A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Recumbent Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Solution to Bashed Chainrings?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old July 12th 11, 06:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default [OT] habitat

On 7/6/2011 2:45 PM, James wrote:

Marvelous how habitat grows back. I see it regularly in bush camping
areas. "This area is closed for revegetation."


It goes beyond that as well. Every single study on impact to trails has
shown that hikers and mountain bikers have similar levels of impact--the
impacts are slightly different, but similar level. Hikers have a much
greater impact on wildlife because they move through an area more slowly
and hence are there for a much longer time. Both hikers and cyclists
cause trail erosion and damage in different ways. Horses of course have
been shown to do much greater damage to trails than any other user,
besides having the most impact on wildlife.

The reason why some hikers are opposed to mountain bikes has absolutely
nothing to do with impact on trails or habitat, that's a smokescren. The
real reason is that they just prefer to hike without the additional
trail users in what they believe to be space that they are entitled to.
I don't blame them. I find it unpleasant to be hiking on a trail and
have bicycles zoom by too, but I don't go around making up stories to
try and justify why bicycles should be banned.

The reason you see these incredible stories being fabricated (and MV is
by no means alone in doing this) is because the argument of "we were
here before there were any mountain bikes so we should have exclusive
use" is so weak.

If MV was really concerned about habitat or trail damage he'd be
spending his efforts toward banning equestrians on trails, not cyclists.
But of course it's clear that he actually has no concern about either of
those.
Ads
  #42  
Old July 12th 11, 07:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
RonSonic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,658
Default [OT] habitat


"SMS" wrote in message
...
On 7/6/2011 2:45 PM, James wrote:

Marvelous how habitat grows back. I see it regularly in bush camping
areas. "This area is closed for revegetation."


It goes beyond that as well. Every single study on impact to trails has
shown that hikers and mountain bikers have similar levels of impact--the
impacts are slightly different, but similar level. Hikers have a much
greater impact on wildlife because they move through an area more slowly
and hence are there for a much longer time. Both hikers and cyclists cause
trail erosion and damage in different ways. Horses of course have been
shown to do much greater damage to trails than any other user, besides
having the most impact on wildlife.

The reason why some hikers are opposed to mountain bikes has absolutely
nothing to do with impact on trails or habitat, that's a smokescren. The
real reason is that they just prefer to hike without the additional trail
users in what they believe to be space that they are entitled to. I don't
blame them. I find it unpleasant to be hiking on a trail and have bicycles
zoom by too, but I don't go around making up stories to try and justify
why bicycles should be banned.

The reason you see these incredible stories being fabricated (and MV is by
no means alone in doing this) is because the argument of "we were here
before there were any mountain bikes so we should have exclusive use" is
so weak.


I have the good fortune to live in an area that sees off road cycling as a
client base and contributor to the trail system, not a foe. We have our
trails that we build and maintain that are open to hikers and that are
closed when riding would be damaging, the hikers have foot traffic only
trails and there are trails that are open to horses. We alter the trails
when they start to become too permanent so that regrowth is a continual
process.

The trails that are open to cyclists are clearly marked as such and
everybody mostly gets along very nicely. None of them have formed factions.
Our enemies are common, wild pigs at the top with varying degrees of
rudeness being anathema to all. Yep, there are jerk mountain bikers, they
are rude to other riders as well. Nobody is rude to the horses, it doesn't
pay.



  #43  
Old July 13th 11, 12:00 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Tºm Shermªn °_°
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default Solution to Bashed Chainrings?

On 7/12/2011 11:40 AM, Convicted Criminal Mike "Handsaw" Vandeman wrote:
On Jul 11, 5:07 pm, Mike wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:17 pm, Tºm Shermªn °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI





$southslope.net" wrote:
On 7/11/2011 1:02 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:


On Jul 10, 6:24 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 7/10/2011 7:40 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:


On Jul 10, 7:23 am, wrote:
On Jul 10, 2:19 am, Mike wrote:


snip
Just remember this - judges are much harder on *repeat* offenders and
probation violators.


Since I don't have any violations, I can't have any repeat violations.
DUH!


You were convicted of 3 counts and you are on probation for the next 3
(well 2 1/2 now) years. This is a matter of public record. Stop living
in denial. It isn't healthy.


You are the one in denial. A conviction, based on lies, is worthless.
It proves NOTHING. Thanks for demonstrating just how ignorant you are.
All you are proving is that mountain bikers wanted to see me punished,
and were willing to commit PERJURY, in order to make that happen. The
joke is on them. Mountain bikers are their own worst enemies. All they
ever do is prove to the world how scummy and dishonest they are.


Does your probation officer read these posts? No early release for
Mikey with this attitude.


Ed is right: you are unteachable. I don't have a probation officer.
Why would you want to establish a reputation as a liar and an
unreliable source of information. Everything that comes out of your
mouth is WORTHLESS, as you are WORTHLESS.


Not sure which is more ridiculous:


- Lying about not having a probation officer,


I'm not lyng, but you are. Tell me who my "probation officer" is,
smart ass. I know you can't. You are 100% FAKE.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Cat got your tongue suddenly, Tommy Sherman? Can't answer my question?
Can't prove you aren't a FAKE?


Having given Mikey V. enough rope to hang himself, I see no need to pile
on further.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #44  
Old July 13th 11, 01:08 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default [OT] habitat

On 13/07/2011 3:46 AM, SMS wrote:
On 7/6/2011 2:45 PM, James wrote:

Marvelous how habitat grows back. I see it regularly in bush camping
areas. "This area is closed for revegetation."


It goes beyond that as well. Every single study on impact to trails has
shown that hikers and mountain bikers have similar levels of impact--the
impacts are slightly different, but similar level. Hikers have a much
greater impact on wildlife because they move through an area more slowly
and hence are there for a much longer time.


I have done both hiking and ridden the mountain bike on trails. I can
guarantee that I can walk passed an animal with less disturbance and I
would normally ride passed.

Often I walk so quietly the animals barely notice me, or just stand and
look. On a bike they hear more and see more rapid motion and take
flight in alarm far more frequently.

Realise that I am also a hunter, and as such am practised in the arts of
moving quietly and inconspicuously through the bush.

Both hikers and cyclists
cause trail erosion and damage in different ways. Horses of course have
been shown to do much greater damage to trails than any other user,
besides having the most impact on wildlife.


Horses also leave lots of manure that may contain foreign seeds, and it
is said heavy hooves damage delicate soil structures, in this country.

The reason why some hikers are opposed to mountain bikes has absolutely
nothing to do with impact on trails or habitat, that's a smokescren. The
real reason is that they just prefer to hike without the additional
trail users in what they believe to be space that they are entitled to.
I don't blame them. I find it unpleasant to be hiking on a trail and
have bicycles zoom by too, but I don't go around making up stories to
try and justify why bicycles should be banned.


I think they might feel cheated that the bicyclist covered a distance in
2 hours what took them half a day.

--
JS.
  #45  
Old July 13th 11, 04:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Tºm Shermªn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default [OT] habitat

On 7/12/2011 12:46 PM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf wrote:
On 7/6/2011 2:45 PM, James wrote:

Marvelous how habitat grows back. I see it regularly in bush camping
areas. "This area is closed for revegetation."


It goes beyond that as well. Every single study on impact to trails has
shown that hikers and mountain bikers have similar levels of impact--the
impacts are slightly different, but similar level. Hikers have a much
greater impact on wildlife because they move through an area more slowly
and hence are there for a much longer time. Both hikers and cyclists
cause trail erosion and damage in different ways. Horses of course have
been shown to do much greater damage to trails than any other user,
besides having the most impact on wildlife.[...]


Like a stopped analog clock, every once in a while, Scharf is correct.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #46  
Old July 13th 11, 08:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Mike Vandeman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,755
Default Solution to Bashed Chainrings?

On Jul 12, 4:00*pm, Tm Shermn _ ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 7/12/2011 11:40 AM, Convicted Criminal Mike "Handsaw" Vandeman wrote:





On Jul 11, 5:07 pm, Mike *wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:17 pm, Tm Shermn _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI


$southslope.net" *wrote:
On 7/11/2011 1:02 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:


On Jul 10, 6:24 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" * *wrote:
On 7/10/2011 7:40 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:


On Jul 10, 7:23 am, * * wrote:
On Jul 10, 2:19 am, Mike * * wrote:


snip
Just remember this - judges are much harder on *repeat* offenders and
probation violators.


Since I don't have any violations, I can't have any repeat violations.
DUH!


You were convicted of 3 counts and you are on probation for the next 3
(well 2 1/2 now) years. This is a matter of public record. Stop living
in denial. It isn't healthy.


You are the one in denial. A conviction, based on lies, is worthless.
It proves NOTHING. Thanks for demonstrating just how ignorant you are.
All you are proving is that mountain bikers wanted to see me punished,
and were willing to commit PERJURY, in order to make that happen. The
joke is on them. Mountain bikers are their own worst enemies. All they
ever do is prove to the world how scummy and dishonest they are.


Does your probation officer read these posts? No early release for
Mikey with this attitude.


Ed is right: you are unteachable. I don't have a probation officer.
Why would you want to establish a reputation as a liar and an
unreliable source of information. Everything that comes out of your
mouth is WORTHLESS, as you are WORTHLESS.


Not sure which is more ridiculous:


- Lying about not having a probation officer,


I'm not lyng, but you are. Tell me who my "probation officer" is,
smart ass. I know you can't. You are 100% FAKE.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Cat got your tongue suddenly, Tommy Sherman? Can't answer my question?
Can't prove you aren't a FAKE?


Having given Mikey V. enough rope to hang himself, I see no need to pile
on further.


Especially since you have been caught in a lie several times, and
can't figure out how to continue ignoring the fact.

Tm Shermn - 42.435731N, 83.985007W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

  #47  
Old July 13th 11, 08:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Mike Vandeman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,755
Default habitat

On Jul 12, 8:27*pm, Tm Shermn ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 7/12/2011 12:46 PM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf wrote:

On 7/6/2011 2:45 PM, James wrote:


Marvelous how habitat grows back. I see it regularly in bush camping
areas. "This area is closed for revegetation."


It goes beyond that as well. Every single study on impact to trails has
shown that hikers and mountain bikers have similar levels of impact--the
impacts are slightly different, but similar level. Hikers have a much
greater impact on wildlife because they move through an area more slowly
and hence are there for a much longer time. Both hikers and cyclists
cause trail erosion and damage in different ways. Horses of course have
been shown to do much greater damage to trails than any other user,
besides having the most impact on wildlife.[...]


Like a stopped analog clock, every once in a while, Scharf is correct.


No, he isn't. Not even close. He obviously hasn't actually READ the
research.

Tm Shermn - 42.435731N, 83.985007W
I am a vehicular cyclist.


  #48  
Old July 13th 11, 08:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Chalo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,093
Default habitat

Mike Vandeman wrote:

T*m Shermลn wrote

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

It goes beyond that as well. Every single study on impact to trails has
shown that hikers and mountain bikers have similar levels of impact--the
impacts are slightly different, but similar level. Hikers have a much
greater impact on wildlife because they move through an area more slowly
and hence are there for a much longer time. Both hikers and cyclists
cause trail erosion and damage in different ways. Horses of course have
been shown to do much greater damage to trails than any other user,
besides having the most impact on wildlife.[...]


Like a stopped analog clock, every once in a while, Scharf is correct.


No, he isn't. Not even close. He obviously hasn't actually READ the
research.


Mr Vandeman,

You have demonstrated yourself to the point of absurdity to be an
unreliable and uncorrectable "expert" on this topic. I suggest you
retire from the discussion both here and elsewhere, for your own
benefit. Cooler heads than yours will carry on from here.

Chalo
  #49  
Old July 13th 11, 11:46 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default [OT] habitat

On 7/12/2011 11:27 PM, Tºm Shermªn wrote:
On 7/12/2011 12:46 PM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf wrote:
On 7/6/2011 2:45 PM, James wrote:

Marvelous how habitat grows back. I see it regularly in bush camping
areas. "This area is closed for revegetation."


It goes beyond that as well. Every single study on impact to trails has
shown that hikers and mountain bikers have similar levels of impact--the
impacts are slightly different, but similar level. Hikers have a much
greater impact on wildlife because they move through an area more slowly
and hence are there for a much longer time. Both hikers and cyclists
cause trail erosion and damage in different ways. Horses of course have
been shown to do much greater damage to trails than any other user,
besides having the most impact on wildlife.[...]


Like a stopped analog clock, every once in a while, Scharf is correct.


As long as he limits his posts to two a day he's infallible.
  #50  
Old July 13th 11, 12:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Why is Tom Sherman such a graceless, sleazy liar? was Solution toBashed Chainrings?

Vandeman: I don't have a probation officer.

Sherman: Lying about not having a probation officer,

Vandeman: Tell me who my "probation officer" is, smart ass.

Sherman: [Dead silence]

Vandeman: Cat got your tongue suddenly, Tommy Sherman? Can't answer my
question? Can't prove you aren't a FAKE?

Sherman: Having given Mikey V. enough rope to hang himself, I see no
need to pile on further.

***

This is an admission that you lied, Tom Sherman.

It is also your statement that you, Tom Sherman, don't intend to
apologize for your sleazy lie.

You're a liar, Tom Sherman.

You have no grace, Tom Sherman. You're scum.

Andre Jute
Keen observer of the human race
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cyclist Bashed Craig Strong Australia 21 January 31st 07 04:58 AM
Bush bashed by bike Grazza Australia 0 February 28th 06 02:43 AM
McEwen bashed by thugs at Indy Shabby Australia 14 October 26th 05 12:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.