| Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:raiam21vavh529nn4nkhhl317jokocvcp9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:48:52 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>news:idu8m217c346kdtmpr9olrja16qggr7cpf@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:12:23 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>Your choice not to acknowledge the several valid answers to this
>>>>question
>>>>over the years
>>>
>>> Show me even ONE valid answer. Since you CAN'T and DON'T, that proves
>>> my point.
>>Your choice to split context and ignore the complete text (below) proves
>>my
>>point to everyone except you. That is all the proof I need as off-road
>>cycling makes progress within the entire community and your voice has been
>>dropped by the wayside.
>>>
>>> continues to leave you in a corner of your own making. Beyond
>>>>that, you have NO power to make the request as you have NO power to
>>>>wield
>>>>in
>>>>making decisions. Fortunately, your own lack of substance in dealing
>>>>with
>>>>the reality of the benefits put forth has left your credibility in a
>>>>shambles and your voice empty in the actual discussions that continue to
>>>>move forward.
>>>>The expansion of access, the actual rules of access and the growth of
>>>>cooperation between all groups continues to leave you and your phony
>>>>"research" behind.
>>>>
>>
>>Posted exactly one year ago (11/22/05):
>>"Cycling off-road is an excellent physical and mental exercise, allows the
>>rider to enjoy this exercise without the constraints and dangers of being
>>in
>>auto traffic, allows the rider to enjoy the natural environment, and
>>develop
>>an appreciation for the natural environment.
>
> NONE of that is a reason to allow BIKES off-road. Show me where a BIKE
> is necessary for off-road exercizing! Idiot. Try again....
Show where there is a reason to NOT allow them. You haven't.
Your spliiting of context is tiresome and beneath the intelligence you
claim, (as is your use of name calling)
"with your opinion firmly in place, you perceive anything you dislike or
disagree with as being senseless, wasteful or hazardous in some way. You say
"give me one good reason to bike off-road" in the same manner in which one
would ask "give me one good reason to put your hand in a fire".
Your opinion of the FACTS does not undermine their validity.
>
> The appreciation of any
>>activity is highly subjective. If your PhD was worth the tissue paper it
>>is
>>written on, you would grasp that as fundamental. However, with your
>>opinion
>>firmly in place, you perceive anything you dislike or disagree with as
>>being
>>senseless, wasteful or hazardous in some way. You say "give me one good
>>reason to bike off-road" in the same manner in which one would ask "give
>>me
>>one good reason to put your hand in a fire".
>>
>>Progress has been made while your distorted views show only more holes.
>>
|