"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

My idea of winning is convincing the most people of the validity of my arguments ... and pointing out the flaws in yours. What's your idea ?

My idea is to present common sense arguments about what trails are best suited for - and it sure as hell ain't mountain biking! I depend on how a normal person thinks and feels, not on what an Asshole mountain bikers like you thinks and feels.

But, as you've now admitted, you don't represent normal people at all. You only represent a tiny minority of 'serious' hikers who crave solitude and for whom laughter, companionship and fun are anathema.

You can have all those social qualities in any bar (saloon) in the world. I am as normal as John Q. Public ever gets – and as pure as the driven snow into the bargain besides.

I have backed up my opinions and feelings with plenty of
substance.

No, Ed, that's what you have NEVER done. You've stated your own feelings clearly and repeatedly but you have never shown that any significant percentage of the trail-using population agrees with you and recently you've moved from your claim to represent hikers to now only representing what you term 'serious hikers'.

I am your prototypical hiker. My opinions reflect those of all serious hikers. You are the prototypical insane Asshole mountain biker who does not know **** from shinola.

Even if it were true that you represent 'serious' hikers, which you've also done nothing to prove, given that you are a small minority of trail users why should you get to dictate to anyone else ?

And, unlike you, I don't claim to represent anyone ... other than myself.

You are as good a representative of the Asshole mountain biker as exists on this forum.

Your MEANS and PURPOSE are not mine ... nor are they those of a
trails runner, or a rambling group or a family party or a packing company.

Others may use trails for other than perfect reasons, but as
long as they do not unduly interfere with us superior hikers, then we let it
pass. Mostly they are not numerous in any event. Bikers belong to an entirely
different class of beings. They are like locusts and destroy whatever they
touch. Public resources have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may
want. Democracy is for idiots.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill

Any self-appointed, so-called superior elite tends to have a limited lifespan before the rest of the population figure them out for the self-serving, corrupt, greedy and mediocre individuals they really are.

Thanks for the elementary lesson in polysci. However, public resources STILL have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may
want.

Best is usually defined according to a sensible formula including satisfying the most number of people ... in fact, that's precisely what the Park Department has as its objectives. So, it is managed for BEST use ... that's just not what you and a small minority of fanatics want.

You have confused the word “best” with the word “most’. In fact, overall you seem confused about “most” everything under the sun.

The only spent force here is you and your ilk. We serious
hikers will put up with less serious hikers as long as they are walking. What we
will not put up with are bikers because they are on contraptions with wheels.
Wheels belong on roads.

Ah, so your MEANS and PURPOSE don't actually matter a damn ... that was just another Dolan diversion to try and argue your untenable position.

???

And, given that you 'serious hikers' are a tiny minority why the hell should anyone care what you will or won't put up with ? If you won't share then you can simply go away.

What tiny minority are you talking about? Maybe that is the way it is in England, but serious hikers constitute the vast majority of hikers here in the US.

Ed, if you were not a spent force you wouldn't be arguing about this on moribund newsgroups ... you would actually be out there making change happen. In reality, as you well know, more and more trails are open to bikers and more and more people are taking up biking rather than hiking. History belongs to those who show up ... and your 'serious' hikers for whom bikes are anathema are an old, declining footnote.

I am doing what I can to support Mr. Vandeman. He is the true warrior who makes things happen. I am just a bystander who is getting ready to leave this vale of tears and frankly could care less how all this eventually plays out. The only thing I know for sure is that you and your ilk are never going to get the last word with me as long as I am above ground because you and your ilk are not only wrong on the issue, but are criminal scofflaws into the bargain.

Ah yes, he does indeed make things happen. He makes court cases happen in which he gets found guilty of battery and banned from the trails. A great example of activism ... in how NOT to do it.

More calumny.

And, as you know, whilst I'm happy to joust with you electronically all of this makes not the slightest bit of difference to what I do. I ride twice a week ... on shared trails ... and enjoy the experience without, as far as I can tell, inconveniencing the equestrians, hikers, family groups, ramblers and all the other trail users I encounter.

You do not CARE whether you inconvenience other users. That is typical of ALL mountain bikers who are selfish to the core.

So, I'm quite happy to let you have the 'last word' here, if it brings you any satisfaction, but know that it doesn't change the real world one iota. I'm sorry for you; that instead of enjoying your old age and viewing the young with wry amusement and a degree of indulgence you are, instead, eaten up with rage and spite. I hope I never end up that way.

Neither Mr. Vandeman nor myself are eaten up with anything other than the stupidity of allowing mortmain bikes on trails. I have every confidence that that is going to change in the not so distant future. All the impending conflicts will see to that.

The natural environment relatively untouched by man is our primeval connection with the world from time immemorial.

Ah, at last, something with which I can agree.

Not germane to the point. The point, I reiterate, is that not everyone is seeking solitude and therefore not everyone has the visceral and illogical reaction you do to the mere presence of a bike.

You can bike anywhere except on trails in a natural environment. That is reserved for hikers whether they seek solitude or not.
[...]

My attitude is the dominant attitude of all hikers. It is
never going change because of the essential conflicts of means and purpose.

Your two statements above are incompatible. Either means and purpose creates conflict or it doesn't. Perhaps, what you really want to say, is that it's just your perception of biking that creates a conflict and you've never even considered that, just like the difference between social walkers and 'serious hikers' there are difference between mountainbikers. Some are seeking a physical challenge and others are simply using the bike as a means to travel into the natural environment.

You can seek physical challenges away from hikers and equestrians. That is not what we are about. But even civilized bikers have no business being on trails used by hikers and equestrians. The conflicts exist are are never going go away. Mr. Vandeman emphasis the MEANS conflicts and I emphasize the PURPOSE conflicts.

Others can be tolerated as long as they are walking. Bikers are on contraptions with wheels and cannot be tolerated.

Ah, thanks for confirming my assertion ... it IS just bikes you have an issue with and means and purpose is mere smokescreen.

Being on a bike on trails is both a conflict of means and a conflict of purpose all by itself. The only smokescreen I know about are your twists and turns of senseless argument.

Accidents will happen because of various kinds of stupidity. Mountain biking accidents happen because they are doing what all mountain bikers do. The only stupidity is taking up mountain biking in the first place. If you do it, you will suffer an injury or death. It is just a matter of time. It is in fact inevitable.
[...]

As I also showed, if you rode a long ride EVERY WEEK of your life your odds of killing yourself mountainbiking would still be around 0.5%.

You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself, but serious injuries are as common as mud. This is not true of hiking. Serious injuries are rare – mostly just stubbed toes and turned ankles.

Why not educate yourself instead of remaining stupid all of your life. Read on:

From: "Monica Craver"
Subject: Whistler, BC: The highs and lows of bike park season
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 23:47:18 -0700

"One stop at the ER room at Whistler Medical Clinic and you'll see
how many bikes are chained up outside, the owners seen walking around
the Village later in the day in casts and slings."

- See more at:
http://www.whistlerquestion.com/opin....3gI23P8y.dpuf


Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

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

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great