info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
7 views
Skip to first unread message
EdwardDolan
Jun 8, 2016, 2:03:48 AM6/8/16
to
> Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
>
> by George Wuerthner
>
> George Wuerthner is an ecologist
> and former hunting guide who has written or edited many books including,
> Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. He
> has
> personally visited more than 400 designated wilderness areas.
>
> I just got
> back from a mountain bike ride. The trails outside of my hometown of Bend,
> Oregon have numerous loops and degrees of difficulty, and riding my
> mountain
> bike is a pleasant way to unwind, get some exercise, and enjoy pedaling
> without
> the fear of being hit by a car. The trails are located in previously
> logged
> forests on the edge of town. These lands do not qualify for wilderness or
> other
> special protection, and thus are an appropriate location for mountain
> biking.
>
> The key words here are “appropriate location.”
>
> That is the same
> qualifier I would have for my four-wheel drive vehicle as well other
> “thrillcraft.” I am grateful to have a four-wheel drive vehicle when
> driving in
> snow, muddy roads and the like, but that doesn’t mean I feel it’s
> appropriate to
> drive it everywhere it can go. Similarly, just because my mountain bike
> can
> climb steep hillsides and traverse meadows, doesn’t mean I think it’s
> appropriate to use wherever I might feel like it.
>
> Although I can’t speak
> for all mountain bikers, I think my experience while on my bike is
> representative of most cyclists in that I am more focused on the trail and
> the
> sense of movement than I am aware of and in tune with my surroundings. In
> other
> words, the natural world I am traveling through is more a stage for my
> cycling
> experience. Whether that stage is wildlands or not is irrelevant to my
> biking
> experience. This fundamental indifference to landscape is the primary
> conflict
> between mountain biking and the Wilderness Act’s goals.
>
> This is not to
> say that mountain bikers do not enjoy wildlands or that they are immune to
> the
> beauty of nature. Indeed, when I stop cycling, I often look around and
> appreciate the setting. But the reason I am biking is not primarily to
> observe
> nature, and I think it’s safe to say that most mountain bikers would
> agree. When
> careening down a mountain we must, by necessity, be focused on the trail
> in
> front of us, not the natural world around us.
>
> Our wildlands are not
> outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks. Part of the rationale for
> wilderness
> designation is to provide an opportunity for people to contemplate and
> observe
> natural systems.
>
> It is clear from a reading of the debate around the
> creation of the Wilderness System that recreation is not the prime
> rationale for
> wilderness designation. The act says little about preserving recreational
> uses
> or adapting new types of recreation. In testimony before Congress in 1962,
> Howard Zahniser, the chief architect of the Wilderness Act, stated
> clearly:
> “Recreation is not necessarily the dominant use of an area of wilderness.”
> In an
> essay he authored in 1956, Zahniser wrote about the spiritual benefits of
> wilderness, which he considered one of its highest purposes: “Without the
> gadgets, the inventions, the contrivances whereby men have seemed to
> establish
> among themselves an independence of nature, without these distractions, to
> know
> the wilderness is to know a profound humility, to recognize one’s
> littleness, to
> sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and
> responsibility.”
>
> I do not believe mountain bikes contribute to the
> development of humility, nor a sense of dependence, interdependence, and
> responsibility. There are four major reasons why mountain biking should
> not be
> permitted in officially designated wilderness areas or in any areas that
> are
> strong candidates for wilderness designation.
>
> Legal. The
> Wilderness Act is unambiguous about the kinds of activities that are
> deemed
> acceptable in designated wilderness – namely travel without “mechanical
> advantage.” The rationale for the law, as stated in its opening paragraph,
> is
> “to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding
> settlement
> and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the
> United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for
> preservation
> and protection in their natural condition.” Mountain bikes are part of
> that
> growing mechanization. The sophisticated advancement of mountain bike
> technology
> reduces the natural limits imposed by primeval character, whereas those
> walking
> or traveling by horse remain within natural limits.
>
> Ecological.
> Bike proponents often suggest that mountain bikes may do less damage than
> a pack
> of horses or even a Boy Scout troop. This is a specious argument. The
> cumulative
> effects of numerous tires create additional erosion, sedimentation in
> streams,
> and potential for trail damage. The idea that some activities do more
> damage
> than another is not a reason to expand damaging activities. There is a
> cumulative impact from all uses, and adding to existing use can only
> increase
> impacts. The main goal of wilderness designation is to preserve wild
> nature, not
> to preserve recreational opportunity.
>
> Sociological. Any
> mechanical advantage – whether it is a dirt bike or a mountain bike –
> shrinks
> the backcountry. This has several effects. Those walking are easily
> surpassed by
> those using mechanical means, which can psychologically dismay other
> users. On
> heavily used trails, the threat of a fast moving bike changes the
> experience for
> other trail users. If you are a hiker, the ability to relax and soak in
> the
> natural world is impeded when one is anxious about having to jump out of
> the way
> of a bike.
>
> Philosophical. The spirit and letter of the Wilderness Act is to
> protect lands that retain their “primeval character and influence.” The
> more
> advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the greater our
> alienation
> from the spiritual values of wilderness areas. To many who are walking in
> quiet
> contemplation of nature, mountain bikes are an intrusion. They are no
> different
> to many wildlands enthusiasts than if a bike were to invade the Sistine
> Chapel
> or were ridden in the Arlington National Cemetery. The fact that many
> mountain
> bikers are oblivious to the spiritual values inherent in wildlands is one
> reason
> why those walking find mountain biking obnoxious at best, and even
> disrespectful.
>
> For me – and many of my fellow wilderness advocates – the
> goal of conservation is to preserve the remnants of wild nature, not to
> protect
> self-indulgent recreational opportunities. With ever more technological
> gadgets
> available for distraction and diversion, we need the sanctity and
> self-restraint
> that Wilderness Areas represent more than ever.
The above essay says it all in my estimation. Anyone stupid enough to
disagree with any of it is beyond the pale. I suggest that all mountain
bikers who think it is OK to ride on trails used by hikers read and reread
the above until it sinks into their thick heads.
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>
> by George Wuerthner
>
> George Wuerthner is an ecologist
> and former hunting guide who has written or edited many books including,
> Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. He
> has
> personally visited more than 400 designated wilderness areas.
>
> I just got
> back from a mountain bike ride. The trails outside of my hometown of Bend,
> Oregon have numerous loops and degrees of difficulty, and riding my
> mountain
> bike is a pleasant way to unwind, get some exercise, and enjoy pedaling
> without
> the fear of being hit by a car. The trails are located in previously
> logged
> forests on the edge of town. These lands do not qualify for wilderness or
> other
> special protection, and thus are an appropriate location for mountain
> biking.
>
> The key words here are “appropriate location.”
>
> That is the same
> qualifier I would have for my four-wheel drive vehicle as well other
> “thrillcraft.” I am grateful to have a four-wheel drive vehicle when
> driving in
> snow, muddy roads and the like, but that doesn’t mean I feel it’s
> appropriate to
> drive it everywhere it can go. Similarly, just because my mountain bike
> can
> climb steep hillsides and traverse meadows, doesn’t mean I think it’s
> appropriate to use wherever I might feel like it.
>
> Although I can’t speak
> for all mountain bikers, I think my experience while on my bike is
> representative of most cyclists in that I am more focused on the trail and
> the
> sense of movement than I am aware of and in tune with my surroundings. In
> other
> words, the natural world I am traveling through is more a stage for my
> cycling
> experience. Whether that stage is wildlands or not is irrelevant to my
> biking
> experience. This fundamental indifference to landscape is the primary
> conflict
> between mountain biking and the Wilderness Act’s goals.
>
> This is not to
> say that mountain bikers do not enjoy wildlands or that they are immune to
> the
> beauty of nature. Indeed, when I stop cycling, I often look around and
> appreciate the setting. But the reason I am biking is not primarily to
> observe
> nature, and I think it’s safe to say that most mountain bikers would
> agree. When
> careening down a mountain we must, by necessity, be focused on the trail
> in
> front of us, not the natural world around us.
>
> Our wildlands are not
> outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks. Part of the rationale for
> wilderness
> designation is to provide an opportunity for people to contemplate and
> observe
> natural systems.
>
> It is clear from a reading of the debate around the
> creation of the Wilderness System that recreation is not the prime
> rationale for
> wilderness designation. The act says little about preserving recreational
> uses
> or adapting new types of recreation. In testimony before Congress in 1962,
> Howard Zahniser, the chief architect of the Wilderness Act, stated
> clearly:
> “Recreation is not necessarily the dominant use of an area of wilderness.”
> In an
> essay he authored in 1956, Zahniser wrote about the spiritual benefits of
> wilderness, which he considered one of its highest purposes: “Without the
> gadgets, the inventions, the contrivances whereby men have seemed to
> establish
> among themselves an independence of nature, without these distractions, to
> know
> the wilderness is to know a profound humility, to recognize one’s
> littleness, to
> sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and
> responsibility.”
>
> I do not believe mountain bikes contribute to the
> development of humility, nor a sense of dependence, interdependence, and
> responsibility. There are four major reasons why mountain biking should
> not be
> permitted in officially designated wilderness areas or in any areas that
> are
> strong candidates for wilderness designation.
>
> Legal. The
> Wilderness Act is unambiguous about the kinds of activities that are
> deemed
> acceptable in designated wilderness – namely travel without “mechanical
> advantage.” The rationale for the law, as stated in its opening paragraph,
> is
> “to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding
> settlement
> and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the
> United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for
> preservation
> and protection in their natural condition.” Mountain bikes are part of
> that
> growing mechanization. The sophisticated advancement of mountain bike
> technology
> reduces the natural limits imposed by primeval character, whereas those
> walking
> or traveling by horse remain within natural limits.
>
> Ecological.
> Bike proponents often suggest that mountain bikes may do less damage than
> a pack
> of horses or even a Boy Scout troop. This is a specious argument. The
> cumulative
> effects of numerous tires create additional erosion, sedimentation in
> streams,
> and potential for trail damage. The idea that some activities do more
> damage
> than another is not a reason to expand damaging activities. There is a
> cumulative impact from all uses, and adding to existing use can only
> increase
> impacts. The main goal of wilderness designation is to preserve wild
> nature, not
> to preserve recreational opportunity.
>
> Sociological. Any
> mechanical advantage – whether it is a dirt bike or a mountain bike –
> shrinks
> the backcountry. This has several effects. Those walking are easily
> surpassed by
> those using mechanical means, which can psychologically dismay other
> users. On
> heavily used trails, the threat of a fast moving bike changes the
> experience for
> other trail users. If you are a hiker, the ability to relax and soak in
> the
> natural world is impeded when one is anxious about having to jump out of
> the way
> of a bike.
>
> Philosophical. The spirit and letter of the Wilderness Act is to
> protect lands that retain their “primeval character and influence.” The
> more
> advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the greater our
> alienation
> from the spiritual values of wilderness areas. To many who are walking in
> quiet
> contemplation of nature, mountain bikes are an intrusion. They are no
> different
> to many wildlands enthusiasts than if a bike were to invade the Sistine
> Chapel
> or were ridden in the Arlington National Cemetery. The fact that many
> mountain
> bikers are oblivious to the spiritual values inherent in wildlands is one
> reason
> why those walking find mountain biking obnoxious at best, and even
> disrespectful.
>
> For me – and many of my fellow wilderness advocates – the
> goal of conservation is to preserve the remnants of wild nature, not to
> protect
> self-indulgent recreational opportunities. With ever more technological
> gadgets
> available for distraction and diversion, we need the sanctity and
> self-restraint
> that Wilderness Areas represent more than ever.
The above essay says it all in my estimation. Anyone stupid enough to
disagree with any of it is beyond the pale. I suggest that all mountain
bikers who think it is OK to ride on trails used by hikers read and reread
the above until it sinks into their thick heads.
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
alvin...@geemail.org
Jun 8, 2016, 3:36:40 AM6/8/16
to
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
Utter bullshit and even the writer didn't agree with that in reality.
"to protect lands that retain their primeval character and influence.”
The more advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the
greater our alienation from the spiritual values of wilderness areas.
To many who are walking in quiet contemplation of nature, mountain
bikes are an intrusion."
You prance around there in your special hiking boots, with your water
proof coat and you even have your carbon fiber Trekking Pole, which
apparently you aren't even capable of selecting as I came across a
site offering "expert advice" in selecting a trekking pole.
So there you stand in your special "trekking gear" rabbeting on about
"primeval character". If you were really intent in truly enjoying the
"primeval character" then why all the fancy clothes? Whouldn't you be
out there in your jock strap? After all "primeval" actually means
"having existed from the beginning; in an earliest or original stage
or state".
You say "quiet contemplation" but in fact you are making so much noise
that every thing actually native to your "wilderness" has fled in
terror of the big, noisy, bad smelling, creature.
And, what about all those man made shelters and those so called hiking
trails that you are so jealous of? They aren't "primeval". Shouldn't
you be sleeping on the ground?
In short, you are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and
constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug
all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them.
Dolan - Great? Nope, Dolan the kindergarten kid.
--
Alvin D.
wrote:
"to protect lands that retain their primeval character and influence.”
The more advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the
greater our alienation from the spiritual values of wilderness areas.
To many who are walking in quiet contemplation of nature, mountain
bikes are an intrusion."
proof coat and you even have your carbon fiber Trekking Pole, which
apparently you aren't even capable of selecting as I came across a
site offering "expert advice" in selecting a trekking pole.
So there you stand in your special "trekking gear" rabbeting on about
"primeval character". If you were really intent in truly enjoying the
"primeval character" then why all the fancy clothes? Whouldn't you be
out there in your jock strap? After all "primeval" actually means
"having existed from the beginning; in an earliest or original stage
or state".
You say "quiet contemplation" but in fact you are making so much noise
that every thing actually native to your "wilderness" has fled in
terror of the big, noisy, bad smelling, creature.
And, what about all those man made shelters and those so called hiking
trails that you are so jealous of? They aren't "primeval". Shouldn't
you be sleeping on the ground?
In short, you are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and
constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug
all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them.
Dolan - Great? Nope, Dolan the kindergarten kid.
--
Alvin D.
EdwardDolan
Jun 8, 2016, 8:01:55 AM6/8/16
to
wrote in message news:taiflblj7ejlf12sk...@4ax.com...
[...]
>The above essay says it all in my estimation. Anyone stupid enough to
>disagree with any of it is beyond the pale. I suggest that all mountain
>bikers who think it is OK to ride on trails used by hikers read and
reread
>the above until it sinks into their thick heads.
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>
>> Utter bullshit and even the writer didn't agree with that in
reality.
Obviously you don’t know how to read.
>> "to protect lands that retain their primeval character and
influence.”
The more advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the
greater our alienation from the spiritual values of wilderness areas.
To many who are walking in quiet contemplation of nature, mountain
bikes are an intrusion."
>> You prance around there in your special hiking boots, with your
water
proof coat and you even have your carbon fiber Trekking Pole, which
apparently you aren't even capable of selecting as I came across
a
site offering "expert advice" in selecting a trekking pole.
So you don’t like hikers. What else is new in the biker world?
>> So there you stand in your special "trekking gear" rabbeting on
about
"primeval character". If you were really intent in truly enjoying the
"primeval character" then why all the fancy clothes? Whouldn't you be
out there in your jock strap? After all "primeval" actually means
"having existed from the beginning; in an earliest or original stage
or state".
I can clearly see that you don’t have a brain either. Apparently the world
“primeval” was just too much for you.
>> You say "quiet contemplation" but in fact you are making so much
noise
that every thing actually native to your "wilderness" has fled in
terror of the big, noisy, bad smelling, creature.
“So you don’t like hikers. What else is new in the biker world?” – Ed Dolan
>> And, what about all those man made shelters and those so called
hiking
trails that you are so jealous of? They aren't "primeval". Shouldn't
you be sleeping on the ground?
I can see that the word “primeval” has thrown you for a
loop.
>> In short, you are enjoying a luxurious, government financed
and
constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug
all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them.
In short, it is not much of a pleasure for me to dispose of an
idiot like you.
>> Dolan - Great? Nope, Dolan the kindergarten kid.
The only kid here is yourself. Try to post something sensible
with some substance the next time around and maybe I will give you the time of
day.
Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota
EdwardDolan
Jun 8, 2016, 8:27:16 AM6/8/16
to
Alvin D. wrote:
> In short, you [hikers] are enjoying a luxurious, government financed
and
constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug
all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them.
Anyone who is willing to walk can enjoy whatever the
government has provided in the way of wilderness – and for free
too!
Want to ride a bike instead? There are millions of miles of
roads of all descriptions waiting for you.
Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.
Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t
walk?
alvin...@geemail.org
Jun 8, 2016, 8:48:13 PM6/8/16
to
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:27:18 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
>Alvin D. wrote:
>
>> In short, you [hikers] are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and
>constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug
>all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them.
>
>Anyone who is willing to walk can enjoy whatever the government has provided in the way of wilderness – and for free too!
Of course you can. So why the outcry about others enjoying the "forest
primeval" as you term it?
After all, it is not "primeval" at all as you twits insist on having
paths made, some with stairs even, "oh my goodness, we must have
walked a whole mile today Estrella", and you dainty creatures don't
want to exert yourselves. Fireplaces, the three walled Appalachian
shelters, those cute marker posts so that the intrepid "trekkers"
won't lose their way. What is next? Fumigations crews to kill all
those savage insects?\/ Ohoooo a deer fly might bite me! Ohooo I'm so
scared.
I see articles like "Appalachian Trail Shelter" telling the intrepid
"trekker" that "shelters sometimes have a sloping ceiling inside and
it's very easy to bang your head against one of the shelter cross
beams unless you are careful", or "11 things I wished I'd known before
hiking the Appalachian Trail". Really great advice like, "A popular
tradition of Appalachian Trail culture is to give thoughtful nicknames
to your co-hikers, such as MonkeyButt, Golden Shower, or DangerPants.
If you point your headlamp down while you pee in the dark, you'll be
called "flash". Or Diaper cream will save your ass. This is really
great advice, "Chafing is less of a problem for people with slender
builds, but for most people, and especially for women, it's a common
problem in hiking. You can laugh now, but when you feel the forgiving
kiss of Destiny on that burning monkey butt"
Jesus H. Christ, you "trekkers" are so fat that your legs rub together
and you get "chafed". Oh you poooor dears. So dainty.
Back in the '50's there was a beer brewed by the "Griesedieck Bros
Beer Company" and aptly called Griesedieck Beer, and now we have the
greasy dick hikers.
It appears that rather than the Intrepid Trekker (visions of Lewis and
Clark) you are actually fat slothful people, with your arse liberally
anointed with Vaseline, who can't find your way across the room
without a "trail marker", and who worry about bumping your head
because the ceiling is so low.
It is hard to admit that the country has sunk so low.
>Want to ride a bike instead? There are millions of miles of roads of all descriptions waiting for you.
>
>Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.
>
>Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?
Trails are, apparently, for people with grease on their arse.
>Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota
More likely, "Lard arse Boy Dolan with the greasy butt"
--
Alvin D.
wrote:
>Alvin D. wrote:
>
>> In short, you [hikers] are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and
>constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug
>all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them.
>
>Anyone who is willing to walk can enjoy whatever the government has provided in the way of wilderness – and for free too!
primeval" as you term it?
After all, it is not "primeval" at all as you twits insist on having
paths made, some with stairs even, "oh my goodness, we must have
walked a whole mile today Estrella", and you dainty creatures don't
want to exert yourselves. Fireplaces, the three walled Appalachian
shelters, those cute marker posts so that the intrepid "trekkers"
won't lose their way. What is next? Fumigations crews to kill all
those savage insects?\/ Ohoooo a deer fly might bite me! Ohooo I'm so
scared.
I see articles like "Appalachian Trail Shelter" telling the intrepid
"trekker" that "shelters sometimes have a sloping ceiling inside and
it's very easy to bang your head against one of the shelter cross
beams unless you are careful", or "11 things I wished I'd known before
hiking the Appalachian Trail". Really great advice like, "A popular
tradition of Appalachian Trail culture is to give thoughtful nicknames
to your co-hikers, such as MonkeyButt, Golden Shower, or DangerPants.
If you point your headlamp down while you pee in the dark, you'll be
called "flash". Or Diaper cream will save your ass. This is really
great advice, "Chafing is less of a problem for people with slender
builds, but for most people, and especially for women, it's a common
problem in hiking. You can laugh now, but when you feel the forgiving
kiss of Destiny on that burning monkey butt"
Jesus H. Christ, you "trekkers" are so fat that your legs rub together
and you get "chafed". Oh you poooor dears. So dainty.
Back in the '50's there was a beer brewed by the "Griesedieck Bros
Beer Company" and aptly called Griesedieck Beer, and now we have the
greasy dick hikers.
It appears that rather than the Intrepid Trekker (visions of Lewis and
Clark) you are actually fat slothful people, with your arse liberally
anointed with Vaseline, who can't find your way across the room
without a "trail marker", and who worry about bumping your head
because the ceiling is so low.
It is hard to admit that the country has sunk so low.
>Want to ride a bike instead? There are millions of miles of roads of all descriptions waiting for you.
>
>Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.
>
>Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?
>Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota
--
Alvin D.
news16
Jun 8, 2016, 10:25:49 PM6/8/16
to
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
I suggest that all mountain
> bikers who think it is OK to ride on trail
It isn't Wilderness if it has trails.
I suggest that all mountain
> bikers who think it is OK to ride on trail
John B.
Jun 9, 2016, 3:09:32 AM6/9/16
to
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 02:25:47 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>
wrote:
No it is not, and I suspect that the indubitable Dolan, if he were
ever actually in a "wilderness" area, would find it very
disheartening. No fancy shelters, no trails, no little signs "Ohoo it
is only 1 mile to the camping grounds". Just big vicious mosquitoes
and other blood sucking critters, and not much else.
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
ever actually in a "wilderness" area, would find it very
disheartening. No fancy shelters, no trails, no little signs "Ohoo it
is only 1 mile to the camping grounds". Just big vicious mosquitoes
and other blood sucking critters, and not much else.
--
cheers,
John B.
EdwardDolan
Jun 9, 2016, 5:51:06 AM6/9/16
to
wrote in message news:3hbhlbdteug05f9gs...@4ax.com...
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:27:18 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
<edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
>Alvin D. wrote:
>
>> In short, you [hikers] are enjoying a luxurious, government
financed and
>constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to
hug
>all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them.
>
>Anyone who is willing to walk can enjoy whatever the government has
provided in the way of wilderness – and for free too!
>>> Of course you can. So why the outcry about others enjoying the
"forest
primeval" as you term it?
They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no
interference with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear
Watson!
>>> After all, it is not "primeval" at all as you twits insist on
having
paths made, some with stairs even, "oh my goodness, we must have
walked a whole mile today Estrella", and you dainty creatures don't
want to exert yourselves. Fireplaces, the three walled Appalachian
shelters, those cute marker posts so that the intrepid "trekkers"
won't lose their way. What is next? Fumigations crews to kill all
those savage insects?\/ Ohoooo a deer fly might bite me! Ohooo I'm so
scared.
It is primeval enough by the standards of today. Anyone who is
walking in a wilderness setting is roughing it no matter how many conveniences
he is carrying. In any event, such a walker is in no way impacting the
wilderness except in the most minor ways.
>>> I see articles like "Appalachian Trail Shelter" telling the
intrepid
"trekker" that "shelters sometimes have a sloping ceiling inside and
it's very easy to bang your head against one of the shelter cross
beams unless you are careful", or "11 things I wished I'd known
before
hiking the Appalachian Trail". Really great advice like, "A popular
tradition of Appalachian Trail culture is to give thoughtful
nicknames
to your co-hikers, such as MonkeyButt, Golden Shower, or DangerPants.
If you point your headlamp down while you pee in the dark, you'll be
called "flash". Or Diaper cream will save your ass. This is really
great advice, "Chafing is less of a problem for people with slender
builds, but for most people, and especially for women, it's a common
problem in hiking. You can laugh now, but when you feel the forgiving
kiss of Destiny on that burning monkey butt"
Any point you may be trying to make escapes me. What does it
matter to you how some hikers see themselves?
>>> Jesus H. Christ, you "trekkers" are so fat that your legs rub
together
and you get "chafed". Oh you poooor dears. So dainty.
>>> Back in the '50's there was a beer brewed by the "Griesedieck
Bros
Beer Company" and aptly called Griesedieck Beer, and now we have the
greasy dick hikers.
>>> It appears that rather than the Intrepid Trekker (visions of
Lewis and
Clark) you are actually fat slothful people, with your arse liberally
anointed with Vaseline, who can't find your way across the room
without a "trail marker", and who worry about bumping your head
because the ceiling is so low.
>>> It is hard to admit that the country has sunk so low.
“Any point you may be trying to make escapes me. What
does it matter to you how some hikers see themselves?” – Ed Dolan
>>> Trails are, apparently, for people with grease on their
arse.
What an Asshole you are! Everything you've applied to
hikers can be applied to bikers in spades, in fact to just about anyone. Your
remarks are as pointless as you are. Either make a relevant point or get
lost!
Want to ride a bike instead? There are millions of miles of roads of all
descriptions waiting for you.
Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.
Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?
EdwardDolan
Jun 9, 2016, 5:59:17 AM6/9/16
to
"news16" wrote in message news:njak3b$fkm$8...@dont-email.me...
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
> I suggest that all mountain
> bikers who think it is OK to ride on [a] trail [are bastards pure and
simple.]
>> It isn't Wilderness if it has trails.
Of course it is. Even pristine wilderness untouched by human
kind will have trails made by whatever animals exist in the region. But read the
Wilderness Act. There you will find the purpose for which wilderness was
established. And it has to do with trails for humans walking, not for slobs on
bikes like you trying to ride a course.
EdwardDolan
Jun 9, 2016, 6:12:43 AM6/9/16
to
"John B." wrote in message
news:e35ilbdu67eonnjbu...@4ax.com...
[...]
>It isn't Wilderness if it has trails.
>> No it is not, and I suspect that the indubitable Dolan, if he
were
ever actually in a "wilderness" area, would find it very
disheartening. No fancy shelters, no trails, no little signs "Ohoo it
is only 1 mile to the camping grounds". Just big vicious
mosquitoes
and other blood sucking critters, and not much else.
My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is
no harm in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any
roughing it is not for the likes of you.
By the way, to tie yourself to the inane mutterings of AlvinD
and news16 marks you as an idiot also. You are known by the company you keep. I
have never yet had the pleasure of having an intelligent discussion with a
mountain biker, except for Blackblade. He was of course wrongheaded, but still
could make some intelligent remarks from time to time. So far the 3 of you are
total strike outs.
alvin...@geemail.org
Jun 9, 2016, 6:22:32 AM6/9/16
to
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
>wrote in message news:3hbhlbdteug05f9gs...@4ax.com...
>
>On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:27:18 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Alvin D. wrote:
>>
>>> In short, you [hikers] are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and
>>constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug
>>all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them.
>>
>>Anyone who is willing to walk can enjoy whatever the government has provided in the way of wilderness – and for free too!
>
>>>> Of course you can. So why the outcry about others enjoying the "forest
>primeval" as you term it?
>
>They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear Watson!
>
>>>> After all, it is not "primeval" at all as you twits insist on having
>paths made, some with stairs even, "oh my goodness, we must have
>walked a whole mile today Estrella", and you dainty creatures don't
>want to exert yourselves. Fireplaces, the three walled Appalachian
>shelters, those cute marker posts so that the intrepid "trekkers"
>won't lose their way. What is next? Fumigations crews to kill all
>those savage insects?\/ Ohoooo a deer fly might bite me! Ohooo I'm so
>scared.
>
>It is primeval enough by the standards of today. Anyone who is walking in a wilderness setting is roughing it no matter how many conveniences he is carrying. In any event, such a walker is in no way impacting the wilderness except in the most minor ways.
I'd listen to you except that I am old enough to actually have "worked
in the woods" as they used to term it, and have also worked in truly
primeval areas in other countries where there no signs that man had
ever existed there.
When you use the term "primeval" you simply don't know what you are
talking about. You use the word to describe the Appalachian Trail, for
instance, but the Appalachian Trail is damned close to civilization
when you compare it with an actual primeval area, which, quite
obviously, you know nothing about.
But of course you are not actually talking about a primeval area you
are simply parroting the word in an effect to make your notions sound
logical and important.
>
>What an Asshole you are! Everything you've applied to hikers can be applied to bikers in spades, in fact to just about anyone. Your remarks are as pointless as you are. Either make a relevant point or get lost!
Of course. When one talks with a fool one must use foolish language
else how will he understand you.
But, as I mentioned previously the valid point is that you are
attempting to hug government built and maintained areas intended for
the entire population to your skinny little chest in order to prevent
others from using them
In short a small and insignificant individual trying to clasp all the
toys in the toy box to his pathetic little chest and shouting, "They
are Mine! All Mine! You can't play with them!"
Has the U.S. actually sunk so low that a greedy little fellow like you
is now its spokesman?
Pathetic.
--
Alvin D.
wrote:
>wrote in message news:3hbhlbdteug05f9gs...@4ax.com...
>
>On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:27:18 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Alvin D. wrote:
>>
>>> In short, you [hikers] are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and
>>constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug
>>all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them.
>>
>>Anyone who is willing to walk can enjoy whatever the government has provided in the way of wilderness – and for free too!
>
>>>> Of course you can. So why the outcry about others enjoying the "forest
>primeval" as you term it?
>
>They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear Watson!
>
>>>> After all, it is not "primeval" at all as you twits insist on having
>paths made, some with stairs even, "oh my goodness, we must have
>walked a whole mile today Estrella", and you dainty creatures don't
>want to exert yourselves. Fireplaces, the three walled Appalachian
>shelters, those cute marker posts so that the intrepid "trekkers"
>won't lose their way. What is next? Fumigations crews to kill all
>those savage insects?\/ Ohoooo a deer fly might bite me! Ohooo I'm so
>scared.
>
>It is primeval enough by the standards of today. Anyone who is walking in a wilderness setting is roughing it no matter how many conveniences he is carrying. In any event, such a walker is in no way impacting the wilderness except in the most minor ways.
in the woods" as they used to term it, and have also worked in truly
primeval areas in other countries where there no signs that man had
ever existed there.
When you use the term "primeval" you simply don't know what you are
talking about. You use the word to describe the Appalachian Trail, for
instance, but the Appalachian Trail is damned close to civilization
when you compare it with an actual primeval area, which, quite
obviously, you know nothing about.
But of course you are not actually talking about a primeval area you
are simply parroting the word in an effect to make your notions sound
logical and important.
>
>What an Asshole you are! Everything you've applied to hikers can be applied to bikers in spades, in fact to just about anyone. Your remarks are as pointless as you are. Either make a relevant point or get lost!
else how will he understand you.
But, as I mentioned previously the valid point is that you are
attempting to hug government built and maintained areas intended for
the entire population to your skinny little chest in order to prevent
others from using them
In short a small and insignificant individual trying to clasp all the
toys in the toy box to his pathetic little chest and shouting, "They
are Mine! All Mine! You can't play with them!"
Has the U.S. actually sunk so low that a greedy little fellow like you
is now its spokesman?
Pathetic.
--
Alvin D.
John B.
Jun 9, 2016, 7:01:42 AM6/9/16
to
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 05:12:47 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
>"John B." wrote in message news:e35ilbdu67eonnjbu...@4ax.com...
>
>On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 02:25:47 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>
>wrote:
>[...]
>
>>It isn't Wilderness if it has trails.
>
>>> No it is not, and I suspect that the indubitable Dolan, if he were
>ever actually in a "wilderness" area, would find it very
>disheartening. No fancy shelters, no trails, no little signs "Ohoo it
>is only 1 mile to the camping grounds". Just big vicious mosquitoes
>and other blood sucking critters, and not much else.
>
>My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is no harm in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any roughing it is not for the likes of you.
Why ever not? I spent several years working in Indonesia in arias
where it seemed that no one have ever been before.
But I agree with you about conveniences being acceptable. Like a
mountain bike, or two.
>By the way, to tie yourself to the inane mutterings of AlvinD and news16 marks you as an idiot also. You are known by the company you keep. I have never yet had the pleasure of having an intelligent discussion with a mountain biker, except for Blackblade. He was of course wrongheaded, but still could make some intelligent remarks from time to time. So far the 3 of you are total strike outs.
Not really, I would better say, allied in opposition of a greedy
little boy who wants to keep all the toys for himself.
As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your repetitive
arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the
government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let
you." Over and over and over again.
Dolan the greedy not Dolan the great.
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>"John B." wrote in message news:e35ilbdu67eonnjbu...@4ax.com...
>
>On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 02:25:47 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>
>wrote:
>[...]
>
>>It isn't Wilderness if it has trails.
>
>>> No it is not, and I suspect that the indubitable Dolan, if he were
>ever actually in a "wilderness" area, would find it very
>disheartening. No fancy shelters, no trails, no little signs "Ohoo it
>is only 1 mile to the camping grounds". Just big vicious mosquitoes
>and other blood sucking critters, and not much else.
>
>My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is no harm in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any roughing it is not for the likes of you.
where it seemed that no one have ever been before.
But I agree with you about conveniences being acceptable. Like a
mountain bike, or two.
>By the way, to tie yourself to the inane mutterings of AlvinD and news16 marks you as an idiot also. You are known by the company you keep. I have never yet had the pleasure of having an intelligent discussion with a mountain biker, except for Blackblade. He was of course wrongheaded, but still could make some intelligent remarks from time to time. So far the 3 of you are total strike outs.
little boy who wants to keep all the toys for himself.
As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your repetitive
arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the
government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let
you." Over and over and over again.
Dolan the greedy not Dolan the great.
--
cheers,
John B.
news16
Jun 9, 2016, 7:10:46 AM6/9/16
to
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
> They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference
> with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear
> Watson!
Nope, I'm impacted by those walkers who never stray far from their motor
> They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference
> with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear
> Watson!
vehicles, so a bicycle allows my to get beyond those people.
>
news16
Jun 9, 2016, 7:13:38 AM6/9/16
to
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:59:21 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
> "news16" wrote in message news:njak3b$fkm$8...@dont-email.me...
>
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
>
>> I suggest that all mountain bikers who think it is OK to ride on [a]
>> trail [are bastards pure and simple.]
>
>>> It isn't Wilderness if it has trails.
>
> Of course it is. Even pristine wilderness untouched by human kind will
> have trails made by whatever animals exist in the region.
Many of which don't have headroom over 2'
> "news16" wrote in message news:njak3b$fkm$8...@dont-email.me...
>
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
>
>> I suggest that all mountain bikers who think it is OK to ride on [a]
>> trail [are bastards pure and simple.]
>
>>> It isn't Wilderness if it has trails.
>
> Of course it is. Even pristine wilderness untouched by human kind will
> have trails made by whatever animals exist in the region.
do much crawling out there.
> But read the Wilderness Act.
> There you will find the purpose for which wilderness was
> established. And it has to do with trails for humans walking,
EdwardDolan
Jun 9, 2016, 11:57:47 AM6/9/16
to
wrote in message news:u4filbtg32426j3u5...@4ax.com...
[...]
> I'd listen to you except that I am old enough to actually have
"worked
in the woods" as they used to term it, and have also worked in truly
primeval areas in other countries where there no signs that man had
ever existed there.
> When you use the term "primeval" you simply don't know what you
are
talking about. You use the word to describe the Appalachian Trail,
for
instance, but the Appalachian Trail is damned close to civilization
when you compare it with an actual primeval area, which, quite
obviously, you know nothing about.
> But of course you are not actually talking about a primeval area
you
are simply parroting the word in an effect to make your notions sound
logical and important.
I have never used the word “primeval” in describing what
hikers do in the woods. That was your word, not mine. I have no interest in
anything “primeval”. I am only interest in wilderness and natural landscapes,
those minimally modified by man. You are stalking a straw horse.
[...]
> But, as I mentioned previously the valid point is that you are
attempting to hug government built and maintained areas intended for
the entire population to your skinny little chest in order to prevent
others from using them.
Areas set aside as wilderness were intended to be used by the
entire population in only a few ways - either by horse back or by walking. You
are supremely ignorant of why wilderness was set aside Either get educated
or get lost!
> In short a small and insignificant individual trying to clasp all
the
toys in the toy box to his pathetic little chest and shouting, "They
are Mine! All Mine! You can't play with them!"
> Has the U.S. actually sunk so low that a greedy little fellow like
you
is now its spokesman?
The only “little fellow” in this mostly asinine discussion is
yourself. But like all mountain bikers, you remain as ignorant about what
wilderness is for as a new born babe. But unlike the new born babe, your
ignorance is culpable. I would punish you for your transgressions against good
sense and common decency by a horse whipping to your backside and a kick in your
dumb ass to boot. Trying to reason with a fool like you about anything is futile
because your ignorance is unconquerable.
> Pathetic.
Who gives a good god damn about your “primeval” crap. You must
be crazy.
EdwardDolan
Jun 9, 2016, 12:08:30 PM6/9/16
to
"news16" wrote in message news:njbirl$qkd$1...@dont-email.me...
vehicles, so a bicycle allows me to get beyond those people.
That would not have been true 30 or 40 years ago when I think
long hikes were much more popular than they are today. Even so, you are
transgressing what was originally intended for use only by equestrians and
hikers.
Mountain bikers have criminal minds which is why the only way
to get at them is by force of law. A little enforcement with suitable penalties
would soon bring your transgressions to an end.
EdwardDolan
Jun 9, 2016, 12:27:47 PM6/9/16
to
"John B." wrote in message
news:akiilb9rprg3jnij5...@4ax.com...
[...]
>My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is no harm
in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any roughing it
is not for the likes of you.
>> Why ever not? I spent several years working in Indonesia in
arias
where it seemed that no one have ever been before.
There is no place you could go in Indonesia which has not been
overrun with people at one time or another. Try to stay real if that is
possible.
>> But I agree with you about conveniences being acceptable. Like
a
mountain bike, or two.
Even a single mountain bike is unacceptable. You obviously do
not have a clue about what wilderness is for.
>By the way, to tie yourself to the inane mutterings of AlvinD and
news16 marks you as an idiot also. You are known by the company you keep. I have
never yet had the pleasure of having an intelligent discussion with a mountain
biker, except for Blackblade. He was of course wrongheaded, but still could make
some intelligent remarks from time to time. So far the 3 of you are total strike
outs.
>> Not really, I would better say, allied in opposition of a
greedy
little boy who wants to keep all the toys for himself.
I have the justification for my position. What do you have on
your side except criminal mountain bikers who want to do what they want to do –
just because! Fuck the lot of you!
>> As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your
repetitive
arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the
government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let
you." Over and over and over again.
There are a thousand posts of mine on this newsgroup which
will explain to you what are the reasons for hikers only on trails. But of
course, like all your kind, you are too lazy to ever do any reading of others.
>> Dolan the greedy not Dolan the great.
Fuck you too – Asshole!
Fucking Regards,
EdwardDolan
Jun 9, 2016, 12:35:07 PM6/9/16
to
"news16" wrote in message news:njbj11$qkd$2...@dont-email.me...
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:59:21 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
>> I suggest that all mountain bikers who think it is OK to ride on
[a]
>> trail [are bastards pure and simple.]
>
>>> It isn't Wilderness if it has trails.
>
> Of course it is. Even pristine wilderness untouched by human kind
will
> have trails made by whatever animals exist in the region.
>>>> Many of which don't have headroom over 2'
do much crawling out there.
A trail is a trail is a trail ...
> But read the Wilderness Act.
>>>> Lol, US law doesn't apply.
Why the hell not?
> There you will find the purpose for which wilderness was
> established. And it has to do with trails for humans walking,
>>>> Nope. It doesn't say that at all.
But you are too god damn fucking stupid to tell us what it
does say - aren't you?
Fucking Regards,
EdwardDolan
Jun 9, 2016, 12:58:12 PM6/9/16
to
"John B." wrote in message
news:akiilb9rprg3jnij5...@4ax.com...
[...]
> As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your repetitive
arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the
government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let
you." Over and over and over again.
series of very good arguments for why wilderness and why it should be
limited to walkers.
Here it is again for your mindless brain. Maybe you could post a similar
essay as to why mountain biking is appropriate for wilderness instead of
carrying on like a cry baby.
news16
Jun 9, 2016, 8:36:12 PM6/9/16
to
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 11:08:33 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
> "news16" wrote in message news:njbirl$qkd$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
>
>> They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference
>> with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear
>> Watson!
>
>>> Nope, I'm impacted by those walkers who never stray far from their
>>> motor
> vehicles, so a bicycle allows me to get beyond those people.
>
> That would not have been true 30 or 40 years
Totally true as that was when I started bush biking.
> "news16" wrote in message news:njbirl$qkd$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
>
>> They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference
>> with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear
>> Watson!
>
>>> Nope, I'm impacted by those walkers who never stray far from their
>>> motor
> vehicles, so a bicycle allows me to get beyond those people.
>
> That would not have been true 30 or 40 years
> ago when I think long hikes were much more popular than they are today.
> Even so, you are transgressing what was originally intended for
> use only by equestrians and hikers.
>
> Mountain bikers have criminal minds which is why the only way to get at
> them is by force of law. A little enforcement with suitable penalties
> would soon bring your transgressions to an end.
>
John B.
Jun 9, 2016, 9:07:10 PM6/9/16
to
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:35:11 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
But Dol, if I remember correctly, it was you, the abominable Dolan,
that originated discussion of the Wilderness Act, and now you are
asking "what it does say"?
Good Lord Man! You seemed so intent on proving your point by shouting
"Wilderness Act, Wilderness Act" and now we discover that you need
someone to tell you what it means?
Dolan the unlettered
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
that originated discussion of the Wilderness Act, and now you are
asking "what it does say"?
Good Lord Man! You seemed so intent on proving your point by shouting
"Wilderness Act, Wilderness Act" and now we discover that you need
someone to tell you what it means?
Dolan the unlettered
--
cheers,
John B.
John B.
Jun 9, 2016, 9:24:31 PM6/9/16
to
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:57:50 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
>wrote in message news:u4filbtg32426j3u5...@4ax.com...
>[...]
>
>> I'd listen to you except that I am old enough to actually have "worked
>in the woods" as they used to term it, and have also worked in truly
>primeval areas in other countries where there no signs that man had
>ever existed there.
>
>> When you use the term "primeval" you simply don't know what you are
>talking about. You use the word to describe the Appalachian Trail, for
>instance, but the Appalachian Trail is damned close to civilization
>when you compare it with an actual primeval area, which, quite
>obviously, you know nothing about.
>
>> But of course you are not actually talking about a primeval area you
>are simply parroting the word in an effect to make your notions sound
>logical and important.
>
>I have never used the word “primeval” in describing what hikers do in the woods. That was your word, not mine. I have no interest in anything “primeval”. I am only interest in wilderness and natural landscapes, those minimally modified by man. You are stalking a straw horse.
>[...]
WEll, I should hope not.
After all "primeval" is a description of a condition or state of
being. The dictionary has it that "having existed from the beginning;
that get up to out there in the bushes, with no one to watch then.
And, "minimally modified by man"? I suppose that you mean man made
trails to walk on, with stairs to climb the hills, and the shelters to
sleep in and the places to build your fire and the cute little sign
posts to tell you where you are.
It sounds more like the Freeway than a "wilderness", as you call it.
But Dolie, the word "wilderness" actually means "a wild and
uninhabited area left in its natural condition", not a place with all
the amenities , and some trees.
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>wrote in message news:u4filbtg32426j3u5...@4ax.com...
>[...]
>
>> I'd listen to you except that I am old enough to actually have "worked
>in the woods" as they used to term it, and have also worked in truly
>primeval areas in other countries where there no signs that man had
>ever existed there.
>
>> When you use the term "primeval" you simply don't know what you are
>talking about. You use the word to describe the Appalachian Trail, for
>instance, but the Appalachian Trail is damned close to civilization
>when you compare it with an actual primeval area, which, quite
>obviously, you know nothing about.
>
>> But of course you are not actually talking about a primeval area you
>are simply parroting the word in an effect to make your notions sound
>logical and important.
>
>I have never used the word “primeval” in describing what hikers do in the woods. That was your word, not mine. I have no interest in anything “primeval”. I am only interest in wilderness and natural landscapes, those minimally modified by man. You are stalking a straw horse.
>[...]
After all "primeval" is a description of a condition or state of
being. The dictionary has it that "having existed from the beginning;
in an earliest or original stage or state".
But "what hikers do in the woods"? The Lord only knows what antics
that get up to out there in the bushes, with no one to watch then.
And, "minimally modified by man"? I suppose that you mean man made
trails to walk on, with stairs to climb the hills, and the shelters to
sleep in and the places to build your fire and the cute little sign
posts to tell you where you are.
It sounds more like the Freeway than a "wilderness", as you call it.
But Dolie, the word "wilderness" actually means "a wild and
uninhabited area left in its natural condition", not a place with all
the amenities , and some trees.
--
cheers,
John B.
John B.
Jun 9, 2016, 9:32:04 PM6/9/16
to
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:08:33 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
>"news16" wrote in message news:njbirl$qkd$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
>
>> They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference
>> with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear
>> Watson!
>
>>> Nope, I'm impacted by those walkers who never stray far from their motor
>vehicles, so a bicycle allows me to get beyond those people.
>
>That would not have been true 30 or 40 years ago when I think long hikes were much more popular than they are today. Even so, you are transgressing what was originally intended for use only by equestrians and hikers.
But Dolie, you previously talked about "trails made by animals". Were
those "intended for use only by equestrians and hikers"?
I'll bet that they weren't as I suspect that those animals could care
less about any equestrians and I'm sure that they would have run if a
"hiker" had appeared on the scene.
Dolan the ambiguous
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>"news16" wrote in message news:njbirl$qkd$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
>
>> They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference
>> with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear
>> Watson!
>
>>> Nope, I'm impacted by those walkers who never stray far from their motor
>vehicles, so a bicycle allows me to get beyond those people.
>
>That would not have been true 30 or 40 years ago when I think long hikes were much more popular than they are today. Even so, you are transgressing what was originally intended for use only by equestrians and hikers.
those "intended for use only by equestrians and hikers"?
I'll bet that they weren't as I suspect that those animals could care
less about any equestrians and I'm sure that they would have run if a
"hiker" had appeared on the scene.
Dolan the ambiguous
--
cheers,
John B.
John B.
Jun 9, 2016, 9:59:56 PM6/9/16
to
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:27:51 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
>"John B." wrote in message news:akiilb9rprg3jnij5...@4ax.com...
>
>On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 05:12:47 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
>wrote:
>[...]
>
>>My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is no harm in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any roughing it is not for the likes of you.
>
>>> Why ever not? I spent several years working in Indonesia in arias
>where it seemed that no one have ever been before.
>
>There is no place you could go in Indonesia which has not been overrun with people at one time or another. Try to stay real if that is possible.
Sorry Dolie, but what was called "Iran Jaya" and is now referred to as
"West Papua" has been claimed as a part of Indonesia since 1945. With
an area of 420,540 square kilometers and an estimated population of
877,437 and it is the least populous province of Indonesia except for
the newly created province of North Kalimantan. West Papua has a
population density of some 3.1 per square mile. Compared to 66.6/sq.
mile in your home state.
So, once again, the detestable Dolan exhibits his ignorance for all to
see.
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>"John B." wrote in message news:akiilb9rprg3jnij5...@4ax.com...
>
>On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 05:12:47 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
>wrote:
>[...]
>
>>My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is no harm in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any roughing it is not for the likes of you.
>
>>> Why ever not? I spent several years working in Indonesia in arias
>where it seemed that no one have ever been before.
>
>There is no place you could go in Indonesia which has not been overrun with people at one time or another. Try to stay real if that is possible.
"West Papua" has been claimed as a part of Indonesia since 1945. With
an area of 420,540 square kilometers and an estimated population of
877,437 and it is the least populous province of Indonesia except for
the newly created province of North Kalimantan. West Papua has a
population density of some 3.1 per square mile. Compared to 66.6/sq.
mile in your home state.
So, once again, the detestable Dolan exhibits his ignorance for all to
see.
--
cheers,
John B.
John B.
Jun 9, 2016, 10:28:04 PM6/9/16
to
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:58:15 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
>"John B." wrote in message
>news:akiilb9rprg3jnij5...@4ax.com...
>[...]
>
>> As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your repetitive
>arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the
>government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let
>you." Over and over and over again.
>
>Jesus Christ, you are worse than stupid. What led off this thread if not a
>series of very good arguments for why wilderness and why it should be
>limited to walkers.
But Dolly, when your "very good arguments" are analyzed they appear to
be, basically, "Dolan knows everything". And in some indescribable
manner, "Dolan is the appointed spokesman."
Tell us Dolly, how did you get to be the spokesman for government
owned areas of the U.S.? Was there an election? I mean, while I don't
watch Washington going on's with an eagle eye, I never saw any
announcement of your appointment.
Or you some self anointed spokesman. Elected by a majority of one, to
dictate what should and should not be done on the approximately
635,600,000 acres of Federal Property?
What is next? The bent cross arm bands and "sieg heil, sieg heil" with
the arm in the air? Do we address you as "Great Leader"? Are the
camps being built even now?
Dolan, face reality, you are mentally just a tiny, little, boy
guarding your toy box and loudly proclaiming "You can't play with my
toys!"
And to make matters even more ridiculous, they aren't your toys.
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>"John B." wrote in message
>news:akiilb9rprg3jnij5...@4ax.com...
>[...]
>
>> As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your repetitive
>arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the
>government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let
>you." Over and over and over again.
>
>Jesus Christ, you are worse than stupid. What led off this thread if not a
>series of very good arguments for why wilderness and why it should be
>limited to walkers.
be, basically, "Dolan knows everything". And in some indescribable
manner, "Dolan is the appointed spokesman."
Tell us Dolly, how did you get to be the spokesman for government
owned areas of the U.S.? Was there an election? I mean, while I don't
watch Washington going on's with an eagle eye, I never saw any
announcement of your appointment.
Or you some self anointed spokesman. Elected by a majority of one, to
dictate what should and should not be done on the approximately
635,600,000 acres of Federal Property?
What is next? The bent cross arm bands and "sieg heil, sieg heil" with
the arm in the air? Do we address you as "Great Leader"? Are the
camps being built even now?
Dolan, face reality, you are mentally just a tiny, little, boy
guarding your toy box and loudly proclaiming "You can't play with my
toys!"
And to make matters even more ridiculous, they aren't your toys.
--
cheers,
John B.
EdwardDolan
Jun 9, 2016, 11:37:08 PM6/9/16
to
"news16" wrote in message news:njd21r$qkd$8...@dont-email.me...
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 11:08:33 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
[...]
> Mountain bikers have criminal minds which is why the only way to get
at
> them is by force of law. A little enforcement with suitable
penalties
> would soon bring your transgressions to an end.
>> Ask yourself why do smart police forces everywhere have bicycle
teams.
Some few police forces do have bicycle teams, but they do not
ride on trails for hikers. They ride on city streets.
You seem not to be able to stay focused on what is being
discussed, but rather your mind wonders like a child’s mind. I will cut you when
you get off the subject since I am an expert editor.
EdwardDolan
Jun 9, 2016, 11:46:55 PM6/9/16
to
"John B." wrote in message
news:4m4klbloqkqpvr67a...@4ax.com...
[...]
>I have never used the word “primeval” in describing what hikers do in
the woods. That was your word, not mine. I have no interest in anything
“primeval”. I am only interested in wilderness and natural landscapes, those
minimally modified by man. You are stalking a straw horse.
>[...]
>> WEll, I should hope not.
>> After all "primeval" is a description of a condition or state
of
being. The dictionary has it that "having existed from the beginning;
in an earliest or original stage or state".
No one cares about that.
>> But "what hikers do in the woods"? The Lord only knows what
antics
that get up to out there in the bushes, with no one to watch then.
It is what bikers do in the woods that passes all
understanding.
>> And, "minimally modified by man"? I suppose that you mean man
made
trails to walk on, with stairs to climb the hills, and the shelters
to
sleep in and the places to build your fire and the cute little sign
posts to tell you where you are.
God Damn! So you can read!
>> It sounds more like the Freeway than a "wilderness", as you call
it.
Nope, it is “minimally modified by man”. God Damn! You can’t
read after all!
>> But Dolie, the word "wilderness" actually means "a wild and
uninhabited area left in its natural condition", not a place with all
the amenities , and some trees.
It doesn't mean that at all. I just means “minimally modified
by man”. God Damn! I wish you could read!
Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.
Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?
EdwardDolan
Jun 9, 2016, 11:54:37 PM6/9/16
to
"John B." wrote in message
news:9o5klb9rdadoaldnb...@4ax.com...
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:08:33 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
<edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
>"news16" wrote in message news:njbirl$qkd$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
>
>> They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no
interference
>> with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my
Dear
>> Watson!
>
>>> Nope, I'm impacted by those walkers who never stray far from
their motor
>vehicles, so a bicycle allows me to get beyond those people.
>
>That would not have been true 30 or 40 years ago when I think long
hikes were much more popular than they are today. Even so, you are transgressing
what was originally intended for use only by equestrians and hikers.
>>> But Dolie, you previously talked about "trails made by
animals". Were
those "intended for use only by equestrians and hikers"?
The Asshole previous to you was saying that a wildness has no
trails, but every patch of land on earth has trails, except maybe Antarctica.
Trails for equestrians and hikers are mostly man made, but such trails are there
for the purpose of allowing humans access to wilderness. It is why wilderness
areas were created in the first place.
>>> I'll bet that they weren't as I suspect that those animals
could care
less about any equestrians and I'm sure that they would have run if a
"hiker" had appeared on the scene.
Who knows what animals think?
EdwardDolan
Jun 10, 2016, 12:03:20 AM6/10/16
to
"John B." wrote in message
news:ij7klbhok24rtmc4c...@4ax.com...
>[...]
>
>>My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is no
harm in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any roughing
it is not for the likes of you.
>
>>> Why ever not? I spent several years working in Indonesia in
arias
>where it seemed that no one have ever been before.
>
>There is no place you could go in Indonesia which has not been overrun
with people at one time or another. Try to stay real if that is possible.
>>>> Sorry Dolie, but what was called "Iran Jaya" and is now
referred to as
"West Papua" has been claimed as a part of Indonesia since 1945. With
an area of 420,540 square kilometers and an estimated population of
877,437 and it is the least populous province of Indonesia except for
the newly created province of North Kalimantan. West Papua has a
population density of some 3.1 per square mile. Compared to 66.6/sq.
mile in your home state.
So what! There is no patch of land anywhere in Indonesia which
has not been visited by man. How did someone as stupid as you ever get posted to
Indonesia? Next you will telling me that that there are areas of Australia which
have never seen the footprints of man!
>>>> So, once again, the detestable Dolan exhibits his
ignorance for all to
see.
The only ignorant Asshole here is yourself.
Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.
Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?
EdwardDolan
Jun 10, 2016, 12:19:31 AM6/10/16
to
"John B." wrote in message
news:mr7klbdgguo848pl2...@4ax.com...
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:58:15 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
<edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
>"John B." wrote in message
>news:akiilb9rprg3jnij5...@4ax.com...
>[...]
>
>> As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your
repetitive
>arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if
the
>government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let
>you." Over and over and over again.
>
>Jesus Christ, you are worse than stupid. What led off this thread if
not a
>series of very good arguments for why wilderness and why it should be
>limited to walkers.
>>> But Dolly, when your "very good arguments" are analyzed they
appear to
be, basically, "Dolan knows everything". And in some indescribable
manner, "Dolan is the appointed spokesman."
What does the above comment have to do with my arguments of
trails for hikers only. There was nothing repetitive about the arguments
presented in the article enclosed nor is there in my thousands of comments on
this newsgroup. God Damn! Do you know anything at all about addressing an
issue?
>>> Tell us Dolly, how did you get to be the spokesman for
government
owned areas of the U.S.? Was there an election? I mean, while I don't
watch Washington going on's with an eagle eye, I never saw any
announcement of your appointment.
Irrelevant!
>>> Or you some self anointed spokesman. Elected by a majority of
one, to
dictate what should and should not be done on the approximately
635,600,000 acres of Federal Property?
Irrelevant!
>>> What is next? The bent cross arm bands and "sieg heil, sieg
heil" with
the arm in the air? Do we address you as "Great Leader"? Are
the
camps being built even now?
Irrelevant!
>>> Dolan, face reality, you are mentally just a tiny, little,
boy
guarding your toy box and loudly proclaiming "You can't play with my
toys!"
Irrelevant!
>>> And to make matters even more ridiculous, they aren't your
toys.
Irrelevant!
I have not so far detected any argument for why bikes should
be permitted on hiking trails. Instead of going on and on with irrelevancies,
try to make a case for your side. I have more than made the case for my
side.
Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.
Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?
EdwardDolan
Jun 10, 2016, 12:28:25 AM6/10/16
to
"John B." wrote in message news:fu3klbleha5q5o9s0...@4ax.com...
[...]
> But Dol, if I remember correctly, it was you, the abominable
Dolan,
that originated discussion of the Wilderness Act, and now you are
asking "what it does say"?
I know what it says, but I never spend time reinventing the
wheel. If you want to know what it says, then read it – and then shut the fuck
up!
> Good Lord Man! You seemed so intent on proving your point by
shouting
"Wilderness Act, Wilderness Act" and now we discover that you need
someone to tell you what it means?
One thing for sure, I take pride in being the laziest
man in the world and I will never do any one else’s research. If you want to know what it says,
then read it – and then shut the fuck up!
John B.
Jun 10, 2016, 5:43:37 AM6/10/16
to
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 22:47:00 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
>"John B." wrote in message news:4m4klbloqkqpvr67a...@4ax.com...
>
>On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:57:50 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
>wrote:
>[...]
>
>>I have never used the word “primeval” in describing what hikers do in the woods. That was your word, not mine. I have no interest in anything “primeval”. I am only interested in wilderness and natural landscapes, those minimally modified by man. You are stalking a straw horse.
>>[...]
>
>>> WEll, I should hope not.
>
>>> After all "primeval" is a description of a condition or state of
>being. The dictionary has it that "having existed from the beginning;
>in an earliest or original stage or state".
>
>No one cares about that.
I see. I guess I didn't know that. But if you don't care about whether
a place is "primeval" why are you jabbering about "the woods, the
woods", why not just go down to the park and read a newspaper.
with the steps so you can climb the hills and the bridges so you don't
have to get your itty bitty feet wet and the sign posts so you won't
loose your way and the running water and the cute little cabins (watch
out you might bump your head). What is next air conditioning?
When I first came across your posts I though that when you talked
about "trekking" you were talking about wrapping your gear in a
tarpaulin and throwing it up on your shoulders and hiking out through
the forest, but that isn't what you now say at all.
Now, it appears the truth is emerging and what you want is someone to
build the trails and the stairs and the bridges and survey and place
markers and sign posts so you won't get lost and build those dear
little Adirondack shelters so you won't have to sleep out in the Great
Outdoors (that you love so much). God Lord, what is next" WiFi?
You are a fake Dolan. You don't want to go out in the outdoors, you
want some sort of pseudo wilderness with all the amenities installed
so you can make believe that you are a real he man, out there with
Lewis and Clark, blazing the way west. But with running water, flush
toilets and a warm place to sleep.
And than after the government builds it you want every one else to
stay out.
What a phony.
Dolan the Great indeed.
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>"John B." wrote in message news:4m4klbloqkqpvr67a...@4ax.com...
>
>On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:57:50 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
>wrote:
>[...]
>
>>I have never used the word “primeval” in describing what hikers do in the woods. That was your word, not mine. I have no interest in anything “primeval”. I am only interested in wilderness and natural landscapes, those minimally modified by man. You are stalking a straw horse.
>>[...]
>
>>> WEll, I should hope not.
>
>>> After all "primeval" is a description of a condition or state of
>being. The dictionary has it that "having existed from the beginning;
>in an earliest or original stage or state".
>
>No one cares about that.
a place is "primeval" why are you jabbering about "the woods, the
woods", why not just go down to the park and read a newspaper.
>
>>> But "what hikers do in the woods"? The Lord only knows what antics
>that get up to out there in the bushes, with no one to watch then.
>
>It is what bikers do in the woods that passes all understanding.
>
>>> And, "minimally modified by man"? I suppose that you mean man made
>trails to walk on, with stairs to climb the hills, and the shelters to
>sleep in and the places to build your fire and the cute little sign
>posts to tell you where you are.
>
>God Damn! So you can read!
>
>>> It sounds more like the Freeway than a "wilderness", as you call it.
>
>Nope, it is “minimally modified by man”. God Damn! You can’t read after all!
Ha! "Minimally". That is the word. You mean all the man made trails
>>> But "what hikers do in the woods"? The Lord only knows what antics
>that get up to out there in the bushes, with no one to watch then.
>
>It is what bikers do in the woods that passes all understanding.
>
>>> And, "minimally modified by man"? I suppose that you mean man made
>trails to walk on, with stairs to climb the hills, and the shelters to
>sleep in and the places to build your fire and the cute little sign
>posts to tell you where you are.
>
>God Damn! So you can read!
>
>>> It sounds more like the Freeway than a "wilderness", as you call it.
>
>Nope, it is “minimally modified by man”. God Damn! You can’t read after all!
with the steps so you can climb the hills and the bridges so you don't
have to get your itty bitty feet wet and the sign posts so you won't
loose your way and the running water and the cute little cabins (watch
out you might bump your head). What is next air conditioning?
When I first came across your posts I though that when you talked
about "trekking" you were talking about wrapping your gear in a
tarpaulin and throwing it up on your shoulders and hiking out through
the forest, but that isn't what you now say at all.
Now, it appears the truth is emerging and what you want is someone to
build the trails and the stairs and the bridges and survey and place
markers and sign posts so you won't get lost and build those dear
little Adirondack shelters so you won't have to sleep out in the Great
Outdoors (that you love so much). God Lord, what is next" WiFi?
You are a fake Dolan. You don't want to go out in the outdoors, you
want some sort of pseudo wilderness with all the amenities installed
so you can make believe that you are a real he man, out there with
Lewis and Clark, blazing the way west. But with running water, flush
toilets and a warm place to sleep.
And than after the government builds it you want every one else to
stay out.
What a phony.
Dolan the Great indeed.
--
cheers,
John B.
John B.
Jun 10, 2016, 6:02:33 AM6/10/16
to
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 23:19:36 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
There doesn't have to be any argument for bicycles on Federal
Property, there does, however have to be an argument to ban them
To date, we seem to have Dolan, not providing an argument or any
reason except "I don't want them here", which is insufficient
justification.
So effectually, for all your ranting you have yet to provide any
concrete argument, nor any real reason except, "I don't Want them
Here!"
Which, I hate to say, is insufficient evidence.
--
cheers,
John B.
Property, there does, however have to be an argument to ban them
To date, we seem to have Dolan, not providing an argument or any
reason except "I don't want them here", which is insufficient
justification.
So effectually, for all your ranting you have yet to provide any
concrete argument, nor any real reason except, "I don't Want them
Here!"
Which, I hate to say, is insufficient evidence.
--
cheers,
John B.
EdwardDolan
Jun 10, 2016, 6:41:43 AM6/10/16
to
"John B." wrote in message
news:0f1llbhhtt2s4uklb...@4ax.com...
[...]
>>> After all "primeval" is a description of a condition or state
of
>being. The dictionary has it that "having existed from the
beginning;
>in an earliest or original stage or state".
Edward Dolan wrote:
> No one cares about that.
>>>> I see. I guess I didn't know that. But if you don't care
about whether
a place is "primeval" why are you jabbering about "the woods, the
woods", why not just go down to the park and read a newspaper.
Wilderness need not be primeval. They are different words.
Instead of quibbling about a word that doesn’t matter, why don’t you go fuck
yourself!
>>> But "what hikers do in the woods"? The Lord only knows what
antics
>that get up to out there in the bushes, with no one to watch
then.
>
>It is what bikers do in the woods that passes all understanding.
>
>>> And, "minimally modified by man"? I suppose that you mean man
made
>trails to walk on, with stairs to climb the hills, and the shelters
to
>sleep in and the places to build your fire and the cute little
sign
>posts to tell you where you are.
>
>God Damn! So you can read!
>
>>> It sounds more like the Freeway than a "wilderness", as you
call it.
>
>Nope, it is “minimally modified by man”. God Damn! You can’t read after
all!
>>>> Ha! "Minimally". That is the word. You mean all the man
made trails
with the steps so you can climb the hills and the bridges so you
don't
have to get your itty bitty feet wet and the sign posts so you won't
loose your way and the running water and the cute little cabins
(watch
out you might bump your head). What is next air conditioning?
Gold Damn! Maybe you can read after all!
>>>> When I first came across your posts I though that when you
talked
about "trekking" you were talking about wrapping your gear in a
tarpaulin and throwing it up on your shoulders and hiking out through
the forest, but that isn't what you now say at all.
Trekking is just a fancy word for a walk in a natural
landscape on a trail where there are only going to be other walkers. It could be
in Central Park or in Appalachia or in the Himalayas as far as that goes.
Instead of quibbling about a word that doesn’t matter, why don’t you go fuck
yourself!
>>>> Now, it appears the truth is emerging and what you want is
someone to
build the trails and the stairs and the bridges and survey and place
markers and sign posts so you won't get lost and build those dear
little Adirondack shelters so you won't have to sleep out in the
Great
Outdoors (that you love so much). God Lord, what is next" WiFi?
A trail is a trail is a trail ... Instead of quibbling about a word that doesn’t matter, why don’t
you go fuck yourself!
>>>> You are a fake Dolan. You don't want to go out in the
outdoors, you
want some sort of pseudo wilderness with all the amenities installed
so you can make believe that you are a real he man, out there with
Lewis and Clark, blazing the way west. But with running water, flush
toilets and a warm place to sleep.
I guess you must be talking about yourself since I don’t
recognize any hikers that would give a damn about what you are talking
about,
>>>> And than [then] after the government builds it you want
every one else to
stay out.
Everyone can use what the government has built, provided they
walk like everyone else. Bikers need to get their own trails.
>>>> What a phony.
The B. in your last name must stand for Bullshitter, because
that is the sum total of what you are.
By the way sophistry won’t work with me. I can spot it from a
mile off. Now go fuck yourself like the bad little boy that you
are.
>>>> Dolan the Great indeed.
You needed to stay in West Papua where you could have
consorted with your fellow aborigines until the end of time.
EdwardDolan
Jun 10, 2016, 7:03:58 AM6/10/16
to
"John B." wrote in message
news:al3llbtui59fvqgdm...@4ax.com...
[...]
When the hell are you going to learn how to edit a post?
> I have not so far detected any argument for why bikes should be
permitted on hiking trails. Instead of going on and on with irrelevancies, try
to make a case for your side. I have more than made the case for my side.
>> There doesn't have to be any argument for bicycles on
Federal
Property, there does, however have to be an argument to ban them.
Nonsense. Everything needs to be justified by argument. How
else is anyone to know anything.
>> To date, we seem to have Dolan, not providing an argument or
any
reason except "I don't want them here", which is insufficient
justification.
Now you are bullshitting again. Plenty of reasons have been
given as to why trails should be for walkers only – and for why bikes should be
banned. It is not my fault if you don’t know how to read. Moreover, I am not
going to endlessly repeat myself on these threads on this newsgroup just for the
purpose of educating a slob like you.
>> So effectually, for all your ranting you have yet to provide
any
concrete argument, nor any real reason except, "I don't Want them
Here!"
It is all here on this newsgroup. Don’t be so lazy. Read,
read, read!
>> Which, I hate to say, is insufficient evidence.
Only for those who refuse to know the truth. You must be a
Democrat and are probably going to vote for Hillary, the most notorious fraud
and phony ever to run for president. Frauds and phonies are just naturally
attracted to one another. She lies about everything too, just like you
do.
John B.
Jun 10, 2016, 7:30:59 AM6/10/16
to
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 05:41:48 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
>"John B." wrote in message news:0f1llbhhtt2s4uklb...@4ax.com...
>[...]
>
>>>> After all "primeval" is a description of a condition or state of
>>being. The dictionary has it that "having existed from the beginning;
>>in an earliest or original stage or state".
>
>Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> No one cares about that.
>
>>>>> I see. I guess I didn't know that. But if you don't care about whether
>a place is "primeval" why are you jabbering about "the woods, the
>woods", why not just go down to the park and read a newspaper.
>
>Wilderness need not be primeval. They are different words. Instead of quibbling about a word that doesn’t matter, why don’t you go fuck yourself!
>
By gorry, one must be listen closely to a well reasoned argument.
Fortunately that means that we can ignore Dolan's fevered muttering.
>>>> But "what hikers do in the woods"? The Lord only knows what antics
>>that get up to out there in the bushes, with no one to watch then.
>>
>>It is what bikers do in the woods that passes all understanding.
>>
>>>> And, "minimally modified by man"? I suppose that you mean man made
>>trails to walk on, with stairs to climb the hills, and the shelters to
>>sleep in and the places to build your fire and the cute little sign
>>posts to tell you where you are.
>>
>>God Damn! So you can read!
What was it someone said? Oh yes,
"Profanity is the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly.
Do we call him "Dolan of the Feeble Brain" Or maybe "Dummy Dolan" for
short?
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>"John B." wrote in message news:0f1llbhhtt2s4uklb...@4ax.com...
>[...]
>
>>>> After all "primeval" is a description of a condition or state of
>>being. The dictionary has it that "having existed from the beginning;
>>in an earliest or original stage or state".
>
>Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> No one cares about that.
>
>>>>> I see. I guess I didn't know that. But if you don't care about whether
>a place is "primeval" why are you jabbering about "the woods, the
>woods", why not just go down to the park and read a newspaper.
>
>Wilderness need not be primeval. They are different words. Instead of quibbling about a word that doesn’t matter, why don’t you go fuck yourself!
>
Fortunately that means that we can ignore Dolan's fevered muttering.
>>>> But "what hikers do in the woods"? The Lord only knows what antics
>>that get up to out there in the bushes, with no one to watch then.
>>
>>It is what bikers do in the woods that passes all understanding.
>>
>>>> And, "minimally modified by man"? I suppose that you mean man made
>>trails to walk on, with stairs to climb the hills, and the shelters to
>>sleep in and the places to build your fire and the cute little sign
>>posts to tell you where you are.
>>
>>God Damn! So you can read!
"Profanity is the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly.
Do we call him "Dolan of the Feeble Brain" Or maybe "Dummy Dolan" for
short?
--
cheers,
John B.
John B.
Jun 10, 2016, 7:40:32 AM6/10/16
to
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 06:04:03 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
Ah, I was surprised to learn that hiking is a politically oriented,
but Dolan seems to be saying that it is.
Does that mean that only Republicans can enjoy the Forest Primeval
with Dolan? And that the new Battle Cry is "Democrats and Bicycles
Keep Out".
But what about Independent voters? Can they creep in? Or maybe allowed
only on Saturdays?
Yet another logical and well though out argument from the (self
appointed) spokesman of the entire hiking fraternity. The Great Dolan
(from Minnesota)
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
but Dolan seems to be saying that it is.
Does that mean that only Republicans can enjoy the Forest Primeval
with Dolan? And that the new Battle Cry is "Democrats and Bicycles
Keep Out".
But what about Independent voters? Can they creep in? Or maybe allowed
only on Saturdays?
Yet another logical and well though out argument from the (self
appointed) spokesman of the entire hiking fraternity. The Great Dolan
(from Minnesota)
--
cheers,
John B.
EdwardDolan
Jun 10, 2016, 8:02:57 AM6/10/16
to
"John B." wrote in message
news:co8llbha0uivgf7e4...@4ax.com...
[...]
> God Damn! So you can read!
>> What was it someone said? Oh yes,
"Profanity is the effort of a feeble brain to express itself
forcibly.
The problem is that you really can’t read. As for any
profanity, I have only begun on you. Until you get on subject with reasonable
argument I will treat you as you deserve to be treated. Any sophistry on your
part will be especially severely repulsed. I have now got the measure of you and
I will treat you like the scum that you are.
>> Do we call him "Dolan of the Feeble Brain" Or maybe "Dummy Dolan"
for
short?
The only dummy here is yourself. You have not made a single
good argument about anything. All you have done is engaged in sissified name
calling. You must be some kind of effeminate transgender freak.
Now go fuck yourself since I am sure that is the one thing you
know how to do.
Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.
Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?
Fucking Regards,
EdwardDolan
Jun 10, 2016, 8:18:04 AM6/10/16
to
"John B." wrote in message
news:d89llbtvv8r48uvj0...@4ax.com...
[...]
> Only for those who refuse to know the truth. You must be a Democrat
and are probably going to vote for Hillary, the most notorious fraud and phony
ever to run for president. Frauds and phonies are just naturally attracted to
one another. She lies about everything too, just like you do.
>> Ah, I was surprised to learn that hiking is a politically
oriented,
but Dolan seems to be saying that it is.
What I am saying is that you are a god damn fucking jerk, just
like Hillary is a jerk ... and just as are all mountain bikers.
>> Does that mean that only Republicans can enjoy the Forest
Primeval
with Dolan? And that the new Battle Cry is "Democrats and Bicycles
Keep Out".
It means that you should keep out by all means.
>> But what about Independent voters? Can they creep in? Or maybe
allowed
only on Saturdays?
The only question here is what to do about shitheads like
you?
>> Yet another logical and well though out argument from the
(self
appointed) spokesman of the entire hiking fraternity. The Great Dolan
(from Minnesota)
This is what passes for wit from John Bullshit!
Now go vote for Hillary ... and fuck yourself while you are at
it.
Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.
Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?
Fucking Regards,
John B.
Jun 10, 2016, 8:23:10 AM6/10/16
to
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 07:03:02 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
>"John B." wrote in message news:co8llbha0uivgf7e4...@4ax.com...
>
>On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 05:41:48 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
>wrote:
>[...]
>
>> God Damn! So you can read!
>
>>> What was it someone said? Oh yes,
>"Profanity is the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly.
>
>The problem is that you really can’t read. As for any profanity, I have only begun on you. Until you get on subject with reasonable argument I will treat you as you deserve to be treated. Any sophistry on your part will be especially severely repulsed. I have now got the measure of you and I will treat you like the scum that you are.
>
>>> Do we call him "Dolan of the Feeble Brain" Or maybe "Dummy Dolan" for
>short?
>
>The only dummy here is yourself. You have not made a single good argument about anything. All you have done is engaged in sissified name calling. You must be some kind of effeminate transgender freak.
>
>Now go fuck yourself since I am sure that is the one thing you know how to do.
Lovely! While it is always refreshing to talk to an educated and
logical person, unfortunately that description doesn't seem to fit Dol
Boy very well. He seems to be more into the curses and demands to
"Stay out of my forests" as his main forte.
Rather reminiscent of a little boy defiantly defending his toy box,
"Keep away! They are mine! You can't play with them! Mine! Mine!
Mine!".
Is this really the best that Minnesota can produce? Pitiful.
Dolan the Pitiful ( from Minnesota)
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>"John B." wrote in message news:co8llbha0uivgf7e4...@4ax.com...
>
>On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 05:41:48 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
>wrote:
>[...]
>
>> God Damn! So you can read!
>
>>> What was it someone said? Oh yes,
>"Profanity is the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly.
>
>The problem is that you really can’t read. As for any profanity, I have only begun on you. Until you get on subject with reasonable argument I will treat you as you deserve to be treated. Any sophistry on your part will be especially severely repulsed. I have now got the measure of you and I will treat you like the scum that you are.
>
>>> Do we call him "Dolan of the Feeble Brain" Or maybe "Dummy Dolan" for
>short?
>
>The only dummy here is yourself. You have not made a single good argument about anything. All you have done is engaged in sissified name calling. You must be some kind of effeminate transgender freak.
>
>Now go fuck yourself since I am sure that is the one thing you know how to do.
logical person, unfortunately that description doesn't seem to fit Dol
Boy very well. He seems to be more into the curses and demands to
"Stay out of my forests" as his main forte.
Rather reminiscent of a little boy defiantly defending his toy box,
"Keep away! They are mine! You can't play with them! Mine! Mine!
Mine!".
Is this really the best that Minnesota can produce? Pitiful.
Dolan the Pitiful ( from Minnesota)
--
cheers,
John B.
EdwardDolan
Jun 10, 2016, 9:04:00 AM6/10/16
to
"John B." wrote in message
news:rgbllbhkq5u38r78s...@4ax.com...
exactly what I would have said too!
Rather reminiscent of a little boy defiantly defending his toy box,
"Keep away! They are mine! You can't play with them! Mine! Mine!
Mine!".
exactly what I would have said too!
Is this really the best that Minnesota can produce? Pitiful.
exactly what I would have said too!
John B.
Jun 10, 2016, 10:39:03 AM6/10/16
to
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 07:18:09 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
>"John B." wrote in message news:d89llbtvv8r48uvj0...@4ax.com...
>
>On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 06:04:03 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
>wrote:
>[...]
>
>> Only for those who refuse to know the truth. You must be a Democrat and are probably going to vote for Hillary, the most notorious fraud and phony ever to run for president. Frauds and phonies are just naturally attracted to one another. She lies about everything too, just like you do.
>
>>> Ah, I was surprised to learn that hiking is a politically oriented,
>but Dolan seems to be saying that it is.
>
>What I am saying is that you are a god damn fucking jerk, just like Hillary is a jerk ... and just as are all mountain bikers.
>
>>> Does that mean that only Republicans can enjoy the Forest Primeval
>with Dolan? And that the new Battle Cry is "Democrats and Bicycles
>Keep Out".
>
>It means that you should keep out by all means.
>
>>> But what about Independent voters? Can they creep in? Or maybe allowed
>only on Saturdays?
>
>The only question here is what to do about shitheads like you?
>
>>> Yet another logical and well though out argument from the (self
>appointed) spokesman of the entire hiking fraternity. The Great Dolan
>(from Minnesota)
>
>This is what passes for wit from John Bullshit!
>
>Now go vote for Hillary ... and fuck yourself while you are at it.
As I previously said, "another logical and well though out argument
comments are accurate.
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>"John B." wrote in message news:d89llbtvv8r48uvj0...@4ax.com...
>
>On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 06:04:03 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
>wrote:
>[...]
>
>> Only for those who refuse to know the truth. You must be a Democrat and are probably going to vote for Hillary, the most notorious fraud and phony ever to run for president. Frauds and phonies are just naturally attracted to one another. She lies about everything too, just like you do.
>
>>> Ah, I was surprised to learn that hiking is a politically oriented,
>but Dolan seems to be saying that it is.
>
>What I am saying is that you are a god damn fucking jerk, just like Hillary is a jerk ... and just as are all mountain bikers.
>
>>> Does that mean that only Republicans can enjoy the Forest Primeval
>with Dolan? And that the new Battle Cry is "Democrats and Bicycles
>Keep Out".
>
>It means that you should keep out by all means.
>
>>> But what about Independent voters? Can they creep in? Or maybe allowed
>only on Saturdays?
>
>The only question here is what to do about shitheads like you?
>
>>> Yet another logical and well though out argument from the (self
>appointed) spokesman of the entire hiking fraternity. The Great Dolan
>(from Minnesota)
>
>This is what passes for wit from John Bullshit!
>
>Now go vote for Hillary ... and fuck yourself while you are at it.
from the (self appointed) spokesman of the entire hiking fraternity.
The Great Dolan >(from Minnesota)"
You seem rather obsessed, and strangely intent on proving that my
The Great Dolan >(from Minnesota)"
comments are accurate.
--
cheers,
John B.
John B.
Jun 10, 2016, 10:53:46 AM6/10/16
to
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:04:05 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
Ah! Back with the profanity. But, as I told you, "Profanity is the
effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly" (I guess that you
must have forgotten that).
Ah well. If you insist on acting feeble minded... but you seem so
intent on proving my assertions correct.
Now, if you could just decide on whether your signature should read
"Feeble Minded Dolan" or perhaps "Dolan the Feeble (minded)" which
might be viewed as having a little more class. Oh yes, we will of
course add the "Minnesota" sobriquet. We wouldn't want the people in
California (the land of the fruits and the nuts) to be offended.
--
cheers,
John B.
effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly" (I guess that you
must have forgotten that).
Ah well. If you insist on acting feeble minded... but you seem so
intent on proving my assertions correct.
Now, if you could just decide on whether your signature should read
"Feeble Minded Dolan" or perhaps "Dolan the Feeble (minded)" which
might be viewed as having a little more class. Oh yes, we will of
course add the "Minnesota" sobriquet. We wouldn't want the people in
California (the land of the fruits and the nuts) to be offended.
--
cheers,
John B.
EdwardDolan
Jun 10, 2016, 3:47:01 PM6/10/16
to
"John B." wrote in message
news:kgkllbh5rmq1e7934...@4ax.com...
EdwardDolan
Jun 10, 2016, 3:47:53 PM6/10/16
to
"John B." wrote in message
news:21kllbt1lmb8irveg...@4ax.com...
Jesus Christ Almighty! If I were a jackass and an asshole like you, that is
exactly what I would have said too!
exactly what I would have said too!
You seem rather obsessed, and strangely intent on proving that my
comments are accurate.
comments are accurate.
0 new messages