The Psychology of Mountain Biking

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

The Psychology of Mountain Biking
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
January 24, 2000

“Violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: I is
necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most
intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge
in falsehood. … Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his method
must inexorably choose falsehood as his principle.” Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn

For a psychologist, mountain biking is a fascinating phenomenon.

Lying

The first thing one notices about mountain bikers is that they lie
continually! For someone from my generation, raised to tell the truth
at all times, this is puzzling. Surely, they must know that everyone,
at least all those who aren't mountain bikers, can easily see through
them! For example, Oakland Councilwoman Nancy Nadel caught Eric
Muhler, President of the Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay,
publicly claiming that mountain biking in Joaquin Miller Park has
caused hardly any erosion! One look at Alec Karp's photographs of the
park is all it would take to know that he was lying. Similarly, the
vice president of ROMP ("Responsible Organized Mountain Pedalers"),
Patty Ciesla, was caught red-handed building an illegal trail.

Their favorite lie, of course, is that land managers who ban off-road
biking are banning mountain bikers. Actually, it is only their bikes
that are banned! It would be impossible to ban mountain bikers even if
we wanted to, since they don't look different from anyone else.

And they aren't doing their already rotten image much good. Since none
of them ever admit lying, we can only guess at their motivation. The
best that I have been able to come up with is that they don't believe
that they can justify their selfish, destructive sport except by
lying. Well, … yes, of course! Since mountain biking destroys wildlife
habitat, drives away wildlife and other trail users, and benefits only
the mountain bikers, it is hard to see how anyone can justify allowing
mountain biking in any natural area.

Similarly, it is hard to explain why land managers lie so frequently,
when asked why they allow mountain biking. For example, a ranger at
China Camp State Park told me that mountain biking is causing "no
erosion". An equestrian familiar with the park then told me that the
bikers were "turning the trails into powder"! I guess that the land
managers are afraid to admit that they have allowed political
pressure -- or, in some cases, free trail maintenance provided by the
mountain bikers -- to cloud their better judgment.

Mountain Biking as an Addiction

Recently I suddenly realized why this pattern seemed so familiar:
they act exactly like the drug addicts that I knew when I worked with
Synanon Foundation! They demonstrate the same willingness to take
enormous risks, just to continue their "habit". They risk their image,
their job, their relationships, their freedom, even their life, just
to continue seeking the ultimate "high". Many subscribe to mountain
biking mailing lists at work, risking losing their job. Thousands risk
arrest and fines for riding illegally or even building illegal trails
on public and private land. The "Sedona Five" took advantage of a
temporary closure of Grand Canyon National Park to ride down the North
Kaibab Trail, which is closed to bikes (and got arrested). Taking
serious risks to continue a habit of doubtful value is the best
indicator of a true addiction. In mountain biking newsgroups they
exchange stories about their latest "high" (riding "sweet
singletrack"), with extra points given for experiences that were
dangerous, illegal, or both.

When caught riding on trails closed to bikes, in my experience, they
lie ("I didn't know it is closed" -- but they don't offer to leave!),
threaten ("I'm going to bust your head"), and even physically attack
whoever tells them to leave the closed area (one biker rode back up
the trail, turned around, and then rode into the guy who had told him
the trail is closed, as fast as he could, knocking him bloody). That
is a lot of risk to take, just in order to ride one trail illegally!
And a good sign that they are addicted. Indeed, many of them, in their
discussions on the Internet, describe mountain biking as an
"addiction".

Mountain Biking as an Image Enhancer

Another psychological factor, of course, is the image boost that the
sport and its accoutrements give to rebellious young people, just as
racing bikes did for an earlier generation (hardly any of whom
actually raced!). The knobby tires and "hardened" frames clearly say
"I'm tough. Don't cross me!" The names attached to the bikes and tires
("Velociraptor", "Omega-Bite", "Incisor") reinforce that image, as do
the photos in mountain bike magazines of bikers flying through the air
(getting "big air"). These bikes are clearly intended to indicate that
they will help you "conquer nature" (while, ironically, actually
insuring that you will have even less contact with that nature, due to
their speed, lack of contact with the ground, and suspension
systems!).

Narcissism

Closely related to image is their narcissism: they apparently have no
awareness of, or interest in, the welfare or feelings of the wildlife
and people around them. Hikers who are young or elderly, and are
afraid of being hit, are ignored or termed "unreasonable". People who
say that they go to parks to experience peace and tranquility, and to
get away from all signs of civilization, are called "selfish".
Mountain bikers want to ride on trails that are as narrow as possible
-- exactly the trails that are too narrow to accommodate both bikers
and other trail users!

Cognitive Dissonance

Yet another factor explaining their insistence on biking at all
costs, even at the risk of getting arrested, is embodied in the
psychological term "Cognitive Dissonance": after spending often more
than $3000 for their bike, it would be very embarrassing and
upsetting if they had nowhere to ride it!

Perhaps this explains why, after years of talking about how they are
going to put an end to the erosion damage, illegal riding, and illegal
trail building in Joaquin Miller Park, the mountain bikers are
continuing all of those activities unabated.

Monomania

All land management plans are evaluated by a single criterion: do
they provide "sweet" (attractive), "technical" (difficult to ride)
"singletrack" (narrow trails)? The President could be about to
designate a million acres of new wilderness, but they don't care. All
they care about is "will I be allowed to mountain bike there?" (in
wilderness, no).

Laziness

Why ride a bike, when you can walk? Only because you can get to your
destination a lot faster and with a lot less energy. In spite of their
muscular, "hard-body" appearance, mountain bikers are lazy! "People
who must ride on sumthin' to get into the back country are essentially
lazy" (Larry Kralj).

Bad Role Modelling

Mountain biking also provides very bad role modeling for our children.
Whether or not a bike is ever ridden off-road, any child looking at
one will get the impression that it is used to tear up wildlife
habitat, and that this is okay.

Paradox

Mountain bikers claim to want just what we all want -- the experience
of nature in all her pristine glory. However, the very fact that they
ride on a bike denies them that experience! They move too fast to
truly experience what they are seeing. They have to pay attention to
their "driving", to avoid crashing. They are insulated from feeling
the ground by distance, tires, and expensive suspension systems. And
they (in common with other trail users, of course, although to a much
greater degree) destroy nature in the very act of "appreciating" it.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Feb 1, 5:27*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> The Psychology of Mountain Biking
> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.

That kook? He's ****ed his reputation so thoroughly that nobody is
ever likely to believe a word he says ever again.

The last significant moment in Mike Vandeman's life was when he was
voted "kook of the month" - it's all been downhill since then.
--
Guy

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
The Psychology of Mountain Biking
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
January 24, 2000


Ten f---ing years you've been posting this bull****!

I could post, "The psychology of a maniac," and make it fresh each year with
qoutes from you. Crap! I could do it weekly and have new material each time.
Well, the qoutes would be fresh, but the material wouldn't change very much.

And, we've proven your material to be false almost every time you post it.
You have no clue the psychology of anybody, and for having a PhD in
psychology, being clueless takes considerable effort. If you put half as
much effort into getting a clue as you do in remaining clueless, more of
your peers would actually pay attention to you. And just maybe the Sierra
Club would let you back into their good graces, from which you've been
barred for as long as you've been posting this crap.

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
> ...
> The Psychology of Mountain Biking
> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> January 24, 2000
>
>
> Ten f---ing years you've been posting this bull****!

Read it and weep, you god damn ****ing asshole!

> I could post, "The psychology of a maniac," and make it fresh each year
> with qoutes from you. Crap! I could do it weekly and have new material
> each time. Well, the qoutes would be fresh, but the material wouldn't
> change very much.

The only crap being posted here is by you.

> And, we've proven your material to be false almost every time you post it.
> You have no clue the psychology of anybody, and for having a PhD in
> psychology, being clueless takes considerable effort. If you put half as
> much effort into getting a clue as you do in remaining clueless, more of
> your peers would actually pay attention to you.

Mike Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the harm that mountain
biking does. On the other hand, Jeff Strickland is the foremost expert
asshole on nothing at all.

And just maybe the Sierra
> Club would let you back into their good graces, from which you've been
> barred for as long as you've been posting this crap.

The Sierra Club is not the last word in protecting natural areas.

****ing Regards,

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

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Feb 2, 2:24*am, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:


> Mike Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the harm that mountain
> biking does.

No, he's the *only* "expert" - nobody else gives a flying ****,
including the wilderness agencies. They are, however, concerned about
wildfires (caused mainly by hikers) and offroad motor vehicles (which
Vandeman has never once condemned as far as I can tell).

And you, you coffin dodger, said you had Alzheimers, what, five years
ago? Time your nurse cut off your internet access.
--
Guy

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Mike Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the harm that
> mountain biking does. On the other hand, Jeff Strickland is the foremost
> expert asshole on nothing at all.
>

He pulls **** out of his ass, and you call him a good doctor. Anybody can
pull **** out of their ass, this does not make them an authority.

Pure mathematics says that if Mike was 100% effective in his agenda to ban
mountain bikes, he would manage to protect and preserve 0.04% of the
environment, and that's being generous by an order of magnitude.

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Mike Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the harm that
>> mountain biking does. On the other hand, Jeff Strickland is the foremost
>> expert asshole on nothing at all.
>
> He pulls **** out of his ass, and you call him a good doctor. Anybody can
> pull **** out of their ass, this does not make them an authority.

That is all you do is pull **** out of your dumb ass. Get back to me when
you have earned a Ph.D in a natural science like Mike Vandeman has.

> Pure mathematics says that if Mike was 100% effective in his agenda to ban
> mountain bikes, he would manage to protect and preserve 0.04% of the
> environment, and that's being generous by an order of magnitude.

Yes, there is damn little left of the natural environment. All the more
reason to protect and preserve what little is left and not have it further
degraded by mountain biking.

Regards,

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

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 2, 2:24 am, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:

> Mike Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the harm that
> mountain
> biking does.

>> No, he's the *only* "expert" - nobody else gives a flying ****,
including the wilderness agencies. They are, however, concerned about
wildfires (caused mainly by hikers) and offroad motor vehicles (which
Vandeman has never once condemned as far as I can tell).

Hikers care. Off-road motor vehicles are seldom found on hiking trails,
unlike mountain bikes. Most wildfires are caused by lightning strikes,
except in Southern California where they are sometimes caused by arsonists.

>> And you, you coffin dodger, said you had Alzheimers, what, five years
ago? Time your nurse cut off your internet access.

**** you too!

Regards,

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

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
> That is all you do is pull **** out of your dumb ass. Get back to me when
> you have earned a Ph.D in a natural science like Mike Vandeman has.
>

Which natural science does Mike hold a PhD in? Not environmental studies,
that's for damn sure.



>> Pure mathematics says that if Mike was 100% effective in his agenda to
>> ban mountain bikes, he would manage to protect and preserve 0.04% of the
>> environment, and that's being generous by an order of magnitude.
>
> Yes, there is damn little left of the natural environment. All the more
> reason to protect and preserve what little is left and not have it further
> degraded by mountain biking.
>

If all there was left was a tennis court sized plot, Mike would be lucky to
save a letter-sized sheet of paper of it if he was 100% effective in his
goal. He's a poser.

He's also a loser, which is why he has to use a bot to scan the Internet for
news stories of "mountain bike" to tell the rest of the world that a person
with heart desease and severe coronary blockage died while riding his
mountain bike to the store for more potato chips and beer.

[ACAR]

On Feb 2, 11:40*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
snip
>
>Off-road motor vehicles are seldom found on hiking trails...

you are claiming that off road motorcycles and snow machines, as well
as other motor vehicles, are seldom found on hiking trails;
what justification do you have for saying this?
you are aware that motor vehicles are able to operate on hiking trails
far from trail heads and easy detection, right?

[Edward Dolan]

"ACAR" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 2, 11:40 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
snip
>
>Off-road motor vehicles are seldom found on hiking trails...

>> you are claiming that off road motorcycles and snow machines, as well
as other motor vehicles, are seldom found on hiking trails;
what justification do you have for saying this?
you are aware that motor vehicles are able to operate on hiking trails
far from trail heads and easy detection, right?

I have hiked thousands of miles on hiking trails over a period of 30 years
and never encountered any motor vehicles.

Regards,

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

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> That is all you do is pull **** out of your dumb ass. Get back to me when
>> you have earned a Ph.D in a natural science like Mike Vandeman has.
>>
>
> Which natural science does Mike hold a PhD in? Not environmental studies,
> that's for damn sure.
>
>>> Pure mathematics says that if Mike was 100% effective in his agenda to
>>> ban mountain bikes, he would manage to protect and preserve 0.04% of the
>>> environment, and that's being generous by an order of magnitude.
>>
>> Yes, there is damn little left of the natural environment. All the more
>> reason to protect and preserve what little is left and not have it
>> further degraded by mountain biking.
>>
>
> If all there was left was a tennis court sized plot, Mike would be lucky
> to save a letter-sized sheet of paper of it if he was 100% effective in
> his goal. He's a poser.
>
> He's also a loser, which is why he has to use a bot to scan the Internet
> for news stories of "mountain bike" to tell the rest of the world that a
> person with heart desease and severe coronary blockage died while riding
> his mountain bike to the store for more potato chips and beer.

Mountain biking on hiking trails is dangerous. Only a fool would deny it.
There are tens of thousands of miles of fire roads and jeep trails that are
suitable for mountain biking. They do not belong on hiking trails.

Regards,

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

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ACAR" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Feb 2, 11:40 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> snip
>>
>>Off-road motor vehicles are seldom found on hiking trails...
>
>>> you are claiming that off road motorcycles and snow machines, as well
> as other motor vehicles, are seldom found on hiking trails;
> what justification do you have for saying this?
> you are aware that motor vehicles are able to operate on hiking trails
> far from trail heads and easy detection, right?
>
> I have hiked thousands of miles on hiking trails over a period of 30 years
> and never encountered any motor vehicles.
>
>

I have motor-vehicled thousands of miles over 10 years and encountered
hundreds of hikers, most of them stop to watch the antics of Jeeps crawling
over the same rocks they just hiked across, or were getting ready to hike
across. Or go around.

I never drove on hiking trails, but plenty of hikers walk on driving trails.

I was once the Adopt-A-Trail leader for my group, we did trail maintenance
in the National Forest that the forest rangers had no budget to maintain.
Due to my work and others that do the same kind of volunteer work, you have
thousands of miles of routes open and maintained for your enjoyment. The
routes that people like me provide free labor to keep open and maintained so
****heads like you to bitch about sharing routes that would otherwise be
CLOSED. Don't thank me, just enjoy the hike and think about the free labor
that's involved in providing it to you.

Morons like you and Vandeman would close off-road routes that have been on
the ground for a century or more and claim the environment is harmed --
despite the fact that in a century or more the environment has not been
harmed beyond the roadbed of the route. Clearly, the route itself alters the
environment, but alteration and harm are not the same thing. And volunteers
that provide the labor and resources necessary to repair the ancillary harm
so that you can sit on your fat ass until you feel like going outside should
be rewarded for their efforts by keeping the routes open for everybody
instead of just you.

Vandeman makes stuff up as he goes along, and his peers (except you) reject
him out of hand. Get a life.

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> That is all you do is pull **** out of your dumb ass. Get back to me
>>> when you have earned a Ph.D in a natural science like Mike Vandeman has.
>>>
>>
>> Which natural science does Mike hold a PhD in? Not environmental studies,
>> that's for damn sure.
>>
>>>> Pure mathematics says that if Mike was 100% effective in his agenda to
>>>> ban mountain bikes, he would manage to protect and preserve 0.04% of
>>>> the environment, and that's being generous by an order of magnitude.
>>>
>>> Yes, there is damn little left of the natural environment. All the more
>>> reason to protect and preserve what little is left and not have it
>>> further degraded by mountain biking.
>>>
>>
>> If all there was left was a tennis court sized plot, Mike would be lucky
>> to save a letter-sized sheet of paper of it if he was 100% effective in
>> his goal. He's a poser.
>>
>> He's also a loser, which is why he has to use a bot to scan the Internet
>> for news stories of "mountain bike" to tell the rest of the world that a
>> person with heart desease and severe coronary blockage died while riding
>> his mountain bike to the store for more potato chips and beer.
>
> Mountain biking on hiking trails is dangerous.

So what? Driving on the freeway is dangerous, only a fool would deny it yet
everybody does it.




Only a fool would deny it.
> There are tens of thousands of miles of fire roads and jeep trails that
> are suitable for mountain biking. They do not belong on hiking trails.
>

Maybe, but that's not the topic.

Vandeman reported a guy that was riding on a automobile route and rode off
the cliff. He doesn't care where the bike was being ridden, he reports the
danger anyhow.

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "ACAR" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Feb 2, 11:40 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
>> snip
>>>
>>>Off-road motor vehicles are seldom found on hiking trails...
>>
>>>> you are claiming that off road motorcycles and snow machines, as well
>> as other motor vehicles, are seldom found on hiking trails;
>> what justification do you have for saying this?
>> you are aware that motor vehicles are able to operate on hiking trails
>> far from trail heads and easy detection, right?
>>
>> I have hiked thousands of miles on hiking trails over a period of 30
>> years and never encountered any motor vehicles.
>>
>>
>
> I have motor-vehicled thousands of miles over 10 years and encountered
> hundreds of hikers, most of them stop to watch the antics of Jeeps
> crawling over the same rocks they just hiked across, or were getting ready
> to hike across. Or go around.
>
> I never drove on hiking trails, but plenty of hikers walk on driving
> trails.

So what? Hikers can't harm jeep roads, but jeeps sure as hell can harm
hiking trails.

> I was once the Adopt-A-Trail leader for my group, we did trail maintenance
> in the National Forest that the forest rangers had no budget to maintain.
> Due to my work and others that do the same kind of volunteer work, you
> have thousands of miles of routes open and maintained for your enjoyment.
> The routes that people like me provide free labor to keep open and
> maintained so ****heads like you to bitch about sharing routes that would
> otherwise be CLOSED. Don't thank me, just enjoy the hike and think about
> the free labor that's involved in providing it to you.

Hiking trails are for hikers. Fire roads are for mountain bikes.

> Morons like you and Vandeman would close off-road routes that have been on
> the ground for a century or more and claim the environment is harmed --
> despite the fact that in a century or more the environment has not been
> harmed beyond the roadbed of the route. Clearly, the route itself alters
> the environment, but alteration and harm are not the same thing. And
> volunteers that provide the labor and resources necessary to repair the
> ancillary harm so that you can sit on your fat ass until you feel like
> going outside should be rewarded for their efforts by keeping the routes
> open for everybody instead of just you.

Mr. Vandeman is a purist, I am not. As far as I am concerned, once a road
has been established, it has already ruined all natural and wilderness
values. In the main, the less roads, the better. In any event, mountain
bikes belong on roads, not hiking trails.

> Vandeman makes stuff up as he goes along, and his peers (except you)
> reject him out of hand. Get a life.

Mr. Vandeman is genius (as well as being a scholar and a gentleman) compared
to the likes of you and your ilk.

Regards,

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

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
[...]
>> Mountain biking on hiking trails is dangerous.
>
> So what? Driving on the freeway is dangerous, only a fool would deny it
> yet everybody does it.

There is never any reason for a mountain bike to be on a hiking trail.

> Only a fool would deny it.
>> There are tens of thousands of miles of fire roads and jeep trails that
>> are suitable for mountain biking. They do not belong on hiking trails.
>>
>
> Maybe, but that's not the topic.

But that is exactly the topic.

> Vandeman reported a guy that was riding on a automobile route and rode off
> the cliff. He doesn't care where the bike was being ridden, he reports the
> danger anyhow.

Well, that is because he does not like mountain bikes on hiking trails, the
same as I don't. He has had plenty of extremely unpleasant encounters with
mountain bikers on hiking trails. I generally hike strictly in Wilderness
Areas or in the National Parks and so I avoid mountain bikers that way.
Frankly, I am delighted every time a mountain biker manages to kill himself.
I say good riddance to bad rubbish.

Regards,

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

[ACAR]

On Feb 3, 7:30*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
snip
>
> I have hiked thousands of miles on hiking trails over a period of 30 years
> and never encountered any motor vehicles.
>

Well, then I guess the problem doesn't exist.
Never mind.

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Vandeman reported a guy that was riding on a automobile route and rode
>> off the cliff. He doesn't care where the bike was being ridden, he
>> reports the danger anyhow.
>
> Well, that is because he does not like mountain bikes on hiking trails,
> the same as I don't. He has had plenty of extremely unpleasant encounters
> with mountain bikers on hiking trails. I generally hike strictly in
> Wilderness Areas or in the National Parks and so I avoid mountain bikers
> that way. Frankly, I am delighted every time a mountain biker manages to
> kill himself. I say good riddance to bad rubbish.


Mike would have an unpleasant experience at McDonalds, he attracts
unpleasant experiences. Mike takes great pains to create an unpleasant
experience where one would not exist unless he made it. He has zero
credibility. Your credibillity is sliding.

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> Vandeman reported a guy that was riding on a automobile route and rode
>>> off the cliff. He doesn't care where the bike was being ridden, he
>>> reports the danger anyhow.
>>
>> Well, that is because he does not like mountain bikes on hiking trails,
>> the same as I don't. He has had plenty of extremely unpleasant encounters
>> with mountain bikers on hiking trails. I generally hike strictly in
>> Wilderness Areas or in the National Parks and so I avoid mountain bikers
>> that way. Frankly, I am delighted every time a mountain biker manages to
>> kill himself. I say good riddance to bad rubbish.
>
>
> Mike would have an unpleasant experience at McDonalds, he attracts
> unpleasant experiences. Mike takes great pains to create an unpleasant
> experience where one would not exist unless he made it. He has zero
> credibility. Your credibillity is sliding.

Mr. Vandeman does not go through life as a poor lost lamb like the rest of
us.

Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and concerning yourself with
credibility, you need to tell us why you think mountain bikes should be on
hiking trails. That is the only issue for me.

Regards,

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

[VtSkier[_2_]]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> Vandeman reported a guy that was riding on a automobile route and rode
>>>> off the cliff. He doesn't care where the bike was being ridden, he
>>>> reports the danger anyhow.
>>> Well, that is because he does not like mountain bikes on hiking trails,
>>> the same as I don't. He has had plenty of extremely unpleasant encounters
>>> with mountain bikers on hiking trails. I generally hike strictly in
>>> Wilderness Areas or in the National Parks and so I avoid mountain bikers
>>> that way. Frankly, I am delighted every time a mountain biker manages to
>>> kill himself. I say good riddance to bad rubbish.
>>
>> Mike would have an unpleasant experience at McDonalds, he attracts
>> unpleasant experiences. Mike takes great pains to create an unpleasant
>> experience where one would not exist unless he made it. He has zero
>> credibility. Your credibillity is sliding.
>
> Mr. Vandeman does not go through life as a poor lost lamb like the rest of
> us.
>
> Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and concerning yourself with
> credibility, you need to tell us why you think mountain bikes should be on
> hiking trails. That is the only issue for me.

Dear Ed,
This may be your only issue, but it is
clearly NOT Mr. Vandeman's only issue.
I for one agree that wheeled vehicles,
motorized or not should not be on
hiking trails.

Mr. Vandeman thinks, and has stated on
numerous occasions, that mountain bikes
specifically, and by extension, all
wheeled vehicles, should be limited to
pavement. That is as absurd as it is
impossible to implement. Think about it.
The town has not paved my road. Therefore
I should park my car at the pavement head
and hike in.

As for ad-homs, I agree that they are
"feeding the troll" and should be avoided.

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

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>> Vandeman reported a guy that was riding on a automobile route and rode
>>>> off the cliff. He doesn't care where the bike was being ridden, he
>>>> reports the danger anyhow.
>>>
>>> Well, that is because he does not like mountain bikes on hiking trails,
>>> the same as I don't. He has had plenty of extremely unpleasant
>>> encounters with mountain bikers on hiking trails. I generally hike
>>> strictly in Wilderness Areas or in the National Parks and so I avoid
>>> mountain bikers that way. Frankly, I am delighted every time a mountain
>>> biker manages to kill himself. I say good riddance to bad rubbish.
>>
>>
>> Mike would have an unpleasant experience at McDonalds, he attracts
>> unpleasant experiences. Mike takes great pains to create an unpleasant
>> experience where one would not exist unless he made it. He has zero
>> credibility. Your credibillity is sliding.
>
> Mr. Vandeman does not go through life as a poor lost lamb like the rest of
> us.
>
> Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and concerning yourself with
> credibility, you need to tell us why you think mountain bikes should be on
> hiking trails. That is the only issue for me.
>

I don't think they should be on hiking trails, but I also don't think -- as
Vandeman does -- that they should not be on any trails at all. If some bikes
appear on a hiking-only trail, then that's a policing matter not an
environmental one. Mike doesn't give a rat's ass about the bikes on hiking
trails or bikes on bike trails, he wants all bikes to remain on the street.

Mike is not any sort of environmentalist that deserves to know the time of
day if he hasn't got his own watch strapped to his arm. He is a fraud. He is
rejected by far more true environmentalists than he's accepted by. He thinks
nothing of selective research and conditional conclusions, and he is
perfectly willing to apply results of isolated and unique situations to all
instances.

He would describe any change of habitat as damage, then say that the entire
habitat is destroyed no matter how slight and confined the changes was, even
if the change was naturally occurring and would have happened regardless of
human activity and the change is transitory in its nature. In short, Mike is
a liar. He may lie for noble reasons, but he's a liar nonetheless. And
frequently, his lies are not only blatant, but easily disproved, yet you
hold him up as some sort genius.

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"VtSkier" > wrote in message
...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> Vandeman reported a guy that was riding on a automobile route and rode
>>>>> off the cliff. He doesn't care where the bike was being ridden, he
>>>>> reports the danger anyhow.
>>>> Well, that is because he does not like mountain bikes on hiking trails,
>>>> the same as I don't. He has had plenty of extremely unpleasant
>>>> encounters with mountain bikers on hiking trails. I generally hike
>>>> strictly in Wilderness Areas or in the National Parks and so I avoid
>>>> mountain bikers that way. Frankly, I am delighted every time a mountain
>>>> biker manages to kill himself. I say good riddance to bad rubbish.
>>>
>>> Mike would have an unpleasant experience at McDonalds, he attracts
>>> unpleasant experiences. Mike takes great pains to create an unpleasant
>>> experience where one would not exist unless he made it. He has zero
>>> credibility. Your credibillity is sliding.
>>
>> Mr. Vandeman does not go through life as a poor lost lamb like the rest
>> of us.
>>
>> Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and concerning yourself with
>> credibility, you need to tell us why you think mountain bikes should be
>> on hiking trails. That is the only issue for me.
>
> Dear Ed,
> This may be your only issue, but it is
> clearly NOT Mr. Vandeman's only issue.
> I for one agree that wheeled vehicles,
> motorized or not should not be on
> hiking trails.
>

Not only is it not Vandeman's only issue, it's not even one of his main
issues.

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
[...]
>> Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and concerning yourself with
>> credibility, you need to tell us why you think mountain bikes should be
>> on hiking trails. That is the only issue for me.
>>
>
> I don't think they should be on hiking trails, but I also don't think --
> as Vandeman does -- that they should not be on any trails at all. If some
> bikes appear on a hiking-only trail, then that's a policing matter not an
> environmental one. Mike doesn't give a rat's ass about the bikes on hiking
> trails or bikes on bike trails, he wants all bikes to remain on the
> street.

Mr. Vandeman holds to an extremist position that no one will ever agree
with. However, his heart is in the right place. We would all be better off
if there were less roads and cars in the world. However, I can assure you
that both Mr. Vandeman and I do not want bikes on hiking trails. We both
care deeply about that!

> Mike is not any sort of environmentalist that deserves to know the time of
> day if he hasn't got his own watch strapped to his arm. He is a fraud. He
> is rejected by far more true environmentalists than he's accepted by. He
> thinks nothing of selective research and conditional conclusions, and he
> is perfectly willing to apply results of isolated and unique situations to
> all instances.
>
> He would describe any change of habitat as damage, then say that the
> entire habitat is destroyed no matter how slight and confined the changes
> was, even if the change was naturally occurring and would have happened
> regardless of human activity and the change is transitory in its nature.
> In short, Mike is a liar. He may lie for noble reasons, but he's a liar
> nonetheless. And frequently, his lies are not only blatant, but easily
> disproved, yet you hold him up as some sort genius.

It may be that he sincerely believes what he says. But what does it matter
since what he wants in toto is clearly beyond the realm of possibility.

Mr. Vandeman has gone far beyond where you and I would go. He has in fact
become an expert on the harm that mountain bikes do to hiking trails and
natural areas on many different levels. It does not hurt us to be confronted
with extremist views on a subject. Such views help us to clarify our own
thinking.

I really do not have much of an argument with you. After all, you have
worked on improving hiking trails. That is as good as you can get for me. It
tells me that you value something in life besides roads and cars. Keep up
the good work!

Regards,

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

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> [...]
>>> Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and concerning yourself with
>>> credibility, you need to tell us why you think mountain bikes should be
>>> on hiking trails. That is the only issue for me.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think they should be on hiking trails, but I also don't think --
>> as Vandeman does -- that they should not be on any trails at all. If some
>> bikes appear on a hiking-only trail, then that's a policing matter not an
>> environmental one. Mike doesn't give a rat's ass about the bikes on
>> hiking trails or bikes on bike trails, he wants all bikes to remain on
>> the street.
>
> Mr. Vandeman holds to an extremist position that no one will ever agree
> with. However, his heart is in the right place. We would all be better off
> if there were less roads and cars in the world. However, I can assure you
> that both Mr. Vandeman and I do not want bikes on hiking trails. We both
> care deeply about that!
>

I appreciate where YOU don't want bikes, but you can be sure that Mike does
not share the same limitations that you have imposed upon yourself.



>> Mike is not any sort of environmentalist that deserves to know the time
>> of day if he hasn't got his own watch strapped to his arm. He is a fraud.
>> He is rejected by far more true environmentalists than he's accepted by.
>> He thinks nothing of selective research and conditional conclusions, and
>> he is perfectly willing to apply results of isolated and unique
>> situations to all instances.
>>
>> He would describe any change of habitat as damage, then say that the
>> entire habitat is destroyed no matter how slight and confined the changes
>> was, even if the change was naturally occurring and would have happened
>> regardless of human activity and the change is transitory in its nature.
>> In short, Mike is a liar. He may lie for noble reasons, but he's a liar
>> nonetheless. And frequently, his lies are not only blatant, but easily
>> disproved, yet you hold him up as some sort genius.
>
> It may be that he sincerely believes what he says. But what does it matter
> since what he wants in toto is clearly beyond the realm of possibility.
>
> Mr. Vandeman has gone far beyond where you and I would go. He has in fact
> become an expert on the harm that mountain bikes do to hiking trails and
> natural areas on many different levels. It does not hurt us to be
> confronted with extremist views on a subject. Such views help us to
> clarify our own thinking.
>

He is no more of an expert than the morons that ****ed up the global warming
science by hiding data and warping the results of the data they elected to
pick and choose from.

I'll tell how he hurts us by using an example from the global warming
alarmists. In California, we have a bill, AB-32, that addresses things the
state wants to do to combat warming and diesel pollution. I accept that the
cause is noble, but the sicence used to take aim at the agenda is seriously
flawed and the result of pursuing the cause will cost thousands of jobs and
millions of dollars just in California. The California Air Resources Board
has a guy on the payroll that was demoted to a 6-figure job -- he should
have been fired and jailed for the frauds he has perpetrated -- that got his
degree from a ficticious on-line university. He claims -- as Vandeman
does -- that his "research" shows harm that any rational person would have
to question, yet the government is using the research to shut down small
businesses and independent contractors to cure that "harm". Mike would not
shut down business, but he does claim non-existant or utterly insignificant
harm that the cure he would propose isn't proven to aleviate the harm he
asserts, and his cure would prevent the public right to visit public lands.

Mike is a fraud, just as the guy at CARB is a fraud.






> I really do not have much of an argument with you. After all, you have
> worked on improving hiking trails. That is as good as you can get for me.
> It tells me that you value something in life besides roads and cars. Keep
> up the good work!
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Feb 5, 7:42*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> [...]
> >> Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and concerning yourself with
> >> credibility, you need to tell us why you think mountain bikes should be
> >> on hiking trails. That is the only issue for me.
>
> > I don't think they should be on hiking trails, but I also don't think -- *
> > as Vandeman does -- that they should not be on any trails at all. If some
> > bikes appear on a hiking-only trail, then that's a policing matter not an
> > environmental one. Mike doesn't give a rat's ass about the bikes on hiking
> > trails or bikes on bike trails, he wants all bikes to remain on the
> > street.
>
> Mr. Vandeman holds to an extremist position that no one will ever agree
> with. However, his heart is in the right place. We would all be better off
> if there were less roads and cars in the world. However, I can assure you
> that both Mr. Vandeman and I do not want bikes on hiking trails. We both
> care deeply about that!
>
> > Mike is not any sort of environmentalist that deserves to know the time of
> > day if he hasn't got his own watch strapped to his arm. He is a fraud. He
> > is rejected by far more true environmentalists than he's accepted by. He
> > thinks nothing of selective research and conditional conclusions, and he
> > is perfectly willing to apply results of isolated and unique situations to
> > all instances.
>
> > He would describe any change of habitat as damage, then say that the
> > entire habitat is destroyed no matter how slight and confined the changes
> > was, even if the change was naturally occurring and would have happened
> > regardless of human activity and the change is transitory in its nature..
> > In short, Mike is a liar. He may lie for noble reasons, but he's a liar
> > nonetheless. And frequently, his lies are not only blatant, but easily
> > disproved, yet you hold him up as some sort genius.
>
> It may be that he sincerely believes what he says. But what does it matter
> since what he wants in toto is clearly *beyond the realm of possibility..
>
> Mr. Vandeman has gone far beyond where you and I would go. He has in fact
> become an expert on the harm that mountain bikes do to hiking trails and
> natural areas on many different levels. It does not hurt us to be confronted
> with extremist views on a subject. Such views help us to clarify our own
> thinking.
>
> I really do not have much of an argument with you. After all, you have
> worked on improving hiking trails. That is as good as you can get for me. It
> tells me that you value something in life besides roads and cars. Keep up
> the good work!
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Complete this sentence: "he who argues with morons ..."

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> I really do not have much of an argument with you. After all, you have
> worked on improving hiking trails. That is as good as you can get for me.
> It tells me that you value something in life besides roads and cars. Keep
> up the good work!
>


I missed this earlier ...

Thank you.

I respect the environment, and recognize that the uses that I avail myself
of do have an impact, and I'm willing and able to mitigate that impact
wherever possible. I actively encourage my friends to also help to mitigate
the impact.

Use of the environment and abuse of the environment are not the same thing.
I accept the idea that bikes should not be on hiking trails, but hiking
trails and biking trails frequently the same trail and everybody simply has
to figure out a way to get along. When the trails are segregated, then
bikers abusing the segregation are more problematic than hikers who abuse
the segregation, but the entire issue is a policing matter that requires a
policing remedy not a ban on bikes everywhere -- or motor vehicles
everywhere.

Mike calls for a blanket ban, you call for a selective ban. Of the two, I
can go along with the selective ban. But all trail users should show up in
early spring to assist the Park Service or Forest Service for a day of trail
maintenance to recover fromt he winter rains and snow melt runoff. These
natural causes of erosion are a far greater problem than the mere existance
of a route.

Personally, I think you should distance yourself from the likes of Mike
Vandeman. He's an extremist whack job that does nothing to help you with
your agenda, indeed he harms your agenda among the rational people that
might be inclined to agree with you. That's just my two-cents worth.

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I really do not have much of an argument with you. After all, you have
>> worked on improving hiking trails. That is as good as you can get for me.
>> It tells me that you value something in life besides roads and cars. Keep
>> up the good work!
>>
>
>
> I missed this earlier ...
>
> Thank you.
>
> I respect the environment, and recognize that the uses that I avail myself
> of do have an impact, and I'm willing and able to mitigate that impact
> wherever possible. I actively encourage my friends to also help to
> mitigate the impact.
>
> Use of the environment and abuse of the environment are not the same
> thing. I accept the idea that bikes should not be on hiking trails, but
> hiking trails and biking trails frequently the same trail and everybody
> simply has to figure out a way to get along. When the trails are
> segregated, then bikers abusing the segregation are more problematic than
> hikers who abuse the segregation, but the entire issue is a policing
> matter that requires a policing remedy not a ban on bikes everywhere -- or
> motor vehicles everywhere.

Hikers and bikers on single track trails simply don't mix. When these type
of conflicts exist, it is the bikers that should always be banned. Roads are
for cycling, trails are for hiking.

> Mike calls for a blanket ban, you call for a selective ban. Of the two, I
> can go along with the selective ban. But all trail users should show up in
> early spring to assist the Park Service or Forest Service for a day of
> trail maintenance to recover fromt he winter rains and snow melt runoff.
> These natural causes of erosion are a far greater problem than the mere
> existance of a route.

All trails will cause some erosion problems, even wildlife animal trails.

> Personally, I think you should distance yourself from the likes of Mike
> Vandeman. He's an extremist whack job that does nothing to help you with
> your agenda, indeed he harms your agenda among the rational people that
> might be inclined to agree with you. That's just my two-cents worth.

Mr. Vandeman is one of the few who is vehemently against mountain bikes on
hiking trails. As long as that is the case, I am on his side. His extremist
views do not intrude on this core issue, at least not in my mind.

Regards,

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

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Mr. Vandeman is one of the few who is vehemently against mountain bikes on
> hiking trails. As long as that is the case, I am on his side. His
> extremist views do not intrude on this core issue, at least not in my
> mind.
>

That's what I'm telling you, he's not against bikes on hiking trails, he
against bikes on any trails. Any. He's as good for your agenda as Jesse
Jackson is for the cause of the black community. You really need to give
Vandeman wide berth because he's going to close the trails to everything
that has rubber on the bottom, including your boots.

I respectfully disagree with some of the things you say and represent, but
Vandeman is a kook of the highest order and while I respect the stuff you
want -- even while I don't agree -- I have absolutely no respect for
Vandeman.

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Mr. Vandeman is one of the few who is vehemently against mountain bikes
>> on hiking trails. As long as that is the case, I am on his side. His
>> extremist views do not intrude on this core issue, at least not in my
>> mind.
>>
>
> That's what I'm telling you, he's not against bikes on hiking trails, he
> against bikes on any trails. Any. He's as good for your agenda as Jesse
> Jackson is for the cause of the black community. You really need to give
> Vandeman wide berth because he's going to close the trails to everything
> that has rubber on the bottom, including your boots.

Trails in national parks, wilderness areas and natural areas devoid of roads
need to be closed to mountain bikes. They have all the rest of the world to
ride in.

> I respectfully disagree with some of the things you say and represent, but
> Vandeman is a kook of the highest order and while I respect the stuff you
> want -- even while I don't agree -- I have absolutely no respect for
> Vandeman.

Well, that is too bad for you, because Mr. Vandeman is right as rain on many
issues, if not all issues. He is not a kook, merely a purist. He is an
idealist, you and I are not. We represent 99% of mankind, he represents 1%.
I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Regards,

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

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Mr. Vandeman is one of the few who is vehemently against mountain bikes
>>> on hiking trails. As long as that is the case, I am on his side. His
>>> extremist views do not intrude on this core issue, at least not in my
>>> mind.
>>>
>>
>> That's what I'm telling you, he's not against bikes on hiking trails, he
>> against bikes on any trails. Any. He's as good for your agenda as Jesse
>> Jackson is for the cause of the black community. You really need to give
>> Vandeman wide berth because he's going to close the trails to everything
>> that has rubber on the bottom, including your boots.
>
> Trails in national parks, wilderness areas and natural areas devoid of
> roads need to be closed to mountain bikes. They have all the rest of the
> world to ride in.
>

Sorry, I just do not agree.




>> I respectfully disagree with some of the things you say and represent,
>> but Vandeman is a kook of the highest order and while I respect the stuff
>> you want -- even while I don't agree -- I have absolutely no respect for
>> Vandeman.
>
> Well, that is too bad for you, because Mr. Vandeman is right as rain on
> many issues, if not all issues. He is not a kook, merely a purist. He is
> an idealist, you and I are not. We represent 99% of mankind, he represents
> 1%. I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
>

No, Vandeman is hardly ever right, and the very few things he is right
about, he's so far over the top that any rational person with the same goals
would not dare stand next to him. Just my two cents ...

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, that is too bad for you, because Mr. Vandeman is right as rain on
> many issues, if not all issues. He is not a kook, merely a purist. He is
> an idealist, you and I are not. We represent 99% of mankind, he represents
> 1%. I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
>

The fuss is that you give him the validity that he can't get anyplace else.

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Well, that is too bad for you, because Mr. Vandeman is right as rain on
>> many issues, if not all issues. He is not a kook, merely a purist. He is
>> an idealist, you and I are not. We represent 99% of mankind, he
>> represents 1%. I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
>
> The fuss is that you give him the validity that he can't get anyplace
> else.

I have to laugh! Mr. Vandeman circulates news items to a select group via
emails and he has many supporters almost as avid as he is. Some of these
folks that respond to him are extremely intelligent and write letters to
various land managers and park officials that are simply excellent. You
could learn a lot by reading those emails.

You can't go by what you see on Usenet. Usenet is mainly for idiots.

Regards,

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

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Well, that is too bad for you, because Mr. Vandeman is right as rain on
>>> many issues, if not all issues. He is not a kook, merely a purist. He is
>>> an idealist, you and I are not. We represent 99% of mankind, he
>>> represents 1%. I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
>>
>> The fuss is that you give him the validity that he can't get anyplace
>> else.
>
> I have to laugh! Mr. Vandeman circulates news items to a select group via
> emails and he has many supporters almost as avid as he is. Some of these
> folks that respond to him are extremely intelligent and write letters to
> various land managers and park officials that are simply excellent. You
> could learn a lot by reading those emails.
>
> You can't go by what you see on Usenet. Usenet is mainly for idiots.
>

Idiots, like Vandeman. I rest my case.

You should separate yourself from him. He's poison to any semblance of
reasonableness that you might possess. He won't stop with bikes, he has
stated many times that rubber is his issue, not bikes. Today, the rubber is
on a bike, but tomorrow the rubber is the soles of your boots.

Today you might see him as a leader of a cause you can get behind, but
tomorrow you will be behind a cause that would not exist were it not for the
efforts of people like him.

I get that you want a hiking trail to be a hiking trail. Vandeman wants to
close all trails because it's the trail itself that is the environmental
harm, not the uses that the trail is put to. You are making a holy
allegiance with the Devil. He is not your friend.

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Well, that is too bad for you, because Mr. Vandeman is right as rain on
>>>> many issues, if not all issues. He is not a kook, merely a purist. He
>>>> is an idealist, you and I are not. We represent 99% of mankind, he
>>>> represents 1%. I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
>>>
>>> The fuss is that you give him the validity that he can't get anyplace
>>> else.
>>
>> I have to laugh! Mr. Vandeman circulates news items to a select group via
>> emails and he has many supporters almost as avid as he is. Some of these
>> folks that respond to him are extremely intelligent and write letters to
>> various land managers and park officials that are simply excellent. You
>> could learn a lot by reading those emails.
>>
>> You can't go by what you see on Usenet. Usenet is mainly for idiots.
>>
>
> Idiots, like Vandeman. I rest my case.
>
> You should separate yourself from him. He's poison to any semblance of
> reasonableness that you might possess. He won't stop with bikes, he has
> stated many times that rubber is his issue, not bikes. Today, the rubber
> is on a bike, but tomorrow the rubber is the soles of your boots.
>
> Today you might see him as a leader of a cause you can get behind, but
> tomorrow you will be behind a cause that would not exist were it not for
> the efforts of people like him.
>
> I get that you want a hiking trail to be a hiking trail. Vandeman wants to
> close all trails because it's the trail itself that is the environmental
> harm, not the uses that the trail is put to. You are making a holy
> allegiance with the Devil. He is not your friend.

I do not think your above statement can possibly be correct. Mr. Vandeman is
an ardent hiker just like I am. He loves nature and the wild creatures. We
just do not want mountain bikers on hiking trails. Mr. Vandeman and I want
to access the wilderness, but only as hikers (walkers). Surely you can see
the sense of that.

I know exactly what I want on these issues. I do not go as far as Mr.
Vandeman does. But we are in agreement that mountain bikers should not be on
hiking trails. It is too bad you are fixated on some of his personal traits
and not on his central thrust.

It seems you also agree with us that mountain bikers should not be on hiking
trails. There are plenty of other types of pathways for them to be on. Jeep
roads are ideal for mountain bikers. Why not come over to the good side.
Most mountain bikers are just testosterone prone thugs who don't give a damn
about the wilderness or any natural values. All they care about is their
"sport".

You need to read the books of the great advocates of wilderness. It began
with Thoreau, but there are many others extending right up to the present
time. They are all excellent writers and make for enjoyable reading. You
will come away from such reading prepared to defend wilderness with all your
might. The Burns series on the National Parks on TV (PBS) is also pretty
good.

Mankind needs wilderness. After all, it is where we came from.

Regards,

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

[Tom Sherman °_°[_2_]]

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> [...]
> Personally, I think you should distance yourself from the likes of Mike
> Vandeman. He's an extremist whack job that does nothing to help you with
> your agenda, indeed he harms your agenda among the rational people that
> might be inclined to agree with you. That's just my two-cents worth.
>

Personally, I think Ed Dolan should distance himself from Ed Dolan. With
all due respect, Mr. Dolan is an extremist whack job who does nothing to
help himself with his agenda. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

[Moi-aussi]

>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>The Psychology of Mountain Biking
>Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
>January 24, 2000

>“Violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: I is
>necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most
>intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge
>in falsehood. …

....snip drivel...

Good lord, a freudian slip that is exceedingly appropriate! Now nobody can
say that he tells nothing but lies. Even though the slip causes the
statement to make a bit less sense and is grammatically incorrect, it is
very accurate. Since the twit advocates violence, I suppose it fits in with
the overall theme.

Wow Mikey, good on you for coming clean, even if it was unintentional:

I is necessarily interwoven with falsehood.

Now I know you were just quoting, and your original intention was different,
but isn't it fascinating how you managed to make it fit you to a tee?!?! It
is a very exciting breakthrough and you should be proud. The first step
toward fixing a problem is admitting you have it, as your therapist has no
doubt told you. Now, next time he gets you coloring with crayons, drawing
pictures of your dead cat that you irresponsibly let roam free, remembering
your childhood abuses received and given, making graphic illustrations of
those special night visits from uncle Herman, be sure to let him know about
this little slip of yours. Maybe it will lead somewhere or maybe not, but
you must at least try.

We're all rootin' for ya'!!!!

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, that is too bad for you, because Mr. Vandeman is right as rain
>>>>> on many issues, if not all issues. He is not a kook, merely a purist.
>>>>> He is an idealist, you and I are not. We represent 99% of mankind, he
>>>>> represents 1%. I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
>>>>
>>>> The fuss is that you give him the validity that he can't get anyplace
>>>> else.
>>>
>>> I have to laugh! Mr. Vandeman circulates news items to a select group
>>> via emails and he has many supporters almost as avid as he is. Some of
>>> these folks that respond to him are extremely intelligent and write
>>> letters to various land managers and park officials that are simply
>>> excellent. You could learn a lot by reading those emails.
>>>
>>> You can't go by what you see on Usenet. Usenet is mainly for idiots.
>>>
>>
>> Idiots, like Vandeman. I rest my case.
>>
>> You should separate yourself from him. He's poison to any semblance of
>> reasonableness that you might possess. He won't stop with bikes, he has
>> stated many times that rubber is his issue, not bikes. Today, the rubber
>> is on a bike, but tomorrow the rubber is the soles of your boots.
>>
>> Today you might see him as a leader of a cause you can get behind, but
>> tomorrow you will be behind a cause that would not exist were it not for
>> the efforts of people like him.
>>
>> I get that you want a hiking trail to be a hiking trail. Vandeman wants
>> to close all trails because it's the trail itself that is the
>> environmental harm, not the uses that the trail is put to. You are making
>> a holy allegiance with the Devil. He is not your friend.
>
> I do not think your above statement can possibly be correct. Mr. Vandeman
> is an ardent hiker just like I am. He loves nature and the wild creatures.
> We just do not want mountain bikers on hiking trails. Mr. Vandeman and I
> want to access the wilderness, but only as hikers (walkers). Surely you
> can see the sense of that.
>

Sorry, I don't see it at all. That's akin to saying that there should be a
separate highway system depending on how you elect to travel.

We don't have enough resources to give everybody their own trail system, and
doing so pretty much ruins the experience, not to mention the environment.
Shared resources is the only way to go.

When a specific trail is designated as hiking only -- there are lots of
reasons for such a designation, and lots of places where there is such a
designation -- then bikes should not be there, but when there is no
designation then the trail is by definition a multi-use trail and you just
have to learn to share. Of course, the bikes have to share too, which means
they need to give right-of-way and other common courtesies to hikers.

All I'm hearing is that Mike does not want to share. Too bad, so sad. I
wouldn't want to be him.




> I know exactly what I want on these issues. I do not go as far as Mr.
> Vandeman does. But we are in agreement that mountain bikers should not be
> on hiking trails. It is too bad you are fixated on some of his personal
> traits and not on his central thrust.
>
> It seems you also agree with us that mountain bikers should not be on
> hiking trails. There are plenty of other types of pathways for them to be
> on. Jeep roads are ideal for mountain bikers. Why not come over to the
> good side. Most mountain bikers are just testosterone prone thugs who
> don't give a damn about the wilderness or any natural values. All they
> care about is their "sport".
>

The same assertion is made about offroad vehicle operators by some in your
camp. Clearly the assertion is unfounded in reality, but exists in stories
and folklore.




> You need to read the books of the great advocates of wilderness. It began
> with Thoreau, but there are many others extending right up to the present
> time. They are all excellent writers and make for enjoyable reading. You
> will come away from such reading prepared to defend wilderness with all
> your might. The Burns series on the National Parks on TV (PBS) is also
> pretty good.
>

I can defend the wilderness and use it at the same time. I don't need gates
and fences to lock the public off of public lands to defend the wilderness.
The wilderness does just fine, thank you, with the occasional visitor that
is passing through without regard to his method of passing. What the
wilderness does not tolerate is permanant encampments -- mini malls and gas
stations and houses. Paved roads are also something that the wilderness does
nto tolerats. But the wilderness can handle a few people on bikes riding
through on Saturday and Sunday, or any other day. It isn't the traffic, per
se, that harms the wilderness, it's the amount of the traffic.

I would go so far as to suggest that a wilderness could be bisected by a
highway if there was no means to exit the highway except at opposite ends of
the wilderness. One would need the highway to accomodate the animals that
may want to traverse the area, this could be accomplished by raising the
highway or fencing it in a manner that would guide the animals to natural
features that they could use to get to the other side. For example, there is
a wilderness area near my home that is a bedroom community, and on the
opposite side of the wilderness area is the job center. The homes are cheap
and the jobs pay reasonably well, but there is no way to get from one to the
other. They can't build a highway to connect the homes to the jobs because
of the wilderness designation. There are topographic hurdles too, so the
issue isn't an easy one to solve. In any case, they could build about 25
miles of highway and reudce the commute from over 60 miles to under 30,
which would be good for everybody concerned -- except for maybe the habitat.

I would suggest that the highway could be built in a manner that mitigates
the impact to the animal species through which the highway would pass, but
there are environmentalist groups that reject the notion. Branches of the
same environmental groups decry the use of automobiles, but they fight to
keep a 60+ mile commute instead of provide the means of making it an
under-30 mile commute. The point is, we can recognize and preserve the few
remaining wilderness areas that there are but we don't have to sacrafice our
mobility to do it. We can designate wilderness but still venture out to
enjoy it. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, as environmentalists would
have the rest of us believe.

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
[...]
>> I do not think your above statement can possibly be correct. Mr. Vandeman
>> is an ardent hiker just like I am. He loves nature and the wild
>> creatures. We just do not want mountain bikers on hiking trails. Mr.
>> Vandeman and I want to access the wilderness, but only as hikers
>> (walkers). Surely you can see the sense of that.
>>
>
> Sorry, I don't see it at all. That's akin to saying that there should be a
> separate highway system depending on how you elect to travel.
>
> We don't have enough resources to give everybody their own trail system,
> and doing so pretty much ruins the experience, not to mention the
> environment. Shared resources is the only way to go.
>
> When a specific trail is designated as hiking only -- there are lots of
> reasons for such a designation, and lots of places where there is such a
> designation -- then bikes should not be there, but when there is no
> designation then the trail is by definition a multi-use trail and you just
> have to learn to share. Of course, the bikes have to share too, which
> means they need to give right-of-way and other common courtesies to
> hikers.
>
> All I'm hearing is that Mike does not want to share. Too bad, so sad. I
> wouldn't want to be him.

I am with Mr. Vandeman on this issue and not with you. I also do not want to
share a hiking trail with mountain bikers. The two modes of recreation do
not mix. I have never heard of a hiker who wants to share. Once mountain
bikers take to a trail, it is no longer usable by hikers.

Mr. Vandeman is the expert on this subject, not you or I. The only sad thing
here is your inability to learn. It will be a disaster for wilderness values
if your view ever prevails.

>> I know exactly what I want on these issues. I do not go as far as Mr.
>> Vandeman does. But we are in agreement that mountain bikers should not be
>> on hiking trails. It is too bad you are fixated on some of his personal
>> traits and not on his central thrust.
>>
>> It seems you also agree with us that mountain bikers should not be on
>> hiking trails. There are plenty of other types of pathways for them to be
>> on. Jeep roads are ideal for mountain bikers. Why not come over to the
>> good side. Most mountain bikers are just testosterone prone thugs who
>> don't give a damn about the wilderness or any natural values. All they
>> care about is their "sport".
>>
>
> The same assertion is made about offroad vehicle operators by some in your
> camp. Clearly the assertion is unfounded in reality, but exists in stories
> and folklore.

Those who want to use their off-road vehicles in natural areas are beneath
contempt. They are savages and barbarians who have more money than brains.

>> You need to read the books of the great advocates of wilderness. It began
>> with Thoreau, but there are many others extending right up to the present
>> time. They are all excellent writers and make for enjoyable reading. You
>> will come away from such reading prepared to defend wilderness with all
>> your might. The Burns series on the National Parks on TV (PBS) is also
>> pretty good.
>>
>
> I can defend the wilderness and use it at the same time. I don't need
> gates and fences to lock the public off of public lands to defend the
> wilderness. The wilderness does just fine, thank you, with the occasional
> visitor that is passing through without regard to his method of passing.
> What the wilderness does not tolerate is permanant encampments -- mini
> malls and gas stations and houses. Paved roads are also something that the
> wilderness does nto tolerats. But the wilderness can handle a few people
> on bikes riding through on Saturday and Sunday, or any other day. It isn't
> the traffic, per se, that harms the wilderness, it's the amount of the
> traffic.

Mountain bikers need their own trails and such trails should not be anywhere
near wilderness. Your tolerance and laissez faire attitude is highly
dangerous to wilderness values.

> I would go so far as to suggest that a wilderness could be bisected by a
> highway if there was no means to exit the highway except at opposite ends
> of the wilderness. One would need the highway to accomodate the animals
> that may want to traverse the area, this could be accomplished by raising
> the highway or fencing it in a manner that would guide the animals to
> natural features that they could use to get to the other side. For
> example, there is a wilderness area near my home that is a bedroom
> community, and on the opposite side of the wilderness area is the job
> center. The homes are cheap and the jobs pay reasonably well, but there is
> no way to get from one to the other. They can't build a highway to connect
> the homes to the jobs because of the wilderness designation. There are
> topographic hurdles too, so the issue isn't an easy one to solve. In any
> case, they could build about 25 miles of highway and reudce the commute
> from over 60 miles to under 30, which would be good for everybody
> concerned -- except for maybe the habitat.
>
> I would suggest that the highway could be built in a manner that mitigates
> the impact to the animal species through which the highway would pass, but
> there are environmentalist groups that reject the notion. Branches of the
> same environmental groups decry the use of automobiles, but they fight to
> keep a 60+ mile commute instead of provide the means of making it an
> under-30 mile commute. The point is, we can recognize and preserve the few
> remaining wilderness areas that there are but we don't have to sacrafice
> our mobility to do it. We can designate wilderness but still venture out
> to enjoy it. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, as environmentalists
> would have the rest of us believe.

I have never seen what you describe above as any kind of wilderness I would
ever want to visit. People not only want to live near a wilderness but in
it, thereby destroying it. Mr. Vandeman is quite right to be opposed to all
such infringements.

There is precious little wilderness left in this country. If we follow your
lead, the US will end up looking exactly like Europe. Is that what you want?

Regards,

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

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman °_°" > wrote in message
...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> [...]
>> Personally, I think you should distance yourself from the likes of Mike
>> Vandeman. He's an extremist whack job that does nothing to help you with
>> your agenda, indeed he harms your agenda among the rational people that
>> might be inclined to agree with you. That's just my two-cents worth.
>>
>
> Personally, I think Ed Dolan should distance himself from Ed Dolan. With
> all due respect, Mr. Dolan is an extremist whack job who does nothing to
> help himself with his agenda. ;)

This is nothing but an example of the kettle calling the pot black. No
greater extremist exists in the entire universe than Mr. Sherman - as is
well known on these cycling newsgroups. He equates Palestinian terrorists
with the Israeli military. Enuf said!

Regards,

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

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> [...]
>>> I do not think your above statement can possibly be correct. Mr.
>>> Vandeman is an ardent hiker just like I am. He loves nature and the wild
>>> creatures. We just do not want mountain bikers on hiking trails. Mr.
>>> Vandeman and I want to access the wilderness, but only as hikers
>>> (walkers). Surely you can see the sense of that.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, I don't see it at all. That's akin to saying that there should be
>> a separate highway system depending on how you elect to travel.
>>
>> We don't have enough resources to give everybody their own trail system,
>> and doing so pretty much ruins the experience, not to mention the
>> environment. Shared resources is the only way to go.
>>
>> When a specific trail is designated as hiking only -- there are lots of
>> reasons for such a designation, and lots of places where there is such a
>> designation -- then bikes should not be there, but when there is no
>> designation then the trail is by definition a multi-use trail and you
>> just have to learn to share. Of course, the bikes have to share too,
>> which means they need to give right-of-way and other common courtesies to
>> hikers.
>>
>> All I'm hearing is that Mike does not want to share. Too bad, so sad. I
>> wouldn't want to be him.
>
> I am with Mr. Vandeman on this issue and not with you. I also do not want
> to share a hiking trail with mountain bikers. The two modes of recreation
> do not mix. I have never heard of a hiker who wants to share. Once
> mountain bikers take to a trail, it is no longer usable by hikers.
>
> Mr. Vandeman is the expert on this subject, not you or I. The only sad
> thing here is your inability to learn. It will be a disaster for
> wilderness values if your view ever prevails.
>

Mike is NOT an expert. Most of the time he's wrong.





>>> I know exactly what I want on these issues. I do not go as far as Mr.
>>> Vandeman does. But we are in agreement that mountain bikers should not
>>> be on hiking trails. It is too bad you are fixated on some of his
>>> personal traits and not on his central thrust.
>>>
>>> It seems you also agree with us that mountain bikers should not be on
>>> hiking trails. There are plenty of other types of pathways for them to
>>> be on. Jeep roads are ideal for mountain bikers. Why not come over to
>>> the good side. Most mountain bikers are just testosterone prone thugs
>>> who don't give a damn about the wilderness or any natural values. All
>>> they care about is their "sport".
>>>
>>
>> The same assertion is made about offroad vehicle operators by some in
>> your camp. Clearly the assertion is unfounded in reality, but exists in
>> stories and folklore.
>
> Those who want to use their off-road vehicles in natural areas are beneath
> contempt. They are savages and barbarians who have more money than brains.
>
>>> You need to read the books of the great advocates of wilderness. It
>>> began with Thoreau, but there are many others extending right up to the
>>> present time. They are all excellent writers and make for enjoyable
>>> reading. You will come away from such reading prepared to defend
>>> wilderness with all your might. The Burns series on the National Parks
>>> on TV (PBS) is also pretty good.
>>>
>>
>> I can defend the wilderness and use it at the same time. I don't need
>> gates and fences to lock the public off of public lands to defend the
>> wilderness. The wilderness does just fine, thank you, with the occasional
>> visitor that is passing through without regard to his method of passing.
>> What the wilderness does not tolerate is permanant encampments -- mini
>> malls and gas stations and houses. Paved roads are also something that
>> the wilderness does nto tolerats. But the wilderness can handle a few
>> people on bikes riding through on Saturday and Sunday, or any other day.
>> It isn't the traffic, per se, that harms the wilderness, it's the amount
>> of the traffic.
>
> Mountain bikers need their own trails and such trails should not be
> anywhere near wilderness. Your tolerance and laissez faire attitude is
> highly dangerous to wilderness values.
>
>> I would go so far as to suggest that a wilderness could be bisected by a
>> highway if there was no means to exit the highway except at opposite ends
>> of the wilderness. One would need the highway to accomodate the animals
>> that may want to traverse the area, this could be accomplished by raising
>> the highway or fencing it in a manner that would guide the animals to
>> natural features that they could use to get to the other side. For
>> example, there is a wilderness area near my home that is a bedroom
>> community, and on the opposite side of the wilderness area is the job
>> center. The homes are cheap and the jobs pay reasonably well, but there
>> is no way to get from one to the other. They can't build a highway to
>> connect the homes to the jobs because of the wilderness designation.
>> There are topographic hurdles too, so the issue isn't an easy one to
>> solve. In any case, they could build about 25 miles of highway and reudce
>> the commute from over 60 miles to under 30, which would be good for
>> everybody concerned -- except for maybe the habitat.
>>
>> I would suggest that the highway could be built in a manner that
>> mitigates the impact to the animal species through which the highway
>> would pass, but there are environmentalist groups that reject the notion.
>> Branches of the same environmental groups decry the use of automobiles,
>> but they fight to keep a 60+ mile commute instead of provide the means of
>> making it an under-30 mile commute. The point is, we can recognize and
>> preserve the few remaining wilderness areas that there are but we don't
>> have to sacrafice our mobility to do it. We can designate wilderness but
>> still venture out to enjoy it. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, as
>> environmentalists would have the rest of us believe.
>
> I have never seen what you describe above as any kind of wilderness I
> would ever want to visit. People not only want to live near a wilderness
> but in it, thereby destroying it. Mr. Vandeman is quite right to be
> opposed to all such infringements.

I agree that when you live in a wilderness, it stops beign one. But we can
open the wilderness to visitation without destroying that which makes the
wilderness something worth visiting.

Much of the wilderness where I live was once mining areas, so there are
already roads that have been on the ground for over a century. We also have
a wilderness designation that is surrounded by a military installation and
national forest on the south and north (respectively), with residential
areas to the west and east. This wilderness was designated to keep the
residential areas at bay. It's a good idea, but we need a road to connect
the homes with the jobs, and this is one of the very few possible routes.
This route is off the table thanks to environmental interests, but the irony
is that other environmental interests bitch about the burning of fossil
fuels and our dependence on foreign oil, but they block a possible route
that would cut half of the commute from several tens of thousands of people
every day.




>
> There is precious little wilderness left in this country. If we follow
> your lead, the US will end up looking exactly like Europe. Is that what
> you want?

I don't know. I've only been to Europe once, and it looked pretty good to
me.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Feb 8, 1:09*am, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:

> I am with Mr. Vandeman on this issue and not with you.

That is pretty close to conclusive proof that Jeff is right.
--
Guy

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
[...]
>> There is precious little wilderness left in this country. If we follow
>> your lead, the US will end up looking exactly like Europe. Is that what
>> you want?
>
> I don't know. I've only been to Europe once, and it looked pretty good to
> me.

Europe is a well tended garden. There is no wilderness in Europe except at
the far fringes. Trust me on this, we do not ever want to look like Europe.

Regards,

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

[Jeff Strickland[_2_]]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> [...]
>>> There is precious little wilderness left in this country. If we follow
>>> your lead, the US will end up looking exactly like Europe. Is that what
>>> you want?
>>
>> I don't know. I've only been to Europe once, and it looked pretty good to
>> me.
>
> Europe is a well tended garden. There is no wilderness in Europe except at
> the far fringes. Trust me on this, we do not ever want to look like
> Europe.
>

That's pure nonsense. You looked at Europe from the window of your hotel
room, that's the problem.

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
>> [...]
>>>> There is precious little wilderness left in this country. If we follow
>>>> your lead, the US will end up looking exactly like Europe. Is that what
>>>> you want?
>>>
>>> I don't know. I've only been to Europe once, and it looked pretty good
>>> to me.
>>
>> Europe is a well tended garden. There is no wilderness in Europe except
>> at the far fringes. Trust me on this, we do not ever want to look like
>> Europe.
>>
>
> That's pure nonsense. You looked at Europe from the window of your hotel
> room, that's the problem.

Even Switzerland is more a garden than anything else. Trains and roads go
everywhere. Our Rocky Mountains are a paradise of wildness compared to the
Swiss Alps. Why not look at some detailed road maps of Europe in order to
get a clue.

Regards,

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