11-24-2006, 06:56 PM
|
#25 (permalink)
|
| Guest | Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:30:00 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
wrote:
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:imiem2hsicr15ss0qls6fa17p52lfe7rhl@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:30:42 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>news:a6sbm2lhjqi75kdsqu9uque2vr229fmhj8@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:36:37 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>> So you admit that there is absolutely no good reason to allow bikes
>>>> off-road? QED
>>>Wordplay. You can not explain away your lack of credibility by grasping at
>>>a
>>>statement I did not make. The case has been made and ACCEPTED for off-road
>>>cycling. Your acceptance of this TRUTH is a non-issue. Your opinions are a
>>>non-issue in the scope of the reality of actual information and progress.
>>
>> So you admit that there is absolutely no good reason to allow bikes
>> off-road? QED
>I do not have to admit anything.
So you don't want to admit that there is absolutely no good reason to
allow bikes off-road? QED
Your weak attempt to turn the context into
>something beyond your lack of credibility to criticize or accept real
>information is pathetic. The FACT is, the real and actual information has
>been gathered and reviewed by people that actually matter and the decisions
>have been made and access for off-road cycling continues to grow both in
>real trail use and in cooperative efforts with other organizations.
>You can play your wordgames and vilify honest research all you want, but it
>has had NO effect on anything but your own credibility.
>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>
===
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
|
|
|  |