"Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Steve Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Ian St. John said:"Steve Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...
> From previous thread: Subject: Re: "we have been
> dismissed from permission to access these fine lands
> that belong to us" Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 07:11:13
> GMT MV wrote: "When they are hiking they are hikers
> (by current activity) AS WELL
AS
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:> mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man
> and an idiot at
the
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:> same time."
>
> So he agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers
> because to access
they
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:> must become hikers.
They do not 'become' anything. They are hiders by
their current
activity,
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:but remain mountain bikers by their other activities.
The person is
not
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:barred from the land. The mountain bike is barred from
the trail. A
mountain
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:bike has no rights.
No... not what he said. "When they are hiking, they are
hikers..." The
activity
Quoted message said:is excluded, then the mt bikers lose that title because
they are now
hikers.
Quoted message said:btw... Are you a "hider"?
Let us not devolve into nit picking on typing skills. And
the point
remains.
Quoted message said:They are still mountain bikers whether they are mountain
biking or not. As people, they are not barred from the
trail. Only the mountian bike is barred. Mountain bikes
have no rights.
"nit picking on typing skills" is as useless as nitpicking
on details of context, proper sentence structure or taking a
phrase on literal meaning alone. The debate isn't about
sentence structure. It is, despite the literal
interpretations of MV or the defense of those
interpretations, about trail access. In order to be clear on
the issue:
People who may choose to ride a bicycle off road in areas
designated as "public" are being denied access to those
areas for the purpose of off road cycling.
Rather than "nit pick" over the semantics of a statement in
order to throw the term "liar" around, why doesn't MV debate
an issue on the merits of fairness? Why is exclusion of the
activity an absolute? Why are "impact studies" that may lean
to his opinion OK when others that may disagree labeled as
"junk science"? Why are all "mt bikers" grouped together as
reckless, un-caring, wildlife killing, spead freaks because
a few people are disrespectful to the rights of other trail
users? Why are all "hikers" not labeled as littering, off-
trail wandering, plant-stomping wildlife killers? The issue
is "access for the purpose of off road cycling" and how can
all interested in accessing the trails for the purpose of
their own enjoyment work together. That is all it is. Off
road cyclists asked these questions for years and are just
as disgusted with unneeded sprawl of construction and the
destruction of green areas as any other group of land users.
MV has spent 8 years calling "mt bikers" liars. Fortunately,
many cyclists (most of whom have never heard of MV) have
been active in their communities and parks working to
further his (MV) own stated goals. That being the
preservation of land and parks for the enjoyment of
everyone. And, I might add, so that wildlife keep their
place to live.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:
> Since he agreed with something, I'll agree that a
> man can be an idiot. Seems fair.
You can even demonstrate it for us...... again and
again and ..
By pointing out your posts...
without understanding even the simplest facts, you
demonstrate it again
and
Quoted message said:again..
