MV Agrees

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:19:36 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

.
."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.news:[email hidden]...
.> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 23:24:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>
.wrote:
.>
.> .
.> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.> .news:[email hidden]...
.> .> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 14:00:27 -0400, Steve Curtiss
.<[email hidden]>
.> .> wrote:
.> .>
.> .> .
.> .> .
.> .> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> .> .
.> .> .> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:09:01 -0400, "S Curtiss"
.<[email hidden]>
.> .wrote:
.> .> .>
.> .> .> .
.> .> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.> .> .> .news:[email hidden]...
.> .> .> .> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 17:14:23 -0400, "S Curtiss"
.> .<[email hidden]>
.> .> .> .wrote:
.> .> .> .>
.> .> .> .> .
.> .> .> .> .> 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

Quoted message said:

.> .cycling.
.> .> .> .You
.> .> .> .> .can pick apart their phrasing all you want. What the "mt

bikers"

Quoted message said:

.> .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..
.> .> .> .
.> .> .> .Lie all YOU want. Studies show your "reasons" are based on false
.> .perceptions
.> .> .> .and myths being put forth by a small majority who claim to speak
.for
.> .> .> .wildlife. Moutain bikes are not killing wildlife.
.> .> .>
.> .> .> That is pure fabrication. They kill plants, insects, and other
.animals
.> .every tme
.> .> .> they ride. That is obvious.
.> .> .>
.> .> .
.> .> .How convenient! You snipped the content that specifically addresses
.your
.> .stated
.> .> .concerns (8 years - auto dependence - road construction...) so you
.could
.> .take
.> .> .another shot with your exaggerated claim of ultimate destruction by

mt

Quoted message said:

.> .bikes. Why
.> .> .didn't you address the rest of the content:
.> .> ."Urban sprawl, new construction (especially when existing

structures

Quoted message said:

.are
.> .vacant and
.> .> .plentiful) and excess limber clearing is destroying habitat which

IS

Quoted message said:

.> .stressing
.> .> .wildlife to death. Why is it so difficult to actually cooperate

with

Quoted message said:

.> .everyone
.> .> .interested in keeping these areas from destruction instead of
.continually
.> .> .splintering groups against each other which ultimately solves
.nothing."
.> .> .As far as your statement: "They kill plants, insects, and other
.animals
.> .every time
.> .> .they ride. That is obvious"
.> .> .Hikers step on insects and plants and disturb wildlife every time

they

Quoted message said:

.> .walk. That is
.> .> .obvious.
.> .>
.> .> Bikers travel several times as far, so kill several times as much
.> .wildlife. DUH!
.> .> Hikers are also able to step over animals & plants. Bikers can't.

They

Quoted message said:

.> .sim[ly
.> .> sqush them.
.> .>
.> .and hikers never venture off trail. All hikers are virtuous
.>
.> I never said that, liar.
.>
.> and all mt
.> .bikers are liars...
.>
.> You just conveniently demonstrated that.
.>
.> .How much you want for that bridge over the bay?
.> .
.> .> So don't play "holier than thou" because you hike, Mr. Double
.Standard.
.> .> .Address the real concerns that ALL OF US are worried about.
.> .>
.> .> There are plenty of people working on stopping sprawl.
.> .
.> .Ignorance is bliss, MR V... so blissfull, apparently, you would

rather

Quoted message said:

.go
.> .after a group who shares many of the same views as you
.>
.> Name ONE view that mountain bikers share (and actively promote) with me
.and
.> other REAL conservationists.
.>
.I did... you again avoided it so you could take a jab at mt bike
.enthusiasts. Here... I'll say it again in words you can grasp. Hikers,

Mt

Quoted message said:

.bikers, conservationists (as you say) are all interested in keeping green
.areas safe from construction. Habitat (which you say you value) is being
.targeted for concrete and pavement every day. Mt bikers are among the

people

Quoted message said:

.trying to keep that from happening.

BS. I spent 8 years working on stopping highway construction, and NOT ONE
mountain biker showed up at any hearing to help. But they always show up

to beg

Quoted message said:

for more mountain biking access.

It destroys the habitat (you claim to
.cherish) AND takes away places to ride and hike. Mt bikers stand with

many

Quoted message said:

.groups to oppose this unneeded construction. You only drive a wedge into

the

Quoted message said:

.mix to get these groups fighting each other. You do more harm than good.
.Concerning your reply to this:
."and hikers never venture off trail. All hikers are virtuous"
.>
.> I never said that, liar.
.I never said you said it. But the way you attribute ecological damage to

all

Quoted message said:

.mt bikers and leave all hikers unchallenged always seems to demonstrate

your

Quoted message said:

.bias.

BS. I advocate human-free habitat, which includes hikers. YOU don't.

Actually... I advocate the use of bicycles on public lands designated as
multi-use. There are miles and miles of trails and fire roads that can be
shared by all interested. This includes offroad cyclists. Your "human free
habitat" is a lofty goal, but is an external argument to the point of
bicycle access in multi-use public land planning. btw... Here in VA there
are miles upon miles of mountain areas that are quite difficult to get to.
Trails only go so far (the App Trail may be an exception, which IS off
limits to bikes) and fire roads or power line cuts are distantly seperated.
By default, most trails systems are close in to existing roads and
population areas. However, newer access possibilities are created whenever
construction expands. Close by, there is a large development cutting into a
once green mountainside even with much public input against it. Driving from
my residence to that point, there are several vacant offices and buildings.
I simply wonder why groups who enjoy venturing outdoors must point there
fingers at each other instead of this type of useless construction. I also
fail to understand why your comments are so combative. Does that really help
anything?

Quoted message said:

.> while bulldozers are
.> .clearing trees for another WalMart.... Sleep well.
.> .> ===
.> .> 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
.> .
.>
.> ===
.> 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
.

===
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, 11 Apr 2004 12:12:08 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:19:36 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email hidden]...
..> .> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 23:24:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>
..> .wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .
..> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> .> .news:[email hidden]...
..> .> .> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 14:00:27 -0400, Steve Curtiss
..> .<[email hidden]>
..> .> .> wrote:
..> .> .>
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:09:01 -0400, "S Curtiss"
..> .<[email hidden]>
..> .> .wrote:
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> .
..> .> .> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> .> .> .> .news:[email hidden]...
..> .> .> .> .> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 17:14:23 -0400, "S Curtiss"
..> .> .<[email hidden]>
..> .> .> .> .wrote:
..> .> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> .> .
..> .> .> .> .> .> 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..
..> .> .> .> .
..> .> .> .> .Lie all YOU want. Studies show your "reasons" are based on false
..> .> .perceptions
..> .> .> .> .and myths being put forth by a small majority who claim to speak
..> .for
..> .> .> .> .wildlife. Moutain bikes are not killing wildlife.
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> That is pure fabrication. They kill plants, insects, and other
..> .animals
..> .> .every tme
..> .> .> .> they ride. That is obvious.
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .How convenient! You snipped the content that specifically addresses
..> .your
..> .> .stated
..> .> .> .concerns (8 years - auto dependence - road construction...) so you
..> .could
..> .> .take
..> .> .> .another shot with your exaggerated claim of ultimate destruction by
..mt
..> .> .bikes. Why
..> .> .> .didn't you address the rest of the content:
..> .> .> ."Urban sprawl, new construction (especially when existing
..structures
..> .are
..> .> .vacant and
..> .> .> .plentiful) and excess limber clearing is destroying habitat which
..IS
..> .> .stressing
..> .> .> .wildlife to death. Why is it so difficult to actually cooperate
..with
..> .> .everyone
..> .> .> .interested in keeping these areas from destruction instead of
..> .continually
..> .> .> .splintering groups against each other which ultimately solves
..> .nothing."
..> .> .> .As far as your statement: "They kill plants, insects, and other
..> .animals
..> .> .every time
..> .> .> .they ride. That is obvious"
..> .> .> .Hikers step on insects and plants and disturb wildlife every time
..they
..> .> .walk. That is
..> .> .> .obvious.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Bikers travel several times as far, so kill several times as much
..> .> .wildlife. DUH!
..> .> .> Hikers are also able to step over animals & plants. Bikers can't.
..They
..> .> .sim[ly
..> .> .> sqush them.
..> .> .>
..> .> .and hikers never venture off trail. All hikers are virtuous
..> .>
..> .> I never said that, liar.
..> .>
..> .> and all mt
..> .> .bikers are liars...
..> .>
..> .> You just conveniently demonstrated that.
..> .>
..> .> .How much you want for that bridge over the bay?
..> .> .
..> .> .> So don't play "holier than thou" because you hike, Mr. Double
..> .Standard.
..> .> .> .Address the real concerns that ALL OF US are worried about.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> There are plenty of people working on stopping sprawl.
..> .> .
..> .> .Ignorance is bliss, MR V... so blissfull, apparently, you would
..rather
..> .go
..> .> .after a group who shares many of the same views as you
..> .>
..> .> Name ONE view that mountain bikers share (and actively promote) with me
..> .and
..> .> other REAL conservationists.
..> .>
..> .I did... you again avoided it so you could take a jab at mt bike
..> .enthusiasts. Here... I'll say it again in words you can grasp. Hikers,
..Mt
..> .bikers, conservationists (as you say) are all interested in keeping green
..> .areas safe from construction. Habitat (which you say you value) is being
..> .targeted for concrete and pavement every day. Mt bikers are among the
..people
..> .trying to keep that from happening.
..>
..> BS. I spent 8 years working on stopping highway construction, and NOT ONE
..> mountain biker showed up at any hearing to help. But they always show up
..to beg
..> for more mountain biking access.
..>
..> It destroys the habitat (you claim to
..> .cherish) AND takes away places to ride and hike. Mt bikers stand with
..many
..> .groups to oppose this unneeded construction. You only drive a wedge into
..the
..> .mix to get these groups fighting each other. You do more harm than good.
..> .Concerning your reply to this:
..> ."and hikers never venture off trail. All hikers are virtuous"
..> .>
..> .> I never said that, liar.
..> .I never said you said it. But the way you attribute ecological damage to
..all
..> .mt bikers and leave all hikers unchallenged always seems to demonstrate
..your
..> .bias.
..>
..> BS. I advocate human-free habitat, which includes hikers. YOU don't.
..>
..Actually... I advocate the use of bicycles on public lands designated as
..multi-use.

So you complain about what hikers do, but instead of doing something to STOP it,
as I do, you beg for the right to join them in destroying habitat!
f
There are miles and miles of trails and fire roads that can be
..shared by all interested. This includes offroad cyclists. Your "human free
..habitat" is a lofty goal, but is an external argument to the point of
..bicycle access in multi-use public land planning. btw... Here in VA there
..are miles upon miles of mountain areas that are quite difficult to get to.
..Trails only go so far (the App Trail may be an exception, which IS off
..limits to bikes) and fire roads or power line cuts are distantly seperated.
..By default, most trails systems are close in to existing roads and
..population areas. However, newer access possibilities are created whenever
..construction expands. Close by, there is a large development cutting into a
..once green mountainside even with much public input against it. Driving from
..my residence to that point, there are several vacant offices and buildings.
..I simply wonder why groups who enjoy venturing outdoors must point there
..fingers at each other instead of this type of useless construction. I also
..fail to understand why your comments are so combative. Does that really help
..anything?

I just tell the truth. Call it whatever you like.
===
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

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:w7eec.3048$kM2.2003@lakeread05...

Quoted message said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BS. I advocate human-free habitat, which includes hikers. YOU don't.

Actually... I advocate the use of bicycles on public lands designated as
multi-use. There are miles and miles of trails and fire roads that can be
shared by all interested. This includes offroad cyclists.

Then you should have no problem with Mike.

Quoted message said:

Your "human free
habitat" is a lofty goal, but is an external argument to the point of
bicycle access in multi-use public land planning. btw... Here in VA there
are miles upon miles of mountain areas that are quite difficult to get to.

The point is not use of public land, but reserving SOME portion of it for
flora and fauna preservation. The fact is that modern technology is not very
good for the ecology and most animals do not do well confronted by
technology and general disturbance. If we wish to pass on the possibility of
preservation of natural habitat, we will have to make some sacrifices and it
is true that roadless habitat is probably necessary to do this, just as
areas of ocean should be kept free of fishing pressure to allow recovery of
natural stocks. Perhaps if you discussed "how much" land needs to be
preserved in isolation, you and Mike could reach an amicable debate based on
scientific assessments.

Quoted message said:

Trails only go so far (the App Trail may be an exception, which IS off
limits to bikes) and fire roads or power line cuts are distantly

seperated.

Quoted message said:

By default, most trails systems are close in to existing roads and
population areas. However, newer access possibilities are created whenever
construction expands. Close by, there is a large development cutting into

a

Quoted message said:

once green mountainside even with much public input against it. Driving

from

Quoted message said:

my residence to that point, there are several vacant offices and

buildings.

Quoted message said:

I simply wonder why groups who enjoy venturing outdoors must point there
fingers at each other instead of this type of useless construction. I also
fail to understand why your comments are so combative. Does that really

help

Quoted message said:

anything?

Try listening to the mountain biker posts for a while. You would get a bit
combative yourself when confronted by "permanently uninformed denial". You
cannot even make a simple correction of a false claim without enduring
endless debate that ignores the fault or claims that it is 'not
representative' when in fact it is published in their mainstream media and
defended by the majority of those mountain bike enthusiasts posting here.

I will agree that a 'positive spin' is helpful but a bit difficult. Mountain
biking seems to appeal to a rather young ( or young thinking ) and self
centered crowd. Of course, this is my third party observation. I am neither
a hiker nor a biker at the moment, though I am relatively 'countrified'
having grown up in a small town in the Muskoka, Ontario region and having
spent years helping to run isolated fly in fishing/hunting lodges. Most of
the small lakes were accessable by trail and I defy any mountain biker to
travel them ( slippery and slanted rocks, moss, etc ). In fact, I find
mountain biking a bit of an 'artificial' sport requiring prepared trails and
without much 'nature' in the equation. The biker is just too busy keeping
his balance and reading the road. Road bikers are much more interested in
scenery but are restricted to prepared surfaces, not really of much interest
to MBrs. It is much better to be limited to artificial terrain prepared for
the purpose. The issue of using public land seems to be more of an 'ego
thing' than a real need.

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:12:08 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

I just tell the truth. Call it whatever you like.

Mike. You tell *a* truth, no more. You have no more truth than any other so
you might skip the arrogance.

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

Ian St. John said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:12:08 -0400, "S Curtiss"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I just tell the truth. Call it whatever you like.

Mike. You tell *a* truth, no more. You have no more truth than any
other so you might skip the arrogance.

There's a first time for everything.

Bill "except that, probably" S.

Wow. I think this is a record for 'waste of electrons'. I can see that you
have more important things to do like a good [censored] so why don't you?

"S o r n i" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ian St. John said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:12:08 -0400, "S Curtiss"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I just tell the truth. Call it whatever you like.

Mike. You tell *a* truth, no more. You have no more truth than any
other so you might skip the arrogance.

There's a first time for everything.

Bill "except that, probably" S.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:00:39 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:12:08 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>
..wrote:
..<snip>
..>
..> I just tell the truth. Call it whatever you like.
..
..Mike. You tell *a* truth, no more. You have no more truth than any other so
..you might skip the arrogance.

That's what I just said. There's no arrogance involved. I just notice a lot of
lying among mountain bikers, who don't know any other way to defend their
indefensible, destructive sport.
===
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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:00:39 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

.
."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.news:[email hidden]...
.> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:12:08 -0400, "S Curtiss"

<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

.wrote:
.<snip>
.>
.> I just tell the truth. Call it whatever you like.
.
.Mike. You tell *a* truth, no more. You have no more truth than any other

so

Quoted message said:

.you might skip the arrogance.

That's what I just said. There's no arrogance involved. I just notice a

lot of

Quoted message said:

lying among mountain bikers, who don't know any other way to defend their
indefensible, destructive sport.

Pointing out a lie among the statements is truth. This sort of blanket smear
is an unjust and meaningless lie.

Quoted message said:

.Ignorance is bliss, MR V... so blissfull, apparently, you would rather

go

Quoted message said:

.after a group who shares many of the same views as you

Name ONE view that mountain bikers share (and actively promote) with me

and

Quoted message said:

other REAL conservationists.

while bulldozers are
.clearing trees for another WalMart.... Sleep well.

I venture to suggest that mountain bike riders are interested in
environmental protection, much as you are. They, contrary to you, realize
that they consume less than one half of one percent of habitat with their
sport and the routes they use for thier sport are shared with dozens of
other outdoor recreationalists, while the development plans of Sam Walton
and his company (and thousands of other companies that build homes and
industrial parks and retail shopping centers, etc. ad naseum) are consuming
habitat at an astounding rate.

Your stated goal, even if 100% successful, would protect virtually nothing
in the grand scheme of things. That is the ignorance that is so blissful.
Sleep well.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:45:58 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:00:39 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email hidden]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email hidden]...
..> .> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:12:08 -0400, "S Curtiss"
..<[email hidden]>
..> .wrote:
..> .<snip>
..> .>
..> .> I just tell the truth. Call it whatever you like.
..> .
..> .Mike. You tell *a* truth, no more. You have no more truth than any other
..so
..> .you might skip the arrogance.
..>
..> That's what I just said. There's no arrogance involved. I just notice a
..lot of
..> lying among mountain bikers, who don't know any other way to defend their
..> indefensible, destructive sport.
..
..Pointing out a lie among the statements is truth. This sort of blanket smear
..is an unjust and meaningless lie.
..

BS. It is so far 100% of my sample (mountain bikers who lie).
===
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 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 9 Apr 2004 20:30:19 GMT, BB <[email hidden]> wrote:

.On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:03:27 GMT, S o r n i wrote:
.> Mike Vandeman wrote:
.>>
.>> That is pure fabrication. They kill plants, insects, and other
.>> animals every tme they ride. That is obvious.
.>
.> You forgot the "Duh!"
.
.And lets face it, the backcountry is SO lacking in insects...

Oh, so they are expendable, as far as mountain bikers are concerned. Thanks for
demonstrating my point: mountain bikers don't care about wildlife.
==

In India, the religious Jains wear a face-mask to avoid injuring gnats
and mites by inadvertantly inhaling them, and carry a broom to gently
sweep insects from their path. Perhaps you should go to India and
join their temple.

RK said:

Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh, so they are expendable, as far as mountain bikers are concerned.
Thanks for demonstrating my point: mountain bikers don't care about
wildlife. ==

In India, the religious Jains wear a face-mask to avoid injuring gnats
and mites by inadvertantly inhaling them, and carry a broom to gently
sweep insects from their path. Perhaps you should go to India and
join their temple.

Hmmm. So maybe my role as "sweeper" on most rides is noble after all!

Bill "sweeper sounds better than anchor" S.

(RK) said:

Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 9 Apr 2004 20:30:19 GMT, BB <[email hidden]> wrote:

.On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:03:27 GMT, S o r n i wrote:
.> Mike Vandeman wrote:
.>>
.>> That is pure fabrication. They kill plants, insects, and other
.>> animals every tme they ride. That is obvious.
.>
.> You forgot the "Duh!"
.
.And lets face it, the backcountry is SO lacking in insects...

Oh, so they are expendable, as far as mountain bikers are concerned. Thanks for
demonstrating my point: mountain bikers don't care about wildlife.
==

In India, the religious Jains wear a face-mask to avoid injuring gnats
and mites by inadvertantly inhaling them, and carry a broom to gently
sweep insects from their path. Perhaps you should go to India and
join their temple.

I guess this means that Mikey has never used an insecticide or bug
repellant in his life, or even slapped a mosquito or black fly biting
him.

If he was actually a hiker, rather than walking in parks, and if he
had a normal sense of priorities, that perhaps human life is slightly
more significant than the life of one individual insect, he might have
something in common with other people here.

But he is more extreme than any PETA member, and more contemptuous of
humans.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom