MV Agrees

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 .>

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 .> > > > same time." .> > > > .> > >

Quoted message said:

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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

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 .> >

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 .>

Quoted message said:

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 .>

Quoted message said:

"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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 19:27:35 -0500, "di" <[email hidden]> wrote:

. . .> So when you put on your dress and bra, do you
become a woman? Idiot. .> . . .If anyone would know, it
would be you

So you DO? That's what I thought.
===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 07:46:55 -0400, Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]>
wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman 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. . .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!

Look up "analogy" in the dictionary.

.> 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.) .> .> home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 02:40:26 GMT, Brett Jaffee <[email hidden]>
wrote:

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

Yes, there is: tell the truth.
===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 23:19:28 -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:WU_bc.52429$_U.28977@lakeread05... .> > .> > "Ian St.
John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message .> >
"]news:[email hidden]... .> > >
.> > > "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message .> > > news:MrXbc.52015$_U.10853@lakeread05... .>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

.> > > > "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 .> > >

Quoted message said:

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., .> > > .>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 .> >

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 .> 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.
.> .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.

That's NOT what Paul Nam said. He simply LIED. Fact
the facts.

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.

They don't stop being mountain bikers when they hike, any
more than a mother stops being a mother, when she isn't
suckling her infant.
===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:df4cc.53638$_U.2294@lakeread05...

Quoted message said:

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

<Snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<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?

No. I am just repeating the simple facts about which you are
in denial.

Quoted message said:

Go back to the "we have been dismissed..." thread if you
want to keep picking that apart. I'm done with it.

Admitting defeat ? Good for you? Not as good as learning
from your mistakes but at least you aren't digging your
hole deeper.

Quoted message said:

The issue is trail access for the purpose of off road
cycling.

"We have been dismissed" is talking about people. Mountain
bikes are not people. Only mountian bikes are barred from
the trail.

Quoted message said:

People are using misinformation and perpetuating false
perceptions to hinder the activity of off road cycling on
public lands.

Whatever... Apparently you consider your rights are greater
than others. A little humility might be useful but I suppose
mountain bikers are all gung ho testosterone filled
teenagers, immune to reason.

Quoted message said:

If you want to give specific reasons why offroad cycling
should not be allowed in these areas, then do so.

Trail damage. Long term habitat preservation. Reducing
stress on wildlife that is penned in too small nature
reserves as it is. etc. etc. etc.

Quoted message said:

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.

Why not develop private lands where you can maintain the
trails at your OWN expense, like the environmental groups do
when buyiing land to prevent logging or to preserve habitat?
Why keep asking for a public subsidy to your activities?

Quoted message said:

The only purpose of carrying the other statement over in
the first place

was

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

same scrutiny.

The fact is that mountain bikers are not barred from the
trail as claime. It is only mountain bikes that are barred.
Mountain bikes have no rights. This is simple semantics.
Making a claim that does not make sense when analysed is
just wrong. You cannot use words as a club, ignoring their
meanings. You have to say what you mean or you risk getting
called on the falsity of what you DID say, no matter what
you say you meant.

Quoted message said:

Come on Mike, you can do better than that.

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

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 19:27:35 -0500, "di"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

. . .> So when you put on your dress and bra, do you
become a woman? Idiot. .> . . .If anyone would know, it
would be you

So you DO? That's what I thought.
===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

. ."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

Quoted message said:

.> > > > 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

Quoted message said:

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

at

Quoted message said:

.> the .> > > > same time." .> > > > .> > > > So he
agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to

access

Quoted message said:

.> 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

Quoted message said:

.> 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

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.
.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:

.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

Quoted message said:

.cycling.

That's not what Paul Nam said. He said they are "denied
access". Period.

That's

Quoted message said:

nothing but a LIE.

Typical... keep beating that horse but totally ignore
anything of substance. (ex: the next block of text, which
asks direct questions but are left unanswered by the double-
standard king)

Quoted message said:

.Rather than "nit pick" over the semantics of a statement
in order to

throw

Quoted message said:

.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

Quoted message said:

.disrespectful to the rights of other trail users? Why are
all "hikers"

not

Quoted message said:

.labeled as littering, off-trail wandering, plant-stomping
wildlife

killers?

Quoted message said:

.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

Quoted message said:

.with unneeded sprawl of construction and the destruction
of green areas

as

Quoted message said:

.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

Quoted message said:

.been active in their communities and parks working to
further his (MV)

own

Quoted message said:

.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

Quoted message said:

.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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 07:46:55 -0400, Steve Curtiss
<[email hidden]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman 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

Quoted message said:

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

at the

Quoted message said:

.> .> > same time." .> .> > .> .> > So he agrees. Banning
mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to

access they

Quoted message said:

.> .> > must become hikers. .> .> .> .> They do not
'become' anything. They are hiders by their current

activity,

Quoted message said:

.> .> but remain mountain bikers by their other
activities. The person is

not

Quoted message said:

.> .> barred from the land. The mountain bike is barred
from the trail. A

mountain

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:

.> .> 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

Quoted message said:

.realize you can't defend your illogical position, so
you turn to

attacking PEOPLE.

Quoted message said:

.You guys are transparent." . .There you go again, Mr.
Double Standard. "Attacking people"? Calling me

an "idiot"

Quoted message said:

.and claiming I wear a dress...? Since when is calling
someone a "liar"

and a

Quoted message said:

.cross-dresser a defense of any of your positions. Is it
not an attack

just because it

Quoted message said:

.came from you? What a hypocrite!

Look up "analogy" in the dictionary.

Fine.. you can look up "opinion".

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.) .> .> home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:df4cc.53638$_U.2294@lakeread05...

Quoted message said:

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

<Snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<snip of more and more [censored]>

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

said

Quoted message said:

Quoted message 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lies

Quoted message said:

based on your failure to grasp semantics.

Are you stuck in a rut?

No. I am just repeating the simple facts about which you
are in denial.

Quoted message said:

Go back to the "we have been dismissed..." thread if you
want to keep picking that apart. I'm done with it.

Admitting defeat ? Good for you? Not as good as learning
from your

mistakes

Quoted message said:

but at least you aren't digging your hole deeper.

Quoted message said:

The issue is trail access for the purpose of off road
cycling.

"We have been dismissed" is talking about people. Mountain
bikes are not people. Only mountian bikes are barred from
the trail.

Quoted message said:

People are using misinformation and perpetuating false
perceptions to hinder the activity of off road cycling
on public lands.

Whatever... Apparently you consider your rights are
greater than others. A little humility might be useful but
I suppose mountain bikers are all gung ho testosterone
filled teenagers, immune to reason.

Quoted message said:

If you want to give specific reasons why offroad cycling
should not be allowed in these areas, then do so.

Trail damage. Long term habitat preservation. Reducing
stress on wildlife that is penned in too small nature
reserves as it is. etc. etc. etc.

Quoted message said:

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.

Why not develop private lands where you can maintain the
trails at your

OWN

Quoted message said:

expense, like the environmental groups do when buyiing
land to prevent logging or to preserve habitat? Why keep
asking for a public subsidy to

your

Quoted message said:

activities?

Quoted message said:

The only purpose of carrying the other statement over in
the first place

was

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

same scrutiny.

The fact is that mountain bikers are not barred from the
trail as claime.

It

Quoted message said:

is only mountain bikes that are barred. Mountain bikes
have no rights.

This

Quoted message said:

is simple semantics. Making a claim that does not make
sense when analysed is just wrong. You cannot use words as
a club, ignoring their meanings.

You

Quoted message said:

have to say what you mean or you risk getting called on
the falsity of

what

Quoted message said:

you DID say, no matter what you say you meant.

Finally... I will at least applaud you on saying something
of relevance. While you still took the opportunity to take
a few jabs, you at least addressed the issue with your
points. (Trail damage. Long term habitat preservation.
Reducing stress on wildlife that is penned in too small
nature reserves as it is. etc. etc. etc) Yes... P Nam (was
that his name) made a statement that was literallly
incorrect for the meaning he intended. I only wanted to
clarify the statement from the point of view of cycling
enthusiasts. I never wanted a tennis match of semantics. I
would hope this thread has at least clarified the
importance of being clear when making statements to open a
discussion. Your last statement seems to sum up this entire
dialogue. Almost as an agreement to disagree... MV, on the
other hand, has yet to make that step.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

. ."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> .> >

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. .> As .>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people, they are not barred from the trail. Only the

mountian bike

is

Quoted message said:

.> > > barred. Mountain bikes have no rights. .> > > .> >

Quoted message said:

.> > "nit picking on typing skills" is as useless as

nitpicking on details

of

Quoted message said:

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

meaning

Quoted message said:

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

your

Quoted message said:

.> 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

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:

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

off

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.

You

Quoted message said:

.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

Quoted message said:

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. 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.

Quoted message said:

.Now... is there any way at all to get out of this
endless loop of

semantics

Quoted message said:

.and literal meaning and get to the issue of shared access
on public

lands?

Quoted message said:

.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

Quoted message said:

.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

Quoted message said:

.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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

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

===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:36:45 -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:df4cc.53638$_U.2294@lakeread05... .> > .> > "Ian
St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message .> <Snip>
.> > > <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. .> > > .> > Are you stuck in a rut? .> .>
No. I am just repeating the simple facts about which you
are in denial. .> .> > Go back to the "we have been
dismissed..." thread if .> > you want to keep picking that
apart. I'm done with it. .> .> Admitting defeat ? Good for
you? Not as good as learning from your .mistakes .> but at
least you aren't digging your hole deeper. .> .> > The
issue is trail access for the purpose of off road cycling.
.> .> "We have been dismissed" is talking about people.
Mountain bikes are not .> people. Only mountian bikes are
barred from the trail. .> .> > People are .> > using
misinformation and perpetuating false perceptions to
hinder the .> > activity of off road cycling on public
lands. .> .> Whatever... Apparently you consider your
rights are greater than others. A .> little humility might
be useful but I suppose mountain bikers are all gung .> ho
testosterone filled teenagers, immune to reason. .> .> >
If you want to give specific reasons why offroad cycling
should not be .> > allowed in these areas, then do so. .>
.> Trail damage. Long term habitat preservation. Reducing
stress on wildlife .> that is penned in too small nature
reserves as it is. etc. etc. etc. .> .> > 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. .> .> Why not develop
private lands where you can maintain the trails at your
.OWN .> expense, like the environmental groups do when
buyiing land to prevent .> logging or to preserve habitat?
Why keep asking for a public subsidy to .your .>
activities? .> .> > 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. .> .> The fact is that mountain bikers are
not barred from the trail as claime. .It .> is only
mountain bikes that are barred. Mountain bikes have no
rights. .This .> is simple semantics. Making a claim that
does not make sense when analysed .> is just wrong. You
cannot use words as a club, ignoring their meanings. .You
.> have to say what you mean or you risk getting called on
the falsity of .what .> you DID say, no matter what you
say you meant. .> .Finally... I will at least applaud you
on saying something of relevance. .While you still took
the opportunity to take a few .jabs, you at least
addressed the issue with your points. (Trail damage. Long
.term habitat preservation. Reducing stress on wildlife
that is penned in too .small nature reserves as it is.
etc. etc. etc) .Yes... P Nam (was that his name) made a
statement that was literallly .incorrect for the meaning
he intended. I only wanted .to clarify the statement from
the point of view of cycling enthusiasts. I .never wanted
a tennis match of semantics. I would hope this thread has
at .least clarified the importance of being clear when
making statements to open .a discussion. Your last
statement seems to sum up this entire dialogue. .Almost as
an agreement to disagree... .MV, on the other hand, has
yet to make that step. .

Because it's not true. Paul Nam's statement wasn't a
mistake. He DELIBERATELY lied, in order to try to get
sympathy for mountain bikers. Period.
===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

Mike Vandeman said:

That is pure fabrication. They kill plants, insects, and
other animals every tme they ride. That is obvious.

You forgot the "Duh!"

Anyone notice how the mad doc is posting on weekday mornings
lately? Whassa matta, off on crazy leave?!?

Bill "mental instability grounds for disability" S.

Mike Vandeman said:

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. So don't play "holier than thou" because you hike,
Mr. Double Standard. Address the real concerns that ALL OF
US are worried about.

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.)

So he says... but all he seems to do is avoid direct
communication with groups that are interested in possibly
cooperating to save some of these areas.

Quoted message said:

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

S o r n i said:

Mike Vandeman said:

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...

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail
address, at least)

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

Quoted message said:

How convenient! You snipped the content that specifically
addresses your

stated

Quoted message said:

concerns (8 years - auto dependence - road
construction...) so you could

take

Quoted message said:

another shot with your exaggerated claim of ultimate
destruction by mt

bikes. Why

Quoted message said:

didn't you address the rest of the content:

The obvious answer is that NOTHING harms the environment
like a bicycle tire. Mike's agenda has nothing to do
with saving the environment, it is all about making sure
that mountain bikes are never taken off of the bumper
rack. Duh. ;-)

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.

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.
===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

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.
===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗