11-27-2006, 06:02 AM
|
#22 (permalink)
|
| Guest | Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
news iiam2pb790nq4n0qheiifarje84vee277@4ax.com:
> On 22 Nov 2006 12:41:02 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>> "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> 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!
>>> Your choice to be ignorant of information contrary to your opinion
>>> does not make the statement in any way a "lie".
>>
>>That's one of his time-honored tactics - to claim there is no research
>>if none is presented a priori, and from that assume that the poster is
>>lying. It's neatly circular. 
>
> Coincidentally, YOU didn't present any research, either! There isn't
> any! Put up or shut up.
Have you ever heard of Google? DUH!
>
>>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
|
|
|  |