bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 11 May 2006 04:59:41 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Real Names vs. User Names I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of newsgroups who use their real names. I think what happens when you use a user name is that you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less like a scoundrel. However, if you are going to use a user name, then it had best make some kind of sense. I will not stand for gobbledygook. Take NYC XYZ for instance. Such a user name I will shorten to NYC in order to keep it from becoming an alphabet soup. NYC is not a bad user name since he is from NYC and he often tells us a few things about the Big Apple every now and then. I can live with this kind of a user name. Other user names I will either shorten or even reconstruct them if they are too ridiculous. Take x1134x as an example. Sorry, but this user name makes no sense to me at all and I will reconstruct it if and when it ever becomes necessary to refer to him in a message of mine. I might call him Double X or Numbers or some other such name, but I will never refer to him as x1134x. It is too hard to type that. Besides, numbers are not names. Like I said, I will not stand for gobbledygook. It may be that there are good reasons for some using a user name instead of their real name, but if the newsgroup is reputable I do not see the necessity of it. The very worst scoundrels I have ever encountered on any group were always using a user name whereas all those who use their real names turn out not to be such bad fellows no matter how much I might disagree with them. Civility normally goes right out the window with anonymity. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 21 May 2006 17:11:17 From: Ed Pirrero Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names Edward Dolan wrote: > "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1148065257.397675.127080@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: > >> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:1147972449.752228.54360@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >> > > >> > Edward Dolan wrote: > >> >> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:1147739213.321566.60920@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> >> > >> >> [newsgroups restored] > >> > > >> > Obviously, netiquette is not your forte. > >> > >> You were impolite, so I was impolite back. > > > > Impolite by trimming the huge x-post? That's a very strange definition > > of "impolite". > > I am not trimming anything, you are. That's right, because excessive x-posting is *impolite*. Get it? > You do your original posts the > way you want to do them and I will to mine the way I want to do them. Once you post in a public forum, anything goes. Unless you think this is *your* usenet. LOL. > >> Surely that is fair. > > > > Nope. Two wrongs don't make a right (even assuming that eliminating > > the massive x-post is impolite.) > > So, what neitquette were you talking about in the first place? Look it up. DAGS on "crossposting" and do another on "full quoting". Both are frowned upon, for the reasons given. > > That and your idiotic full-quoting. You're the last person who should > > be making politeness determinations. > > I am a gentleman and a scholar The evidence so far suggests that you are neither. > unlike every mountain biker who has ever > lived. Another sweeping mischaracterization that renders the rest of your opinions suspect. > Full-quoting is the only way to do things. No. Threaded readers can give context if needed. If not, then restoring context where it may have been inappropriately deleted is a recourse. For all your claimed scholarship, you don't know very much about usenet. > >> That is unfortunately true, but I go back to when those trails were first > >> built - over a hundred years ago in many instances. > > > > "Built"? You're kidding, right? Many of the trails, and even roadways > > we use, started as *game trails*. They weren't built, they were > > co-opted by human hikers. > > But you make my point for me better than I could myself. We humans are > nothing but animals ourselves. You may be, but I am certainly not. "Game trails" refer specifically to the kind of animals that regularly make and use those trails, your pedantic obfuscation aside. I have ridden game trails on private property that have only very rarely seen a human, and those trails were perfect for riding. > >> Unless those original > >> trails have been upgraded, they are not suited for bikes. > > > > How strange, then, that I can ride on game trails all day long. How is > > that possible? > > Only in certain types of terrain. Most trails will present an obstacle > coarse for bikes. Actually, they don't. Game trails are smooth, with few obstacles and no step transitions. Are you sure you've ever seen a real trail? > They can only be navigated with difficulty at best. You're full of it. Every trail I've ever hiked, except some of the purpose-built ones at national parks, have been suitable for bikers of most skill levels. > > In fact, I can ride on trails *too narrow* for comfortable walking. So > > your unique definition of "trails suitable for biking" or "walking" is > > questionable, at best. > > It is not just a question of can you do it, but it is more a question of > should you do it. A value judgement that I do not concede to the likes of you. But it doesn't answer the question, does it? > You are not experiencing nature at all when you are bent > on running an obstacle course. Except the vast majority of cases where I'm actually on a trail, and it's not any kind of obstacle course, but a path through the woods (or desert, in some cases.) There are no obstacles, just smooth dirt, the occasional root and rock, or a downed tree (for which I dismount and climb over.) Funny, I smell the forest, hear the birds, and see the trees just fine. Maybe you don't actually know anything about MTBing, hmm? > >> > Since you will unable to curtail those uses, you should find a way to > >> > get used to them. > >> > >> It is very hard to get used to mountain bikers on hiking trails since > >> totally different mental attitudes are involved. > > > > This is a strawman argument. And one made with absolutely no real > > knowledge. You have no idea what "attitude" MTBers bring with them on > > the trail. > > It is easy as pie to see what their mental attitudes are from the way they > behave. Except you don't ever see them, do you? And you've never seen *me* ride, so your generalization fails. > >> Mountain bikers are into > >> fun and games and hikers are into making pilgrimages to find Truth and > >> God. > > > > Neither of those characterizations is even close to being true for the > > majority of the persons in the groups you mention. > > > > You should really check the hypocrisy meter before you call other > > people "liars". > > I am going to follow Vandeman's lead on this question of honestly as he > seems to have had a world of experience with mountain bikers. The only experience he has is via usenet. He baits them with inflammatory language, then uses the responses as "proof" of his preconcieved notions. At best, it's selection of stories to fit conclusions already-reached - junk science. > When I go > hiking in the mountains, I make it a point to only hike in those areas in > which mountain bikers are prohibited. Thus, you have no first-hand knowledge. Scholar, indeed. LOL. > > The National Parks already are very restricted, and I'm not sure > > there's much of a problem with this, from any quarter. But don't > > imagine that somehow this will keep them pristine - if you've ever > > hiked in Arches NP, you'll see that foot traffic only has made trails > > over 10 feet wide in places - and that's a huge swath in terms of a > > fragile ecosystem. > > Yes, I recognize that there are plenty of slob hikers too. I blame the > National Park managers for not getting a better handle on managing the > trails. Then I suggest, since there are about ten times more himers than MTBers, that you focus your attention where the most good will be done. > >> > The only trails I have ever seen that are unsuitable for mountain bikes > >> > were also not suitable for casual walkers. They were boulder field > >> > scrambles, or small slot canyons where bikes just wouldn't fit. > >> > > >> > And they weren't at very high altitudes. > >> > > >> > The trails MOST suitable for MTBers are the higher-altitude trails in > >> > CO and UT. > >> > > >> > So much for your blanket statement, eh? > >> > >> Vandeman is right. Mountain bikers are the scum of the earth! > > > > Of course, you don't like being overmastered by a superior intellect. > > It's human nature. But name-calling will not change the fact that your > > mistaken impression of what constitutes a superior biking trail is at > > odds with what is actually a superior biking trail. > > I have never seen a trail at high altitude that was suitable for bikes. Then you've never been to Utah or Colorado. QED. > And > I spent over 10 years hiking those high altitude trails. I don't believe you. > >> All wilderness areas and pristine natural areas will be forever closed to > >> bikers. Vandeman and I will see to that. > > > > No, you won't. Neither one of you has any sort of power to do that. > > He doesn't have the intellectual capacity, and you don't understand how > > politics works. But if you wish to imagine otherwise, OK by me. I'll > > keep riding my bike in ever-expanding legal areas. > > Ever hear of the Sierra Club? Where Mike was kicked out as a leader, and banned from ever holding leadership positions? The one that has come to recognize that bicycles are acceptable in wilderness settings? That Sierra Club? Nope, never heard of them. > There are hundreds of environmental groups > working to keep bikes where they belong, on the roads. Which hasn't done them any good, because MORE areas are being opened to bikes, not less. Tough luck for you. > In the end, it will > be scientists like Vandeman that will prevail because politicians come and > go, but the science stays forever. LOL. Vandeman is to science as Albert Einstein is to restrained hairstyle. His brand of junk science is repudiated by real scientists. Just look for any of his nature-related papers to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Go ahead and find one. I dare you. > >> May you perish for your blasphemy against the > >> Wilderness. > > > > LOL. Your threat is duly noted. > > I want a bolt of lightning to strike you dead when you are on your bike in > the wilderness. I don't MTB during thunderstorms, so good luck with that wish. LOL. > Surely you > realize yourself that you would be better off dead than trespassing in my > sacred wilderness on your confounded bike. Surely you realize you're an idiot for thinking it actually belongs to you alone. > >> >> Most trails ... are easily > >> >> destroyed by bikes. > >> > > >> > Another unsupported assertion. Do you envirowackos know anything about > >> > LOGIC? > >> > >> Here we see an idiot trying to equate trails with roads. > > > > Well, since I didn't do that, here we have another strawman. When > > you're losing an argument, invent one for your opponent! > > Nope, you were trying to equate trails with roads. Go back and read what you > have previously written. I have. Nowhere did I say they were the same thing. You do know what the word "equate" means, right? > >> >> The public lands have to be managed so as not to create a lot of > >> >> conflicts > >> >> among users. > >> > > >> > Sure. That doesn't include excluding a group of users because *you > >> > personally* don't like them. Most people get over that by the fourth > >> > grade. What's your excuse? > > Go to a dictionary and look up the world 'conflict'. Claiming conflict exists just because you wish to manufacture it does not mean the land managers have to manage your preferences. The conflict exists solely within you. Get over yourself. > >> We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical and > >> mental. > > > > There are no physical conflicts, any more than there would be if it > > were hikers using the trails in opposite directions. The "mental" > > conflicts you claim exist only in your mind, and are thus not only > > invalid, but hilarious. > > "Go to a dictionary and look up the world 'conflict'." - Ed Dolan "The conflict exists solely within you. Get over yourself." - E.P. > >> > Or on any public lands not designated "Wilderness". But no, cutting > >> > even more trails doesn't make any sense. Keeping human impact down > >> > while still providing recreation should be the ultimate goal. > >> > >> "We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical > >> and > >> mental." - Ed Dolan > > > > "Dolan is an delusional wacko." - Ed Pirrero > > > > Quoting your own opinion doesn't make it valid. > > "Go to a dictionary and look up the world 'conflict'." - Ed Dolan "The conflict exists solely within you. Get over yourself." - E.P. > >> > Wow, more usenet courage. I wish I could be such a tough guy behind my > >> > computer screen. The internet is great - you can be tough AND > >> > good-looking. > >> > >> You are not worthy of wilderness. > > > > More of your inane opinion. Luckily, I'm not bound by your singular > > opinion. In fact, I scoff at it. If you were directly in my presence, > > I think we both know that you'd be a bit more circumspect in your > > commentary. > > Au contraire! I would never speak to you at all since I regard you as > nothing but a barbarian, little better than a New Guinea savage. Thus, you have proved my point. The only way you feel courageous enough to actually spew your drivel is behind the safety of your keyboard. What a craven coward you are. > > Have fun pretending your efforts matter, > > > > E.P. > > Ed Pirrero is into nothing but making threats. Liar. > I counted at least 2 of them > in his above message. Cite them. > And in the last analysis, when all else fails, they make threats > to do you bodily harm. Liar. > You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and you can't make a > civilized human being out of a mountain biker. If by "civilized" you mean "as acceptable to Ed Dolan", then I prefer the opposite. Arrogant usenet cowards aren't worth anything. E.P.     Date: 23 May 2006 03:00:11 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1148256677.365812.301420@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1148065257.397675.127080@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1147972449.752228.54360@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> >> > >> >> > Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> >> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:1147739213.321566.60920@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> [newsgroups restored] >> >> > >> >> > Obviously, netiquette is not your forte. >> >> >> >> You were impolite, so I was impolite back. >> > >> > Impolite by trimming the huge x-post? That's a very strange definition >> > of "impolite". >> >> I am not trimming anything, you are. > > That's right, because excessive x-posting is *impolite*. Get it? Just make sure you post to ARBR because that is where I am at. Also, I am trying to save that group from dying on its' feet. That is why I import posts from other newsgroups to ARBR, provided the subject is not too far afield. >> You do your original posts the >> way you want to do them and I will to mine the way I want to do them. > > Once you post in a public forum, anything goes. Unless you think this > is *your* usenet. LOL. I have learned how to change the newsgroups too, so in the end your messages to me will get read by the newsgroups I choose - which is all that matters to me. >> >> Surely that is fair. >> > >> > Nope. Two wrongs don't make a right (even assuming that eliminating >> > the massive x-post is impolite.) >> >> So, what netiquette were you talking about in the first place? > > Look it up. DAGS on "crossposting" and do another on "full quoting". > Both are frowned upon, for the reasons given. Yes, I agree by and large, but I am making an exception in the here and now for the reason stated above. >> > That and your idiotic full-quoting. You're the last person who should >> > be making politeness determinations. >> >> I am a gentleman and a scholar > > The evidence so far suggests that you are neither. We both know that is untrue, so why say it. >> unlike every mountain biker who has ever >> lived. > > Another sweeping mischaracterization that renders the rest of your > opinions suspect. > >> Full-quoting is the only way to do things. > > No. Threaded readers can give context if needed. If not, then > restoring context where it may have been inappropriately deleted is a > recourse. No one, but no one, will ever do what you suggest. It has to be right in front of you or it is lost forever. > For all your claimed scholarship, you don't know very much about > usenet. I only know what I have learned in 3 years of having to deal with the idiots, morons and imbeciles of Usenet. Are there any other types on Usenet? >> >> That is unfortunately true, but I go back to when those trails were >> >> first >> >> built - over a hundred years ago in many instances. >> > >> > "Built"? You're kidding, right? Many of the trails, and even roadways >> > we use, started as *game trails*. They weren't built, they were >> > co-opted by human hikers. >> >> But you make my point for me better than I could myself. We humans are >> nothing but animals ourselves. > > You may be, but I am certainly not. "Game trails" refer specifically > to the kind of animals that regularly make and use those trails, your > pedantic obfuscation aside. Humans make those same kind of trails exactly, unless engaged in construction. > I have ridden game trails on private property that have only very > rarely seen a human, and those trails were perfect for riding. > >> >> Unless those original >> >> trails have been upgraded, they are not suited for bikes. >> > >> > How strange, then, that I can ride on game trails all day long. How is >> > that possible? >> >> Only in certain types of terrain. Most trails will present an obstacle >> coarse for bikes. > > Actually, they don't. Game trails are smooth, with few obstacles and > no step transitions. Are you sure you've ever seen a real trail? > >> They can only be navigated with difficulty at best. > > You're full of it. Every trail I've ever hiked, except some of the > purpose-built ones at national parks, have been suitable for bikers of > most skill levels. Now we see why Vandeman rightly calls all mountain bikers LIARS! >> > In fact, I can ride on trails *too narrow* for comfortable walking. So >> > your unique definition of "trails suitable for biking" or "walking" is >> > questionable, at best. >> >> It is not just a question of can you do it, but it is more a question of >> should you do it. > > A value judgement that I do not concede to the likes of you. But it > doesn't answer the question, does it? It is the one and only real question that needs to be considered. Whether or not to ride a bike on a hiking trail is nothing but a value judgement. Unfortunately your sense of values is out to lunch along with the rest of you. >> You are not experiencing nature at all when you are bent >> on running an obstacle course. > > Except the vast majority of cases where I'm actually on a trail, and > it's not any kind of obstacle course, but a path through the woods (or > desert, in some cases.) There are no obstacles, just smooth dirt, the > occasional root and rock, or a downed tree (for which I dismount and > climb over.) As long as such trails do not permit bikes in wilderness areas, I can live with them. But it would be better to walk all such trails in order to get in tune with nature and your inner self. Do you not have a soul? > Funny, I smell the forest, hear the birds, and see the trees just fine. > Maybe you don't actually know anything about MTBing, hmm? You would experince all of the above a hundred times better walking like a human being instead of behaving like a circus clown on a bike. >> >> > Since you will unable to curtail those uses, you should find a way >> >> > to >> >> > get used to them. >> >> >> >> It is very hard to get used to mountain bikers on hiking trails since >> >> totally different mental attitudes are involved. >> > >> > This is a strawman argument. And one made with absolutely no real >> > knowledge. You have no idea what "attitude" MTBers bring with them on >> > the trail. >> >> It is easy as pie to see what their mental attitudes are from the way >> they >> behave. > > Except you don't ever see them, do you? > > And you've never seen *me* ride, so your generalization fails. > > > >> Mountain bikers are into >> >> fun and games and hikers are into making pilgrimages to find Truth and >> >> God. >> > >> > Neither of those characterizations is even close to being true for the >> > majority of the persons in the groups you mention. >> > >> > You should really check the hypocrisy meter before you call other >> > people "liars". >> >> I am going to follow Vandeman's lead on this question of honesty as he >> seems to have had a world of experience with mountain bikers. > > The only experience he has is via usenet. He baits them with > inflammatory language, then uses the responses as "proof" of his > preconcieved notions. At best, it's selection of stories to fit > conclusions already-reached - junk science. What little I have read of Vandeman leads me to just the opposite conclusion as yours. He seems to have a genuine feeling for preserving wildlife and their habitat. Don't you? I think he has also had plenty of experience of mountain bikers, as have I. Yes, some are responsible but very many are not. But the bottom line is that neither he nor I like to have bikes on our footpaths. They simply do not belong there. We go to wilderness to get away from man and his machines, not to encounter them there. >> When I go >> hiking in the mountains, I make it a point to only hike in those areas in >> which mountain bikers are prohibited. > > Thus, you have no first-hand knowledge. Scholar, indeed. LOL. You encounter mountain bikers while hiking on your way to the wilderness. And you encounter the same slobs as you hike out of the wilderness. By the way, THANK GOD FOR WILDERNESS AREAS WHERE MOUNTAIN BIKES ARE PROHIBITED! >> > The National Parks already are very restricted, and I'm not sure >> > there's much of a problem with this, from any quarter. But don't >> > imagine that somehow this will keep them pristine - if you've ever >> > hiked in Arches NP, you'll see that foot traffic only has made trails >> > over 10 feet wide in places - and that's a huge swath in terms of a >> > fragile ecosystem. >> >> Yes, I recognize that there are plenty of slob hikers too. I blame the >> National Park managers for not getting a better handle on managing the >> trails. > > Then I suggest, since there are about ten times more himers than > MTBers, that you focus your attention where the most good will be done. Now we see why Vandeman rightly calls all mountain bikers LIARS! >> >> > The only trails I have ever seen that are unsuitable for mountain bikes >> >> > were also not suitable for casual walkers. They were boulder field >> >> > scrambles, or small slot canyons where bikes just wouldn't fit. >> >> > >> >> > And they weren't at very high altitudes. >> >> > >> >> > The trails MOST suitable for MTBers are the higher-altitude trails >> >> > in >> >> > CO and UT. >> >> > >> >> > So much for your blanket statement, eh? >> >> >> >> Vandeman is right. Mountain bikers are the scum of the earth! >> > >> > Of course, you don't like being overmastered by a superior intellect. >> > It's human nature. But name-calling will not change the fact that your >> > mistaken impression of what constitutes a superior biking trail is at >> > odds with what is actually a superior biking trail. >> >> I have never seen a trail at high altitude that was suitable for bikes. > > Then you've never been to Utah or Colorado. QED. > >> And >> I spent over 10 years hiking those high altitude trails. > > I don't believe you. "I have never seen a trail at high altitude that was suitable for bikes." - Ed Dolan >> >> All wilderness areas and pristine natural areas will be forever closed >> >> to >> >> bikers. Vandeman and I will see to that. >> > >> > No, you won't. Neither one of you has any sort of power to do that. >> > He doesn't have the intellectual capacity, and you don't understand how >> > politics works. But if you wish to imagine otherwise, OK by me. I'll >> > keep riding my bike in ever-expanding legal areas. >> >> Ever hear of the Sierra Club? > > Where Mike was kicked out as a leader, and banned from ever holding > leadership positions? > > The one that has come to recognize that bicycles are acceptable in > wilderness settings? That Sierra Club? > > Nope, never heard of them. Me neither! >> There are hundreds of environmental groups >> working to keep bikes where they belong, on the roads. > > Which hasn't done them any good, because MORE areas are being opened to > bikes, not less. Tough luck for you. The pendulum swings you know, and it is destined to swing the other way eventually (thanks to Vandeman) as we become ever more crowded for space to get away from it all. Bikes will be increasingly banned from footpaths in the future because of slob bikers. They are their own worst enemies. >> In the end, it will >> be scientists like Vandeman that will prevail because politicians come >> and >> go, but the science stays forever. > > LOL. Vandeman is to science as Albert Einstein is to restrained > hairstyle. His brand of junk science is repudiated by real scientists. > Just look for any of his nature-related papers to be published in a > peer-reviewed journal. Go ahead and find one. I dare you. Vandeman and I do not like bikes on footpaths. Get your own g.d. trails. So what else is new? >> >> May you perish for your blasphemy against the >> >> Wilderness. >> > >> > LOL. Your threat is duly noted. >> >> I want a bolt of lightning to strike you dead when you are on your bike >> in >> the wilderness. > > I don't MTB during thunderstorms, so good luck with that wish. LOL. > >> Surely you >> realize yourself that you would be better off dead than trespassing in my >> sacred wilderness on your confounded bike. > > Surely you realize you're an idiot for thinking it actually belongs to > you alone. The wilderness belongs to hikers alone. I would like to see all equestrians banned from trails used by hikers as well, but maybe that is hoping for too much. >> >> >> Most trails ... are easily >> >> >> destroyed by bikes. >> >> > >> >> > Another unsupported assertion. Do you envirowackos know anything >> >> > about >> >> > LOGIC? >> >> >> >> Here we see an idiot trying to equate trails with roads. >> > >> > Well, since I didn't do that, here we have another strawman. When >> > you're losing an argument, invent one for your opponent! >> >> Nope, you were trying to equate trails with roads. Go back and read what >> you >> have previously written. > > I have. Nowhere did I say they were the same thing. You do know what > the word "equate" means, right? You started off by saying that a trail is like a road, only not so wide. A trail is nothing like a road. End of discussion! >> >> >> The public lands have to be managed so as not to create a lot of >> >> >> conflicts >> >> >> among users. >> >> > >> >> > Sure. That doesn't include excluding a group of users because *you >> >> > personally* don't like them. Most people get over that by the >> >> > fourth >> >> > grade. What's your excuse? >> >> Go to a dictionary and look up the world 'conflict'. > > Claiming conflict exists just because you wish to manufacture it does > not mean the land managers have to manage your preferences. Bikes are banned from innumerable trails because of recognized conflicts. > The conflict exists solely within you. Get over yourself. > >> >> We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical >> >> and >> >> mental. >> > >> > There are no physical conflicts, any more than there would be if it >> > were hikers using the trails in opposite directions. The "mental" >> > conflicts you claim exist only in your mind, and are thus not only >> > invalid, but hilarious. >> >> "Go to a dictionary and look up the world 'conflict'." - Ed Dolan > > "The conflict exists solely within you. Get over yourself." - E.P. "Bikes are banned from innumerable trails because of recognized conflicts." - Ed Dolan >> >> > Or on any public lands not designated "Wilderness". But no, cutting >> >> > even more trails doesn't make any sense. Keeping human impact down >> >> > while still providing recreation should be the ultimate goal. >> >> >> >> "We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical >> >> and >> >> mental." - Ed Dolan >> > >> > "Dolan is an delusional wacko." - Ed Pirrero >> > >> > Quoting your own opinion doesn't make it valid. >> >> "Go to a dictionary and look up the world 'conflict'." - Ed Dolan > > "The conflict exists solely within you. Get over yourself." - E.P. "Bikes are banned from innumerable trails because of recognized conflicts." - Ed Dolan >> >> > Wow, more usenet courage. I wish I could be such a tough guy behind >> >> > my >> >> > computer screen. The internet is great - you can be tough AND >> >> > good-looking. >> >> >> >> You are not worthy of wilderness. >> > >> > More of your inane opinion. Luckily, I'm not bound by your singular >> > opinion. In fact, I scoff at it. If you were directly in my presence, >> > I think we both know that you'd be a bit more circumspect in your >> > commentary. >> >> Au contraire! I would never speak to you at all since I regard you as >> nothing but a barbarian, little better than a New Guinea savage. > > Thus, you have proved my point. The only way you feel courageous > enough to actually spew your drivel is behind the safety of your > keyboard. > > What a craven coward you are. Yup! Nothing but a New Guinea savage! But aren't all mountain bikers! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >> > Have fun pretending your efforts matter, >> > >> > E.P. >> >> Ed Pirrero is into nothing but making threats. > > Liar. > >> I counted at least 2 of them >> in his above message. > > Cite them. > >> And in the last analysis, when all else fails, they make threats >> to do you bodily harm. > > Liar. > >> You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and you can't make a >> civilized human being out of a mountain biker. > > If by "civilized" you mean "as acceptable to Ed Dolan", then I prefer > the opposite. Arrogant usenet cowards aren't worth anything. > > E.P. >   Date: 19 May 2006 16:59:15 From: IT3 Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names >> Surely that is fair. >Nope. Two wrongs don't make a right Two Wrights made an airplane fly! Oh and before they did that, the built (care to take a wild guess?) BICYCLES... They even invented the left handed thread to keep the left pedal from unscrewing itself. Which by the way, has MANY usefull applications in the modern world. > >> There is a long history of trails being for hikers and equestrians only. Do some research on Buffalo Soldier Bicycle Corps... back in the 1890's (how's that for history) they rode into Northern Montana and toured Yellowstone (hmm.... a National Park perhaps?) on bicycles. They traveled almost 2,000 miles from Ft. Missoula, MT across the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, all the way to St. Louis, MO. I think there might be a historical precedent there...... > Any mountain biker who tries to invade wilderness should be > thrown up against a wall and executed Mexican style. That is a pretty harsh statement.... Have you ever witnessed such an event? Or even seen what the wall behind those who were executed looks like several years later? I have... In fact I ride by such a wall every day, it's a pretty sobering sight I assure you.     Date: 21 May 2006 03:08:09 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "IT3" <jgntrmn@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1148083155.802649.296300@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... Who is saying what? >>> Surely that is fair. >>Nope. Two wrongs don't make a right > > Two Wrights made an airplane fly! Oh and before they did that, the > built (care to take a wild guess?) BICYCLES... > They even invented the left handed thread to keep the left pedal from > unscrewing itself. Which by the way, has MANY usefull applications in > the modern world. > > >> >> There is a long history of trails being for hikers and equestrians >> >> only. > > Do some research on Buffalo Soldier Bicycle Corps... back in the 1890's > (how's that for history) they rode into Northern Montana and toured > Yellowstone (hmm.... a National Park perhaps?) on bicycles. They > traveled almost 2,000 miles from Ft. Missoula, MT across the Rocky > Mountains and Great Plains, all the way to St. Louis, MO. I think there > might be a historical precedent there...... > > >> Any mountain biker who tries to invade wilderness should be >> thrown up against a wall and executed Mexican style. > > That is a pretty harsh statement.... Have you ever witnessed such an > event? > Or even seen what the wall behind those who were executed looks like > several years later? > I have... In fact I ride by such a wall every day, it's a pretty > sobering sight I assure you. Remember that scene from the movie "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre"? After the Mexican bandits have murdered Humphry Bogart, they are caught by the police and are immediately executed by firing squad. Nobody seemed to mind dying, not even the bandits. Well, that is what life is like when life is cheap I guess. Actually, I think a bullet to the back of the head is probably the most humane way to put someone out of their misery, don't you? Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 19 May 2006 12:00:57 From: Ed Pirrero Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names Edward Dolan wrote: > "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1147972449.752228.54360@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > Edward Dolan wrote: > >> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:1147739213.321566.60920@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> [newsgroups restored] > > > > Obviously, netiquette is not your forte. > > You were impolite, so I was impolite back. Impolite by trimming the huge x-post? That's a very strange definition of "impolite". So strange, in fact, that I think you are just being a weasel. > Surely that is fair. Nope. Two wrongs don't make a right (even assuming that eliminating the massive x-post is impolite.) That and your idiotic full-quoting. You're the last person who should be making politeness determinations. > >> There is a long history of trails being for hikers and equestrians only. > > > > Actually, the history has been that only those things *existed*. In > > the last 30 years, types and kinds of uses have expanded somewhat. > > That is unfortunately true, but I go back to when those trails were first > built - over a hundred years ago in many instances. "Built"? You're kidding, right? Many of the trails, and even roadways we use, started as *game trails*. They weren't built, they were co-opted by human hikers. > Unless those original > trails have been upgraded, they are not suited for bikes. How strange, then, that I can ride on game trails all day long. How is that possible? In fact, I can ride on trails *too narrow* for comfortable walking. So your unique definition of "trails suitable for biking" or "walking" is questionable, at best. > > Since you will unable to curtail those uses, you should find a way to > > get used to them. > > It is very hard to get used to mountain bikers on hiking trails since > totally different mental attitudes are involved. This is a strawman argument. And one made with absolutely no real knowledge. You have no idea what "attitude" MTBers bring with them on the trail. > Mountain bikers are into > fun and games and hikers are into making pilgrimages to find Truth and God. Neither of those characterizations is even close to being true for the majority of the persons in the groups you mention. You should really check the hypocrisy meter before you call other people "liars". > > Luckily, we can use multi-use trails without destroying more land for > > segregated trails. You're advocating additional human encroachment > > into wild spaces? Hmmm, doesn't sound very respectful of nature... > > I am advocating that bike trails be built only in already developed > recreational areas. This can include much of the National Forest and BLM > lands. And that's where the hugely vast majority of those trails are. The multi-use ones, that is. > I trust the National Parks and State Parks to severely restrict > mountain biking. The National Parks already are very restricted, and I'm not sure there's much of a problem with this, from any quarter. But don't imagine that somehow this will keep them pristine - if you've ever hiked in Arches NP, you'll see that foot traffic only has made trails over 10 feet wide in places - and that's a huge swath in terms of a fragile ecosystem. State parks? I know of a few in WA that *encourage* MTBing. Like Deception Pass State Park. The trails near Cranberry Lake are great. > Any mountain biker who tries to invade wilderness should be > thrown up against a wall and executed Mexican style. Yeah, you're a real tough guy. LOL. > >> The wilderness is not > >> for the likes of you. > > > > Of course it is. You'll just have to get used to sharing it. > > There are plenty of recreational lands for you to ride your bike on. And in those areas where there are multi-use trails, you'll just have to get used to MTBers. That and other places where MTBs were incorrectly classified with motorized vehicles, which is now being corrected. > That > you would want to invade the sacred wilderness on a bike ks you as a > savage. Try to get some culture, why don't you. Your opinion is amusing, but luckily completely fanicful. > > The only trails I have ever seen that are unsuitable for mountain bikes > > were also not suitable for casual walkers. They were boulder field > > scrambles, or small slot canyons where bikes just wouldn't fit. > > > > And they weren't at very high altitudes. > > > > The trails MOST suitable for MTBers are the higher-altitude trails in > > CO and UT. > > > > So much for your blanket statement, eh? > > Vandeman is right. Mountain bikers are the scum of the earth! Of course, you don't like being overmastered by a superior intellect. It's human nature. But name-calling will not change the fact that your mistaken impression of what constitutes a superior biking trail is at odds with what is actually a superior biking trail. > >> Vandeman and I are working hard to get your and your ilk banned from > >> wilderness areas. > > > > Except you won't be able to. So do your Sisyphus impression all you > > want. The plain fact is that MORE areas are being opened to MTBers, so > > your Holy Crusade is coming up exactly opposite of your intent. > > All wilderness areas and pristine natural areas will be forever closed to > bikers. Vandeman and I will see to that. No, you won't. Neither one of you has any sort of power to do that. He doesn't have the intellectual capacity, and you don't understand how politics works. But if you wish to imagine otherwise, OK by me. I'll keep riding my bike in ever-expanding legal areas. > >> You strike me as nothing but a typical lazy mountain biker > >> slob. > > > > Hiding behind the safety of your keyboard makes it very easy to say > > that. Chalk up another courageous usenetter! > > > > Since you obviously have no idea what it takes to ride a bike on > > trails, I'll let your laughable statement pass. > > When you are riding your bike, you are into fun and games. False. > It is nothing but > a g.d. sport to you. False. > You are not fit to ever place a single foot in my > sacred wilderness. Actually, I'm quite fit. And since the land doesn't belong to you, personally, I may visit it in any legal manner I choose. Tough luck for the internet tough guy. :) > You are a savage - nothing but a despoiler of culture and > all the finer things in life. I'm sure that this is merely projection on your part. > May you perish for your blasphemy against the > Wilderness. LOL. Your threat is duly noted. > >> Most trails ... are easily > >> destroyed by bikes. > > > > Another unsupported assertion. Do you envirowackos know anything about > > LOGIC? > > Here we see an idiot trying to equate trails with roads. Well, since I didn't do that, here we have another strawman. When you're losing an argument, invent one for your opponent! > >> The public lands have to be managed so as not to create a lot of > >> conflicts > >> among users. > > > > Sure. That doesn't include excluding a group of users because *you > > personally* don't like them. Most people get over that by the fourth > > grade. What's your excuse? > > We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical and > mental. There are no physical conflicts, any more than there would be if it were hikers using the trails in opposite directions. The "mental" conflicts you claim exist only in your mind, and are thus not only invalid, but hilarious. > > Or on any public lands not designated "Wilderness". But no, cutting > > even more trails doesn't make any sense. Keeping human impact down > > while still providing recreation should be the ultimate goal. > > "We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical and > mental." - Ed Dolan "Dolan is an delusional wacko." - Ed Pirrero Quoting your own opinion doesn't make it valid. > > Wow, more usenet courage. I wish I could be such a tough guy behind my > > computer screen. The internet is great - you can be tough AND > > good-looking. > > You are not worthy of wilderness. More of your inane opinion. Luckily, I'm not bound by your singular opinion. In fact, I scoff at it. If you were directly in my presence, I think we both know that you'd be a bit more circumspect in your commentary. Have fun pretending your efforts matter, E.P.     Date: 21 May 2006 02:54:31 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1148065257.397675.127080@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: >> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1147972449.752228.54360@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1147739213.321566.60920@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> [newsgroups restored] >> > >> > Obviously, netiquette is not your forte. >> >> You were impolite, so I was impolite back. > > Impolite by trimming the huge x-post? That's a very strange definition > of "impolite". I am not trimming anything, you are. I am again restoring the newsgroups since this is my original post, not yours. You do your original posts the way you want to do them and I will to mine the way I want to do them. > So strange, in fact, that I think you are just being a weasel. > >> Surely that is fair. > > Nope. Two wrongs don't make a right (even assuming that eliminating > the massive x-post is impolite.) So, what neitquette were you talking about in the first place? I always treat others the way they treat me. It is strictly an eye for an eye, etc. > That and your idiotic full-quoting. You're the last person who should > be making politeness determinations. I am a gentleman and a scholar, unlike every mountain biker who has ever lived. Full-quoting is the only way to do things. It is fair to you and to me and to everyone else - and it is especially fair to the reader. After all, that is who we are ultimately writing for. >> >> There is a long history of trails being for hikers and equestrians >> >> only. >> > >> > Actually, the history has been that only those things *existed*. In >> > the last 30 years, types and kinds of uses have expanded somewhat. >> >> That is unfortunately true, but I go back to when those trails were first >> built - over a hundred years ago in many instances. > > "Built"? You're kidding, right? Many of the trails, and even roadways > we use, started as *game trails*. They weren't built, they were > co-opted by human hikers. But you make my point for me better than I could myself. We humans are nothing but animals ourselves. We can use those game trails, with slight improvements, and no harm is done. However, most hiking trails were in fact built, but built for humans walking, not for bikers biking. >> Unless those original >> trails have been upgraded, they are not suited for bikes. > > How strange, then, that I can ride on game trails all day long. How is > that possible? Only in certain types of terrain. Most trails will present an obstacle coarse for bikes. They can only be navigated with difficulty at best. > In fact, I can ride on trails *too narrow* for comfortable walking. So > your unique definition of "trails suitable for biking" or "walking" is > questionable, at best. It is not just a question of can you do it, but it is more a question of should you do it. You are not experiencing nature at all when you are bent on running an obstacle course. It is a great sin to do what you do. There may be no forgiveness for it, neither in this world nor the next. >> > Since you will unable to curtail those uses, you should find a way to >> > get used to them. >> >> It is very hard to get used to mountain bikers on hiking trails since >> totally different mental attitudes are involved. > > This is a strawman argument. And one made with absolutely no real > knowledge. You have no idea what "attitude" MTBers bring with them on > the trail. It is easy as pie to see what their mental attitudes are from the way they behave. They are like bulls in a china shop. >> Mountain bikers are into >> fun and games and hikers are into making pilgrimages to find Truth and >> God. > > Neither of those characterizations is even close to being true for the > majority of the persons in the groups you mention. > > You should really check the hypocrisy meter before you call other > people "liars". I am going to follow Vandeman's lead on this question of honestly as he seems to have had a world of experience with mountain bikers. When I go hiking in the mountains, I make it a point to only hike in those areas in which mountain bikers are prohibited. >> > Luckily, we can use multi-use trails without destroying more land for >> > segregated trails. You're advocating additional human encroachment >> > into wild spaces? Hmmm, doesn't sound very respectful of nature... >> >> I am advocating that bike trails be built only in already developed >> recreational areas. This can include much of the National Forest and BLM >> lands. > > And that's where the hugely vast majority of those trails are. The > multi-use ones, that is. > >> I trust the National Parks and State Parks to severely restrict >> mountain biking. > > The National Parks already are very restricted, and I'm not sure > there's much of a problem with this, from any quarter. But don't > imagine that somehow this will keep them pristine - if you've ever > hiked in Arches NP, you'll see that foot traffic only has made trails > over 10 feet wide in places - and that's a huge swath in terms of a > fragile ecosystem. Yes, I recognize that there are plenty of slob hikers too. I blame the National Park managers for not getting a better handle on managing the trails. > State parks? I know of a few in WA that *encourage* MTBing. Like > Deception Pass State Park. The trails near Cranberry Lake are great. There are some State Parks which have wilderness areas that are off limits to bikes. But otherwise, it is OK to have bikes running around in State Parks. After all, they are recreation areas for the most part. >> Any mountain biker who tries to invade wilderness should be >> thrown up against a wall and executed Mexican style. > > Yeah, you're a real tough guy. LOL. > > >> >> The wilderness is not >> >> for the likes of you. >> > >> > Of course it is. You'll just have to get used to sharing it. >> >> There are plenty of recreational lands for you to ride your bike on. > > And in those areas where there are multi-use trails, you'll just have > to get used to MTBers. That and other places where MTBs were > incorrectly classified with motorized vehicles, which is now being > corrected. > >> That >> you would want to invade the sacred wilderness on a bike ks you as a >> savage. Try to get some culture, why don't you. > > Your opinion is amusing, but luckily completely fanicful. > >> > The only trails I have ever seen that are unsuitable for mountain bikes >> > were also not suitable for casual walkers. They were boulder field >> > scrambles, or small slot canyons where bikes just wouldn't fit. >> > >> > And they weren't at very high altitudes. >> > >> > The trails MOST suitable for MTBers are the higher-altitude trails in >> > CO and UT. >> > >> > So much for your blanket statement, eh? >> >> Vandeman is right. Mountain bikers are the scum of the earth! > > Of course, you don't like being overmastered by a superior intellect. > It's human nature. But name-calling will not change the fact that your > mistaken impression of what constitutes a superior biking trail is at > odds with what is actually a superior biking trail. I have never seen a trail at high altitude that was suitable for bikes. And I spent over 10 years hiking those high altitude trails. >> >> Vandeman and I are working hard to get your and your ilk banned from >> >> wilderness areas. >> > >> > Except you won't be able to. So do your Sisyphus impression all you >> > want. The plain fact is that MORE areas are being opened to MTBers, so >> > your Holy Crusade is coming up exactly opposite of your intent. >> >> All wilderness areas and pristine natural areas will be forever closed to >> bikers. Vandeman and I will see to that. > > No, you won't. Neither one of you has any sort of power to do that. > He doesn't have the intellectual capacity, and you don't understand how > politics works. But if you wish to imagine otherwise, OK by me. I'll > keep riding my bike in ever-expanding legal areas. Ever hear of the Sierra Club? There are hundreds of environmental groups working to keep bikes where they belong, on the roads. In the end, it will be scientists like Vandeman that will prevail because politicians come and go, but the science stays forever. >> >> You strike me as nothing but a typical lazy mountain biker >> >> slob. >> > >> > Hiding behind the safety of your keyboard makes it very easy to say >> > that. Chalk up another courageous usenetter! >> > >> > Since you obviously have no idea what it takes to ride a bike on >> > trails, I'll let your laughable statement pass. >> >> When you are riding your bike, you are into fun and games. > > False. > >> It is nothing but >> a g.d. sport to you. > > False. > >> You are not fit to ever place a single foot in my >> sacred wilderness. > > Actually, I'm quite fit. And since the land doesn't belong to you, > personally, I may visit it in any legal manner I choose. Tough luck > for the internet tough guy. :) > >> You are a savage - nothing but a despoiler of culture and >> all the finer things in life. > > I'm sure that this is merely projection on your part. > >> May you perish for your blasphemy against the >> Wilderness. > > LOL. Your threat is duly noted. I want a bolt of lightning to strike you dead when you are on your bike in the wilderness. This is a consummation devoutly to be wished for. Surely you realize yourself that you would be better off dead than trespassing in my sacred wilderness on your confounded bike. >> >> Most trails ... are easily >> >> destroyed by bikes. >> > >> > Another unsupported assertion. Do you envirowackos know anything about >> > LOGIC? >> >> Here we see an idiot trying to equate trails with roads. > > Well, since I didn't do that, here we have another strawman. When > you're losing an argument, invent one for your opponent! Nope, you were trying to equate trails with roads. Go back and read what you have previously written. >> >> The public lands have to be managed so as not to create a lot of >> >> conflicts >> >> among users. >> > >> > Sure. That doesn't include excluding a group of users because *you >> > personally* don't like them. Most people get over that by the fourth >> > grade. What's your excuse? Go to a dictionary and look up the world 'conflict'. >> We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical and >> mental. > > There are no physical conflicts, any more than there would be if it > were hikers using the trails in opposite directions. The "mental" > conflicts you claim exist only in your mind, and are thus not only > invalid, but hilarious. "Go to a dictionary and look up the world 'conflict'." - Ed Dolan >> > Or on any public lands not designated "Wilderness". But no, cutting >> > even more trails doesn't make any sense. Keeping human impact down >> > while still providing recreation should be the ultimate goal. >> >> "We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical >> and >> mental." - Ed Dolan > > "Dolan is an delusional wacko." - Ed Pirrero > > Quoting your own opinion doesn't make it valid. "Go to a dictionary and look up the world 'conflict'." - Ed Dolan >> > Wow, more usenet courage. I wish I could be such a tough guy behind my >> > computer screen. The internet is great - you can be tough AND >> > good-looking. >> >> You are not worthy of wilderness. > > More of your inane opinion. Luckily, I'm not bound by your singular > opinion. In fact, I scoff at it. If you were directly in my presence, > I think we both know that you'd be a bit more circumspect in your > commentary. Au contraire! I would never speak to you at all since I regard you as nothing but a barbarian, little better than a New Guinea savage. > Have fun pretending your efforts matter, > > E.P. Ed Pirrero is into nothing but making threats. I counted at least 2 of them in his above message. He confirmed everything Vandeman has ever said about mountain bikers. They are selfish and inconsiderate and are fundamentally dishonest. And in the last analysis, when all else fails, they make threats to do you bodily harm. They are scum and that is how I will treat them. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and you can't make a civilized human being out of a mountain biker. Thus spake Zarathustra! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 21 May 2006 15:05:10 From: Poge Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names > Ever hear of the Sierra Club? There are hundreds of environmental groups > working to keep bikes where they belong, on the roads. In the end, it > will be scientists like Vandeman that will prevail because politicians > come and go, but the science stays forever. > > I want a bolt of lightning to strike you dead when you are on your bike > in the wilderness. This is a consummation devoutly to be wished for. > Surely you realize yourself that you would be better off dead than > trespassing in my sacred wilderness on your confounded bike. > > Ed Pirrero is into nothing but making threats. I counted at least 2 of > them in his above message. He confirmed everything Vandeman has ever > said about mountain bikers. They are selfish and inconsiderate and are > fundamentally dishonest. And in the last analysis, when all else fails, > they make threats to do you bodily harm. They are scum and that is how I > will treat them. > > You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and you can't make a > civilized human being out of a mountain biker. Thus spake Zarathustra! > > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota Oh Man! I haven't laughed at something so obviously ridiculous in a while. Dude, you should be a stand-up comic. Carrot Top would have some serious competition. Oh, for the record, you CAN make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It's been done. What you can't do is make real science out of biased, prejudiced, ignorant, irrational personal beliefs that are based on hatred and malevolence. But if you think it'll work that way, by all means knock yourself out there Sybil. Let's have those results hasta pronto! Oh, wait! It's not about results, just ranting on your own personal hate that drives you. One could almost think that you and vandeman are one in the same person, but we all know that's just plain silly, right? Later schmuck, I got some pristine wilderness trails to invade with my presence. See you in another year. :-)         Date: 23 May 2006 01:57:24 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Poge" <noneofyour@business.com > wrote in message news:Xns97CA70CAE38F7noneofyour@199.45.49.11... [newsgroups restored] Edward Dolan wrote: >> Ever hear of the Sierra Club? There are hundreds of environmental groups >> working to keep bikes where they belong, on the roads. In the end, it >> will be scientists like Vandeman that will prevail because politicians >> come and go, but the science stays forever. >> >> I want a bolt of lightning to strike you dead when you are on your bike >> in the wilderness. This is a consummation devoutly to be wished for. >> Surely you realize yourself that you would be better off dead than >> trespassing in my sacred wilderness on your confounded bike. >> >> Ed Pirrero is into nothing but making threats. I counted at least 2 of >> them in his above message. He confirmed everything Vandeman has ever >> said about mountain bikers. They are selfish and inconsiderate and are >> fundamentally dishonest. And in the last analysis, when all else fails, >> they make threats to do you bodily harm. They are scum and that is how I >> will treat them. >> >> You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and you can't make a >> civilized human being out of a mountain biker. Thus spake Zarathustra! > > Oh Man! I haven't laughed at something so obviously ridiculous in a while. > Dude, you should be a stand-up comic. Carrot Top would have some serious > competition. > > Oh, for the record, you CAN make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It's > been > done. What you can't do is make real science out of biased, prejudiced, > ignorant, irrational personal beliefs that are based on hatred and > malevolence. But if you think it'll work that way, by all means knock > yourself out there Sybil. Let's have those results hasta pronto! Oh, wait! > It's not about results, just ranting on your own personal hate that drives > you. One could almost think that you and vandeman are one in the same > person, > but we all know that's just plain silly, right? > > Later schmuck, I got some pristine wilderness trails to invade with my > presence. See you in another year. :-) You have now riled Saint Edward the Great from HIS slumbers. HE is going to reconvene the Spanish Inquisition in order to investigate the heresies of mountain bikers. I have no doubt whatsoever that they will be found guilty of grave offenses against God and Nature. Saint Edward the Great will recommend to the Grand Inquisitor that all such heretics and scoundrels be burned at the stake in order that their miserable souls be saved. However, Curtiss and other ADVOCATES of mountain biking, even though burned at the stake, will not have their souls saved because of MY intervention. Nay, they deserve to go to Hell and that is where they shall go! I shall see to that! Always let a sleeping Saint lie, because once aroused they are pitiless. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 18 May 2006 10:14:09 From: Ed Pirrero Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names Edward Dolan wrote: > "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1147739213.321566.60920@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > [newsgroups restored] Obviously, netiquette is not your forte. > > "Allow"? Since you don't own the public lands, it's not your place to > > allow or disallow. > > There is a long history of trails being for hikers and equestrians only. Actually, the history has been that only those things *existed*. In the last 30 years, types and kinds of uses have expanded somewhat. Since you will unable to curtail those uses, you should find a way to get used to them. > Mountain bikes are late comers. They mostly constitute a nuisance to the > original trail users. Merely your opinion. > Get your own g.d. trails. Luckily, we can use multi-use trails without destroying more land for segregated trails. You're advocating additional human encroachment into wild spaces? Hmmm, doesn't sound very respectful of nature... > > "Your"? See my previous comment. > > > > "Sacred"? I don't recognize your right to call a public resource > > "sacred", so I guess you'll just have to swallow the disappointment of > > having to share. > > If you are just into fun and games on your g.d. bike, the get thee to a > recreation area designed for that kind of nonsense. Strawman. Try again. > The wilderness is not > for the likes of you. Of course it is. You'll just have to get used to sharing it. > >> I have never yet seen a high altitude trail that I thought was suitable > >> for > >> mountain bikes. > > > > Not been in Colorado or Utah much, then? Any trail that's suitable for > > walking is suitable for mountain bikes. > > Now I know why Vandeman calls all mountain bikers LIARS! An unsupported hypothesis by both of you. The only trails I have ever seen that are unsuitable for mountain bikes were also not suitable for casual walkers. They were boulder field scrambles, or small slot canyons where bikes just wouldn't fit. And they weren't at very high altitudes. The trails MOST suitable for MTBers are the higher-altitude trails in CO and UT. So much for your blanket statement, eh? > >> I have seen such trails at lower elevations. But I continue > >> to believe that some kind of road is best suited for a bike. > > > > Luckily, your beliefs only bind you, and nobody else. > > Vandeman and I are working hard to get your and your ilk banned from > wilderness areas. Except you won't be able to. So do your Sisyphus impression all you want. The plain fact is that MORE areas are being opened to MTBers, so your Holy Crusade is coming up exactly opposite of your intent. > You strike me as nothing but a typical lazy mountain biker > slob. Hiding behind the safety of your keyboard makes it very easy to say that. Chalk up another courageous usenetter! Since you obviously have no idea what it takes to ride a bike on trails, I'll let your laughable statement pass. > >> The road can be > >> very rough, but is should be a road and not a trail. > > > > Isn't a trail a very small road? > > No! Of course it is. It passes traffic, either human or animal, and it goes from place to place. Sounds like a road to me. > A road will require some construction. Trails don't spring up from nothing. They have to be cut, and usually, animals do the "construction", using their hooves to flatten and defoliate a path. No different han using a shovel - just slower. > Most trails ... are easily > destroyed by bikes. Another unsupported assertion. Do you envirowackos know anything about LOGIC? > >> Jeep roads, sometimes > >> called 4-wheel drive roads, would seem to be ideal for mountain bikes as > >> well as all gravel roads of course. > > > > Actually, the best mountain bike trails are shared-use trails - > > hiking/biking (no horses/mules). And the less hikers, the better. > > Hikers tend to walk side-by-side and widen the trail unnecessarily, > > walk around wet spots to make the wet spots wider, and leave trash and > > dog feces (yeah, they bring their dogs, and don't clean up after them.) > > Anyone who brings a dog on one of my sacred footpaths is a slob equally as > evil as a mountain biker. Again with the "sacred" and "your". Unless you personally own the land the trail sits on, the trails are, at best, "ours." And sacred? I don't recognize your religion as valid or real. Get over it. > Why doesn't the Devil take such miscreants immediately to Hell where they > belong! I think you are mixing your religions. > > Now, if you'd like to buy some land, and designate it as "no bikes", > > then that is your perogative. On public lands where biking on trails > > is allowed, you'd best keep your snobbish attitude to yourself. But, > > guessing from your posts, you'd only dare voice your opinion behind the > > safety of your keyboard. > > The public lands have to be managed so as not to create a lot of conflicts > among users. Sure. That doesn't include excluding a group of users because *you personally* don't like them. Most people get over that by the fourth grade. What's your excuse? > Mountain bikes need their own trails, preferably in already > developed recreation areas. Or on any public lands not designated "Wilderness". But no, cutting even more trails doesn't make any sense. Keeping human impact down while still providing recreation should be the ultimate goal. > Why waste wilderness on slobs like Ed Pirrero. Wow, more usenet courage. I wish I could be such a tough guy behind my computer screen. The internet is great - you can be tough AND good-looking. E.P.     Date: 18 May 2006 22:55:57 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1147972449.752228.54360@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1147739213.321566.60920@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> [newsgroups restored] > > Obviously, netiquette is not your forte. You were impolite, so I was impolite back. Surely that is fair. >> > "Allow"? Since you don't own the public lands, it's not your place to >> > allow or disallow. >> >> There is a long history of trails being for hikers and equestrians only. > > Actually, the history has been that only those things *existed*. In > the last 30 years, types and kinds of uses have expanded somewhat. That is unfortunately true, but I go back to when those trails were first built - over a hundred years ago in many instances. Unless those original trails have been upgraded, they are not suited for bikes. > Since you will unable to curtail those uses, you should find a way to > get used to them. It is very hard to get used to mountain bikers on hiking trails since totally different mental attitudes are involved. Mountain bikers are into fun and games and hikers are into making pilgrimages to find Truth and God. >> Mountain bikes are late comers. They mostly constitute a nuisance to the >> original trail users. > > Merely your opinion. > >> Get your own g.d. trails. > > Luckily, we can use multi-use trails without destroying more land for > segregated trails. You're advocating additional human encroachment > into wild spaces? Hmmm, doesn't sound very respectful of nature... I am advocating that bike trails be built only in already developed recreational areas. This can include much of the National Forest and BLM lands. I trust the National Parks and State Parks to severely restrict mountain biking. Any mountain biker who tries to invade wilderness should be thrown up against a wall and executed Mexican style. >> > "Your"? See my previous comment. >> > >> > "Sacred"? I don't recognize your right to call a public resource >> > "sacred", so I guess you'll just have to swallow the disappointment of >> > having to share. >> >> If you are just into fun and games on your g.d. bike, the get thee to a >> recreation area designed for that kind of nonsense. > > Strawman. Try again. > >> The wilderness is not >> for the likes of you. > > Of course it is. You'll just have to get used to sharing it. There are plenty of recreational lands for you to ride your bike on. That you would want to invade the sacred wilderness on a bike ks you as a savage. Try to get some culture, why don't you. >> >> I have never yet seen a high altitude trail that I thought was >> >> suitable >> >> for >> >> mountain bikes. >> > >> > Not been in Colorado or Utah much, then? Any trail that's suitable for >> > walking is suitable for mountain bikes. >> >> Now I know why Vandeman calls all mountain bikers LIARS! > > An unsupported hypothesis by both of you. > > The only trails I have ever seen that are unsuitable for mountain bikes > were also not suitable for casual walkers. They were boulder field > scrambles, or small slot canyons where bikes just wouldn't fit. > > And they weren't at very high altitudes. > > The trails MOST suitable for MTBers are the higher-altitude trails in > CO and UT. > > So much for your blanket statement, eh? Vandeman is right. Mountain bikers are the scum of the earth! >> >> I have seen such trails at lower elevations. But I continue >> >> to believe that some kind of road is best suited for a bike. >> > >> > Luckily, your beliefs only bind you, and nobody else. >> >> Vandeman and I are working hard to get your and your ilk banned from >> wilderness areas. > > Except you won't be able to. So do your Sisyphus impression all you > want. The plain fact is that MORE areas are being opened to MTBers, so > your Holy Crusade is coming up exactly opposite of your intent. All wilderness areas and pristine natural areas will be forever closed to bikers. Vandeman and I will see to that. >> You strike me as nothing but a typical lazy mountain biker >> slob. > > Hiding behind the safety of your keyboard makes it very easy to say > that. Chalk up another courageous usenetter! > > Since you obviously have no idea what it takes to ride a bike on > trails, I'll let your laughable statement pass. When you are riding your bike, you are into fun and games. It is nothing but a g.d. sport to you. You are not fit to ever place a single foot in my sacred wilderness. You are a savage - nothing but a despoiler of culture and all the finer things in life. May you perish for your blasphemy against the Wilderness. >> >> The road can be >> >> very rough, but is should be a road and not a trail. >> > >> > Isn't a trail a very small road? >> >> No! > > Of course it is. It passes traffic, either human or animal, and it > goes from place to place. > > Sounds like a road to me. > > >> A road will require some construction. > > Trails don't spring up from nothing. They have to be cut, and usually, > animals do the "construction", using their hooves to flatten and > defoliate a path. No different han using a shovel - just slower. > >> Most trails ... are easily >> destroyed by bikes. > > Another unsupported assertion. Do you envirowackos know anything about > LOGIC? Here we see an idiot trying to equate trails with roads. >> >> Jeep roads, sometimes >> >> called 4-wheel drive roads, would seem to be ideal for mountain bikes >> >> as >> >> well as all gravel roads of course. >> > >> > Actually, the best mountain bike trails are shared-use trails - >> > hiking/biking (no horses/mules). And the less hikers, the better. >> > Hikers tend to walk side-by-side and widen the trail unnecessarily, >> > walk around wet spots to make the wet spots wider, and leave trash and >> > dog feces (yeah, they bring their dogs, and don't clean up after them.) >> >> Anyone who brings a dog on one of my sacred footpaths is a slob equally >> as >> evil as a mountain biker. > > Again with the "sacred" and "your". Unless you personally own the land > the trail sits on, the trails are, at best, "ours." And sacred? I > don't recognize your religion as valid or real. Get over it. > >> Why doesn't the Devil take such miscreants immediately to Hell where they >> belong! > > I think you are mixing your religions. > >> > Now, if you'd like to buy some land, and designate it as "no bikes", >> > then that is your perogative. On public lands where biking on trails >> > is allowed, you'd best keep your snobbish attitude to yourself. But, >> > guessing from your posts, you'd only dare voice your opinion behind the >> > safety of your keyboard. >> >> The public lands have to be managed so as not to create a lot of >> conflicts >> among users. > > Sure. That doesn't include excluding a group of users because *you > personally* don't like them. Most people get over that by the fourth > grade. What's your excuse? We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical and mental. >> Mountain bikes need their own trails, preferably in already >> developed recreation areas. > > Or on any public lands not designated "Wilderness". But no, cutting > even more trails doesn't make any sense. Keeping human impact down > while still providing recreation should be the ultimate goal. "We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical and mental." - Ed Dolan >> Why waste wilderness on slobs like Ed Pirrero. > > Wow, more usenet courage. I wish I could be such a tough guy behind my > computer screen. The internet is great - you can be tough AND > good-looking. You are not worthy of wilderness. What you are worthy of is Coney Island and/or Disney World. Why can't you slobs stay where you belong - among your own kind. We do not want you in our sacred wilderness unless you adopt the humble posture of the hiker. Arrogant bikers belong on roads or specially constructed bike trails. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 19 May 2006 20:42:44 From: cc Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names Edward Dolan wrote: > "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1147972449.752228.54360@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >>Edward Dolan wrote: >> >>>"Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:1147739213.321566.60920@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> >>>[newsgroups restored] >> > > It is very hard to get used to mountain bikers on hiking trails since > totally different mental attitudes are involved. Mountain bikers are into > fun and games and hikers are into making pilgrimages to find Truth and God. > Any mountain biker who tries to invade wilderness should be > thrown up against a wall and executed Mexican style. > I'm so relieved to hear of hikers' piety . . but is there something incongruous here?   Date: 12 May 2006 19:05:37 From: CowPunk Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >Edward Dolan, (507) 727-0306, 1028 4th Ave, Worthington, MN 56187 Do you prefer Dominos or Pizza Hut?     Date: 13 May 2006 22:38:34 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "CowPunk" <cowpunk99@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1147485936.947522.173760@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >> aka >> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > >Edward Dolan, (507) 727-0306, 1028 4th Ave, Worthington, MN 56187 > > Do you prefer Dominos or Pizza Hut? You also have a real name and address and no doubt a telephone number too. But who cares? Certainly not me! Live Free of Die! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 12 May 2006 02:29:13 From: x1134x Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names Edward Dolan wrote: > "x1134x" <x1134x@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > Yes, you are right about that, but still I don't think too many will ever do > that. They will, like you, choose something they think is Romantic or Cool. > Most real names are almost never Romantic or Cool. I'll agree with the fact that most names are neither romantic nor cool. > It would always be 11:34 AM in my case. I seldom if ever get up before noon. > Wouldn't it be PM then? 11:34AM is 26 minutes *before* noon. > > No, it is more difficult to type once you get into numbers. But frankly, it > just looks so bad. The written language has a beauty all its' own just as a > music score does. > Two things then: Learn to type numbers! Its easy to master 4 rows of keys. Just as easy as it was the first 3 rows. Or, learn to master the 10 key, its even faster for inputting numbers. Surely you're up for a new skill. . . . > > Yes, I do indeed know what you are talking about. But I wonder if it is > really so necessary in the case of Usenet. After all, we are real people > here saying real things to one another. We should strive to be unique > personalities. It is hard to achieve this when you have a user name that is > nowhere. > I do not post to usenet using NNTP, I use google groups, which requires a logon. And since I want my logon to be the same everywhere and 1 in 4 people have the same full name as me, I use x1134x. > I really do not want to be anonymous, at least not when I am on Usenet. On > the contrary, I want to be known far and wide. I say fairly outrageous > things all the time and I stand behind them. Live Free or Die! This way I get Live Free and Live Free. I still disregard antiquated or idiotic laws, and I voice my opinions freely, AND I don't have to worry about the witchunters (read: Republicans) finding me and making me deal with that "Die" part. > He is merely contentious as am I. There's more than that. He's a few cans short of a 6 pack. Not firing on all 8 cylinders if you know what I mean. > You are fine and you have said some very wise things which I have taken note > of. > > I am going to continue to monitor RBS, but I am mainly to be found on ARBR > as I am a recumbent cyclist exclusively these days. Barf. Recumbent. I usually only pester the alt.mountain-bike forum, because they make fun of my cheap bike, and they need someone to bring their elitist noses down a peg. x1134x     Date: 12 May 2006 08:34:00 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "x1134x" <x1134x@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1147426153.703911.11510@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: >> "x1134x" <x1134x@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> Yes, you are right about that, but still I don't think too many will ever >> do >> that. They will, like you, choose something they think is Romantic or >> Cool. >> Most real names are almost never Romantic or Cool. > > I'll agree with the fact that most names are neither romantic nor cool. > >> It would always be 11:34 AM in my case. I seldom if ever get up before >> noon. >> > Wouldn't it be PM then? 11:34AM is 26 minutes *before* noon. Give or take an hour or two. I really feel bad if I sleep in until 3:00 PM. It's like I have lost another day out of my life. My father used to go to bed about 4:00 AM and come down from his bedroom about 4:00 PM. I used to think that was crazy when I was a kid, but I find that I am doing that myself lately. He did it to get away from his family; I do it because I am incurably lazy. We eccentrics are born this way. >> No, it is more difficult to type once you get into numbers. But frankly, >> it >> just looks so bad. The written language has a beauty all its' own just as >> a >> music score does. >> > > Two things then: Learn to type numbers! Its easy to master 4 rows of > keys. Just as easy as it was the first 3 rows. Or, learn to master > the 10 key, its even faster for inputting numbers. Surely you're up > for a new skill. . . . Nope, sorry, I am an old dog and I cannot learn any new tricks. I am in agreement with the French composer Saint Saens (the greatest second rate composer who ever lived). He said if a musical score did not look beautiful, then it could not sound beautiful. Get rid of your numbers and find a new user name. Your user name does not look beautiful. >> Yes, I do indeed know what you are talking about. But I wonder if it is >> really so necessary in the case of Usenet. After all, we are real people >> here saying real things to one another. We should strive to be unique >> personalities. It is hard to achieve this when you have a user name that >> is >> nowhere. >> > > I do not post to usenet using NNTP, I use google groups, which requires > a logon. And since I want my logon to be the same everywhere and 1 in > 4 people have the same full name as me, I use x1134x. Just vary your name ever so slightly. Your numbers with the x's is very ugly! >> I really do not want to be anonymous, at least not when I am on Usenet. >> On >> the contrary, I want to be known far and wide. I say fairly outrageous >> things all the time and I stand behind them. Live Free or Die! > > This way I get Live Free and Live Free. I still disregard antiquated > or idiotic laws, and I voice my opinions freely, AND I don't have to > worry about the witchunters (read: Republicans) finding me and making > me deal with that "Die" part. There seem to be very few Republicans on Usenet. I am one of the few and I am death on liberals. But Republicans are for the most part gentlemen. It is liberals who are hate filled and repugnant to everyone except their ilk. Be warned, I am only a gentleman on occasion and a far left liberal will send me into paroxysms of rage. Just ask Tom Sherman, formerly of ARBR. >> He is merely contentious as am I. > > There's more than that. He's a few cans short of a 6 pack. Not firing > on all 8 cylinders if you know what I mean. So far I have not come to that conclusion about him at all. Like him, I do not like mountain bikers using my sacred footpaths. This is an entirely legitimate point of view, although many mountain bikers may disagree. >> You are fine and you have said some very wise things which I have taken >> note >> of. >> >> I am going to continue to monitor RBS, but I am mainly to be found on >> ARBR >> as I am a recumbent cyclist exclusively these days. > > Barf. Recumbent. I usually only pester the alt.mountain-bike forum, > because they make fun of my cheap bike, and they need someone to bring > their elitist noses down a peg. I have a mountain bike myself, but I only use it on rough gravel roads, not trails. I also have cheap klunker bikes which I use for utility purposes around town. You only want to be an elitist in matters of the mind and in your culture. You cannot buy it although fools try to do that all the time. They are pathetic and I feel sorry for them. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 11 May 2006 18:08:40 From: Jeff Strickland Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of newsgroups who >use their real names. I think what happens when you use a user name is that >you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less like a scoundrel. >However, if you are going to use a user name, then it had best make some >kind of sense. I will not stand for gobbledygook. > Mike Vandeman uses his real name, and all he posts is gobbledygook, and he makes no effort to conceal the fact that he is a scoundrel. I like your theory, but I found an exception to the rule. <snip rest >     Date: 11 May 2006 22:57:39 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:fNWdnQuiYYWEff7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@ez2.net... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of newsgroups >>who use their real names. I think what happens when you use a user name is >>that you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less like a scoundrel. >>However, if you are going to use a user name, then it had best make some >>kind of sense. I will not stand for gobbledygook. > > Mike Vandeman uses his real name, and all he posts is gobbledygook, and he > makes no effort to conceal the fact that he is a scoundrel. I like your > theory, but I found an exception to the rule. I have not noted the offenses that you speak of in reference to Vandeman. Like me, he is contentious and returns invective with invective. After all, if someone is calling you a liar, then you have every right to return the favor. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 13 May 2006 12:45:53 From: Jeff Strickland Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:bOidnSsBxvokmvnZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... > > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:fNWdnQuiYYWEff7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@ez2.net... >> >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >>>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of newsgroups >>>who use their real names. I think what happens when you use a user name >>>is that you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less like a >>>scoundrel. However, if you are going to use a user name, then it had best >>>make some kind of sense. I will not stand for gobbledygook. >> >> Mike Vandeman uses his real name, and all he posts is gobbledygook, and >> he makes no effort to conceal the fact that he is a scoundrel. I like >> your theory, but I found an exception to the rule. > > I have not noted the offenses that you speak of in reference to Vandeman. > Like me, he is contentious and returns invective with invective. After > all, if someone is calling you a liar, then you have every right to return > the favor. > > Regards, > Then, you must be new here. Mike posts huge quantities of flawed data, where the flaws always support his agenda. The data NEVER takes into account the facts that many of the routes he would close -- he would close them all, by the way -- have been on the ground for a century, sometimes more. He is prone to point to his own work as proof of his assertions. He ignores any fact that refutes his assertions in any way. I am not a mountain bike rider, but I do participate in offroad (off HIGHWAY) travel on roads that were used at the turn of the 20th century as mining roads. The ground is fine, the species are in great shape, yet Vandeman would close the route(s) if he had his way. I use routes that were used in the days of the Pony Express, and Mike and his ilk would close them even in the face of facts that show closure would actually be an impediment to the very species he(they) seeks to protect. Observe posters that try to talk to him rationally, and see how HE retorts to name calling and invective. He is an obvious exception to the traits you call out in your first post. But, I like your theory. It holds up much of the time, just not in the case of Vandeman.         Date: 13 May 2006 22:34:44 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:eb-dnTECrNnsqvvZRVn-jA@ez2.net... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:bOidnSsBxvokmvnZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... >> >> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:fNWdnQuiYYWEff7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@ez2.net... >>> >>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>> news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >>>>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of newsgroups >>>>who use their real names. I think what happens when you use a user name >>>>is that you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less like a >>>>scoundrel. However, if you are going to use a user name, then it had >>>>best make some kind of sense. I will not stand for gobbledygook. >>> >>> Mike Vandeman uses his real name, and all he posts is gobbledygook, and >>> he makes no effort to conceal the fact that he is a scoundrel. I like >>> your theory, but I found an exception to the rule. >> >> I have not noted the offenses that you speak of in reference to Vandeman. >> Like me, he is contentious and returns invective with invective. After >> all, if someone is calling you a liar, then you have every right to >> return the favor. > > Then, you must be new here. Mike posts huge quantities of flawed data, > where the flaws always support his agenda. The data NEVER takes into > account the facts that many of the routes he would close -- he would close > them all, by the way -- have been on the ground for a century, sometimes > more. He is prone to point to his own work as proof of his assertions. He > ignores any fact that refutes his assertions in any way. Even if what you say is true, I like his bias. It is the same as mine. I am against mountain bikers using trails that were originally designed for hikers. Mountain bikers need to have their own trails, and those trails should never go anywhere near a wilderness. > I am not a mountain bike rider, but I do participate in offroad (off > HIGHWAY) travel on roads that were used at the turn of the 20th century as > mining roads. The ground is fine, the species are in great shape, yet > Vandeman would close the route(s) if he had his way. I use routes that > were used in the days of the Pony Express, and Mike and his ilk would > close them even in the face of facts that show closure would actually be > an impediment to the very species he(they) seeks to protect. I agree with you on the above. I like to bike those kind of roads too. That is the reason I got my mountain bike in the first place. But note the kind of emails that Vandeman gets. That right there is enough to drive anyone to the point of rage. > Observe posters that try to talk to him rationally, and see how HE retorts > to name calling and invective. He is an obvious exception to the traits > you call out in your first post. But, I like your theory. It holds up much > of the time, just not in the case of Vandeman. I am so used to folks castigating me that everything now is like water off a duck's back. I have lost all of my former sensitivity and have grown the hide of rhinoceros. I will argue my positions with as much energy as I can muster, but I am not afraid to admit defeat when I have been shown the error of my ways. Vandeman no doubt is a true believer which requires him to take an extreme position the better to make his arguments stand out against all the static. All innovators and original minds are like that. I am more like the rest of you. I will make compromises and I can be a diplomat when it is required. "No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be; Am an attendant lord, one that will do To swell a progress, start a scene or two, Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool, Deferential, glad to be of use, Politic, cautious, and meticulous; Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse; At times, indeed, almost ridiculous- Almost, at times, the Fool." T. S. Eliot - The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota           Date: 13 May 2006 21:33:06 From: Jeff Strickland Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:h4qdnVxT0cjAOPvZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... > > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:eb-dnTECrNnsqvvZRVn-jA@ez2.net... >> >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> news:bOidnSsBxvokmvnZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... >>> >>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:fNWdnQuiYYWEff7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@ez2.net... >>>> >>>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>>> news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >>>>>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of newsgroups >>>>>who use their real names. I think what happens when you use a user name >>>>>is that you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less like a >>>>>scoundrel. However, if you are going to use a user name, then it had >>>>>best make some kind of sense. I will not stand for gobbledygook. >>>> >>>> Mike Vandeman uses his real name, and all he posts is gobbledygook, and >>>> he makes no effort to conceal the fact that he is a scoundrel. I like >>>> your theory, but I found an exception to the rule. >>> >>> I have not noted the offenses that you speak of in reference to >>> Vandeman. Like me, he is contentious and returns invective with >>> invective. After all, if someone is calling you a liar, then you have >>> every right to return the favor. >> >> Then, you must be new here. Mike posts huge quantities of flawed data, >> where the flaws always support his agenda. The data NEVER takes into >> account the facts that many of the routes he would close -- he would >> close them all, by the way -- have been on the ground for a century, >> sometimes more. He is prone to point to his own work as proof of his >> assertions. He ignores any fact that refutes his assertions in any way. > > Even if what you say is true, I like his bias. It is the same as mine. I > am against mountain bikers using trails that were originally designed for > hikers. Mountain bikers need to have their own trails, and those trails > should never go anywhere near a wilderness. > >> I am not a mountain bike rider, but I do participate in offroad (off >> HIGHWAY) travel on roads that were used at the turn of the 20th century >> as mining roads. The ground is fine, the species are in great shape, yet >> Vandeman would close the route(s) if he had his way. I use routes that >> were used in the days of the Pony Express, and Mike and his ilk would >> close them even in the face of facts that show closure would actually be >> an impediment to the very species he(they) seeks to protect. > > I agree with you on the above. I like to bike those kind of roads too. > That is the reason I got my mountain bike in the first place. But note the > kind of emails that Vandeman gets. That right there is enough to drive > anyone to the point of rage. > His "rage" is of his own making, and I question his sincerity on that point. I think he goes out of his way to attract his rage, then he posts it in a public forum with the tagline that everybody is as the author in the notes he has posted. >> Observe posters that try to talk to him rationally, and see how HE >> retorts to name calling and invective. He is an obvious exception to the >> traits you call out in your first post. But, I like your theory. It holds >> up much of the time, just not in the case of Vandeman. > > I am so used to folks castigating me that everything now is like water off > a duck's back. I have lost all of my former sensitivity and have grown the > hide of rhinoceros. I will argue my positions with as much energy as I can > muster, but I am not afraid to admit defeat when I have been shown the > error of my ways. > > Vandeman no doubt is a true believer which requires him to take an extreme > position the better to make his arguments stand out against all the > static. All innovators and original minds are like that. I am more like > the rest of you. I will make compromises and I can be a diplomat when it > is required. > Mike makes the case that a single track trail is the bane of the environment -- leaving aside for a moment that there may be other kinds of users on the route. Assuming his assertion that a single track is solely used by mountain bikers, and using the assumption that a single track is 1.5ft wide, a route that bisects a square mile and is itself a mile long, takes up less than 0.04% of the area it bisects. All of the route is not possible to be the environmental wasteland that Mike makes it out to be, but let's say that 25% of the route is what Mike asserts. This makes 0.01% of the square mile into an environmental catastrophy, hardly an issue that demands new laws and rules to prevent recreational uses. This is roughly equivelent to a letter size sheet of paper destroying the habitat the size of a tennis court. The math is, 1.5 x 5,280 = 7,920 sq ft. There are 43,560 sq ft in an acre, and 640 acres in a sq mi. The trail I described takes 18% of an acre, and this is 0.04% of a sq mi. Keep in mind that the average residential lot in California is roughly 7,500 sq ft, you see that a single track trail that is a mile long is equivelent to the land that a house sits on. When there is one house on 640 acres, that house has very little impact on the habitat or the species that live there. Perspective. That is what Mike is missing. Vandeman claims that mountain bikers contribute to global warming. To the extent they strap their bikes to the roof of the family sedan to get them to the trail head, I suppose this is true. But, hikers also contribute in the same way to global warming because they also pile into the family sedan to drive to the trailhead. Let's not forget the mother driving to the ket to get a sack of groceries. She contributes to global warming. I'm not suggesting we halt these activities, I'm suggesting that to single out bike riders for special focus is inherently flawed. (Yes, global warming is a serious problem, but banning mountain biking is not the cure, as Mike would like you to believe.) Personally, I drive a Jeep on the most rugged of routes that I can find. This demands very low speeds where noise and dust are almost never an issue for anybody. Yet, Vandeman would want you to believe that all vehicle activity is unwanted by hikers and equestrians. In my vast experience, NO hiker or equestrian has ever gotten mad at me or the group I travel with. Admittedly, my sample is small, but I know lots of off-highway vehicle operators, and except for the possible exception of desert racers, I think that most of htem have the same experience with hikers and horses that I've had. Basically, I'm suggesting that a very few hikers and horsemen have been bothered by even fewer off highway vehicle operators. Indeed, in most of my travels, the hikers and horsemen will stop and watch as the group I'm with will negotiate a particularly difficult section of trail. My life experience is vastly different than Vandeman's. I don't go around calling on MORE off highway travel, but I do not support most calls for less. I have research (I have had, I'm not sure I still have it) that shows off highway travel is actually beneficial to a plant species that the CBD (Center for Biological Diversity) is seeking to protect. The irony is, the vehicles are better for the species than the protective measures banning the vehicles. In short, the CBD is destroying a plant species in the name of protecting it. A result of trail closures is that more and more vehicles are crammed into smaller and smaller places, then there is a self-serving report written that says the overcrowded places are destroying habitat. The fact is, most of the habitat is not destroyed until after the concentration of activity is raised in an effort to protect another place. I have been offroading for coming up on 40 years in Southern California, and I'm here to say that the vast majority of the areas that "need" protection have been doing very well these past 40 years. I argue they need no protection beyond the occasional police action because there is always an idiot in the crowd. The desert regions I visit have prospered despite being designated off road vehicle recreation areas. Now, if one wants to discuss bikes and feet on the same trail, then I suppose that is a reasonable discussion. But, it is my limited experience in this arena that a little trail ettiquete would go a very long way in helping resolve most of the issues. I think our efforts should be focused on development, not recreation. Sure, there may be locales where recreation is a bad thing, but these locales are the exception to the rule that recreation isn't a bad thing. Recreation can be beneficial, and is usually beneficial to all but that which happens to be in the middleof the single track itself. Mike insists that as soon as a mountain bike is pulled out of the garage, the environment goes to hell, despite mountains of evidence that this is not true in the vast majority of his cites. Mike can only make his baseless assertions because he has no perspective.             Date: 14 May 2006 02:04:40 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:p4ydnYisLYifLvvZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@ez2.net... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:h4qdnVxT0cjAOPvZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... >> >> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:eb-dnTECrNnsqvvZRVn-jA@ez2.net... >>> >>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>> news:bOidnSsBxvokmvnZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... >>>> >>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:fNWdnQuiYYWEff7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@ez2.net... >>>>> >>>>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >>>>>>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of >>>>>>newsgroups who use their real names. I think what happens when you use >>>>>>a user name is that you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less >>>>>>like a scoundrel. However, if you are going to use a user name, then >>>>>>it had best make some kind of sense. I will not stand for >>>>>>gobbledygook. >>>>> >>>>> Mike Vandeman uses his real name, and all he posts is gobbledygook, >>>>> and he makes no effort to conceal the fact that he is a scoundrel. I >>>>> like your theory, but I found an exception to the rule. >>>> >>>> I have not noted the offenses that you speak of in reference to >>>> Vandeman. Like me, he is contentious and returns invective with >>>> invective. After all, if someone is calling you a liar, then you have >>>> every right to return the favor. >>> >>> Then, you must be new here. Mike posts huge quantities of flawed data, >>> where the flaws always support his agenda. The data NEVER takes into >>> account the facts that many of the routes he would close -- he would >>> close them all, by the way -- have been on the ground for a century, >>> sometimes more. He is prone to point to his own work as proof of his >>> assertions. He ignores any fact that refutes his assertions in any way. >> >> Even if what you say is true, I like his bias. It is the same as mine. I >> am against mountain bikers using trails that were originally designed for >> hikers. Mountain bikers need to have their own trails, and those trails >> should never go anywhere near a wilderness. >> >>> I am not a mountain bike rider, but I do participate in offroad (off >>> HIGHWAY) travel on roads that were used at the turn of the 20th century >>> as mining roads. The ground is fine, the species are in great shape, yet >>> Vandeman would close the route(s) if he had his way. I use routes that >>> were used in the days of the Pony Express, and Mike and his ilk would >>> close them even in the face of facts that show closure would actually be >>> an impediment to the very species he(they) seeks to protect. >> >> I agree with you on the above. I like to bike those kind of roads too. >> That is the reason I got my mountain bike in the first place. But note >> the kind of emails that Vandeman gets. That right there is enough to >> drive anyone to the point of rage. >> > > His "rage" is of his own making, and I question his sincerity on that > point. I think he goes out of his way to attract his rage, then he posts > it in a public forum with the tagline that everybody is as the author in > the notes he has posted. Nope, others use obscenities on him and he does not return the favor like I would. He shows us the mentality of mountain bikers when he posts their obscene emails to him on the newsgroups. >>> Observe posters that try to talk to him rationally, and see how HE >>> retorts to name calling and invective. He is an obvious exception to the >>> traits you call out in your first post. But, I like your theory. It >>> holds up much of the time, just not in the case of Vandeman. >> >> I am so used to folks castigating me that everything now is like water >> off a duck's back. I have lost all of my former sensitivity and have >> grown the hide of rhinoceros. I will argue my positions with as much >> energy as I can muster, but I am not afraid to admit defeat when I have >> been shown the error of my ways. >> >> Vandeman no doubt is a true believer which requires him to take an >> extreme position the better to make his arguments stand out against all >> the static. All innovators and original minds are like that. I am more >> like the rest of you. I will make compromises and I can be a diplomat >> when it is required. >> > > > Mike makes the case that a single track trail is the bane of the > environment -- leaving aside for a moment that there may be other kinds of > users on the route. Assuming his assertion that a single track is solely > used by mountain bikers, and using the assumption that a single track is > 1.5ft wide, a route that bisects a square mile and is itself a mile long, > takes up less than 0.04% of the area it bisects. All of the route is not > possible to be the environmental wasteland that Mike makes it out to be, > but let's say that 25% of the route is what Mike asserts. This makes 0.01% > of the square mile into an environmental catastrophy, hardly an issue that > demands new laws and rules to prevent recreational uses. This is roughly > equivelent to a letter size sheet of paper destroying the habitat the size > of a tennis court. The math is, 1.5 x 5,280 = 7,920 sq ft. There are > 43,560 sq ft in an acre, and 640 acres in a sq mi. The trail I described > takes 18% of an acre, and this is 0.04% of a sq mi. Keep in mind that the > average residential lot in California is roughly 7,500 sq ft, you see that > a single track trail that is a mile long is equivelent to the land that a > house sits on. When there is one house on 640 acres, that house has very > little impact on the habitat or the species that live there. > > Perspective. That is what Mike is missing. I am pretty sure it is not just about trail degradation, but the impact that humans can have on wildlife by being present in an area. A lone walker is not the same thing as group of mountain bikers. It appears to me that you are the one lacking perspective. > Vandeman claims that mountain bikers contribute to global warming. To the > extent they strap their bikes to the roof of the family sedan to get them > to the trail head, I suppose this is true. But, hikers also contribute in > the same way to global warming because they also pile into the family > sedan to drive to the trailhead. Let's not forget the mother driving to > the ket to get a sack of groceries. She contributes to global warming. > I'm not suggesting we halt these activities, I'm suggesting that to single > out bike riders for special focus is inherently flawed. (Yes, global > warming is a serious problem, but banning mountain biking is not the cure, > as Mike would like you to believe.) > > Personally, I drive a Jeep on the most rugged of routes that I can find. > This demands very low speeds where noise and dust are almost never an > issue for anybody. Yet, Vandeman would want you to believe that all > vehicle activity is unwanted by hikers and equestrians. In my vast > experience, NO hiker or equestrian has ever gotten mad at me or the group > I travel with. Admittedly, my sample is small, but I know lots of > off-highway vehicle operators, and except for the possible exception of > desert racers, I think that most of htem have the same experience with > hikers and horses that I've had. Basically, I'm suggesting that a very few > hikers and horsemen have been bothered by even fewer off highway vehicle > operators. Indeed, in most of my travels, the hikers and horsemen will > stop and watch as the group I'm with will negotiate a particularly > difficult section of trail. I am not much in favor of off-road vehicles ever being off the road. This is a much more serious issue than mountain bikes being off-road. You truly do not know how you are impacting other outdoor users. Who is going to get into a confrontation with strangers in this day and age when you are likely to get murdered over nothing at all. I can assure you that anyone who is not in an off-road vehicle himself DOES object to encountering such use by vehicles. > My life experience is vastly different than Vandeman's. I don't go around > calling on MORE off highway travel, but I do not support most calls for > less. I have research (I have had, I'm not sure I still have it) that > shows off highway travel is actually beneficial to a plant species that > the CBD (Center for Biological Diversity) is seeking to protect. The irony > is, the vehicles are better for the species than the protective measures > banning the vehicles. Nope, I will never believe any of the above to be true. In short, the CBD is destroying a plant species in the name of > protecting it. A result of trail closures is that more and more vehicles > are crammed into smaller and smaller places, then there is a self-serving > report written that says the overcrowded places are destroying habitat. > The fact is, most of the habitat is not destroyed until after the > concentration of activity is raised in an effort to protect another place. All off-road vehicle activity should be banned everywhere. I have been > offroading for coming up on 40 years in Southern California, and I'm here > to say that the vast majority of the areas that "need" protection have > been doing very well these past 40 years. I argue they need no protection > beyond the occasional police action because there is always an idiot in > the crowd. The desert regions I visit have prospered despite being > designated off road vehicle recreation areas. You fail utterly to convince me. Vehicles off-road are very destructive of the natural scene, especially in desert areas. All natural areas are quite fragile and have only limited ability to recover from vehicles. Hence, the reason for roads. > Now, if one wants to discuss bikes and feet on the same trail, then I > suppose that is a reasonable discussion. But, it is my limited experience > in this arena that a little trail ettiquete would go a very long way in > helping resolve most of the issues. There are different mental attitudes involved in the two activities. That is why they are not compatible. I think our efforts should be focused on > development, not recreation. Sure, there may be locales where recreation > is a bad thing, but these locales are the exception to the rule that > recreation isn't a bad thing. Recreation can be beneficial, and is usually > beneficial to all but that which happens to be in the middleof the single > track itself. Certain areas can be developed for human recreation as they are already pretty much ruined anyway. They can be restored possibly, but all really natural and pristine areas need to be set aside and not developed at all. Have some pity on the wild things of the earth. > Mike insists that as soon as a mountain bike is pulled out of the garage, > the environment goes to hell, despite mountains of evidence that this is > not true in the vast majority of his cites. Mike can only make his > baseless assertions because he has no perspective. Mountain bikes belong on some kind of road, however rough. They do not belong on footpaths anywhere. Jeff, you have not convinced me at all that Vandeman is being unreasonable. He is just being a purist. We need these types. They force us to rethink our own positions. Vandeman engenders as much response as he does because he is not unreasonable. If he were, everyone would write him off as crazy and ignore him. It is not possible to do that because there is sense to what he says, no matter how much you might disagree with him. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota               Date: 14 May 2006 11:02:46 From: Jeff Strickland Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:8YydnRdBieoPS_vZRVn-vQ@prairiewave.com... >> His "rage" is of his own making, and I question his sincerity on that >> point. I think he goes out of his way to attract his rage, then he posts >> it in a public forum with the tagline that everybody is as the author in >> the notes he has posted. > > Nope, others use obscenities on him and he does not return the favor like > I would. He shows us the mentality of mountain bikers when he posts their > obscene emails to him on the newsgroups. > You're new here, aren't you? >>>> Observe posters that try to talk to him rationally, and see how HE >>>> retorts to name calling and invective. He is an obvious exception to >>>> the traits you call out in your first post. But, I like your theory. It >>>> holds up much of the time, just not in the case of Vandeman. >>> >>> I am so used to folks castigating me that everything now is like water >>> off a duck's back. I have lost all of my former sensitivity and have >>> grown the hide of rhinoceros. I will argue my positions with as much >>> energy as I can muster, but I am not afraid to admit defeat when I have >>> been shown the error of my ways. >>> >>> Vandeman no doubt is a true believer which requires him to take an >>> extreme position the better to make his arguments stand out against all >>> the static. All innovators and original minds are like that. I am more >>> like the rest of you. I will make compromises and I can be a diplomat >>> when it is required. >>> >> >> >> Mike makes the case that a single track trail is the bane of the >> environment -- leaving aside for a moment that there may be other kinds >> of users on the route. Assuming his assertion that a single track is >> solely used by mountain bikers, and using the assumption that a single >> track is 1.5ft wide, a route that bisects a square mile and is itself a >> mile long, takes up less than 0.04% of the area it bisects. All of the >> route is not possible to be the environmental wasteland that Mike makes >> it out to be, but let's say that 25% of the route is what Mike asserts. >> This makes 0.01% of the square mile into an environmental catastrophy, >> hardly an issue that demands new laws and rules to prevent recreational >> uses. This is roughly equivelent to a letter size sheet of paper >> destroying the habitat the size of a tennis court. The math is, 1.5 x >> 5,280 = 7,920 sq ft. There are 43,560 sq ft in an acre, and 640 acres in >> a sq mi. The trail I described takes 18% of an acre, and this is 0.04% of >> a sq mi. Keep in mind that the average residential lot in California is >> roughly 7,500 sq ft, you see that a single track trail that is a mile >> long is equivelent to the land that a house sits on. When there is one >> house on 640 acres, that house has very little impact on the habitat or >> the species that live there. >> >> Perspective. That is what Mike is missing. > > I am pretty sure it is not just about trail degradation, but the impact > that humans can have on wildlife by being present in an area. A lone > walker is not the same thing as group of mountain bikers. It appears to me > that you are the one lacking perspective. > A "lone" hiker? Hikers are just as likely to be in a group of 5 as a bike rider is. It's absurd to compare groups of one traveler and pretend that other travelers always travel alone. If you are going to make a comparison of bikers and hikers, at least use the same size population. The Grand Canyon has trails that have absolutely NO bikes on them, the only traveler is on foot or on horseback -- mule back, really. Should we surmise that all foot travel is therefore harmfull because of the erosion at the Grand Canyon? The Grand Canyon is a giant example of erosion, but none of it comes at the sole of a shoe. The trails need to have a service call on them on a regular basis, that's true. But the environment is none the worse for the wear that comes from the foot traffic. A bike route in the San Francisco Bay Area might need a service call from time to time, big deal. The environment is none the worse for the wear, and surely there are other way more harmful activities that are doing a number on the region. Sequoia Park is smog ridden from the crap that blows in from the bay, and the trees are suffering badly as a result. The bike trails in the park are an insignificant source of damage in the grand scheme of things. That, my friend, is perspective. >> Vandeman claims that mountain bikers contribute to global warming. To the >> extent they strap their bikes to the roof of the family sedan to get them >> to the trail head, I suppose this is true. But, hikers also contribute in >> the same way to global warming because they also pile into the family >> sedan to drive to the trailhead. Let's not forget the mother driving to >> the ket to get a sack of groceries. She contributes to global warming. >> I'm not suggesting we halt these activities, I'm suggesting that to >> single out bike riders for special focus is inherently flawed. (Yes, >> global warming is a serious problem, but banning mountain biking is not >> the cure, as Mike would like you to believe.) >> >> Personally, I drive a Jeep on the most rugged of routes that I can find. >> This demands very low speeds where noise and dust are almost never an >> issue for anybody. Yet, Vandeman would want you to believe that all >> vehicle activity is unwanted by hikers and equestrians. In my vast >> experience, NO hiker or equestrian has ever gotten mad at me or the group >> I travel with. Admittedly, my sample is small, but I know lots of >> off-highway vehicle operators, and except for the possible exception of >> desert racers, I think that most of htem have the same experience with >> hikers and horses that I've had. Basically, I'm suggesting that a very >> few hikers and horsemen have been bothered by even fewer off highway >> vehicle operators. Indeed, in most of my travels, the hikers and horsemen >> will stop and watch as the group I'm with will negotiate a particularly >> difficult section of trail. > > I am not much in favor of off-road vehicles ever being off the road. This > is a much more serious issue than mountain bikes being off-road. You truly > do not know how you are impacting other outdoor users. Who is going to get > into a confrontation with strangers in this day and age when you are > likely to get murdered over nothing at all. I can assure you that anyone > who is not in an off-road vehicle himself DOES object to encountering such > use by vehicles. > Wrong. I absolutely do know how I'm impacting other outdoor users. The vast majority enjoy the show. I make it a point to slow to a crawl so I do not kick up dust, and make lots of noise. I'm always friendly to whomever I come across, and I carry ice and water, and frequently offer it. I stop completely for horses, then proceed when the rider and the horse see me, and I proceed in a manner to not alarm the horse. When I am negotiating a particularly difficult section of trail, I draw crowds of horses and hikers, and bikers. They always, that's A-W-A-Y-S, look and sound as though they like what I am doing. And, I always travel in a group of at least 3, and usually a group of 6 or 7. I have been visiting the same areas for 40 years, give or take, and the animals and plants are not showing any signs of distress as a result of recreational activities. Yes, there might be some distress, but it is from the air or from bugs that eat the trees, but not from the recreational uses that occur there. >> My life experience is vastly different than Vandeman's. I don't go around >> calling on MORE off highway travel, but I do not support most calls for >> less. I have research (I have had, I'm not sure I still have it) that >> shows off highway travel is actually beneficial to a plant species that >> the CBD (Center for Biological Diversity) is seeking to protect. The >> irony is, the vehicles are better for the species than the protective >> measures banning the vehicles. > > Nope, I will never believe any of the above to be true. > Well, you should. You said earlier that you don't do research, and are largely opinion-based. The actual research does not support the opinion youhave formed. Vandeman has the same problem, the actual research does not support the opinions he has. > In short, the CBD is destroying a plant species in the name of >> protecting it. A result of trail closures is that more and more vehicles >> are crammed into smaller and smaller places, then there is a self-serving >> report written that says the overcrowded places are destroying habitat. >> The fact is, most of the habitat is not destroyed until after the >> concentration of activity is raised in an effort to protect another >> place. > > All off-road vehicle activity should be banned everywhere. > > I have been >> offroading for coming up on 40 years in Southern California, and I'm here >> to say that the vast majority of the areas that "need" protection have >> been doing very well these past 40 years. I argue they need no protection >> beyond the occasional police action because there is always an idiot in >> the crowd. The desert regions I visit have prospered despite being >> designated off road vehicle recreation areas. > > You fail utterly to convince me. Vehicles off-road are very destructive of > the natural scene, especially in desert areas. All natural areas are quite > fragile and have only limited ability to recover from vehicles. Hence, the > reason for roads. > Well, 99.9% of all off highway travel is on dirt roads. These are roads that were built for any number of reasons, off highway travel being at the bottom of the list. They are left over from these other uses, typically mining, but we still like to use them. We can see all we want to see from the road, we very seldom need to venture off the established road to get somewhere. Think about it, if somewhere is worth getting to, the dirt road would already be there, and venturing off the route isn't necessary or practical. >> Now, if one wants to discuss bikes and feet on the same trail, then I >> suppose that is a reasonable discussion. But, it is my limited experience >> in this arena that a little trail ettiquete would go a very long way in >> helping resolve most of the issues. > > There are different mental attitudes involved in the two activities. That > is why they are not compatible. > Bullshit! What makes you think that you have a different mindset than I have when we are out on a trail? That's patently absurd, and selfish. > I think our efforts should be focused on >> development, not recreation. Sure, there may be locales where recreation >> is a bad thing, but these locales are the exception to the rule that >> recreation isn't a bad thing. Recreation can be beneficial, and is >> usually beneficial to all but that which happens to be in the middleof >> the single track itself. > > Certain areas can be developed for human recreation as they are already > pretty much ruined anyway. They can be restored possibly, but all really > natural and pristine areas need to be set aside and not developed at all. > Have some pity on the wild things of the earth. > I already gave you an example of a weed that is in a set-aside area for off road vehicles, and was subsequently closed to the vehicles. The weed is in decline where the vehciles are banned, and is spreading where the vehicles are still allowed. There are sand dunes near hear that were cut in half, one side closed and the other remains open (both sides were once open), and the plant that they want to protect is dying off in the closed area, but they closed the area solely to protect the plant, and the plant flourishes where the vehicles are still allowed. The exact opposite result is happening. I have lots of studies that counter pretty much every opinion you hold. It's a pity really that you would extrapolate your narrow experience on people that have been living in the real world where this argument has been going on for a very long time, and the plants and animals that should have been gone long ago -- using the environmentalist's cries of doom and gloom. I can cite the Big Horn Sheep habitat experience if you want; tell you how the give and take from the offroad community to share the land has resulted in a series of gates that keep the off road community out year around. We agreed that the sheep -- lambs actually -- were scared of the vehicles and would not come to the water. We agreed that the route past the water should be gated part of the year so the lambs would not be frightened -- even though the population decline could not be shown to be a result of offroad activity. We agreed to give up access to the route for part of the year. This went on for several years, then the gates remained locked year around. Now, the water is so overgrown that the lambs can't get past the brush to the water, and mountain lions lie in wait in the overgrown brush to attack the lambs as they drink. The brush that grows across the trail now block a historic route used by the Pony Express. The issue was that the Big Horn Sheep habitat was being encroached upon by the golf courses in Palm Springs, so since the habitat was shrinking, then we should close off a remote and historic route that is used by less than 1500 visitors per year. This is a strategy that makes no sense at all, and the few vehicles that went through kept the brush back so the lambs could get to the water, and the mountain lions had fewer places to hide so they could get at the lambs. The strategy to save the lambs turns out to not only deny public access to public lands, it harms the lamb population they were trying to save. Two bad things come from the same strategy, and nothing good comes from it. And, public access to public lands was never part of the problem faced by the Big Horn Sheep. >> Mike insists that as soon as a mountain bike is pulled out of the garage, >> the environment goes to hell, despite mountains of evidence that this is >> not true in the vast majority of his cites. Mike can only make his >> baseless assertions because he has no perspective. > > Mountain bikes belong on some kind of road, however rough. They do not > belong on footpaths anywhere. > > Jeff, you have not convinced me at all that Vandeman is being > unreasonable. He is just being a purist. We need these types. They force > us to rethink our own positions. Vandeman engenders as much response as he > does because he is not unreasonable. If he were, everyone would write him > off as crazy and ignore him. It is not possible to do that because there > is sense to what he says, no matter how much you might disagree with him. > He is completely unreasonable. He blamed a mountain lion attack on bikers as being a result of the bikes! How unreasonable do you need him to be before you see how unreasonable he is? HE cites the actions of two kids in a park using bikes to jump over fallen trees as indicitive of the illegal actions of all bike riders everywhere. How unreasonable do you need him to be? Surely, you are not the same unreasonable sort as Vandeman. Everyone DOES write him off as crazy, except, apparently, you. I accept the notion that we need the discussion, and the watchdog. But Vandeman is clearly not the person that should be talking or watching. His agenda is to have you visit the wilderness by going to a museum and looking at a display through the glass. He, and perhaps you, lives in one of the most congested places in California -- I could give his address and you could GoogleEarth his house -- so clearly his perspective is tainted. He works at Berkely, and lives within walking distance. He wants everybody to walk to work because he can. He wants everybody to sit at home on the weekend so he can go outside and be alone. He can't go anywhere and be alone, and that frustrates him. Today the bike tires, tomorrow the boot soles. Pick your rubber, one day it will be banned if Mike gets his way.                 Date: 14 May 2006 23:06:53 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:DeWdnZLL4q1Y7frZRVn-jQ@ez2.net... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:8YydnRdBieoPS_vZRVn-vQ@prairiewave.com... > >>> His "rage" is of his own making, and I question his sincerity on that >>> point. I think he goes out of his way to attract his rage, then he posts >>> it in a public forum with the tagline that everybody is as the author in >>> the notes he has posted. >> >> Nope, others use obscenities on him and he does not return the favor like >> I would. He shows us the mentality of mountain bikers when he posts their >> obscene emails to him on the newsgroups. >> > > You're new here, aren't you? Yes, but I will treat him just as fairly as I will you. The one thing I will not do is go back and research anything. After all, this is Usenet, not a scholarly seminar. >>>>> Observe posters that try to talk to him rationally, and see how HE >>>>> retorts to name calling and invective. He is an obvious exception to >>>>> the traits you call out in your first post. But, I like your theory. >>>>> It holds up much of the time, just not in the case of Vandeman. >>>> >>>> I am so used to folks castigating me that everything now is like water >>>> off a duck's back. I have lost all of my former sensitivity and have >>>> grown the hide of rhinoceros. I will argue my positions with as much >>>> energy as I can muster, but I am not afraid to admit defeat when I have >>>> been shown the error of my ways. >>>> >>>> Vandeman no doubt is a true believer which requires him to take an >>>> extreme position the better to make his arguments stand out against all >>>> the static. All innovators and original minds are like that. I am more >>>> like the rest of you. I will make compromises and I can be a diplomat >>>> when it is required. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Mike makes the case that a single track trail is the bane of the >>> environment -- leaving aside for a moment that there may be other kinds >>> of users on the route. Assuming his assertion that a single track is >>> solely used by mountain bikers, and using the assumption that a single >>> track is 1.5ft wide, a route that bisects a square mile and is itself a >>> mile long, takes up less than 0.04% of the area it bisects. All of the >>> route is not possible to be the environmental wasteland that Mike makes >>> it out to be, but let's say that 25% of the route is what Mike asserts. >>> This makes 0.01% of the square mile into an environmental catastrophy, >>> hardly an issue that demands new laws and rules to prevent recreational >>> uses. This is roughly equivelent to a letter size sheet of paper >>> destroying the habitat the size of a tennis court. The math is, 1.5 x >>> 5,280 = 7,920 sq ft. There are 43,560 sq ft in an acre, and 640 acres in >>> a sq mi. The trail I described takes 18% of an acre, and this is 0.04% >>> of a sq mi. Keep in mind that the average residential lot in California >>> is roughly 7,500 sq ft, you see that a single track trail that is a mile >>> long is equivelent to the land that a house sits on. When there is one >>> house on 640 acres, that house has very little impact on the habitat or >>> the species that live there. >>> >>> Perspective. That is what Mike is missing. >> >> I am pretty sure it is not just about trail degradation, but the impact >> that humans can have on wildlife by being present in an area. A lone >> walker is not the same thing as group of mountain bikers. It appears to >> me that you are the one lacking perspective. >> > > A "lone" hiker? Hikers are just as likely to be in a group of 5 as a bike > rider is. It's absurd to compare groups of one traveler and pretend that > other travelers always travel alone. If you are going to make a comparison > of bikers and hikers, at least use the same size population. I have hiked every major mountain range in the West and most of those in the East as well almost nonstop for 10 years when I was in my 30's and I always hiked alone. Very many of the other hikers that I would meet on the trail were also lone hikers. I will admit I never bothered much with groups of hikers. But even the groups seem to be only composed of 2 or 3 individuals, surely not many. Often the groups were a family. Mountain bikers are most often composed of friends, not families, and are out for a hoot. They often seem to be in a party mode. It is sacrilegious to be that way when in the wilderness. Such behavior is anathema to one such as myself. > The Grand Canyon has trails that have absolutely NO bikes on them, the > only traveler is on foot or on horseback -- mule back, really. Should we > surmise that all foot travel is therefore harmfull because of the erosion > at the Grand Canyon? The Grand Canyon is a giant example of erosion, but > none of it comes at the sole of a shoe. The trails need to have a service > call on them on a regular basis, that's true. But the environment is none > the worse for the wear that comes from the foot traffic. I am not as concerned about erosion to the trail as you imagine me to be. I am concerned about the kind of mental attitudes that others take into the wilderness with them. Only hikers and equestrians have the right mental attitude for the wilderness (reverence). Mountain bikers especially have all the wrong attitudes. They view the trail as some kind of obstacle course which they are challenged to conquer. In other words, it is a sport to them, not a pilgrimage of the soul. > A bike route in the San Francisco Bay Area might need a service call from > time to time, big deal. The environment is none the worse for the wear, > and surely there are other way more harmful activities that are doing a > number on the region. Sequoia Park is smog ridden from the crap that blows > in from the bay, and the trees are suffering badly as a result. The bike > trails in the park are an insignificant source of damage in the grand > scheme of things. That, my friend, is perspective. Mountain bikers need their own trails. Bikers and hikers cannot coexist on the same trails. >>> Vandeman claims that mountain bikers contribute to global warming. To >>> the extent they strap their bikes to the roof of the family sedan to get >>> them to the trail head, I suppose this is true. But, hikers also >>> contribute in the same way to global warming because they also pile into >>> the family sedan to drive to the trailhead. Let's not forget the mother >>> driving to the ket to get a sack of groceries. She contributes to >>> global warming. I'm not suggesting we halt these activities, I'm >>> suggesting that to single out bike riders for special focus is >>> inherently flawed. (Yes, global warming is a serious problem, but >>> banning mountain biking is not the cure, as Mike would like you to >>> believe.) >>> >>> Personally, I drive a Jeep on the most rugged of routes that I can find. >>> This demands very low speeds where noise and dust are almost never an >>> issue for anybody. Yet, Vandeman would want you to believe that all >>> vehicle activity is unwanted by hikers and equestrians. In my vast >>> experience, NO hiker or equestrian has ever gotten mad at me or the >>> group I travel with. Admittedly, my sample is small, but I know lots of >>> off-highway vehicle operators, and except for the possible exception of >>> desert racers, I think that most of htem have the same experience with >>> hikers and horses that I've had. Basically, I'm suggesting that a very >>> few hikers and horsemen have been bothered by even fewer off highway >>> vehicle operators. Indeed, in most of my travels, the hikers and >>> horsemen will stop and watch as the group I'm with will negotiate a >>> particularly difficult section of trail. >> >> I am not much in favor of off-road vehicles ever being off the road. This >> is a much more serious issue than mountain bikes being off-road. You >> truly do not know how you are impacting other outdoor users. Who is going >> to get into a confrontation with strangers in this day and age when you >> are likely to get murdered over nothing at all. I can assure you that >> anyone who is not in an off-road vehicle himself DOES object to >> encountering such use by vehicles. >> > > Wrong. I absolutely do know how I'm impacting other outdoor users. The > vast majority enjoy the show. I make it a point to slow to a crawl so I do > not kick up dust, and make lots of noise. I'm always friendly to whomever > I come across, and I carry ice and water, and frequently offer it. I stop > completely for horses, then proceed when the rider and the horse see me, > and I proceed in a manner to not alarm the horse. When I am negotiating a > particularly difficult section of trail, I draw crowds of horses and > hikers, and bikers. They always, that's A-W-A-Y-S, look and sound as > though they like what I am doing. And, I always travel in a group of at > least 3, and usually a group of 6 or 7. You are no doubt a responsible off-road recreationist, but still nothing but a recreationist. Nevertheless, the Southern California desert should be off limits to all off-road vehicles. The whole area that is as yet not overrun by housing should be set aside as a preserve. Ideally, the only way you could access it would be on foot. Then you would be afforded the possibility of a trek there that would save your soul. You might even find God there like the prophets of the Old Testament did by wandering in the desert. One thing is for sure, you will never find anything there by operating an off-road vehicle. I love the Mojave Desert (and all desert areas) and I am in despair at the way they are being despoiled. You know not what you do, but you and your ilk are destroying a landscape that will soon be lost to mankind forever. Generations of men to come will have to journey to the Sahara Desert to find the emptiness and solace which the human soul craves and can only be found in the great deserts of the world. What you are doing is very sinful and an affront to God. You did not create this world. HE did and you profane it by your motorized incursions off-road. > I have been visiting the same areas for 40 years, give or take, and the > animals and plants are not showing any signs of distress as a result of > recreational activities. Yes, there might be some distress, but it is from > the air or from bugs that eat the trees, but not from the recreational > uses that occur there. Even so, certain types of activities are not suited for wilderness areas. Such areas are too precious for anything but the contemplation of the eternal verities. This is best accomplished by the humble hiker, not by any kind of use of an off-road vehicle. >>> My life experience is vastly different than Vandeman's. I don't go >>> around calling on MORE off highway travel, but I do not support most >>> calls for less. I have research (I have had, I'm not sure I still have >>> it) that shows off highway travel is actually beneficial to a plant >>> species that the CBD (Center for Biological Diversity) is seeking to >>> protect. The irony is, the vehicles are better for the species than the >>> protective measures banning the vehicles. >> >> Nope, I will never believe any of the above to be true. >> > > Well, you should. You said earlier that you don't do research, and are > largely opinion-based. The actual research does not support the opinion > you have formed. Vandeman has the same problem, the actual research does > not support the opinions he has. Nope, this discussion is about opinion and nothing else. You want to do what you want to do and so do I. Our uses conflict with one another, and so we shal arguments that will defeat the other party. I am on Vandeman's side, not yours. >> In short, the CBD is destroying a plant species in the name of >>> protecting it. A result of trail closures is that more and more vehicles >>> are crammed into smaller and smaller places, then there is a >>> self-serving report written that says the overcrowded places are >>> destroying habitat. The fact is, most of the habitat is not destroyed >>> until after the concentration of activity is raised in an effort to >>> protect another place. >> >> All off-road vehicle activity should be banned everywhere. >> >> I have been >>> offroading for coming up on 40 years in Southern California, and I'm >>> here to say that the vast majority of the areas that "need" protection >>> have been doing very well these past 40 years. I argue they need no >>> protection beyond the occasional police action because there is always >>> an idiot in the crowd. The desert regions I visit have prospered despite >>> being designated off road vehicle recreation areas. >> >> You fail utterly to convince me. Vehicles off-road are very destructive >> of the natural scene, especially in desert areas. All natural areas are >> quite fragile and have only limited ability to recover from vehicles. >> Hence, the reason for roads. >> > > Well, 99.9% of all off highway travel is on dirt roads. These are roads > that were built for any number of reasons, off highway travel being at the > bottom of the list. They are left over from these other uses, typically > mining, but we still like to use them. We can see all we want to see from > the road, we very seldom need to venture off the established road to get > somewhere. Think about it, if somewhere is worth getting to, the dirt road > would already be there, and venturing off the route isn't necessary or > practical. I am using the term off-road to describe driving across land where there is no road at all, dirt or otherwise. I think perhaps even you might agree with me that this is wrong. If any kind of road already exists, then I would leave it be unless the area in which it lies is designated wilderness. Then any and all roads would have to go. >>> Now, if one wants to discuss bikes and feet on the same trail, then I >>> suppose that is a reasonable discussion. But, it is my limited >>> experience in this arena that a little trail ettiquete would go a very >>> long way in helping resolve most of the issues. >> >> There are different mental attitudes involved in the two activities. That >> is why they are not compatible. >> > > Bullshit! > > What makes you think that you have a different mindset than I have when we > are out on a trail? That's patently absurd, and selfish. You are from Slobville and I am from Eliteville, that is the difference. After all, we do not want slobs and ignoramuses running the world. >> I think our efforts should be focused on >>> development, not recreation. Sure, there may be locales where recreation >>> is a bad thing, but these locales are the exception to the rule that >>> recreation isn't a bad thing. Recreation can be beneficial, and is >>> usually beneficial to all but that which happens to be in the middleof >>> the single track itself. >> >> Certain areas can be developed for human recreation as they are already >> pretty much ruined anyway. They can be restored possibly, but all really >> natural and pristine areas need to be set aside and not developed at all. >> Have some pity on the wild things of the earth. >> > > I already gave you an example of a weed that is in a set-aside area for > off road vehicles, and was subsequently closed to the vehicles. The weed > is in decline where the vehciles are banned, and is spreading where the > vehicles are still allowed. There are sand dunes near hear that were cut > in half, one side closed and the other remains open (both sides were once > open), and the plant that they want to protect is dying off in the closed > area, but they closed the area solely to protect the plant, and the plant > flourishes where the vehicles are still allowed. The exact opposite result > is happening. I have lots of studies that counter pretty much every > opinion you hold. It's a pity really that you would extrapolate your > narrow experience on people that have been living in the real world where > this argument has been going on for a very long time, and the plants and > animals that should have been gone long ago -- using the > environmentalist's cries of doom and gloom. All of the above makes no sense whatsoever. It is nuts! > I can cite the Big Horn Sheep habitat experience if you want; tell you how > the give and take from the offroad community to share the land has > resulted in a series of gates that keep the off road community out year > around. We agreed that the sheep -- lambs actually -- were scared of the > vehicles and would not come to the water. We agreed that the route past > the water should be gated part of the year so the lambs would not be > frightened -- even though the population decline could not be shown to be > a result of offroad activity. We agreed to give up access to the route for > part of the year. This went on for several years, then the gates remained > locked year around. Now, the water is so overgrown that the lambs can't > get past the brush to the water, and mountain lions lie in wait in the > overgrown brush to attack the lambs as they drink. The brush that grows > across the trail now block a historic route used by the Pony Express. The > issue was that the Big Horn Sheep habitat was being encroached upon by the > golf courses in Palm Springs, so since the habitat was shrinking, then we > should close off a remote and historic route that is used by less than > 1500 visitors per year. This is a strategy that makes no sense at all, and > the few vehicles that went through kept the brush back so the lambs could > get to the water, and the mountain lions had fewer places to hide so they > could get at the lambs. The strategy to save the lambs turns out to not > only deny public access to public lands, it harms the lamb population they > were trying to save. Two bad things come from the same strategy, and > nothing good comes from it. And, public access to public lands was never > part of the problem faced by the Big Horn Sheep. Man cannot manage anything at all well when it comes to the wild things of the earth. All man can mange is his own kind. That is a full time job and we do not do that at all well either. >>> Mike insists that as soon as a mountain bike is pulled out of the >>> garage, the environment goes to hell, despite mountains of evidence that >>> this is not true in the vast majority of his cites. Mike can only make >>> his baseless assertions because he has no perspective. >> >> Mountain bikes belong on some kind of road, however rough. They do not >> belong on footpaths anywhere. >> >> Jeff, you have not convinced me at all that Vandeman is being >> unreasonable. He is just being a purist. We need these types. They force >> us to rethink our own positions. Vandeman engenders as much response as >> he does because he is not unreasonable. If he were, everyone would write >> him off as crazy and ignore him. It is not possible to do that because >> there is sense to what he says, no matter how much you might disagree >> with him. >> > > > He is completely unreasonable. He blamed a mountain lion attack on bikers > as being a result of the bikes! How unreasonable do you need him to be > before you see how unreasonable he is? HE cites the actions of two kids in > a park using bikes to jump over fallen trees as indicitive of the illegal > actions of all bike riders everywhere. How unreasonable do you need him to > be? Surely, you are not the same unreasonable sort as Vandeman. People are all the time doing stupid things and being where they should not be. So what else is new? > Everyone DOES write him off as crazy, except, apparently, you. I accept > the notion that we need the discussion, and the watchdog. But Vandeman is > clearly not the person that should be talking or watching. His agenda is > to have you visit the wilderness by going to a museum and looking at a > display through the glass. He, and perhaps you, lives in one of the most > congested places in California -- I could give his address and you could > GoogleEarth his house -- so clearly his perspective is tainted. He works > at Berkely, and lives within walking distance. He wants everybody to walk > to work because he can. He wants everybody to sit at home on the weekend > so he can go outside and be alone. He can't go anywhere and be alone, and > that frustrates him. Today the bike tires, tomorrow the boot soles. Pick > your rubber, one day it will be banned if Mike gets his way. Well, I like to be alone too and this I can easily do here on the high prairie of SW Minnesota. But I am not just a loner, I am a hermit. Vandeman is most likely a regular social butterfly compared to me. If Vandeman and you are living in congested areas, then welcome to the future. That is the way it is going to be everywhere in the world in the not too distant future, even here in the Upper Midwest. Thankfully, I will have departed this vale of woe for Oblivion, a destination devoutly to be wished for by all mankind. Maybe Iran will get some nuclear weapons and put us all out of our misery. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                   Date: 15 May 2006 11:16:25 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > I am not as concerned about erosion to the trail as you imagine me to be. I > am concerned about the kind of mental attitudes that others take into the > wilderness with them. Only hikers and equestrians have the right mental > attitude for the wilderness (reverence). Mountain bikers especially have all > the wrong attitudes. They view the trail as some kind of obstacle course > which they are challenged to conquer. In other words, it is a sport to them, > not a pilgrimage of the soul. Well said : but define a "mountain biker"? If its some goateed twat who says "kewl" a lot then I would agree. If it were someone with a mountainbike who is using a mountainbike for the rougher terrain on a long distance tour then I would disagree. Touring cyclists fit into your "pilgrimage" group too you know.                     Date: 15 May 2006 05:12:27 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote in message news:87bqtzabrq.fsf@news.europe.ch... > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > >> I am not as concerned about erosion to the trail as you imagine me to be. >> I >> am concerned about the kind of mental attitudes that others take into the >> wilderness with them. Only hikers and equestrians have the right mental >> attitude for the wilderness (reverence). Mountain bikers especially have >> all >> the wrong attitudes. They view the trail as some kind of obstacle course >> which they are challenged to conquer. In other words, it is a sport to >> them, >> not a pilgrimage of the soul. > > Well said : but define a "mountain biker"? If its some goateed twat who > says "kewl" a lot then I would agree. If it were someone with a > mountainbike who is using a mountainbike for the rougher terrain on a > long distance tour then I would disagree. Touring cyclists fit into your > "pilgrimage" group too you know. If that is indeed the case, then I will allow them to pass unmolested on my sacred footpaths. I have never yet seen a high altitude trail that I thought was suitable for mountain bikes. I have seen such trails at lower elevations. But I continue to believe that some kind of road is best suited for a bike. The road can be very rough, but is should be a road and not a trail. Jeep roads, sometimes called 4-wheel drive roads, would seem to be ideal for mountain bikes as well as all gravel roads of course. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota               Date: 14 May 2006 09:03:27 From: Mike Vandeman Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names On Sun, 14 May 2006 02:04:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > >"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:p4ydnYisLYifLvvZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@ez2.net... >> >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> news:h4qdnVxT0cjAOPvZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... >>> >>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:eb-dnTECrNnsqvvZRVn-jA@ez2.net... >>>> >>>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>>> news:bOidnSsBxvokmvnZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... >>>>> >>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:fNWdnQuiYYWEff7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@ez2.net... >>>>>> >>>>>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >>>>>>>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of >>>>>>>newsgroups who use their real names. I think what happens when you use >>>>>>>a user name is that you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less >>>>>>>like a scoundrel. However, if you are going to use a user name, then >>>>>>>it had best make some kind of sense. I will not stand for >>>>>>>gobbledygook. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike Vandeman uses his real name, and all he posts is gobbledygook, >>>>>> and he makes no effort to conceal the fact that he is a scoundrel. I >>>>>> like your theory, but I found an exception to the rule. >>>>> >>>>> I have not noted the offenses that you speak of in reference to >>>>> Vandeman. Like me, he is contentious and returns invective with >>>>> invective. After all, if someone is calling you a liar, then you have >>>>> every right to return the favor. >>>> >>>> Then, you must be new here. Mike posts huge quantities of flawed data, >>>> where the flaws always support his agenda. The data NEVER takes into >>>> account the facts that many of the routes he would close -- he would >>>> close them all, by the way -- have been on the ground for a century, >>>> sometimes more. He is prone to point to his own work as proof of his >>>> assertions. He ignores any fact that refutes his assertions in any way. >>> >>> Even if what you say is true, I like his bias. It is the same as mine. I >>> am against mountain bikers using trails that were originally designed for >>> hikers. Mountain bikers need to have their own trails, and those trails >>> should never go anywhere near a wilderness. >>> >>>> I am not a mountain bike rider, but I do participate in offroad (off >>>> HIGHWAY) travel on roads that were used at the turn of the 20th century >>>> as mining roads. The ground is fine, the species are in great shape, yet >>>> Vandeman would close the route(s) if he had his way. I use routes that >>>> were used in the days of the Pony Express, and Mike and his ilk would >>>> close them even in the face of facts that show closure would actually be >>>> an impediment to the very species he(they) seeks to protect. >>> >>> I agree with you on the above. I like to bike those kind of roads too. >>> That is the reason I got my mountain bike in the first place. But note >>> the kind of emails that Vandeman gets. That right there is enough to >>> drive anyone to the point of rage. >>> >> >> His "rage" is of his own making, and I question his sincerity on that >> point. I think he goes out of his way to attract his rage, then he posts >> it in a public forum with the tagline that everybody is as the author in >> the notes he has posted. Oh, sure. Blame the victim! >Nope, others use obscenities on him and he does not return the favor like I >would. He shows us the mentality of mountain bikers when he posts their >obscene emails to him on the newsgroups. > >>>> Observe posters that try to talk to him rationally, and see how HE >>>> retorts to name calling and invective. He is an obvious exception to the >>>> traits you call out in your first post. But, I like your theory. It >>>> holds up much of the time, just not in the case of Vandeman. >>> >>> I am so used to folks castigating me that everything now is like water >>> off a duck's back. I have lost all of my former sensitivity and have >>> grown the hide of rhinoceros. I will argue my positions with as much >>> energy as I can muster, but I am not afraid to admit defeat when I have >>> been shown the error of my ways. >>> >>> Vandeman no doubt is a true believer which requires him to take an >>> extreme position the better to make his arguments stand out against all >>> the static. All innovators and original minds are like that. I am more >>> like the rest of you. I will make compromises and I can be a diplomat >>> when it is required. >>> >> >> >> Mike makes the case that a single track trail is the bane of the >> environment -- leaving aside for a moment that there may be other kinds of >> users on the route. Assuming his assertion that a single track is solely >> used by mountain bikers, and using the assumption that a single track is >> 1.5ft wide, a route that bisects a square mile and is itself a mile long, >> takes up less than 0.04% of the area it bisects. All of the route is not >> possible to be the environmental wasteland that Mike makes it out to be, >> but let's say that 25% of the route is what Mike asserts. This makes 0.01% >> of the square mile into an environmental catastrophy, hardly an issue that >> demands new laws and rules to prevent recreational uses. This is roughly >> equivelent to a letter size sheet of paper destroying the habitat the size >> of a tennis court. The math is, 1.5 x 5,280 = 7,920 sq ft. There are >> 43,560 sq ft in an acre, and 640 acres in a sq mi. The trail I described >> takes 18% of an acre, and this is 0.04% of a sq mi. Keep in mind that the >> average residential lot in California is roughly 7,500 sq ft, you see that >> a single track trail that is a mile long is equivelent to the land that a >> house sits on. When there is one house on 640 acres, that house has very >> little impact on the habitat or the species that live there. >> >> Perspective. That is what Mike is missing. > >I am pretty sure it is not just about trail degradation, but the impact that >humans can have on wildlife by being present in an area. A lone walker is >not the same thing as group of mountain bikers. It appears to me that you >are the one lacking perspective. > >> Vandeman claims that mountain bikers contribute to global warming. To the >> extent they strap their bikes to the roof of the family sedan to get them >> to the trail head, I suppose this is true. But, hikers also contribute in >> the same way to global warming because they also pile into the family >> sedan to drive to the trailhead. Let's not forget the mother driving to >> the ket to get a sack of groceries. She contributes to global warming. >> I'm not suggesting we halt these activities, I'm suggesting that to single >> out bike riders for special focus is inherently flawed. (Yes, global >> warming is a serious problem, but banning mountain biking is not the cure, >> as Mike would like you to believe.) >> >> Personally, I drive a Jeep on the most rugged of routes that I can find. >> This demands very low speeds where noise and dust are almost never an >> issue for anybody. Yet, Vandeman would want you to believe that all >> vehicle activity is unwanted by hikers and equestrians. In my vast >> experience, NO hiker or equestrian has ever gotten mad at me or the group >> I travel with. Admittedly, my sample is small, but I know lots of >> off-highway vehicle operators, and except for the possible exception of >> desert racers, I think that most of htem have the same experience with >> hikers and horses that I've had. Basically, I'm suggesting that a very few >> hikers and horsemen have been bothered by even fewer off highway vehicle >> operators. Indeed, in most of my travels, the hikers and horsemen will >> stop and watch as the group I'm with will negotiate a particularly >> difficult section of trail. > >I am not much in favor of off-road vehicles ever being off the road. This is >a much more serious issue than mountain bikes being off-road. You truly do >not know how you are impacting other outdoor users. Who is going to get into >a confrontation with strangers in this day and age when you are likely to >get murdered over nothing at all. I can assure you that anyone who is not in >an off-road vehicle himself DOES object to encountering such use by >vehicles. > >> My life experience is vastly different than Vandeman's. I don't go around >> calling on MORE off highway travel, but I do not support most calls for >> less. I have research (I have had, I'm not sure I still have it) that >> shows off highway travel is actually beneficial to a plant species that >> the CBD (Center for Biological Diversity) is seeking to protect. The irony >> is, the vehicles are better for the species than the protective measures >> banning the vehicles. > >Nope, I will never believe any of the above to be true. > >In short, the CBD is destroying a plant species in the name of >> protecting it. A result of trail closures is that more and more vehicles >> are crammed into smaller and smaller places, then there is a self-serving >> report written that says the overcrowded places are destroying habitat. >> The fact is, most of the habitat is not destroyed until after the >> concentration of activity is raised in an effort to protect another place. > >All off-road vehicle activity should be banned everywhere. > >I have been >> offroading for coming up on 40 years in Southern California, and I'm here >> to say that the vast majority of the areas that "need" protection have >> been doing very well these past 40 years. I argue they need no protection >> beyond the occasional police action because there is always an idiot in >> the crowd. The desert regions I visit have prospered despite being >> designated off road vehicle recreation areas. > >You fail utterly to convince me. Vehicles off-road are very destructive of >the natural scene, especially in desert areas. All natural areas are quite >fragile and have only limited ability to recover from vehicles. Hence, the >reason for roads. > >> Now, if one wants to discuss bikes and feet on the same trail, then I >> suppose that is a reasonable discussion. But, it is my limited experience >> in this arena that a little trail ettiquete would go a very long way in >> helping resolve most of the issues. > >There are different mental attitudes involved in the two activities. That is >why they are not compatible. > >I think our efforts should be focused on >> development, not recreation. Sure, there may be locales where recreation >> is a bad thing, but these locales are the exception to the rule that >> recreation isn't a bad thing. Recreation can be beneficial, and is usually >> beneficial to all but that which happens to be in the middleof the single >> track itself. > >Certain areas can be developed for human recreation as they are already >pretty much ruined anyway. They can be restored possibly, but all really >natural and pristine areas need to be set aside and not developed at all. >Have some pity on the wild things of the earth. > >> Mike insists that as soon as a mountain bike is pulled out of the garage, >> the environment goes to hell, despite mountains of evidence that this is >> not true in the vast majority of his cites. Mike can only make his >> baseless assertions because he has no perspective. > >Mountain bikes belong on some kind of road, however rough. They do not >belong on footpaths anywhere. > >Jeff, you have not convinced me at all that Vandeman is being unreasonable. >He is just being a purist. We need these types. They force us to rethink our >own positions. Vandeman engenders as much response as he does because he is >not unreasonable. If he were, everyone would write him off as crazy and >ignore him. It is not possible to do that because there is sense to what he >says, no matter how much you might disagree with him. > >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: 13 May 2006 20:46:30 From: Jeff Strickland Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:h4qdnVxT0cjAOPvZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... > > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:eb-dnTECrNnsqvvZRVn-jA@ez2.net... >> >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> news:bOidnSsBxvokmvnZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... >>> >>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:fNWdnQuiYYWEff7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@ez2.net... >>>> >>>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>>> news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >>>>>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of newsgroups >>>>>who use their real names. I think what happens when you use a user name >>>>>is that you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less like a >>>>>scoundrel. However, if you are going to use a user name, then it had >>>>>best make some kind of sense. I will not stand for gobbledygook. >>>> >>>> Mike Vandeman uses his real name, and all he posts is gobbledygook, and >>>> he makes no effort to conceal the fact that he is a scoundrel. I like >>>> your theory, but I found an exception to the rule. >>> >>> I have not noted the offenses that you speak of in reference to >>> Vandeman. Like me, he is contentious and returns invective with >>> invective. After all, if someone is calling you a liar, then you have >>> every right to return the favor. >> >> Then, you must be new here. Mike posts huge quantities of flawed data, >> where the flaws always support his agenda. The data NEVER takes into >> account the facts that many of the routes he would close -- he would >> close them all, by the way -- have been on the ground for a century, >> sometimes more. He is prone to point to his own work as proof of his >> assertions. He ignores any fact that refutes his assertions in any way. > > Even if what you say is true, I like his bias. It is the same as mine. I > am against mountain bikers using trails that were originally designed for > hikers. Mountain bikers need to have their own trails, and those trails > should never go anywhere near a wilderness. > That is NOT Mike's bias. His bias is to CLOSE all wilderness areas to all visitation. Today, his rubber du jour is bike tires, tomorrow his rubber will be boots. His bias seems to completely ignore development and go after recreational uses. >> I am not a mountain bike rider, but I do participate in offroad (off >> HIGHWAY) travel on roads that were used at the turn of the 20th century >> as mining roads. The ground is fine, the species are in great shape, yet >> Vandeman would close the route(s) if he had his way. I use routes that >> were used in the days of the Pony Express, and Mike and his ilk would >> close them even in the face of facts that show closure would actually be >> an impediment to the very species he(they) seeks to protect. > > I agree with you on the above. I like to bike those kind of roads too. > That is the reason I got my mountain bike in the first place. But note the > kind of emails that Vandeman gets. That right there is enough to drive > anyone to the point of rage. > >> Observe posters that try to talk to him rationally, and see how HE >> retorts to name calling and invective. He is an obvious exception to the >> traits you call out in your first post. But, I like your theory. It holds >> up much of the time, just not in the case of Vandeman. > > I am so used to folks castigating me that everything now is like water off > a duck's back. I have lost all of my former sensitivity and have grown the > hide of rhinoceros. I will argue my positions with as much energy as I can > muster, but I am not afraid to admit defeat when I have been shown the > error of my ways. > > Vandeman no doubt is a true believer which requires him to take an extreme > position the better to make his arguments stand out against all the > static. All innovators and original minds are like that. I am more like > the rest of you. I will make compromises and I can be a diplomat when it > is required. > > "No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be; > Am an attendant lord, one that will do > To swell a progress, start a scene or two, > Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool, > Deferential, glad to be of use, > Politic, cautious, and meticulous; > Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse; > At times, indeed, almost ridiculous- > Almost, at times, the Fool." > > T. S. Eliot - The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock > > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > >             Date: 14 May 2006 01:22:14 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:AvednZdOC6-JNfvZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@ez2.net... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:h4qdnVxT0cjAOPvZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... >> >> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:eb-dnTECrNnsqvvZRVn-jA@ez2.net... >>> >>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>> news:bOidnSsBxvokmvnZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... >>>> >>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:fNWdnQuiYYWEff7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@ez2.net... >>>>> >>>>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >>>>>>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of >>>>>>newsgroups who use their real names. I think what happens when you use >>>>>>a user name is that you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less >>>>>>like a scoundrel. However, if you are going to use a user name, then >>>>>>it had best make some kind of sense. I will not stand for >>>>>>gobbledygook. >>>>> >>>>> Mike Vandeman uses his real name, and all he posts is gobbledygook, >>>>> and he makes no effort to conceal the fact that he is a scoundrel. I >>>>> like your theory, but I found an exception to the rule. >>>> >>>> I have not noted the offenses that you speak of in reference to >>>> Vandeman. Like me, he is contentious and returns invective with >>>> invective. After all, if someone is calling you a liar, then you have >>>> every right to return the favor. >>> >>> Then, you must be new here. Mike posts huge quantities of flawed data, >>> where the flaws always support his agenda. The data NEVER takes into >>> account the facts that many of the routes he would close -- he would >>> close them all, by the way -- have been on the ground for a century, >>> sometimes more. He is prone to point to his own work as proof of his >>> assertions. He ignores any fact that refutes his assertions in any way. >> >> Even if what you say is true, I like his bias. It is the same as mine. I >> am against mountain bikers using trails that were originally designed for >> hikers. Mountain bikers need to have their own trails, and those trails >> should never go anywhere near a wilderness. >> > > That is NOT Mike's bias. His bias is to CLOSE all wilderness areas to all > visitation. Today, his rubber du jour is bike tires, tomorrow his rubber > will be boots. His bias seems to completely ignore development and go > after recreational uses. Wilderness Areas can be used by hikers (with some limitations from time to time perhaps) and horse parties, if not too large. But that is about it as far as I am concerned. I do not even like helicopters flying overhead. Needless to say, Wildernesss Areas need to be managed even for the use of hikers and horses, just as all natural areas need to be managed. No one can ever do just whatever they want to do. >>> I am not a mountain bike rider, but I do participate in offroad (off >>> HIGHWAY) travel on roads that were used at the turn of the 20th century >>> as mining roads. The ground is fine, the species are in great shape, yet >>> Vandeman would close the route(s) if he had his way. I use routes that >>> were used in the days of the Pony Express, and Mike and his ilk would >>> close them even in the face of facts that show closure would actually be >>> an impediment to the very species he(they) seeks to protect. >> >> I agree with you on the above. I like to bike those kind of roads too. >> That is the reason I got my mountain bike in the first place. But note >> the kind of emails that Vandeman gets. That right there is enough to >> drive anyone to the point of rage. >> >>> Observe posters that try to talk to him rationally, and see how HE >>> retorts to name calling and invective. He is an obvious exception to the >>> traits you call out in your first post. But, I like your theory. It >>> holds up much of the time, just not in the case of Vandeman. >> >> I am so used to folks castigating me that everything now is like water >> off a duck's back. I have lost all of my former sensitivity and have >> grown the hide of rhinoceros. I will argue my positions with as much >> energy as I can muster, but I am not afraid to admit defeat when I have >> been shown the error of my ways. >> >> Vandeman no doubt is a true believer which requires him to take an >> extreme position the better to make his arguments stand out against all >> the static. All innovators and original minds are like that. I am more >> like the rest of you. I will make compromises and I can be a diplomat >> when it is required. >> >> "No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be; >> Am an attendant lord, one that will do >> To swell a progress, start a scene or two, >> Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool, >> Deferential, glad to be of use, >> Politic, cautious, and meticulous; >> Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse; >> At times, indeed, almost ridiculous- >> Almost, at times, the Fool." >> >> T. S. Eliot - The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock >> >> Regards, >> >> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >> aka >> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >> >> >               Date: 14 May 2006 09:58:29 From: Jeff Strickland Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:97ydnXOqK8o9UfvZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@prairiewave.com... > > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:AvednZdOC6-JNfvZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@ez2.net... >> >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> news:h4qdnVxT0cjAOPvZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... >>> >>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:eb-dnTECrNnsqvvZRVn-jA@ez2.net... >>>> >>>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>>> news:bOidnSsBxvokmvnZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... >>>>> >>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:fNWdnQuiYYWEff7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@ez2.net... >>>>>> >>>>>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >>>>>>>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of >>>>>>>newsgroups who use their real names. I think what happens when you >>>>>>>use a user name is that you tend to hide behind it and behave more or >>>>>>>less like a scoundrel. However, if you are going to use a user name, >>>>>>>then it had best make some kind of sense. I will not stand for >>>>>>>gobbledygook. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike Vandeman uses his real name, and all he posts is gobbledygook, >>>>>> and he makes no effort to conceal the fact that he is a scoundrel. I >>>>>> like your theory, but I found an exception to the rule. >>>>> >>>>> I have not noted the offenses that you speak of in reference to >>>>> Vandeman. Like me, he is contentious and returns invective with >>>>> invective. After all, if someone is calling you a liar, then you have >>>>> every right to return the favor. >>>> >>>> Then, you must be new here. Mike posts huge quantities of flawed data, >>>> where the flaws always support his agenda. The data NEVER takes into >>>> account the facts that many of the routes he would close -- he would >>>> close them all, by the way -- have been on the ground for a century, >>>> sometimes more. He is prone to point to his own work as proof of his >>>> assertions. He ignores any fact that refutes his assertions in any way. >>> >>> Even if what you say is true, I like his bias. It is the same as mine. I >>> am against mountain bikers using trails that were originally designed >>> for hikers. Mountain bikers need to have their own trails, and those >>> trails should never go anywhere near a wilderness. >>> >> >> That is NOT Mike's bias. His bias is to CLOSE all wilderness areas to all >> visitation. Today, his rubber du jour is bike tires, tomorrow his rubber >> will be boots. His bias seems to completely ignore development and go >> after recreational uses. > > Wilderness Areas can be used by hikers (with some limitations from time to > time perhaps) and horse parties, if not too large. But that is about it > as far as I am concerned. I do not even like helicopters flying overhead. > Needless to say, Wildernesss Areas need to be managed even for the use of > hikers and horses, just as all natural areas need to be managed. No one > can ever do just whatever they want to do. > I have never heard anybody call for open range on a wilderness area, where we can go in and do whatever we want. Personally, all I want is to travel on the existing routes to get from one place to another. I'm all for management, that's fine. What I don't want is a gate across the trail. As I said in another post, I have a trail in my area that is a hold over from the Pony Express days, and the Mike Vandeman crowd wants it closed to everybody.                 Date: 14 May 2006 21:35:26 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:HsqdnUDml_0u_PrZ4p2dnA@ez2.net... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:97ydnXOqK8o9UfvZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@prairiewave.com... >> >> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:AvednZdOC6-JNfvZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@ez2.net... >>> >>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>> news:h4qdnVxT0cjAOPvZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... >>>> >>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:eb-dnTECrNnsqvvZRVn-jA@ez2.net... >>>>> >>>>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:bOidnSsBxvokmvnZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fNWdnQuiYYWEff7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@ez2.net... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >>>>>>>>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of >>>>>>>>newsgroups who use their real names. I think what happens when you >>>>>>>>use a user name is that you tend to hide behind it and behave more >>>>>>>>or less like a scoundrel. However, if you are going to use a user >>>>>>>>name, then it had best make some kind of sense. I will not stand for >>>>>>>>gobbledygook. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mike Vandeman uses his real name, and all he posts is gobbledygook, >>>>>>> and he makes no effort to conceal the fact that he is a scoundrel. I >>>>>>> like your theory, but I found an exception to the rule. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have not noted the offenses that you speak of in reference to >>>>>> Vandeman. Like me, he is contentious and returns invective with >>>>>> invective. After all, if someone is calling you a liar, then you have >>>>>> every right to return the favor. >>>>> >>>>> Then, you must be new here. Mike posts huge quantities of flawed data, >>>>> where the flaws always support his agenda. The data NEVER takes into >>>>> account the facts that many of the routes he would close -- he would >>>>> close them all, by the way -- have been on the ground for a century, >>>>> sometimes more. He is prone to point to his own work as proof of his >>>>> assertions. He ignores any fact that refutes his assertions in any >>>>> way. >>>> >>>> Even if what you say is true, I like his bias. It is the same as mine. >>>> I am against mountain bikers using trails that were originally designed >>>> for hikers. Mountain bikers need to have their own trails, and those >>>> trails should never go anywhere near a wilderness. >>>> >>> >>> That is NOT Mike's bias. His bias is to CLOSE all wilderness areas to >>> all visitation. Today, his rubber du jour is bike tires, tomorrow his >>> rubber will be boots. His bias seems to completely ignore development >>> and go after recreational uses. >> >> Wilderness Areas can be used by hikers (with some limitations from time >> to time perhaps) and horse parties, if not too large. But that is about >> it as far as I am concerned. I do not even like helicopters flying >> overhead. Needless to say, Wildernesss Areas need to be managed even for >> the use of hikers and horses, just as all natural areas need to be >> managed. No one can ever do just whatever they want to do. >> > > I have never heard anybody call for open range on a wilderness area, where > we can go in and do whatever we want. Personally, all I want is to travel > on the existing routes to get from one place to another. I'm all for > management, that's fine. What I don't want is a gate across the trail. As > I said in another post, I have a trail in my area that is a hold over from > the Pony Express days, and the Mike Vandeman crowd wants it closed to > everybody. I will go along with you on that. Roads that are already established, even jeep roads, can stay but let us preserve what little wilderness is left by banning any more roads. Frankly, I do not think we need any more trails either, except perhaps trails for mountain bikes in already developed recreational areas. The wilderness is sacred to me. It is where we all come from as a species. We should revere it and preserve it as best we can. There is just so little of it left. You really need to go to old Europe to see what man has done to that continent. Yes, parts of it are a garden, but there is no wilderness left there (except maybe in the high arctic). We do not need to do the New World what man has done to the Old World. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                   Date: 16 May 2006 16:48:39 From: Jeff Strickland Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:4oKdnWrlAp1kdfrZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... > > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:HsqdnUDml_0u_PrZ4p2dnA@ez2.net... >> >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> news:97ydnXOqK8o9UfvZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@prairiewave.com... >>> >>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:AvednZdOC6-JNfvZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@ez2.net... >>>> >>>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>>> news:h4qdnVxT0cjAOPvZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... >>>>> >>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:eb-dnTECrNnsqvvZRVn-jA@ez2.net... >>>>>> >>>>>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:bOidnSsBxvokmvnZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:fNWdnQuiYYWEff7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@ez2.net... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >>>>>>>>>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of >>>>>>>>>newsgroups who use their real names. I think what happens when you >>>>>>>>>use a user name is that you tend to hide behind it and behave more >>>>>>>>>or less like a scoundrel. However, if you are going to use a user >>>>>>>>>name, then it had best make some kind of sense. I will not stand >>>>>>>>>for gobbledygook. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman uses his real name, and all he posts is gobbledygook, >>>>>>>> and he makes no effort to conceal the fact that he is a scoundrel. >>>>>>>> I like your theory, but I found an exception to the rule. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have not noted the offenses that you speak of in reference to >>>>>>> Vandeman. Like me, he is contentious and returns invective with >>>>>>> invective. After all, if someone is calling you a liar, then you >>>>>>> have every right to return the favor. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, you must be new here. Mike posts huge quantities of flawed >>>>>> data, where the flaws always support his agenda. The data NEVER takes >>>>>> into account the facts that many of the routes he would close -- he >>>>>> would close them all, by the way -- have been on the ground for a >>>>>> century, sometimes more. He is prone to point to his own work as >>>>>> proof of his assertions. He ignores any fact that refutes his >>>>>> assertions in any way. >>>>> >>>>> Even if what you say is true, I like his bias. It is the same as mine. >>>>> I am against mountain bikers using trails that were originally >>>>> designed for hikers. Mountain bikers need to have their own trails, >>>>> and those trails should never go anywhere near a wilderness. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is NOT Mike's bias. His bias is to CLOSE all wilderness areas to >>>> all visitation. Today, his rubber du jour is bike tires, tomorrow his >>>> rubber will be boots. His bias seems to completely ignore development >>>> and go after recreational uses. >>> >>> Wilderness Areas can be used by hikers (with some limitations from time >>> to time perhaps) and horse parties, if not too large. But that is about >>> it as far as I am concerned. I do not even like helicopters flying >>> overhead. Needless to say, Wildernesss Areas need to be managed even for >>> the use of hikers and horses, just as all natural areas need to be >>> managed. No one can ever do just whatever they want to do. >>> >> >> I have never heard anybody call for open range on a wilderness area, >> where we can go in and do whatever we want. Personally, all I want is to >> travel on the existing routes to get from one place to another. I'm all >> for management, that's fine. What I don't want is a gate across the >> trail. As I said in another post, I have a trail in my area that is a >> hold over from the Pony Express days, and the Mike Vandeman crowd wants >> it closed to everybody. > > I will go along with you on that. Roads that are already established, even > jeep roads, can stay but let us preserve what little wilderness is left by > banning any more roads. Frankly, I do not think we need any more trails > either, except perhaps trails for mountain bikes in already developed > recreational areas. > > The wilderness is sacred to me. It is where we all come from as a species. > We should revere it and preserve it as best we can. There is just so > little of it left. You really need to go to old Europe to see what man has > done to that continent. Yes, parts of it are a garden, but there is no > wilderness left there (except maybe in the high arctic). We do not need to > do the New World what man has done to the Old World. > The wilderness is sacred to me as well, that is why I fight to keep the trails open. We (the recreation community) are losing routes at an astounding rate, routes that have been in inventory for decades, centuries even. I leave the creation battles to other people, I'm happy to keep what I have and not be locked out.       Date: 13 May 2006 08:39:24 From: S Curtiss Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:bOidnSsBxvokmvnZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... > > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:fNWdnQuiYYWEff7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@ez2.net... >> >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >>>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of newsgroups >>>who use their real names. I think what happens when you use a user name >>>is that you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less like a >>>scoundrel. However, if you are going to use a user name, then it had best >>>make some kind of sense. I will not stand for gobbledygook. >> >> Mike Vandeman uses his real name, and all he posts is gobbledygook, and >> he makes no effort to conceal the fact that he is a scoundrel. I like >> your theory, but I found an exception to the rule. > > I have not noted the offenses that you speak of in reference to Vandeman. > Like me, he is contentious and returns invective with invective. After > all, if someone is calling you a liar, then you have every right to return > the favor. I suggest you do a little research. MV has a long history of name-calling, character assasination, misrepresentation, manipulation of information and accusatory / inflamatory rhetoric. All it takes is too disagree with his OPINION or to call him on specifics of fact. Yes... he receives a few childish and harshly worded emails. Either from newbies from the ng that do not know his history, or from people who come across a reference while looking for MTB information. His posting a few emails as a claim that all off-road cyclists think and or behave in the manner reflected in those emails should be an indicator to these "offenses". >         Date: 13 May 2006 22:03:25 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "S Curtiss" <scurtiss@cox.net > wrote in message news:ask9g.9710$B42.9072@dukeread05... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:bOidnSsBxvokmvnZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com... >> >> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:fNWdnQuiYYWEff7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@ez2.net... >>> >>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>> news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >>>>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of newsgroups >>>>who use their real names. I think what happens when you use a user name >>>>is that you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less like a >>>>scoundrel. However, if you are going to use a user name, then it had >>>>best make some kind of sense. I will not stand for gobbledygook. >>> >>> Mike Vandeman uses his real name, and all he posts is gobbledygook, and >>> he makes no effort to conceal the fact that he is a scoundrel. I like >>> your theory, but I found an exception to the rule. >> >> I have not noted the offenses that you speak of in reference to Vandeman. >> Like me, he is contentious and returns invective with invective. After >> all, if someone is calling you a liar, then you have every right to >> return the favor. > > I suggest you do a little research. MV has a long history of name-calling, > character assasination, misrepresentation, manipulation of information and > accusatory / inflamatory rhetoric. All it takes is too disagree with his > OPINION or to call him on specifics of fact. Curtiss, others have accused me of the same things. I think you and he are about equal when it comes to the name calling. I am no cipher in that department myself, but I prefer not to do it if possible. > Yes... he receives a few childish and harshly worded emails. Either from > newbies from the ng that do not know his history, or from people who come > across a reference while looking for MTB information. His posting a few > emails as a claim that all off-road cyclists think and or behave in the > manner reflected in those emails should be an indicator to these > "offenses". How would you like to get those kind of emails? No one deserves that, least of all Vandeman. All he is doing is asserting a point of view which is not popular with mountain bikers. Is that a crime? Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota           Date: 13 May 2006 20:20:16 From: Jeff Strickland Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:nuCdnezZB-6aA_vZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@prairiewave.com... >> Yes... he receives a few childish and harshly worded emails. Either from >> newbies from the ng that do not know his history, or from people who come >> across a reference while looking for MTB information. His posting a few >> emails as a claim that all off-road cyclists think and or behave in the >> manner reflected in those emails should be an indicator to these >> "offenses". > > How would you like to get those kind of emails? No one deserves that, > least of all Vandeman. All he is doing is asserting a point of view which > is not popular with mountain bikers. Is that a crime? > Mike ASKS for those emails. He runs a website with TOTALLY inaccurate "scientific" reports where he authors many of them, and refers to one when he writes another. HE says the sky is falling, then points to the report of the Sky is Falling when he writes that the sky is lower than it used to be. He is his own point of reference, and this approach invites the abusive emails he gets. When anybody attempts to point out his flawed "research", HE retorts that they are a liar (LIAR, is his exact quote). I have tried fruitlessly to discuss his views, and he simply sent to his Ignore List. He has no interest in rational discussion of the facts.             Date: 14 May 2006 01:05:41 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:TemdnSigKtdzPPvZRVn-qQ@ez2.net... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:nuCdnezZB-6aA_vZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@prairiewave.com... > >>> Yes... he receives a few childish and harshly worded emails. Either >>> from newbies from the ng that do not know his history, or from people >>> who come across a reference while looking for MTB information. His >>> posting a few emails as a claim that all off-road cyclists think and or >>> behave in the manner reflected in those emails should be an indicator to >>> these "offenses". >> >> How would you like to get those kind of emails? No one deserves that, >> least of all Vandeman. All he is doing is asserting a point of view which >> is not popular with mountain bikers. Is that a crime? >> > > > Mike ASKS for those emails. He runs a website with TOTALLY inaccurate > "scientific" reports where he authors many of them, and refers to one when > he writes another. HE says the sky is falling, then points to the report > of the Sky is Falling when he writes that the sky is lower than it used to > be. He is his own point of reference, and this approach invites the > abusive emails he gets. > > When anybody attempts to point out his flawed "research", HE retorts that > they are a liar (LIAR, is his exact quote). I have tried fruitlessly to > discuss his views, and he simply sent to his Ignore List. He has no > interest in rational discussion of the facts. Well, I am not going to get into these wars of yours. I like rational discussion, but I do not allow myself to get bogged down by details. I like to stay on the surface of things and keep things at the level of opinion mostly. I am too lazy to do any research so I leave that to those who have the energy for it. I am just a once over lightly kind of guy. However, I am very much put off by anyone who uses obscenities. I have occasionally done that in the past, but only in retaliation. I do not believe Vandeman ever resorts to obscenities, whereas many of those mountain biker emails that he gets seem to do that. Finally, my bias will be for the hiker, not the biker. These are two different worlds entirely and I want to keep them separate from one another. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota               Date: 14 May 2006 09:54:39 From: Jeff Strickland Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:OMqdnUHOn5YjVfvZRVn-rw@prairiewave.com... > > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:TemdnSigKtdzPPvZRVn-qQ@ez2.net... >> >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> news:nuCdnezZB-6aA_vZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@prairiewave.com... >> >>>> Yes... he receives a few childish and harshly worded emails. Either >>>> from newbies from the ng that do not know his history, or from people >>>> who come across a reference while looking for MTB information. His >>>> posting a few emails as a claim that all off-road cyclists think and or >>>> behave in the manner reflected in those emails should be an indicator >>>> to these "offenses". >>> >>> How would you like to get those kind of emails? No one deserves that, >>> least of all Vandeman. All he is doing is asserting a point of view >>> which is not popular with mountain bikers. Is that a crime? >>> >> >> >> Mike ASKS for those emails. He runs a website with TOTALLY inaccurate >> "scientific" reports where he authors many of them, and refers to one >> when he writes another. HE says the sky is falling, then points to the >> report of the Sky is Falling when he writes that the sky is lower than it >> used to be. He is his own point of reference, and this approach invites >> the abusive emails he gets. >> >> When anybody attempts to point out his flawed "research", HE retorts that >> they are a liar (LIAR, is his exact quote). I have tried fruitlessly to >> discuss his views, and he simply sent to his Ignore List. He has no >> interest in rational discussion of the facts. > > Well, I am not going to get into these wars of yours. I like rational > discussion, but I do not allow myself to get bogged down by details. I > like to stay on the surface of things and keep things at the level of > opinion mostly. I am too lazy to do any research so I leave that to those > who have the energy for it. I am just a once over lightly kind of guy. > Well, please do not rely in Mike Vandeman's work to form your own opinion. > However, I am very much put off by anyone who uses obscenities. I have > occasionally done that in the past, but only in retaliation. I do not > believe Vandeman ever resorts to obscenities, whereas many of those > mountain biker emails that he gets seem to do that. > You're new here, aren't you? Mike sinks into the cesspool far too often. > Finally, my bias will be for the hiker, not the biker. These are two > different worlds entirely and I want to keep them separate from one > another. > That's fair, I guess. My experience in this arena is on trails that can support automobile travel, so the bikes, horses, and hikers that I see all have plenty of room most of the time. I'm sure that there are places where horses and cars don't fit, and hikers and bikers share these routes and it can get crowded. Personally, I think you guys are all cut from the same cloth, and should be able to get along. I's surprised to find so much animosity -- mostly coming from the hiking community and directed at the bike riders. My particular bias is to preserve wilderness FOR recreation, not FROM recreation. I even buy the notion that there are a few places where recreation should be limited for a few months a year so animals can get to water without being disturbed, but most animals will peacefully coexist with humans that come and go. It's the humans that come and stay that chase animals away. You are aware, aren't you, that Mike Vandeman SUPPORTS harming bicycle operators by stringing piano wire across the trail, and setting stakes in a position to impale riders as they round a curve or jump a log? Yes, my friend, Michael J Vandeman supports killing bike riders. There has been discussion here as to whether or not he personally participates in these activities. I have no proof that he is a participant, but the tenor of his postings clearly show his support.                 Date: 14 May 2006 21:23:44 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:CaadnQvhDbhQ_frZRVn-qg@ez2.net... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:OMqdnUHOn5YjVfvZRVn-rw@prairiewave.com... >> >> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:TemdnSigKtdzPPvZRVn-qQ@ez2.net... >>> >>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>> news:nuCdnezZB-6aA_vZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@prairiewave.com... >>> >>>>> Yes... he receives a few childish and harshly worded emails. Either >>>>> from newbies from the ng that do not know his history, or from people >>>>> who come across a reference while looking for MTB information. His >>>>> posting a few emails as a claim that all off-road cyclists think and >>>>> or behave in the manner reflected in those emails should be an >>>>> indicator to these "offenses". >>>> >>>> How would you like to get those kind of emails? No one deserves that, >>>> least of all Vandeman. All he is doing is asserting a point of view >>>> which is not popular with mountain bikers. Is that a crime? >>>> >>> >>> >>> Mike ASKS for those emails. He runs a website with TOTALLY inaccurate >>> "scientific" reports where he authors many of them, and refers to one >>> when he writes another. HE says the sky is falling, then points to the >>> report of the Sky is Falling when he writes that the sky is lower than >>> it used to be. He is his own point of reference, and this approach >>> invites the abusive emails he gets. >>> >>> When anybody attempts to point out his flawed "research", HE retorts >>> that they are a liar (LIAR, is his exact quote). I have tried >>> fruitlessly to discuss his views, and he simply sent to his Ignore List. >>> He has no interest in rational discussion of the facts. >> >> Well, I am not going to get into these wars of yours. I like rational >> discussion, but I do not allow myself to get bogged down by details. I >> like to stay on the surface of things and keep things at the level of >> opinion mostly. I am too lazy to do any research so I leave that to >> those who have the energy for it. I am just a once over lightly kind of >> guy. >> > > Well, please do not rely in Mike Vandeman's work to form your own opinion. I was formerly a college librarian (in another life) and if and when I undertake any research it will be thorough. However, I am getting ready to depart this vale of woes, probably sooner rather than later, and so I shall not waste what time I have left to engage either you or Vandeman in any kind of details. All I know, and all I need to know, is that I have enjoyed hiking over the years and I have never wanted to share my hiking trails with anyone else but other hikers and equestrians. >> However, I am very much put off by anyone who uses obscenities. I have >> occasionally done that in the past, but only in retaliation. I do not >> believe Vandeman ever resorts to obscenities, whereas many of those >> mountain biker emails that he gets seem to do that. >> > > You're new here, aren't you? Mike sinks into the cesspool far too often. He does not resort to obscenities. That counts for a lot with me. >> Finally, my bias will be for the hiker, not the biker. These are two >> different worlds entirely and I want to keep them separate from one >> another. >> > > That's fair, I guess. My experience in this arena is on trails that can > support automobile travel, so the bikes, horses, and hikers that I see all > have plenty of room most of the time. I'm sure that there are places where > horses and cars don't fit, and hikers and bikers share these routes and it > can get crowded. Personally, I think you guys are all cut from the same > cloth, and should be able to get along. I's surprised to find so much > animosity -- mostly coming from the hiking community and directed at the > bike riders. Yes, I have hiked many jeep roads out West and it is OK for off-road vehicles to be on those type of roads as far as I am concerned. But I do not want any vehicles, not even mountain bikes, on my sacred footpaths in the wilderness. When I encounter such miscreants on my sacred footpaths, I want to murder them. > My particular bias is to preserve wilderness FOR recreation, not FROM > recreation. I even buy the notion that there are a few places where > recreation should be limited for a few months a year so animals can get to > water without being disturbed, but most animals will peacefully coexist > with humans that come and go. It's the humans that come and stay that > chase animals away. > > You are aware, aren't you, that Mike Vandeman SUPPORTS harming bicycle > operators by stringing piano wire across the trail, and setting stakes in > a position to impale riders as they round a curve or jump a log? Yes, my > friend, Michael J Vandeman supports killing bike riders. There has been > discussion here as to whether or not he personally participates in these > activities. I have no proof that he is a participant, but the tenor of his > postings clearly show his support. He is just fantasizing as I do myself. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                   Date: 16 May 2006 16:45:41 From: Jeff Strickland Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:3vGdnTPjU7Cme_rZnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@prairiewave.com... >> You are aware, aren't you, that Mike Vandeman SUPPORTS harming bicycle >> operators by stringing piano wire across the trail, and setting stakes in >> a position to impale riders as they round a curve or jump a log? Yes, my >> friend, Michael J Vandeman supports killing bike riders. There has been >> discussion here as to whether or not he personally participates in these >> activities. I have no proof that he is a participant, but the tenor of >> his postings clearly show his support. > > He is just fantasizing as I do myself. > There is absolutely NO evidence that he is fantasizing.       Date: 12 May 2006 05:46:17 From: Michael Halliwell Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names Edward Dolan wrote: > > I have not noted the offenses that you speak of in reference to Vandeman. > Like me, he is contentious and returns invective with invective. After all, > if someone is calling you a liar, then you have every right to return the > favor. > Nah, I just think I'll call him to repentance. Michael Halliwell   Date: 11 May 2006 17:06:58 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names Read Vernor Vinge's True Names. In article <H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com >, Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of newsgroups who >use their real names. Oh, sure. But this is intended as a usenet feature, not bug. >I think what happens when you use a user name is that >you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less like a scoundrel. >However, if you are going to use a user name, then it had best make some >kind of sense. I will not stand for gobbledygook. The various auditory inspector generals have various anonymity preserving tools. Usenet allows this in a number of tool fashions largely ignored by newbies. Some go take assigned user names. Rot-13 is another example of a tool which came from the netiquette of potentially offensive jokes. Usenet has all kinds of tools to deal with these problems/issues. >Take NYC XYZ ... >I can live with this kind of a user name. ... >It may be that there are good reasons for some using a user name instead of >their real name, but if the newsgroup is reputable I do not see the >necessity of it. The very worst scoundrels I have ever encountered on any >group were always using a user name whereas all those who use their real >names turn out not to be such bad fellows no matter how much I might >disagree with them. That's fine. And until you write code which goes into NNTP, you can continue believing it. (or similar influence). >Civility normally goes right out the window with anonymity. Not necessarily. I'm glad that Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia aren't listening. Despite the occurrance of anonymizers, I can assure anyone reading this note they are a minimally effective mechanism. At the highest end I know the guys at Fort Meade can read this, I signed a document allowing them to keep a file on me on my first visit. A not too determined effort will ferret out a person (people posting are small peanuts, they are far more busy with real problem people). --     Date: 11 May 2006 22:51:09 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:4463d1a2$1@darkstar... > Read Vernor Vinge's True Names. > > In article <H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com>, > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of newsgroups >>who >>use their real names. > > Oh, sure. But this is intended as a usenet feature, not bug. > >>I think what happens when you use a user name is that >>you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less like a scoundrel. >>However, if you are going to use a user name, then it had best make some >>kind of sense. I will not stand for gobbledygook. > > The various auditory inspector generals have various anonymity > preserving tools. Usenet allows this in a number of tool fashions > largely ignored by newbies. Some go take assigned user names. > > Rot-13 is another example of a tool which came from the netiquette of > potentially offensive jokes. > > Usenet has all kinds of tools to deal with these problems/issues. > > >>Take NYC XYZ ... >>I can live with this kind of a user name. > ... >>It may be that there are good reasons for some using a user name instead >>of >>their real name, but if the newsgroup is reputable I do not see the >>necessity of it. The very worst scoundrels I have ever encountered on any >>group were always using a user name whereas all those who use their real >>names turn out not to be such bad fellows no matter how much I might >>disagree with them. > > That's fine. And until you write code which goes into NNTP, you can > continue believing it. (or similar influence). > >>Civility normally goes right out the window with anonymity. > > Not necessarily. > > I'm glad that Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia aren't listening. > > Despite the occurrance of anonymizers, I can assure anyone reading this > note they are a minimally effective mechanism. At the highest end I > know the guys at Fort Meade can read this, I signed a document allowing > them to keep a file on me on my first visit. A not too determined > effort will ferret out a person (people posting are small peanuts, > they are far more busy with real problem people). I know relatively little (next to nothing really) about how computers work, but I can see that is not the case with Eugene. Nevertheless, it has been my experience that the worst scofflaws on Usenet are those who use user names as opposed to those using their real names. Anonymity really does breed incivility. However, I also believe there is no real anonymity on the Internet. An expert investigator will be able to trace anything to anyone. Therefore, it behooves us all to keep a civil tongue in our heads. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 12 May 2006 15:58:54 From: Eugene Miya Subject: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names >> Read Vernor Vinge's True Names. In article <bYadnVHljvOum_nZnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@prairiewave.com >, Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >I know relatively little (next to nothing really) about how computers work, >but I can see that is not the case with Eugene. Nevertheless, it has been my >experience that the worst scofflaws on Usenet are those who use user names >as opposed to those using their real names. Anonymity really does breed >incivility. Anonmity was built into the ARPAnet before I ever got on in 1973 (sometime between '69-'73).. >However, I also believe there is no real anonymity on the Internet. An >expert investigator will be able to trace anything to anyone. Therefore, >it behooves us all to keep a civil tongue in our heads. It's not merely a matter of one's tongue but also one's ears. Let them make jerks of themselves. Use a st read and learn about Killfiles. These are all features placed into protocols for people to get along and coexist in cyberspace. I have traced people. People have traced me. I know professional tracers. This is not merely an issue of computers but also computer networks and software. The alt.* groups were specifically set up for a maximum of free speech ( I know Gilmore well, I took his DES cracking book at his request into the halls of the NSA; he wanted assurances that they had his book: he wants them to sell it in their gift shop, but they have other investments ). It's the st ear which is more important. --         Date: 13 May 2006 21:52:48 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:4465132e$1@darkstar... >>> Read Vernor Vinge's True Names. I wil take a pass on it as I am not that interested. I have got my name and if others want stupid names then they are welcome to them. > In article <bYadnVHljvOum_nZnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>I know relatively little (next to nothing really) about how computers >>work, >>but I can see that is not the case with Eugene. Nevertheless, it has been >>my >>experience that the worst scofflaws on Usenet are those who use user names >>as opposed to those using their real names. Anonymity really does breed >>incivility. > > Anonmity was built into the ARPAnet before I ever got on in 1973 > (sometime between '69-'73).. > >>However, I also believe there is no real anonymity on the Internet. An >>expert investigator will be able to trace anything to anyone. Therefore, >>it behooves us all to keep a civil tongue in our heads. > > It's not merely a matter of one's tongue but also one's ears. > Let them make jerks of themselves. Use a st read and learn about > Killfiles. These are all features placed into protocols for people to > get along and coexist in cyberspace. I do not care about getting along with anyone and it would never occur to me to kill file anyone. Words can never hurt me. Besides, I like a good verbal fight! > I have traced people. People have traced me. I know professional > tracers. > > This is not merely an issue of computers but also computer networks and > software. The alt.* groups were specifically set up for a maximum of > free speech ( I know Gilmore well, I took his DES cracking book at his > request into the halls of the NSA; he wanted assurances that they had > his book: he wants them to sell it in their gift shop, but they have > other investments ). I guess I really don't understand how the alt. groups differ from any of the other newsgroups. > It's the st ear which is more important. I am very good at listening, but I return with interest anything that does not strike my fancy. Others have accused me of abusing the protocols of Usenet, but I do not think I ever do that. I am merely contentious and I like to argue. Surely that is what Usenet is all about, is it not? Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota           Date: 15 May 2006 09:43:45 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names In article <au6dnanKl6gUBvvZRVn-rA@prairiewave.com >, Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >I am very good at listening, but I return with interest anything that does >not strike my fancy. Others have accused me of abusing the protocols of >Usenet, but I do not think I ever do that. I am merely contentious and I >like to argue. Surely that is what Usenet is all about, is it not? Usenet, NNTP, is merely a low priority communication protocol. It is somewhat superior to mailing lists when scaling is an issue, and somewhat under appreciated by web newbies. It is monitored by people in the know. The main problems are its text base and the learning curve for setting up the right mix between moderated and un-moderated groups. If you want pure argument, you want talk.politics.*. --             Date: 15 May 2006 22:23:57 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:4468afc1$1@darkstar... Alt. newsgroup (ARBR) restored. > In article <au6dnanKl6gUBvvZRVn-rA@prairiewave.com>, > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>I am very good at listening, but I return with interest anything that does >>not strike my fancy. Others have accused me of abusing the protocols of >>Usenet, but I do not think I ever do that. I am merely contentious and I >>like to argue. Surely that is what Usenet is all about, is it not? > > Usenet, NNTP, is merely a low priority communication protocol. > It is somewhat superior to mailing lists when scaling is an issue, and > somewhat under appreciated by web newbies. It is monitored by people in > the know. The main problems are its text base and the learning curve > for setting up the right mix between moderated and un-moderated groups. I don't think you would ever want anything but pure text for Usenet. Otherwise some would be posting all kinds of obscene and pornographic pictures. Also, it was my impression that all Usenet groups are unmoderated, but there are a few newsgroups I have run across that do seem to be moderated. Just why I can't figure out. I note in particular a newsgroup called "rec.bicycles.off-road." > If you want pure argument, you want talk.politics.*. Well, I guess I really don't want pure argument. Life gets pretty grim if that is all one is doing. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota               Date: 16 May 2006 17:18:59 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names >> Usenet, NNTP, is merely a low priority communication protocol. >> It is somewhat superior to mailing lists when scaling is an issue, and >> somewhat under appreciated by web newbies. It is monitored by people in >> the know. The main problems are its text base and the learning curve >> for setting up the right mix between moderated and un-moderated groups. In article <qO6dnW5ytORS2PTZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com >, Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >I don't think you would ever want anything but pure text for Usenet. >Otherwise some would be posting all kinds of obscene and pornographic >pictures. The first point is something I argue with AI researcher friends about. There is more to information than text. Usenet was set up in a time of text. Binaries, specifically photos, are nicely dealt with in alt.binaries.* None of these has been overwhelmed by porn. Regular unmoderated groups have not either. Again, this is why full feeds are coveted. Good binary programs, sound, and images go to the alt.binaries groups. The porn argument on the whole internet is overrated. Far more serious problems exist at this time. >Also, it was my impression that all Usenet groups are unmoderated, >but there are a few newsgroups I have run across that do seem to be >moderated. Just why I can't figure out. I note in particular a newsgroup >called "rec.bicycles.off-road." I moderate a group, comp.parallel. The history of moderated groups began with a sub hierarchy of mod.*. Then groups got reorganized. The issue has always been to balance signal to noise. Moderation is a feature. It has helped out with a slew of groups from rec.hunting, sci.military.moderated, the *.annouce groups, etc. More groups should be moderated. Sci.environment should have been moderated. Talk.environment should be fine. The talk.* hierarchy as a whole deserves more respect. Now the world has blogs. >> If you want pure argument, you want talk.politics.*. > >Well, I guess I really don't want pure argument. Life gets pretty grim if >that is all one is doing. Then change the paradigm. --                 Date: 17 May 2006 03:15:01 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:446a6bf3$1@darkstar... >>> Usenet, NNTP, is merely a low priority communication protocol. >>> It is somewhat superior to mailing lists when scaling is an issue, and >>> somewhat under appreciated by web newbies. It is monitored by people in >>> the know. The main problems are its text base and the learning curve >>> for setting up the right mix between moderated and un-moderated groups. > > In article <qO6dnW5ytORS2PTZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com>, > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>I don't think you would ever want anything but pure text for Usenet. >>Otherwise some would be posting all kinds of obscene and pornographic >>pictures. > > The first point is something I argue with AI researcher friends about. > There is more to information than text. > Usenet was set up in a time of text. Binaries, specifically photos, > are nicely dealt with in alt.binaries.* None of these has been > overwhelmed by porn. Regular unmoderated groups have not either. > Again, this is why full feeds are coveted. Good binary programs, > sound, and images go to the alt.binaries groups. > > The porn argument on the whole internet is overrated. > Far more serious problems exist at this time. There was a group of cyclists from the Chicago area (Monkey Island) that set up a blog site and it consisted of nothing but obscene and porn attacks on other cyclists and other groups. No thank you. I want text only when it comes to Usenet. I am even very leery of links and will almost never go to them unless I really trust the poster. >>Also, it was my impression that all Usenet groups are unmoderated, >>but there are a few newsgroups I have run across that do seem to be >>moderated. Just why I can't figure out. I note in particular a newsgroup >>called "rec.bicycles.off-road." > > I moderate a group, comp.parallel. > The history of moderated groups began with a sub hierarchy of mod.*. > Then groups got reorganized. The issue has always been to balance > signal to noise. Moderation is a feature. It has helped out with a > slew of groups from rec.hunting, sci.military.moderated, the *.annouce > groups, etc. More groups should be moderated. Sci.environment should > have been moderated. Talk.environment should be fine. The talk.* > hierarchy as a whole deserves more respect. Now the world has blogs. Yes, I think only moderated groups will work. An unmoderated group will be chock full of idiots who will say lots of nasty things. That is human nature. But do you really just want to exchange information with others? That can get rather dull after awhile and sooner or later you have exhausted the subject. I do like the interplay of personality on an unmoderated group. I think that would be pretty much missing on a moderated group. A little fireworks from time to time makes for a more interesting group. >>> If you want pure argument, you want talk.politics.*. >> >>Well, I guess I really don't want pure argument. Life gets pretty grim if >>that is all one is doing. > > Then change the paradigm. My paradigm is perfect for unmoderated newsgroups. I assure you I would know how to pass muster on a moderated newsgroup. But there are just too many idiots on unmoderated newsgroups and they need to be dealt with by the likes of Ed Dolan the Great. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                   Date: 30 Oct 2006 16:06:08 From: Mike Vandeman Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names On Wed, 17 May 2006 03:15:01 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > >"Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote in message >news:446a6bf3$1@darkstar... >>>> Usenet, NNTP, is merely a low priority communication protocol. >>>> It is somewhat superior to mailing lists when scaling is an issue, and >>>> somewhat under appreciated by web newbies. It is monitored by people in >>>> the know. The main problems are its text base and the learning curve >>>> for setting up the right mix between moderated and un-moderated groups. >> >> In article <qO6dnW5ytORS2PTZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com>, >> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>>I don't think you would ever want anything but pure text for Usenet. >>>Otherwise some would be posting all kinds of obscene and pornographic >>>pictures. >> >> The first point is something I argue with AI researcher friends about. >> There is more to information than text. >> Usenet was set up in a time of text. Binaries, specifically photos, >> are nicely dealt with in alt.binaries.* None of these has been >> overwhelmed by porn. Regular unmoderated groups have not either. >> Again, this is why full feeds are coveted. Good binary programs, >> sound, and images go to the alt.binaries groups. >> >> The porn argument on the whole internet is overrated. >> Far more serious problems exist at this time. > >There was a group of cyclists from the Chicago area (Monkey Island) that set >up a blog site and it consisted of nothing but obscene and porn attacks on >other cyclists and other groups. No thank you. I want text only when it >comes to Usenet. I am even very leery of links and will almost never go to >them unless I really trust the poster. > >>>Also, it was my impression that all Usenet groups are unmoderated, >>>but there are a few newsgroups I have run across that do seem to be >>>moderated. Just why I can't figure out. I note in particular a newsgroup >>>called "rec.bicycles.off-road." >> >> I moderate a group, comp.parallel. >> The history of moderated groups began with a sub hierarchy of mod.*. >> Then groups got reorganized. The issue has always been to balance >> signal to noise. Moderation is a feature. It has helped out with a >> slew of groups from rec.hunting, sci.military.moderated, the *.annouce >> groups, etc. More groups should be moderated. Sci.environment should >> have been moderated. Talk.environment should be fine. The talk.* >> hierarchy as a whole deserves more respect. Now the world has blogs. > >Yes, I think only moderated groups will work. Like rec.bicycles.off-road. It's DEAD, thanks to mountain bikers' fear of the truth! An unmoderated group will be >chock full of idiots who will say lots of nasty things. That is human >nature. > >But do you really just want to exchange information with others? That can >get rather dull after awhile and sooner or later you have exhausted the >subject. I do like the interplay of personality on an unmoderated group. I >think that would be pretty much missing on a moderated group. A little >fireworks from time to time makes for a more interesting group. > >>>> If you want pure argument, you want talk.politics.*. >>> >>>Well, I guess I really don't want pure argument. Life gets pretty grim if >>>that is all one is doing. >> >> Then change the paradigm. > >My paradigm is perfect for unmoderated newsgroups. I assure you I would know >how to pass muster on a moderated newsgroup. But there are just too many >idiots on unmoderated newsgroups and they need to be dealt with by the likes >of Ed Dolan 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.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande                     Date: 02 Nov 2006 19:37:32 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:ui8ck292cgp715iqrqljpt8gotellgmt18@4ax.com... > On Wed, 17 May 2006 03:15:01 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> > wrote: > >> >>"Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote in message >>news:446a6bf3$1@darkstar... >>>>> Usenet, NNTP, is merely a low priority communication protocol. >>>>> It is somewhat superior to mailing lists when scaling is an issue, and >>>>> somewhat under appreciated by web newbies. It is monitored by people >>>>> in >>>>> the know. The main problems are its text base and the learning curve >>>>> for setting up the right mix between moderated and un-moderated >>>>> groups. >>> >>> In article <qO6dnW5ytORS2PTZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com>, >>> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>>>I don't think you would ever want anything but pure text for Usenet. >>>>Otherwise some would be posting all kinds of obscene and pornographic >>>>pictures. >>> >>> The first point is something I argue with AI researcher friends about. >>> There is more to information than text. >>> Usenet was set up in a time of text. Binaries, specifically photos, >>> are nicely dealt with in alt.binaries.* None of these has been >>> overwhelmed by porn. Regular unmoderated groups have not either. >>> Again, this is why full feeds are coveted. Good binary programs, >>> sound, and images go to the alt.binaries groups. >>> >>> The porn argument on the whole internet is overrated. >>> Far more serious problems exist at this time. Not so! You do not not know the nature of the kind of criminal vandal trolls (human scum) we have here on these cycling groups. I can assure you that we would soon be overwhelmed with nothing but porn if it were permitted. I do not even like the ability to post links. Just way too many scofflaws on these groups. Moderated groups are the ONLY way to go. >>There was a group of cyclists from the Chicago area (Monkey Island) that >>set >>up a blog site and it consisted of nothing but obscene and porn attacks on >>other cyclists and other groups. No thank you. I want text only when it >>comes to Usenet. I am even very leery of links and will almost never go to >>them unless I really trust the poster. >> >>>>Also, it was my impression that all Usenet groups are unmoderated, >>>>but there are a few newsgroups I have run across that do seem to be >>>>moderated. Just why I can't figure out. I note in particular a newsgroup >>>>called "rec.bicycles.off-road." >>> >>> I moderate a group, comp.parallel. >>> The history of moderated groups began with a sub hierarchy of mod.*. >>> Then groups got reorganized. The issue has always been to balance >>> signal to noise. Moderation is a feature. It has helped out with a >>> slew of groups from rec.hunting, sci.military.moderated, the *.annouce >>> groups, etc. More groups should be moderated. Sci.environment should >>> have been moderated. Talk.environment should be fine. The talk.* >>> hierarchy as a whole deserves more respect. Now the world has blogs. >> >>Yes, I think only moderated groups will work. Moderated groups are the ONLY way to go. > Like rec.bicycles.off-road. It's DEAD, thanks to mountain bikers' fear > of the truth! > > An unmoderated group will be >>chock full of idiots who will say lots of nasty things. That is human >>nature. >> >>But do you really just want to exchange information with others? That can >>get rather dull after awhile and sooner or later you have exhausted the >>subject. I do like the interplay of personality on an unmoderated group. I >>think that would be pretty much missing on a moderated group. A little >>fireworks from time to time makes for a more interesting group. >> >>>>> If you want pure argument, you want talk.politics.*. >>>> >>>>Well, I guess I really don't want pure argument. Life gets pretty grim >>>>if >>>>that is all one is doing. >>> >>> Then change the paradigm. >> >>My paradigm is perfect for unmoderated newsgroups. I assure you I would >>know >>how to pass muster on a moderated newsgroup. But there are just too many >>idiots on unmoderated newsgroups and they need to be dealt with by the >>likes >>of Ed Dolan the Great. Moderated groups are the ONLY way to go. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                       Date: 03 Nov 2006 11:51:54 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names In article <a76dnZjFGO3DANfYnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@prairiewave.com >, Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >>>> In article <qO6dnW5ytORS2PTZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com>, >>>> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>>>>I don't think you would ever want anything but pure text for Usenet. >>>>>Otherwise some would be posting all kinds of obscene and pornographic >>>>>pictures. The Web exists for that, and it makes money. >>>> The porn argument on the whole internet is overrated. >>>> Far more serious problems exist at this time. > >Not so! You do not not know the nature of the kind of criminal vandal trolls >(human scum) we have here on these cycling groups. I can assure you that we >would soon be overwhelmed with nothing but porn if it were permitted. I do >not even like the ability to post links. Just way too many scofflaws on >these groups. The cycling groups are innocuous (rec or alt). I do know professional makers of porn and makes of bikes as well as professional prostitutes in NV where it's in fact legal (just trying to make a living, I interview them for the economics, kinda sad in some ways and just working people on another). >Moderated groups are the ONLY way to go. You have no idea, no experience, and are self admittedly technically ignorant (proudly). And lazy. You are in a word self-defeating. >Moderated groups are the ONLY way to go. .. >Moderated groups are the ONLY way to go. Repeating yourself 3 times does not make it so. Copying all attributed text only further diminished your case. Follow ups further reduced. --                         Date: 04 Nov 2006 02:12:34 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:454b9dda$1@darkstar... > In article <a76dnZjFGO3DANfYnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>>>> In article <qO6dnW5ytORS2PTZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com>, >>>>> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>>>>>I don't think you would ever want anything but pure text for Usenet. >>>>>>Otherwise some would be posting all kinds of obscene and pornographic >>>>>>pictures. > > The Web exists for that, and it makes money. It makes money for scoundrels and other ne'er-do-wells who do not have a clue about how to make an honest living. >>>>> The porn argument on the whole internet is overrated. >>>>> Far more serious problems exist at this time. >> >>Not so! You do not not know the nature of the kind of criminal vandal >>trolls >>(human scum) we have here on these cycling groups. I can assure you that >>we >>would soon be overwhelmed with nothing but porn if it were permitted. I do >>not even like the ability to post links. Just way too many scofflaws on >>these groups. > > The cycling groups are innocuous (rec or alt). They are mostly just stupid. Still, it is irritating when freaking trolls do nothing but post garbage. Usenet is destroying itself with all its stupidities. It will soon go the way of the Dodo Bird. > I do know professional makers of porn and makes of bikes as well as > professional prostitutes in NV where it's in fact legal (just trying to > make a living, I interview them for the economics, kinda sad in some ways > and just working people on another). Whoops, you have just awakened Saint Edward the Great from his slumbers! All prostitutes and whoremongers ought to be taken out and stoned to death in the public square. And Great Saint that I am, I would toss the first stone. Even the g.d. Muslims have a good idea every now and then. >>Moderated groups are the ONLY way to go. > > You have no idea, no experience, and are self admittedly technically > ignorant (proudly). And lazy. You are in a word self-defeating. I am Great (see my signature) - and that is all you ever have to know about me! >>Moderated groups are the ONLY way to go. > .. >>Moderated groups are the ONLY way to go. > > Repeating yourself 3 times does not make it so. > Copying all attributed text only further diminished your case. Repetition is the key to all learning. Since you never say anything much, I can only repeat myself and hope that maybe some of it will sink into that thick skull of yours. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                     Date: 31 Oct 2006 16:13:36 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names In article <ui8ck292cgp715iqrqljpt8gotellgmt18@4ax.com >, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net > wrote: >On Wed, 17 May 2006 03:15:01 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> >wrote: >>Yes, I think only moderated groups will work. Usenet is a combination of moderated and unmoderated. Some unmoderated groups work fine excepting spam. The balance is in given hierarchies and subhierarchies. >Like rec.bicycles.off-road. It's DEAD, thanks to mountain bikers' fear >of the truth! Minor hack. >> An unmoderated group will be >>chock full of idiots who will say lots of nasty things. That is human >>nature. Not necessarily. >>But do you really just want to exchange information with others? That can >>get rather dull after awhile and sooner or later you have exhausted the >>subject. I do like the interplay of personality on an unmoderated group. I >>think that would be pretty much missing on a moderated group. A little >>fireworks from time to time makes for a more interesting group. That's a rather boring passive way to look at news groups. That's said by a person who has no concept of what a moderated group is. --                       Date: 02 Nov 2006 19:45:31 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:4547e6b0$1@darkstar... > In article <ui8ck292cgp715iqrqljpt8gotellgmt18@4ax.com>, > Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote: >>On Wed, 17 May 2006 03:15:01 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> >>wrote: >>>Yes, I think only moderated groups will work. > > Usenet is a combination of moderated and unmoderated. > Some unmoderated groups work fine excepting spam. > The balance is in given hierarchies and subhierarchies. > >>Like rec.bicycles.off-road. It's DEAD, thanks to mountain bikers' fear >>of the truth! > > Minor hack. > >>> An unmoderated group will be >>>chock full of idiots who will say lots of nasty things. That is human >>>nature. > > Not necessarily. > >>>But do you really just want to exchange information with others? That can >>>get rather dull after awhile and sooner or later you have exhausted the >>>subject. I do like the interplay of personality on an unmoderated group. >>>I >>>think that would be pretty much missing on a moderated group. A little >>>fireworks from time to time makes for a more interesting group. > > That's a rather boring passive way to look at news groups. > That's said by a person who has no concept of what a moderated group is. Au contraire, you big dumbbell! Not only would I know how to write to a moderated group, but I would be even better as the moderator myself. You, for instance, would have a hard time passing muster because you are so confounded dull all the time. Either say something interesting or get lost why don't you! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                         Date: 03 Nov 2006 11:54:40 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names >> That's said by a person who has no concept of what a moderated group is. In article <JeWdnbjiVtShAtfYnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@prairiewave.com >, Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >Au contraire, you big dumbbell! Not only would I know how to write to a >moderated group, but I would be even better as the moderator myself. You, Empty words Ed. Are you posting under the influence of alcohol? >for instance, would have a hard time passing muster because you are so >confounded dull all the time. Either say something interesting or get lost >why don't you! Oh yeah, I try to do so on the weekends. My moderated group posts have to wait until Monday when I get back. Bye Ed. --                           Date: 04 Nov 2006 01:52:57 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:454b9e80$1@darkstar... >>> That's said by a person who has no concept of what a moderated group is. > > In article <JeWdnbjiVtShAtfYnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >> >>Au contraire, you big dumbbell! Not only would I know how to write to a >>moderated group, but I would be even better as the moderator myself. You, >>for instance, would have a hard time passing muster because you are so >>confounded dull all the time. Either say something interesting or get lost >>why don't you! >Empty words Ed. Are you posting under the influence of alcohol? I am posting under the influence of your incredibly dull messages which go nowhere. I am fed up to the hilt with computer freaks who are invariably as stupid as the day is long. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                       Date: 31 Oct 2006 20:49:39 From: pmhilton Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names Eugene Miya wrote: me to time makes for a more interesting group. >> > > That's a rather boring passive way to look at news groups. > That's said by a person who has no concept of what a moderated group is. > You are attempting rational discourse with an irrational being. PH                         Date: 01 Nov 2006 09:52:37 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names In article <4547FD33.6030601@mfx.net >, pmhilton <pmhilton@mfx.net> wrote: >Eugene Miya wrote: >me to time makes for a more interesting group. >> >> That's a rather boring passive way to look at news groups. >> That's said by a person who has no concept of what a moderated group is. >> > >You are attempting rational discourse with an irrational being. Oh I know that. Most people here are barely rational. You mean Ed or Mikey? You edited Ed's quote following my attribution. Anyone can go fishing. This is merely a net.ranger cast. --                   Date: 17 May 2006 13:46:06 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names In article <eJ6dnUv2SrIURvfZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@prairiewave.com >, Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >There was a group of cyclists from the Chicago area (Monkey Island) that set >up a blog site and it consisted of nothing but obscene and porn attacks on >other cyclists and other groups. No thank you. I want text only when it >comes to Usenet. I am even very leery of links and will almost never go to >them unless I really trust the poster. So? Reading a web site, blog or news group is a choice. I know some of the various guys who came up with links. This is a weak argument for text (one site? you are wasting my time). >Yes, I think only moderated groups will work. An unmoderated group will be I thought you said you didn't know much about computers. >chock full of idiots who will say lots of nasty things. That is human >nature. Human nature appears more complex than this. You can say it varies across religious background values. If you are unfamiliar with usenet, news protocols, this diminishes your comment. >But do you really just want to exchange information with others? That can >get rather dull after awhile and sooner or later you have exhausted the >subject. I do like the interplay of personality on an unmoderated group. I >think that would be pretty much missing on a moderated group. A little >fireworks from time to time makes for a more interesting group. It depends on the composition of the group. We might as well give up all telecommunication technologies were what you say is the case. >>>> talk.politics.*. >>>Well, I guess I really don't want pure argument. Life gets pretty grim if >>>that is all one is doing. >> Then change the paradigm. > >My paradigm is perfect for unmoderated newsgroups. I assure you I would know >how to pass muster on a moderated newsgroup. But there are just too many >idiots on unmoderated newsgroups and they need to be dealt with by the likes Well impress us. --                     Date: 17 May 2006 23:24:46 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:446b8b8e$1@darkstar... [newsgroups restored] This idiot continues to keep messing around with the newsgroups. Apparently, it is my karma to be forever stuck with idiots. > In article <eJ6dnUv2SrIURvfZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>There was a group of cyclists from the Chicago area (Monkey Island) that >>set >>up a blog site and it consisted of nothing but obscene and porn attacks on >>other cyclists and other groups. No thank you. I want text only when it >>comes to Usenet. I am even very leery of links and will almost never go to >>them unless I really trust the poster. > > So? > Reading a web site, blog or news group is a choice. I have already explained to you that it is very easy for a criminal vandal troll to destroy a newsgroup with text only. It is even easier if pictures are permitted. What is there about this that you do not understand? > I know some of the various guys who came up with links. > > This is a weak argument for text (one site? you are wasting my time). That one site was being linked by various posters on several cycling newsgroups. And then the blog ended up being extensively discussed by some few, much to the dismay of the majority of the group. If you had been the moderator , you would never have allowed any of that crap to ever appear on your forum, that is for god damn sure! >>Yes, I think only moderated groups will work. An unmoderated group will be > I thought you said you didn't know much about computers. >>chock full of idiots who will say lots of nasty things. That is human >>nature. Your interspersed rek in the middle of my statement ks you as an idiot. Congratulations! That is how I shall treat you henceforth. > Human nature appears more complex than this. > You can say it varies across religious background values. > If you are unfamiliar with usenet, news protocols, this diminishes > your comment. I know all I will ever have to know about human nature. That is why newsgroups have to be moderated, but preferably not by a numskull like you. >>But do you really just want to exchange information with others? That can >>get rather dull after awhile and sooner or later you have exhausted the >>subject. I do like the interplay of personality on an unmoderated group. I >>think that would be pretty much missing on a moderated group. A little >>fireworks from time to time makes for a more interesting group. > > It depends on the composition of the group. > We might as well give up all telecommunication technologies were what > you say is the case. No, groups just need a moderator (an editor). I know what newsgroups are worth and they are not worth anything.They are only good for fun and games. Most moderated groups are dead and dying because they are so dull. In fact they designed for dullards like you. What are you doing on Usenet if you do not like some fireworks? >>>>> talk.politics.*. >>>>Well, I guess I really don't want pure argument. Life gets pretty grim >>>>if >>>>that is all one is doing. >>> Then change the paradigm. >> >>My paradigm is perfect for unmoderated newsgroups. I assure you I would >>know >>how to pass muster on a moderated newsgroup. But there are just too many >>idiots on unmoderated newsgroups and they need to be dealt with by the >>likes of me. > > Well impress us. I already have, but you are too stupid to comprehend anything. Jon Meinecke was another idiot who was unable to appreciate my Greatness. He resorted to a kill file like all cowards and scoundrels. Meinecke was made for a moderated forum. He has no business ever being on Usenet. He is nothing but a plodder - just like you are! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota               Date: 16 May 2006 00:13:45 From: Joshua Putnam Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names In article <qO6dnW5ytORS2PTZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com >, edolan@iw.net says... > I don't think you would ever want anything but pure text for Usenet. > Otherwise some would be posting all kinds of obscene and pornographic > pictures. That's what the alt.binaries.pictures.* groups are for. > Also, it was my impression that all Usenet groups are unmoderated, > but there are a few newsgroups I have run across that do seem to be > moderated. Just why I can't figure out. I note in particular a newsgroup > called "rec.bicycles.off-road." It wasn't originally moderated, but it came under repeated attack by a net-kook who would repeatedly flood it with huge, inflammatory postings, cross-posted to other groups to add controversy to the replies. (He did the same thing to certain bicycle-related email lists, too, crashing some of them and losing himself various email accounts in the process. He'd actually been at it before the original rec.bicycles group was split into the many bicycle groups we have today, though he wasn't exclusively targeting mountain bikes at first -- he also attacked fast commuters, racers, recreational riders, and bicycle manufacturers who made anything other than old- fashioned sit-up-and-beg roadsters.) Once r.b.o-r was moderated, its volume dropped tremendously, especially during various moderation difficulties. alt.mountain-bike took over much of the discussion volume, while the troll moved on to other rec.bicycles. targets, notably rec.bicycles.soc, which he continues to plague to this day. -- josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/ > Updated Infrared Photography Gallery: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html >                 Date: 17 May 2006 02:50:09 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Joshua Putnam" <josh@phred.org > wrote in message news:MPG.1ed31b69615db62e98973d@newsgroups.comcast.net... > In article <qO6dnW5ytORS2PTZ4p2dnA@prairiewave.com>, edolan@iw.net > says... > >> I don't think you would ever want anything but pure text for Usenet. >> Otherwise some would be posting all kinds of obscene and pornographic >> pictures. > > That's what the alt.binaries.pictures.* groups are for. I have no doubt of that! >> Also, it was my impression that all Usenet groups are unmoderated, >> but there are a few newsgroups I have run across that do seem to be >> moderated. Just why I can't figure out. I note in particular a newsgroup >> called "rec.bicycles.off-road." > > It wasn't originally moderated, but it came under repeated attack by > a net-kook who would repeatedly flood it with huge, inflammatory > postings, cross-posted to other groups to add controversy to the > replies. (He did the same thing to certain bicycle-related email > lists, too, crashing some of them and losing himself various email > accounts in the process. He'd actually been at it before the > original rec.bicycles group was split into the many bicycle groups we > have today, though he wasn't exclusively targeting mountain bikes at > first -- he also attacked fast commuters, racers, recreational > riders, and bicycle manufacturers who made anything other than old- > fashioned sit-up-and-beg roadsters.) You are pretty much descrbing what took place on ARBR. ARBR was a small recumbent bicycle group and everyone got fed up with the criminal vandal troll and left. When a newsgroup is small, it is very easy for a criminal vandal troll to destroy it. > Once r.b.o-r was moderated, its volume dropped tremendously, > especially during various moderation difficulties. alt.mountain-bike > took over much of the discussion volume, while the troll moved on to > other rec.bicycles. targets, notably rec.bicycles.soc, which he > continues to plague to this day. I am surprised that RBS is not bigger than it is as this would seem to be the heart and soul of cycling. Some of the other cycling newsgroups are way too technically oriented to have much appeal to the general cyclist. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 11 May 2006 20:41:44 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > It may be that there are good reasons for some using a user name > instead of their real name, but if the newsgroup is reputable I do > not see the necessity of it. Actually, there is a good reason for it in some cases (although in my case you can find my real name by looking at my signature in spite of my use of a fake user name). If your last name is unusual and you have a series of technical publications that someone might want to search for, then you may not want to use your real name on news groups you use for "fun". It isn't to keep your identity secret but to make it easier for busy professionals who are looking for technical information and don't want to waste time carefully crafting searches to avoid posts or web pages that are not work related. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB     Date: 11 May 2006 22:37:57 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net > wrote in message news:m3k68sb8n6.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > >> It may be that there are good reasons for some using a user name >> instead of their real name, but if the newsgroup is reputable I do >> not see the necessity of it. > > Actually, there is a good reason for it in some cases (although in my > case you can find my real name by looking at my signature in spite of > my use of a fake user name). If your last name is unusual and you > have a series of technical publications that someone might want to > search for, then you may not want to use your real name on news groups > you use for "fun". Agreed! Most of us on newsgroups are idiots and do not have to worry about what you describe above. > It isn't to keep your identity secret but to make it easier for busy > professionals who are looking for technical information and don't want > to waste time carefully crafting searches to avoid posts or web pages > that are not work related. "Agreed! Most of us on newsgroups are idiots and do not have to worry about what you describe above." - Ed Dolan Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 11 May 2006 15:57:20 From: Phil, Squid-in-Training Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names Edward Dolan wrote: > I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of > newsgroups who use their real names. I think what happens when you > use a user name is that you tend to hide behind it and behave more or > less like a scoundrel. However, if you are going to use a user name, > then it had best make some kind of sense. I will not stand for > gobbledygook. > Take NYC XYZ for instance. Such a user name I will shorten to NYC in > order to keep it from becoming an alphabet soup. NYC is not a bad > user name since he is from NYC and he often tells us a few things > about the Big Apple every now and then. I can live with this kind of > a user name. > Other user names I will either shorten or even reconstruct them if > they are too ridiculous. Take x1134x as an example. Sorry, but this > user name makes no sense to me at all and I will reconstruct it if > and when it ever becomes necessary to refer to him in a message of > mine. I might call him Double X or Numbers or some other such name, > but I will never refer to him as x1134x. It is too hard to type that. > Besides, numbers are not names. Like I said, I will not stand for > gobbledygook. > It may be that there are good reasons for some using a user name > instead of their real name, but if the newsgroup is reputable I do > not see the necessity of it. The very worst scoundrels I have ever > encountered on any group were always using a user name whereas all > those who use their real names turn out not to be such bad fellows no > matter how much I might disagree with them. Civility normally goes > right out the window with anonymity. > > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota Yeah... I'm going to have to rate this one a 4. -- Squidler   Date: 11 May 2006 09:18:44 From: NobodyYouKnow Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... > I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of newsgroups who > use their real names. Well, you do that. P.S. have you ever heard of 'spoofing'. Once you really get impressed by some poster, the trolls immediately start posting spoofs that twist the logic using the same credibility to argue their own numb nuts points. Pretty soon, everybody is posting about what a nut job he is. The good thing on usenet is that you can judge based on the arguments presented, not on the 'argument by authority'. But you are a good syncophant so you just want someone to tell you what to do, right? Maybe it is time you dusted off those 'critical thinking skills'...     Date: 11 May 2006 22:32:42 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "NobodyYouKnow" <TheVoiceOfReason@nowhere.com > wrote in message news:QQG8g.5155$aq5.275143@news20.bellglobal.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >> I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of newsgroups > who >> use their real names. > > > Well, you do that. > > P.S. have you ever heard of 'spoofing'. Once you really get impressed by > some poster, the trolls immediately start posting spoofs that twist the > logic using the same credibility to argue their own numb nuts points. > Pretty > soon, everybody is posting about what a nut job he is. Yes, I am well are of what you describe above. I can play that game as well as anyone, but if that is all anyone is doing it is a total waste of time and effort. Sooner or later one will want to say something of some import, perhaps even you! > The good thing on usenet is that you can judge based on the arguments > presented, not on the 'argument by authority'. But you are a good > syncophant > so you just want someone to tell you what to do, right? Maybe it is time > you > dusted off those 'critical thinking skills'... You are talking about someone else, not me. Bottom line, I do not like user names. I like real names. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 11 May 2006 22:41:51 From: Fred Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of newsgroups who >use their real names. I think what happens when you use a user name is that >you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less like a scoundrel. >However, if you are going to use a user name, then it had best make some >kind of sense. I will not stand for gobbledygook. > > Take NYC XYZ for instance. Such a user name I will shorten to NYC in order > to keep it from becoming an alphabet soup. NYC is not a bad user name > since he is from NYC and he often tells us a few things about the Big > Apple every now and then. I can live with this kind of a user name. > > Other user names I will either shorten or even reconstruct them if they > are too ridiculous. Take x1134x as an example. Sorry, but this user name > makes no sense to me at all and I will reconstruct it if and when it ever > becomes necessary to refer to him in a message of mine. I might call him > Double X or Numbers or some other such name, but I will never refer to him > as x1134x. It is too hard to type that. Besides, numbers are not names. > Like I said, I will not stand for gobbledygook. > What a brilliant idea - changing the name a user chooses. That will be a great help to everybody. I think I'll change my user name. Edward Dolan will suit me fine. > > >     Date: 11 May 2006 21:58:14 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Fred" <fred@parachute.uk.master > wrote in message news:446314f2$1@clear.net.nz... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of newsgroups >>who use their real names. I think what happens when you use a user name is >>that you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less like a scoundrel. >>However, if you are going to use a user name, then it had best make some >>kind of sense. I will not stand for gobbledygook. >> >> Take NYC XYZ for instance. Such a user name I will shorten to NYC in >> order to keep it from becoming an alphabet soup. NYC is not a bad user >> name since he is from NYC and he often tells us a few things about the >> Big Apple every now and then. I can live with this kind of a user name. >> >> Other user names I will either shorten or even reconstruct them if they >> are too ridiculous. Take x1134x as an example. Sorry, but this user name >> makes no sense to me at all and I will reconstruct it if and when it ever >> becomes necessary to refer to him in a message of mine. I might call him >> Double X or Numbers or some other such name, but I will never refer to >> him as x1134x. It is too hard to type that. Besides, numbers are not >> names. Like I said, I will not stand for gobbledygook. >> > What a brilliant idea - changing the name a user chooses. That will be a > great help to everybody. I think I'll change my user name. Edward Dolan > will suit me fine. No, it will be merely a play on the user name that will make more sense and be easy to type. It will not confuse anyone. Gobbledygook is for morons and I will not stand for it. "Fred" is acceptable but quite unimaginative. A suitable user name for dullards at the minimum. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 12 May 2006 15:59:15 From: Fred Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:Icidnb4mrMFRZP7ZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@prairiewave.com... > > "Fred" <fred@parachute.uk.master> wrote in message > news:446314f2$1@clear.net.nz... >> >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> news:H-mdnaKaZ_CPlv7ZRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >>>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of newsgroups >>>who use their real names. I think what happens when you use a user name >>>is that you tend to hide behind it and behave more or less like a >>>scoundrel. However, if you are going to use a user name, then it had best >>>make some kind of sense. I will not stand for gobbledygook. >>> >>> Take NYC XYZ for instance. Such a user name I will shorten to NYC in >>> order to keep it from becoming an alphabet soup. NYC is not a bad user >>> name since he is from NYC and he often tells us a few things about the >>> Big Apple every now and then. I can live with this kind of a user name. >>> >>> Other user names I will either shorten or even reconstruct them if they >>> are too ridiculous. Take x1134x as an example. Sorry, but this user name >>> makes no sense to me at all and I will reconstruct it if and when it >>> ever becomes necessary to refer to him in a message of mine. I might >>> call him Double X or Numbers or some other such name, but I will never >>> refer to him as x1134x. It is too hard to type that. Besides, numbers >>> are not names. Like I said, I will not stand for gobbledygook. >>> >> What a brilliant idea - changing the name a user chooses. That will be a >> great help to everybody. I think I'll change my user name. Edward Dolan >> will suit me fine. > > No, it will be merely a play on the user name that will make more sense > and be easy to type. It will not confuse anyone. Gobbledygook is for > morons and I will not stand for it. > > "Fred" is acceptable but quite unimaginative. A suitable user name for > dullards at the minimum. > >You'd have to speak to my parents about that. > >   Date: 11 May 2006 05:12:55 From: Thomas Lee Elifritz Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names Edward Dolan wrote: > Civility normally goes right out the window with anonymity. Right, we're in the midst of another great global mass extinction, an entirely new geological era, and you expect us to be civil. Sure uh-huh. http://cosmic.lifeform.org     Date: 11 May 2006 22:03:47 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cosmic@lifeform.org > wrote in message news:77E8g.131$2I1.82@fe05.lga... > Edward Dolan wrote: > >> Civility normally goes right out the window with anonymity. > > Right, we're in the midst of another great global mass extinction, an > entirely new geological era, and you expect us to be civil. Sure uh-huh. It is possible to be quite contentious without resorting to name calling. I don't know about you, but when someone calls me a name, I will just one-up him. To name call is the easiest thing in the world to do. I learned how to do it on a kindergarten playground - and that is where it belongs. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota     Date: 11 May 2006 10:14:33 From: James Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cosmic@lifeform.org > wrote in message news:77E8g.131$2I1.82@fe05.lga... > Edward Dolan wrote: > > > Civility normally goes right out the window with anonymity. > > Right, we're in the midst of another great global mass extinction, an > entirely new geological era, and you expect us to be civil. Sure uh-huh. > I doubt he meant you specifically. He knows better.     Date: 11 May 2006 09:23:32 From: NobodyYouKnow Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cosmic@lifeform.org > wrote in message news:77E8g.131$2I1.82@fe05.lga... > Edward Dolan wrote: > > > Civility normally goes right out the window with anonymity. > > Right, we're in the midst of another great global mass extinction, an > entirely new geological era, and you expect us to be civil. Sure uh-huh. The important point is that the 'authorities' like Bush have the 'upper hand' ( statements accepted by default ) and so, if you classify all debate as 'heckling' and thus 'uncivil', you can muzzle the public. I.e Fascism ( the backing of a dictatorship by fiat ) rather than Democracy ( the necessity of public awareness and comment ). So begins the fourth reich.       Date: 11 May 2006 22:08:43 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "NobodyYouKnow" <TheVoiceOfReason@nowhere.com > wrote in message news:kVG8g.5158$aq5.275478@news20.bellglobal.com... > > "Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message > news:77E8g.131$2I1.82@fe05.lga... >> Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> > Civility normally goes right out the window with anonymity. >> >> Right, we're in the midst of another great global mass extinction, an >> entirely new geological era, and you expect us to be civil. Sure uh-huh. > > The important point is that the 'authorities' like Bush have the 'upper > hand' ( statements accepted by default ) and so, if you classify all > debate > as 'heckling' and thus 'uncivil', you can muzzle the public. I.e Fascism ( > the backing of a dictatorship by fiat ) rather than Democracy ( the > necessity of public awareness and comment ). > > So begins the fourth reich. The above was written by a crazy person as well as a liberal slob and cretin who does not have clue about anything. The truth is that the liberal mass media will tell fools like him what to think and what President Bush has to say about anything gets swamped by said mass media. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 11 May 2006 15:43:39 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names NobodyYouKnow wrote: > "Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message > news:77E8g.131$2I1.82@fe05.lga... >> Edward Dolan wrote: >> >>> Civility normally goes right out the window with anonymity. >> >> Right, we're in the midst of another great global mass extinction, an >> entirely new geological era, and you expect us to be civil. Sure >> uh-huh. > > The important point is that the 'authorities' like Bush have the > 'upper hand' ( statements accepted by default ) and so, if you > classify all debate as 'heckling' and thus 'uncivil', you can muzzle > the public. I.e Fascism ( the backing of a dictatorship by fiat ) > rather than Democracy ( the necessity of public awareness and comment > ). > > So begins the fourth reich. Spoken like a /true/ anonymous paranoid. Good one! :-D         Date: 11 May 2006 19:45:46 From: NobodyYouKnow Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Sorni" <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com > wrote in message news:LYI8g.113$G95.44@tornado.socal.rr.com... > NobodyYouKnow wrote: > > "Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message > > news:77E8g.131$2I1.82@fe05.lga... > >> Edward Dolan wrote: > >> > >>> Civility normally goes right out the window with anonymity. > >> > >> Right, we're in the midst of another great global mass extinction, an > >> entirely new geological era, and you expect us to be civil. Sure > >> uh-huh. > > > > The important point is that the 'authorities' like Bush have the > > 'upper hand' ( statements accepted by default ) and so, if you > > classify all debate as 'heckling' and thus 'uncivil', you can muzzle > > the public. I.e Fascism ( the backing of a dictatorship by fiat ) > > rather than Democracy ( the necessity of public awareness and comment > > ). > > > > So begins the fourth reich. > > Spoken like a /true/ anonymous paranoid. Good one! :-D Gee. Are you trying to claim that I was heckling you? You must be one of those totalitarians. Unable to take open public debate so you try to bad mouth it. I was just pointing out that Democracy ( i.e. freedom) requires open comment, totally opposed by the fascists in power. Thus it is obviousl that despite the endless propaganda and spin, the U.S. is NOT the land of feedom or defender of Democracy. Nor was it ever so. It is now, and always has been an Oligarchy of the priviledged, with a 'straw poll' to select the next dictator. I understand Bush has selected his brother to inherit.. with Diebolds help, of course. . http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/268819.shtml Just try to vote for someone else... http://wheresthepaper.org/           Date: 12 May 2006 03:57:24 From: Brent Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names On Thu, 11 May 2006 19:45:46 -0400, "NobodyYouKnow" <TheVoiceOfReason@nowhere.com > wrote: > >"Sorni" <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote in message >news:LYI8g.113$G95.44@tornado.socal.rr.com... >> NobodyYouKnow wrote: >> > "Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message >> > news:77E8g.131$2I1.82@fe05.lga... >> >> Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> >> >>> Civility normally goes right out the window with anonymity. >> >> >> >> Right, we're in the midst of another great global mass extinction, an >> >> entirely new geological era, and you expect us to be civil. Sure >> >> uh-huh. >> > >> > The important point is that the 'authorities' like Bush have the >> > 'upper hand' ( statements accepted by default ) and so, if you >> > classify all debate as 'heckling' and thus 'uncivil', you can muzzle >> > the public. I.e Fascism ( the backing of a dictatorship by fiat ) >> > rather than Democracy ( the necessity of public awareness and comment >> > ). >> > >> > So begins the fourth reich. >> >> Spoken like a /true/ anonymous paranoid. Good one! :-D > >Gee. Are you trying to claim that I was heckling you? You must be one of >those totalitarians. Unable to take open public debate so you try to bad >mouth it. > >I was just pointing out that Democracy ( i.e. freedom) requires open >comment, totally opposed by the fascists in power. Thus it is obviousl that >despite the endless propaganda and spin, the U.S. is NOT the land of feedom >or defender of Democracy. Nor was it ever so. It is now, and always has been >an Oligarchy of the priviledged, with a 'straw poll' to select the next >dictator. I understand Bush has selected his brother to inherit.. with >Diebolds help, of course. . > >http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/268819.shtml > >Just try to vote for someone else... > >http://wheresthepaper.org/ > Jeb hasn't done too bad as Gov here in FL. He knows how to handle a hurricane or five. He was the one on TV telling folks what to do, not some nameless flunky from some backdoor office. -diagonally parked in a parallel universe. www.BikingFlorida.com         Date: 11 May 2006 11:51:34 From: Ken C. M. Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names Sorni wrote: > NobodyYouKnow wrote: > >>"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message >>news:77E8g.131$2I1.82@fe05.lga... >> >>>Edward Dolan wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Civility normally goes right out the window with anonymity. >>> >>>Right, we're in the midst of another great global mass extinction, an >>>entirely new geological era, and you expect us to be civil. Sure >>>uh-huh. >> >>The important point is that the 'authorities' like Bush have the >>'upper hand' ( statements accepted by default ) and so, if you >>classify all debate as 'heckling' and thus 'uncivil', you can muzzle >>the public. I.e Fascism ( the backing of a dictatorship by fiat ) >>rather than Democracy ( the necessity of public awareness and comment >>). >> >>So begins the fourth reich. > > > Spoken like a /true/ anonymous paranoid. Good one! :-D > > Well at least he didn't use "Bush" and "Hitler" in the same sentence. And whats up with all the cross posters? I have noticed much more of these than before. Must be the time of year. Or maybe the phases of the moon. Ken -- New cycling jersey: $49 new cycling shorts: $39 Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.           Date: 11 May 2006 22:17:41 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names "Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net > wrote in message news:ldSdnTlvy8cWwP7ZRVn-og@giganews.com... > Sorni wrote: >> NobodyYouKnow wrote: >> >>>"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message >>>news:77E8g.131$2I1.82@fe05.lga... >>> >>>>Edward Dolan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Civility normally goes right out the window with anonymity. >>>> >>>>Right, we're in the midst of another great global mass extinction, an >>>>entirely new geological era, and you expect us to be civil. Sure >>>>uh-huh. >>> >>>The important point is that the 'authorities' like Bush have the >>>'upper hand' ( statements accepted by default ) and so, if you >>>classify all debate as 'heckling' and thus 'uncivil', you can muzzle >>>the public. I.e Fascism ( the backing of a dictatorship by fiat ) >>>rather than Democracy ( the necessity of public awareness and comment >>>). >>> >>>So begins the fourth reich. >> >> >> Spoken like a /true/ anonymous paranoid. Good one! :-D > Well at least he didn't use "Bush" and "Hitler" in the same sentence. > > And whats up with all the cross posters? I have noticed much more of these > than before. Must be the time of year. Or maybe the phases of the moon. > > Ken There are other conversations taking place on other newsgroups which get posted to various newsgroups for various reasons. However, I am mainly responsible for these messages appearing on ARBR as that is my home newsgroup. I do not want the idiots there to miss any of my immortal words. Also, I am trying to save that group from itself. It is a very small group and was effectively destroyed a couple of years ago by a criminal vandal troll. I am trying to resurrect it. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota           Date: 11 May 2006 09:09:31 From: Joshua Putnam Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names In article <ldSdnTlvy8cWwP7ZRVn-og@giganews.com >, dontspam-kencmjr- spamblock@netzero.net says... > And whats up with all the cross posters? I have noticed much more of > these than before. Must be the time of year. Or maybe the phases of the > moon. It's time for another overflow of Mike Vandespam trolling and responses. To be followed by lots of people complaining that the responses to his bigoted screeds consume far more bandwidth than his rants themselves. sic semper rec.bicycles.* -- josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/ > Updated Infrared Photography Gallery: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html >           Date: 11 May 2006 11:06:53 From: Thomas Lee Elifritz Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names Ken C. M. wrote: > And whats up with all the cross posters? I have noticed much more of > these than before. Must be the time of year. Or maybe the phases of the > moon. Or there could be some reasonable and rational explanation, like someone physically typing in multiple newsgroups into the newsgroup post header. But that would be science, and not religious dogma or superstition, and thus unacceptable to most true American patriots.             Date: 11 May 2006 16:05:33 From: Eugene Miya Subject: NGM was: Real Names vs. User Names In article <1jJ8g.157$Fa5.90@fe02.lga >, Thomas Lee Elifritz <cosmic@lifeform.org > wrote: >Ken C. M. wrote: >> And whats up with all the cross posters? I have noticed much more of >> these than before. Must be the time of year. Or maybe the phases of the >> moon. > >Or there could be some reasonable and rational explanation, like someone >physically typing in multiple newsgroups into the newsgroup post header. > >But that would be science, and not religious dogma or superstition, and >thus unacceptable to most true American patriots. Laziness. Pure and simple. Get into the habit of trimming both headers and article body as topics drift. And threads can diminish. --               Date: 14 May 2006 03:10:51 From: Werehatrack Subject: Re: NGM was: Real Names vs. User Names NGM? WTF? Haven't seen that abbr before. -- Typoes are a feature, not a bug. Some gardening required to reply via email. Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.                 Date: 14 May 2006 00:47:24 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM was: Real Names vs. User Names "Werehatrack" <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net > wrote in message news:7s7d62hc5k4opj1ucn3rjaic3n4ea5b4ml@4ax.com... > NGM? WTF? Haven't seen that abbr before. I hate all these freaking abbreviations (including abbr). Who knows what they mean? For Christ's sake, write it out! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota               Date: 11 May 2006 22:25:53 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM was: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:4463c33d$1@darkstar... > In article <1jJ8g.157$Fa5.90@fe02.lga>, > Thomas Lee Elifritz <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote: >>Ken C. M. wrote: >>> And whats up with all the cross posters? I have noticed much more of >>> these than before. Must be the time of year. Or maybe the phases of the >>> moon. >> >>Or there could be some reasonable and rational explanation, like someone >>physically typing in multiple newsgroups into the newsgroup post header. >> >>But that would be science, and not religious dogma or superstition, and >>thus unacceptable to most true American patriots. > > Laziness. > Pure and simple. > > > Get into the habit of trimming both headers and article body as topics > drift. And threads can diminish. But why do you want threads to diminish? Small newsgroups are in perpetual danger of being destroyed by criminal vandal trolls. The more threads, the less likely that is to happen. Please note that my original post applies to ALL newsgroups in equal measure. I would not mind if more on Usenet want to post to ARBR. A really large group like RBM does not need any more members, but that is not true of most Usenet newsgroups. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                 Date: 12 May 2006 15:51:21 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names >> Laziness. >> Pure and simple. >> Get into the habit of trimming both headers and article body as topics >> drift. And threads can diminish. In article <boKdnaFRlKXanfnZRVn-hA@prairiewave.com >, Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >But why do you want threads to diminish? Small newsgroups are in perpetual >danger of being destroyed by criminal vandal trolls. The more threads, the >less likely that is to happen. How much money do you have? Unless you are one of the archives, storage costs money which isn't spread across all ISPs. This is why alt.groups are admined optionally. So your deduction of more threads is wrong. Courts are required to get criminals declared. And that's just the US. Don't cloud the issue. >Please note that my original post applies to ALL newsgroups in equal >measure. I would not mind if more on Usenet want to post to ARBR. A really >large group like RBM does not need any more members, but that is not true of >most Usenet newsgroups. A groups and R groups are admined differently. --                   Date: 13 May 2006 21:39:31 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:44651169@darkstar... >>> Laziness. >>> Pure and simple. >>> Get into the habit of trimming both headers and article body as topics >>> drift. And threads can diminish. > > In article <boKdnaFRlKXanfnZRVn-hA@prairiewave.com>, > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>But why do you want threads to diminish? Small newsgroups are in perpetual >>danger of being destroyed by criminal vandal trolls. The more threads, the >>less likely that is to happen. > > How much money do you have? > Unless you are one of the archives, storage costs money which isn't > spread across all ISPs. This is why alt.groups are admined optionally. > So your deduction of more threads is wrong. It is my impression that text only documents take up hardly any space at all. > Courts are required to get criminals declared. And that's just the US. > Don't cloud the issue. > >>Please note that my original post applies to ALL newsgroups in equal >>measure. I would not mind if more on Usenet want to post to ARBR. A >>really >>large group like RBM does not need any more members, but that is not true >>of >>most Usenet newsgroups. > > A groups and R groups are admined differently. What is an A group (alternate?) and what is an R group (recreation?)? How do they differ from one another? What is "admined"? I am using the OE newsreader. How does what you say impact on that? Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                     Date: 15 May 2006 09:39:56 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names >> So your deduction of more threads is wrong. In article <RvmdnTPKrKTwBfvZRVn-tw@prairiewave.com >, Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >It is my impression that text only documents take up hardly any space at >all. This is true only in context. >> A groups and R groups are admined differently. > >What is an A group (alternate?) and what is an R group (recreation?)? You got those right. > How do they differ from one another? The alt.* hierarchy of groups were set up by John Gilmore (chanced to see him on Friday evening) as a more loosely administered set of news groups than the more main stream big-7/8. Admining by hierarchy is easier than individual group (although this is done in a few cases). If an ISP does not want to carry the alt.* groups or expire articles at a shorter frequency that is possible. Cross posting between hierarchies means that software has to decide whether big-8 or alt.* expiration policies hold. Most take a conservative approach and keep the big-8 groups longer. This is also why full feeds between ISPs are highly coveted. >What is "admined"? I am using the OE Short for administered. >newsreader. How does what you say impact on that? Reader clients like OE are only a problem for posting or reading users. Like bad dogs and children, in the wrong hands, they are problems. --                       Date: 15 May 2006 22:07:41 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:4468aedc$1@darkstar... Alt. newsgroup restored. >>> So your deduction of more threads is wrong. > > In article <RvmdnTPKrKTwBfvZRVn-tw@prairiewave.com>, > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>It is my impression that text only documents take up hardly any space at >>all. > > This is true only in context. > >>> A groups and R groups are admined differently. >> >>What is an A group (alternate?) and what is an R group (recreation?)? > > You got those right. > >> How do they differ from one another? > > The alt.* hierarchy of groups were set up by John Gilmore (chanced to > see him on Friday evening) as a more loosely administered set of news > groups than the more main stream big-7/8. Admining by hierarchy is > easier than individual group (although this is done in a few cases). > > If an ISP does not want to carry the alt.* groups or expire articles at > a shorter frequency that is possible. > > Cross posting between hierarchies means that software has to decide > whether big-8 or alt.* expiration policies hold. Most take a > conservative approach and keep the big-8 groups longer. > > This is also why full feeds between ISPs are highly coveted. > >>What is "admined"? I am using the OE > Short for administered. >>newsreader. How does what you say impact on that? > > Reader clients like OE are only a problem for posting or reading users. > Like bad dogs and children, in the wrong hands, they are problems. Thanks for all the useful information. I never knew any of that. What I know about computers and the Internet you could put in a thimble with room to spare. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                         Date: 16 May 2006 16:49:28 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names In article <L8ydnRlWodVj3PTZRVn-qg@prairiewave.com >, Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >Alt. newsgroup restored. What ever. >>>What is "admined"? I am using the OE >> Short for administered. >>>newsreader. How does what you say impact on that? >> >> Reader clients like OE are only a problem for posting or reading users. >> Like bad dogs and children, in the wrong hands, they are problems. > >Thanks for all the useful information. I never knew any of that. What I know >about computers and the Internet you could put in a thimble with room to >spare. And you are proud of that? Learn some stuff about the net. Get over into other groups and web sites. Do something more than posting an opinion or lurking. --                           Date: 17 May 2006 02:20:50 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:446a6508$1@darkstar... > In article <L8ydnRlWodVj3PTZRVn-qg@prairiewave.com>, > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>Alt. newsgroup restored. > > What ever. Why do you keep horsing around editing the newsgroups? >>>>What is "admined"? I am using the OE >>> Short for administered. >>>>newsreader. How does what you say impact on that? >>> >>> Reader clients like OE are only a problem for posting or reading users. >>> Like bad dogs and children, in the wrong hands, they are problems. >> >>Thanks for all the useful information. I never knew any of that. What I >>know >>about computers and the Internet you could put in a thimble with room to >>spare. > > And you are proud of that? > > Learn some stuff about the net. Get over into other groups and web sites. > Do something more than posting an opinion or lurking. I do not give a damn about computers, the Internet and most especially newsgroups, other than having some fun with all three. I do not do much lurking anymore since I have discovered that all newsgroups are by and for idiots, without any exceptions whatsoever. How could it be otherwise when the groups are not moderated. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                             Date: 17 May 2006 13:33:05 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names In article <9-CdnRAfv-lIU_fZnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@prairiewave.com >, Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >Why do you keep horsing around editing the newsgroups? Because that's why we implemented the Followup-To: line in headers. You can similarly ask you you don't? You can similarly ask why you attribute an entire article than the relevant bits (a subject decision). The usual argument is for full context. That's silly in the extreme case of "Me, too" posts. It's a job. >I do not give a damn about computers, the Internet and most especially >newsgroups, other than having some fun with all three. I do not do much Then what are you doing here? >lurking anymore since I have discovered that all newsgroups are by and for >idiots, without any exceptions whatsoever. How could it be otherwise when like yourself? >the groups are not moderated. The same question is asked not only of news groups but blogs, Wikis, and other internet protocols. 1) People are lazy, even vandals. 2) The number of non-vandals appears to exceed vandals. 3) Some lazy people are lazy in different ways. I could go on. If you don't really give a damn, and I know many people who don't, you are really wasting your time here. --                               Date: 17 May 2006 22:49:23 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:446b8881$1@darkstar... > In article <9-CdnRAfv-lIU_fZnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>Why do you keep horsing around editing the newsgroups? > > Because that's why we implemented the Followup-To: line in headers. I do not see any follow-ups on my newsreader. But in any event, fool around with your own original messages. I do not like others fooling around with my original messages. All you are really doing is screwing up the thread for many on other newsgroups. No one will go to another group to read a follow-up. > You can similarly ask you you don't? Eugene, there is something wrong with the way your brain works. The above sentence does not make any sense to me. It is grammatically a mess. > You can similarly ask why you attribute an entire article than the > relevant bits (a subject decision). The usual argument is for full > context. > That's silly in the extreme case of "Me, too" posts. I agree, but I do not like those who edit a post to make themselves look good at the expense of the other person. Way too many do that. It shows they do not have any confidence in their ability to handle a complete message. > It's a job. I do not think you would be a good moderator at all because there is something wrong with way your brain works. >>I do not give a damn about computers, the Internet and most especially >>newsgroups, other than having some fun with all three. I do not do much > Then what are you doing here? >>lurking anymore since I have discovered that all newsgroups are by and for >>idiots, without any exceptions whatsoever. How could it be otherwise when > like yourself? >>the groups are not moderated. Your freaking comments should have followed my complete statement. God, what a dunce! You are not only dumb, but you are incurably lazy. > The same question is asked not only of news groups but blogs, Wikis, and > other internet protocols. > 1) People are lazy, even vandals. 2) The number of non-vandals appears > to exceed vandals. 3) Some lazy people are lazy in different ways. > I could go on. Just quit taking shortcuts with me. I expect you to be literate at all times, even though you are a scientist. > If you don't really give a damn, and I know many people who don't, > you are really wasting your time here. YES! Of course I am wasting my time! And you aren't? Anyone who is posting to Usenet is wasting his time. I do it for the fun and games. Why the hell do you do it? Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                                 Date: 18 May 2006 20:54:23 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names In article <f6mdnYIOOfNVc_bZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@prairiewave.com >, Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >>>Why do you keep horsing around editing the newsgroups? Testing reality. >> Followup-To: > >I do not see any follow-ups on my newsreader. But in any event, fool around A less than full functionr reader. >with your own original messages. I do not like others fooling around with my >original messages. All you are really doing is screwing up the thread for >many on other newsgroups. No one will go to another group to read a >follow-up. On the contrary millions other than yourself do. >> You can similarly ask you don't? > >Eugene, there is something wrong with the way your brain works. The above >sentence does not make any sense to me. It is grammatically a mess. Think typos. Not the greatest SAT score. >> That's silly in the extreme case of "Me, too" posts. > >I agree, but I do not like those who edit a post to make themselves look >good at the expense of the other person. Way too many do that. It shows they >do not have any confidence in their ability to handle a complete message. A complete message has little to do with the appearance of intellect. This isn't a matter of looking good. >> It's a job. > >I do not think you would be a good moderator at all because there is >something wrong with way your brain works. That's not my problem. While poseurs have complained about my moderation, 3 prior moderators and a slew of others support me. It's a variation of Moose turd pie or the little chicken baking bread and others wanting slices. >>>I do not give a damn about computers, the Internet and most especially .. >> Then what are you doing here? > >Your freaking comments should have followed my complete statement. God, what >a dunce! You are not only dumb, but you are incurably lazy. Lazy in a different kind of lazy as the average person as well documented. >Just quit taking shortcuts with me. I expect you to be literate at all >times, even though you are a scientist. Literate like Minniver Cheevey? I find that most scientists more literate in the right areas than most non-scientists. >YES! Of course I am wasting my time! And you aren't? It's a job. >Anyone who is posting to Usenet is wasting his time. I do it for the fun and >games. Why the hell do you do it? Professional uses of the internet. We locate talented users of the net. > the Great - Minnesota seemingly less than. >Saint Still unconvinced. Are you under the influence? --                                   Date: 18 May 2006 23:46:24 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:446d416f$1@darkstar... > In article <f6mdnYIOOfNVc_bZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>>>Why do you keep horsing around editing the newsgroups? > > Testing reality. > >>> Followup-To: >> >>I do not see any follow-ups on my newsreader. But in any event, fool >>around > A less than full functionr reader. >>with your own original messages. I do not like others fooling around with >>my >>original messages. All you are really doing is screwing up the thread for >>many on other newsgroups. No one will go to another group to read a >>follow-up. > > On the contrary millions other than yourself do. Have you ever seriously considered the idea that you might be insane? >>> You can similarly ask you don't? >> >>Eugene, there is something wrong with the way your brain works. The above >>sentence does not make any sense to me. It is grammatically a mess. > > Think typos. Not the greatest SAT score. Everyone make typos, but if you are making too many of them, then you are a slob who has no consideration for the reader. >>> That's silly in the extreme case of "Me, too" posts. >> >>I agree, but I do not like those who edit a post to make themselves look >>good at the expense of the other person. Way too many do that. It shows >>they >>do not have any confidence in their ability to handle a complete message. > > A complete message has little to do with the appearance of intellect. > This isn't a matter of looking good. Looking good is what it is all about. You obviously have never been saddled with a liberal arts education. I envy scientists who think they are educated because they have pursued nothing but science. Try to get some culture, why don't you? >>> It's a job. >> >>I do not think you would be a good moderator at all because there is >>something wrong with way your brain works. > > That's not my problem. While poseurs have complained about my > moderation, 3 prior moderators and a slew of others support me. > It's a variation of Moose turd pie or the little chicken baking bread > and others wanting slices. Yes, I realize it is most likely a thankless job. How would you ever be able to please me for instance? Perish the thought! >>>>I do not give a damn about computers, the Internet and most especially > .. >>> Then what are you doing here? >> >>Your freaking comments should have followed my complete statement. God, >>what >>a dunce! You are not only dumb, but you are incurably lazy. > > Lazy in a different kind of lazy as the average person as well documented. > >>Just quit taking shortcuts with me. I expect you to be literate at all >>times, even though you are a scientist. > > Literate like Minniver Cheevey? > I find that most scientists more literate in the right areas than most > non-scientists. I find it just the opposite. Scientists seem like the original dummies to me, besides being the ultimate dullards. It all comes from their lack of a liberal arts education. >>YES! Of course I am wasting my time! And you aren't? > > It's a job. How is it your job to be posting to these freaking cycling newsgroups? >>Anyone who is posting to Usenet is wasting his time. I do it for the fun >>and >>games. Why the hell do you do it? > > Professional uses of the internet. > We locate talented users of the net. So what the hell do these freaking newsgroups have to do with the Internet? And why would you want anyone with any brains on the Internet anyway? Yes, the computer and the Internet were invented by some very st people, but it is for dummies like you and me and all the rest of mankind. That is ever the way of it. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                                     Date: 19 May 2006 14:46:33 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names >> Testing reality. In article <AeidnT_Vod470PDZRVn-gw@prairiewave.com >, Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >Have you ever seriously considered the idea that you might be insane? McLuhan, Gutenberg Galaxy: 32 Schizophrenia may be a necessary consequence of literacy. >Everyone make typos, but if you are making too many of them, then you are a >slob who has no consideration for the reader. Maybe so. >Looking good is what it is all about. You obviously have never been saddled >with a liberal arts education. I envy scientists who think they are educated >because they have pursued nothing but science. Try to get some culture, why >don't you? Praised the humanities, my boy. That'll make them think you're broadminded! W. Churchill to R. V. Jones [Alan Turing's boss] Are you going to accelerate your process of offing yourself? >>>> It's a job. >>>moderator > >Yes, I realize it is most likely a thankless job. How would you ever be able >to please me for instance? Perish the thought! You aren't the audience. I know the audience. This is why a publishing industry exists. We're not here to please you. >>>>>I do not give a damn about computers, the Internet and most especially >>>> Then what are you doing here? >> Minniver Cheevey > >I find it just the opposite. Scientists seem like the original dummies to >me, besides being the ultimate dullards. It all comes from their lack of a >liberal arts education. Praised the humanities, my boy. That'll make them think you're broadminded! W. Churchill to R. V. Jones [Alan Turing's boss] >>>YES! Of course I am wasting my time! And you aren't? > >How is it your job to be posting to these freaking cycling newsgroups? I'm not posting from the cycling groups. You can have the cycling groups and they can have you. >>>Anyone who is posting to Usenet is wasting his time. I do it for the fun >>>and games. Why the hell do you do it? >> Professional uses of the internet. >> We locate talented users of the net. > >So what the hell do these freaking newsgroups have to do with the Internet? >And why would you want anyone with any brains on the Internet anyway? Yes, >the computer and the Internet were invented by some very st people, but >it is for dummies like you and me and all the rest of mankind. That is ever >the way of it. Well first, off when I was a student I heard of those st people (they are st, but not quite as st as the stest people I know, all are flawed of course). Now I work with and for those people. So you may think I'm dumb, and certain other parts can think that as well, but the reality is that we invite and select people from various source. What do you think the Internet is to news groups? It's the transport mechanism. And we locate talented individuals for purposes of review. But I see nothing to invite you. You honestly admit to knowing nothing about the Internet and computers. And this is a computer network. If you want the humanities, I suggest spending your time with the st people over in the humanties.* hierarchy. Not many because they have not figured out moderation, but you can troll for them when you are sober. >less than Great --                                       Date: 21 May 2006 01:42:35 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:446e3cb9@darkstar... >>> Testing reality. > > In article <AeidnT_Vod470PDZRVn-gw@prairiewave.com>, > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>Have you ever seriously considered the idea that you might be insane? > > McLuhan, Gutenberg Galaxy: > 32 Schizophrenia may be a necessary consequence of literacy. The medium is NOT the message. The message is the message. Only a fool scientist would think otherwise. >>Everyone make typos, but if you are making too many of them, then you are >>a >>slob who has no consideration for the reader. > > Maybe so. > >>Looking good is what it is all about. You obviously have never been >>saddled >>with a liberal arts education. I envy scientists who think they are >>educated >>because they have pursued nothing but science. Try to get some culture, >>why >>don't you? > > Praised the humanities, my boy. That'll make them think you're > broadminded! > W. Churchill to R. V. Jones [Alan Turing's boss] The best professors I ever had in college were teachers of the humanities. The worst professors I ever had in college were teachers of the sciences. I wonder why that was? > Are you going to accelerate your process of offing yourself? No, I will let nature takes its' course. After all, when you are dead, you are dead for all eternity. "Once I wasn't, Then I was, Now I ain't again." - Epitaph found on tombstone in Ohio graveyard >>>>> It's a job. >>>>moderator >> >>Yes, I realize it is most likely a thankless job. How would you ever be >>able >>to please me for instance? Perish the thought! > > You aren't the audience. > I know the audience. > This is why a publishing industry exists. > We're not here to please you. Believe it or not, I am your audience. That is no doubt why you have been such a miserable failure. But don't feel bad about it. Everyone is a miserable failure in my book. I think there is something called the Peter Principal at work to explain this phenomenon. >>>>>>I do not give a damn about computers, the Internet and most especially >>>>> Then what are you doing here? >>> Minniver Cheevey >> >>I find it just the opposite. Scientists seem like the original dummies to >>me, besides being the ultimate dullards. It all comes from their lack of a >>liberal arts education. > > Praised the humanities, my boy. That'll make them think you're > broadminded! > W. Churchill to R. V. Jones [Alan Turing's boss] "The best professors I ever had in college were teachers of the humanities. The worst professors I ever had in college were teachers of the sciences. I wonder why that was?" - Ed Dolan >>>>YES! Of course I am wasting my time! And you aren't? >> >>How is it your job to be posting to these freaking cycling newsgroups? > > I'm not posting from the cycling groups. > You can have the cycling groups and they can have you. We need to know your home group so I can let them know what a fool you are. But I suspect they already know it. >>>>Anyone who is posting to Usenet is wasting his time. I do it for the fun >>>>and games. Why the hell do you do it? >>> Professional uses of the internet. >>> We locate talented users of the net. >> >>So what the hell do these freaking newsgroups have to do with the >>Internet? >>And why would you want anyone with any brains on the Internet anyway? Yes, >>the computer and the Internet were invented by some very st people, but >>it is for dummies like you and me and all the rest of mankind. That is >>ever >>the way of it. > > Well first, off when I was a student I heard of those st people (they > are st, but not quite as st as the stest people I know, all are > flawed of course). Now I work with and for those people. So you may > think I'm dumb, and certain other parts can think that as well, but the > reality is that we invite and select people from various source. > What do you think the Internet is to news groups? It's the transport > mechanism. And we locate talented individuals for purposes of review. > But I see nothing to invite you. You honestly admit to knowing nothing > about > the Internet and computers. And this is a computer network. Here we have an excellent illustration of the blind leading the blind. I would not be caught dead working around freaking computers. They are strictly for fun and games. As long as I can have some fun I will stick around for a bit, but to devote your life to this kind of nonsense ks you as the ultimate fool. I still can't figure out what your job and your work is - and how it relates to newsgroups? What the f*** are you reviewing? > If you want the humanities, I suggest spending your time with the st > people over in the humanties.* hierarchy. Not many because they have > not figured out moderation, but you can troll for them when you are sober. I will stick with my cycling newsgroups, thank you very much, as there is no sense at all in seeking out anything more elevated than that. The libraries of the world are full of tomes well written by great men which I can read whenever I want. Why on earth would I bother with the idiots of Usenet - no matter the subject? Have you seriously considered the possibility that you might be insane, besides being just stupid of course. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota "Time spent with cats is never wasted." - Sigmund Freud                             Date: 17 May 2006 09:27:33 From: Mike Romain Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names Edward Dolan wrote: > > I do not do much > lurking anymore since I have discovered that all newsgroups are by and for > idiots, without any exceptions whatsoever. LOL! I see you fit right in eh. Mike                               Date: 17 May 2006 09:41:32 From: Ed Huesers Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names > Edward Dolan wrote: >> I have discovered that all newsgroups are by and for >> idiots, without any exceptions whatsoever. Mike Romain wrote: > I see you fit right in eh. He didn't stutter none eh. Ed Huesers http://www.grandshelters.com                                 Date: 17 May 2006 14:03:30 From: pmhilton Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names Ed Huesers wrote: >> Edward Dolan wrote: >> >>> I have discovered that all newsgroups are by and for >>> idiots, without any exceptions whatsoever. >> > > Mike Romain wrote: > >> I see you fit right in eh. > > > He didn't stutter none eh. > > Ed Huesers > http://www.grandshelters.com So we're all overhomers here, eh? Pete H                                   Date: 17 May 2006 11:27:12 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names In article <446B6572.90804@mfx.net >, pmhilton <pmhilton@mfx.net> wrote: >Ed Huesers wrote: >>> Edward Dolan wrote: >>>> I have discovered that all newsgroups are by and for >>>> idiots, without any exceptions whatsoever. >> >> Mike Romain wrote: >>> I see you fit right in eh. >> >> He didn't stutter none eh. >> Ed Huesers > >So we're all overhomers here, eh? Next we will teach you how to say 'B'. Say it "Bee." --                                     Date: 17 May 2006 17:37:42 From: pmhilton Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names Eugene Miya wrote: > In article <446B6572.90804@mfx.net>, pmhilton <pmhilton@mfx.net> wrote: > >>Ed Huesers wrote: >> >>>>Edward Dolan wrote: >>>> >>>>>I have discovered that all newsgroups are by and for >>>>>idiots, without any exceptions whatsoever. >>>> >>>Mike Romain wrote: >>> >>>>I see you fit right in eh. >>> >>> He didn't stutter none eh. >>> Ed Huesers >> >>So we're all overhomers here, eh? > > > Next we will teach you how to say 'B'. > > Say it "Bee." > I thought we were going to learn our next word in Turkish. PH                                       Date: 17 May 2006 22:50:42 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:37:42 -0400, pmhilton <pmhilton@mfx.net > wrote: >Eugene Miya wrote: >> In article <446B6572.90804@mfx.net>, pmhilton <pmhilton@mfx.net> wrote: >> >>>Ed Huesers wrote: >>> >>>>>Edward Dolan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I have discovered that all newsgroups are by and for >>>>>>idiots, without any exceptions whatsoever. >>>>> >>>>Mike Romain wrote: >>>> >>>>>I see you fit right in eh. >>>> >>>> He didn't stutter none eh. >>>> Ed Huesers >>> >>>So we're all overhomers here, eh? >> >> >> Next we will teach you how to say 'B'. >> >> Say it "Bee." >> > >I thought we were going to learn our next word in Turkish. > >PH Towel. May I see your passport, please? Indiana Mike                                         Date: 17 May 2006 19:47:57 From: pmhilton Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names Mike Rice wrote: >> >>I thought we were going to learn our next word in Turkish. >> >>PH > > > Towel. > > May I see your passport, please? > > Indiana Mike > Yes, I have it right here. (recent & previous 2 (expired)) What happened to the lights? You're with us, come with me. "Everyone should know where his towel is...." Pete H aka The Bad Bozo                         Date: 16 May 2006 11:41:51 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota What's all this "Great" business? And why "aka" as the the Perpetual Sorrows? Am I missing something here?                           Date: 17 May 2006 02:33:04 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote in message news:87y7x2xq5c.fsf@news.europe.ch... > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > >> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >> aka >> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > > > What's all this "Great" business? And why "aka" as the the Perpetual > Sorrows? Am I missing something here? My signature developed over time mostly as a result of how I viewed others' signatures, especially one idiot who goes by the name of Peter Clinch from Scotland. He absolutely has the dumbest signature I have ever encountered. But my signature is also a clue as to how I view others on the newsgroups. I am Great and they are not and I am Saintly and they are not. Anyone who is not in a state of perpetual sorrow at the miserable kind of world we are living in is beyond the pale. Earth ... abandon all hope ye who enter here! There, now you are not missing anything anymore! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                             Date: 17 May 2006 13:39:14 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names In article <x6WdnWVwy9YuTPfZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@prairiewave.com >, Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >"Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:87y7x2xq5c.fsf@news.europe.ch... >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: >>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >>> aka >>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >> >> What's all this "Great" business? And why "aka" as the the Perpetual >> Sorrows? Am I missing something here? > >My signature developed over time mostly as a result of how I viewed others' >signatures, especially one idiot who goes by the name of Peter Clinch from >Scotland. He absolutely has the dumbest signature I have ever encountered. I like Peter's posting. Chalk one minus point. Signatures here developed due to early network unreliabilities. Done well they can be very powerful; knowing this from personal experience. >But my signature is also a clue as to how I view others on the newsgroups. I >am Great and they are not and I am Saintly and they are not. Anyone who is >not in a state of perpetual sorrow at the miserable kind of world we are >living in is beyond the pale. Earth ... abandon all hope ye who enter here! >There, now you are not missing anything anymore! I've seen no greatness nor saintliness. You could be. I have been somewhat lucky/fortunate to have encountered a few pretty good brains of our age. I will wait over time for you to demonstrate it. The greatest people on the net that I know tend to have a minimum of 2 secretaries (I have 0), and they don't have time to post. Some did decades ago when they were grad students or asst. profs. or other lower position. They have people read for them if and where it matters. --                               Date: 17 May 2006 22:26:23 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:446b89f2$1@darkstar... > In article <x6WdnWVwy9YuTPfZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>"Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:87y7x2xq5c.fsf@news.europe.ch... >>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: >>>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >>>> aka >>>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >>> >>> What's all this "Great" business? And why "aka" as the the Perpetual >>> Sorrows? Am I missing something here? >> >>My signature developed over time mostly as a result of how I viewed >>others' >>signatures, especially one idiot who goes by the name of Peter Clinch from >>Scotland. He absolutely has the dumbest signature I have ever encountered. > > I like Peter's posting. > Chalk one minus point. > > Signatures here developed due to early network unreliabilities. > > Done well they can be very powerful; knowing this from personal > experience. His signature might be appropriate if he were involved in business transactions or his own blog on a website, but on newsgroups related to cycling it has no place at all. He is a jerk plain and simple. No one else does his kind of signature. By the way, why don't you have some kind of signature? False modesty is a hundred times worse than false arrogance. >>But my signature is also a clue as to how I view others on the newsgroups. >>I >>am Great and they are not and I am Saintly and they are not. Anyone who >>is >>not in a state of perpetual sorrow at the miserable kind of world we are >>living in is beyond the pale. Earth ... abandon all hope ye who enter >>here! >>There, now you are not missing anything anymore! > > I've seen no greatness nor saintliness. You could be. > I have been somewhat lucky/fortunate to have encountered a few pretty > good brains of our age. I will wait over time for you to demonstrate it. There are no brains on Usenet. You are a dope for thinking that there are. > The greatest people on the net that I know tend to have a minimum of 2 > secretaries (I have 0), and they don't have time to post. Some did > decades ago when they were grad students or asst. profs. or other lower > position. They have people read for them if and where it matters. I do not have the foggiest idea what Usenet was like ages ago. All I know now is that it is for idiots exclusively. What do secretaries have to do with anything. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                                 Date: 18 May 2006 20:44:46 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names In article <7_SdnfkOY8_5dPbZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@prairiewave.com >, Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >>>signatures, especially one idiot who goes by the name of Peter >> Chalk one minus point. > >His signature might be appropriate if he were involved in business >transactions or his own blog on a website, but on newsgroups related to >cycling it has no place at all. He is a jerk plain and simple. No one else >does his kind of signature. By the way, why don't you have some kind of >signature? False modesty is a hundred times worse than false arrogance. Tens times maybe, doubt 100. I have used signatures. I have accomplished amazing things trolling with sigs. Lots of people have signatures like Peter. He's far less a jerk than you are pushing your points. If you want to hold him to cycling, you have to hold yourself to the same if not better standard. Chalk another minus point. >>>But my signature is also a clue as to how I view others on the newsgroups. >>>I am Great and they are not and I am Saintly and they are not. >> >> I've seen no greatness nor saintliness > >There are no brains on Usenet. You are a dope for thinking that there are. Oh I would disagree with the first. And you are being dopey for not seeing the brains out there. Pretty dumb hanging with other dopey people, eh? >I do not have the foggiest idea what Usenet was like ages ago. All I know Well, I do. >now is that it is for idiots exclusively. Such as yourself? >What do secretaries have to do with anything. Greatness. --                                   Date: 18 May 2006 23:19:05 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:446d3f2e$1@darkstar... [newsgroups restored] > In article <7_SdnfkOY8_5dPbZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>>>signatures, especially one idiot who goes by the name of Peter >>> Chalk one minus point. >> >>His signature might be appropriate if he were involved in business >>transactions or his own blog on a website, but on newsgroups related to >>cycling it has no place at all. He is a jerk plain and simple. No one else >>does his kind of signature. By the way, why don't you have some kind of >>signature? False modesty is a hundred times worse than false arrogance. > > Tens times maybe, doubt 100. I have used signatures. I have > accomplished amazing things trolling with sigs. Lots of people have > signatures like Peter. He's far less a jerk than you are pushing your > points. If you want to hold him to cycling, you have to hold yourself > to the same if not better standard. > > Chalk another minus point. Peter Clinch is a jerk because he takes newsgroups seriously. That is why his confounded signature never fails to piss me off. I do not take newsgroups seriously (as my every post attests) so I can have any kind of signature which pleases my fancy. In fact, my signature is so outrageous that only a numskull like you would take it seriously. I am thinking of upping the ante on my signature to make it even more outrageous than it already is. Why the hell should a jerk like Peter Clinch have a a longer signature than someone so Great as Myself! Chalk up major minus points for Eugene Miya. >>>>But my signature is also a clue as to how I view others on the >>>>newsgroups. >>>>I am Great and they are not and I am Saintly and they are not. >>> >>> I've seen no greatness nor saintliness >> >>There are no brains on Usenet. You are a dope for thinking that there are. > > Oh I would disagree with the first. And you are being dopey for not > seeing the brains out there. Pretty dumb hanging with other dopey > people, eh? I hang out here for amusement only. How many times do I have to tell you this before it sinks in. >>I do not have the foggiest idea what Usenet was like ages ago. All I know > Well, I do. >>now is that it is for idiots exclusively. > > Such as yourself? Glad to see you are finally getting with the program. I will keep reminding you just how stupid you are lest you forget. >>What do secretaries have to do with anything. > > Greatness. I have never known a secretary in my life who was not as dumb as an ox. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                                     Date: 19 May 2006 14:31:04 From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names In article <utmdnYD-2Pvd2vDZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@prairiewave.com >, Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >>>>>signatures, especially one idiot who goes by the name of Peter >Peter Clinch is a jerk because he takes newsgroups seriously. That is why >his confounded signature never fails to piss me off. I do not take >newsgroups seriously (as my every post attests) so I can have any kind of >signature which pleases my fancy. In fact, my signature is so outrageous >that only a numskull like you would take it seriously. Why what make you think that I take you seriously? >I am thinking of upping the ante on my signature to make it even more >outrageous than it already is. Why the hell should a jerk like Peter Clinch >have a a longer signature than someone so Great as Myself! He's more useful than you. He gets his role. >Chalk up major minus points for Eugene Miya. 8^) >>>> no greatness nor saintliness > >I hang out here for amusement only. How many times do I have to tell you >this before it sinks in. The greater fool: The fool or the fool who follows the fool? >>>I do not have the foggiest idea what Usenet was like ages ago. >>>for idiots exclusively. >> Such as yourself? > >Glad to see you are finally getting with the program. I will keep reminding >you just how stupid you are lest you forget. And how much and what are you drinking? >I have never known a secretary in my life who was not as dumb as an ox. That's your sample. >less than Great --                                       Date: 21 May 2006 01:09:37 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu > wrote in message news:446e3918$1@darkstar... > In article <utmdnYD-2Pvd2vDZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>>>>>signatures, especially one idiot who goes by the name of Peter >>Peter Clinch is a jerk because he takes newsgroups seriously. That is why >>his confounded signature never fails to piss me off. I do not take >>newsgroups seriously (as my every post attests) so I can have any kind of >>signature which pleases my fancy. In fact, my signature is so outrageous >>that only a numskull like you would take it seriously. > > Why what make you think that I take you seriously? It is immaterial whether you take me seriously or not, but you take newsgroups seriously. This is a major error on your part and ks you as a numskull. If you truly had any real education you would realize that newsgroups are for idiots, morons and imbeciles. It is only the high school educated crowd who think newsgroups are cool. >>I am thinking of upping the ante on my signature to make it even more >>outrageous than it already is. Why the hell should a jerk like Peter >>Clinch >>have a a longer signature than someone so Great as Myself! > > He's more useful than you. > He gets his role. I am not here to be useful, but to put idiots like you in your place. >>Chalk up major minus points for Eugene Miya. > > 8^) > >>>>> no greatness nor saintliness >> >>I hang out here for amusement only. How many times do I have to tell you >>this before it sinks in. > > The greater fool: The fool or the fool who follows the fool? If you weren't so dumb, you would be amused by my foolishness too. It takes wit to recognize it in others. But you are a plodder, just like Jon Meinecke. You two must be soul mates as you are both such dullards. >>>>I do not have the foggiest idea what Usenet was like ages ago. >>>>for idiots exclusively. >>> Such as yourself? >> >>Glad to see you are finally getting with the program. I will keep >>reminding >>you just how stupid you are lest you forget. > > And how much and what are you drinking? > > >>I have never known a secretary in my life who was not as dumb as an ox. > > That's your sample. Even a st secretary is dumb. Otherwise she would not be doing what she is doing. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota "Time spent with cats is never wasted." - Sigmund Freud PS. By the way, what is your home newsgroup? I know it is not any of these cycling groups.             Date: 11 May 2006 13:03:39 From: Ken C. M. Subject: Re: Real Names vs. User Names Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: > Ken C. M. wrote: > >> And whats up with all the cross posters? I have noticed much more of >> these than before. Must be the time of year. Or maybe the phases of >> the moon. > > > Or there could be some reasonable and rational explanation, like someone > physically typing in multiple newsgroups into the newsgroup post header. > > But that would be science, and not religious dogma or superstition, and > thus unacceptable to most true American patriots. But then why would someone post such off topic subjects in irrelevant news groups? Probably just to give them something to do in their empty lives. I'm out of here. Ken -- New cycling jersey: $49 new cycling shorts: $39 Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.               Date: 12 May 2006 16:18:39 From: Eugene Miya Subject: NGM ws: Real Names vs. User Names >>> And whats up with all the cross posters? In article <1rOdnVqgkOHz8_7ZRVn-jQ@giganews.com >, Ken C. M. <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net > wrote: >But then why would someone post such off topic subjects in irrelevant >news groups? Usenet software expects adult posters to interpret to understand content does not have to equal the group/file system hierarchy. Posters are left to their own devices except in the case of moderated news groups. >Probably just to give them something to do in their empty lives. It's a job. I'm outta here. --