11-27-2006, 06:01 AM
|
#21 (permalink)
|
| Guest | Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:viu8m2lvihvh8s9ooen19n6d2o9msd92rh@4ax.com:
> On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>> "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:73b6m2dr0s476i9qo7r1q2j7ttmqlul1ou@4ax.com...
>>> > On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
>>> > <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>S Curtiss wrote:
>>> >>> "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing
>>> >>> > bikes off of pavement.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.
>>> >>
>>> >>Ding! We have a winner.
>>> >>
>>> >>Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to, and
>>> >>am able to.
>>> >
>>> > You didn't read the question. I was asking for " ONE good reason
>>> > for allowing bikes off of pavement." NOT why YOU should ride. Why
>>> > someone else should LET you ride off-road. NOW answer the
>>> > question. "Because YOU like it" is not a good reason for a LAND
>>> > MANAGER to allow you to do it. Otherwise. that same reason would
>>> > allow people to grow marijuana on public lands.
>>> >
>>> Your failure to grasp reality is at the center of the issue. As long
>>> as you continue to insist your views and definitions are the only
>>> acceptable options, you will continue to be looked at as on a fool's
>>> errand.
>>
>>And he fails to grasp that the reality is that the good reasons are
>>that MTBers, by real, verifiable research, don't leave any bigger
>>footprint in nature than hikers.
>
> That's a LIE. That's why you didn't cite any such "research": there
> isn't any!
Have you ever heard of Google? DUH!
>
> And since the reality is that nobody
>>is going to ban hikers, bikers (and their bikes) will continue to have
>>access. The activity is growing, and reality matches that growth -
>>more access to more places. Including National Parks!
>>
>>I don't think MJV would allow any sort of recreation in any area, if
>>it were up to him. On foot, on bike, on horseback - none of it. So
>>his opinion of what constitutes a "good reason" for allowing any of
>>these things is essentially singular, and of no importance.
>>
>>E.P.
> ===
> 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
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
|  |