| |
Main
Date: 04 May 2006 02:43:09
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
Vandeman is long-winded as hell, but that does not mean he is wrong. I do
not like to see any kind of bike on a hiking trail anywhere. Trails are for
human walking, not for freaking machinery. I would like to see horses banned
from all hiking trails too, but I know that is expecting too much. I most
definitely do not ever want to see any bikes in a designated wilderness
area.
Surely there are plenty of forestry roads and fire roads for cyclists. Our
world is being overrun with roads and we do not want bikes on footpaths. I
have seen footpaths literally destroyed by cycling. They end up not fit for
bikes or even for hikers.
Vandeman is right in all his essential points. Cyclists who want to ride in
the wilderness and/or natural areas are the worst slobs in the universe. To
go off trail on a bike is an even greater abomination. If I were managing a
natural area, I would make damn sure no cyclists ever trespassed on my
sacred ground. It would be reserved strictly for walkers (hikers).
The hybrid (mountain) bike has its' uses, but trail riding is not one of
them.
What is a natural area for? It is for contemplation, not for recreation. If
you want recreation, then go to Coney Island or some other freaking
god-awful man-made amusement park. When you are in a natural area, you
should be doing nothing but communing with God. It is a sacrilege to be
doing anything else.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
|
| |
Date: 09 May 2006 18:06:41
From: Bill Glaholt
Subject: Re: New 'Bent Pilot - Sacramento, CA
|
On Mon, 01 May 2006 20:02:46 -0700, NYC XYZ wrote:
> Why did you choose OSS? To me, USS is more "faithful" to the spirit
> and promise of recumbent riding!
I just felt that I'd be able to control a SWB more in traffic with OSS;
wider 'play' in the steering mechanism. If I were to decide now, I might
have chosen differently, if only because my legs get sweaty and sometimes
slightly 'catch' on the side of the steering/handlebar column. But
overall, I think I made a good decision. I'm loving it more and more as I
ride it. :D
>>[chopped]
>> When I put it on and leaned back for the first time, the
helmet literally
>> stuck on the back of the headrest, shoving the helmet right down over
>> my eyes. No amount of adjustment - tight or light - would work, so I
>> just gave up and took it off completely. I'm thinking I'll just get
>> one of those skateboarder shell-like helms instead, since they have a
>> really high back.
>
> Thing is, they're probably hotter than bike helmets.
Yes, very likely... And in Sacramento CA, where the mid-summer highs can
reach 105ish, that will most-definitely be a factor of concern. So far,
during the three commutes I've done, I've not worn a helmet. I am actually
more likely right now to stay helmet-less. I have an idea for the back
mirror that will require some interesting mounting design; if it works, I
won't have to worry about a helmet mirror, either.
> I wonder if there's a bike helmet that can accommodate a head-rest on a
> 'bent. I doubt it.
More and more, I'm doubting it as well. My head comes *SO* nicely up
against the headrest. It's very comfortable. And, since I know I'm not
going head-over-handlebars in the smallest head-on, I'm considering just
sticking with the mask and goggles/sunglasses to keep the bugs out.
>> Sweet. I would imagine that gives you a soft ride. I have full
>> suspension on my DF "MTB" (I assume that's Mountain Bike), and it's
>> very nice at the cost of some speed. I don't mind the bumps and bangs
>> -- yet.. Although I've yet to hit anything that really jars me, either.
> I wonder how that would be on a hard-tail 'bent. Really curious.
That's me.. I feel *every* bump... Even as small as the change in height
from the road surface paint. My work has a cobblestone driveway -- I have
to get off the bike once I get there.. heh
>> [re: mask]
> When will you get one? I've ordered one already, and will post comments
> after I try it out.
Dunno yet. I'd like to hear your input before dropping cash on it.
(*hint*)
> [re: Flintstones, "DIY Bus"]
> Seeing the ActionBent website made me think of that...I imagined myself
> paying for a bike which I then had to weld together and saw and
> paint.... =)
Hee. It was almost that, quite definitely. They did send along some
touch-up paint.
>>[re: broken screw]
> Oh, doesn't anyone out there know? HELLO??? What does it mean for the
> steering mechanism to swing back and forth about ten degrees??
Actually, I just went to the local hardware store and bought a
stronger-alloyed version of the screw that sheared off. Upon tightening
it down, I realize that that screw indeed kept the steering mechanism
solid.. And it made a *HUGE* difference in control. I feel tons safer,
which of course has only served to increase my enjoyment!!
> Have you contacted that Randy Schulman? He must know!
I left e-mail through the 'feedback' area, but only got an automated
response and no actual response. Eh, I'm not going to fret it -- I solved
the problem myself.
[snipped convo about parts]
>> The room's supposed to be guarded by security. I may have my
>> welding-hobby brother-in-law weld on a security loop that I can thread
>> some locking chain on it for when I'm not at work, but at this point,
>> the Kryptonite u-loop lock that I've had for 12 years is going to have
>> to do.
> I've already got it planned out how I'd lock my SWB -- with that
> six-foot Kryptonite chain and lock!
Heh.. That conjures up the scene from Pee Wee's Big Adventure where he
locks his bike with at least 100 feet of chain. ;)
> That reminds me: the ActionBents do seem to "look alike" for some
> reason...how did you come to choose yours? I mean, I know you said you
> decided that the Metro was the best for urban commuting, but what made
> you think so, exactly? The one I'm interested in one day is the
> high-racer. Rather expensive for an ActionBent, especially given the
> specs (except for the nice 27-lb. weight), though.
Very simple.. It was the least-expensive. Other factors weighed in: It
was a SWB, and I had plans to buy a SWB. In addition, it is an OSS, which
was my first choice for high-traffic commuting. But really, it was
cheaper by at least $300.. The whole kit and caboodle was $940, delivered
- that included the rack, the set of handlebar mirrors, the speedometer,
the kickstand, and the seat upgrade. Yeah, it cost me a weekend building
it, but it was a great learning experience for me.
[paring down Day 2]
>> Day 2: What a difference a day makes! After work, I was itching to give
>> fantastic!! I even did some medium-speed cornering and practiced some
>> 'wiggling' at lower speed to emulate steering around debris. All as
>> comfortable as I could hope to be...
> I know what you mean! I was really surprised by my second day, too. I
> just took to it, and was turning my head back like I do on my DF without
> realizing it!
Yup. Although, I haven't been comfortable enough to twist my head around.
I am and will be very much relying on my mirror[s].
>> Although (*hee*) I
>> did fall over on a full stop once.. Couldn't get my foot down quite
>> correctly, but the lay down was almost like just rolling over from a
>> sit-down position.. No pain at all.
> Yep. Now the only thing that scares me is that I ain't scared!
I've become more and more confident in my riding skills as my experience
has granted me. I'm starting to relax; steering, stopping, and starting
(as well as gear down-shifting and up-shifting) have started already to
become second-nature.
>> I absolutely *LOVE* this bike... With the exception of having to drill
>> my own seat mounting. I will be commuting to work tomorrow..
> Just be careful out there! Ride defensively! Don't mean to sound like
> your mom, but there are two 'bent vets I sort of know who were messed up
> pretty bad by some drivers, so it can definitely happen to us giddy
> newbies champing at the bit.
MOST definitely! I am always trying to be fully and completely aware of
my immediate surroundings -- cars, bikes, pedestrians, obstacles,
objects... So far, people see me just because they're seeing something
that in the back of their head says "Hey, that's different!" I see a lot
of folks looking up in their rear-view mirrors as they pass by. Kinda
cool. :)
[Day 3, 4, 5: The Commutes]
So, I've ridden the twelve-mile round-trip three times, now. Absolutely
no problems on any of the three -- that is, once I figured out to buy a
tightening screw. I am "challenging" myself aerobically, but once I get
off, I have no pains anywhere. This is wonderful! On my old DF, I used
to get back pains, neck strains, sore wrists, strained calves, and the ol'
Male Pressure Point Problem. The only thing that I'm feeling - during the
ride - is my knees getting a work-out.. And it's not even really the knee
- more like the ligament connecting to the top of my thigh, front of the
upper leg. I have definitely learned a few things, though:
1) Very definitely, the days of hands-free riding are O-V-E-R... In
fact, the days of one-handed riding are pretty much done. The steering
is quite twitchy; having one hand on the handlebars is a conscious
bit of work.
2) Mirrors will be very necessary. I am planning on building a mounting
device that will attach to my seat from the back, placing a car rear-
view mirror right in the same place that I would have in a car. I'll
be able to flick my eyes up into the mirror.
3) I'M HAVING A BLAST!!! :)
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2006 04:25:30
From: Mike Vandeman
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
On Tue, 09 May 2006 21:20:59 -0400, pmhilton <pmhilton@mfx.net > wrote:
>Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>Boneheaded blather equally as mindless as that which it seeks to conjoin
>snipped here . . . . And elsewhere as well . . . . .
>
>And there, also . . . . .
>
>You, like he, are unarguably and unimaginably full of it. Verbosity
>won't help. Verbal flatulence won't help. Sweeping generalities won't
>help. Blaming apples for not looking like oranges won't help. In
>considering you two windbags, nothing rational will help. I could point
>you to at least four different listings of the basic logical fallacies,
Don't make us laugh. You mountain bikers couldn't reason your way out
of a paper bag.
>but I seriously doubt that would help.
>
>You both do enliven (?) what would otherwise be a fairly quiet evening.
>
>Whatta waste of bandwidth.
>
>And, so, to bed.
>
>PH
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
| | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 01:48:04
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:84f5621vaoelgor64lg4e04nhdscn7kev8@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 09 May 2006 21:20:59 -0400, pmhilton <pmhilton@mfx.net> wrote:
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
Nope, what follows below is what some jackass by the name of pmhilton wrote.
>>Boneheaded blather equally as mindless as that which it seeks to conjoin
>>snipped here . . . . And elsewhere as well . . . . .
>>
>>And there, also . . . . .
>>
>>You, like he, are unarguably and unimaginably full of it. Verbosity
>>won't help. Verbal flatulence won't help. Sweeping generalities won't
>>help. Blaming apples for not looking like oranges won't help. In
>>considering you two windbags, nothing rational will help. I could point
>>you to at least four different listings of the basic logical fallacies,
>
> Don't make us laugh. You mountain bikers couldn't reason your way out
> of a paper bag.
>
>>but I seriously doubt that would help.
>>
>>You both do enliven (?) what would otherwise be a fairly quiet evening.
>>
>>Whatta waste of bandwidth.
>>
>>And, so, to bed.
>>
>>PH
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 10 May 2006 02:52:03
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"pmhilton" <pmhilton@mfx.net > wrote in message
news:44613FFB.6010708@mfx.net...
ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!
> Edward Dolan wrote:
What did I write? I do not see it!
> Boneheaded blather equally as mindless as that which it seeks to conjoin
> snipped here . . . . And elsewhere as well . . . . .
>
> And there, also . . . . .
>
> You, like he, are unarguably and unimaginably full of it. Verbosity won't
> help. Verbal flatulence won't help. Sweeping generalities won't help.
> Blaming apples for not looking like oranges won't help. In considering you
> two windbags, nothing rational will help. I could point you to at least
> four different listings of the basic logical fallacies, but I seriously
> doubt that would help.
>
> You both do enliven (?) what would otherwise be a fairly quiet evening.
[...]
I leave it to others to concern themselves with facts, evidence, proofs,
statistics and data of various descriptions. I also leave it to screwballs
like you to indulge in formal logical reasoning. We are having what passes
for a normal human conversation, something which I suspect you are incapable
of.
I am here for opinion ONLY based on nothing but my superior native
intelligence. That is why I am so Great and why all others in comparison are
pygmies and dwarfs. You need to get with the program and not be off sulking
by yourself. There is no one in this world who cares about your logic, so
you can forget about that. This is Usenet, not a philosophy department
course in logic.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2006 13:41:36
From: S Curtiss
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:JoOdnQPnsoECLcTZRVn-ig@prairiewave.com...
> Vandeman is long-winded as hell, but that does not mean he is wrong. I do
> not like to see any kind of bike on a hiking trail anywhere. Trails are
> for human walking, not for freaking machinery. I would like to see horses
> banned from all hiking trails too, but I know that is expecting too much.
> I most definitely do not ever want to see any bikes in a designated
> wilderness area.
Bikes are not allowed in designated wilderness areas.
>
> Surely there are plenty of forestry roads and fire roads for cyclists.
> Our world is being overrun with roads and we do not want bikes on
> footpaths. I have seen footpaths literally destroyed by cycling. They end
> up not fit for bikes or even for hikers.
Anecdotal - I have seen trails damaged by hikers trash and abuse. All that
says is that people can be destructive.
>
> Vandeman is right in all his essential points. Cyclists who want to ride
> in the wilderness and/or natural areas are the worst slobs in the
> universe. To go off trail on a bike is an even greater abomination. If I
> were managing a natural area, I would make damn sure no cyclists ever
> trespassed on my sacred ground. It would be reserved strictly for walkers
> (hikers).
"my sacred ground..."? Get off it! Multi-use designations and recreational
areas are distinguished from wilderness areas. There continue to be
designations for limited or strict human access. Cyclists are only trying
maintain the use in designated recreation and multi-use areas. Cooperation
is squeezing the tiny mindest of the moron and it is not our fault you find
yourself unable to keep up.
>
> The hybrid (mountain) bike has its' uses, but trail riding is not one of
> them.
>
> What is a natural area for? It is for contemplation, not for recreation.
> If you want recreation, then go to Coney Island or some other freaking
> god-awful man-made amusement park. When you are in a natural area, you
> should be doing nothing but communing with God. It is a sacrilege to be
> doing anything else.
Your "communion" with God does not have to be the only form of interaction
with nature. People experience things differently. What is a sacrilege is to
spout an opinion, throw God behind it and claim some sort of superiority.
What is a sacrilege is to proclaim yourself as an "authority" (Vandeman) or
"the Great" (Dolan) and have nothing but your own claim to sustain it.
If my way of experiencing nature involves rolling silently along on a bike
on a trail, then it is also sacrilege to say that my experience is any less
real, spiritual or emotional than yours. As long as the BLM recognizes that
some (not all) areas are accessible for bicycles, then cooperation will
continue to be the prevailing option.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 06 May 2006 15:36:29
From: Mike Vandeman
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
On Thu, 4 May 2006 13:41:36 -0400, "S Curtiss" <scurtiss@cox.net >
wrote:
>
>"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
>news:JoOdnQPnsoECLcTZRVn-ig@prairiewave.com...
>> Vandeman is long-winded as hell, but that does not mean he is wrong. I do
>> not like to see any kind of bike on a hiking trail anywhere. Trails are
>> for human walking, not for freaking machinery. I would like to see horses
>> banned from all hiking trails too, but I know that is expecting too much.
>> I most definitely do not ever want to see any bikes in a designated
>> wilderness area.
>Bikes are not allowed in designated wilderness areas.
>>
>> Surely there are plenty of forestry roads and fire roads for cyclists.
>> Our world is being overrun with roads and we do not want bikes on
>> footpaths. I have seen footpaths literally destroyed by cycling. They end
>> up not fit for bikes or even for hikers.
>Anecdotal - I have seen trails damaged by hikers trash and abuse. All that
>says is that people can be destructive.
>>
>> Vandeman is right in all his essential points. Cyclists who want to ride
>> in the wilderness and/or natural areas are the worst slobs in the
>> universe. To go off trail on a bike is an even greater abomination. If I
>> were managing a natural area, I would make damn sure no cyclists ever
>> trespassed on my sacred ground. It would be reserved strictly for walkers
>> (hikers).
>"my sacred ground..."? Get off it! Multi-use designations and recreational
>areas are distinguished from wilderness areas. There continue to be
>designations for limited or strict human access. Cyclists are only trying
>maintain the use in designated recreation and multi-use areas.
Careful, your nose is growing. Mountain bikers are ACTIVELY LOBBYING
to get bike access to Wilderness, which you well know, but choose to
pretend doesn't exist. Nothing you say can be trusted..
Cooperation
>is squeezing the tiny mindest of the moron and it is not our fault you find
>yourself unable to keep up.
>>
>> The hybrid (mountain) bike has its' uses, but trail riding is not one of
>> them.
>>
>> What is a natural area for? It is for contemplation, not for recreation.
>> If you want recreation, then go to Coney Island or some other freaking
>> god-awful man-made amusement park. When you are in a natural area, you
>> should be doing nothing but communing with God. It is a sacrilege to be
>> doing anything else.
>Your "communion" with God does not have to be the only form of interaction
>with nature. People experience things differently. What is a sacrilege is to
>spout an opinion, throw God behind it and claim some sort of superiority.
>What is a sacrilege is to proclaim yourself as an "authority" (Vandeman) or
>"the Great" (Dolan) and have nothing but your own claim to sustain it.
That's a bald-faced LIE, and you know it. The SCIENCE is all on our
side.
>If my way of experiencing nature involves rolling silently along on a bike
>on a trail,
Then you don't use a chain? A chain rattles constantly. It's not
"silent". But then we KNOW that you are an incorrigible LIAR.
then it is also sacrilege to say that my experience is any less
>real, spiritual or emotional than yours.
BS. It's not REAL, because you can't REALLY experience nature while
trying to control a bike. It's IMPOSSIBLE to pay attention to both --
unless you want to crash! That's obvious.
As long as the BLM recognizes that
>some (not all) areas are accessible for bicycles, then cooperation will
>continue to be the prevailing option.
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
>>
>>
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
| | | |
Date: 06 May 2006 12:21:35
From: S Curtiss
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:9bgp52porhvprs1bk2rg2jv1a4g3hjjtq6@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 May 2006 13:41:36 -0400, "S Curtiss" <scurtiss@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
>>> Vandeman is right in all his essential points. Cyclists who want to ride
>>> in the wilderness and/or natural areas are the worst slobs in the
>>> universe. To go off trail on a bike is an even greater abomination. If I
>>> were managing a natural area, I would make damn sure no cyclists ever
>>> trespassed on my sacred ground. It would be reserved strictly for
>>> walkers
>>> (hikers).
>>"my sacred ground..."? Get off it! Multi-use designations and recreational
>>areas are distinguished from wilderness areas. There continue to be
>>designations for limited or strict human access. Cyclists are only trying
>>maintain the use in designated recreation and multi-use areas.
>
> Careful, your nose is growing. Mountain bikers are ACTIVELY LOBBYING
> to get bike access to Wilderness, which you well know, but choose to
> pretend doesn't exist. Nothing you say can be trusted..
What is being lobbied for is consistency in recognizing areas and
designating them. What may be called "wilderness" in one area is more
loosely designated in others. Enforcement requires consistency. Your focus
on fragments of the whole is unfamous.
>
> Cooperation
>>is squeezing the tiny mindest of the moron and it is not our fault you
>>find
>>yourself unable to keep up.
>>>
>>> The hybrid (mountain) bike has its' uses, but trail riding is not one of
>>> them.
>>>
>>> What is a natural area for? It is for contemplation, not for recreation.
>>> If you want recreation, then go to Coney Island or some other freaking
>>> god-awful man-made amusement park. When you are in a natural area, you
>>> should be doing nothing but communing with God. It is a sacrilege to be
>>> doing anything else.
>>Your "communion" with God does not have to be the only form of interaction
>>with nature. People experience things differently. What is a sacrilege is
>>to
>>spout an opinion, throw God behind it and claim some sort of superiority.
>>What is a sacrilege is to proclaim yourself as an "authority" (Vandeman)
>>or
>>"the Great" (Dolan) and have nothing but your own claim to sustain it.
>
> That's a bald-faced LIE, and you know it. The SCIENCE is all on our
> side.
Nope. Since you qualify any science with definitions and opinions you insist
on, real science is useless in a debate with you. Until you recognize
universal definitions and terms and stop using your opinion as a filter for
information, your claim of "science" is useless.
>
>>If my way of experiencing nature involves rolling silently along on a bike
>>on a trail,
>
> Then you don't use a chain? A chain rattles constantly. It's not
> "silent". But then we KNOW that you are an incorrigible LIAR.
Actually... it does not. A chain under pressure (pedaling) does not rattle.
A chain on a smooth trail does not rattle. There is a sound during a shift.
There is some bounce on uneven terrain. "Constantly" is not accurate.
"Sometimes" would be accurate.
Using terms to exaggerate reality... Now that could be considered a "lie".
>
> then it is also sacrilege to say that my experience is any less
>>real, spiritual or emotional than yours.
>
> BS. It's not REAL, because you can't REALLY experience nature while
> trying to control a bike. It's IMPOSSIBLE to pay attention to both --
> unless you want to crash! That's obvious.
Nope - The musician analogy stands. It is not difficult to control a bicycle
and experience the nature around you. It is possible to play a guitar and
sing. It is possible to ride a road bike and be observant of traffic. And
traffic is moving in multiple directions and multiple speeds. Nature, for
the most part, is standing still. Basing my experience on your opinion is
useless.
>
> As long as the BLM recognizes that
>>some (not all) areas are accessible for bicycles, then cooperation will
>>continue to be the prevailing option.
>>
>>>
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 May 2006 20:42:12
From: Mike Vandeman
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
On Sat, 6 May 2006 12:21:35 -0400, "S Curtiss" <scurtiss@cox.net >
wrote:
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:9bgp52porhvprs1bk2rg2jv1a4g3hjjtq6@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 4 May 2006 13:41:36 -0400, "S Curtiss" <scurtiss@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
>>>> Vandeman is right in all his essential points. Cyclists who want to ride
>>>> in the wilderness and/or natural areas are the worst slobs in the
>>>> universe. To go off trail on a bike is an even greater abomination. If I
>>>> were managing a natural area, I would make damn sure no cyclists ever
>>>> trespassed on my sacred ground. It would be reserved strictly for
>>>> walkers
>>>> (hikers).
>>>"my sacred ground..."? Get off it! Multi-use designations and recreational
>>>areas are distinguished from wilderness areas. There continue to be
>>>designations for limited or strict human access. Cyclists are only trying
>>>maintain the use in designated recreation and multi-use areas.
>>
>> Careful, your nose is growing. Mountain bikers are ACTIVELY LOBBYING
>> to get bike access to Wilderness, which you well know, but choose to
>> pretend doesn't exist. Nothing you say can be trusted..
>What is being lobbied for is consistency in recognizing areas and
>designating them. What may be called "wilderness" in one area is more
>loosely designated in others. Enforcement requires consistency. Your focus
>on fragments of the whole is unfamous.
Are you practicing ow to be incoherent? You make no sense whatsoever,
like a guy pretending to be st by dropping big words into his
speech.
>> Cooperation
>>>is squeezing the tiny mindest of the moron and it is not our fault you
>>>find
>>>yourself unable to keep up.
>>>>
>>>> The hybrid (mountain) bike has its' uses, but trail riding is not one of
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> What is a natural area for? It is for contemplation, not for recreation.
>>>> If you want recreation, then go to Coney Island or some other freaking
>>>> god-awful man-made amusement park. When you are in a natural area, you
>>>> should be doing nothing but communing with God. It is a sacrilege to be
>>>> doing anything else.
>>>Your "communion" with God does not have to be the only form of interaction
>>>with nature. People experience things differently. What is a sacrilege is
>>>to
>>>spout an opinion, throw God behind it and claim some sort of superiority.
>>>What is a sacrilege is to proclaim yourself as an "authority" (Vandeman)
>>>or
>>>"the Great" (Dolan) and have nothing but your own claim to sustain it.
>>
>> That's a bald-faced LIE, and you know it. The SCIENCE is all on our
>> side.
>Nope. Since you qualify any science with definitions and opinions you insist
>on, real science is useless in a debate with you. Until you recognize
>universal definitions and terms and stop using your opinion as a filter for
>information, your claim of "science" is useless.
>>
>>>If my way of experiencing nature involves rolling silently along on a bike
>>>on a trail,
>>
>> Then you don't use a chain? A chain rattles constantly. It's not
>> "silent". But then we KNOW that you are an incorrigible LIAR.
>Actually... it does not. A chain under pressure (pedaling) does not rattle.
>A chain on a smooth trail does not rattle. There is a sound during a shift.
>There is some bounce on uneven terrain.
And the terrain is never perfectly even, so there is constant noise.
QED: you are a LIAR.
"Constantly" is not accurate.
>"Sometimes" would be accurate.
>Using terms to exaggerate reality... Now that could be considered a "lie".
>>
>> then it is also sacrilege to say that my experience is any less
>>>real, spiritual or emotional than yours.
>>
>> BS. It's not REAL, because you can't REALLY experience nature while
>> trying to control a bike. It's IMPOSSIBLE to pay attention to both --
>> unless you want to crash! That's obvious.
>Nope - The musician analogy stands. It is not difficult to control a bicycle
>and experience the nature around you. It is possible to play a guitar and
>sing. It is possible to ride a road bike and be observant of traffic. And
>traffic is moving in multiple directions and multiple speeds. Nature, for
>the most part, is standing still. Basing my experience on your opinion is
>useless.
>>
>> As long as the BLM recognizes that
>>>some (not all) areas are accessible for bicycles, then cooperation will
>>>continue to be the prevailing option.
>>>
>>>>
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2006 09:13:27
From: S Curtiss
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:4d2q52hs8no24jl8gefhfua1e1c5ett9pj@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 6 May 2006 12:21:35 -0400, "S Curtiss" <scurtiss@cox.net>
>>>>"my sacred ground..."? Get off it! Multi-use designations and
>>>>recreational
>>>>areas are distinguished from wilderness areas. There continue to be
>>>>designations for limited or strict human access. Cyclists are only
>>>>trying
>>>>maintain the use in designated recreation and multi-use areas.
>>>
>>> Careful, your nose is growing. Mountain bikers are ACTIVELY LOBBYING
>>> to get bike access to Wilderness, which you well know, but choose to
>>> pretend doesn't exist. Nothing you say can be trusted..
>>What is being lobbied for is consistency in recognizing areas and
>>designating them. What may be called "wilderness" in one area is more
>>loosely designated in others. Enforcement requires consistency. Your focus
>>on fragments of the whole is unfamous.
>
> Are you practicing ow to be incoherent? You make no sense whatsoever,
> like a guy pretending to be st by dropping big words into his
> speech.
>
Nope... makes perfect sense. You chosing to sidestep the context of the
statement with an attempt at character assasination is obvious.
>>> Cooperation
>>>>is squeezing the tiny mindest of the moron and it is not our fault you
>>>>find
>>>>yourself unable to keep up.
>>>>>
>>>>If my way of experiencing nature involves rolling silently along on a
>>>>bike
>>>>on a trail,
>>>
>>> Then you don't use a chain? A chain rattles constantly. It's not
>>> "silent". But then we KNOW that you are an incorrigible LIAR.
>>Actually... it does not. A chain under pressure (pedaling) does not
>>rattle.
>>A chain on a smooth trail does not rattle. There is a sound during a
>>shift.
>>There is some bounce on uneven terrain.
>
> And the terrain is never perfectly even, so there is constant noise.
> QED: you are a LIAR.
See the rest of the context below. MV splitting context again....
>
> "Constantly" is not accurate.
>>"Sometimes" would be accurate.
>>Using terms to exaggerate reality... Now that could be considered a "lie".
>>>
>>> then it is also sacrilege to say that my experience is any less
>>>>real, spiritual or emotional than yours.
|
| | |
Date: 05 May 2006 16:48:50
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"S Curtiss" <scurtiss@cox.net > wrote in message
news:v1r6g.8479$B42.2476@dukeread05...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:JoOdnQPnsoECLcTZRVn-ig@prairiewave.com...
>> Vandeman is long-winded as hell, but that does not mean he is wrong. I do
>> not like to see any kind of bike on a hiking trail anywhere. Trails are
>> for human walking, not for freaking machinery. I would like to see horses
>> banned from all hiking trails too, but I know that is expecting too much.
>> I most definitely do not ever want to see any bikes in a designated
>> wilderness area.
> Bikes are not allowed in designated wilderness areas.
And rightly so! Bikes should be banned from all footpaths too, no matter
where they are located.
>> Surely there are plenty of forestry roads and fire roads for cyclists.
>> Our world is being overrun with roads and we do not want bikes on
>> footpaths. I have seen footpaths literally destroyed by cycling. They end
>> up not fit for bikes or even for hikers.
> Anecdotal - I have seen trails damaged by hikers trash and abuse. All that
> says is that people can be destructive.
I would like to show you some trails around Aspen that cyclists have totally
ruined - and I don't think they were trying to be destructive either.
>> Vandeman is right in all his essential points. Cyclists who want to ride
>> in the wilderness and/or natural areas are the worst slobs in the
>> universe. To go off trail on a bike is an even greater abomination. If I
>> were managing a natural area, I would make damn sure no cyclists ever
>> trespassed on my sacred ground. It would be reserved strictly for walkers
>> (hikers).
>
> "my sacred ground..."? Get off it! Multi-use designations and recreational
> areas are distinguished from wilderness areas. There continue to be
> designations for limited or strict human access. Cyclists are only trying
> maintain the use in designated recreation and multi-use areas. Cooperation
> is squeezing the tiny mindest of the moron and it is not our fault you
> find yourself unable to keep up.
Nope, you are trying to get in where you do not belong. Footpaths are for
walkers and roads are for cyclists.
>> The hybrid (mountain) bike has its' uses, but trail riding is not one of
>> them.
>>
>> What is a natural area for? It is for contemplation, not for recreation.
>> If you want recreation, then go to Coney Island or some other freaking
>> god-awful man-made amusement park. When you are in a natural area, you
>> should be doing nothing but communing with God. It is a sacrilege to be
>> doing anything else.
>
> Your "communion" with God does not have to be the only form of interaction
> with nature. People experience things differently. What is a sacrilege is
> to spout an opinion, throw God behind it and claim some sort of
> superiority.
The average person's idea of nature is to have some kind of fun in the
out-of-doors. There are plenty of such areas set aside for these kind of
slobs. Off-road cyclists fall into this category of person to perfection.
But like all slobs, they want to infringe on other areas that have been set
aside for other types of persons, those superior types like me who know how
to equate nature with God (even though I am an atheist). Our sacred
footpaths are not for the likes of slobs who only want to desecrate and
despoil. Have you no shame at all?
> What is a sacrilege is to proclaim yourself as an "authority" (Vandeman)
> or "the Great" (Dolan) and have nothing but your own claim to sustain it.
> If my way of experiencing nature involves rolling silently along on a bike
> on a trail, then it is also sacrilege to say that my experience is any
> less real, spiritual or emotional than yours. As long as the BLM
> recognizes that some (not all) areas are accessible for bicycles, then
> cooperation will continue to be the prevailing option.
Well ... yes, I think you are probably a responsible off-road cyclist and I
do not begrudge you your experience of nature and the out-of-doors (no
matter how inferior to mine), but I just do not want you on a footpath on a
bike. Am I being unreasonable?
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | |
Date: 23 May 2006 11:54:20
From: John
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
test
"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in
news:17ydneR6ZsfLVcbZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@prairiewave.com:
>
> "S Curtiss" <scurtiss@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:v1r6g.8479$B42.2476@dukeread05...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
>> news:JoOdnQPnsoECLcTZRVn-ig@prairiewave.com...
>>> Vandeman is long-winded as hell, but that does not mean he is wrong.
>>> I do not like to see any kind of bike on a hiking trail anywhere.
>>> Trails are for human walking, not for freaking machinery. I would
>>> like to see horses banned from all hiking trails too, but I know
>>> that is expecting too much. I most definitely do not ever want to
>>> see any bikes in a designated wilderness area.
>
>> Bikes are not allowed in designated wilderness areas.
>
> And rightly so! Bikes should be banned from all footpaths too, no
> matter where they are located.
>
>>> Surely there are plenty of forestry roads and fire roads for
>>> cyclists. Our world is being overrun with roads and we do not want
>>> bikes on footpaths. I have seen footpaths literally destroyed by
>>> cycling. They end up not fit for bikes or even for hikers.
>> Anecdotal - I have seen trails damaged by hikers trash and abuse. All
>> that says is that people can be destructive.
>
> I would like to show you some trails around Aspen that cyclists have
> totally ruined - and I don't think they were trying to be destructive
> either.
>
>>> Vandeman is right in all his essential points. Cyclists who want to
>>> ride in the wilderness and/or natural areas are the worst slobs in
>>> the universe. To go off trail on a bike is an even greater
>>> abomination. If I were managing a natural area, I would make damn
>>> sure no cyclists ever trespassed on my sacred ground. It would be
>>> reserved strictly for walkers (hikers).
>>
>> "my sacred ground..."? Get off it! Multi-use designations and
>> recreational areas are distinguished from wilderness areas. There
>> continue to be designations for limited or strict human access.
>> Cyclists are only trying maintain the use in designated recreation
>> and multi-use areas. Cooperation is squeezing the tiny mindest of the
>> moron and it is not our fault you find yourself unable to keep up.
>
> Nope, you are trying to get in where you do not belong. Footpaths are
> for walkers and roads are for cyclists.
>
>>> The hybrid (mountain) bike has its' uses, but trail riding is not
>>> one of them.
>>>
>>> What is a natural area for? It is for contemplation, not for
>>> recreation. If you want recreation, then go to Coney Island or some
>>> other freaking god-awful man-made amusement park. When you are in a
>>> natural area, you should be doing nothing but communing with God. It
>>> is a sacrilege to be doing anything else.
>>
>> Your "communion" with God does not have to be the only form of
>> interaction with nature. People experience things differently. What
>> is a sacrilege is to spout an opinion, throw God behind it and claim
>> some sort of superiority.
>
> The average person's idea of nature is to have some kind of fun in the
> out-of-doors. There are plenty of such areas set aside for these kind
> of slobs. Off-road cyclists fall into this category of person to
> perfection. But like all slobs, they want to infringe on other areas
> that have been set aside for other types of persons, those superior
> types like me who know how to equate nature with God (even though I am
> an atheist). Our sacred footpaths are not for the likes of slobs who
> only want to desecrate and despoil. Have you no shame at all?
>
>> What is a sacrilege is to proclaim yourself as an "authority"
>> (Vandeman) or "the Great" (Dolan) and have nothing but your own claim
>> to sustain it. If my way of experiencing nature involves rolling
>> silently along on a bike on a trail, then it is also sacrilege to say
>> that my experience is any less real, spiritual or emotional than
>> yours. As long as the BLM recognizes that some (not all) areas are
>> accessible for bicycles, then cooperation will continue to be the
>> prevailing option.
>
> Well ... yes, I think you are probably a responsible off-road cyclist
> and I do not begrudge you your experience of nature and the
> out-of-doors (no matter how inferior to mine), but I just do not want
> you on a footpath on a bike. Am I being unreasonable?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
|
| | | |
Date: 05 May 2006 21:08:59
From: S Curtiss
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:17ydneR6ZsfLVcbZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>
>> Bikes are not allowed in designated wilderness areas.
>
> And rightly so! Bikes should be banned from all footpaths too, no matter
> where they are located.
The FACT that many areas enjoy cooperative efforts of use and preservation
for shared resources, including shared areas of singletrack trails, may be
beyond your narrow scope of definition. If that be the case, your opinion of
how outdoor resources are utilized is fine... for you. You can find any
number of areas to hike in the manner you choose to. However, there are also
areas with larger and more cooperative groups of people sharing the areas
where cycling, hiking and other activities coexist. The point is, there are
areas determined to be wilderness where bikes are not allowed. There are
also areas where bikes share trails and resources. Why do you find it
necessary to take enjoyment away from people when your options for having
the experience you desire currently exist in so many areas?
>
>>> Surely there are plenty of forestry roads and fire roads for cyclists.
>>> Our world is being overrun with roads and we do not want bikes on
>>> footpaths. I have seen footpaths literally destroyed by cycling. They
>>> end up not fit for bikes or even for hikers.
>> Anecdotal - I have seen trails damaged by hikers trash and abuse. All
>> that says is that people can be destructive.
>
> I would like to show you some trails around Aspen that cyclists have
> totally ruined - and I don't think they were trying to be destructive
> either.
Of course it is all on the shoulders (or wheels) of the cyclists... At the
risk of sounding "Clintonesque" - Explain what you mean by "ruined". Are
they too rutted? (rain and erosion have been doing it for millions of years)
Are they too wide? (motor traffic..? Hikers off trail...? Equestrians...?)
Did a Wal-t suddenly appear? What is "ruined"?
>
>>> Vandeman is right in all his essential points. Cyclists who want to ride
>>> in the wilderness and/or natural areas are the worst slobs in the
>>> universe. To go off trail on a bike is an even greater abomination. If I
>>> were managing a natural area, I would make damn sure no cyclists ever
>>> trespassed on my sacred ground. It would be reserved strictly for
>>> walkers (hikers).
>>
>> "my sacred ground..."? Get off it! Multi-use designations and
>> recreational areas are distinguished from wilderness areas. There
>> continue to be designations for limited or strict human access. Cyclists
>> are only trying maintain the use in designated recreation and multi-use
>> areas. Cooperation is squeezing the tiny mindest of the moron and it is
>> not our fault you find yourself unable to keep up.
>
> Nope, you are trying to get in where you do not belong. Footpaths are for
> walkers and roads are for cyclists.
Singletrack sections and trails are being shared by hikers (walkers) and
cyclists all over the country. The ideal situations seperate user trails per
activity. That is not always an option. Cooperative efforts of use and
education have done wonders. Perhaps you should try it.
>
>>> The hybrid (mountain) bike has its' uses, but trail riding is not one of
>>> them.
>>>
>>> What is a natural area for? It is for contemplation, not for recreation.
>>> If you want recreation, then go to Coney Island or some other freaking
>>> god-awful man-made amusement park. When you are in a natural area, you
>>> should be doing nothing but communing with God. It is a sacrilege to be
>>> doing anything else.
>>
>> Your "communion" with God does not have to be the only form of
>> interaction with nature. People experience things differently. What is a
>> sacrilege is to spout an opinion, throw God behind it and claim some sort
>> of superiority.
>
> The average person's idea of nature is to have some kind of fun in the
> out-of-doors. There are plenty of such areas set aside for these kind of
> slobs. Off-road cyclists fall into this category of person to perfection.
> But like all slobs, they want to infringe on other areas that have been
> set aside for other types of persons, those superior types like me who
> know how to equate nature with God (even though I am an atheist). Our
> sacred footpaths are not for the likes of slobs who only want to desecrate
> and despoil. Have you no shame at all?
Slobs...? "superior types like me..." Your opinion of yourself is, I'm sure,
completely balanced by the application of your opinion of others. An atheist
who talks of God...? Your sacred footpaths..? The rest of us have no
shame...?
I hate to break this to you... but you claiming to be superior means
nothing. You could claim to be a banana with as much authority and honesty.
I know you are as much superior as you are a banana. I also know your desire
to hike and have your experience is fine for you. Who is stopping you? You
have your areas that are wilderness. You have your areas where cyclists are
not allowed to go. Why do you find it necessary to remove cyclists and there
pursuit of their experience in areas already deemed appropriate?
>
>> What is a sacrilege is to proclaim yourself as an "authority" (Vandeman)
>> or "the Great" (Dolan) and have nothing but your own claim to sustain it.
>> If my way of experiencing nature involves rolling silently along on a
>> bike on a trail, then it is also sacrilege to say that my experience is
>> any less real, spiritual or emotional than yours. As long as the BLM
>> recognizes that some (not all) areas are accessible for bicycles, then
>> cooperation will continue to be the prevailing option.
>
> Well ... yes, I think you are probably a responsible off-road cyclist and
> I do not begrudge you your experience of nature and the out-of-doors (no
> matter how inferior to mine), but I just do not want you on a footpath on
> a bike. Am I being unreasonable?
As I stated... You have areas that are off-limits to bikes that are "hiking
only". Why do you find it necessary to force a narrow view into other areas,
singletrack or not, that allow shared use with cyclists? Am I being
unreasonable in utilizing what the BLM, Sierra Club, NFS, IMBA and others
have worked together to achieve?
You have areas you can utilize for your experience? Why are you so quick to
judge (based only on your opinion) my experience or pursuit of it in a
manner recognized by everyone else?
S Curtiss the Great and most Powerful King of ID, OZ and the Universe.
Yeah... kind of shallow. Perhaps if a few other people bow down and throw
money at me, it could carry some weight. I wonder if Tom Cruise can be
persuaded to leave scientology and join curtissology. Then again... Dolan
has been posting as "the great" for years and I don't see a big conversion
taking place. Maybe I'll just go for a ride....
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 May 2006 20:28:48
From: Mike Vandeman
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
On Fri, 5 May 2006 21:08:59 -0400, "S Curtiss"
<stevecurtiss@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
>news:17ydneR6ZsfLVcbZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>>
>>> Bikes are not allowed in designated wilderness areas.
>>
>> And rightly so! Bikes should be banned from all footpaths too, no matter
>> where they are located.
>The FACT that many areas enjoy cooperative efforts of use and preservation
>for shared resources, including shared areas of singletrack trails, may be
>beyond your narrow scope of definition.
Let me guess: English is not your first language. You make no sense
whatsoever. Mountain biking destroys wildlife and habitat, and
preserves NOTHING except bike access.
If that be the case, your opinion of
>how outdoor resources are utilized is fine... for you. You can find any
>number of areas to hike in the manner you choose to. However, there are also
>areas with larger and more cooperative groups of people sharing the areas
>where cycling, hiking and other activities coexist. The point is, there are
>areas determined to be wilderness where bikes are not allowed. There are
>also areas where bikes share trails and resources. Why do you find it
>necessary to take enjoyment away from people when your options for having
>the experience you desire currently exist in so many areas?
Because humans are the only thing that matters! DUH!
>>>> Surely there are plenty of forestry roads and fire roads for cyclists.
>>>> Our world is being overrun with roads and we do not want bikes on
>>>> footpaths. I have seen footpaths literally destroyed by cycling. They
>>>> end up not fit for bikes or even for hikers.
>>> Anecdotal - I have seen trails damaged by hikers trash and abuse. All
>>> that says is that people can be destructive.
>>
>> I would like to show you some trails around Aspen that cyclists have
>> totally ruined - and I don't think they were trying to be destructive
>> either.
>Of course it is all on the shoulders (or wheels) of the cyclists... At the
>risk of sounding "Clintonesque" - Explain what you mean by "ruined". Are
>they too rutted? (rain and erosion have been doing it for millions of years)
>Are they too wide? (motor traffic..? Hikers off trail...? Equestrians...?)
>Did a Wal-t suddenly appear? What is "ruined"?
>>
>>>> Vandeman is right in all his essential points. Cyclists who want to ride
>>>> in the wilderness and/or natural areas are the worst slobs in the
>>>> universe. To go off trail on a bike is an even greater abomination. If I
>>>> were managing a natural area, I would make damn sure no cyclists ever
>>>> trespassed on my sacred ground. It would be reserved strictly for
>>>> walkers (hikers).
>>>
>>> "my sacred ground..."? Get off it! Multi-use designations and
>>> recreational areas are distinguished from wilderness areas. There
>>> continue to be designations for limited or strict human access. Cyclists
>>> are only trying maintain the use in designated recreation and multi-use
>>> areas. Cooperation is squeezing the tiny mindest of the moron and it is
>>> not our fault you find yourself unable to keep up.
>>
>> Nope, you are trying to get in where you do not belong. Footpaths are for
>> walkers and roads are for cyclists.
>Singletrack sections and trails are being shared by hikers (walkers) and
>cyclists all over the country. The ideal situations seperate user trails per
>activity. That is not always an option. Cooperative efforts of use and
>education have done wonders. Perhaps you should try it.
>>
>>>> The hybrid (mountain) bike has its' uses, but trail riding is not one of
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> What is a natural area for? It is for contemplation, not for recreation.
>>>> If you want recreation, then go to Coney Island or some other freaking
>>>> god-awful man-made amusement park. When you are in a natural area, you
>>>> should be doing nothing but communing with God. It is a sacrilege to be
>>>> doing anything else.
>>>
>>> Your "communion" with God does not have to be the only form of
>>> interaction with nature. People experience things differently. What is a
>>> sacrilege is to spout an opinion, throw God behind it and claim some sort
>>> of superiority.
>>
>> The average person's idea of nature is to have some kind of fun in the
>> out-of-doors. There are plenty of such areas set aside for these kind of
>> slobs. Off-road cyclists fall into this category of person to perfection.
>> But like all slobs, they want to infringe on other areas that have been
>> set aside for other types of persons, those superior types like me who
>> know how to equate nature with God (even though I am an atheist). Our
>> sacred footpaths are not for the likes of slobs who only want to desecrate
>> and despoil. Have you no shame at all?
>Slobs...? "superior types like me..." Your opinion of yourself is, I'm sure,
>completely balanced by the application of your opinion of others. An atheist
>who talks of God...? Your sacred footpaths..? The rest of us have no
>shame...?
>I hate to break this to you... but you claiming to be superior means
>nothing. You could claim to be a banana with as much authority and honesty.
>I know you are as much superior as you are a banana. I also know your desire
>to hike and have your experience is fine for you. Who is stopping you? You
>have your areas that are wilderness. You have your areas where cyclists are
>not allowed to go. Why do you find it necessary to remove cyclists and there
>pursuit of their experience in areas already deemed appropriate?
>>
>>> What is a sacrilege is to proclaim yourself as an "authority" (Vandeman)
>>> or "the Great" (Dolan) and have nothing but your own claim to sustain it.
>>> If my way of experiencing nature involves rolling silently along on a
>>> bike on a trail, then it is also sacrilege to say that my experience is
>>> any less real, spiritual or emotional than yours. As long as the BLM
>>> recognizes that some (not all) areas are accessible for bicycles, then
>>> cooperation will continue to be the prevailing option.
>>
>> Well ... yes, I think you are probably a responsible off-road cyclist and
>> I do not begrudge you your experience of nature and the out-of-doors (no
>> matter how inferior to mine), but I just do not want you on a footpath on
>> a bike. Am I being unreasonable?
>As I stated... You have areas that are off-limits to bikes that are "hiking
>only". Why do you find it necessary to force a narrow view into other areas,
>singletrack or not, that allow shared use with cyclists? Am I being
>unreasonable in utilizing what the BLM, Sierra Club, NFS, IMBA and others
>have worked together to achieve?
>You have areas you can utilize for your experience? Why are you so quick to
>judge (based only on your opinion) my experience or pursuit of it in a
>manner recognized by everyone else?
>
>S Curtiss the Great and most Powerful King of ID, OZ and the Universe.
>
>Yeah... kind of shallow. Perhaps if a few other people bow down and throw
>money at me, it could carry some weight. I wonder if Tom Cruise can be
>persuaded to leave scientology and join curtissology. Then again... Dolan
>has been posting as "the great" for years and I don't see a big conversion
>taking place. Maybe I'll just go for a ride....
Just shut up. You make no sense at all.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 May 2006 21:03:37
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:PGS6g.50827$k%3.18141@dukeread12...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:17ydneR6ZsfLVcbZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>>
>>> Bikes are not allowed in designated wilderness areas.
>>
>> And rightly so! Bikes should be banned from all footpaths too, no matter
>> where they are located.
>
> The FACT that many areas enjoy cooperative efforts of use and preservation
> for shared resources, including shared areas of singletrack trails, may be
> beyond your narrow scope of definition. If that be the case, your opinion
> of how outdoor resources are utilized is fine... for you. You can find
> any number of areas to hike in the manner you choose to. However, there
> are also areas with larger and more cooperative groups of people sharing
> the areas where cycling, hiking and other activities coexist. The point
> is, there are areas determined to be wilderness where bikes are not
> allowed. There are also areas where bikes share trails and resources. Why
> do you find it necessary to take enjoyment away from people when your
> options for having the experience you desire currently exist in so many
> areas?
I do believe there can be so-called recreation areas set aside for multiple
use. These will be mostly in areas near large cities and resort areas. But I
gave up on such areas decades ago. As a wilderness walker, I only want to go
to a true wilderness where my only encounters will be with other walkers
and hopefully some wildlife, but not wildlife bikers. I do not have much use
at all for recreation areas, but I am glad they are there for all those who
want to have "fun" in the out-of-doors. I realize not everyone can be a
superior person like me.
>>>> Surely there are plenty of forestry roads and fire roads for cyclists.
>>>> Our world is being overrun with roads and we do not want bikes on
>>>> footpaths. I have seen footpaths literally destroyed by cycling. They
>>>> end up not fit for bikes or even for hikers.
>>> Anecdotal - I have seen trails damaged by hikers trash and abuse. All
>>> that says is that people can be destructive.
>>
>> I would like to show you some trails around Aspen that cyclists have
>> totally ruined - and I don't think they were trying to be destructive
>> either.
> Of course it is all on the shoulders (or wheels) of the cyclists... At
> the risk of sounding "Clintonesque" - Explain what you mean by "ruined".
> Are they too rutted? (rain and erosion have been doing it for millions of
> years) Are they too wide? (motor traffic..? Hikers off trail...?
> Equestrians...?) Did a Wal-t suddenly appear? What is "ruined"?
They turn into a narrow slot where the bikes have been scooping around
corners or over hill and dale. Eventually they can hardly be ridden by
anyone other than skilled cyclists and they are hard for walkers to navigate
too. I suspect those ruts have to be filled in by someone sooner or later.
>>>> Vandeman is right in all his essential points. Cyclists who want to
>>>> ride in the wilderness and/or natural areas are the worst slobs in the
>>>> universe. To go off trail on a bike is an even greater abomination. If
>>>> I were managing a natural area, I would make damn sure no cyclists ever
>>>> trespassed on my sacred ground. It would be reserved strictly for
>>>> walkers (hikers).
>>>
>>> "my sacred ground..."? Get off it! Multi-use designations and
>>> recreational areas are distinguished from wilderness areas. There
>>> continue to be designations for limited or strict human access. Cyclists
>>> are only trying maintain the use in designated recreation and multi-use
>>> areas. Cooperation is squeezing the tiny mindest of the moron and it is
>>> not our fault you find yourself unable to keep up.
>>
>> Nope, you are trying to get in where you do not belong. Footpaths are for
>> walkers and roads are for cyclists.
> Singletrack sections and trails are being shared by hikers (walkers) and
> cyclists all over the country. The ideal situations seperate user trails
> per activity. That is not always an option. Cooperative efforts of use and
> education have done wonders. Perhaps you should try it.
All the education in the world is not going to change anyone much,
especially young people who already think they know it all. I despair of all
education. Laws and regulations with severe punishments for violations are
the answer for human misbehavior, not education.
Some low-land trails can be used by both cyclists and hikers, but it would
be better if each had their own trails. The ideal solution of course is for
everyone to become a walker like me!
>>>> The hybrid (mountain) bike has its' uses, but trail riding is not one
>>>> of them.
>>>>
>>>> What is a natural area for? It is for contemplation, not for
>>>> recreation. If you want recreation, then go to Coney Island or some
>>>> other freaking god-awful man-made amusement park. When you are in a
>>>> natural area, you should be doing nothing but communing with God. It is
>>>> a sacrilege to be doing anything else.
>>>
>>> Your "communion" with God does not have to be the only form of
>>> interaction with nature. People experience things differently. What is a
>>> sacrilege is to spout an opinion, throw God behind it and claim some
>>> sort of superiority.
>>
>> The average person's idea of nature is to have some kind of fun in the
>> out-of-doors. There are plenty of such areas set aside for these kind of
>> slobs. Off-road cyclists fall into this category of person to perfection.
>> But like all slobs, they want to infringe on other areas that have been
>> set aside for other types of persons, those superior types like me who
>> know how to equate nature with God (even though I am an atheist). Our
>> sacred footpaths are not for the likes of slobs who only want to
>> desecrate and despoil. Have you no shame at all?
>
> Slobs...? "superior types like me..." Your opinion of yourself is, I'm
> sure, completely balanced by the application of your opinion of others. An
> atheist who talks of God...? Your sacred footpaths..? The rest of us have
> no shame...?
> I hate to break this to you... but you claiming to be superior means
> nothing. You could claim to be a banana with as much authority and
> honesty. I know you are as much superior as you are a banana. I also know
> your desire to hike and have your experience is fine for you. Who is
> stopping you? You have your areas that are wilderness. You have your areas
> where cyclists are not allowed to go. Why do you find it necessary to
> remove cyclists and there pursuit of their experience in areas already
> deemed appropriate?
Wilderness areas are few and far between. I would like all really natural
areas reserved for walkers with no development whatsoever. Areas already
developed are lost forever and can be used by cyclists forever and who
cares! If you have your way, the entire country will end up looking like
Ohio. I would rather have the entire country look like Nevada (minus Las
Vegas and Reno of course), but maybe that is how we differ.
Well, I can't apologize for being a superior person. It is well known that
we superior types just can't help ourselves. We see idiocy displayed daily
all around us and it seems to get worse with every passing year. I am
shortly going to retire to Mt. Olympus where I will only consort with my
fellow Gods. Frankly, I am sick and tired of humanity with all its' trivial
obsessions.
>>> What is a sacrilege is to proclaim yourself as an "authority" (Vandeman)
>>> or "the Great" (Dolan) and have nothing but your own claim to sustain
>>> it.
>>> If my way of experiencing nature involves rolling silently along on a
>>> bike on a trail, then it is also sacrilege to say that my experience is
>>> any less real, spiritual or emotional than yours. As long as the BLM
>>> recognizes that some (not all) areas are accessible for bicycles, then
>>> cooperation will continue to be the prevailing option.
>>
>> Well ... yes, I think you are probably a responsible off-road cyclist and
>> I do not begrudge you your experience of nature and the out-of-doors (no
>> matter how inferior to mine), but I just do not want you on a footpath on
>> a bike. Am I being unreasonable?
>
> As I stated... You have areas that are off-limits to bikes that are
> "hiking only". Why do you find it necessary to force a narrow view into
> other areas, singletrack or not, that allow shared use with cyclists? Am I
> being unreasonable in utilizing what the BLM, Sierra Club, NFS, IMBA and
> others have worked together to achieve?
I prefer it the way it used to be when a walker like me would only encounter
the occasional horse party. All the agencies are going to do whatever the
public wants. But the public is wrong to want what it wants. If they would
only listen to the Great Ed Dolan, he would tell them what they should want.
We should all want to walk in the wilderness and then all would be right
with the world.
> You have areas you can utilize for your experience? Why are you so quick
> to judge (based only on your opinion) my experience or pursuit of it in a
> manner recognized by everyone else?
It is all based on what I have seen in the past. 9 out of 10 off-road bikers
are slobs and have no appreciation for nature at all. They ought to be at an
amusement park where they could indulge their love affair with gravity and
centrifugal force and tricky maneuvering.
> S Curtiss the Great and most Powerful King of ID, OZ and the Universe.
Now you are getting into my territory and the possibilities of total warfare
are Great!
> Yeah... kind of shallow. Perhaps if a few other people bow down and
> throw money at me, it could carry some weight. I wonder if Tom Cruise can
> be persuaded to leave scientology and join curtissology. Then again...
> Dolan has been posting as "the great" for years and I don't see a big
> conversion taking place. Maybe I'll just go for a ride....
Yea, Ed Dolan the Great is a deep study that will take you many years to
fathom. But I reserve my big guns for Saint Edward the Great. You do not
ever want to tangle with HIM. Even Ed Dolan the Great fears Saint Edward the
Great.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 May 2006 20:32:08
From: Mike Vandeman
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
On Fri, 5 May 2006 21:03:37 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net >
wrote:
>
>"S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:PGS6g.50827$k%3.18141@dukeread12...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
>> news:17ydneR6ZsfLVcbZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>>>
>>>> Bikes are not allowed in designated wilderness areas.
>>>
>>> And rightly so! Bikes should be banned from all footpaths too, no matter
>>> where they are located.
>>
>> The FACT that many areas enjoy cooperative efforts of use and preservation
>> for shared resources, including shared areas of singletrack trails, may be
>> beyond your narrow scope of definition. If that be the case, your opinion
>> of how outdoor resources are utilized is fine... for you. You can find
>> any number of areas to hike in the manner you choose to. However, there
>> are also areas with larger and more cooperative groups of people sharing
>> the areas where cycling, hiking and other activities coexist. The point
>> is, there are areas determined to be wilderness where bikes are not
>> allowed. There are also areas where bikes share trails and resources. Why
>> do you find it necessary to take enjoyment away from people when your
>> options for having the experience you desire currently exist in so many
>> areas?
>
>I do believe there can be so-called recreation areas set aside for multiple
>use. These will be mostly in areas near large cities and resort areas. But I
>gave up on such areas decades ago. As a wilderness walker, I only want to go
>to a true wilderness where my only encounters will be with other walkers
>and hopefully some wildlife, but not wildlife bikers. I do not have much use
>at all for recreation areas, but I am glad they are there for all those who
>want to have "fun" in the out-of-doors. I realize not everyone can be a
>superior person like me.
>
>>>>> Surely there are plenty of forestry roads and fire roads for cyclists.
>>>>> Our world is being overrun with roads and we do not want bikes on
>>>>> footpaths. I have seen footpaths literally destroyed by cycling. They
>>>>> end up not fit for bikes or even for hikers.
>>>> Anecdotal - I have seen trails damaged by hikers trash and abuse. All
>>>> that says is that people can be destructive.
>>>
>>> I would like to show you some trails around Aspen that cyclists have
>>> totally ruined - and I don't think they were trying to be destructive
>>> either.
>> Of course it is all on the shoulders (or wheels) of the cyclists... At
>> the risk of sounding "Clintonesque" - Explain what you mean by "ruined".
>> Are they too rutted? (rain and erosion have been doing it for millions of
>> years) Are they too wide? (motor traffic..? Hikers off trail...?
>> Equestrians...?) Did a Wal-t suddenly appear? What is "ruined"?
>
>They turn into a narrow slot where the bikes have been scooping around
>corners or over hill and dale. Eventually they can hardly be ridden by
>anyone other than skilled cyclists and they are hard for walkers to navigate
>too. I suspect those ruts have to be filled in by someone sooner or later.
>
>>>>> Vandeman is right in all his essential points. Cyclists who want to
>>>>> ride in the wilderness and/or natural areas are the worst slobs in the
>>>>> universe. To go off trail on a bike is an even greater abomination. If
>>>>> I were managing a natural area, I would make damn sure no cyclists ever
>>>>> trespassed on my sacred ground. It would be reserved strictly for
>>>>> walkers (hikers).
>>>>
>>>> "my sacred ground..."? Get off it! Multi-use designations and
>>>> recreational areas are distinguished from wilderness areas. There
>>>> continue to be designations for limited or strict human access. Cyclists
>>>> are only trying maintain the use in designated recreation and multi-use
>>>> areas. Cooperation is squeezing the tiny mindest of the moron and it is
>>>> not our fault you find yourself unable to keep up.
>>>
>>> Nope, you are trying to get in where you do not belong. Footpaths are for
>>> walkers and roads are for cyclists.
>> Singletrack sections and trails are being shared by hikers (walkers) and
>> cyclists all over the country. The ideal situations seperate user trails
>> per activity. That is not always an option. Cooperative efforts of use and
>> education have done wonders. Perhaps you should try it.
>
>All the education in the world is not going to change anyone much,
>especially young people who already think they know it all. I despair of all
>education. Laws and regulations with severe punishments for violations are
>the answer for human misbehavior, not education.
>
>Some low-land trails can be used by both cyclists and hikers, but it would
>be better if each had their own trails.
It doesn't work. Cyclists want to be able to ride ALL trails. Any
trail that's off-limits to bikes is where they want to ride. Besides,
creating new trails just destroys more habitat.
The ideal solution of course is for
>everyone to become a walker like me!
>
>>>>> The hybrid (mountain) bike has its' uses, but trail riding is not one
>>>>> of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is a natural area for? It is for contemplation, not for
>>>>> recreation. If you want recreation, then go to Coney Island or some
>>>>> other freaking god-awful man-made amusement park. When you are in a
>>>>> natural area, you should be doing nothing but communing with God. It is
>>>>> a sacrilege to be doing anything else.
>>>>
>>>> Your "communion" with God does not have to be the only form of
>>>> interaction with nature. People experience things differently. What is a
>>>> sacrilege is to spout an opinion, throw God behind it and claim some
>>>> sort of superiority.
>>>
>>> The average person's idea of nature is to have some kind of fun in the
>>> out-of-doors. There are plenty of such areas set aside for these kind of
>>> slobs. Off-road cyclists fall into this category of person to perfection.
>>> But like all slobs, they want to infringe on other areas that have been
>>> set aside for other types of persons, those superior types like me who
>>> know how to equate nature with God (even though I am an atheist). Our
>>> sacred footpaths are not for the likes of slobs who only want to
>>> desecrate and despoil. Have you no shame at all?
>>
>> Slobs...? "superior types like me..." Your opinion of yourself is, I'm
>> sure, completely balanced by the application of your opinion of others. An
>> atheist who talks of God...? Your sacred footpaths..? The rest of us have
>> no shame...?
>> I hate to break this to you... but you claiming to be superior means
>> nothing. You could claim to be a banana with as much authority and
>> honesty. I know you are as much superior as you are a banana. I also know
>> your desire to hike and have your experience is fine for you. Who is
>> stopping you? You have your areas that are wilderness. You have your areas
>> where cyclists are not allowed to go. Why do you find it necessary to
>> remove cyclists and there pursuit of their experience in areas already
>> deemed appropriate?
>
>Wilderness areas are few and far between. I would like all really natural
>areas reserved for walkers with no development whatsoever. Areas already
>developed are lost forever and can be used by cyclists forever and who
>cares! If you have your way, the entire country will end up looking like
>Ohio. I would rather have the entire country look like Nevada (minus Las
>Vegas and Reno of course), but maybe that is how we differ.
>
>Well, I can't apologize for being a superior person. It is well known that
>we superior types just can't help ourselves. We see idiocy displayed daily
>all around us and it seems to get worse with every passing year. I am
>shortly going to retire to Mt. Olympus where I will only consort with my
>fellow Gods. Frankly, I am sick and tired of humanity with all its' trivial
>obsessions.
>
>>>> What is a sacrilege is to proclaim yourself as an "authority" (Vandeman)
>>>> or "the Great" (Dolan) and have nothing but your own claim to sustain
>>>> it.
>>>> If my way of experiencing nature involves rolling silently along on a
>>>> bike on a trail, then it is also sacrilege to say that my experience is
>>>> any less real, spiritual or emotional than yours. As long as the BLM
>>>> recognizes that some (not all) areas are accessible for bicycles, then
>>>> cooperation will continue to be the prevailing option.
>>>
>>> Well ... yes, I think you are probably a responsible off-road cyclist and
>>> I do not begrudge you your experience of nature and the out-of-doors (no
>>> matter how inferior to mine), but I just do not want you on a footpath on
>>> a bike. Am I being unreasonable?
>>
>> As I stated... You have areas that are off-limits to bikes that are
>> "hiking only". Why do you find it necessary to force a narrow view into
>> other areas, singletrack or not, that allow shared use with cyclists? Am I
>> being unreasonable in utilizing what the BLM, Sierra Club, NFS, IMBA and
>> others have worked together to achieve?
>
>I prefer it the way it used to be when a walker like me would only encounter
>the occasional horse party. All the agencies are going to do whatever the
>public wants. But the public is wrong to want what it wants. If they would
>only listen to the Great Ed Dolan, he would tell them what they should want.
>We should all want to walk in the wilderness and then all would be right
>with the world.
>
>> You have areas you can utilize for your experience? Why are you so quick
>> to judge (based only on your opinion) my experience or pursuit of it in a
>> manner recognized by everyone else?
>
>It is all based on what I have seen in the past. 9 out of 10 off-road bikers
>are slobs and have no appreciation for nature at all. They ought to be at an
>amusement park where they could indulge their love affair with gravity and
>centrifugal force and tricky maneuvering.
>
>> S Curtiss the Great and most Powerful King of ID, OZ and the Universe.
>
>Now you are getting into my territory and the possibilities of total warfare
>are Great!
>
>> Yeah... kind of shallow. Perhaps if a few other people bow down and
>> throw money at me, it could carry some weight. I wonder if Tom Cruise can
>> be persuaded to leave scientology and join curtissology. Then again...
>> Dolan has been posting as "the great" for years and I don't see a big
>> conversion taking place. Maybe I'll just go for a ride....
>
>Yea, Ed Dolan the Great is a deep study that will take you many years to
>fathom. But I reserve my big guns for Saint Edward the Great. You do not
>ever want to tangle with HIM. Even Ed Dolan the Great fears Saint Edward the
>Great.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 May 2006 12:04:45
From: S Curtiss
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:qM2dnVK87aiQmcHZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
> I do believe there can be so-called recreation areas set aside for
> multiple use. These will be mostly in areas near large cities and resort
> areas.
Then what is the problem? We are in agreement here.
But I
> gave up on such areas decades ago. As a wilderness walker, I only want to
> go to a true wilderness where my only encounters will be with other
> walkers and hopefully some wildlife, but not wildlife bikers. I do not
> have much use at all for recreation areas, but I am glad they are there
> for all those who want to have "fun" in the out-of-doors. I realize not
> everyone can be a superior person like me.
You are more than welcome to have your own opinion of yourself.
>
>>>>> Surely there are plenty of forestry roads and fire roads for cyclists.
>>>>> Our world is being overrun with roads and we do not want bikes on
>>>>> footpaths. I have seen footpaths literally destroyed by cycling. They
>>>>> end up not fit for bikes or even for hikers.
>>>> Anecdotal - I have seen trails damaged by hikers trash and abuse. All
>>>> that says is that people can be destructive.
>>>
>>> I would like to show you some trails around Aspen that cyclists have
>>> totally ruined - and I don't think they were trying to be destructive
>>> either.
>> Of course it is all on the shoulders (or wheels) of the cyclists... At
>> the risk of sounding "Clintonesque" - Explain what you mean by "ruined".
>> Are they too rutted? (rain and erosion have been doing it for millions of
>> years) Are they too wide? (motor traffic..? Hikers off trail...?
>> Equestrians...?) Did a Wal-t suddenly appear? What is "ruined"?
>
> They turn into a narrow slot where the bikes have been scooping around
> corners or over hill and dale. Eventually they can hardly be ridden by
> anyone other than skilled cyclists and they are hard for walkers to
> navigate too. I suspect those ruts have to be filled in by someone sooner
> or later.
Ruts have been forming for millions of years. The advent of off-road cycling
does not have to bear the brunt of the blame for their existence. Any high
traffic area, footpath or not, that wears away the vegetation can create a
path for running water.
>
>>>>> Vandeman is right in all his essential points. Cyclists who want to
>>>>> ride in the wilderness and/or natural areas are the worst slobs in the
>>>>> universe. To go off trail on a bike is an even greater abomination. If
>>>>> I were managing a natural area, I would make damn sure no cyclists
>>>>> ever trespassed on my sacred ground. It would be reserved strictly for
>>>>> walkers (hikers).
>>>>
>>>> "my sacred ground..."? Get off it! Multi-use designations and
>>>> recreational areas are distinguished from wilderness areas. There
>>>> continue to be designations for limited or strict human access.
>>>> Cyclists are only trying maintain the use in designated recreation and
>>>> multi-use areas. Cooperation is squeezing the tiny mindest of the moron
>>>> and it is not our fault you find yourself unable to keep up.
>>>
>>> Nope, you are trying to get in where you do not belong. Footpaths are
>>> for walkers and roads are for cyclists.
>> Singletrack sections and trails are being shared by hikers (walkers) and
>> cyclists all over the country. The ideal situations seperate user trails
>> per activity. That is not always an option. Cooperative efforts of use
>> and education have done wonders. Perhaps you should try it.
>
> All the education in the world is not going to change anyone much,
> especially young people who already think they know it all. I despair of
> all education. Laws and regulations with severe punishments for violations
> are the answer for human misbehavior, not education.
Fine... Elect some politicians that have a backbone. That does not change
efforts of cooperative organizations for preserving habitat, wilderness or
park systems.
>
> Some low-land trails can be used by both cyclists and hikers, but it would
> be better if each had their own trails. The ideal solution of course is
> for everyone to become a walker like me!
>
>>>>> The hybrid (mountain) bike has its' uses, but trail riding is not one
>>>>> of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is a natural area for? It is for contemplation, not for
>>>>> recreation. If you want recreation, then go to Coney Island or some
>>>>> other freaking god-awful man-made amusement park. When you are in a
>>>>> natural area, you should be doing nothing but communing with God. It
>>>>> is a sacrilege to be doing anything else.
>>>>
>>>> Your "communion" with God does not have to be the only form of
>>>> interaction with nature. People experience things differently. What is
>>>> a sacrilege is to spout an opinion, throw God behind it and claim some
>>>> sort of superiority.
>>>
>>> The average person's idea of nature is to have some kind of fun in the
>>> out-of-doors. There are plenty of such areas set aside for these kind of
>>> slobs. Off-road cyclists fall into this category of person to
>>> perfection. But like all slobs, they want to infringe on other areas
>>> that have been set aside for other types of persons, those superior
>>> types like me who know how to equate nature with God (even though I am
>>> an atheist). Our sacred footpaths are not for the likes of slobs who
>>> only want to desecrate and despoil. Have you no shame at all?
>>
>> Slobs...? "superior types like me..." Your opinion of yourself is, I'm
>> sure, completely balanced by the application of your opinion of others.
>> An atheist who talks of God...? Your sacred footpaths..? The rest of us
>> have no shame...?
>> I hate to break this to you... but you claiming to be superior means
>> nothing. You could claim to be a banana with as much authority and
>> honesty. I know you are as much superior as you are a banana. I also know
>> your desire to hike and have your experience is fine for you. Who is
>> stopping you? You have your areas that are wilderness. You have your
>> areas where cyclists are not allowed to go. Why do you find it necessary
>> to remove cyclists and there pursuit of their experience in areas already
>> deemed appropriate?
>
> Wilderness areas are few and far between. I would like all really natural
> areas reserved for walkers with no development whatsoever. Areas already
> developed are lost forever and can be used by cyclists forever and who
> cares! If you have your way, the entire country will end up looking like
> Ohio. I would rather have the entire country look like Nevada (minus Las
> Vegas and Reno of course), but maybe that is how we differ.
I live in an area that is mere miles from the Appalachian Trail and
surrounded by mountains and trees with National Forests all in the immediate
area. I have no desire or need to make this "country look like Ohio"
(whatever the hell that means..) My only concern has been, and remains to
be, the efforts by people like Vandeman to take the access issue to the
extreme in every case in every area. You say cyclists can coexist in
recreation and multi-use areas with other users. Fine. We are in agreement.
You say you want areas that are "wilderness" with strict rules of access...
Fine. We are in agreement.
>
> Well, I can't apologize for being a superior person. It is well known that
> we superior types just can't help ourselves. We see idiocy displayed daily
> all around us and it seems to get worse with every passing year. I am
> shortly going to retire to Mt. Olympus where I will only consort with my
> fellow Gods. Frankly, I am sick and tired of humanity with all its'
> trivial obsessions.
>
Excuse me... ? Mt. Olympus only exists in the ancient stories of myth. If
you want to stand on a cinder block and state your "greatness", have at it.
Who cares?
>>>> What is a sacrilege is to proclaim yourself as an "authority"
>>>> (Vandeman) or "the Great" (Dolan) and have nothing but your own claim
>>>> to sustain it.
>>>> If my way of experiencing nature involves rolling silently along on a
>>>> bike on a trail, then it is also sacrilege to say that my experience is
>>>> any less real, spiritual or emotional than yours. As long as the BLM
>>>> recognizes that some (not all) areas are accessible for bicycles, then
>>>> cooperation will continue to be the prevailing option.
>>>
>>> Well ... yes, I think you are probably a responsible off-road cyclist
>>> and I do not begrudge you your experience of nature and the out-of-doors
>>> (no matter how inferior to mine), but I just do not want you on a
>>> footpath on a bike. Am I being unreasonable?
>>
>> As I stated... You have areas that are off-limits to bikes that are
>> "hiking only". Why do you find it necessary to force a narrow view into
>> other areas, singletrack or not, that allow shared use with cyclists? Am
>> I being unreasonable in utilizing what the BLM, Sierra Club, NFS, IMBA
>> and others have worked together to achieve?
>
> I prefer it the way it used to be when a walker like me would only
> encounter the occasional horse party. All the agencies are going to do
> whatever the public wants. But the public is wrong to want what it wants.
> If they would only listen to the Great Ed Dolan, he would tell them what
> they should want. We should all want to walk in the wilderness and then
> all would be right with the world.
Don't fall off the cinder block and crack your ego....
>
>> You have areas you can utilize for your experience? Why are you so quick
>> to judge (based only on your opinion) my experience or pursuit of it in a
>> manner recognized by everyone else?
>
> It is all based on what I have seen in the past. 9 out of 10 off-road
> bikers are slobs and have no appreciation for nature at all. They ought to
> be at an amusement park where they could indulge their love affair with
> gravity and centrifugal force and tricky maneuvering.
>
>> S Curtiss the Great and most Powerful King of ID, OZ and the Universe.
>
> Now you are getting into my territory and the possibilities of total
> warfare are Great!
>
>> Yeah... kind of shallow. Perhaps if a few other people bow down and
>> throw money at me, it could carry some weight. I wonder if Tom Cruise can
>> be persuaded to leave scientology and join curtissology. Then again...
>> Dolan has been posting as "the great" for years and I don't see a big
>> conversion taking place. Maybe I'll just go for a ride....
>
> Yea, Ed Dolan the Great is a deep study that will take you many years to
> fathom. But I reserve my big guns for Saint Edward the Great. You do not
> ever want to tangle with HIM. Even Ed Dolan the Great fears Saint Edward
> the Great.
Your schizophrenia and whatever claims of personality are amusing. Do you
write for President Bush and Michael Moore?
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2006 19:27:51
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"S Curtiss" <scurtiss@cox.net > wrote in message
news:zO37g.50867$k%3.7472@dukeread12...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:qM2dnVK87aiQmcHZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>> Wilderness areas are few and far between. I would like all really natural
>> areas reserved for walkers with no development whatsoever. Areas already
>> developed are lost forever and can be used by cyclists forever and who
>> cares! If you have your way, the entire country will end up looking like
>> Ohio. I would rather have the entire country look like Nevada (minus Las
>> Vegas and Reno of course), but maybe that is how we differ.
>
> I live in an area that is mere miles from the Appalachian Trail and
> surrounded by mountains and trees with National Forests all in the
> immediate area. I have no desire or need to make this "country look like
> Ohio" (whatever the hell that means..) .....
Ohio is my idea of a state that has gone to Hell. It was once a paradise but
man has used almost every square inch of it for some purpose or another. You
will find huge factories scattered about the countryside, so much so that
hardly any countryside exists anymore. But that is happening all up and down
the East Coast. Nothing but an urbanized landscape all the way from Boston
to Richmond. We are starting more and more to look like ugly old Europe.
[...]
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 May 2006 20:33:26
From: Mike Vandeman
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
On Sat, 6 May 2006 12:04:45 -0400, "S Curtiss" <scurtiss@cox.net >
wrote:
>
>"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
>news:qM2dnVK87aiQmcHZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>> I do believe there can be so-called recreation areas set aside for
>> multiple use. These will be mostly in areas near large cities and resort
>> areas.
>Then what is the problem? We are in agreement here.
>But I
>> gave up on such areas decades ago. As a wilderness walker, I only want to
>> go to a true wilderness where my only encounters will be with other
>> walkers and hopefully some wildlife, but not wildlife bikers. I do not
>> have much use at all for recreation areas, but I am glad they are there
>> for all those who want to have "fun" in the out-of-doors. I realize not
>> everyone can be a superior person like me.
>You are more than welcome to have your own opinion of yourself.
>>
>>>>>> Surely there are plenty of forestry roads and fire roads for cyclists.
>>>>>> Our world is being overrun with roads and we do not want bikes on
>>>>>> footpaths. I have seen footpaths literally destroyed by cycling. They
>>>>>> end up not fit for bikes or even for hikers.
>>>>> Anecdotal - I have seen trails damaged by hikers trash and abuse. All
>>>>> that says is that people can be destructive.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to show you some trails around Aspen that cyclists have
>>>> totally ruined - and I don't think they were trying to be destructive
>>>> either.
>>> Of course it is all on the shoulders (or wheels) of the cyclists... At
>>> the risk of sounding "Clintonesque" - Explain what you mean by "ruined".
>>> Are they too rutted? (rain and erosion have been doing it for millions of
>>> years) Are they too wide? (motor traffic..? Hikers off trail...?
>>> Equestrians...?) Did a Wal-t suddenly appear? What is "ruined"?
>>
>> They turn into a narrow slot where the bikes have been scooping around
>> corners or over hill and dale. Eventually they can hardly be ridden by
>> anyone other than skilled cyclists and they are hard for walkers to
>> navigate too. I suspect those ruts have to be filled in by someone sooner
>> or later.
>Ruts have been forming for millions of years.
BS. Continuous narrow ruts are the work of BIKE tires. Hikers can't
possibly do that, nor can wildlife.
The advent of off-road cycling
>does not have to bear the brunt of the blame for their existence. Any high
>traffic area, footpath or not, that wears away the vegetation can create a
>path for running water.
>>
>>>>>> Vandeman is right in all his essential points. Cyclists who want to
>>>>>> ride in the wilderness and/or natural areas are the worst slobs in the
>>>>>> universe. To go off trail on a bike is an even greater abomination. If
>>>>>> I were managing a natural area, I would make damn sure no cyclists
>>>>>> ever trespassed on my sacred ground. It would be reserved strictly for
>>>>>> walkers (hikers).
>>>>>
>>>>> "my sacred ground..."? Get off it! Multi-use designations and
>>>>> recreational areas are distinguished from wilderness areas. There
>>>>> continue to be designations for limited or strict human access.
>>>>> Cyclists are only trying maintain the use in designated recreation and
>>>>> multi-use areas. Cooperation is squeezing the tiny mindest of the moron
>>>>> and it is not our fault you find yourself unable to keep up.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you are trying to get in where you do not belong. Footpaths are
>>>> for walkers and roads are for cyclists.
>>> Singletrack sections and trails are being shared by hikers (walkers) and
>>> cyclists all over the country. The ideal situations seperate user trails
>>> per activity. That is not always an option. Cooperative efforts of use
>>> and education have done wonders. Perhaps you should try it.
>>
>> All the education in the world is not going to change anyone much,
>> especially young people who already think they know it all. I despair of
>> all education. Laws and regulations with severe punishments for violations
>> are the answer for human misbehavior, not education.
>Fine... Elect some politicians that have a backbone. That does not change
>efforts of cooperative organizations for preserving habitat, wilderness or
>park systems.
>>
>> Some low-land trails can be used by both cyclists and hikers, but it would
>> be better if each had their own trails. The ideal solution of course is
>> for everyone to become a walker like me!
>>
>>>>>> The hybrid (mountain) bike has its' uses, but trail riding is not one
>>>>>> of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is a natural area for? It is for contemplation, not for
>>>>>> recreation. If you want recreation, then go to Coney Island or some
>>>>>> other freaking god-awful man-made amusement park. When you are in a
>>>>>> natural area, you should be doing nothing but communing with God. It
>>>>>> is a sacrilege to be doing anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your "communion" with God does not have to be the only form of
>>>>> interaction with nature. People experience things differently. What is
>>>>> a sacrilege is to spout an opinion, throw God behind it and claim some
>>>>> sort of superiority.
>>>>
>>>> The average person's idea of nature is to have some kind of fun in the
>>>> out-of-doors. There are plenty of such areas set aside for these kind of
>>>> slobs. Off-road cyclists fall into this category of person to
>>>> perfection. But like all slobs, they want to infringe on other areas
>>>> that have been set aside for other types of persons, those superior
>>>> types like me who know how to equate nature with God (even though I am
>>>> an atheist). Our sacred footpaths are not for the likes of slobs who
>>>> only want to desecrate and despoil. Have you no shame at all?
>>>
>>> Slobs...? "superior types like me..." Your opinion of yourself is, I'm
>>> sure, completely balanced by the application of your opinion of others.
>>> An atheist who talks of God...? Your sacred footpaths..? The rest of us
>>> have no shame...?
>>> I hate to break this to you... but you claiming to be superior means
>>> nothing. You could claim to be a banana with as much authority and
>>> honesty. I know you are as much superior as you are a banana. I also know
>>> your desire to hike and have your experience is fine for you. Who is
>>> stopping you? You have your areas that are wilderness. You have your
>>> areas where cyclists are not allowed to go. Why do you find it necessary
>>> to remove cyclists and there pursuit of their experience in areas already
>>> deemed appropriate?
>>
>> Wilderness areas are few and far between. I would like all really natural
>> areas reserved for walkers with no development whatsoever. Areas already
>> developed are lost forever and can be used by cyclists forever and who
>> cares! If you have your way, the entire country will end up looking like
>> Ohio. I would rather have the entire country look like Nevada (minus Las
>> Vegas and Reno of course), but maybe that is how we differ.
>I live in an area that is mere miles from the Appalachian Trail and
>surrounded by mountains and trees with National Forests all in the immediate
>area. I have no desire or need to make this "country look like Ohio"
>(whatever the hell that means..) My only concern has been, and remains to
>be, the efforts by people like Vandeman to take the access issue to the
>extreme in every case in every area. You say cyclists can coexist in
>recreation and multi-use areas with other users. Fine. We are in agreement.
>You say you want areas that are "wilderness" with strict rules of access...
>Fine. We are in agreement.
>
>>
>> Well, I can't apologize for being a superior person. It is well known that
>> we superior types just can't help ourselves. We see idiocy displayed daily
>> all around us and it seems to get worse with every passing year. I am
>> shortly going to retire to Mt. Olympus where I will only consort with my
>> fellow Gods. Frankly, I am sick and tired of humanity with all its'
>> trivial obsessions.
>>
>Excuse me... ? Mt. Olympus only exists in the ancient stories of myth. If
>you want to stand on a cinder block and state your "greatness", have at it.
>Who cares?
>
>>>>> What is a sacrilege is to proclaim yourself as an "authority"
>>>>> (Vandeman) or "the Great" (Dolan) and have nothing but your own claim
>>>>> to sustain it.
>>>>> If my way of experiencing nature involves rolling silently along on a
>>>>> bike on a trail, then it is also sacrilege to say that my experience is
>>>>> any less real, spiritual or emotional than yours. As long as the BLM
>>>>> recognizes that some (not all) areas are accessible for bicycles, then
>>>>> cooperation will continue to be the prevailing option.
>>>>
>>>> Well ... yes, I think you are probably a responsible off-road cyclist
>>>> and I do not begrudge you your experience of nature and the out-of-doors
>>>> (no matter how inferior to mine), but I just do not want you on a
>>>> footpath on a bike. Am I being unreasonable?
>>>
>>> As I stated... You have areas that are off-limits to bikes that are
>>> "hiking only". Why do you find it necessary to force a narrow view into
>>> other areas, singletrack or not, that allow shared use with cyclists? Am
>>> I being unreasonable in utilizing what the BLM, Sierra Club, NFS, IMBA
>>> and others have worked together to achieve?
>>
>> I prefer it the way it used to be when a walker like me would only
>> encounter the occasional horse party. All the agencies are going to do
>> whatever the public wants. But the public is wrong to want what it wants.
>> If they would only listen to the Great Ed Dolan, he would tell them what
>> they should want. We should all want to walk in the wilderness and then
>> all would be right with the world.
>Don't fall off the cinder block and crack your ego....
>>
>>> You have areas you can utilize for your experience? Why are you so quick
>>> to judge (based only on your opinion) my experience or pursuit of it in a
>>> manner recognized by everyone else?
>>
>> It is all based on what I have seen in the past. 9 out of 10 off-road
>> bikers are slobs and have no appreciation for nature at all. They ought to
>> be at an amusement park where they could indulge their love affair with
>> gravity and centrifugal force and tricky maneuvering.
>>
>>> S Curtiss the Great and most Powerful King of ID, OZ and the Universe.
>>
>> Now you are getting into my territory and the possibilities of total
>> warfare are Great!
>
>>
>>> Yeah... kind of shallow. Perhaps if a few other people bow down and
>>> throw money at me, it could carry some weight. I wonder if Tom Cruise can
>>> be persuaded to leave scientology and join curtissology. Then again...
>>> Dolan has been posting as "the great" for years and I don't see a big
>>> conversion taking place. Maybe I'll just go for a ride....
>>
>> Yea, Ed Dolan the Great is a deep study that will take you many years to
>> fathom. But I reserve my big guns for Saint Edward the Great. You do not
>> ever want to tangle with HIM. Even Ed Dolan the Great fears Saint Edward
>> the Great.
>Your schizophrenia and whatever claims of personality are amusing. Do you
>write for President Bush and Michael Moore?
>>
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2006 09:01:28
From: S Curtiss
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
>>> They turn into a narrow slot where the bikes have been scooping around
>>> corners or over hill and dale. Eventually they can hardly be ridden by
>>> anyone other than skilled cyclists and they are hard for walkers to
>>> navigate too. I suspect those ruts have to be filled in by someone
>>> sooner
>>> or later.
>>Ruts have been forming for millions of years.
>
> BS. Continuous narrow ruts are the work of BIKE tires. Hikers can't
> possibly do that, nor can wildlife.
Funny how you comment here instead after the the complete context: "Any high
traffic area, footpath or not, that wears away the vegetation can create a
path for running water."
That has been the process of erosion for centuries. Mountain bikes can
accelerate it, just as hiking traffic can.
>
> The advent of off-road cycling
>>does not have to bear the brunt of the blame for their existence. Any high
>>traffic area, footpath or not, that wears away the vegetation can create a
>>path for running water.
>>>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2006 19:35:37
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Mcm7g.50907$k%3.772@dukeread12...
Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>> They turn into a narrow slot where the bikes have been scooping around
>>>> corners or over hill and dale. Eventually they can hardly be ridden by
>>>> anyone other than skilled cyclists and they are hard for walkers to
>>>> navigate too. I suspect those ruts have to be filled in by someone
>>>> sooner
>>>> or later.
>>>Ruts have been forming for millions of years.
Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> BS. Continuous narrow ruts are the work of BIKE tires. Hikers can't
>> possibly do that, nor can wildlife.
>
> Funny how you comment here instead after the the complete context: "Any
> high traffic area, footpath or not, that wears away the vegetation can
> create a path for running water."
The above is true and is why hikers should strive to trespass lightly on the
land.
> That has been the process of erosion for centuries. Mountain bikes can
> accelerate it, just as hiking traffic can.
It is precisely the acceleration that Vandeman and I are concerned about,
but apparently not you!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 May 2006 12:53:08
From: S Curtiss
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:jYKdnZ5Ib4PyD8PZRVn-jA@prairiewave.com...
>
>
>> That has been the process of erosion for centuries. Mountain bikes can
>> accelerate it, just as hiking traffic can.
>
> It is precisely the acceleration that Vandeman and I are concerned about,
> but apparently not you!
>
When have I said I am unconcerned? I only point out that the "evil" and
"destruction" Vandeman attributes to cycling is merely an extension of his
opinions on the activity of off-road cycling. Comparitive studies point to
more similarities of impact on trail and habitat between cycling and hiking.
Vandeman placing unconditional blame at the wheels of off-road cycling for
being the largest contributor to any degradation, perceived or actual, is
the point of contention. Vandeman consistently ignores the cumulative
effects of hiking, and hikers' behavior, and focuses on the cyclists. He
ignores factors such as shrinking natural space forcing human and wildlife
interaction onto a smaller overall area. He ignores the factors of increased
population with increased numbers of humans visiting natural areas. He
ignores the economic factors of human interest in preserving rather than
developing and the role that recreation plays in that economic equation. He
ignores the cooperative efforts of cycling organizations in preserving
natural space.
Beyond any of that, the fact that I own a bicycle (several of them, road and
mountain) and may ride on a trail on occasion is no indicator of my level of
concern for the trails or habitat, my spiritual condition, my observation
skills, or my status of humanity or overall intelligence.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 16:10:19
From: Mike Vandeman
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
On Wed, 10 May 2006 12:53:08 -0400, "S Curtiss" <scurtiss@cox.net >
wrote:
>
>"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
>news:jYKdnZ5Ib4PyD8PZRVn-jA@prairiewave.com...
>>
>>
>>> That has been the process of erosion for centuries. Mountain bikes can
>>> accelerate it, just as hiking traffic can.
>>
>> It is precisely the acceleration that Vandeman and I are concerned about,
>> but apparently not you!
>>
>When have I said I am unconcerned? I only point out that the "evil" and
>"destruction" Vandeman attributes to cycling is merely an extension of his
>opinions on the activity of off-road cycling. Comparitive studies point to
>more similarities of impact on trail and habitat between cycling and hiking.
>Vandeman placing unconditional blame at the wheels of off-road cycling for
>being the largest contributor to any degradation, perceived or actual, is
>the point of contention. Vandeman consistently ignores the cumulative
>effects of hiking, and hikers' behavior, and focuses on the cyclists.
This newsgroup is fordiscussing MOUNTAIN BIKING. DUH!
He
>ignores factors such as shrinking natural space forcing human and wildlife
>interaction onto a smaller overall area. He ignores the factors of increased
>population with increased numbers of humans visiting natural areas. He
>ignores the economic factors of human interest in preserving rather than
>developing and the role that recreation plays in that economic equation. He
>ignores the cooperative efforts of cycling organizations in preserving
>natural space.
>
>Beyond any of that, the fact that I own a bicycle (several of them, road and
>mountain) and may ride on a trail on occasion is no indicator of my level of
>concern for the trails or habitat, my spiritual condition, my observation
>skills, or my status of humanity or overall intelligence.
>
>
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 13:38:24
From: S Curtiss
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:eeo662ddfr4q48ke0djbqb3dl22v48gjbb@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 12:53:08 -0400, "S Curtiss" <scurtiss@cox.net>
> wrote:
>>When have I said I am unconcerned? I only point out that the "evil" and
>>"destruction" Vandeman attributes to cycling is merely an extension of his
>>opinions on the activity of off-road cycling. Comparitive studies point to
>>more similarities of impact on trail and habitat between cycling and
>>hiking.
>>Vandeman placing unconditional blame at the wheels of off-road cycling for
>>being the largest contributor to any degradation, perceived or actual, is
>>the point of contention. Vandeman consistently ignores the cumulative
>>effects of hiking, and hikers' behavior, and focuses on the cyclists.
>
> This newsgroup is fordiscussing MOUNTAIN BIKING. DUH!
"Off-road cycling" and "mountain biking" are the same thing... DUH!
>
> He
>>ignores factors such as shrinking natural space forcing human and wildlife
>>interaction onto a smaller overall area. He ignores the factors of
>>increased
>>population with increased numbers of humans visiting natural areas. He
>>ignores the economic factors of human interest in preserving rather than
>>developing and the role that recreation plays in that economic equation.
>>He
>>ignores the cooperative efforts of cycling organizations in preserving
>>natural space.
>>
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 01:36:22
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"S Curtiss" <scurtiss@cox.net > wrote in message
news:_To8g.51113$k%3.23835@dukeread12...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:jYKdnZ5Ib4PyD8PZRVn-jA@prairiewave.com...
>>
>>
>>> That has been the process of erosion for centuries. Mountain bikes can
>>> accelerate it, just as hiking traffic can.
>>
>> It is precisely the acceleration that Vandeman and I are concerned about,
>> but apparently not you!
>>
> When have I said I am unconcerned? I only point out that the "evil" and
> "destruction" Vandeman attributes to cycling is merely an extension of his
> opinions on the activity of off-road cycling. Comparitive studies point to
> more similarities of impact on trail and habitat between cycling and
> hiking. Vandeman placing unconditional blame at the wheels of off-road
> cycling for being the largest contributor to any degradation, perceived or
> actual, is the point of contention. Vandeman consistently ignores the
> cumulative effects of hiking, and hikers' behavior, and focuses on the
> cyclists. He ignores factors such as shrinking natural space forcing human
> and wildlife interaction onto a smaller overall area. He ignores the
> factors of increased population with increased numbers of humans visiting
> natural areas. He ignores the economic factors of human interest in
> preserving rather than developing and the role that recreation plays in
> that economic equation. He ignores the cooperative efforts of cycling
> organizations in preserving natural space.
>
> Beyond any of that, the fact that I own a bicycle (several of them, road
> and mountain) and may ride on a trail on occasion is no indicator of my
> level of concern for the trails or habitat, my spiritual condition, my
> observation skills, or my status of humanity or overall intelligence.
But are you not advocating that hiking trails be opened up to bikes? It is
not going to happen in Wilderness Areas or in the wild areas of National
Parks and National Monuments, but I fear for the National Forests because of
types like you.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 13:34:21
From: S Curtiss
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:v4CdnXTDOYz2Rv_ZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>
>>>
>>>> That has been the process of erosion for centuries. Mountain bikes can
>>>> accelerate it, just as hiking traffic can.
>>>
>>> It is precisely the acceleration that Vandeman and I are concerned
>>> about, but apparently not you!
>>>
>> When have I said I am unconcerned? I only point out that the "evil" and
>> "destruction" Vandeman attributes to cycling is merely an extension of
>> his opinions on the activity of off-road cycling. Comparitive studies
>> point to more similarities of impact on trail and habitat between cycling
>> and hiking. Vandeman placing unconditional blame at the wheels of
>> off-road cycling for being the largest contributor to any degradation,
>> perceived or actual, is the point of contention. Vandeman consistently
>> ignores the cumulative effects of hiking, and hikers' behavior, and
>> focuses on the cyclists. He ignores factors such as shrinking natural
>> space forcing human and wildlife interaction onto a smaller overall area.
>> He ignores the factors of increased population with increased numbers of
>> humans visiting natural areas. He ignores the economic factors of human
>> interest in preserving rather than developing and the role that
>> recreation plays in that economic equation. He ignores the cooperative
>> efforts of cycling organizations in preserving natural space.
>>
>> Beyond any of that, the fact that I own a bicycle (several of them, road
>> and mountain) and may ride on a trail on occasion is no indicator of my
>> level of concern for the trails or habitat, my spiritual condition, my
>> observation skills, or my status of humanity or overall intelligence.
>
> But are you not advocating that hiking trails be opened up to bikes? It is
> not going to happen in Wilderness Areas or in the wild areas of National
> Parks and National Monuments, but I fear for the National Forests because
> of types like you.
>
What is it..? Too much pot in college...? Short term memory shot...?
I have not advocated cycling in "Wilderness". I have stated being in favor
of consistency of designation. If an areas is "Wilderness" with limited
human contact then let it remain so. However, consistency in these
designations must be constant to alleviate confusion over access and
enforcement. Some "hiking" trails are suitable for multiple types of
traffic. Many others are not.
What I advocate is shared access for cycling (kayaking, rafting, climbing,
fishing, camping, hiking, etc) in areas that are not "Wilderness" and that
these designations be consistent from county to county and state to state.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 May 2006 00:50:30
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"S Curtiss" <scurtiss@cox.net > wrote in message
news:FAK8g.9604$B42.1003@dukeread05...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:v4CdnXTDOYz2Rv_ZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
[...]
>> But are you not advocating that hiking trails be opened up to bikes? It
>> is not going to happen in Wilderness Areas or in the wild areas of
>> National Parks and National Monuments, but I fear for the National
>> Forests because of types like you.
>>
> What is it..? Too much pot in college...? Short term memory shot...?
> I have not advocated cycling in "Wilderness". I have stated being in favor
> of consistency of designation. If an areas is "Wilderness" with limited
> human contact then let it remain so. However, consistency in these
> designations must be constant to alleviate confusion over access and
> enforcement. Some "hiking" trails are suitable for multiple types of
> traffic. Many others are not.
> What I advocate is shared access for cycling (kayaking, rafting, climbing,
> fishing, camping, hiking, etc) in areas that are not "Wilderness" and that
> these designations be consistent from county to county and state to state.
You are lumping too many activities together which do not belong together,
at least not in a wilderness area, whether so designated or not. You are
coming down on the side of creating a recreational designation whereas I am
coming down on the side of creating a wilderness designation. These two
types of areas cannot be commingled. One is a park for people to play in,
the other is a park for people to worship in.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2006 18:26:37
From: Mike Vandeman
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
On Sun, 7 May 2006 09:01:28 -0400, "S Curtiss"
<stevecurtiss@yahoo.com > wrote:
>>>> They turn into a narrow slot where the bikes have been scooping around
>>>> corners or over hill and dale. Eventually they can hardly be ridden by
>>>> anyone other than skilled cyclists and they are hard for walkers to
>>>> navigate too. I suspect those ruts have to be filled in by someone
>>>> sooner
>>>> or later.
>>>Ruts have been forming for millions of years.
>>
>> BS. Continuous narrow ruts are the work of BIKE tires. Hikers can't
>> possibly do that, nor can wildlife.
>Funny how you comment here instead after the the complete context: "Any high
>traffic area, footpath or not, that wears away the vegetation can create a
>path for running water."
>That has been the process of erosion for centuries. Mountain bikes can
>accelerate it, just as hiking traffic can.
But narrow ruts with the shape of a bike tire can only be made by
bikes. Distinguishing them from other erosion is child's play.
>> The advent of off-road cycling
>>>does not have to bear the brunt of the blame for their existence. Any high
>>>traffic area, footpath or not, that wears away the vegetation can create a
>>>path for running water.
>>>>
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2006 12:33:11
From: Chris Foster
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net > wrote in
news:ases52133hvlee110thkts6q500eaco2l0@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 09:01:28 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> <stevecurtiss@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> They turn into a narrow slot where the bikes have been scooping
>>>>> around corners or over hill and dale. Eventually they can hardly
>>>>> be ridden by anyone other than skilled cyclists and they are hard
>>>>> for walkers to navigate too. I suspect those ruts have to be
>>>>> filled in by someone sooner
>>>>> or later.
>>>>Ruts have been forming for millions of years.
>>>
>>> BS. Continuous narrow ruts are the work of BIKE tires. Hikers can't
>>> possibly do that, nor can wildlife.
>>Funny how you comment here instead after the the complete context:
>>"Any high traffic area, footpath or not, that wears away the
>>vegetation can create a path for running water."
>>That has been the process of erosion for centuries. Mountain bikes can
>>accelerate it, just as hiking traffic can.
>
> But narrow ruts with the shape of a bike tire can only be made by
> bikes. Distinguishing them from other erosion is child's play.
>
Mike,
In Rocky Mountain National Park, where cycling, dogs, and horses are
NOT allowed, has very narrow ruts where only high FOOT traffic exists.
I have seen this with my own eyes, this is a FACT.
I Colorado Springs, near Helen Hunt Falls, ruts exits that ARE caused
by Mountain Bikes. The ruts look exactly alike to me.
A rut is a rut.
Chris Foster
Colorado Native
>>> The advent of off-road cycling
>>>>does not have to bear the brunt of the blame for their existence.
>>>>Any high traffic area, footpath or not, that wears away the
>>>>vegetation can create a path for running water.
>>>>>
>>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 May 2006 12:51:41
From: S Curtiss
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:ases52133hvlee110thkts6q500eaco2l0@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 09:01:28 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> <stevecurtiss@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> They turn into a narrow slot where the bikes have been scooping around
>>>>> corners or over hill and dale. Eventually they can hardly be ridden by
>>>>> anyone other than skilled cyclists and they are hard for walkers to
>>>>> navigate too. I suspect those ruts have to be filled in by someone
>>>>> sooner
>>>>> or later.
>>>>Ruts have been forming for millions of years.
>>>
>>> BS. Continuous narrow ruts are the work of BIKE tires. Hikers can't
>>> possibly do that, nor can wildlife.
>>Funny how you comment here instead after the the complete context: "Any
>>high
>>traffic area, footpath or not, that wears away the vegetation can create a
>>path for running water."
>>That has been the process of erosion for centuries. Mountain bikes can
>>accelerate it, just as hiking traffic can.
>
> But narrow ruts with the shape of a bike tire can only be made by
> bikes. Distinguishing them from other erosion is child's play.
>
Now... we both know that once running water finds a path of least
resistence, it alters the area to a degree that a definitive determination
based only on the shape of the rut caused by the water is not possible.
Other factors are needed to determine the cause of the erosion. Was there
extraordinary human traffic? ATVs, Bikes, hikers, equestrians...? Was
wildlife activity confined to a linear travel pattern that lead to an easy
path for rain and runoff? (You do realize some animals also travel the same
path to create trails "naturally"...?)
You simply can not point at a rut and yell "mountain bikes" without taking
into account the other factors of traffic, trail use and weather.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 16:09:22
From: Mike Vandeman
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
On Wed, 10 May 2006 12:51:41 -0400, "S Curtiss" <scurtiss@cox.net >
wrote:
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:ases52133hvlee110thkts6q500eaco2l0@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 09:01:28 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>> <stevecurtiss@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> They turn into a narrow slot where the bikes have been scooping around
>>>>>> corners or over hill and dale. Eventually they can hardly be ridden by
>>>>>> anyone other than skilled cyclists and they are hard for walkers to
>>>>>> navigate too. I suspect those ruts have to be filled in by someone
>>>>>> sooner
>>>>>> or later.
>>>>>Ruts have been forming for millions of years.
>>>>
>>>> BS. Continuous narrow ruts are the work of BIKE tires. Hikers can't
>>>> possibly do that, nor can wildlife.
>>>Funny how you comment here instead after the the complete context: "Any
>>>high
>>>traffic area, footpath or not, that wears away the vegetation can create a
>>>path for running water."
>>>That has been the process of erosion for centuries. Mountain bikes can
>>>accelerate it, just as hiking traffic can.
>>
>> But narrow ruts with the shape of a bike tire can only be made by
>> bikes. Distinguishing them from other erosion is child's play.
>>
>
>Now... we both know that once running water finds a path of least
>resistence, it alters the area to a degree that a definitive determination
>based only on the shape of the rut caused by the water is not possible.
Hogwash. You need to watch more "CSI".
>Other factors are needed to determine the cause of the erosion. Was there
>extraordinary human traffic? ATVs, Bikes, hikers, equestrians...? Was
>wildlife activity confined to a linear travel pattern that lead to an easy
>path for rain and runoff? (You do realize some animals also travel the same
>path to create trails "naturally"...?)
>
>You simply can not point at a rut and yell "mountain bikes" without taking
>into account the other factors of traffic, trail use and weather.
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 13:20:00
From: S Curtiss
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:fco662h1bqm1iv5ilo2t5mf81u0loaurtv@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 12:51:41 -0400, "S Curtiss" <scurtiss@cox.net>
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> They turn into a narrow slot where the bikes have been scooping
>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>> corners or over hill and dale. Eventually they can hardly be ridden
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> anyone other than skilled cyclists and they are hard for walkers to
>>>>>>> navigate too. I suspect those ruts have to be filled in by someone
>>>>>>> sooner
>>>>>>> or later.
>>>>>>Ruts have been forming for millions of years.
>>>>>
>>>>> BS. Continuous narrow ruts are the work of BIKE tires. Hikers can't
>>>>> possibly do that, nor can wildlife.
>>>>Funny how you comment here instead after the the complete context: "Any
>>>>high
>>>>traffic area, footpath or not, that wears away the vegetation can create
>>>>a
>>>>path for running water."
>>>>That has been the process of erosion for centuries. Mountain bikes can
>>>>accelerate it, just as hiking traffic can.
>>>
>>> But narrow ruts with the shape of a bike tire can only be made by
>>> bikes. Distinguishing them from other erosion is child's play.
>>>
>>
>>Now... we both know that once running water finds a path of least
>>resistence, it alters the area to a degree that a definitive determination
>>based only on the shape of the rut caused by the water is not possible.
>
> Hogwash. You need to watch more "CSI".
You mean the show with the plot that the obvious is seldom the culprit?
Perhaps that is your problem... Too much TV.
>
>>Other factors are needed to determine the cause of the erosion. Was there
>>extraordinary human traffic? ATVs, Bikes, hikers, equestrians...? Was
>>wildlife activity confined to a linear travel pattern that lead to an easy
>>path for rain and runoff? (You do realize some animals also travel the
>>same
>>path to create trails "naturally"...?)
>>
>>You simply can not point at a rut and yell "mountain bikes" without taking
>>into account the other factors of traffic, trail use and weather.
>>
No comment here? You split it above to place your little "CSI" jab but made
no comment after the full context? Blatantly, and obviously, transparent.
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2006 16:29:53
From: Mike Vandeman
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
On Thu, 4 May 2006 02:43:09 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net >
wrote:
>Vandeman is long-winded as hell, but that does not mean he is wrong. I do
>not like to see any kind of bike on a hiking trail anywhere. Trails are for
>human walking, not for freaking machinery. I would like to see horses banned
>from all hiking trails too, but I know that is expecting too much.
I agree that animals should not be used as vehicles. But horses have a
right to be in North America, because that's where the (genus) horse
evolved.
I most
>definitely do not ever want to see any bikes in a designated wilderness
>area.
>
>Surely there are plenty of forestry roads and fire roads for cyclists.
The biology & physics of riding on dirt roads is the same as on dirt
trails. They belong only on pavement.
Our
>world is being overrun with roads and we do not want bikes on footpaths. I
>have seen footpaths literally destroyed by cycling. They end up not fit for
>bikes or even for hikers.
>
>Vandeman is right in all his essential points. Cyclists who want to ride in
>the wilderness and/or natural areas are the worst slobs in the universe. To
>go off trail on a bike is an even greater abomination. If I were managing a
>natural area, I would make damn sure no cyclists ever trespassed on my
>sacred ground. It would be reserved strictly for walkers (hikers).
>
>The hybrid (mountain) bike has its' uses, but trail riding is not one of
>them.
>
>What is a natural area for? It is for contemplation, not for recreation. If
>you want recreation, then go to Coney Island or some other freaking
>god-awful man-made amusement park. When you are in a natural area, you
>should be doing nothing but communing with God. It is a sacrilege to be
>doing anything else.
Thanks. I think that telling the truth is coming back into fashion,
after it went into hiding for most of the Bush years. Even the
Democrats are starting to breathe again....
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
| | |
Date: 05 May 2006 16:58:45
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:6pak529nb4vv4rdvh6ptcofo330elq53a7@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 May 2006 02:43:09 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Vandeman is long-winded as hell, but that does not mean he is wrong. I do
>>not like to see any kind of bike on a hiking trail anywhere. Trails are
>>for
>>human walking, not for freaking machinery. I would like to see horses
>>banned
>>from all hiking trails too, but I know that is expecting too much.
>
> I agree that animals should not be used as vehicles. But horses have a
> right to be in North America, because that's where the (genus) horse
> evolved.
>
> I most
>>definitely do not ever want to see any bikes in a designated wilderness
>>area.
>>
>>Surely there are plenty of forestry roads and fire roads for cyclists.
>
> The biology & physics of riding on dirt roads is the same as on dirt
> trails. They belong only on pavement.
Here in the Upper Midwest (west of the Mississippi River) fully 90% of all
roads are not paved. They are mostly gravel, but perhaps 10% are still dirt.
All of those roads are perfect for mountain bikes. However, you do not want
to go on those dirt roads when they are wet as you will not get very far
because of all the mud you will pick up.
[...]
> Thanks. I think that telling the truth is coming back into fashion,
> after it went into hiding for most of the Bush years. Even the
> Democrats are starting to breathe again....
I strongly suggest we NEVER get on the subject of politics as nothing but
bloody murder will result.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2006 10:59:33
From: Mike Romain
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
Wow, Mikey has found another nutbar to step up on his soapbox.
No real offense meant, but if you are aligning yourself with the biggest
usenet fool in the world, you must be just as foolish because nothing
you say will have any credibility in the 'real' world.
Mike is a bad joke. He gives 'real' environmentalists a bad name. He
condones the setting of deadly traps on trails and publicly celebrates
the death of any bike rider. He is incapable of debate. By associating
yourself with him, you become the next usenet joke. Nothing you say
will have any credibility if this gets out to the 'real' world.
Just my $0.02,
Mike (not a bike rider)
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
<snip Mikey clone rant >
|
| | |
Date: 05 May 2006 17:10:49
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca > wrote in message
news:445A16D5.D04C9593@sympatico.ca...
ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!
> Wow, Mikey has found another nutbar to step up on his soapbox.
>
> No real offense meant, but if you are aligning yourself with the biggest
> usenet fool in the world, you must be just as foolish because nothing
> you say will have any credibility in the 'real' world.
I do not have the foggiest idea who Vandeman is other than for a few of his
posts which I have read on RBS. I do not align myself with anyone. I say
what I believe to be true and let the chips fall where they may. Isn't that
what Usenet is all about?
> Mike is a bad joke. He gives 'real' environmentalists a bad name. He
> condones the setting of deadly traps on trails and publicly celebrates
> the death of any bike rider. He is incapable of debate. By associating
> yourself with him, you become the next usenet joke. Nothing you say
> will have any credibility if this gets out to the 'real' world.
I suspect all he is doing is fantasizing. We all of us do that all the time.
That does not mean we would actually do harm to anybody or advocate that
others do it. Maybe you need to learn how to read better.
> Just my $0.02,
Never effect false modesty. It just rings so false. Note my signature below.
No false modesty for me!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | |
Date: 06 May 2006 20:35:31
From: Mike Vandeman
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
On Fri, 5 May 2006 17:10:49 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net >
wrote:
>
>"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:445A16D5.D04C9593@sympatico.ca...
>
>ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!
>
>> Wow, Mikey has found another nutbar to step up on his soapbox.
>>
>> No real offense meant, but if you are aligning yourself with the biggest
>> usenet fool in the world, you must be just as foolish because nothing
>> you say will have any credibility in the 'real' world.
>
>I do not have the foggiest idea who Vandeman is other than for a few of his
>posts which I have read on RBS. I do not align myself with anyone. I say
>what I believe to be true and let the chips fall where they may. Isn't that
>what Usenet is all about?
>
>> Mike is a bad joke. He gives 'real' environmentalists a bad name. He
>> condones the setting of deadly traps on trails and publicly celebrates
>> the death of any bike rider. He is incapable of debate. By associating
>> yourself with him, you become the next usenet joke. Nothing you say
>> will have any credibility if this gets out to the 'real' world.
>
>I suspect all he is doing is fantasizing.
No, Romain is LYING.
We all of us do that all the time.
>That does not mean we would actually do harm to anybody or advocate that
>others do it. Maybe you need to learn how to read better.
>
>> Just my $0.02,
>
>Never effect false modesty. It just rings so false. Note my signature below.
>No false modesty for me!
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
| | | |
Date: 05 May 2006 19:01:52
From: Mike Romain
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:445A16D5.D04C9593@sympatico.ca...
>
> ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS! LOL! Pot, meet kettle...
Sorry to offend your sensibilities, but when it comes to a Mikey type
post, I want to get to the point fast, not have to scroll through a
thousand lines to find a one liner answer.... Usually 'Duh'....
I will 'cut and fill post' the rest, ok? ;-)
>
> > Wow, Mikey has found another nutbar to step up on his soapbox.
> >
> > No real offense meant, but if you are aligning yourself with the biggest
> > usenet fool in the world, you must be just as foolish because nothing
> > you say will have any credibility in the 'real' world.
>
> I do not have the foggiest idea who Vandeman is other than for a few of his
> posts which I have read on RBS. I do not align myself with anyone. I say
> what I believe to be true and let the chips fall where they may. Isn't that
> what Usenet is all about?
Google is your friend. Look him up. Look up me too for that matter...
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to post on your 'own'
merits.
>
> > Mike is a bad joke. He gives 'real' environmentalists a bad name. He
> > condones the setting of deadly traps on trails and publicly celebrates
> > the death of any bike rider. He is incapable of debate. By associating
> > yourself with him, you become the next usenet joke. Nothing you say
> > will have any credibility if this gets out to the 'real' world.
>
> I suspect all he is doing is fantasizing. We all of us do that all the time.
> That does not mean we would actually do harm to anybody or advocate that
> others do it. Maybe you need to learn how to read better.
Nope, I can read and comprehend quite fine thanks. I have just had way
too much time on my hands lately so read lots of Mikey's drivel for the
entertainment factor. :-( (slow recovery from a vehicle accident)
>
> > Just my $0.02,
>
> Never effect false modesty. It just rings so false. Note my signature below.
> No false modesty for me!
My 'opinion' then.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 May 2006 20:36:49
From: Mike Vandeman
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
On Fri, 05 May 2006 19:01:52 -0400, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca >
wrote:
>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:445A16D5.D04C9593@sympatico.ca...
>>
>> ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS! LOL! Pot, meet kettle...
>
>Sorry to offend your sensibilities, but when it comes to a Mikey type
>post, I want to get to the point fast, not have to scroll through a
>thousand lines to find a one liner answer.... Usually 'Duh'....
>
>I will 'cut and fill post' the rest, ok? ;-)
>
>>
>> > Wow, Mikey has found another nutbar to step up on his soapbox.
>> >
>> > No real offense meant, but if you are aligning yourself with the biggest
>> > usenet fool in the world, you must be just as foolish because nothing
>> > you say will have any credibility in the 'real' world.
>>
>> I do not have the foggiest idea who Vandeman is other than for a few of his
>> posts which I have read on RBS. I do not align myself with anyone. I say
>> what I believe to be true and let the chips fall where they may. Isn't that
>> what Usenet is all about?
>
>Google is your friend. Look him up. Look up me too for that matter...
>If you want to be taken seriously, you need to post on your 'own'
>merits.
>
>>
>> > Mike is a bad joke. He gives 'real' environmentalists a bad name. He
>> > condones the setting of deadly traps on trails and publicly celebrates
>> > the death of any bike rider. He is incapable of debate. By associating
>> > yourself with him, you become the next usenet joke. Nothing you say
>> > will have any credibility if this gets out to the 'real' world.
>>
>> I suspect all he is doing is fantasizing. We all of us do that all the time.
>> That does not mean we would actually do harm to anybody or advocate that
>> others do it. Maybe you need to learn how to read better.
>
>Nope, I can read and comprehend quite fine thanks. I have just had way
>too much time on my hands lately so read lots of Mikey's drivel for the
>entertainment factor. :-( (slow recovery from a vehicle accident)
See? If you had stuck to walking, you would be okay now.
>>
>> > Just my $0.02,
>>
>> Never effect false modesty. It just rings so false. Note my signature below.
>> No false modesty for me!
>
>My 'opinion' then.
>
>Mike
>86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
>Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590
>(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2006 16:00:06
From: S Curtiss
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
>>Nope, I can read and comprehend quite fine thanks. I have just had way
>>too much time on my hands lately so read lots of Mikey's drivel for the
>>entertainment factor. :-( (slow recovery from a vehicle accident)
>
> See? If you had stuck to walking, you would be okay now.
>
Wow... Where in his statement do you see he was not walking? A "vehicle
accident" could just as easily mean he was hit by a vehicle while walking.
You are always so quick to apply your opinion as a qualifier to interpret
information. Hardly scientific, is it?
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 May 2006 20:06:27
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca > wrote in message
news:445BD960.245A3CDF@sympatico.ca...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:445A16D5.D04C9593@sympatico.ca...
>>
>> ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS! LOL! Pot, meet kettle...
>
> Sorry to offend your sensibilities, but when it comes to a Mikey type
> post, I want to get to the point fast, not have to scroll through a
> thousand lines to find a one liner answer.... Usually 'Duh'....
>
> I will 'cut and fill post' the rest, ok? ;-)
>
>>
>> > Wow, Mikey has found another nutbar to step up on his soapbox.
>> >
>> > No real offense meant, but if you are aligning yourself with the
>> > biggest
>> > usenet fool in the world, you must be just as foolish because nothing
>> > you say will have any credibility in the 'real' world.
>>
>> I do not have the foggiest idea who Vandeman is other than for a few of
>> his
>> posts which I have read on RBS. I do not align myself with anyone. I say
>> what I believe to be true and let the chips fall where they may. Isn't
>> that
>> what Usenet is all about?
>
> Google is your friend. Look him up. Look up me too for that matter...
> If you want to be taken seriously, you need to post on your 'own'
> merits.
I hardly ever look up anything. It comes from my training as a professional
librarian. Moreover, I do not take Usenet at all seriously, no matter the
newsgroup. I do not mind playing the fool (note my signature) but I usually
manage to say something that will strike home with someone sooner or later.
You cannot take me for granted as I will surprise you when you least expect
it.
I do delight in saying outrageous things - and why not? The only reason to
be on Usenet is for its' entertainment value. Amusement is the main thing
that counts in my scheme of things. The only sin in Usenet is to be dull.
ARBR just about drives me crazy there are so many dullards there.
I will learn all I will ever have to know about you, Vandeman and others by
just these posts of ours over a very short period of time. I am a fast
learner that way.
>> > Mike is a bad joke. He gives 'real' environmentalists a bad name. He
>> > condones the setting of deadly traps on trails and publicly celebrates
>> > the death of any bike rider. He is incapable of debate. By
>> > associating
>> > yourself with him, you become the next usenet joke. Nothing you say
>> > will have any credibility if this gets out to the 'real' world.
>>
>> I suspect all he is doing is fantasizing. We all of us do that all the
>> time.
>> That does not mean we would actually do harm to anybody or advocate that
>> others do it. Maybe you need to learn how to read better.
>
> Nope, I can read and comprehend quite fine thanks. I have just had way
> too much time on my hands lately so read lots of Mikey's drivel for the
> entertainment factor. :-( (slow recovery from a vehicle accident)
Well, I just don't like bikes on footpaths. It seems that Vandeman and I
agree on that much at least.
[...]
Regards.
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 04 May 2006 16:34:36
From: Mike Vandeman
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
On Thu, 04 May 2006 10:59:33 -0400, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca >
wrote:
>Wow, Mikey has found another nutbar to step up on his soapbox.
>
>No real offense meant, but if you are aligning yourself with the biggest
>usenet fool in the world, you must be just as foolish because nothing
>you say will have any credibility in the 'real' world.
>
>Mike is a bad joke. He gives 'real' environmentalists a bad name. He
>condones the setting of deadly traps on trails and publicly celebrates
>the death of any bike rider. He is incapable of debate. By associating
>yourself with him, you become the next usenet joke. Nothing you say
>will have any credibility if this gets out to the 'real' world.
Obviously you hit a nerve, which always happens when someone tells the
TRUTH about mountain biking. It scares the mountain bikers TO DEATH.
Their only recourse is to attack the messenger. DUH!
>Just my $0.02,
>
>Mike (not a bike rider)
>
>
>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
><snip Mikey clone rant>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
| | | |
Date: 04 May 2006 13:55:03
From: Mike Romain
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 May 2006 10:59:33 -0400, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Wow, Mikey has found another nutbar to step up on his soapbox.
> >
> >No real offense meant, but if you are aligning yourself with the biggest
> >usenet fool in the world, you must be just as foolish because nothing
> >you say will have any credibility in the 'real' world.
> >
> >Mike is a bad joke. He gives 'real' environmentalists a bad name. He
> >condones the setting of deadly traps on trails and publicly celebrates
> >the death of any bike rider. He is incapable of debate. By associating
> >yourself with him, you become the next usenet joke. Nothing you say
> >will have any credibility if this gets out to the 'real' world.
>
> Obviously you hit a nerve, which always happens when someone tells the
> TRUTH about mountain biking. It scares the mountain bikers TO DEATH.
> Their only recourse is to attack the messenger. DUH!
Mike, I am 'not' a mountain or any other kind of pedal biker, at least
not for the last 25+ years. (I own 2 mopeds that get 200 mpg or so, one
is a BSA trike)
I drive a Jeep on the two track fire and logging roads to get to nice
deep bush campsites and hike and canoe from there. We (wife, son,
nephew and I) even took the Jeep as far north as we could drive in
Canada and then canoed for 7 days from there to get to James Bay. We
have ATV issues on those roads, not many bikers get that deep into the
bush, but they are two track or jeep trails so are not impacted by
bikes.
I don't disagree with the 'fact' mountain bikes are bad news for hiking
trails, horses are bad too... They both could use designated trails (or
trail systems). I just disagree with the way 'you' personally go about
announcing it. The 'facts' are mountain bikes and horses are here to
stay, like them or not, the trails just need to be maintained or
segregated in active areas and folks need to have tolerance of others
and their lifestyles.
I 'have' been actively involved in organized or official 'hiking' trail
maintenance including building log bridges as well as fish stocking and
creek maintenance programs and clean ups of local hiking and two track
trails with different clubs and the local governments, even got a write
up in the local papers and the Land Rover Magazine...
You play the foole way too much so you really aren't taken seriously.
You play the fool bad enough one wonders if your local authorities
should be keeping an eye on your whereabouts when kill traps for bikes
are found on 'hiking' trails local to you. Seriously.
Anyone that aligns themselves with you will not be taken seriously
either, except maybe by law enforcement....
Sorry, Mike, but that is just how you come across.....
Mike
>
> >Just my $0.02,
> >
> >Mike (not a bike rider)
> >
> >
> >Edward Dolan wrote:
> >>
> ><snip Mikey clone rant>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
| | | |
Date: 04 May 2006 13:46:13
From: S Curtiss
Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness
|
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:76bk5259662qmu2n4lnm2epn95cibirrr7@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 04 May 2006 10:59:33 -0400, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>Wow, Mikey has found another nutbar to step up on his soapbox.
>>
>>No real offense meant, but if you are aligning yourself with the biggest
>>usenet fool in the world, you must be just as foolish because nothing
>>you say will have any credibility in the 'real' world.
>>
>>Mike is a bad joke. He gives 'real' environmentalists a bad name. He
>>condones the setting of deadly traps on trails and publicly celebrates
>>the death of any bike rider. He is incapable of debate. By associating
>>yourself with him, you become the next usenet joke. Nothing you say
>>will have any credibility if this gets out to the 'real' world.
>
> Obviously you hit a nerve, which always happens when someone tells the
> TRUTH about mountain biking. It scares the mountain bikers TO DEATH.
> Their only recourse is to attack the messenger. DUH!
Right... Google group search "vandeman" shows any number of instances
where Vandeman uses character assasination and name-calling to attack the
"messenger". Using his logic, he is scared to death of the TRUTH spoken by
anyone who challenges his opinion and selective theory.
Beyond that, there is no "attack" of the messenger here... simply a
statement of information supported by any number of references on a usenet
search of "vandeman". The use of "nutbar" is merely a term of endearment...
>
>>Just my $0.02,
>>
>>Mike (not a bike rider)
>>
>>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>><snip Mikey clone rant>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
|
