11-27-2006, 08:25 AM
|
#23 (permalink)
|
| Guest | Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:f55mm21p96oduvfgejt47esin4pqjlu6ck@4ax.com:
> On 27 Nov 2006 14:01:47 GMT, Chris Foster
> <john_foster_in_erie@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
>>news:viu8m2lvihvh8s9ooen19n6d2o9msd92rh@4ax.co m:
>>
>>> 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!
>
> Google won't help you, as demonstrated by the fact that you were
> unable to cite any such research. As usual.
Hey fool, I was simply responding to you in the same way you responded
to another poster. A little slow today??
>
>>> 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
>>>
> ===
> 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
|
|
|  |