"Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Ed, You weren't paying attention. I told you that I am not a mountain biker. I'm all over the part about being a sinner, but that should have no bearing on the discussion. The environment is the environment. Mountain biking is not a threat to the environment. Superhighways, homes, mini malls, development. These are threats to the environment. Recreation is not a threat.
Mountain biking on my sacred footpaths is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it.
But I certainly do agree with you that there are many more dire threats to the environment than any kind of recreation. We are essentially arguing over how many angels will fit on the end of a needle.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Ed, You weren't paying attention. I told you that I am not a mountain biker. I'm all over the part about being a sinner, but that should have no bearing on the discussion. The environment is the environment. Mountain biking is not a threat to the environment. Superhighways, homes, mini malls, development. These are threats to the environment. Recreation is not a threat.
Mountain biking on my sacred footpaths is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it.
You might as well speak from a Christian point of view "The Da Vinci Code is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it." or from a musical point of view "Rap music is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it." Of course your sense of peace and space should be respected. But not any more than any other's sense of peace and space. Off-road cycling is already either severely limited or illegal in most of the areas you admit you go. So why use the verbage "ban it"? It is more beneficial to regulate it to increase access where viable and decrease access where it is not. I fail to see the insistence of argument when cooperation ultimately means more interest in preservation.
Quoted message said:
But I certainly do agree with you that there are many more dire threats to the environment than any kind of recreation. We are essentially arguing over how many angels will fit on the end of a needle.
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Ed, You weren't paying attention. I told you that I am not a mountain biker. I'm all over the part about being a sinner, but that should have no bearing on the discussion. The environment is the environment. Mountain biking is not a threat to the environment. Superhighways, homes, mini malls, development. These are threats to the environment. Recreation is not a threat.
Mountain biking on my sacred footpaths is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it.
But I certainly do agree with you that there are many more dire threats to the environment than any kind of recreation. We are essentially arguing over how many angels will fit on the end of a needle.
Yes, and since the topic is the environment and not your personal space, then we should stick to the facts and avoid emotional explosions.
"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lUleg.14989$B42.14803@dukeread05...
Quoted message said:
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Ed, You weren't paying attention. I told you that I am not a mountain biker. I'm all over the part about being a sinner, but that should have no bearing on the discussion. The environment is the environment. Mountain biking is not a threat to the environment. Superhighways, homes, mini malls, development. These are threats to the environment. Recreation is not a threat.
Mountain biking on my sacred footpaths is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it.
You might as well speak from a Christian point of view "The Da Vinci Code is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it." or from a musical point of view "Rap music is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it." Of course your sense of peace and space should be respected. But not any more than any other's sense of peace and space.
My activity as a hiker does not threaten your peace of mind, but your activity as a mountain biker does threaten my peace of mind. You are equating that which cannot be equated.
Quoted message said:
Off-road cycling is already either severely limited or illegal in most of the areas you admit you go. So why use the verbage "ban it"? It is more beneficial to regulate it to increase access where viable and decrease access where it is not. I fail to see the insistence of argument when cooperation ultimately means more interest in preservation.
Quoted message said:
But I certainly do agree with you that there are many more dire threats to the environment than any kind of recreation. We are essentially arguing over how many angels will fit on the end of a needle.
Ta da. Now... go tell Vandeman.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
"Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Ed, You weren't paying attention. I told you that I am not a mountain biker. I'm all over the part about being a sinner, but that should have no bearing on the discussion. The environment is the environment. Mountain biking is not a threat to the environment. Superhighways, homes, mini malls, development. These are threats to the environment. Recreation is not a threat.
Mountain biking on my sacred footpaths is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it.
But I certainly do agree with you that there are many more dire threats to the environment than any kind of recreation. We are essentially arguing over how many angels will fit on the end of a needle.
Yes, and since the topic is the environment and not your personal space, then we should stick to the facts and avoid emotional explosions.
I think that is the main reason for newsgroups, so that we can all bring our personal experiences to bear on an issue. Also, a bit of emotional expression never hurt anyone.
It is no good pretending that everything is objective when we know that subjectivity is of the essence. You are learning what a particular hiker thinks of mountain bikes on hiking trails thanks to me.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lUleg.14989$B42.14803@dukeread05...
Quoted message said:
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Ed, > You weren't paying attention. I told you that I am not a mountain > biker. I'm all over the part about being a sinner, but that should have > no bearing on the discussion. The environment is the environment. > Mountain biking is not a threat to the environment. Superhighways, > homes, mini malls, development. These are threats to the environment. > Recreation is not a threat.
Mountain biking on my sacred footpaths is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it.
You might as well speak from a Christian point of view "The Da Vinci Code is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it." or from a musical point of view "Rap music is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it." Of course your sense of peace and space should be respected. But not any more than any other's sense of peace and space.
My activity as a hiker does not threaten your peace of mind, but your activity as a mountain biker does threaten my peace of mind. You are equating that which cannot be equated.
My activity threatens you not at all. You have already stated you prefer to hike in Wilderness. By law, designated Wilderness areas are off limits to bikes. You have a legal recourse if you spot one. My activity as a cyclist is on the other end of the country from you. My activity as a cyclist conforms to the "rules" of the trail anyway so any encounter would be minimal, if at all. It is you and Vandeman trying to equate off-road cycling to all that is wrong with the environment, preservation and any possiblity of cooperation to save any of it. It is you two who continue to throw the debate of cycling into "everywhere or nowhere".
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Off-road cycling is already either severely limited or illegal in most of the areas you admit you go. So why use the verbage "ban it"? It is more beneficial to regulate it to increase access where viable and decrease access where it is not. I fail to see the insistence of argument when cooperation ultimately means more interest in preservation.
Quoted message said:
But I certainly do agree with you that there are many more dire threats to the environment than any kind of recreation. We are essentially arguing over how many angels will fit on the end of a needle.
"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:vYogg.16628$B42.2799@dukeread05...
Quoted message said:
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lUleg.14989$B42.14803@dukeread05...
Quoted message said:
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> Ed, >> You weren't paying attention. I told you that I am not a mountain >> biker. I'm all over the part about being a sinner, but that should >> have no bearing on the discussion. The environment is the environment. >> Mountain biking is not a threat to the environment. Superhighways, >> homes, mini malls, development. These are threats to the environment. >> Recreation is not a threat. > > Mountain biking on my sacred footpaths is a threat to my peace of mind. > That is reason enough to ban it.
You might as well speak from a Christian point of view "The Da Vinci Code is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it." or from a musical point of view "Rap music is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it." Of course your sense of peace and space should be respected. But not any more than any other's sense of peace and space.
My activity as a hiker does not threaten your peace of mind, but your activity as a mountain biker does threaten my peace of mind. You are equating that which cannot be equated.
My activity threatens you not at all. You have already stated you prefer to hike in Wilderness. By law, designated Wilderness areas are off limits to bikes. You have a legal recourse if you spot one. My activity as a cyclist is on the other end of the country from you. My activity as a cyclist conforms to the "rules" of the trail anyway so any encounter would be minimal, if at all. It is you and Vandeman trying to equate off-road cycling to all that is wrong with the environment, preservation and any possiblity of cooperation to save any of it. It is you two who continue to throw the debate of cycling into "everywhere or nowhere".
I have already stated repeatedly that I am not a purist like Vandeman. As long as you stay out of my sacred wilderness I will not bother with you at all. Of course, if you want to hike in my sacred wilderness, then I shall greet you as a fellow human being.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Off-road cycling is already either severely limited or illegal in most of the areas you admit you go. So why use the verbage "ban it"? It is more beneficial to regulate it to increase access where viable and decrease access where it is not. I fail to see the insistence of argument when cooperation ultimately means more interest in preservation. > > But I certainly do agree with you that there are many more dire threats > to the environment than any kind of recreation. We are essentially > arguing over how many angels will fit on the end of a needle.
Ta da. Now... go tell Vandeman.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
