MV Agrees

"Steve Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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
mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man and an idiot at the
same time."

So he agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to access they
must become hikers.

They do not 'become' anything. They are hiders by their current activity,
but remain mountain bikers by their other activities. The person is not
barred from the land. The mountain bike is barred from the trail. A mountain
bike has no rights.

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 ..

Quoted message said:

SC

Ian St. John said:

"Steve Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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
mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man and an idiot at the
same time."

So he agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to access they
must become hikers.

They do not 'become' anything. They are hiders by their current activity,
but remain mountain bikers by their other activities. The person is not
barred from the land. The mountain bike is barred from the trail. A mountain
bike has no rights.

No... not what he said. "When they are hiking, they are hikers..." The activity
is excluded, then the mt bikers lose that title because they are now hikers.
btw... Are you a "hider"?

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...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

SC

"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]...

Quoted message said:

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
mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man and an idiot at

the

Quoted message said:

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:

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
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.
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.

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
again..

"Steve Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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
mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man and an idiot at the
same time."

So he agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to access they
must become hikers. Since he agreed with something, I'll agree that a
man can be an idiot. Seems fair.

SC

Your penultimate sentence pretty much nails most of the MV threads in this
group.

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:40:51 -0500, Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]>
wrote:

..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
..mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man and an idiot at the
..same time."
..
..So he agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to access they
..must become hikers. Since he agreed with something, I'll agree that a
..man can be an idiot. Seems fair.

Only if the bike is surgically attached to them. Idiot.

..SC

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 07:03:01 -0400, Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]>
wrote:

..
..
.."Ian St. John" wrote:
..
..> "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
..> > mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man and an idiot at the
..> > same time."
..> >
..> > So he agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to access they
..> > must become hikers.
..>
..> They do not 'become' anything. They are hiders by their current activity,
..> but remain mountain bikers by their other activities. The person is not
..> barred from the land. The mountain bike is barred from the trail. A mountain
..> bike has no rights.
..>
..
..No... not what he said. "When they are hiking, they are hikers..." The activity
..is excluded, then the mt bikers lose that title because they are now hikers.

So when you put on your dress and bra, do you become a woman? Idiot.

..btw... Are you a "hider"?
..
..>
..> > 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...
..
..>
..>
..> >
..> > SC
..> >
..> >
..> >
..> >
..> >

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"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..

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:MrXbc.52015$_U.10853@lakeread05...

Quoted message said:

"Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Well if English is too hard for you, I suggest that you stop posting your
random [censored] and wait until you can say what you mean and mean what you say.

Quoted message said:

The debate isn't about sentence structure. It is, despite the literal
interpretations of MV or the defense of those interpretations, about trail
access.

No. It is about the false claim that the people who ride moutain bikes have
been barred from hiking trails. They have not. Only the mountain bikes have.
This is a clear distinction.

Quoted message said:

In order to be clear on the issue:

That is the last think you will do. You keep trying to rewrite the lie in
another form that might 'get by' the semantic scrutiny.,

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

cycling.

Sure. But they are not being denied access to the trails as claimed.

<snip>

"Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:MrXbc.52015$_U.10853@lakeread05...

Quoted message said:

"Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

As

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Well if English is too hard for you, I suggest that you stop posting your
random [censored] and wait until you can say what you mean and mean what you

say.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The debate isn't about sentence structure. It is, despite the literal
interpretations of MV or the defense of those interpretations, about

trail

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

access.

No. It is about the false claim that the people who ride moutain bikes

have

Quoted message said:

been barred from hiking trails. They have not. Only the mountain bikes

have.

Quoted message said:

This is a clear distinction.

Quoted message said:

In order to be clear on the issue:

That is the last think you will do. You keep trying to rewrite the lie in
another form that might 'get by' the semantic scrutiny.,

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

cycling.

Sure. But they are not being denied access to the trails as claimed.

Their claim, as you say, is access for the purpose of off road cycling. You
can pick apart their phrasing all you want. What the "mt bikers" are up
against is biased attitudes and false perceptions of shared access for
hiking and off road cycling.
Now... is there any way at all to get out of this endless loop of semantics
and literal meaning and get to the issue of shared access on public lands?
Everyone has access to these lands. Several groups have ideas of how to
utilize that access for personal enjoyment. Why is it such a big deal to
discuss the issues, find common ground, and try to develop a solution that
is acceptable to as many as possible? Isn't that the purpose of multi-use
plans in parks and forests? I'm tired of this "back and forth" over how
something was written vs what they meant by it. Access for the purpose of
off road cycling on public land is the issue. If it hasn't been stated that
way before, well hells bells, I'm stating it that way now.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:WU_bc.52429$_U.28977@lakeread05...

Quoted message said:

"Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:MrXbc.52015$_U.10853@lakeread05...

Quoted message said:

"Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

<snip>

Quoted message said:

> Let us not devolve into nit picking on typing skills. And the point
remains.
> They are still mountain bikers whether they are mountain biking or

not.

Quoted message said:

As

Quoted message said:

> people, they are not barred from the trail. Only the mountian bike

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> barred. Mountain bikes have no rights.
>
>
"nit picking on typing skills" is as useless as nitpicking on details

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

context, proper sentence structure or taking a phrase on literal

meaning

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

alone.

Well if English is too hard for you, I suggest that you stop posting

your

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

random [censored] and wait until you can say what you mean and mean what you

say.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The debate isn't about sentence structure. It is, despite the literal
interpretations of MV or the defense of those interpretations, about

trail

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

access.

No. It is about the false claim that the people who ride moutain bikes

have

Quoted message said:

been barred from hiking trails. They have not. Only the mountain bikes

have.

Quoted message said:

This is a clear distinction.

Quoted message said:

In order to be clear on the issue:

That is the last think you will do. You keep trying to rewrite the lie

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

another form that might 'get by' the semantic scrutiny.,

Quoted message said:

People who may choose to ride a bicycle off road in areas designated

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"public" are being denied access to those areas for the purpose of off

road

Quoted message said:

cycling.

Sure. But they are not being denied access to the trails as claimed.

Their claim, as you say, is access for the purpose of off road cycling.

No. The claim is clearly that "we" ( as in the mountain bike riding
community ) have been 'dismissed from these fine lands" ( cannot use the
trails ) when in fact they can, exactly the same as anyone else.

<snip of more and more [censored]>

You really ought to see someone about your inabilty to read what is said and
understand it. English isn't that hard a language and you have dictionaries
and other resources to help. This would prevent you from making further lies
based on your failure to grasp semantics.

Quoted message said:

So when you put on your dress and bra, do you become a woman? Idiot.

If anyone would know, it would be you

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:WU_bc.52429$_U.28977@lakeread05:

Quoted message said:

Now... is there any way at all to get out of this endless loop of
semantics and literal meaning and get to the issue of shared access on
public lands?

No. It's MV's pride and joy.

"Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:WU_bc.52429$_U.28977@lakeread05...

Quoted message said:

"Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:MrXbc.52015$_U.10853@lakeread05...
>
> "Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
<snip>
> > Let us not devolve into nit picking on typing skills. And the

point

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> remains.
> > They are still mountain bikers whether they are mountain biking or

not.

Quoted message said:

As
> > people, they are not barred from the trail. Only the mountian bike

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > barred. Mountain bikes have no rights.
> >
> >
> "nit picking on typing skills" is as useless as nitpicking on

details

Quoted message said:

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> context, proper sentence structure or taking a phrase on literal

meaning

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> alone.

Well if English is too hard for you, I suggest that you stop posting

your

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

random [censored] and wait until you can say what you mean and mean what you

say.

Quoted message said:

> The debate isn't about sentence structure. It is, despite the

literal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> interpretations of MV or the defense of those interpretations, about

trail

Quoted message said:

> access.

No. It is about the false claim that the people who ride moutain bikes

have

Quoted message said:

been barred from hiking trails. They have not. Only the mountain bikes

have.

Quoted message said:

This is a clear distinction.

> In order to be clear on the issue:

That is the last think you will do. You keep trying to rewrite the lie

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

another form that might 'get by' the semantic scrutiny.,

>
> People who may choose to ride a bicycle off road in areas designated

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> "public" are being denied access to those areas for the purpose of

off

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

road
> cycling.

Sure. But they are not being denied access to the trails as claimed.

Their claim, as you say, is access for the purpose of off road cycling.

No. The claim is clearly that "we" ( as in the mountain bike riding
community ) have been 'dismissed from these fine lands" ( cannot use the
trails ) when in fact they can, exactly the same as anyone else.

<snip of more and more [censored]>

You really ought to see someone about your inabilty to read what is said

and

Quoted message said:

understand it. English isn't that hard a language and you have

dictionaries

Quoted message said:

and other resources to help. This would prevent you from making further

lies

Quoted message said:

based on your failure to grasp semantics.

Are you stuck in a rut? Go back to the "we have been dismissed..." thread if
you want to keep picking that apart. I'm done with it.
The issue is trail access for the purpose of off road cycling. People are
using misinformation and perpetuating false perceptions to hinder the
activity of off road cycling on public lands.
If you want to give specific reasons why offroad cycling should not be
allowed in these areas, then do so. If you want to give information that
counters the myths and misinformation about off road cycling so that the
activity can be allowed, then do so.
The only purpose of carrying the other statement over in the first place was
to note the thread. Somehow it is not surprising that the "we are
dismissed..." line can be picked apart for what it literally stated, but
MV's statement "when they are hiking, they are hikers" can not be put to the
same scrutiny.

Quoted message said:

Mike Vandeman 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
.> > mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man and an idiot at the
.> > same time."
.> >
.> > So he agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to access they
.> > must become hikers.
.>
.> They do not 'become' anything. They are hiders by their current activity,
.> but remain mountain bikers by their other activities. The person is not
.> barred from the land. The mountain bike is barred from the trail. A mountain
.> bike has no rights.
.>
.
.No... not what he said. "When they are hiking, they are hikers..." The activity
.is excluded, then the mt bikers lose that title because they are now hikers.

So when you put on your dress and bra, do you become a woman? Idiot.

Quoting MV's response to being called a "kook": "Just like a mountain biker: you
realize you can't defend your illogical position, so you turn to attacking PEOPLE.
You guys are transparent."

There you go again, Mr. Double Standard. "Attacking people"? Calling me an "idiot"
and claiming I wear a dress...? Since when is calling someone a "liar" and a
cross-dresser a defense of any of your positions. Is it not an attack just because it
came from you? What a hypocrite!

Quoted message said:

.> >
.> >

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman said:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:40:51 -0500, Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]>
wrote:

.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
.mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man and an idiot at the
.same time."
.
.So he agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to access they
.must become hikers. Since he agreed with something, I'll agree that a
.man can be an idiot. Seems fair.

Only if the bike is surgically attached to them. Idiot.

Is the constant use of the term "idiot" and "liar" a habit? You can throw
literal meaning onto a single phrase out of context and we can't do the same
for your statements? It will be OK Mr. Double Standard... just let the
medication of truth take you away.... relax.... relax....

Quoted message said:

.SC

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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
mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man and an idiot at the
same time."

So he agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to access they
must become hikers. Since he agreed with something, I'll agree that a
man can be an idiot. Seems fair.

SC

As if one moronic thread isn't enough you rename it and start another.

[censored].

g

cheers

g

Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mike Vandeman said:

Only if the bike is surgically attached to them. Idiot.

Is the constant use of the term "idiot" and "liar" a habit? You can throw
literal meaning onto a single phrase out of context and we can't do the same
for your statements? It will be OK Mr. Double Standard... just let the
medication of truth take you away.... relax.... relax....

That's mikey's signature.
Socks

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 13:18:31 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..>
..> "Steve Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> news:[email hidden]...
..> >
..> >
..> > "Ian St. John" wrote:
..> >
..> > > "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
..> > > > mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man and an idiot at
..> the
..> > > > same time."
..> > > >
..> > > > So he agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to access
..> they
..> > > > must become hikers.
..> > >
..> > > They do not 'become' anything. They are hiders by their current
..> activity,
..> > > but remain mountain bikers by their other activities. The person is
..not
..> > > barred from the land. The mountain bike is barred from the trail. A
..> mountain
..> > > bike has no rights.
..> > >
..> >
..> > No... not what he said. "When they are hiking, they are hikers..." The
..> activity
..> > is excluded, then the mt bikers lose that title because they are now
..> hikers.
..> > btw... Are you a "hider"?
..>
..> Let us not devolve into nit picking on typing skills. And the point
..remains.
..> 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.

That's not what Paul Nam said. He said they are "denied access". Period. That's
nothing but a LIE.

..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.
..
..
..
..
..> > >
..> > > > 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
..> again..
..>
..>
..

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 17:14:23 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..>
..> "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> news:MrXbc.52015$_U.10853@lakeread05...
..> >
..> > "Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> <snip>
..> > > Let us not devolve into nit picking on typing skills. And the point
..> > remains.
..> > > 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.
..>
..> Well if English is too hard for you, I suggest that you stop posting your
..> random [censored] and wait until you can say what you mean and mean what you
..say.
..>
..> > The debate isn't about sentence structure. It is, despite the literal
..> > interpretations of MV or the defense of those interpretations, about
..trail
..> > access.
..>
..> No. It is about the false claim that the people who ride moutain bikes
..have
..> been barred from hiking trails. They have not. Only the mountain bikes
..have.
..> This is a clear distinction.
..>
..> > In order to be clear on the issue:
..>
..> That is the last think you will do. You keep trying to rewrite the lie in
..> another form that might 'get by' the semantic scrutiny.,
..>
..> >
..> > 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.
..>
..> Sure. But they are not being denied access to the trails as claimed.
..>
..Their claim, as you say, is access for the purpose of off road cycling. You
..can pick apart their phrasing all you want. What the "mt bikers" are up
..against is biased attitudes and false perceptions of shared access for
..hiking and off road cycling.

Lie all you want, but the reasons for banning bikes are VALID: documented danger
to wildlife and other trail users..

..Now... is there any way at all to get out of this endless loop of semantics
..and literal meaning and get to the issue of shared access on public lands?
..Everyone has access to these lands. Several groups have ideas of how to
..utilize that access for personal enjoyment. Why is it such a big deal to
..discuss the issues, find common ground, and try to develop a solution that
..is acceptable to as many as possible? Isn't that the purpose of multi-use
..plans in parks and forests? I'm tired of this "back and forth" over how
..something was written vs what they meant by it. Access for the purpose of
..off road cycling on public land is the issue. If it hasn't been stated that
..way before, well hells bells, I'm stating it that way now.
..
..<snip>
..>
..>
..

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande