Quoted message said:.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.
Webster's Online: Main Entry: mountain bike
Function: noun
: an all-terrain bicycle with wide knobby tires, straight handlebars, and
typically 18 or 21 gears
- mountain biker noun
- mountain biking noun
However, merely involving oneself in an activity is hardly a compulsion, or
"habitual". Enjoying an activity and being addicted are not the same thing.
Words have specific meanings - You may want to try using them as intended.
Quoted message said:
.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!
There are no mountains in my front yard - DUH
Quoted message said:
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.
Show me a "definition" from an official source, such as Websters - posted
above. I define it personally as the sport and activity is commonly applied.
It is not defined by riding around one's yard.
Quoted message said:
.> .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"?
Nice ignore....
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.
.>
.> 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.
No reply - so I must take it that you agree.
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.
.>
.> 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.
Seems you agree here, too.
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?
.> .>
.> .> .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.
You say "good" when you can use it to support your conclusion. You say
"junk" when it doesn't. Studies and results have been posted ad nauseum
countering your conclusion and the only thing you say in response is "junk"
science. You would think the discipline in acheiving your degree would have
given you some insight into proper method and research. Apparently not.
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
