Webster Defines "Singletrack"

Mike Vandeman said:

"Lacking intellectual range, receptiveness, or flexibility:
one-track."

That describes mountain bikers perfectly.

And you even better.

Quoted message said:

"Lacking intellectual range, receptiveness, or flexibility: one-track."

Mirror mirror on the wall, eh Mikey Boy?

"Michael Dart" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Vandeman said:

"Lacking intellectual range, receptiveness, or flexibility:
one-track."

That describes mountain bikers perfectly.

And you even better.

nah. k00kfart is better.

Mike Vandeman said:

"Lacking intellectual range, receptiveness, or flexibility: one-track."

That describes mountain bikers perfectly.
===
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

Actually, Webster lists "Single-track" and the primary response is
"Having only one track" -> applies to mountain biking

the secondary response, with the alternative reference "one-track" is
"lacking intellectual range, receptiveness, or flexibility" -> when you
look at "one-track" you see:

"marked by often narrowly restricted attention to or absorption in just
one thing" -> which seems to describe the full range of your posts to
this group since I joined on.

As for the hikers not wearing lug soles...you obviously haven't been to
what I would call trails. My bike tires are tame as compared to what
some people wear on their feet and call boots.

I'd tell you to take a hike, Mike...but you'd enjoy that too much.
Rather, why not get a trainer for your bike (and years of experience) so
you can "sit and spin".

Psycho Mike

Michael Halliwell said:

Mike Vandeman said:

"Lacking intellectual range, receptiveness, or flexibility: one-track."

That describes mountain bikers perfectly.
===
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

Actually, Webster lists "Single-track" and the primary response is
"Having only one track" -> applies to mountain biking

the secondary response, with the alternative reference "one-track" is
"lacking intellectual range, receptiveness, or flexibility" -> when you
look at "one-track" you see:

"marked by often narrowly restricted attention to or absorption in just
one thing" -> which seems to describe the full range of your posts to
this group since I joined on.
Psycho Mike

Well, it certainly describes his understanding of Websters definition -
although there was two potential definitions of "single-track", his
"one-track" mind failed to have the intellectual range, the
receptiveness or flexibility to accept that there were two definitions
and he chose to use only the second definition in an attempt to promote
his "one-track" pseudo-environmental crusade.
--
Westie

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

Quoted message said:

"Lacking intellectual range, receptiveness, or flexibility: one-track."

That describes mountain bikers perfectly.
===
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

Yawn

Once again I am mesmerized by MV's rapier like wit. Or perhaps I'm only
half right....

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

Quoted message said:

"Lacking intellectual range, receptiveness, or flexibility: one-track."

That describes mountain bikers perfectly.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:35:46 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

.."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..> "Lacking intellectual range, receptiveness, or flexibility: one-track."
..>
..> That describes mountain bikers perfectly.
..> ===
..Really... We are the ones advocating trail use for everyone.

BS. Bikes drive off other trail users, as you well know. Bikers are already
allowed on all trails. You only advocate access for BIKES, which aren't human
and don't have any rights.

We are the
..ones that recognize sharing the trails with non-cyclists. We are the ones
..stressing cooperation between all user groups to maintain and preserve
..natural areas.

BS. You just want access for your BIKES, and don't give a damn about wildlife OR
the environment.

We are the ones assisting with education of land managers,
..cyclists, hikers, equestrians and others on conflict resolution and
..minimizing impact.

You mean propagandizing and LYING.

.. We are the ones gathering voices against urban sprawl.

BS. You all carry your bikes to the trailhead on top of your SUVs.

..Your single thought process is to eliminate mt biking. Your "intellectual
..range" is nothing but reinforcement of your own assumptions tagged by your
.."PhD" attempting to show credibility. You are not receptive to any
..information outside of your own assumptions and you lack the flexibility to
..converse without resorting to name-calling and character assassination.

LYING is not "information".

..Again... you attempt to point the finger away from yourself. Is this the
..intelligence gained from acheiving your degree?
..

===
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:

"Lacking intellectual range, receptiveness, or flexibility: one-track."

That describes mountain bikers perfectly.
===
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,

I remember handing you your ass in the perverbial usenet "asskicking" a
while back. Do you really want another? The movie animal house personifies
everything you are doing here. You have no debate skills, or numchuck, or
bowstaff skills either. Don't you know chicks want guys with skills. You
have no game.......at all. Not even picking on poor little mountainbikers.

TJ

Mike Vandeman said:

'singletrack' definition?
"Lacking intellectual range, receptiveness, or flexibility: one-track."
That describes mountain bikers perfectly.

I tend to agree; with a little forethought there's usually room to
squeeze in two tracks right from the beginning.

Gio

"Blazing two-tracks into one-track minds." TM

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:35:46 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

BS. You just want access for your BIKES, and don't give a damn about
wildlife OR
the environment.

Another example of "projection" on the part of mike.

Quoted message said:

BS. You all carry your bikes to the trailhead on top of your SUVs.

No mike, I ride to the trailhead on my bike and then ride the trail. All the
SUVs at the trailhead belong to the lazy hikers who don't have all day to
hike to the trail they want to hike on.

Have a nice day mike.
Charlie Maxwell

Michael Dart said:

Mike Vandeman said:

"Lacking intellectual range, receptiveness, or flexibility:
one-track."

That describes mountain bikers perfectly.

And you even better.

Well that's it then. I'm quitting and becoming a raving lunatic hiker.
Thanks for showing me the light!

Matt

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:35:46 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:
.>
.> That describes mountain bikers perfectly.
.> ===
.Really... We are the ones advocating trail use for everyone.

BS. Bikes drive off other trail users, as you well know. Bikers are
already
allowed on all trails. You only advocate access for BIKES, which aren't
human
and don't have any rights.

IF mt bikers are allowed on all trails WITHOUT bicycles, then mt bikers DO
NOT EXIST as the definition of MT BIKING is the ACT of cycling OFF-ROAD. IF
there are no places to bicycle OFF-ROAD, there are NO mt bikers. Your
statement is a non-issue; IF some one is on a trail walking - they are a
HIKER. IF someone is on a trail on a bicycle - they are a MT BIKER.
Mountain Biker ACCESS encompasses the cyclist, the bicycle AND the act of
RIDING the bicycle ON THE TRAIL.
Of course a mt biker can go into the woods as a HIKER - You fail to grasp
(even with an education, a PhD, and claimed intelligence) that access for mt
biking is determined by the activity of mt biking.
A mt biker can not be a mt biker without someplace to perfoem the activity.
Please enlighten me - if nobody brought bikes into the parks and trails, who
then would be classified as a "mt biker"?

Quoted message said:

We are the
.ones that recognize sharing the trails with non-cyclists. We are the ones
.stressing cooperation between all user groups to maintain and preserve
.natural areas.

BS. You just want access for your BIKES, and don't give a damn about
wildlife OR
the environment.

Your opinion - your bias - your assumption. You attribute characteristics to
a group (off road cyclists) based on your disdain for the activity involved.

Quoted message said:

We are the ones assisting with education of land managers,
.cyclists, hikers, equestrians and others on conflict resolution and
.minimizing impact.

You mean propagandizing and LYING.

Again - Your assumption. You point a finger and call "propaganda" or "liar"
at any information that differs from your conclusions. That is not science.
Science draws on information. It does not exclude it.

Quoted message said:

. We are the ones gathering voices against urban sprawl.

BS. You all carry your bikes to the trailhead on top of your SUVs.

Again with "all".... ALL hikers drive to the trailhead. Are there more
hikers or cyclists? I don't know.... Do you?
Besides, if we all accepted urban sprawl - we would not have to drive to the
trail... We would be living right next to it. So which do you want?
Neighborhoods spread into more and more wooded areas? Or neighborhoods
seperate so we have to travel to the woods?

Quoted message said:

.Your single thought process is to eliminate mt biking. Your "intellectual
.range" is nothing but reinforcement of your own assumptions tagged by
your
."PhD" attempting to show credibility. You are not receptive to any
.information outside of your own assumptions and you lack the flexibility
to
.converse without resorting to name-calling and character assassination.

LYING is not "information".

Then why do you proceed with the lie that your conclusions on information
are the only ones possible?

Quoted message said:

.Again... you attempt to point the finger away from yourself. Is this
the
.intelligence gained from acheiving your degree?
.

===
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 think we should drive our SUVs on the trails and run over fanatical
hikers.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:08:53 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:35:46 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.news:[email hidden]...
.> "Lacking intellectual range, receptiveness, or flexibility: one-track."
.>
.> That describes mountain bikers perfectly.
.> ===
.Really... We are the ones advocating trail use for everyone.

BS. Bikes drive off other trail users, as you well know. Bikers are already
allowed on all trails. You only advocate access for BIKES, which aren't human
and don't have any rights.

We are the
.ones that recognize sharing the trails with non-cyclists. We are the ones
.stressing cooperation between all user groups to maintain and preserve
.natural areas.

BS. You just want access for your BIKES, and don't give a damn about wildlife OR
the environment.

We are the ones assisting with education of land managers,
.cyclists, hikers, equestrians and others on conflict resolution and
.minimizing impact.

You mean propagandizing and LYING.

. We are the ones gathering voices against urban sprawl.

BS. You all carry your bikes to the trailhead on top of your SUVs.

.Your single thought process is to eliminate mt biking. Your "intellectual
.range" is nothing but reinforcement of your own assumptions tagged by your
."PhD" attempting to show credibility. You are not receptive to any
.information outside of your own assumptions and you lack the flexibility to
.converse without resorting to name-calling and character assassination.

LYING is not "information".

.Again... you attempt to point the finger away from yourself. Is this the
.intelligence gained from acheiving your degree?
.

===
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 Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:35:09 -0600, "TJ" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..> "Lacking intellectual range, receptiveness, or flexibility: one-track."
..>
..> That describes mountain bikers perfectly.
..> ===
..> 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,
..
..I remember handing you your ass in the perverbial usenet "asskicking" a
..while back.

Hasn't happened yet. Must have been another Mike Vandeman.

Do you really want another? The movie animal house personifies
..everything you are doing here. You have no debate skills, or numchuck, or
..bowstaff skills either. Don't you know chicks want guys with skills. You
..have no game.......at all. Not even picking on poor little mountainbikers.
..
..TJ

It's like shoting fish in a barrel. I almost feel guilty -- but not quite: you
deserve it.
===
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 Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:42:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:35:46 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> That describes mountain bikers perfectly.
..> .> ===
..> .Really... We are the ones advocating trail use for everyone.
..>
..> BS. Bikes drive off other trail users, as you well know. Bikers are
..> already
..> allowed on all trails. You only advocate access for BIKES, which aren't
..> human
..> and don't have any rights.
..IF mt bikers are allowed on all trails WITHOUT bicycles, then mt bikers DO
..NOT EXIST as the definition of MT BIKING is the ACT of cycling OFF-ROAD.

Or habitual riding off-road.

IF
..there are no places to bicycle OFF-ROAD, there are NO mt bikers.

That would be nice.

Your
..statement is a non-issue; IF some one is on a trail walking - they are a
..HIKER. IF someone is on a trail on a bicycle - they are a MT BIKER.

Right, so if you aren't at work, you are no longer a doctor, lawyer, programmer,
or whatever. Sure.

..Mountain Biker ACCESS encompasses the cyclist, the bicycle AND the act of
..RIDING the bicycle ON THE TRAIL.
..Of course a mt biker can go into the woods as a HIKER - You fail to grasp
..(even with an education, a PhD, and claimed intelligence) that access for mt
..biking is determined by the activity of mt biking.
..A mt biker can not be a mt biker without someplace to perfoem the activity.

You can do it in your front yard. And SHOULD.

..Please enlighten me - if nobody brought bikes into the parks and trails, who
..then would be classified as a "mt biker"?

All the [censored] and liars.

..> We are the
..> .ones that recognize sharing the trails with non-cyclists. We are the ones
..> .stressing cooperation between all user groups to maintain and preserve
..> .natural areas.
..>
..> BS. You just want access for your BIKES, and don't give a damn about
..> wildlife OR
..> the environment.
..Your opinion - your bias - your assumption. You attribute characteristics to
..a group (off road cyclists) based on your disdain for the activity involved.

That's from observation (i.e., science).

..> We are the ones assisting with education of land managers,
..> .cyclists, hikers, equestrians and others on conflict resolution and
..> .minimizing impact.
..>
..> You mean propagandizing and LYING.
..Again - Your assumption. You point a finger and call "propaganda" or "liar"
..at any information that differs from your conclusions. That is not science.
..Science draws on information. It does not exclude it.

I know a lie when I hear it. Mountain bikers lie CONSTANTLY.

..> . We are the ones gathering voices against urban sprawl.
..>
..> BS. You all carry your bikes to the trailhead on top of your SUVs.
..Again with "all".... ALL hikers drive to the trailhead. Are there more
..hikers or cyclists? I don't know.... Do you?
..Besides, if we all accepted urban sprawl - we would not have to drive to the
..trail... We would be living right next to it. So which do you want?
..Neighborhoods spread into more and more wooded areas? Or neighborhoods
..seperate so we have to travel to the woods?
..>
..> .Your single thought process is to eliminate mt biking. Your "intellectual
..> .range" is nothing but reinforcement of your own assumptions tagged by
..> your
..> ."PhD" attempting to show credibility. You are not receptive to any
..> .information outside of your own assumptions and you lack the flexibility
..> to
..> .converse without resorting to name-calling and character assassination.
..>
..> LYING is not "information".
..Then why do you proceed with the lie that your conclusions on information
..are the only ones possible?

I never said that. YOU did. Lie upon lie upon lie.

..> .Again... you attempt to point the finger away from yourself. Is this
..> the
..> .intelligence gained from acheiving your degree?
..> .
..>
..> ===
..> 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 Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:10:06 -0700, John <[email hidden]> wrote:

..Path: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!peer01.west.cox.net!cox.net!p01!fed1read07.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
..From: John <[email hidden]>
..Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike
..Subject: Re: Webster Defines "Singletrack"
..Message-ID: <[email hidden]>
..References: <[email hidden]> <YPb3f.12658$U%5.1737@lakeread05> <[email hidden]>
..X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 2.0/32.640
..MIME-Version: 1.0
..Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
..Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
..Lines: 57
..Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:10:06 -0700
..NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.224.155.79
..X-Complaints-To: [email hidden]
..X-Trace: fed1read07 1129255794 68.224.155.79 (Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:09:54 EDT)
..NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:09:54 EDT
..Organization: Cox Communications
..Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com alt.mountain-bike:487664
..
..I think we should drive our SUVs on the trails and run over fanatical
..hikers.

Your advocacy of violence is duly noted.

..On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:08:53 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]>
..wrote:
..
..>On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:35:46 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:
..>
..>."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..>.news:[email hidden]...
..>.> "Lacking intellectual range, receptiveness, or flexibility: one-track."
..>.>
..>.> That describes mountain bikers perfectly.
..>.> ===
..>.Really... We are the ones advocating trail use for everyone.
..>
..>BS. Bikes drive off other trail users, as you well know. Bikers are already
..>allowed on all trails. You only advocate access for BIKES, which aren't human
..>and don't have any rights.
..>
..> We are the
..>.ones that recognize sharing the trails with non-cyclists. We are the ones
..>.stressing cooperation between all user groups to maintain and preserve
..>.natural areas.
..>
..>BS. You just want access for your BIKES, and don't give a damn about wildlife OR
..>the environment.
..>
..> We are the ones assisting with education of land managers,
..>.cyclists, hikers, equestrians and others on conflict resolution and
..>.minimizing impact.
..>
..>You mean propagandizing and LYING.
..>
..>. We are the ones gathering voices against urban sprawl.
..>
..>BS. You all carry your bikes to the trailhead on top of your SUVs.
..>
..>.Your single thought process is to eliminate mt biking. Your "intellectual
..>.range" is nothing but reinforcement of your own assumptions tagged by your
..>."PhD" attempting to show credibility. You are not receptive to any
..>.information outside of your own assumptions and you lack the flexibility to
..>.converse without resorting to name-calling and character assassination.
..>
..>LYING is not "information".
..>
..>.Again... you attempt to point the finger away from yourself. Is this the
..>.intelligence gained from acheiving your degree?
..>.
..>
..>===
..>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 Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:16:27 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email hidden]...
..> .> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:35:46 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>
..> wrote:
..> .> .>
..> .> .> That describes mountain bikers perfectly.
..> .> .> ===
..> .> .Really... We are the ones advocating trail use for everyone.
..> .>
..> .> BS. Bikes drive off other trail users, as you well know. Bikers are
..> .> already
..> .> allowed on all trails. You only advocate access for BIKES, which aren't
..> .> human
..> .> and don't have any rights.
..> .IF mt bikers are allowed on all trails WITHOUT bicycles, then mt bikers
..> DO
..> .NOT EXIST as the definition of MT BIKING is the ACT of cycling OFF-ROAD.
..>
..> Or habitual riding off-road.
..opinion
..>
..> IF
..> .there are no places to bicycle OFF-ROAD, there are NO mt bikers.
..>
..> That would be nice.
..biased opinion of exclusion
..>
..> Your
..> .statement is a non-issue; IF some one is on a trail walking - they are a
..> .HIKER. IF someone is on a trail on a bicycle - they are a MT BIKER.
..>
..> Right, so if you aren't at work, you are no longer a doctor, lawyer,
..> programmer,
..> or whatever. Sure.
..I can be a mt biker, when mt biking. I can be a painter while painting. I do
..not classify myself by one activity.

That doesn't change the FACT that you are a mountain biker, by everyone else's
definition, including Webster's: habitual mountain biking.

..You consistently ignore the basis of this question with the same answer
..because it is a foundation of your argument. Everyone has the same "rights"
..on a trail... yada yada. Everyone is welcome... yada yada. As long as they
..walk... yada yada. Your statement of inclusion of a "mt biker" without the
..association of the bicycle and the activity of riding the bicycle makes your
..statement a non-sequitor. You might as well say a "tennis player" is
..perfectly welcome at Wimbledon as long as they leave their racket at home.
..Just really curious, btw.... before the advent of mountain biking, what
..was your focus? The timeline on "8 years fighting auto dependence and road
..construction" falls into the same timeline of the existence of mountain
..biking. Who was your "trail villain" before mountain bikers came along?
..>
..> .Mountain Biker ACCESS encompasses the cyclist, the bicycle AND the act of
..> .RIDING the bicycle ON THE TRAIL.
..> .Of course a mt biker can go into the woods as a HIKER - You fail to grasp
..> .(even with an education, a PhD, and claimed intelligence) that access for
..> mt
..> .biking is determined by the activity of mt biking.
..> .A mt biker can not be a mt biker without someplace to perfoem the
..> activity.
..>
..> You can do it in your front yard. And SHOULD.
..Then it would not be mt biking.

Mountain biking = off-road biking. DUH!

You continue to hold to your narrow view
..that cycling is only viable by your rules. "Mountain biking" began, and is
..still defined by, cycling off of paved roadways, in areas not populated by
..buildings, automobiles and human development.

The latter isn't part of the definition.

..> .Please enlighten me - if nobody brought bikes into the parks and trails,
..> who
..> .then would be classified as a "mt biker"?
..>
..> All the [censored] and liars.
..Really - please explain your logic. How can someone who has never ridden a
..bicycle off road, but does exhibit poor social characteristics, be
..classified as a "mountain biker"?
..>
..> .> We are the
..> .> .ones that recognize sharing the trails with non-cyclists. We are the
..> ones
..> .> .stressing cooperation between all user groups to maintain and preserve
..> .> .natural areas.
..> .>
..> .> BS. You just want access for your BIKES, and don't give a damn about
..> .> wildlife OR
..> .> the environment.
..> .Your opinion - your bias - your assumption. You attribute characteristics
..> to
..> .a group (off road cyclists) based on your disdain for the activity
..> involved.
..>
..> That's from observation (i.e., science).
..Observation, with the intent of gaining information to support only one
..viewpoint and exclude all other possibilities, is NOT science. It is
..chauvinistic and hypocritical.
..>
..> .> We are the ones assisting with education of land managers,
..> .> .cyclists, hikers, equestrians and others on conflict resolution and
..> .> .minimizing impact.
..> .>
..> .> You mean propagandizing and LYING.
..> .Again - Your assumption. You point a finger and call "propaganda" or
..> "liar"
..> .at any information that differs from your conclusions. That is not
..> science.
..> .Science draws on information. It does not exclude it.
..>
..> I know a lie when I hear it. Mountain bikers lie CONSTANTLY.
..Your classification as "liar" is meaningless as you completely disregard any
..information contrary to your opinion and conclusion. One can not identify
..something unless they look at it.
..>
..> .> . We are the ones gathering voices against urban sprawl.
..> .>
..> .> BS. You all carry your bikes to the trailhead on top of your SUVs.
..> .Again with "all".... ALL hikers drive to the trailhead. Are there more
..> .hikers or cyclists? I don't know.... Do you?
..> .Besides, if we all accepted urban sprawl - we would not have to drive to
..> the
..> .trail... We would be living right next to it. So which do you want?
..> .Neighborhoods spread into more and more wooded areas? Or neighborhoods
..> .seperate so we have to travel to the woods?
..> .>
..> .> .Your single thought process is to eliminate mt biking. Your
..> "intellectual
..> .> .range" is nothing but reinforcement of your own assumptions tagged by
..> .> your
..> .> ."PhD" attempting to show credibility. You are not receptive to any
..> .> .information outside of your own assumptions and you lack the
..> flexibility
..> .> to
..> .> .converse without resorting to name-calling and character
..> assassination.
..> .>
..> .> LYING is not "information".
..> .Then why do you proceed with the lie that your conclusions on information
..> .are the only ones possible?
..>
..> I never said that. YOU did. Lie upon lie upon lie.
..Your implication that any information supporting the viability of off road
..cycling and cyclists is "junk science" makes the statement for you.

Then disprove me, by citing some GOOD SCIENCE supporting mountain biking. (Hint:
you CAN'T, because it doesn't exist, and never will extst.)

You say
..mt biking is harmful to the environment and wildlife and should be
..exorcised. When someone presents a counter to this, or makes a comparison to
..hiking as similar in impact, you call them "liars" and their conlusions
.."junk". You only accept information IF it can be molded into support for
..your opinion.

I accept good science. There isn't any that supports mountain biking. If you
disagree, CITE it.

..> .> .Again... you attempt to point the finger away from yourself. Is this
..> .> the
..> .> .intelligence gained from acheiving your degree?
..> .> .
..> .>
..> .> ===
..> .> 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

YAWN

Mikey, please be more entertaining, you are beating the same old dead
horse