Cycling Forums - View Single Post - Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

11-24-2006, 02:43 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:89nem218t0ltt6oa31037udr6mjhb721h9@4ax.com...
> On 24 Nov 2006 12:32:17 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>> "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:u7sbm2dro5andh92bqcavmarpqsaeho13u@4ax.com...
>>> > On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:01:46 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>Because the public allows it,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> That's not a reason to allow it. You just restated the fact that
>>> >>> it's
>>> >>> allowed. WHY should it be allowed? OBVIOUSLY, you can't come up with
>>> >>> a
>>> >>> single good reason to allow bikes off-road.
>>> >>The simple reason they ARE allowed and continued access on public
>>> >>lands is
>>> >>expanding proves the reasons (as stated so many times) are valid.
>>> >
>>> > WHAT reasons? You haven't managed to give even ONE good reason to
>>> > allow bikes off-road.
>>> We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you.
>>
>>When it all comes down to it, *this* is really the final word.
>>Attempting to find MJV-acceptable reasons for a strawman of his
>>construction is a fool's errand.
>>
>>He's not a land manager, and he has no sway with land managers, AND he
>>has no sway with those who do have sway with lab managers.
>>
>>His demand for "reason[s]" to allow MTBing (on any land, really) is a
>>paraphrase of the question "Why should MJV be allowed to post in
>>alt.mountain-bike?"
>>
>>If a tree fell in the forest, and MJV wasn't there to blame it on
>>MTBers, did it really matter at all to anyone?
>>
>>

>>
>>E.P.
>
> You haven't managed to give even ONE good reason to allow bikes
> off-road. Change the subject all you want, it's still true. QED.
> ===
He hasn't change the subject. But you are trying to. Away from your lack of
credibility to make claims or demands.

11-24-2006, 02:43 PM	#23 (permalink)
S Curtiss Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:89nem218t0ltt6oa31037udr6mjhb721h9@4ax.com... > On 24 Nov 2006 12:32:17 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >>S Curtiss wrote: >>> "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>> news:u7sbm2dro5andh92bqcavmarpqsaeho13u@4ax.com... >>> > On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:01:46 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net> >>> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Because the public allows it, >>> >>> >>> >>> That's not a reason to allow it. You just restated the fact that >>> >>> it's >>> >>> allowed. WHY should it be allowed? OBVIOUSLY, you can't come up with >>> >>> a >>> >>> single good reason to allow bikes off-road. >>> >>The simple reason they ARE allowed and continued access on public >>> >>lands is >>> >>expanding proves the reasons (as stated so many times) are valid. >>> > >>> > WHAT reasons? You haven't managed to give even ONE good reason to >>> > allow bikes off-road. >>> We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you. >> >>When it all comes down to it, this is really the final word. >>Attempting to find MJV-acceptable reasons for a strawman of his >>construction is a fool's errand. >> >>He's not a land manager, and he has no sway with land managers, AND he >>has no sway with those who do have sway with lab managers. >> >>His demand for "reason[s]" to allow MTBing (on any land, really) is a >>paraphrase of the question "Why should MJV be allowed to post in >>alt.mountain-bike?" >> >>If a tree fell in the forest, and MJV wasn't there to blame it on >>MTBers, did it really matter at all to anyone? >> >> >> >>E.P. > > You haven't managed to give even ONE good reason to allow bikes > off-road. Change the subject all you want, it's still true. QED. > === He hasn't change the subject. But you are trying to. Away from your lack of credibility to make claims or demands.