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

11-24-2006, 02:30 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:30:42 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. ..
>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:36:37 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>>> 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. 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.
>>>>

11-24-2006, 02:39 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:39:28 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. ..
>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:01:46 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Because the public allows it,
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not a reason to allow it. You just restated the fact that it's
>>>>> allowed. WHY should it be allowed? OBVIOUSLY, you can't come up with a
>>>>> single good reason to allow bikes off-road.
>>>>The simple reason they ARE allowed and continued access on public lands
>>>>is
>>>>expanding proves the reasons (as stated so many times) are valid.
>>>
>>> WHAT reasons? You haven't managed to give even ONE good reason to
>>> allow bikes off-road.
>>We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you.
>
> So you admit that there is absolutely no good reason to allow bikes
> off-road? QED
>
Pathetic. Your own integrity suffers in the context of this entire
conversation. That is OBVIOUS. The FACT your opinions have not been
accepted by those in control of making decisions, who have access to all of
the research, speaks to the validity of the reasons to allow off-road
cycling much more than your missrepresented claims ever have.
The TRUTH is out there... on non-polluting, non-impacting, human powered
wheels.

> Off-road cycling continues
>>to grow. The cooperative efforts continue to increase awareness and
>>acceptance. The community of off-road cyclists continues to create allies
>>with other groups and collectively create a larger voice against the
>>destruction of sprawl and development. The policy makers continue to
>>accept
>>the actual FACTS of comparative research despite your attempts at
>>presenting
>>lies.
>>You continue to stand in favor of development by attempting to drive
>>wedges
>>with missinformation. You must be proud. Your stated cause of 8 years (I
>>spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
>>construction.)
>>has been overshadowed by your current goal to decrease the cooperative
>>voice
>>to preserve.

Your lack of comment at this point has spoken volumes.
>>>
>>> Your
>>>>choice to ignore these reasons is unimportant as cooperation,
>>>>understanding
>>>>and real progress continues. Your demand for a "reason" is merely your
>>>>game
>>>>of words and also unimportant. Your own choices to ignore information
>>>>counter to your opinions and your own tactics of discussion in the face
>>>>of
>>>>this information has left you unimportant.
>>>>The FACTS are that the groups involved in making regulations and the
>>>>diverse
>>>>groups of "outdoor visitors" and their policy makers ARE recognizing the
>>>>validity of the "reasons" and the similarities of impacts to recognize
>>>>the
>>>>benefits of cooperative efforts.
>>>>

11-24-2006, 02:43 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:89nem218t0ltt6oa31037udr6mjhb721h9@4ax.com...
> On 24 Nov 2006 12:32:17 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>> "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:u7sbm2dro5andh92bqcavmarpqsaeho13u@4ax.com...
>>> > On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:01:46 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>Because the public allows it,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> That's not a reason to allow it. You just restated the fact that
>>> >>> it's
>>> >>> allowed. WHY should it be allowed? OBVIOUSLY, you can't come up with
>>> >>> a
>>> >>> single good reason to allow bikes off-road.
>>> >>The simple reason they ARE allowed and continued access on public
>>> >>lands is
>>> >>expanding proves the reasons (as stated so many times) are valid.
>>> >
>>> > WHAT reasons? You haven't managed to give even ONE good reason to
>>> > allow bikes off-road.
>>> We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you.
>>
>>When it all comes down to it, *this* is really the final word.
>>Attempting to find MJV-acceptable reasons for a strawman of his
>>construction is a fool's errand.
>>
>>He's not a land manager, and he has no sway with land managers, AND he
>>has no sway with those who do have sway with lab managers.
>>
>>His demand for "reason[s]" to allow MTBing (on any land, really) is a
>>paraphrase of the question "Why should MJV be allowed to post in
>>alt.mountain-bike?"
>>
>>If a tree fell in the forest, and MJV wasn't there to blame it on
>>MTBers, did it really matter at all to anyone?
>>
>>

>>
>>E.P.
>
> You haven't managed to give even ONE good reason to allow bikes
> off-road. Change the subject all you want, it's still true. QED.
> ===
He hasn't change the subject. But you are trying to. Away from your lack of
credibility to make claims or demands.

11-24-2006, 04:37 PM

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> S Curtiss wrote:
[MV schnipped]
>> We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you.
>
> When it all comes down to it, *this* is really the final word.
> Attempting to find MJV-acceptable reasons for a strawman of his
> construction is a fool's errand.
>
> He's not a land manager, and he has no sway with land managers, AND he
> has no sway with those who do have sway with lab managers.
>
> His demand for "reason[s]" to allow MTBing (on any land, really) is a
> paraphrase of the question "Why should MJV be allowed to post in
> alt.mountain-bike?"
>
> If a tree fell in the forest, and MJV wasn't there to blame it on
> MTBers, did it really matter at all to anyone?

Question: If you guys would put Mikey in your plonk filters, and no one
would reply to him, would he make an ass of himself anyway?

Answer: probably, but no one would care. I haven't seen a direct post
from him in well over two years.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

11-24-2006, 06:56 PM

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:30:00 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].. .
>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:30:42 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] ...
>>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:36:37 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>>>> 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

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.
>>>>>
>
===
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. ]

11-24-2006, 06:56 PM

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:39:13 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].. .
>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:39:28 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] ...
>>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:01:46 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because the public allows it,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not a reason to allow it. You just restated the fact that it's
>>>>>> allowed. WHY should it be allowed? OBVIOUSLY, you can't come up with a
>>>>>> single good reason to allow bikes off-road.
>>>>>The simple reason they ARE allowed and continued access on public lands
>>>>>is
>>>>>expanding proves the reasons (as stated so many times) are valid.
>>>>
>>>> WHAT reasons? You haven't managed to give even ONE good reason to
>>>> allow bikes off-road.
>>>We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you.
>>
>> So you admit that there is absolutely no good reason to allow bikes
>> off-road? QED
>>
>Pathetic. Your own integrity suffers in the context of this entire
>conversation. That is OBVIOUS. The FACT your opinions have not been
>accepted by those in control of making decisions, who have access to all of
>the research, speaks to the validity of the reasons to allow off-road
>cycling much more than your missrepresented claims ever have.
>The TRUTH is out there... on non-polluting, non-impacting, human powered
>wheels.

So you admit that there is absolutely no good reason to allow bikes
off-road? QED

>> Off-road cycling continues
>>>to grow. The cooperative efforts continue to increase awareness and
>>>acceptance. The community of off-road cyclists continues to create allies
>>>with other groups and collectively create a larger voice against the
>>>destruction of sprawl and development. The policy makers continue to
>>>accept
>>>the actual FACTS of comparative research despite your attempts at
>>>presenting
>>>lies.
>>>You continue to stand in favor of development by attempting to drive
>>>wedges
>>>with missinformation. You must be proud. Your stated cause of 8 years (I
>>>spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
>>>construction.)
>>>has been overshadowed by your current goal to decrease the cooperative
>>>voice
>>>to preserve.
>
>Your lack of comment at this point has spoken volumes.
>>>>
>>>> Your
>>>>>choice to ignore these reasons is unimportant as cooperation,
>>>>>understanding
>>>>>and real progress continues. Your demand for a "reason" is merely your
>>>>>game
>>>>>of words and also unimportant. Your own choices to ignore information
>>>>>counter to your opinions and your own tactics of discussion in the face
>>>>>of
>>>>>this information has left you unimportant.
>>>>>The FACTS are that the groups involved in making regulations and the
>>>>>diverse
>>>>>groups of "outdoor visitors" and their policy makers ARE recognizing the
>>>>>validity of the "reasons" and the similarities of impacts to recognize
>>>>>the
>>>>>benefits of cooperative efforts.
>>>>>
>
===
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. ]

11-24-2006, 06:57 PM

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:37:36 -0700, Pat O'Connell <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> S Curtiss wrote:
>[MV schnipped]
>>> We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you.
>>
>> When it all comes down to it, *this* is really the final word.
>> Attempting to find MJV-acceptable reasons for a strawman of his
>> construction is a fool's errand.
>>
>> He's not a land manager, and he has no sway with land managers, AND he
>> has no sway with those who do have sway with lab managers.
>>
>> His demand for "reason[s]" to allow MTBing (on any land, really) is a
>> paraphrase of the question "Why should MJV be allowed to post in
>> alt.mountain-bike?"
>>
>> If a tree fell in the forest, and MJV wasn't there to blame it on
>> MTBers, did it really matter at all to anyone?
>
>Question: If you guys would put Mikey in your plonk filters, and no one
>would reply to him, would he make an ass of himself anyway?
>
>Answer: probably, but no one would care. I haven't seen a direct post
>from him in well over two years.

Why don't you follow your own advice, hypocrite?
===
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. ]

11-24-2006, 08:50 PM

Pat O'Connell wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > S Curtiss wrote:
> [MV schnipped]
> >> We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you.
> >
> > When it all comes down to it, *this* is really the final word.
> > Attempting to find MJV-acceptable reasons for a strawman of his
> > construction is a fool's errand.
> >
> > He's not a land manager, and he has no sway with land managers, AND he
> > has no sway with those who do have sway with lab managers.
> >
> > His demand for "reason[s]" to allow MTBing (on any land, really) is a
> > paraphrase of the question "Why should MJV be allowed to post in
> > alt.mountain-bike?"
> >
> > If a tree fell in the forest, and MJV wasn't there to blame it on
> > MTBers, did it really matter at all to anyone?
>
> Question: If you guys would put Mikey in your plonk filters, and no one
> would reply to him, would he make an ass of himself anyway?
>
> Answer: probably, but no one would care. I haven't seen a direct post
> from him in well over two years.

Nobody cares *now*.

You can also kill by message content, such that if he's quoted, those
messages are killed as well.

Try it.

E.P.

11-24-2006, 09:43 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:39:13 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>>>>> WHAT reasons? You haven't managed to give even ONE good reason to
>>>>> allow bikes off-road.
>>>>We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you.
>>>
>>> So you admit that there is absolutely no good reason to allow bikes
>>> off-road? QED
>>>
>>Pathetic. Your own integrity suffers in the context of this entire
>>conversation. That is OBVIOUS. The FACT your opinions have not been
>>accepted by those in control of making decisions, who have access to all
>>of
>>the research, speaks to the validity of the reasons to allow off-road
>>cycling much more than your missrepresented claims ever have.
>>The TRUTH is out there... on non-polluting, non-impacting, human powered
>>wheels.
>
> So you 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.
>
>>> Off-road cycling continues
>>>>to grow. The cooperative efforts continue to increase awareness and
>>>>acceptance. The community of off-road cyclists continues to create
>>>>allies
>>>>with other groups and collectively create a larger voice against the
>>>>destruction of sprawl and development. The policy makers continue to
>>>>accept
>>>>the actual FACTS of comparative research despite your attempts at
>>>>presenting
>>>>lies.
>>>>You continue to stand in favor of development by attempting to drive
>>>>wedges
>>>>with missinformation. You must be proud. Your stated cause of 8 years (I
>>>>spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
>>>>construction.)
>>>>has been overshadowed by your current goal to decrease the cooperative
>>>>voice
>>>>to preserve.
>>
>>Your lack of comment at this point has spoken volumes.
Still no comment on the full context...? No further proof of your lack of
credibility or integrity needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your
>>>>>>choice to ignore these reasons is unimportant as cooperation,
>>>>>>understanding
>>>>>>and real progress continues. Your demand for a "reason" is merely your
>>>>>>game
>>>>>>of words and also unimportant. Your own choices to ignore information
>>>>>>counter to your opinions and your own tactics of discussion in the
>>>>>>face
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>this information has left you unimportant.
>>>>>>The FACTS are that the groups involved in making regulations and the
>>>>>>diverse
>>>>>>groups of "outdoor visitors" and their policy makers ARE recognizing
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>validity of the "reasons" and the similarities of impacts to recognize
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>benefits of cooperative efforts.

11-24-2006, 09:44 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:30:00 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> 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.