Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder - Page 3 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

11-27-2006, 05:01 AM

Mike Vandeman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]:

> On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>> "Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>> > On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
>>> > <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>S Curtiss wrote:
>>> >>> "Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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!
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-27-2006, 05:02 AM

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!
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-27-2006, 07:25 AM

Mike Vandeman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]:

> On 27 Nov 2006 14:01:47 GMT, Chris Foster
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in
>>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] m:
>>
>>> On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>>>> > On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
>>>>> > <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>> >>> "Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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!
>>>
>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>>
> ===
> 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!
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-27-2006, 07:39 AM

On 27 Nov 2006 14:01:47 GMT, Chris Foster
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in
>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] :
>
>> On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>> "Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>>> > On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
>>>> > <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>> >>> "Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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.

>> 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!
>>
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>
===
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!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]