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

11-20-2006, 01:06 AM

"S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net> wrote in message
news

d%7h.26$2t3.18@newsfe16.lga...

> You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons. You have chosen to ignore the
> facts, the evidence, and the real experiences and abilities of cyclists to
> continue with a focus on your opinions. In doing so, your attempts only
> cause friction which hampers real efforts of preservation.

The last sentence is crucial; too bad it is only exacerbated by what is
stated in the first two sentences.

11-21-2006, 08:46 AM

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
<baggio94@telus.net> wrote:

>"S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net> wrote in message
>news

d%7h.26$2t3.18@newsfe16.lga...
>
>> You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons. You have chosen to ignore the
>> facts, the evidence, and the real experiences and abilities of cyclists to
>> continue with a focus on your opinions. In doing so, your attempts only
>> cause friction which hampers real efforts of preservation.
>
>The last sentence is crucial; too bad it is only exacerbated by what is
>stated in the first two sentences.

I'm still waiting to hear even ONE good reason for someone to permit
mountain biking on public lands.
===
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. ]

11-21-2006, 12:12 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:k9b6m21rq7mo74vh1o1411pl4ndl7kjg20@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <baggio94@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>"S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news

d%7h.26$2t3.18@newsfe16.lga...
>>
>>> You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons. You have chosen to ignore the
>>> facts, the evidence, and the real experiences and abilities of cyclists
>>> to
>>> continue with a focus on your opinions. In doing so, your attempts only
>>> cause friction which hampers real efforts of preservation.
>>
>>The last sentence is crucial; too bad it is only exacerbated by what is
>>stated in the first two sentences.
>
> I'm still waiting to hear even ONE good reason for someone to permit
> mountain biking on public lands.
> ===
Your choice not to acknowledge the several valid answers to this question
over the years continues to leave you in a corner of your own making. Beyond
that, you have NO power to make the request as you have NO power to wield in
making decisions. Fortunately, your own lack of substance in dealing with
the reality of the benefits put forth has left your credibility in a
shambles and your voice empty in the actual discussions that continue to
move forward.
The expansion of access, the actual rules of access and the growth of
cooperation between all groups continues to leave you and your phony
"research" behind.

11-21-2006, 03:56 PM

Because the public allows it, just like they allow the paving of roads so
you can ride your bike on them, or they allow the trees and fossil fuels so
that you can have tires on your bike.

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:k9b6m21rq7mo74vh1o1411pl4ndl7kjg20@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <baggio94@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>"S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news

d%7h.26$2t3.18@newsfe16.lga...
>>
>>> You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons. You have chosen to ignore the
>>> facts, the evidence, and the real experiences and abilities of cyclists
>>> to
>>> continue with a focus on your opinions. In doing so, your attempts only
>>> cause friction which hampers real efforts of preservation.
>>
>>The last sentence is crucial; too bad it is only exacerbated by what is
>>stated in the first two sentences.
>
> I'm still waiting to hear even ONE good reason for someone to permit
> mountain biking on public lands.
> ===
> 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. ]

11-22-2006, 08:24 AM

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:12:23 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:k9b6m21rq7mo74vh1o1411pl4ndl7kjg20@4ax.com.. .
>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>> <baggio94@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news

d%7h.26$2t3.18@newsfe16.lga...
>>>
>>>> You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons. You have chosen to ignore the
>>>> facts, the evidence, and the real experiences and abilities of cyclists
>>>> to
>>>> continue with a focus on your opinions. In doing so, your attempts only
>>>> cause friction which hampers real efforts of preservation.
>>>
>>>The last sentence is crucial; too bad it is only exacerbated by what is
>>>stated in the first two sentences.
>>
>> I'm still waiting to hear even ONE good reason for someone to permit
>> mountain biking on public lands.
>> ===
>Your choice not to acknowledge the several valid answers to this question
>over the years

Show me even ONE valid answer. Since you CAN'T and DON'T, that proves
my point.

continues to leave you in a corner of your own making. Beyond
>that, you have NO power to make the request as you have NO power to wield in
>making decisions. Fortunately, your own lack of substance in dealing with
>the reality of the benefits put forth has left your credibility in a
>shambles and your voice empty in the actual discussions that continue to
>move forward.
>The expansion of access, the actual rules of access and the growth of
>cooperation between all groups continues to leave you and your phony
>"research" behind.
>
===
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. ]

11-22-2006, 08:26 AM

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:56:37 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
<baggio94@telus.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.

just like they allow the paving of roads so
>you can ride your bike on them, or they allow the trees and fossil fuels so
>that you can have tires on your bike.
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:k9b6m21rq7mo74vh1o1411pl4ndl7kjg20@4ax.com.. .
>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>> <baggio94@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news

d%7h.26$2t3.18@newsfe16.lga...
>>>
>>>> You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons. You have chosen to ignore the
>>>> facts, the evidence, and the real experiences and abilities of cyclists
>>>> to
>>>> continue with a focus on your opinions. In doing so, your attempts only
>>>> cause friction which hampers real efforts of preservation.
>>>
>>>The last sentence is crucial; too bad it is only exacerbated by what is
>>>stated in the first two sentences.
>>
>> I'm still waiting to hear even ONE good reason for someone to permit
>> mountain biking on public lands.
>> ===
>> 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. ]

11-22-2006, 10:48 AM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:12:23 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>>Your choice not to acknowledge the several valid answers to this question
>>over the years
>
> Show me even ONE valid answer. Since you CAN'T and DON'T, that proves
> my point.
Your choice to split context and ignore the complete text (below) proves my
point to everyone except you. That is all the proof I need as off-road
cycling makes progress within the entire community and your voice has been
dropped by the wayside.
>
> continues to leave you in a corner of your own making. Beyond
>>that, you have NO power to make the request as you have NO power to wield
>>in
>>making decisions. Fortunately, your own lack of substance in dealing with
>>the reality of the benefits put forth has left your credibility in a
>>shambles and your voice empty in the actual discussions that continue to
>>move forward.
>>The expansion of access, the actual rules of access and the growth of
>>cooperation between all groups continues to leave you and your phony
>>"research" behind.
>>

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. The appreciation of any
activity is highly subjective. If your PhD was worth the tissue paper it is
written on, you would grasp that as fundamental. However, 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".

Progress has been made while your distorted views show only more holes.

11-22-2006, 11:11 PM

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:48:52 -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 Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:12:23 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>> wrote:
>>>Your choice not to acknowledge the several valid answers to this question
>>>over the years
>>
>> Show me even ONE valid answer. Since you CAN'T and DON'T, that proves
>> my point.
>Your choice to split context and ignore the complete text (below) proves my
>point to everyone except you. That is all the proof I need as off-road
>cycling makes progress within the entire community and your voice has been
>dropped by the wayside.
>>
>> continues to leave you in a corner of your own making. Beyond
>>>that, you have NO power to make the request as you have NO power to wield
>>>in
>>>making decisions. Fortunately, your own lack of substance in dealing with
>>>the reality of the benefits put forth has left your credibility in a
>>>shambles and your voice empty in the actual discussions that continue to
>>>move forward.
>>>The expansion of access, the actual rules of access and the growth of
>>>cooperation between all groups continues to leave you and your phony
>>>"research" behind.
>>>
>
>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....

The appreciation of any
>activity is highly subjective. If your PhD was worth the tissue paper it is
>written on, you would grasp that as fundamental. However, 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".
>
>Progress has been made while your distorted views show only more holes.
>
===
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. ]

11-23-2006, 07:36 AM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:48:52 -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 Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:12:23 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>Your choice not to acknowledge the several valid answers to this
>>>>question
>>>>over the years
>>>
>>> Show me even ONE valid answer. Since you CAN'T and DON'T, that proves
>>> my point.
>>Your choice to split context and ignore the complete text (below) proves
>>my
>>point to everyone except you. That is all the proof I need as off-road
>>cycling makes progress within the entire community and your voice has been
>>dropped by the wayside.
>>>
>>> continues to leave you in a corner of your own making. Beyond
>>>>that, you have NO power to make the request as you have NO power to
>>>>wield
>>>>in
>>>>making decisions. Fortunately, your own lack of substance in dealing
>>>>with
>>>>the reality of the benefits put forth has left your credibility in a
>>>>shambles and your voice empty in the actual discussions that continue to
>>>>move forward.
>>>>The expansion of access, the actual rules of access and the growth of
>>>>cooperation between all groups continues to leave you and your phony
>>>>"research" behind.
>>>>
>>
>>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.

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.

>
> The appreciation of any
>>activity is highly subjective. If your PhD was worth the tissue paper it
>>is
>>written on, you would grasp that as fundamental. However, 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".
>>
>>Progress has been made while your distorted views show only more holes.
>>

11-23-2006, 08:01 AM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:56:37 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[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. 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.