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
  #151  
Old July 21st 11, 08:52 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
RonSonic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,658
Default habitat


"mike fee" wrote in message
...
In article 50367bd2-7526-4804-a802-dcb1435b23f2
@x19g2000prc.googlegroups.com, says...

BS. It's ALL dark side. There's NOTHING good about mountain biking,
even for the mountain bikers themselves. They are all PRETENDING to be
having fun, as they break bones or even DIE.

The heavy breathing, the dark helmet, the evil intent, it's all
explained now....Darth Vader is a mountain biker!!!!


At least he doesn't wear one of those ghastly Primal jerseys.


Ads
  #152  
Old July 21st 11, 09:51 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default habitat

On Jul 21, 2:31*am, RobertH wrote:
On Jul 20, 7:13 am, James wrote:

On Jul 20, 4:54 pm, RobertH wrote:


If we're going to be really honest with ourselves, and I don't suppose
we are, we'll have to admit that the trail itself is an unholy
unnatural gash through the wilderness.


Wild animals make and use "game trails" all the time. *Domestic
animals do the same. *Just look at sheep tracks around hillsides.


Yes.. but a man-made trail or trail associated with humans will cause
disruption even if nobody is on it. Certain species incl. birds will
alter their natural migration patterns to avoid the trail entirely.


I have observed many animals, including some birds, _using_ man made
trails. Kangaroos, wallabies, wombats, dingos, deer, pigs, goats,
emus (a bird), foxes, etc.

--
JS.
  #153  
Old July 21st 11, 09:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default habitat

On Jul 21, 4:54*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Jul 19, 11:54*pm, RobertH wrote:


If you really care about wildlife, destroy the trail entirely, then
keep your animal-terrorizing self at home and out of the wilderness..


I agree, I have been saying that for 15 years. Where have you been?


You don't practice what you preach?

--
JS.
  #154  
Old July 21st 11, 12:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default habitat

On 7/21/2011 3:34 AM, Ronsonic wrote:
Shall we release some wolves
into England and tell the locals it's okay, they belong there.


That's being done in the US.
  #155  
Old July 21st 11, 01:20 PM 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 21, 12:00*am, RobertH wrote:
On Jul 20, 4:49 pm, Michael Press wrote:

Besides that, horses evolved in North America, and hence arguably have
the right to go wherever they want to.


Horses were introduced to N. America by the Spanish in the 1500s.


Both are true statements.


Well it's complicated isn't it. The 'horses' that evolved in 'N.
America' evolved in a very different climate -- wasn't so-called N.
America down near the equator tens of millions of years ago? And then
didn't those horses become extinct in an evolutionary process as time
went on and 'N. America' changed? So arguably the timeline of horse
development in 'n. america' proves even further that Mother Nature
doesnt actually want them here. They are introduced species.

That is, unless the early horses were hunted to extinction by early
man, then all bets are off.

Anyway Vandemort's point is a non-starter. Horses almost never get to
'go wherever they want to go.' I love horses and that would be fine
with me, but the reality is they are fenced into pens and parcels then
directed along a very narrow path by their riders, thus destroying the
surface of that path.


But since they have the right to go wherever they want to, that's not
a problem. Bikes, on the other hand, have NO rights.
  #156  
Old July 21st 11, 01:22 PM 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 21, 12:17*am, RobertH wrote:
On Jul 20, 11:20 am, AMuzi wrote:

meh. Both natural flora and fauna kill humans too:


Yes but not often enough to make any real positve difference.

In all seriousness, the mountains can be deadly in many unexpected
ways. A few weeks ago a father and daughter, both experienced hikers,
were killed when a blast of wind blew them off of a trail above
timberline. The same weekend, on a different mountain in the vicinity,
someone was crushed by a boulder they were hiding under during a
storm.


Neither were killed due to doing something stupid, as mountain bikers
are. Mountain biking is INHERENTLY stupid and predictably dangerous.
  #157  
Old July 21st 11, 01:25 PM 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 21, 12:34*am, "Ronsonic" wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

...
On Jul 15, 10:03 am, "Ronsonic" wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message


....
On Jul 14, 1:02 pm, Peter Cole wrote:
Can't you read? "horses evolved in North America, and hence arguably
have the right to go wherever they want to". Did you flunk grade school
English, as well?


I read what you wrote. Horses were extinct in North America until introduced
some 500 years ago. Now if you want to argue that they were re-introduced,
you could, but you'd have to explain the differences between the fossil
record and the horses that are out there now.


Why? We just returned something that should never have been killed in
the first place.

Shall we release some wolves
into England and tell the locals it's okay, they belong there.


Yes, of course.

I agree with you on a philosophic basis, bikes are indeed inanimate and if
I
ever see one out on a trail on its own, I'll order it off the trail.
There is no right to bring a bike onto a trail.


Why ever do you say such a silly thing. I have every right to ride the
trails.


BS. There is no "right" to mountain bike. That was settled by a
federal court in 1994: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm.
  #158  
Old July 21st 11, 03:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,747
Default habitat

Peter Cole writes:

On 7/21/2011 3:34 AM, Ronsonic wrote:
Shall we release some wolves
into England and tell the locals it's okay, they belong there.


That's being done in the US.


And beavers have been reintroduced in Scotland, after being gone
hundreds of years.
--
  #159  
Old July 21st 11, 03:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default habitat

On 7/21/2011 12:17 AM, RobertH wrote:
On Jul 20, 11:20 am, wrote:

meh. Both natural flora and fauna kill humans too:


Yes but not often enough to make any real positve difference.

In all seriousness, the mountains can be deadly in many unexpected
ways. A few weeks ago a father and daughter, both experienced hikers,
were killed when a blast of wind blew them off of a trail above
timberline. The same weekend, on a different mountain in the vicinity,
someone was crushed by a boulder they were hiding under during a
storm.


There are tragic accidents for both hikers and cyclists, as well as
non-accidents caused by doing something stupid. Look what happened at
Yosemite a couple of days ago to two hikers. Tragic, but it should not
reflect on all hikers.

If you're just looking at the impact of various activities upon habitat,
all the studies and evidence have proven that there is basically no
difference between cyclists and hikers, but that horses have a far
greater negative impact. For disturbing wildlife, cyclists have the
least impact of the three activities.

It's immaterial as to a) when horses came to North America, or b) when
mountain bikes were invented. This is not a debate on who was here
first, it's a debate on who is creating the most negative impact on
habitat and who is damaging trails the most. In that respect, our
favorite troll has absolutely no scientific evidence to back his position.

  #160  
Old July 21st 11, 04:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default habitat

-snip snip-

Ronsonic wrote:
Shall we release some wolves
into England and tell the locals it's okay, they belong there.



You may have meant that as hyperbole.

Assholes did exactly that to us in Wisconsin. Really.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 




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 11:10 PM.


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.