| Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:95cfm2h6saeedlkdu23ru6aeqggrec0cgn@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:30:00 -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
You haven't the authority to determine what is a "good reason". Those that
do have already made the determination. And they AGREE with the reasons that
have been put forth. Your childish and slack-minded attempt to make me, or
anyone else, defend these reasons to you further shows you are more
interested in breaking cooperation (and increasing development) rather than
accomplishing anything that is good for habitat, environment or wildlife.
>
> 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.
|