications.... We know
> what that means: they are BS. Come on, tell us what they are, oh
> Shifty One.

In case you missed it mikey and I can see how you can, it was only in
plain English. I said mine were as good as yours are.

I am as qualified as you are to talk about the environment and any
damage caused to it by hikers, horses, atv, mtn bikes, etc.

We both can only give opinions and not any real science I have no degree
and yours is on some useless subject regarding how people taste foods
differently or some such nonsense. Certainly nothing that qualifies you
to talk on the environment.

If I'm wrong please post where I can find more information on your
degree which qualifies you to talk about the environment, and no you
can't say your own website. I want a real URL with information on you
and your Phd, perhaps from whatever university you got it from.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:24:10 GMT, jason >
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>
>>>My qualifications are just as good as yours are.
>>
>>
>> Ah, I see that you hesitate to state your qualifications.... We know
>> what that means: they are BS. Come on, tell us what they are, oh
>> Shifty One.
>
>In case you missed it mikey and I can see how you can, it was only in
>plain English. I said mine were as good as yours are.
>
>I am as qualified as you are to talk about the environment and any
>damage caused to it by hikers, horses, atv, mtn bikes, etc.
>
>We both can only give opinions and not any real science I have no degree

There you go: you have no qualifications whatsoever (at least that you
are willing to talk about)!

> and yours is on some useless subject regarding how people taste foods
>differently or some such nonsense. Certainly nothing that qualifies you
>to talk on the environment.

I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
be asked to give such a paper.

>If I'm wrong please post where I can find more information on your
>degree which qualifies you to talk about the environment, and no you
>can't say your own website. I want a real URL with information on you
>and your Phd, perhaps from whatever university you got it from.

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Edward Dolan]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
[...]
> I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
> missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
> research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
> also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
> subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
> Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
> on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
> credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
> judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
> disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
> results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
> SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
> indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
> me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
> other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
> be asked to give such a paper.

Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[cc]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
> ...
> [...]
>
>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>>also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>>Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>>credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>>results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>be asked to give such a paper.
>
>
> Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
> who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
> us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
> college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
> breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
> will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
> rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>

Can you two please take your
stroking offline? It's making
me sick. And yes, there are
many qualified to do research
in this audience, and the
consensus is that you are
WRONG. So stop with your
fascist, bigoted polemic and
do something USEFUL!!

[jason]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> There you go: you have no qualifications whatsoever (at least that you
> are willing to talk about)!
>

Just as you aren't qualified to talk about this subject.


> I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
> missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
> research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done.

I hope this isn't an example of how you got that paper Phd of yours or
how you do your research. If it is I am seriously concerned about the
university you went to that gave you a phd as well.

I love how you think everyone is wrong even the scientists who have real
phds in real science.



It
> also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
> subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
> Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
> on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
> credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
> judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
> disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
> results.

Yet you still think you're the only one in the world who can speak on
the damage caused even though you aren't qualified to speak on it.


Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
> SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
> indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
> me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
> other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
> be asked to give such a paper.
>


So once again I ask let see some proof of these conferences you spoke at
and will be speaking at. I know we'd love to be at one just to hear you
speak and see the reaction of the others attending.

[jason]

Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>
> Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
> who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
> us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
> college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
> breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
> will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
> rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>


More broke back hiking I see, this time on usenet. Go get a room you two.

[Edward Dolan]

"cc" > wrote in message ...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> [...]
>>
>>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>>>also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>>subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>>>Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>>on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>>>credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>>judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>>disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>>>results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>>be asked to give such a paper.
>>
>>
>> Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>> who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
>> of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
>> was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
>> too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
>> about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
>> conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>
>
> Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
> yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
> consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
> polemic and do something USEFUL!!

I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.

Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:19:02 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>[...]
>> I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>> missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>> research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>> also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>> subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>> Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>> on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>> credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>> judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>> disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>> results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>> SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>> indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>> me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>> other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>> be asked to give such a paper.
>
>Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
>us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
>college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
>breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
>will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
>rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.

I know. They are probably thinking right now that you are talking
about a different -- more base -- kind of rigor. I just hope that
there are some people like you out there that WILL understand. It took
10 years, but the wait was worth it.

>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:49:00 -0700, cc > wrote:

>Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> [...]
>>
>>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>>>also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>>subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>>>Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>>on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>>>credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>>judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>>disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>>>results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>>be asked to give such a paper.
>>
>>
>> Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>> who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
>> us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
>> college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
>> breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
>> will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
>> rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>
>
>Can you two please take your
>stroking offline? It's making
>me sick. And yes, there are
>many qualified to do research
>in this audience,

How would YOU know?????

and the
>consensus is that you are
>WRONG. So stop with your
>fascist, bigoted polemic and
>do something USEFUL!!
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 01:14:32 GMT, jason >
wrote:

>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>> who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
>> us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
>> college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
>> breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
>> will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
>> rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>
>
>
>More broke back hiking I see, this time on usenet. Go get a room you two.

Lost? I think your home is alt.smut. You must have stumbled into this
newsgroup by accident.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 01:13:52 GMT, jason >
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> There you go: you have no qualifications whatsoever (at least that you
>> are willing to talk about)!
>>
>
>Just as you aren't qualified to talk about this subject.

That's not what the SCIENTISTS think. In fact, I have studied ALL of
the research on mountain biking impacts, which makes me the world
expert on that.

>> I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>> missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>> research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done.
>
>I hope this isn't an example of how you got that paper Phd of yours or
>how you do your research. If it is I am seriously concerned about the
>university you went to that gave you a phd as well.

UCLA is alive and well, and certainly doesn't need YOUR help.

>I love how you think everyone is wrong even the scientists who have real
>phds in real science.

They aren't immune to bias. Especially when they are themselves
mountain bikers.

>It
>> also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>> subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>> Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>> on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>> credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>> judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>> disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>> results.
>
>Yet you still think you're the only one in the world who can speak on
>the damage caused even though you aren't qualified to speak on it.

I'm the most qualified person in the world to discuss this subject.
YOU certainly aren't the least bit qualified.

> Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>> SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>> indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>> me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>> other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>> be asked to give such a paper.
>>
>
>
>So once again I ask let see some proof of these conferences you spoke at
>and will be speaking at. I know we'd love to be at one just to hear you
>speak and see the reaction of the others attending.

See my web site. It's all there. But you have to be able to READ.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[cc]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "cc" > wrote in message ...
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>>>>also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>>>subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>>>>Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>>>on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>>>>credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>>>judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>>>disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>>>>results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>>>be asked to give such a paper.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>>>who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
>>>of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
>>>was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
>>>too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
>>>about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
>>>conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>>
>>
>>Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
>>yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
>>consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
>>polemic and do something USEFUL!!
>
>
> I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
> numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
> mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.
>
> Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
> you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
> research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.

You haven't a degree, which
you already admitted. And no,
working as a librarian does
NOT count.

I do have a research degree,
but it doesn't matter. I don't
have to defend myself to you,
who are clueless and mentally
incapacitated. Should I dig up
your post about needing your
medications?



>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>

[Chris Foster]

Mike Vandeman > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"SMS" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to
>>>>>> share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the
>>>>>> different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to
>>>>>> recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not
>>>>>> reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is the
>>>>>> MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
>>>>>> believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They
>>>>> are not
>>>>> hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
>>>>> Unless
>>>>> a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
>>>>> trails.
>>>>
>>>>Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking
>>>>trails.
>>>>Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things
>>>>up for hikers.
>>>>
>>>>> I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for
>>>>> hikers to
>>>>> not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists
>>>>> would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to
>>>>> learn to share, and work together to keep the real problem users
>>>>> off the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.
>>>>
>>>>I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some
>>>>trails
>>>>for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black
>>>>Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing
>>>>too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first
>>>>place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not like to see
>>>>bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the West which have
>>>>always been thought of as wilderness.
>>>>
>>>>> The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd
>>>>> enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories
>>>>> about trail impact that have no basis in fact.
>>>>
>>>>I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I
>>>>leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are
>>>>irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature
>>>>and wilderness.
>>>
>>> I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is
>>> that it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician
>>> saying "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get
>>> along; it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their
>>> bikes, mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are
>>> at least TOLERABLE idiots and liars. :)
>>At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
>>"experience" that is his determining factor.
>
> It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife.
>
> You have to sidestep that and
>>try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
>>information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for
>>measure. It is OBVIOUS your goal is to have your "experience" as you
>>like it. Nature and wildlife is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool you
>>use to gain that which you desire. If it weren't you would be more
>>concerned about the permanent distruction caused by building than
>>whining about a few bikes.
>
> People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that
> issue?


He is doing about as much as you are. You both are doing nothing but
complaining about each other in a newsgroup.

Mike, I have seen you do absolutely nothing constructive. All that you
actually do is bitch in this NG. That accomplishes nothing.



>
>>> That is
>>>>the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife
>>>>is of secondary importance.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>>aka
>>>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>>>
>>> ===
>>> 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.)
>>>
>>> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Chris Foster]

Mike Vandeman > wrote in
:

> On 19 Jun 2006 12:43:46 GMT, Chris Foster
> > wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"SMS" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to
>>>>>>>> share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with
>>>>>>>> the different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to
>>>>>>>> recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not
>>>>>>>> reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is
>>>>>>>> the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
>>>>>>>> believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails.
>>>>>>> They are not
>>>>>>> hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are
>>>>>>> trails. Unless
>>>>>>> a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use
>>>>>>> the trails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were
>>>>>>hiking trails.
>>>>>>Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing
>>>>>>things up for hikers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for
>>>>>>> hikers to
>>>>>>> not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some
>>>>>>> bicyclists would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We
>>>>>>> just have to learn to share, and work together to keep the real
>>>>>>> problem users off the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be
>>>>>>some trails
>>>>>>for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black
>>>>>>Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without
>>>>>>causing too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in
>>>>>>the first place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not
>>>>>>like to see bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the
>>>>>>West which have always been thought of as wilderness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that
>>>>>>> he'd enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up
>>>>>>> stories about trail impact that have no basis in fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue.
>>>>>>I leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are
>>>>>>irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature
>>>>>>and wilderness.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is
>>>>> that it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician
>>>>> saying "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO
>>>>> get along; it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without
>>>>> their bikes, mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but
>>>>> they are at least TOLERABLE idiots and liars. :)
>>>>At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to
>>>>his "experience" that is his determining factor.
>>>
>>> It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife.
>>>
>>> You have to sidestep that and
>>>>try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
>>>>information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for
>>>>measure. It is OBVIOUS your goal is to have your "experience" as you
>>>>like it. Nature and wildlife is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool
>>>>you use to gain that which you desire. If it weren't you would be
>>>>more concerned about the permanent distruction caused by building
>>>>than whining about a few bikes.
>>>
>>> People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that
>>> issue?
>>
>>
>>He is doing about as much as you are. You both are doing nothing but
>>complaining about each other in a newsgroup.
>>
>>Mike, I have seen you do absolutely nothing constructive. All that
>>you actually do is bitch in this NG.
>
> BS. I have educated the whole world about the impacts of mountain
> biking -- something you are incapable of doing.
>
> That accomplishes nothing.


You have done what? Educated the whole world? Oh my god, you have
quite a high opinion of your self. Other than a few people on the NG
who you bitch with, nobody has even heard of you. And sadly, the very
few people who have heard of you, don't agree with you. Get a grip
Mikey. Just admit it, you're a complete failure.





>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> That is
>>>>>>the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and
>>>>>>wildlife is of secondary importance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>>>>aka
>>>>>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows -
>>>>>>Minnesota
>>>>>>
>>>>> ===
>>>>> 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.)
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.)
>>>
>>> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:22:32 -0700, cc > wrote:

>Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "cc" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>>>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>>>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>>>>>also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>>>>subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>>>>>Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>>>>on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>>>>>credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>>>>judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>>>>disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>>>>>results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>>>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>>>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>>>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>>>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>>>>be asked to give such a paper.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>>>>who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
>>>>of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
>>>>was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
>>>>too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
>>>>about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
>>>>conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
>>>yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
>>>consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
>>>polemic and do something USEFUL!!
>>
>>
>> I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
>> numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
>> mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.
>>
>> Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
>> you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
>> research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.
>
>You haven't a degree, which
>you already admitted. And no,
>working as a librarian does
>NOT count.
>
>I do have a research degree,
>but it doesn't matter.

Right. It also takes honesty, which is sorely lacking among mountain
bikers.

I don't
>have to defend myself to you,
>who are clueless and mentally
>incapacitated. Should I dig up
>your post about needing your
>medications?
>
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
>>
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On 19 Jun 2006 12:43:46 GMT, Chris Foster
> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"SMS" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to
>>>>>>> share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the
>>>>>>> different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to
>>>>>>> recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not
>>>>>>> reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is the
>>>>>>> MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
>>>>>>> believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They
>>>>>> are not
>>>>>> hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
>>>>>> Unless
>>>>>> a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
>>>>>> trails.
>>>>>
>>>>>Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking
>>>>>trails.
>>>>>Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things
>>>>>up for hikers.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for
>>>>>> hikers to
>>>>>> not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists
>>>>>> would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to
>>>>>> learn to share, and work together to keep the real problem users
>>>>>> off the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some
>>>>>trails
>>>>>for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black
>>>>>Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing
>>>>>too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first
>>>>>place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not like to see
>>>>>bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the West which have
>>>>>always been thought of as wilderness.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd
>>>>>> enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories
>>>>>> about trail impact that have no basis in fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I
>>>>>leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are
>>>>>irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature
>>>>>and wilderness.
>>>>
>>>> I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is
>>>> that it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician
>>>> saying "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get
>>>> along; it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their
>>>> bikes, mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are
>>>> at least TOLERABLE idiots and liars. :)
>>>At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
>>>"experience" that is his determining factor.
>>
>> It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife.
>>
>> You have to sidestep that and
>>>try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
>>>information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for
>>>measure. It is OBVIOUS your goal is to have your "experience" as you
>>>like it. Nature and wildlife is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool you
>>>use to gain that which you desire. If it weren't you would be more
>>>concerned about the permanent distruction caused by building than
>>>whining about a few bikes.
>>
>> People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that
>> issue?
>
>
>He is doing about as much as you are. You both are doing nothing but
>complaining about each other in a newsgroup.
>
>Mike, I have seen you do absolutely nothing constructive. All that you
>actually do is bitch in this NG.

BS. I have educated the whole world about the impacts of mountain
biking -- something you are incapable of doing.

That accomplishes nothing.
>
>
>
>>
>>>> That is
>>>>>the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife
>>>>>is of secondary importance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>>>aka
>>>>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>>>>
>>>> ===
>>>> 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.)
>>>>
>>>> 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.)
>>
>> 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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Jason]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> That's not what the SCIENTISTS think. In fact, I have studied ALL of
> the research on mountain biking impacts, which makes me the world
> expert on that.

No ego there. Too bad there's a closed mind to the truth as well.

>>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done.
>>
>>I hope this isn't an example of how you got that paper Phd of yours or
>>how you do your research. If it is I am seriously concerned about the
>>university you went to that gave you a phd as well.
>
>
> UCLA is alive and well, and certainly doesn't need YOUR help.

They do if they let you have a phd, I trust you didnt do such shoddy
research on your phd that you use to troll here. I used to think UCLA
was a pretty good school, I'll have to rethink that now.

>
>
>>I love how you think everyone is wrong even the scientists who have real
>>phds in real science.
>
>
> They aren't immune to bias. Especially when they are themselves
> mountain bikers.
>
>

No you're certainly not immune to bias aren't you mike. In fact you are
more biased then any scientist I have ever heard speak or read works by.


> I'm the most qualified person in the world to discuss this subject.
> YOU certainly aren't the least bit qualified.
>

No more or less qualified then you are.


>
>> Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>
>>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>>be asked to give such a paper.
>>>
>>
>>
>>So once again I ask let see some proof of these conferences you spoke at
>>and will be speaking at. I know we'd love to be at one just to hear you
>>speak and see the reaction of the others attending.
>
>
> See my web site. It's all there. But you have to be able to READ.


Why did I know you were going to hide behind that "see my web site" when
I asked you to put up or shut up regarding these mystery conferences you
spoke at and will speak at. Typical coward.

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss" >
> wrote:
>
>>> I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is that
>>> it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician saying
>>> "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get along;
>>> it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their bikes,
>>> mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are at least
>>> TOLERABLE idiots and liars. :)
>>At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
>>"experience" that is his determining factor.
>
> It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife.
Convenient... You pick a "sounds good - feels good" group and proclaim
yourself a spokesman for them allowing you say whatever you wish as long as
it fits the "for the wildlife" parameter which is also defined by you. You
have set yourself up in a little bubble world where anyone who disagrees
must either be against wildlife, a liar or too stupid to understand.
>
> You have to sidestep that and
>>try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
>>information
>>and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure. It is
>>OBVIOUS
>>your goal is to have your "experience" as you like it. Nature and wildlife
>>is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool you use to gain that which you
>>desire.
>>If it weren't you would be more concerned about the permanent distruction
>>caused by building than whining about a few bikes.
>
> People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that
> issue?
I use the platform available to me to highlight issues about land use.
Specifically, the destruction of land for new buildings when there are
suitable buildings already in place and empty, or that can be removed and
rebuilt to fit specific needs. There has also been focus lately on the sale
of public forest land.
Not everyone has to pad their ego or resume by answering a "call for
papers".
>
>>> That is
>>>>the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife is
>>>>of
>>>>secondary importance.
>>>>

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
news:O7ydnesHu7fefQnZnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>
>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share
>>> hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different
>>> mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of
>>> doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as
>>> night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking
>>> trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>
>> So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and mysticism
>> and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in many places
>> without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared use areas may have
>> cyclists. Choose your environment.
>
> My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and hikers
> do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so much to
> do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but rather on the
> kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness.
"We" bring...? Don't you mean "you" bring. I've seen many trails... Not one
has a voting booth to select you as a spokesman.
>
> I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun
> and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We
> hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little
> grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about
> you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it.
>
You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain
bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a vote to
elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to portray
all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives as you.
Nonsense.
Besides, I have a grasp on your motives and mentality, I just do not accept
that is the same for everyone who hikes.

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:10:24 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote:
>
>>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share
>>>> hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different
>>>> mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of
>>>> doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as
>>>> night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking
>>>> trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>>
>>> So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and mysticism
>>> and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in many places
>>> without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared use areas may
>>> have
>>> cyclists. Choose your environment.
>>
>>My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and hikers
>>do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so much to
>>do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but rather on the
>>kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness.
>>
>>I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun
>>and
>>games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We
>>hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little
>>grasp
>>of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about you. I
>>called you soulless once before and I meant it.
>
> Mountain bikers try to claim that they are just "hikers on wheels",
> but we know better. They are more like THUGS on wheels.
Your OPINION of the activity is no filter to judge the character of those
involved.
>
> Another funny phrase is "human-powered", as though that is supposed to
> make them benign. A switchblade is human powered. So are a butcher
> knife, brass knuckles, a baseball bat, a battering ram, mace, and
> sarin gas. That is the sense in which they are "human-powered".
Swichblade - designed only as weapon
Butcher knife - designed to cut meat for consumption
Brass knuckles - designed as a weapon
Baseball bat - designed for use in a game
Battering ram - designed as a weapon
Mace - designed as a weapon
Sarin gas - designed as a weapon
Interesting choices. However, you left out your choice of weapon. The
"lie"... Which you use in support AND defense of your OPINIONS.

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:10:24 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote:
>
>>My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and hikers
>>do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so much to
>>do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but rather on the
>>kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness.
>
> True, but without wildlife (living things), there would be nowhere
> worth hiking. That is the long view.
>
Interesting.... Especially while habitat is being destroyed completely for
new building forcing wildlife and recreation onto a constantly smaller area
of space. And you STILL whine about bikes.....? Where is your "long view" in
that very real scenerio?

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:19:02 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote:
>>[...]
>>> I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>> missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>> research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done.
by miss-quoting it or re-stating the actual researchers' conclusions to fit
your OPINIONS.
It
>>> also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>> subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
You don't really believe you need university instruction to learn something
new....?
>>> Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>> on the basis of official credentials.
So why is it so important you make everyone aware you have a PhD?
Since there ARE no official
>>> credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>> judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>> disqualify themselves based on this criterion),
Your OPINION of the activity is no filter for determining the intelligence
of anyone
intelligence, and
>>> results.
Does this also mean re-stating other researchers' results to fit your
OPINION?
Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>> SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>> indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>> me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>> other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>> be asked to give such a paper.
You have answered a "call for papers". Anyone can submit if they care to and
have the financial base or time span to spend their own money on travel and
board. Anyone who submits and meets the criteria of the request may be
"invited" to present.
You have never been listed as a keynote speaker. You have never been invited
as a credible expert listed on the publicity information. You pay your own
way, speak to a few other presenters in the room, pat yourself on the back
and list it as a reference.
When you are listed as a keynote speaker... when your travel, room and board
are paid for by the admission costs of the other attendees, then perhaps you
may have a worthwhile credit for your bio.
It equals about the same as being an "extra" in any given movie. Wow!
Impressive.
>>
>>Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>>who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
>>of
>>us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
>>college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too
>>much
>>breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about.
>>They
>>will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
>>rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>
> I know. They are probably thinking right now that you are talking
> about a different -- more base -- kind of rigor. I just hope that
> there are some people like you out there that WILL understand. It took
> 10 years, but the wait was worth it.
>
10 years and have ONE?! Yeah!

[Mike Vandeman]

On 19 Jun 2006 13:42:43 GMT, Chris Foster
> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman > wrote in
:
>
>> On 19 Jun 2006 12:43:46 GMT, Chris Foster
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Vandeman > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"SMS" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to
>>>>>>>>> share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with
>>>>>>>>> the different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to
>>>>>>>>> recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not
>>>>>>>>> reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is
>>>>>>>>> the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
>>>>>>>>> believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails.
>>>>>>>> They are not
>>>>>>>> hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are
>>>>>>>> trails. Unless
>>>>>>>> a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use
>>>>>>>> the trails.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were
>>>>>>>hiking trails.
>>>>>>>Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing
>>>>>>>things up for hikers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for
>>>>>>>> hikers to
>>>>>>>> not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some
>>>>>>>> bicyclists would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We
>>>>>>>> just have to learn to share, and work together to keep the real
>>>>>>>> problem users off the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be
>>>>>>>some trails
>>>>>>>for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black
>>>>>>>Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without
>>>>>>>causing too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in
>>>>>>>the first place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not
>>>>>>>like to see bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the
>>>>>>>West which have always been thought of as wilderness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that
>>>>>>>> he'd enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up
>>>>>>>> stories about trail impact that have no basis in fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue.
>>>>>>>I leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are
>>>>>>>irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature
>>>>>>>and wilderness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is
>>>>>> that it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician
>>>>>> saying "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO
>>>>>> get along; it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without
>>>>>> their bikes, mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but
>>>>>> they are at least TOLERABLE idiots and liars. :)
>>>>>At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to
>>>>>his "experience" that is his determining factor.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife.
>>>>
>>>> You have to sidestep that and
>>>>>try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
>>>>>information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for
>>>>>measure. It is OBVIOUS your goal is to have your "experience" as you
>>>>>like it. Nature and wildlife is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool
>>>>>you use to gain that which you desire. If it weren't you would be
>>>>>more concerned about the permanent distruction caused by building
>>>>>than whining about a few bikes.
>>>>
>>>> People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that
>>>> issue?
>>>
>>>
>>>He is doing about as much as you are. You both are doing nothing but
>>>complaining about each other in a newsgroup.
>>>
>>>Mike, I have seen you do absolutely nothing constructive. All that
>>>you actually do is bitch in this NG.
>>
>> BS. I have educated the whole world about the impacts of mountain
>> biking -- something you are incapable of doing.
>>
>> That accomplishes nothing.
>
>
>You have done what? Educated the whole world? Oh my god, you have
>quite a high opinion of your self. Other than a few people on the NG
>who you bitch with, nobody has even heard of you. And sadly, the very
>few people who have heard of you, don't agree with you. Get a grip
>Mikey. Just admit it, you're a complete failure.

If you've failed to learn anything, that's not MY failure. I doubt
that many of your teachers would but that BS.

>>>>>> That is
>>>>>>>the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and
>>>>>>>wildlife is of secondary importance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>>>>>aka
>>>>>>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows -
>>>>>>>Minnesota
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ===
>>>>>> 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.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.)
>>>>
>>>> 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.)
>>
>> 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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[SMS]

S Curtiss wrote:

>> I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun
>> and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We
>> hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little
>> grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about
>> you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it.

> You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain
> bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a vote to
> elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to portray
> all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives as you.

At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large
groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when
the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've
been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude.

Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four
people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to
mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers tend
to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other to
engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding without
talking.

There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are prohibited,
but rarely will you find solitude until you're very far from the trail head.

[cc]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:22:32 -0700, cc > wrote:
>
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>"cc" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>>>>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>>>>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>>>>>>also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>>>>>subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>>>>>>Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>>>>>on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>>>>>>credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>>>>>judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>>>>>disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>>>>>>results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>>>>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>>>>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>>>>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>>>>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>>>>>be asked to give such a paper.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>>>>>who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
>>>>>of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
>>>>>was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
>>>>>too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
>>>>>about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
>>>>>conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
>>>>yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
>>>>consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
>>>>polemic and do something USEFUL!!
>>>
>>>
>>>I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
>>>numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
>>>mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.
>>>
>>>Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
>>>you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
>>>research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.
>>
>>You haven't a degree, which
>>you already admitted. And no,
>>working as a librarian does
>>NOT count.
>>
>>I do have a research degree,
>>but it doesn't matter.
>
>
> Right. It also takes honesty, which is sorely lacking among mountain
> bikers.
>

Mike, I am stating my opinion.
My interpretation of the
facts. I am being honest, and
I think you are wrong. Get
it straight, idiot. At least
when I state my OPINION I am
clear about it. That is a
requisite of science.
Something which you clearly
know nothing about.

What did they teach you in
school Mike? How to write your
name? It certainly wasn't how
to do research or interpret
data . . . ever heard of the
"scientific method" ?

[Chris Foster]

Mike Vandeman > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:41:01 -0700, SMS >
> wrote:
>
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>
>>>> I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are
>>>> into fun and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is
>>>> a playground. We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that
>>>> you have so little grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will
>>>> ever have to know about you. I called you soulless once before and
>>>> I meant it.
>>
>>> You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for
>>> "mountain bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do
>>> not recall a vote to elect you as a spokesman for anyone but
>>> yourself. You are trying to portray all persons who take a walk in
>>> the woods to have the same motives as you.
>>
>>At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large
>>groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when
>>the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've
>>been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude.
>>
>>Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four
>>people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to
>>mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers
>>tend to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other
>>to engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding
>>without talking.
>>
>>There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are
>>prohibited,
>
> It SOUNDS good, but I have never been on a hiking trail that didn't
> have mountain bike tracks on it from illegal mountain biking. And, no,
> it is NOT just A FEW bad apples. There are plenty to go around....


I have, plenty of them. I have NEVER seen mountain bike tracks in RMNP.


>
>>but rarely will you find solitude until you're very far from the trail
>>head.
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:41:01 -0700, SMS >
wrote:

>S Curtiss wrote:
>
>>> I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun
>>> and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We
>>> hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little
>>> grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about
>>> you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it.
>
>> You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain
>> bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a vote to
>> elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to portray
>> all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives as you.
>
>At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large
>groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when
>the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've
>been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude.
>
>Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four
>people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to
>mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers tend
>to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other to
>engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding without
>talking.
>
>There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are prohibited,

It SOUNDS good, but I have never been on a hiking trail that didn't
have mountain bike tracks on it from illegal mountain biking. And, no,
it is NOT just A FEW bad apples. There are plenty to go around....

>but rarely will you find solitude until you're very far from the trail head.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:59:20 -0700, cc > wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:22:32 -0700, cc > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>>"cc" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>>>>>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>>>>>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>>>>>>>also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>>>>>>subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>>>>>>>Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>>>>>>on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>>>>>>>credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>>>>>>judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>>>>>>disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>>>>>>>results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>>>>>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>>>>>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>>>>>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>>>>>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>>>>>>be asked to give such a paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>>>>>>who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
>>>>>>of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
>>>>>>was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
>>>>>>too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
>>>>>>about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
>>>>>>conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
>>>>>yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
>>>>>consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
>>>>>polemic and do something USEFUL!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
>>>>numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
>>>>mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.
>>>>
>>>>Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
>>>>you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
>>>>research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.
>>>
>>>You haven't a degree, which
>>>you already admitted. And no,
>>>working as a librarian does
>>>NOT count.
>>>
>>>I do have a research degree,
>>>but it doesn't matter.
>>
>>
>> Right. It also takes honesty, which is sorely lacking among mountain
>> bikers.
>>
>
>Mike, I am stating my opinion.
>My interpretation of the
>facts. I am being honest, and
> I think you are wrong. Get
>it straight, idiot. At least
>when I state my OPINION I am
>clear about it. That is a
>requisite of science.
>Something which you clearly
>know nothing about.

That last sentence is an ASSERTION OF FACT that is FALSE. That is
known as a "lie". You didn't say it was an opinion. So, no, you are
NOT honest, nor do you know anything about science.

>What did they teach you in
>school Mike? How to write your
>name? It certainly wasn't how
>to do research or interpret
>data . . . ever heard of the
>"scientific method" ?
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[cc]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:59:20 -0700, cc > wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:22:32 -0700, cc > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"cc" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>>>>>>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>>>>>>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>>>>>>>>also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>>>>>>>subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>>>>>>>>Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>>>>>>>on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>>>>>>>>credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>>>>>>>judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>>>>>>>disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>>>>>>>>results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>>>>>>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>>>>>>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>>>>>>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>>>>>>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>>>>>>>be asked to give such a paper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>>>>>>>who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
>>>>>>>of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
>>>>>>>was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
>>>>>>>too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
>>>>>>>about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
>>>>>>>conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
>>>>>>yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
>>>>>>consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
>>>>>>polemic and do something USEFUL!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
>>>>>numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
>>>>>mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.
>>>>>
>>>>>Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
>>>>>you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
>>>>>research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.
>>>>
>>>>You haven't a degree, which
>>>>you already admitted. And no,
>>>>working as a librarian does
>>>>NOT count.
>>>>
>>>>I do have a research degree,
>>>>but it doesn't matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>Right. It also takes honesty, which is sorely lacking among mountain
>>>bikers.
>>>
>>
>>Mike, I am stating my opinion.
>>My interpretation of the
>>facts. I am being honest, and
>> I think you are wrong. Get
>>it straight, idiot. At least
>>when I state my OPINION I am
>>clear about it. That is a
>>requisite of science.
>>Something which you clearly
>>know nothing about.

Bah . . that is clearly an
opinion based on the data of
your inane conversation, which
are strong, as it happens.
You're grasping at straws.

>
>
> That last sentence is an ASSERTION OF FACT that is FALSE. That is
> known as a "lie". You didn't say it was an opinion. So, no, you are
> NOT honest, nor do you know anything about science.
>
>
>>What did they teach you in
>>school Mike? How to write your
>>name? It certainly wasn't how
>>to do research or interpret
>>data . . . ever heard of the
>>"scientific method" ?
>
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:55:35 -0700, SMS >
> wrote:
>
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>
>>> At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
>>> "experience" that is his determining factor.
>>
>>Yes, it's refreshing to see some honesty about that. I think that many
>>hikers would agree that they don't like the disruption of their
>>experience. Still, it's a mistake to believe that mountain bikers don't
>>also like the "experience" of solitude.
>>
>>> You have to sidestep that and
>>> try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
>>> information
>>> and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure.
>>
>>Yes, I think that's why MV always loses these arguments. He's trying to
>>base his dislike of mountain bikes on something other than the
>>disruption of his hiking enjoyment.
>>
>>Since every study has shown that mountain bikers don't disrupt wildlife,
>>or cause more trail damage, than hikers, he'd be well advised to at
>>least be honest enough to take the same approach as Dolan in his
>>arguments against mountain bikes.
>
> I AM being honest. That's exactly what drives mountain bikers so
> crazy! They can't believe that anyone could be less selfish than they
> are!
What drives us is your constant insistence that your OPINIONS are fact, that
your view of environmental protection or access is the ONLY viewpoint
possible and that you inflate the importance of your OPINIONS by referencing
yourself and some conferences that allowed you 15 minutes to read your
statements. We continue to band together nationwide with other groups and
organizations to cooperate on access, stewardship and voice against total
destruction of the areas we enjoy from sprawl and construction. Your
OPINIONS of the activity (off-road cycling) is not a filter to determine the
mental state of anyone involved in that activity.

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:41:01 -0700, SMS >
> wrote:
>
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>
>>>> I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into
>>>> fun
>>>> and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground.
>>>> We
>>>> hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little
>>>> grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know
>>>> about
>>>> you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it.
>>
>>> You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain
>>> bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a
>>> vote to
>>> elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to
>>> portray
>>> all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives as
>>> you.
>>
>>At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large
>>groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when
>>the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've
>>been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude.
>>
>>Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four
>>people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to
>>mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers tend
>>to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other to
>>engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding without
>>talking.
>>
>>There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are prohibited,
>
> It SOUNDS good, but I have never been on a hiking trail that didn't
> have mountain bike tracks on it from illegal mountain biking. And, no,
> it is NOT just A FEW bad apples. There are plenty to go around....

What an easy and meaningless comment! Especially since you consider ALL
mountain biking to be illegal! Your OPINION is not a filter in determining
the legality of cyclists' access.
>

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:59:20 -0700, cc > wrote:
>>
>>Mike, I am stating my opinion.
>>My interpretation of the
>>facts. I am being honest, and
>> I think you are wrong. Get
>>it straight, idiot. At least
>>when I state my OPINION I am
>>clear about it. That is a
>>requisite of science.
>>Something which you clearly
>>know nothing about.
>
> That last sentence is an ASSERTION OF FACT that is FALSE. That is
> known as a "lie". You didn't say it was an opinion. So, no, you are
> NOT honest, nor do you know anything about science.
>
You mean the same "lie" that you use to reference the knowledge or
comrehension skills of the "average mountain biker"? Why can you make a
blanket statement about someone's credentials, but someone else can not make
that same statement concerning you? Your "PhD" does not give you some sort
of license on knowledge or information. Hell - Its not even in the field you
claim to be an "expert" in! Your OPINION that you are an "expert" is not a
filter to determine the validity of anyone else's opinions or statements.

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" > wrote in message
news:9UAlg.6673$FR1.6123@dukeread05...

[newswgroups trimmed]

> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> news:O7ydnesHu7fefQnZnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>>
>>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share
>>>> hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different
>>>> mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of
>>>> doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as
>>>> night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking
>>>> trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>>
>>> So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and mysticism
>>> and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in many places
>>> without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared use areas may
>>> have cyclists. Choose your environment.
>>
>> My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and
>> hikers do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so
>> much to do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but
>> rather on the kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness.
> "We" bring...? Don't you mean "you" bring. I've seen many trails... Not
> one has a voting booth to select you as a spokesman.
>>
>> I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun
>> and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground.
>> We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little
>> grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about
>> you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it.
>>
> You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain
> bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a vote
> to elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to
> portray all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives
> as you. Nonsense.
> Besides, I have a grasp on your motives and mentality, I just do not
> accept that is the same for everyone who hikes.

Curtiss, I would like you and Vandeman to trim the following newsgroups from
your posts:

rec.bicycles.misc, alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent

All you need do is just delete the above groups from the headers of your
posts. It is very simple to do and only takes a second.

It is now apparent to me that we there is no one on the above two groups who
are interested in the slightest with your ongoing war. I will continue to
monitor rec.bicycles.soc and that group along with alt.mountain-bike go
together. I will NOT however monitor alt.mountain-bike because I consider
everyone there to be an idiot. However, I will see your posts and Vandeman's
posts on rec.bicycles.soc and can respond from that group if I so choose.
The important thing is to eliminate rec.bicycles.misc and
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent from your posts.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Chris Foster]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in
:

>
> "S Curtiss" > wrote in message
> news:9UAlg.6673$FR1.6123@dukeread05...
>
> [newswgroups trimmed]
>
>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>> news:O7ydnesHu7fefQnZnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>>>
>>>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to
>>>>> share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the
>>>>> different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation
>>>>> in the out of doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They
>>>>> are as different as night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do
>>>>> not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not believe I can say it
>>>>> any clearer than that.
>>>>
>>>> So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and
>>>> mysticism and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in
>>>> many places without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared
>>>> use areas may have cyclists. Choose your environment.
>>>
>>> My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and
>>> hikers do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not
>>> have so much to do with impacts on the trail itself or even on
>>> wildlife, but rather on the kind of attitudes we bring to nature and
>>> to wilderness.
>> "We" bring...? Don't you mean "you" bring. I've seen many trails...
>> Not one has a voting booth to select you as a spokesman.
>>>
>>> I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into
>>> fun and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a
>>> playground. We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that
>>> you have so little grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will
>>> ever have to know about you. I called you soulless once before and I
>>> meant it.
>>>
>> You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for
>> "mountain bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not
>> recall a vote to elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself.
>> You are trying to portray all persons who take a walk in the woods to
>> have the same motives as you. Nonsense.
>> Besides, I have a grasp on your motives and mentality, I just do not
>> accept that is the same for everyone who hikes.
>
> Curtiss, I would like you and Vandeman to trim the following
> newsgroups from your posts:
>
> rec.bicycles.misc, alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
>
> All you need do is just delete the above groups from the headers of
> your posts. It is very simple to do and only takes a second.
>
> It is now apparent to me that we there is no one on the above two
> groups who are interested in the slightest with your ongoing war. I
> will continue to monitor rec.bicycles.soc and that group along with
> alt.mountain-bike go together. I will NOT however monitor
> alt.mountain-bike because I consider everyone there to be an idiot.



We all feel you are an idiot, but yet we still continue to post to you.





> However, I will see your posts and Vandeman's posts on
> rec.bicycles.soc and can respond from that group if I so choose. The
> important thing is to eliminate rec.bicycles.misc and
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent from your posts.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Edward Dolan]

"Chris Foster" > wrote in message
05.47...

[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

>> Curtiss [and others], I would like you and Vandeman to trim the following
>> newsgroups from your posts:
>>
>> rec.bicycles.misc, alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
>>
>> All you need do is just delete the above groups from the headers of
>> your posts. It is very simple to do and only takes a second.
>>
>> It is now apparent to me that we there is no one on the above two
>> groups who are interested in the slightest with your ongoing war. I
>> will continue to monitor rec.bicycles.soc and that group along with
>> alt.mountain-bike go together. I will NOT however monitor
>> alt.mountain-bike because I consider everyone there to be an idiot.
>
> We all feel you are an idiot, but yet we still continue to post to you.

These mountain bike threads can continue to be posted to RBS where we can
see them and reply to them if we so choose.

My main newsgroup will be ARBR and to a much lesser degree RBS and RBM.
However, these threads having to do with mountain bikes on hiking trails
should no longer be posted to ARBR and RBM as there is no one on these two
groups that is interested in the subject and consequently those threads are
not wanted.

By the way, everyone in the entire world knows that Ed Dolan the Great is
not an idiot, but it is lots of fun for him to pretend to be an idiot from
time to time. He does this for the amusement and edification of all the real
idiots who infest these newsgroups like the pox.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota


>> However, I will see your posts and Vandeman's posts on
>> rec.bicycles.soc and can respond from that group if I so choose. The
>> important thing is to eliminate rec.bicycles.misc and
>> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent from your posts.

[Mike Vandeman]

On 20 Jun 2006 15:06:41 GMT, Chris Foster
> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman > wrote in
:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:41:01 -0700, SMS >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are
>>>>> into fun and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is
>>>>> a playground. We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that
>>>>> you have so little grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will
>>>>> ever have to know about you. I called you soulless once before and
>>>>> I meant it.
>>>
>>>> You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for
>>>> "mountain bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do
>>>> not recall a vote to elect you as a spokesman for anyone but
>>>> yourself. You are trying to portray all persons who take a walk in
>>>> the woods to have the same motives as you.
>>>
>>>At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large
>>>groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when
>>>the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've
>>>been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude.
>>>
>>>Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four
>>>people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to
>>>mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers
>>>tend to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other
>>>to engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding
>>>without talking.
>>>
>>>There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are
>>>prohibited,
>>
>> It SOUNDS good, but I have never been on a hiking trail that didn't
>> have mountain bike tracks on it from illegal mountain biking. And, no,
>> it is NOT just A FEW bad apples. There are plenty to go around....
>
>
>I have, plenty of them. I have NEVER seen mountain bike tracks in RMNP.

Good.

>>>but rarely will you find solitude until you're very far from the trail
>>>head.
>> ===
>> 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.)
>>
>> 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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "S Curtiss" > wrote in message
> news:9UAlg.6673$FR1.6123@dukeread05...
>
> [newswgroups trimmed]
>
>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>> news:O7ydnesHu7fefQnZnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>>>
>>>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share
>>>>> hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different
>>>>> mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of
>>>>> doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as
>>>>> night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking
>>>>> trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>>>
>>>> So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and mysticism
>>>> and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in many places
>>>> without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared use areas may
>>>> have cyclists. Choose your environment.
>>>
>>> My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and
>>> hikers do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have
>>> so much to do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but
>>> rather on the kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness.
>> "We" bring...? Don't you mean "you" bring. I've seen many trails... Not
>> one has a voting booth to select you as a spokesman.
>>>
>>> I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun
>>> and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground.
>>> We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little
>>> grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about
>>> you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it.
>>>
>> You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain
>> bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a vote
>> to elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to
>> portray all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives
>> as you. Nonsense.
>> Besides, I have a grasp on your motives and mentality, I just do not
>> accept that is the same for everyone who hikes.
>
> Curtiss, I would like you and Vandeman to trim the following newsgroups
> from your posts:
WTF... Why did you add them in the first place? I never did... I hit
reply and send. If you want to change usenet and broaden discussion, then
say something interesting! But do NOT come to me to fix your blunder. I read
your silly apologetic drivel about making ARBR more lively... You were
surprised about the focused interest in the NGs? Why do you thing they have
different titles? Hanging with Vandeman has dumbed you down, dude!
>
> rec.bicycles.misc, alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
>
> All you need do is just delete the above groups from the headers of your
> posts. It is very simple to do and only takes a second.

>
> It is now apparent to me that we there is no one on the above two groups
> who are interested in the slightest with your ongoing war. I will continue
> to monitor rec.bicycles.soc and that group along with alt.mountain-bike go
> together. I will NOT however monitor alt.mountain-bike because I consider
> everyone there to be an idiot.
....that was, however, smart enough to not post mountain bike topics to ARBR

However, I will see your posts and Vandeman's
> posts on rec.bicycles.soc and can respond from that group if I so choose.
> The important thing is to eliminate rec.bicycles.misc and
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent from your posts.
Have at it. You made the mess - You clean it up. And I'll enjoy watching the
"not so great" Conan the Librarian push the broom.
>

[Edward Dolan]

"di" > wrote in message
news:Zzkmg.10240$FR1.4578@dukeread05...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> news:L5KdnYq2zOChUgTZnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@prairiewave. com...
[...]
>> The one and only thing his like ever understands is a good swift kick in
>> the ass. That is what I am here for.
>>
>
> Like I've said before, name the time and place.

I suggest dueling pistols at dawn down by the riverside on the banks of the
Ohio. I will try to get Tom Sherman to be my second, but he has made himself
scarce of late and I don't know if I can find him. No doubt, you have some
scofflaws you could spare who could be my second if I am unable to get Tom
Sherman.

It is extremely important that all of this be done with the utmost honor, as
that is the only thing that matters to me at my present stage of life. I
will expect you to be dressed in your best formal attire as will I. I think
10 paces will be about right as my eyesight is not what it used to be. I
think we should also use black powder firearms in order to enhance the
dignity of the occasion. I will go down to the local pawn shop and see what
I can find.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"cc" > wrote in message ...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "di" > wrote in message
>> news:Zzkmg.10240$FR1.4578@dukeread05...
>>
>>>"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>>>news:L5KdnYq2zOChUgTZnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>The one and only thing his like ever understands is a good swift kick in
>>>>the ass. That is what I am here for.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Like I've said before, name the time and place.
>>
>>
>> I suggest dueling pistols at dawn down by the riverside on the banks of
>> the Ohio. I will try to get Tom Sherman to be my second, but he has made
>> himself scarce of late and I don't know if I can find him. No doubt, you
>> have some scofflaws you could spare who could be my second if I am unable
>> to get Tom Sherman.
>>
>> It is extremely important that all of this be done with the utmost honor,
>> as that is the only thing that matters to me at my present stage of life.
>> I will expect you to be dressed in your best formal attire as will I. I
>> think 10 paces will be about right as my eyesight is not what it used to
>> be. I think we should also use black powder firearms in order to enhance
>> the dignity of the occasion. I will go down to the local pawn shop and
>> see what I can find.
>>
>
> Ok, Ed. That's funny. You're not much of an arguer, but you are a decent
> clown.

At last ... someone to appreciate me! We clowns are desperate for a little
feed back from time to time. Instead all I get from these freaking
newsgroups are serious types who take me seriously. Of course, sometimes I
am serious, but mostly I am not. It is really strange how so many do not
seem to know how to read me. However, it may be my fault. I will have to
work on my writing skills more.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:57:36 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote:

>
>"di" > wrote in message
>news:Zzkmg.10240$FR1.4578@dukeread05...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>> news:L5KdnYq2zOChUgTZnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>[...]
>>> The one and only thing his like ever understands is a good swift kick in
>>> the ass. That is what I am here for.
>>>
>>
>> Like I've said before, name the time and place.
>
>I suggest dueling pistols at dawn down by the riverside on the banks of the
>Ohio. I will try to get Tom Sherman to be my second, but he has made himself
>scarce of late and I don't know if I can find him. No doubt, you have some
>scofflaws you could spare who could be my second if I am unable to get Tom
>Sherman.
>
>It is extremely important that all of this be done with the utmost honor,

Please don't ever use "honor" and "mountain biker" in the same
sentence. I don't want to gag.

as
>that is the only thing that matters to me at my present stage of life. I
>will expect you to be dressed in your best formal attire as will I. I think
>10 paces will be about right as my eyesight is not what it used to be. I
>think we should also use black powder firearms in order to enhance the
>dignity of the occasion. I will go down to the local pawn shop and see what
>I can find.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:57:36 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote:
>>It is extremely important that all of this be done with the utmost honor,
>
> Please don't ever use "honor" and "mountain biker" in the same
> sentence. I don't want to gag.
>
You should be used to it - after choking out your nonsense for years.
Your OPINION of off-road cycling is not a filter for determining the
character of those involved.

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
news:ZLCdnQr66tFlYgTZnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>
> "cc" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "di" > wrote in message
>>> news:Zzkmg.10240$FR1.4578@dukeread05...
>>>
>>>>"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>>>>news:L5KdnYq2zOChUgTZnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>The one and only thing his like ever understands is a good swift kick
>>>>>in the ass. That is what I am here for.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Like I've said before, name the time and place.
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest dueling pistols at dawn down by the riverside on the banks of
>>> the Ohio. I will try to get Tom Sherman to be my second, but he has made
>>> himself scarce of late and I don't know if I can find him. No doubt, you
>>> have some scofflaws you could spare who could be my second if I am
>>> unable to get Tom Sherman.
>>>
>>> It is extremely important that all of this be done with the utmost
>>> honor, as that is the only thing that matters to me at my present stage
>>> of life. I will expect you to be dressed in your best formal attire as
>>> will I. I think 10 paces will be about right as my eyesight is not what
>>> it used to be. I think we should also use black powder firearms in order
>>> to enhance the dignity of the occasion. I will go down to the local pawn
>>> shop and see what I can find.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, Ed. That's funny. You're not much of an arguer, but you are a decent
>> clown.
>
> At last ... someone to appreciate me! We clowns are desperate for a
> little feed back from time to time. Instead all I get from these freaking
> newsgroups are serious types who take me seriously. Of course, sometimes I
> am serious, but mostly I am not. It is really strange how so many do not
> seem to know how to read me. However, it may be my fault. I will have to
> work on my writing skills more.
>
While you are there (pawn shop), see if they sell red, puff noses. If you
are going to accept the title "clown", you might as well dress the part.
We don't know how to read you because, by your own admission, you have had
the human contact of a mole. You can't hit someone with a stick then jump
back and proclaim "that was funny, wasn't it?". A sense of humor is
developed around people, not buried in a dusty corner of a library.

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" > wrote in message
news:zhAmg.10317$FR1.3@dukeread05...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> news:ZLCdnQr66tFlYgTZnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>>
>> "cc" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>> "di" > wrote in message
>>>> news:Zzkmg.10240$FR1.4578@dukeread05...
>>>>
>>>>>"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>>>>>news:L5KdnYq2zOChUgTZnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>The one and only thing his like ever understands is a good swift kick
>>>>>>in the ass. That is what I am here for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Like I've said before, name the time and place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suggest dueling pistols at dawn down by the riverside on the banks of
>>>> the Ohio. I will try to get Tom Sherman to be my second, but he has
>>>> made himself scarce of late and I don't know if I can find him. No
>>>> doubt, you have some scofflaws you could spare who could be my second
>>>> if I am unable to get Tom Sherman.
>>>>
>>>> It is extremely important that all of this be done with the utmost
>>>> honor, as that is the only thing that matters to me at my present stage
>>>> of life. I will expect you to be dressed in your best formal attire as
>>>> will I. I think 10 paces will be about right as my eyesight is not what
>>>> it used to be. I think we should also use black powder firearms in
>>>> order to enhance the dignity of the occasion. I will go down to the
>>>> local pawn shop and see what I can find.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, Ed. That's funny. You're not much of an arguer, but you are a decent
>>> clown.
>>
>> At last ... someone to appreciate me! We clowns are desperate for a
>> little feed back from time to time. Instead all I get from these freaking
>> newsgroups are serious types who take me seriously. Of course, sometimes
>> I am serious, but mostly I am not. It is really strange how so many do
>> not seem to know how to read me. However, it may be my fault. I will have
>> to work on my writing skills more.
>>
> While you are there (pawn shop), see if they sell red, puff noses. If you
> are going to accept the title "clown", you might as well dress the part.
> We don't know how to read you because, by your own admission, you have had
> the human contact of a mole. You can't hit someone with a stick then jump
> back and proclaim "that was funny, wasn't it?". A sense of humor is
> developed around people, not buried in a dusty corner of a library.

Humor is a very difficult thing to define. What is often funny to one person
will not be in the least bit funny to another person. Most humor is of the
slapstick variety, crude and dumb (Jerry Lewis). That can never appeal to
types like me.

By the way, once you have to explain humor, it is no longer humorous. That
is why I do not put smileys all over my posts. I want folks to get it on
their own. Am I being serious or not? Sometimes I do not even know. I depend
on others to tell me.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
news:Voednd9NItExawfZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>
>> While you are there (pawn shop), see if they sell red, puff noses. If
>> you are going to accept the title "clown", you might as well dress the
>> part.
>> We don't know how to read you because, by your own admission, you have
>> had the human contact of a mole. You can't hit someone with a stick then
>> jump back and proclaim "that was funny, wasn't it?". A sense of humor is
>> developed around people, not buried in a dusty corner of a library.
>
> Humor is a very difficult thing to define. What is often funny to one
> person will not be in the least bit funny to another person. Most humor is
> of the slapstick variety, crude and dumb (Jerry Lewis). That can never
> appeal to types like me.
>
> By the way, once you have to explain humor, it is no longer humorous. That
> is why I do not put smileys all over my posts. I want folks to get it on
> their own. Am I being serious or not? Sometimes I do not even know. I
> depend on others to tell me.

Then listen up... If you don't know when you post it, we certainly aren't
going to know when we see it.
You either have the intent of being funny, or the intent of being serious.
Deciding which it was based on the response after the fact is stupid.
>

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:12:56 -0400, "S Curtiss" >
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:57:36 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
>> wrote:
>>>It is extremely important that all of this be done with the utmost honor,
>>
>> Please don't ever use "honor" and "mountain biker" in the same
>> sentence. I don't want to gag.
>>
>You should be used to it - after choking out your nonsense for years.
>Your OPINION of off-road cycling is not a filter for determining the
>character of those involved.

Ask your mommy to look up "filter" in the dictionary. Then learn how
to use it properly. Idiot.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:12:56 -0400, "S Curtiss" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:57:36 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>It is extremely important that all of this be done with the utmost
>>>>honor,
>>>
>>> Please don't ever use "honor" and "mountain biker" in the same
>>> sentence. I don't want to gag.
>>>
>>You should be used to it - after choking out your nonsense for years.
>>Your OPINION of off-road cycling is not a filter for determining the
>>character of those involved.
>
> Ask your mommy to look up "filter" in the dictionary. Then learn how
> to use it properly. Idiot.

Character assasination rather than addressing the concept. Typical.

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Such as our explanation for responding to Vandy's lies and misinformation
>> considering access, trails, conservation and off-road cycling?
>> Apparently, it is you who can not grasp the "explanation". My (and
>> others') posts to Vandy are in direct response to his attacks on an
>> activity that we enjoy and his posts also attempt to close all
>> communication beyond his narrow views on the topic. We only want to keep
>> that communication open for real information and cooperation to grow the
>> movement to protect areas, rather than have them paved over.
>
> You do not have to keep doing it over and over ad infinitum. When you do
> so you make yourself out as nothing but a stalker. Get your own posts
> going on what you want and let Vandeman occasionally have the opportunity
> of responding to you. How the hell can you be so unfair all the time? Are
> you even an American? We Americans pride ourselves on our sense of fair
> play.

Why not lead by example...? You haven't done anything but extend this thread
to see your own words.
From e. dolan on another thread: "Usenet is strictly for idiots, assholes
and jerks - positively no exceptions! When I am on Usenet I try to be the
biggest idiot, asshole and jerk of them all. I set the standard for one and
all. I believe I can state with absolute assurance that I am the Greatest
Idiot, the Greatest Asshole and the Greatest Jerk that Usenet has ever known
in its' long and dishonored history. For Christ's sakes, I prove it every
time I post. Can't any of you poor *******s read?"

The same argument all over several threads... ? So doley can see his own
words? So he can try to convince nobody he is some kind of moderator?

This thread has died. Since "Impotence" best describes doley's presence,
that is where I'll be responding


>
> Vandeman can attack all he wants to and it is not your business to
> regurgitate your boilerplate responses to his every utterance. Try not to
> be nothing but a negative echo to him. You are too intelligent for that.
> Get your own agenda and forget about him. I will read your messages and
> perhaps even post some original ones of my own. RBS is being ruined by
> your rote responses. No one else seems to be on this newsgroup (RBS)
> except for a handful. Why is that when this should be the most
> invigorating of all the newsgroups connected with cycling?
If you want to discuss outdoor access on point, then do so. Crying "foul"
because you got stepped on clinging to Vandy's opinions is not my concern.
Dead thread. See "Impotence"..
>
> RBM is just chock full of idiots and I only go there to stir the pot. RBS
> should be the heart and soul of cycling and yet it is the deadest of all
> the cycling groups. Do you not feel any responsibility for this? I would
> like to see RBS flourish with lots of intellectual stimulation concerning
> the world of cycling. But how can that be when all anyone sees is yours
> and Vandeman's posts forever on a single subject? Try not to be so crazy
> all the time!
>
> I repeat, it is not necessary that you respond to Vandeman's every
> utterance. In fact, it is insane for you to do this. No one else does this
> kind of crazy nonsense except you. Stop with the scotch whiskey and get
> focused on other things in life.

See... you keep comparing me to you. Your tactics of conversation turned
around. And it takes the mental capacity of chewed gum to do it!
This thread is dead. Like playing ping-pong with a wall...
Since your posts have no consequence, I'll just keep it in the "Impotence"
thread.

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" > wrote in message
news:aZTog.26046$FR1.7654@dukeread05...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> Such as our explanation for responding to Vandy's lies and
>>> misinformation considering access, trails, conservation and off-road
>>> cycling? Apparently, it is you who can not grasp the "explanation". My
>>> (and others') posts to Vandy are in direct response to his attacks on an
>>> activity that we enjoy and his posts also attempt to close all
>>> communication beyond his narrow views on the topic. We only want to keep
>>> that communication open for real information and cooperation to grow the
>>> movement to protect areas, rather than have them paved over.
>>
>> You do not have to keep doing it over and over ad infinitum. When you do
>> so you make yourself out as nothing but a stalker. Get your own posts
>> going on what you want and let Vandeman occasionally have the opportunity
>> of responding to you. How the hell can you be so unfair all the time? Are
>> you even an American? We Americans pride ourselves on our sense of fair
>> play.
>
> Why not lead by example...? You haven't done anything but extend this
> thread to see your own words.
> From e. dolan on another thread: "Usenet is strictly for idiots, assholes
> and jerks - positively no exceptions! When I am on Usenet I try to be the
> biggest idiot, asshole and jerk of them all. I set the standard for one
> and all. I believe I can state with absolute assurance that I am the
> Greatest Idiot, the Greatest Asshole and the Greatest Jerk that Usenet has
> ever known in its' long and dishonored history. For Christ's sakes, I
> prove it every time I post. Can't any of you poor *******s read?"
>
> The same argument all over several threads... ? So doley can see his own
> words? So he can try to convince nobody he is some kind of moderator?
>
> This thread has died. Since "Impotence" best describes doley's presence,
> that is where I'll be responding
>
>
>>
>> Vandeman can attack all he wants to and it is not your business to
>> regurgitate your boilerplate responses to his every utterance. Try not to
>> be nothing but a negative echo to him. You are too intelligent for that.
>> Get your own agenda and forget about him. I will read your messages and
>> perhaps even post some original ones of my own. RBS is being ruined by
>> your rote responses. No one else seems to be on this newsgroup (RBS)
>> except for a handful. Why is that when this should be the most
>> invigorating of all the newsgroups connected with cycling?
> If you want to discuss outdoor access on point, then do so. Crying "foul"
> because you got stepped on clinging to Vandy's opinions is not my concern.
> Dead thread. See "Impotence"..
>>
>> RBM is just chock full of idiots and I only go there to stir the pot. RBS
>> should be the heart and soul of cycling and yet it is the deadest of all
>> the cycling groups. Do you not feel any responsibility for this? I would
>> like to see RBS flourish with lots of intellectual stimulation concerning
>> the world of cycling. But how can that be when all anyone sees is yours
>> and Vandeman's posts forever on a single subject? Try not to be so crazy
>> all the time!
>>
>> I repeat, it is not necessary that you respond to Vandeman's every
>> utterance. In fact, it is insane for you to do this. No one else does
>> this kind of crazy nonsense except you. Stop with the scotch whiskey and
>> get focused on other things in life.
>
> See... you keep comparing me to you. Your tactics of conversation turned
> around. And it takes the mental capacity of chewed gum to do it!
> This thread is dead. Like playing ping-pong with a wall...
> Since your posts have no consequence, I'll just keep it in the "Impotence"
> thread.

Curtiss is nothing but a stalker and a leech. Screw him all the way to Hell
and back!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Chris Foster]

> I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a
> lot of numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just
> because you are a mountain biker does not mean you have to be
> brainless.
>
> Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research
> because you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are
> confusing search with research. Those of us with higher educations
> know the difference.
>

Thanks Conan,
I went back and found this little jewel. What are your credentials
again?
Chris Foster
PhD Electrical Engineering
University of Illinois 1987


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Vandeman]

On 07 Jul 2006 18:41:18 GMT, Chris Foster
> wrote:

>> I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a
>> lot of numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just
>> because you are a mountain biker does not mean you have to be
>> brainless.
>>
>> Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research
>> because you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are
>> confusing search with research. Those of us with higher educations
>> know the difference.
>>
>
>Thanks Conan,
> I went back and found this little jewel. What are your credentials
>again?

The ability to tell the truth -- something you never took in school.

> Chris Foster
> PhD Electrical Engineering
> University of Illinois 1987
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Bill]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On 07 Jul 2006 18:41:18 GMT, Chris Foster
> > wrote:
>
>>> I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a
>>> lot of numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just
>>> because you are a mountain biker does not mean you have to be
>>> brainless.
>>>
>>> Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research
>>> because you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are
>>> confusing search with research. Those of us with higher educations
>>> know the difference.
>>>
>> Thanks Conan,
>> I went back and found this little jewel. What are your credentials
>> again?
>
> The ability to tell the truth -- something you never took in school.
>
>> Chris Foster
>> PhD Electrical Engineering
>> University of Illinois 1987
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Let Vandeman fade out please. I don't have a Ph.D. in bicycling but I
know that if I ride conservatively and don't tear up the trail like some
sugar hyped teenager I am actually doing 'LESS' damage than a hiker
dragging his feet.
FWIW, high I.Q. and no Ph.D. trumps Ph.D. and Forrest Gump I.Q., period.
Bill Baka, not impressed by a piece of paper.

P.S. I did go to college, but in a different field.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:04:30 GMT, Bill >
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On 07 Jul 2006 18:41:18 GMT, Chris Foster
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a
>>>> lot of numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just
>>>> because you are a mountain biker does not mean you have to be
>>>> brainless.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research
>>>> because you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are
>>>> confusing search with research. Those of us with higher educations
>>>> know the difference.
>>>>
>>> Thanks Conan,
>>> I went back and found this little jewel. What are your credentials
>>> again?
>>
>> The ability to tell the truth -- something you never took in school.
>>
>>> Chris Foster
>>> PhD Electrical Engineering
>>> University of Illinois 1987
>> ===
>> 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.)
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
>Let Vandeman fade out please. I don't have a Ph.D. in bicycling but I
>know that if I ride conservatively and don't tear up the trail like some
> sugar hyped teenager I am actually doing 'LESS' damage than a hiker
>dragging his feet.

Hikers don't drag their feet. DUH!

>FWIW, high I.Q. and no Ph.D. trumps Ph.D. and Forrest Gump I.Q., period.
>Bill Baka, not impressed by a piece of paper.
>
>P.S. I did go to college, but in a different field.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Bill]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:04:30 GMT, Bill >
> wrote:
>> Let Vandeman fade out please. I don't have a Ph.D. in bicycling but I
>> know that if I ride conservatively and don't tear up the trail like some
>> sugar hyped teenager I am actually doing 'LESS' damage than a hiker
>> dragging his feet.
>
> Hikers don't drag their feet. DUH!

I have done a lot of hiking and have seen families with over active kids
kicking up everything in sight or throwing it. That is more the point of
what I meant.
Do you want 'adults only' trails? Even with adults I have seen them
start out with a six pack of beer for 'hydration' and return with no
cans packed out. It seems like you are selectively "Choosing your poison.".
Bill Baka
>
>> FWIW, high I.Q. and no Ph.D. trumps Ph.D. and Forrest Gump I.Q., period.
>> Bill Baka, not impressed by a piece of paper.
>>
>> P.S. I did go to college, but in a different field.

[SMS]

Bill wrote:

> Let Vandeman fade out please. I don't have a Ph.D. in bicycling but I
> know that if I ride conservatively and don't tear up the trail like some
> sugar hyped teenager I am actually doing 'LESS' damage than a hiker
> dragging his feet.
> FWIW, high I.Q. and no Ph.D. trumps Ph.D. and Forrest Gump I.Q., period.

LOL, we had one guy at work who had a Ph.D. and insisted that everyone
address him as Dr. XXXXX. I remember at a company picnic in Santa Cruz,
the CEO made an announcement, Dr. XXXXX will be organizing a volleyball
game after lunch. The license plate on his car was "Dr. XXXXX."

He was the most clueless employee at the company. We would all cringe
when he would speak to customers, as he would promise them things that
we all knew were totally impossible. I remember one instance where one
of the most experienced employees was running down the hall screaming at
him, "you're an idiot." We all wanted to cheer, but it would have been
frowned upon.

After a while, we all started calling each other Dr. whatever, and one
day he heard the receptionist address me as Dr. Scharf. He asked if I
had a doctorate, and I convinced him that I was a rabbi with a Doctor of
Divinity degree, but that I had decided to be an engineer instead, and
had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (that part is true).

Outside of work, he wasn't a bad guy, he was just really convinced that
his doctoral degree was something that everyone cared about.

[Bill]

SMS wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> Let Vandeman fade out please. I don't have a Ph.D. in bicycling but I
>> know that if I ride conservatively and don't tear up the trail like
>> some sugar hyped teenager I am actually doing 'LESS' damage than a
>> hiker dragging his feet.
>> FWIW, high I.Q. and no Ph.D. trumps Ph.D. and Forrest Gump I.Q., period.
>
> LOL, we had one guy at work who had a Ph.D. and insisted that everyone
> address him as Dr. XXXXX. I remember at a company picnic in Santa Cruz,
> the CEO made an announcement, Dr. XXXXX will be organizing a volleyball
> game after lunch. The license plate on his car was "Dr. XXXXX."

I had one of those but I outranked him in the company food chain, so I
just yelled "Hey college brat." or something else at him to get him to
listen up. He turned so red in the face I thought he was going to
explode but he couldn't say anything, at least not to me. I was in the
weird position of being his boss / mentor, since he was so clueless out
of a classroom.
>
> He was the most clueless employee at the company. We would all cringe
> when he would speak to customers, as he would promise them things that
> we all knew were totally impossible. I remember one instance where one
> of the most experienced employees was running down the hall screaming at
> him, "you're an idiot." We all wanted to cheer, but it would have been
> frowned upon.

I worked at one company that hired a Ph.D., with a very well known last
name, son of a company founder, just so they could trot him out with his
Ph.D. and call him the 'company scientist'. It was a joke but he was at
least a nice guy and just went by his first name so we all got along.
>
> After a while, we all started calling each other Dr. whatever, and one
> day he heard the receptionist address me as Dr. Scharf. He asked if I
> had a doctorate, and I convinced him that I was a rabbi with a Doctor of
> Divinity degree, but that I had decided to be an engineer instead, and
> had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (that part is true).

Good one.
>
> Outside of work, he wasn't a bad guy, he was just really convinced that
> his doctoral degree was something that everyone cared about.

Sort of the same with my guy "Company brat.". He even joined us for
pizza and beer after work a few times. Some of the other engineers were
in Mensa but he wasn't, so that may have humbled him after work.

Now for one downer, but true story.
I was one of the engineers who had to deal with the semiconductor clean
room test equipment back around 1986-1987 at a company, still around,
called Supertex. The manager's name was William Mansera and if someone
called him Bill he just totally blew up and yelled "My name is William,
and you will call me that.". We never did, just to irritate him.
Apparently it worked too well because one night he went home and shot
his wife and 2 children and then blew his own brains out.
He lived down in Morgan hill but the story made big news all the way up
to Sunnyvale, where he worked.
Him we didn't miss, but we all felt bad about his wife and kids.
"Hi honey, I'm home"....Blam.
After that every time something went wrong it was blamed on his ghost.

Some people just need to lighten up, and I think we have a few more than
just the obvious Dolan.
Life is too short.
Ride, breathe, enjoy the pain in your legs, it lets you know you're alive.
Bill Baka

[Bill Sornson]

SMS wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> Let Vandeman fade out please. I don't have a Ph.D. in bicycling but I
>> know that if I ride conservatively and don't tear up the trail like
>> some sugar hyped teenager I am actually doing 'LESS' damage than a
>> hiker dragging his feet.
>> FWIW, high I.Q. and no Ph.D. trumps Ph.D. and Forrest Gump I.Q.,
>> period.
>
> LOL, we had one guy at work who had a Ph.D. and insisted that everyone
> address him as Dr. XXXXX. I remember at a company picnic in Santa
> Cruz, the CEO made an announcement, Dr. XXXXX will be organizing a
> volleyball game after lunch. The license plate on his car was "Dr.
> XXXXX."
> He was the most clueless employee at the company. We would all cringe
> when he would speak to customers, as he would promise them things that
> we all knew were totally impossible. I remember one instance where one
> of the most experienced employees was running down the hall screaming
> at him, "you're an idiot." We all wanted to cheer, but it would have
> been frowned upon.
>
> After a while, we all started calling each other Dr. whatever, and one
> day he heard the receptionist address me as Dr. Scharf. He asked if I
> had a doctorate, and I convinced him that I was a rabbi with a Doctor
> of Divinity degree, but that I had decided to be an engineer instead,
> and had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (that part
> is true).
> Outside of work, he wasn't a bad guy, he was just really convinced
> that his doctoral degree was something that everyone cared about.

Great story. I remember MANY years ago, Prodigy had these bulletin board
things, and there was one character who always signed his name ____ so & so,
PhD. It wasn't a pre-typed sig FILE; he just added it to every single post
he made. He also referred often to it in his comments, even though he
wasn't a computer sciences expert by any means. ("As a DOCTOR..." "you're
not a DOCTOR", etc.) It was pathetically humorous, or humorously pathetic;
not sure which.

Sorni

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:26:09 GMT, Bill >
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:04:30 GMT, Bill >
>> wrote:
>>> Let Vandeman fade out please. I don't have a Ph.D. in bicycling but I
>>> know that if I ride conservatively and don't tear up the trail like some
>>> sugar hyped teenager I am actually doing 'LESS' damage than a hiker
>>> dragging his feet.
>>
>> Hikers don't drag their feet. DUH!
>
>I have done a lot of hiking and have seen families with over active kids
>kicking up everything in sight or throwing it. That is more the point of
>what I meant.

I'm sule mountain bikers' kids are no different. But we are talking
about adults. The SCIENCE proves that mountain biking does far more
damage than hiking.

>Do you want 'adults only' trails? Even with adults I have seen them
>start out with a six pack of beer for 'hydration' and return with no
>cans packed out. It seems like you are selectively "Choosing your poison.".
>Bill Baka
>>
>>> FWIW, high I.Q. and no Ph.D. trumps Ph.D. and Forrest Gump I.Q., period.
>>> Bill Baka, not impressed by a piece of paper.
>>>
>>> P.S. I did go to college, but in a different field.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Bill]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Great story. I remember MANY years ago, Prodigy had these bulletin board
> things, and there was one character who always signed his name ____ so & so,
> PhD. It wasn't a pre-typed sig FILE; he just added it to every single post
> he made. He also referred often to it in his comments, even though he
> wasn't a computer sciences expert by any means. ("As a DOCTOR..." "you're
> not a DOCTOR", etc.) It was pathetically humorous, or humorously pathetic;
> not sure which.
>
> Sorni
>
>
Good for you.
Anything that stomps these guys ego is worth the bother. Many get the
Ph.D. just by showing up for school 8 years in a row after college.
Could it be that the parents are glad to pay tuition to get the dip****
out of the house?

I am SOOOO tempted to make a Bush joke here.

Sr. got Jr. elected president to get him out of Texas.

Sorry, couldn't pass it up.

Bill Baka

[Bill]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:26:09 GMT, Bill >
> wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:04:30 GMT, Bill >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Let Vandeman fade out please. I don't have a Ph.D. in bicycling but I
>>>> know that if I ride conservatively and don't tear up the trail like some
>>>> sugar hyped teenager I am actually doing 'LESS' damage than a hiker
>>>> dragging his feet.
>>> Hikers don't drag their feet. DUH!
>> I have done a lot of hiking and have seen families with over active kids
>> kicking up everything in sight or throwing it. That is more the point of
>> what I meant.
>
> I'm sule mountain bikers' kids are no different. But we are talking
> about adults. The SCIENCE proves that mountain biking does far more
> damage than hiking.

YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
Riding mellow does not hurt the trail.
Teenage and twenty something antics mess things up with or without a bike.
DDDDDUUUUUUHHHHHHH, RRRRAAAALLLLPPPPHHHH!!!
Bill (Fed up with fools) Baka
>
>> Do you want 'adults only' trails? Even with adults I have seen them
>> start out with a six pack of beer for 'hydration' and return with no
>> cans packed out. It seems like you are selectively "Choosing your poison.".
>> Bill Baka
>>>> FWIW, high I.Q. and no Ph.D. trumps Ph.D. and Forrest Gump I.Q., period.
>>>> Bill Baka, not impressed by a piece of paper.
>>>>
>>>> P.S. I did go to college, but in a different field.
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[SMS]

Bill wrote:

>
> YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?

The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the
evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and
mountain biking is about the same.

If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it deserves
a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any. You'd think
that after all these years of mountain biking, someone would have come
up with some evidence if there were any. But they haven't and there isn't.

[Edward Dolan]

"SMS" > wrote in message
...
> Bill wrote:
>
>> Let Vandeman fade out please. I don't have a Ph.D. in bicycling but I
>> know that if I ride conservatively and don't tear up the trail like some
>> sugar hyped teenager I am actually doing 'LESS' damage than a hiker
>> dragging his feet.
>> FWIW, high I.Q. and no Ph.D. trumps Ph.D. and Forrest Gump I.Q., period.
>
> LOL, we had one guy at work who had a Ph.D. and insisted that everyone
> address him as Dr. XXXXX. I remember at a company picnic in Santa Cruz,
> the CEO made an announcement, Dr. XXXXX will be organizing a volleyball
> game after lunch. The license plate on his car was "Dr. XXXXX."
>
> He was the most clueless employee at the company. We would all cringe when
> he would speak to customers, as he would promise them things that we all
> knew were totally impossible. I remember one instance where one of the
> most experienced employees was running down the hall screaming at him,
> "you're an idiot." We all wanted to cheer, but it would have been frowned
> upon.
>
> After a while, we all started calling each other Dr. whatever, and one day
> he heard the receptionist address me as Dr. Scharf. He asked if I had a
> doctorate, and I convinced him that I was a rabbi with a Doctor of
> Divinity degree, but that I had decided to be an engineer instead, and had
> an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (that part is true).
>
> Outside of work, he wasn't a bad guy, he was just really convinced that
> his doctoral degree was something that everyone cared about.

I refuse to ever address anyone as Dr. unless they have something to do with
my health. In the colleges and universities, it is far more appropriate to
address those with higher degrees by the term professor or something akin to
that. Anyone who would insist on being addressed as Dr. because he has a
Ph.D. would be an idiot of the first magnitude. However, it is quite
appropriate to announce whatever degrees you have earned and where they are
from when presenting papers or publishing.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Bill" > wrote in message
. com...
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Great story. I remember MANY years ago, Prodigy had these bulletin board
>> things, and there was one character who always signed his name ____ so &
>> so, PhD. It wasn't a pre-typed sig FILE; he just added it to every
>> single post he made. He also referred often to it in his comments, even
>> though he wasn't a computer sciences expert by any means. ("As a
>> DOCTOR..." "you're not a DOCTOR", etc.) It was pathetically humorous,
>> or humorously pathetic; not sure which.
>>
>> Sorni
> Good for you.
> Anything that stomps these guys ego is worth the bother. Many get the
> Ph.D. just by showing up for school 8 years in a row after college. Could
> it be that the parents are glad to pay tuition to get the dip**** out of
> the house?

Actually, by the time you get a Ph.D. you are most likely one of the
humblest persons in the world because you truly know what you don't know.
That is something that Bill Baka need never concern himself with. An
ignoramus like him always think he knows all there is to know and what he
doesn't know is not worth knowing.

Bill Baka is a very dark and mysterious person indeed. I think he may be an
Australian aborigine who has somehow landed in California. Anyone on the
newsgroup have a picture of him? I know he is ugly, but just how ugly - yea,
that is the question!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Slack]

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:20:31 -0700, Edward Dolan > wrote:


> I refuse to ever address anyone as Dr. unless they have something to do
> with
> my health. In the colleges and universities, it is far more appropriate
> to
> address those with higher degrees by the term professor or something
> akin to
> that. Anyone who would insist on being addressed as Dr. because he has a
> Ph.D. would be an idiot of the first magnitude. However, it is quite
> appropriate to announce whatever degrees you have earned and where they
> are
> from when presenting papers or publishing.
>
> Regards,


I've only run into one professor who demanded to be called by his first
name. He's pretty cool. I took 3 classes with him. Everyone else throws a
tantrum if you dare to address them without the Dr.
____
Slack

[Bill]

SMS wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
>
> The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the
> evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and
> mountain biking is about the same.

Do ANY of them ride or just tell others what to do?
I have the same problem with the AMA (motorcycle association).
They tell you that you simply MUST down shift through all the gears
coming to a stop and some other really bad advice. I don't think the
rule makers actually ride.
>
> If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it deserves
> a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any. You'd think
> that after all these years of mountain biking, someone would have come
> up with some evidence if there were any. But they haven't and there isn't.

Agreed. Whether I hike a trail or ride it I am taking my weight over it
exactly once each way, except that the bike and gear adds about 50
pounds and the downhills are faster. I keep it under 20 MPH and try to
never skid and put ruts in the road. How much difference can there be
without the teenage antics? Add to that some of the places I go a hiker
or teenager would not have the endurance to get to and I am thinking
minimum impact. A smoker might raise all kinds of hell by starting a
fire but that is a whole new issue.
Bill (careful with nature) Baka

[Edward Dolan]

"Slack" > wrote in message
news:op.tcenbzdx5jd7qu@slacker...
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:20:31 -0700, Edward Dolan > wrote:
>
>
>> I refuse to ever address anyone as Dr. unless they have something to do
>> with
>> my health. In the colleges and universities, it is far more appropriate
>> to
>> address those with higher degrees by the term professor or something
>> akin to
>> that. Anyone who would insist on being addressed as Dr. because he has a
>> Ph.D. would be an idiot of the first magnitude. However, it is quite
>> appropriate to announce whatever degrees you have earned and where they
>> are
>> from when presenting papers or publishing.
>
> I've only run into one professor who demanded to be called by his first
> name. He's pretty cool. I took 3 classes with him. Everyone else throws a
> tantrum if you dare to address them without the Dr.

I can hardly believe what you are saying! Of course, students can be easily
intimidated by their teachers. But by God, I would just like to see anyone
insist that I call them Dr. unless they are in fact a doctor, a dentist,
etc. Such a jerk would never hear the end of it from one so Great as Myself.
I would never even call such a teacher professor after that, which is as
good as any address ever gets in my book. Nay, he would henceforth be
nothing but a Mr. along with the rest of humanity, and if he didn't like
that, well ... you can just imagine where it would go from there!

I respect Ph.D.s but I am not in awe of them. They have to behave themselves
just like everyone else or else they will reap the whirlwind.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Bill" > wrote in message
. com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> I refuse to ever address anyone as Dr. unless they have something to do
>> with my health. In the colleges and universities, it is far more
>> appropriate to address those with higher degrees by the term professor or
>> something akin to that. Anyone who would insist on being addressed as Dr.
>> because he has a Ph.D. would be an idiot of the first magnitude.
>
> It is quite out of my nature to reply to your posts, but on this I agree
> 100% because I have known first magnitude idiots with advanced degrees.
> I had to fire a guy with a masters in electronics because he walked up to
> me holding a ***METAL*** power transistor with 2 leads sticking out and he
> asked me where the third lead was. We were in the test department at the
> time and all the technicians knew, but this guy was a loud mouth and said
> "I am a better engineer because I have a masters and you don't.". When I
> told him he was holding the third lead, metal, duh, I had no choice but to
> let him go when all the test technicians almost fell off their stools
> laughing.
> Education just doesn't make up for built in dumb.

Bill, you will have to read my posts because you never know what I will say
on anything. After a while you will be able to seperate the wheat from the
chaff, at which point you will learn to enjoy me. I have taken note of the
fact that you are not a total idiot and there may be more common ground than
you think.

> However, it is quite
>> appropriate to announce whatever degrees you have earned and where they
>> are from when presenting papers or publishing.
>
> I have had a few papers informally published in electronics magazines but
> I only put my name and not my rank and serial number. If the editor likes
> it enough to publish it, then that is good enough for me.
> Bill (keep guessing) Baka

I think I would always include my degrees and where they are from when being
published. If you earned them, then you have a right to announce it in
certain venues. There is no point at all in false modesty in the kind of
world we are living in today.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 00:27:24 GMT, Bill >
wrote:

>SMS wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>> Let Vandeman fade out please. I don't have a Ph.D. in bicycling but I
>>> know that if I ride conservatively and don't tear up the trail like
>>> some sugar hyped teenager I am actually doing 'LESS' damage than a
>>> hiker dragging his feet.
>>> FWIW, high I.Q. and no Ph.D. trumps Ph.D. and Forrest Gump I.Q., period.
>>
>> LOL, we had one guy at work who had a Ph.D. and insisted that everyone
>> address him as Dr. XXXXX. I remember at a company picnic in Santa Cruz,
>> the CEO made an announcement, Dr. XXXXX will be organizing a volleyball
>> game after lunch. The license plate on his car was "Dr. XXXXX."
>
>I had one of those but I outranked him in the company food chain, so I
>just yelled "Hey college brat." or something else at him to get him to
>listen up. He turned so red in the face I thought he was going to
>explode but he couldn't say anything, at least not to me. I was in the
>weird position of being his boss / mentor, since he was so clueless out
>of a classroom.
>>
>> He was the most clueless employee at the company. We would all cringe
>> when he would speak to customers, as he would promise them things that
>> we all knew were totally impossible. I remember one instance where one
>> of the most experienced employees was running down the hall screaming at
>> him, "you're an idiot." We all wanted to cheer, but it would have been
>> frowned upon.
>
>I worked at one company that hired a Ph.D., with a very well known last
>name, son of a company founder, just so they could trot him out with his
>Ph.D. and call him the 'company scientist'. It was a joke but he was at
>least a nice guy and just went by his first name so we all got along.
>>
>> After a while, we all started calling each other Dr. whatever, and one
>> day he heard the receptionist address me as Dr. Scharf. He asked if I
>> had a doctorate, and I convinced him that I was a rabbi with a Doctor of
>> Divinity degree, but that I had decided to be an engineer instead, and
>> had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (that part is true).
>
>Good one.
>>
>> Outside of work, he wasn't a bad guy, he was just really convinced that
>> his doctoral degree was something that everyone cared about.
>
>Sort of the same with my guy "Company brat.". He even joined us for
>pizza and beer after work a few times. Some of the other engineers were
>in Mensa but he wasn't, so that may have humbled him after work.
>
>Now for one downer, but true story.
>I was one of the engineers who had to deal with the semiconductor clean
>room test equipment back around 1986-1987 at a company, still around,
>called Supertex. The manager's name was William Mansera and if someone
>called him Bill he just totally blew up and yelled "My name is William,
>and you will call me that.". We never did, just to irritate him.
>Apparently it worked too well because one night he went home and shot
>his wife and 2 children and then blew his own brains out.

And you added that to your resume, I suppose?

>He lived down in Morgan hill but the story made big news all the way up
>to Sunnyvale, where he worked.
>Him we didn't miss, but we all felt bad about his wife and kids.
>"Hi honey, I'm home"....Blam.
>After that every time something went wrong it was blamed on his ghost.
>
>Some people just need to lighten up, and I think we have a few more than
>just the obvious Dolan.
>Life is too short.
>Ride, breathe, enjoy the pain in your legs, it lets you know you're alive.
>Bill Baka
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 23:32:52 -0500, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote:

>
>"Bill" > wrote in message
. com...
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> Great story. I remember MANY years ago, Prodigy had these bulletin board
>>> things, and there was one character who always signed his name ____ so &
>>> so, PhD. It wasn't a pre-typed sig FILE; he just added it to every
>>> single post he made. He also referred often to it in his comments, even
>>> though he wasn't a computer sciences expert by any means. ("As a
>>> DOCTOR..." "you're not a DOCTOR", etc.) It was pathetically humorous,
>>> or humorously pathetic; not sure which.
>>>
>>> Sorni
>> Good for you.
>> Anything that stomps these guys ego is worth the bother. Many get the
>> Ph.D. just by showing up for school 8 years in a row after college. Could
>> it be that the parents are glad to pay tuition to get the dip**** out of
>> the house?
>
>Actually, by the time you get a Ph.D. you are most likely one of the
>humblest persons in the world because you truly know what you don't know.
>That is something that Bill Baka need never concern himself with. An
>ignoramus like him always think he knows all there is to know and what he
>doesn't know is not worth knowing.
>
>Bill Baka is a very dark and mysterious person indeed. I think he may be an
>Australian aborigine who has somehow landed in California. Anyone on the
>newsgroup have a picture of him? I know he is ugly, but just how ugly - yea,
>that is the question!

Mountain bikers, you have met your match! This is my new favorite
post....

>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 05:20:56 GMT, Bill >
wrote:

>Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Bill" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> Great story. I remember MANY years ago, Prodigy had these bulletin board
>>>> things, and there was one character who always signed his name ____ so &
>>>> so, PhD. It wasn't a pre-typed sig FILE; he just added it to every
>>>> single post he made. He also referred often to it in his comments, even
>>>> though he wasn't a computer sciences expert by any means. ("As a
>>>> DOCTOR..." "you're not a DOCTOR", etc.) It was pathetically humorous,
>>>> or humorously pathetic; not sure which.
>>>>
>>>> Sorni
>>> Good for you.
>>> Anything that stomps these guys ego is worth the bother. Many get the
>>> Ph.D. just by showing up for school 8 years in a row after college. Could
>>> it be that the parents are glad to pay tuition to get the dip**** out of
>>> the house?
>>
>> Actually, by the time you get a Ph.D. you are most likely one of the
>> humblest persons in the world because you truly know what you don't know.
>
>You must not know any 20 something Ph.D.s then. They all think they are
>"King ****" until someone like me knocks them down.
>
>> That is something that Bill Baka need never concern himself with. An
>> ignoramus like him always think he knows all there is to know and what he
>> doesn't know is not worth knowing.
>
>Mr. Ed., come out of your stall and play with me one on one and I will
>make your intellect look like that of a fruit fly. I don't have time to
>pop into Word and make a literary masterpiece out of every post, but I
>could take you on with half my brain tied behind my back.

Leave it to a mountain biker to TOTALLY miss the point: brains are
WORTHLESS without HONESTY! Mountain bikers are totally allergic to
telling the truth. That's why it is so easy for Ed & I to wrap them
around our little fingers.

>> Bill Baka is a very dark and mysterious person indeed. I think he may be an
>> Australian aborigine who has somehow landed in California. Anyone on the
>> newsgroup have a picture of him? I know he is ugly, but just how ugly - yea,
>> that is the question!
>
>Total fool that you are I wonder why I bother. I posted my picture once
>with my bike and the only complaint I got was to put my shirt on for
>photographic self portraits. Gee, I am so sorry it was a 100 degree day
>and I didn't think of it at the time. Maybe I should wax my legs and
>wear Lycra nice and tight so you can get a thrill. You have already
>alleged that women don't do it for you. I am 58 with still black hair,
>read still have hair. I have friends and neighbors in their 40's that
>are gray and bald and fat. Be brave, oh Great One <giggle, snark,
>heee-heee>. We all need a good laugh.
>
>Ed,
>I just got done saying nice things about you and now you show your true
>character as a dark spirited clown.
>You stay in the kill file.
>Bill Baka
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
>>
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 02:45:23 GMT, Bill >
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:26:09 GMT, Bill >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:04:30 GMT, Bill >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Let Vandeman fade out please. I don't have a Ph.D. in bicycling but I
>>>>> know that if I ride conservatively and don't tear up the trail like some
>>>>> sugar hyped teenager I am actually doing 'LESS' damage than a hiker
>>>>> dragging his feet.
>>>> Hikers don't drag their feet. DUH!
>>> I have done a lot of hiking and have seen families with over active kids
>>> kicking up everything in sight or throwing it. That is more the point of
>>> what I meant.
>>
>> I'm sule mountain bikers' kids are no different. But we are talking
>> about adults. The SCIENCE proves that mountain biking does far more
>> damage than hiking.
>
>YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
>Riding mellow does not hurt the trail.

Mountain bikers' ignorance of basic biology is LEGENDARY. Thanks for
proving that once again. Animals killed by "mellow" riders are just as
dead as animals killed by gonzo riders. Erosion caused by "mellow"
riders is just as bad as erosion caused by gonzo riders. Hikers
driven away by "mellow" riders are just as gone as hikers driven away
by gonzo riders. It's elementary. Try telling the truth for once in
your worthless life.

>Teenage and twenty something antics mess things up with or without a bike.
>DDDDDUUUUUUHHHHHHH, RRRRAAAALLLLPPPPHHHH!!!
>Bill (Fed up with fools) Baka
>>
>>> Do you want 'adults only' trails? Even with adults I have seen them
>>> start out with a six pack of beer for 'hydration' and return with no
>>> cans packed out. It seems like you are selectively "Choosing your poison.".
>>> Bill Baka
>>>>> FWIW, high I.Q. and no Ph.D. trumps Ph.D. and Forrest Gump I.Q., period.
>>>>> Bill Baka, not impressed by a piece of paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. I did go to college, but in a different field.
>> ===
>> 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.)
>>
>> 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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:25:31 -0700, SMS >
wrote:

>Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
>
>The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the
>evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and
>mountain biking is about the same.
>
>If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it deserves
>a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any. You'd think
>that after all these years of mountain biking, someone would have come
>up with some evidence if there were any. But they haven't and there isn't.

I have. And most people don't care, because to them it's OBVIOUS that
mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:59:52 GMT, Bill >
wrote:

>SMS wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
>>
>> The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the
>> evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and
>> mountain biking is about the same.
>
>Do ANY of them ride or just tell others what to do?
>I have the same problem with the AMA (motorcycle association).
>They tell you that you simply MUST down shift through all the gears
>coming to a stop and some other really bad advice. I don't think the
>rule makers actually ride.
>>
>> If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it deserves
>> a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any. You'd think
>> that after all these years of mountain biking, someone would have come
>> up with some evidence if there were any. But they haven't and there isn't.
>
>Agreed. Whether I hike a trail or ride it I am taking my weight over it
>exactly once each way,

Tell the truth! Mountain bikers travel several times as far as hikers.

except that the bike and gear adds about 50
>pounds and the downhills are faster. I keep it under 20 MPH

I tru never to hike over 2 MPH. Quite a difference....

and try to
>never skid

IMPOSSIBLE. Wherever trails are steep or the soil is loose, you will
skid.

and put ruts in the road. How much difference can there be
>without the teenage antics?

Hikers can easily step over animals on the trail. Bikers cannot. They
will crush them every time.

Add to that some of the places I go a hiker
>or teenager would not have the endurance to get to and I am thinking
>minimum impact. A smoker might raise all kinds of hell by starting a
>fire but that is a whole new issue.
>Bill (careful with nature) Baka
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[di]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 05:20:56 GMT, Bill >
> wrote:
>
>
> Leave it to a mountain biker to TOTALLY miss the point: brains are
> WORTHLESS without HONESTY! Mountain bikers are totally allergic to
> telling the truth. That's why it is so easy for Ed & I to wrap them
> around our little fingers.
>

"Ed & I", I would hate to think that is the limit of my friends. But, I
guess you two deserve each other.

> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Chris Foster]

Bill > wrote in
. com:

> SMS wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
>>
>> The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the
>> evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and
>> mountain biking is about the same.
>
> Do ANY of them ride or just tell others what to do?
> I have the same problem with the AMA (motorcycle association).
> They tell you that you simply MUST down shift through all the gears
> coming to a stop and some other really bad advice. I don't think the
> rule makers actually ride.
>>
>> If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it
>> deserves a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any.
>> You'd think that after all these years of mountain biking, someone
>> would have come up with some evidence if there were any. But they
>> haven't and there isn't.
>
> Agreed. Whether I hike a trail or ride it I am taking my weight over
> it exactly once each way, except that the bike and gear adds about 50
> pounds and the downhills are faster. I keep it under 20 MPH and try to
> never skid and put ruts in the road. How much difference can there be
> without the teenage antics? Add to that some of the places I go a
> hiker or teenager would not have the endurance to get to and I am
> thinking minimum impact. A smoker might raise all kinds of hell by
> starting a fire but that is a whole new issue.
> Bill (careful with nature) Baka
>

Hey Bill,
I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please."

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:59:52 GMT, Bill >
> wrote:
>
>>SMS wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
>>>
>>> The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the
>>> evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and
>>> mountain biking is about the same.
>>
>>Do ANY of them ride or just tell others what to do?
>>I have the same problem with the AMA (motorcycle association).
>>They tell you that you simply MUST down shift through all the gears
>>coming to a stop and some other really bad advice. I don't think the
>>rule makers actually ride.
>>>
>>> If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it deserves
>>> a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any. You'd think
>>> that after all these years of mountain biking, someone would have come
>>> up with some evidence if there were any. But they haven't and there
>>> isn't.
>>
>>Agreed. Whether I hike a trail or ride it I am taking my weight over it
>>exactly once each way,
>
> Tell the truth! Mountain bikers travel several times as far as hikers.
You still ignore "time". You IGNORE the FACT that cyclists are in and away
from any spot or area quickly while hikers remain in a vicinity (causing
more distrurbance by the mere human presence [your words - not mine]. You
have yet to prove the disturbance or trail impact of the cyclist is greater.
"Distance" is merely a variable you apply to your OPINION. "Distance" X 0 =
0
>
> except that the bike and gear adds about 50
>>pounds and the downhills are faster. I keep it under 20 MPH
>
> I tru never to hike over 2 MPH. Quite a difference....
How long (time) are you hiking...? How long are you in a vicinity causing
human disturbance while the cyclist has come, gone by and possibly finished
the ride and left...?
>
> and try to
>>never skid
>
> IMPOSSIBLE. Wherever trails are steep or the soil is loose, you will
> skid.
As the hiker will slip also...
>
> and put ruts in the road. How much difference can there be
>>without the teenage antics?
>
> Hikers can easily step over animals on the trail. Bikers cannot. They
> will crush them every time.
Generality. No basis in FACT for the statement. Anecdotal. OPINION.
>
> Add to that some of the places I go a hiker
>>or teenager would not have the endurance to get to and I am thinking
>>minimum impact. A smoker might raise all kinds of hell by starting a
>>fire but that is a whole new issue.
>>Bill (careful with nature) Baka
> ===

[Bill]

S Curtiss wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:59:52 GMT, Bill >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> SMS wrote:
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
>>>> The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the
>>>> evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and
>>>> mountain biking is about the same.
>>> Do ANY of them ride or just tell others what to do?
>>> I have the same problem with the AMA (motorcycle association).
>>> They tell you that you simply MUST down shift through all the gears
>>> coming to a stop and some other really bad advice. I don't think the
>>> rule makers actually ride.
>>>> If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it deserves
>>>> a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any. You'd think
>>>> that after all these years of mountain biking, someone would have come
>>>> up with some evidence if there were any. But they haven't and there
>>>> isn't.
>>> Agreed. Whether I hike a trail or ride it I am taking my weight over it
>>> exactly once each way,
>> Tell the truth! Mountain bikers travel several times as far as hikers.
> You still ignore "time". You IGNORE the FACT that cyclists are in and away
> from any spot or area quickly while hikers remain in a vicinity (causing
> more distrurbance by the mere human presence [your words - not mine]. You
> have yet to prove the disturbance or trail impact of the cyclist is greater.
> "Distance" is merely a variable you apply to your OPINION. "Distance" X 0 =
> 0
>> except that the bike and gear adds about 50
>>> pounds and the downhills are faster. I keep it under 20 MPH
>> I tru never to hike over 2 MPH. Quite a difference....
> How long (time) are you hiking...? How long are you in a vicinity causing
> human disturbance while the cyclist has come, gone by and possibly finished
> the ride and left...?

My long hikes are 25-30 miles and usually in the Big Basin area of
California, and there are no bikes allowed there due to the density,
amount, of hikers. The 30 mile hikes take me all the way out of the
forest and to the top of "Chalk Mountain Road" appropriately named
because it is above all the trees and hotter than hell and dry. What is
nice is that I can see the ocean on one side and Mount Hamilton
observatory if it is one of those one in a hundred clear days.
>> and try to
>>> never skid
>> IMPOSSIBLE. Wherever trails are steep or the soil is loose, you will
>> skid.

If it is that steep and long enough to require serious braking I get off
and walk. Going off a cliff is too stupid even on my hyper days.

> As the hiker will slip also...

Call me different but I run the short downhills to get momentum for the
next uphill. I outdistance all but the fittest hikers 30 years my junior
this way. They just don't get the 'old guy' beating them so badly, but
it is only using inertia to my advantage.

>> and put ruts in the road. How much difference can there be
>>> without the teenage antics?
>> Hikers can easily step over animals on the trail. Bikers cannot. They
>> will crush them every time.

Never even once have I come close to hitting any kind of animal. I have
even swerved to avoid bugs and slugs. I am enjoying nature, not using a
bike to slaughter it.

> Generality. No basis in FACT for the statement. Anecdotal. OPINION.
>> Add to that some of the places I go a hiker
>>> or teenager would not have the endurance to get to and I am thinking
>>> minimum impact. A smoker might raise all kinds of hell by starting a
>>> fire but that is a whole new issue.
>>> Bill (careful with nature) Baka
>> ===
>
>

Why do we have such an avid non-biker posting so much?
Bill Baka

[Bill]

Chris Foster wrote:
> Bill > wrote in
> . com:
>> Bill (careful with nature) Baka
>>
>
> Hey Bill,
> I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please."
>
Maybe his computer will blow up??
Bill

[Mike Vandeman]

On 10 Jul 2006 14:27:14 GMT, Chris Foster
> wrote:

>Bill > wrote in
. com:
>
>> SMS wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
>>>
>>> The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the
>>> evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and
>>> mountain biking is about the same.
>>
>> Do ANY of them ride or just tell others what to do?
>> I have the same problem with the AMA (motorcycle association).
>> They tell you that you simply MUST down shift through all the gears
>> coming to a stop and some other really bad advice. I don't think the
>> rule makers actually ride.
>>>
>>> If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it
>>> deserves a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any.
>>> You'd think that after all these years of mountain biking, someone
>>> would have come up with some evidence if there were any. But they
>>> haven't and there isn't.
>>
>> Agreed. Whether I hike a trail or ride it I am taking my weight over
>> it exactly once each way, except that the bike and gear adds about 50
>> pounds and the downhills are faster. I keep it under 20 MPH and try to
>> never skid and put ruts in the road. How much difference can there be
>> without the teenage antics? Add to that some of the places I go a
>> hiker or teenager would not have the endurance to get to and I am
>> thinking minimum impact. A smoker might raise all kinds of hell by
>> starting a fire but that is a whole new issue.
>> Bill (careful with nature) Baka
>>
>
>Hey Bill,
> I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please."

He's a mountain biker, isn't he? They don't practice what they preach.
I think you did the same thing.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:47:19 -0400, "S Curtiss" >
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:59:52 GMT, Bill >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>SMS wrote:
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
>>>>
>>>> The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the
>>>> evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and
>>>> mountain biking is about the same.
>>>
>>>Do ANY of them ride or just tell others what to do?
>>>I have the same problem with the AMA (motorcycle association).
>>>They tell you that you simply MUST down shift through all the gears
>>>coming to a stop and some other really bad advice. I don't think the
>>>rule makers actually ride.
>>>>
>>>> If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it deserves
>>>> a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any. You'd think
>>>> that after all these years of mountain biking, someone would have come
>>>> up with some evidence if there were any. But they haven't and there
>>>> isn't.
>>>
>>>Agreed. Whether I hike a trail or ride it I am taking my weight over it
>>>exactly once each way,
>>
>> Tell the truth! Mountain bikers travel several times as far as hikers.
>You still ignore "time". You IGNORE the FACT that cyclists are in and away
>from any spot or area quickly while hikers remain in a vicinity (causing
>more distrurbance by the mere human presence [your words - not mine].

Pure speculation. The research still shows that mountain bikers have a
greater impact on wildlife.

You
>have yet to prove the disturbance or trail impact of the cyclist is greater.
>"Distance" is merely a variable you apply to your OPINION. "Distance" X 0 =
>0
>>
>> except that the bike and gear adds about 50
>>>pounds and the downhills are faster. I keep it under 20 MPH
>>
>> I tru never to hike over 2 MPH. Quite a difference....
>How long (time) are you hiking...? How long are you in a vicinity causing
>human disturbance while the cyclist has come, gone by and possibly finished
>the ride and left...?
>>
>> and try to
>>>never skid
>>
>> IMPOSSIBLE. Wherever trails are steep or the soil is loose, you will
>> skid.
>As the hiker will slip also...
>>
>> and put ruts in the road. How much difference can there be
>>>without the teenage antics?
>>
>> Hikers can easily step over animals on the trail. Bikers cannot. They
>> will crush them every time.
>Generality. No basis in FACT for the statement. Anecdotal. OPINION.
>>
>> Add to that some of the places I go a hiker
>>>or teenager would not have the endurance to get to and I am thinking
>>>minimum impact. A smoker might raise all kinds of hell by starting a
>>>fire but that is a whole new issue.
>>>Bill (careful with nature) Baka
>> ===
>
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Bill]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2006 14:27:14 GMT, Chris Foster
> > wrote:
>> Hey Bill,
>> I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please."
>
> He's a mountain biker, isn't he? They don't practice what they preach.
> I think you did the same thing.
>
I am a mountain biker only in the sense that I am a traffic and people
avoider, not a teenage hooligan out to destroy everything in sight. I
stop to move snakes off the road or trail, whichever, although
rattlesnakes have much worse attitudes about my benevolence.
I could not gather a bunch of same age (57) year old riders to go out
and help me tear up the trail if I tried so who you kidding? I go way
the hell out up in the mountains so that I can not hear any sign of
human made noise at all, and I have better hearing than most 18 year
olds, not a brag because I avoided discos when they were in so I didn't
damage my hearing. Being in the woods and only hearing the rustle of the
leaves and the creek nearby with no sirens or kids yelling is a major
reason I go up there. Since I am about 20 miles out of cell phone range
at that point and probably at least 5 miles from any random human
presence why would I risk breaking a leg that far out?
Your argument holds about as much water as a sieve after 5 minutes with me.
Bill Baka


> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:42:27 GMT, Bill >
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On 10 Jul 2006 14:27:14 GMT, Chris Foster
>> > wrote:
>>> Hey Bill,
>>> I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please."
>>
>> He's a mountain biker, isn't he? They don't practice what they preach.
>> I think you did the same thing.
>>
>I am a mountain biker only in the sense that I am a traffic and people
>avoider, not a teenage hooligan out to destroy everything in sight. I
>stop to move snakes off the road or trail, whichever, although
>rattlesnakes have much worse attitudes about my benevolence.
>I could not gather a bunch of same age (57) year old riders to go out
>and help me tear up the trail if I tried so who you kidding? I go way
>the hell out up in the mountains so that I can not hear any sign of
>human made noise at all,

Can't you WALK? If you want to get away from the city, why do you
bring it with you?! You guys make no sense whatsoever.

and I have better hearing than most 18 year
>olds, not a brag because I avoided discos when they were in so I didn't
>damage my hearing. Being in the woods and only hearing the rustle of the
>leaves and the creek nearby with no sirens or kids yelling is a major
>reason I go up there. Since I am about 20 miles out of cell phone range
>at that point and probably at least 5 miles from any random human
>presence why would I risk breaking a leg that far out?
>Your argument holds about as much water as a sieve after 5 minutes with me.
>Bill Baka
>
>
>> 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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Bill]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:42:27 GMT, Bill >
> wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On 10 Jul 2006 14:27:14 GMT, Chris Foster
>>> > wrote:
>>>> Hey Bill,
>>>> I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please."
>>> He's a mountain biker, isn't he? They don't practice what they preach.
>>> I think you did the same thing.
>>>
>> I am a mountain biker only in the sense that I am a traffic and people
>> avoider, not a teenage hooligan out to destroy everything in sight. I
>> stop to move snakes off the road or trail, whichever, although
>> rattlesnakes have much worse attitudes about my benevolence.
>> I could not gather a bunch of same age (57) year old riders to go out
>> and help me tear up the trail if I tried so who you kidding? I go way
>> the hell out up in the mountains so that I can not hear any sign of
>> human made noise at all,
>
> Can't you WALK? If you want to get away from the city, why do you
> bring it with you?! You guys make no sense whatsoever.

Yes I can walk, but not 30 miles just to get to the hiking site. Once I
get there, where the cars can't continue, I still don't want to just
leave my bike unattended. There are a few unscrupulous individuals that
may steal the bike, but more red neck hunters that might just use it for
target practice. Every time I get too trusting of my fellow man, I get
screwed somehow. Personal encounters usually (not always) go well, but
there seems to be something about leaving something of value with nobody
watching it that brings out the worst in people. The hike to the
waterfall is about 2, maybe 3 miles of serious uphill so not many people
make it. I can ride about half to maybe 2/3 of that and have to drag or
better yet carry the bike when I go there. I will leave the bike on the
deer path just beyond the waterfall because most people are too fried to
follow that one, which has a 45 degree angle on the hill side I am
walking on (read, slip and nasty fall down to the water over rocks). I
have hiked that all the way out of the preserve and into the next
county, stopping only at a very serious looking cable across the creek
with big "No trespassing" signs very prolifically placed.
Nice long hike with minimal bike to get there. I know I am hiking on the
deer trail and it is not a people trail but it is the farthest back into
nature I can get starting from home with a bike and not a car.
Bill Baka

>
> and I have better hearing than most 18 year
>> olds, not a brag because I avoided discos when they were in so I didn't
>> damage my hearing. Being in the woods and only hearing the rustle of the
>> leaves and the creek nearby with no sirens or kids yelling is a major
>> reason I go up there. Since I am about 20 miles out of cell phone range
>> at that point and probably at least 5 miles from any random human
>> presence why would I risk breaking a leg that far out?
>> Your argument holds about as much water as a sieve after 5 minutes with me.
>> Bill Baka
>>
>>
>>> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Chris Foster]

Mike Vandeman > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:26:09 GMT, Bill >
> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:04:30 GMT, Bill >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Let Vandeman fade out please. I don't have a Ph.D. in bicycling but
>>>> I know that if I ride conservatively and don't tear up the trail
>>>> like some
>>>> sugar hyped teenager I am actually doing 'LESS' damage than a
>>>> hiker
>>>> dragging his feet.
>>>
>>> Hikers don't drag their feet. DUH!
>>
>>I have done a lot of hiking and have seen families with over active
>>kids kicking up everything in sight or throwing it. That is more the
>>point of what I meant.
>
> I'm sule mountain bikers' kids are no different. But we are talking
> about adults. The SCIENCE proves that mountain biking does far more
> damage than hiking.


So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:

1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to
trails than other users.

2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.

3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.

4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.

5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.

6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
though in some cases hikers have more impact.

7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.

8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers,
are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!).

Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in
fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly.



>
>>Do you want 'adults only' trails? Even with adults I have seen them
>>start out with a six pack of beer for 'hydration' and return with no
>>cans packed out. It seems like you are selectively "Choosing your
>>poison.". Bill Baka
>>>
>>>> FWIW, high I.Q. and no Ph.D. trumps Ph.D. and Forrest Gump I.Q.,
>>>> period. Bill Baka, not impressed by a piece of paper.
>>>>
>>>> P.S. I did go to college, but in a different field.
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Chris Foster]

Mike Vandeman > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:25:31 -0700, SMS >
> wrote:
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
>>
>>The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the
>>evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and
>>mountain biking is about the same.
>>
>>If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it
>>deserves a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any.
>>You'd think that after all these years of mountain biking, someone
>>would have come up with some evidence if there were any. But they
>>haven't and there isn't.
>
> I have. And most people don't care, because to them it's OBVIOUS that
> mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.


So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:

1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to
trails than other users.

2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.

3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.

4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.

5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.

6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
though in some cases hikers have more impact.

7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.

8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers,
are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!).

Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in
fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly.





> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Chris Foster]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in
news:CrSdnTkI17JgGy3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@prairiewave. com:

>
> "Bill" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> Great story. I remember MANY years ago, Prodigy had these bulletin
>>> board things, and there was one character who always signed his name
>>> ____ so & so, PhD. It wasn't a pre-typed sig FILE; he just added it
>>> to every single post he made. He also referred often to it in his
>>> comments, even though he wasn't a computer sciences expert by any
>>> means. ("As a DOCTOR..." "you're not a DOCTOR", etc.) It was
>>> pathetically humorous, or humorously pathetic; not sure which.
>>>
>>> Sorni
>> Good for you.
>> Anything that stomps these guys ego is worth the bother. Many get the
>> Ph.D. just by showing up for school 8 years in a row after college.
>> Could it be that the parents are glad to pay tuition to get the
>> dip**** out of the house?
>
> Actually, by the time you get a Ph.D. you are most likely one of the
> humblest persons in the world because you truly know what you don't
> know. That is something that Bill Baka need never concern himself
> with. An ignoramus like him always think he knows all there is to know
> and what he doesn't know is not worth knowing.

Thanks Ed!





>
> Bill Baka is a very dark and mysterious person indeed. I think he may
> be an Australian aborigine who has somehow landed in California.
> Anyone on the newsgroup have a picture of him? I know he is ugly, but
> just how ugly - yea, that is the question!
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com