How do you get to the trail?
Doki
G.T.
"Doki" <do...@spamtroNspidar.com> wrote in message
news:10835239...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
> Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
>
>
Depends. 5 out of 6 times I ride because there are rides that I can reach
riding. When I get bored with those I throw the bike on top of the Jeep.
Greg
Fred Fragger
"Doki" <do...@spamtroNspidar.com> wrote in message
news:10835239...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
BB
> "Doki" <do...@spamtroNspidar.com> wrote:
>> Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
>
> Depends. 5 out of 6 times I ride because there are rides that I can reach
> riding. When I get bored with those I throw the bike on top of the Jeep.
Same here. I end up riding the same few trails quite a bit, just because
they're convenient. My Subaru gets pretty good gas mileage, so driving
isn't too bad either - its just the time that keeps me from doing it.
--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
(Pete Cresswell)
>Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
97% ride. I don't care for driving after a couple hours riding - seems like
I'm a little spaced out when I drive in that condition. Sometimes I wonder if
that how Abibe Bakeba got his - supposedly he and Malmo Walde crashed their Land
Rover coming back from a training session.
--
PeteCresswell
JJG
wrote:
>Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
>
Most of my rides are trails that are right up the street from my house
1/4 mile to trail head.
Or at work we have several trails right near the office , and we ride
about a mile for our lunch time rides .
Bu t I still do drive some times to get to trails that are a little
farther away.
Bran
18:55:34 UTC
-> Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
what's a car?
--
I hurt before the ride so fibro gives me a head
start on the rest of the pack. silver lining?
bran.eve...@invalid.net
craz...@webtv.net
I MTB 2004
JD
I don't own a car and ride to the trails most of the time. Road
tripping requires use of my truck.
JD
MattB
> Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
I drive my H2 now matter how close I am to the trails. I'll drive through
the car wash while getting fuel (lots and lots of fuel!) weather it needs it
or not. All the chrome can never be too shiny - I've got people to impress!
Matt
Dan Volker
"MattB" <somed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c7610c$4i69$1...@ID-86156.news.uni-berlin.de...
For my local S Florida rides, I have to drive either 30 minutes for Quiet
Waters, or one hour for the Fort Pierce trail.
I use my Honda Insight ( gas /electric hybrid) and get 50 mpg, with the
bonus of not polluting nearly as much as normal cars.
I don't want to give the stinking Arab Oil consortiums one penney more than
I have to ( that goes for our own as well ;-)
Dan V
Doki
MattB wrote:
> Doki wrote:
>> Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
Argh. Should be "there" of course.
> I drive my H2 now matter how close I am to the trails. I'll drive
> through the car wash while getting fuel (lots and lots of fuel!)
> weather it needs it or not. All the chrome can never be too shiny -
> I've got people to impress!
That's the way :D.
gazzer
I live on an island with no cars, and so , have to get a ferry to the
trail, if I'm riding elsewhere.
cheers
g
arlo
@eunomia.uk.clara.net:
> Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
Drive to friend's house, unload bike, ride trail. Most of the time we leave
a car at the bottom. 8 miles of downhill sucks if you have to pedal home...
periplaneta
>
> For my local S Florida rides, I have to drive either 30 minutes for Quiet
> Waters, or one hour for the Fort Pierce trail.
> I use my Honda Insight ( gas /electric hybrid) and get 50 mpg, with the
> bonus of not polluting nearly as much as normal cars.
>
> I don't want to give the stinking Arab Oil consortiums one penney more than
> I have to ( that goes for our own as well ;-)
>
> Dan V
Just an observation, no flames or any nasty mana intended, but why do
people think that (a) just because you can't see the pollution from
generator plants, electricity is "cleaner"? The pollution is only not
as immediately noticeable e.g. car exhaust you can see compared to a
remote plant miles away from built up areas.
(b) Turbines used for electricity generation is at the very best about
30% efficient. Since most plants rely on burning fossil fuels -
including oil, you are still indirectly feeding the oil complanies.
Ok, there are plants that suppliment their output using renewable fuel
sources e.g. wind and of course hydroplants but in the main fossil
fuels are the bread and butter. Oh, not forgetting radioactive sources
but that's another matter.
Dan Volker
"periplaneta" <perip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a4855b4.0405...@posting.google.com...
Well, in the case of the Insight, the electric is charged by braking and
coasting--the car charges itself. And all ratings of it showed it polluted
much less than the normal car.
As to electrical plants, looking at the Florida Power and Light plant in
Rivera Beach, Fl ( which powers much of South Florida) it leaves belches out
black soot daily, which falls like pollen all around it for many miles.
Dan V
Reco Diver
> "Dan Volker" <dvo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<lSvlc.64724$oN1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> >
> > For my local S Florida rides, I have to drive either 30 minutes for Quiet
> > Waters, or one hour for the Fort Pierce trail.
> > I use my Honda Insight ( gas /electric hybrid) and get 50 mpg, with the
> > bonus of not polluting nearly as much as normal cars.
> >
> > I don't want to give the stinking Arab Oil consortiums one penney more than
> > I have to ( that goes for our own as well ;-)
> >
> > Dan V
>
> Just an observation, no flames or any nasty mana intended, but why do
> people think that (a) just because you can't see the pollution from
> generator plants, electricity is "cleaner"?
The "Insight" is not a plug in car. It generates its own electricty,
and as a hybrid gets ~60-65 mpg.
<snip>
R
R.White
But...the by-product of some power plants are tomatoes!
<http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2001/Dec-09-Sun-2001/business/17630009.html>
Joel Crum
@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
> I use my Honda Insight ( gas /electric hybrid) and get 50 mpg, with the
> bonus of not polluting nearly as much as normal cars.
>
I've got one of those as well. It's a great little car, but the bike shops
keeps telling me it's a no-fit bike rack wise. When I want to haul a bike
I have put it in the back. Do you do the same, or have you found another
solution?
--
- Joel C.
MattB
Seems like a big oversight on Honda's part if that's really the case. I bet
the likelyhood of someone into eco-friendly cars having a bike (that may
need to be driven somewhere sometime) is pretty high!
Matt
Dan Volker
"Joel Crum" <crumjdathotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94DF7E039622...@129.250.170.81...
Joel,
I have the Saris Bones rack, which works well. The only mod you need is the
attachment points at the top of the window/hatchback, need to be changed to
the round rubber kind you use for glass. These are available at most bike
stores.
However, with 2 bikes on the back ( 2 Trek Liquid 25's) the drag interferes
badly with fuel economy and top speed. I can average 50 mpg with one bike
inside, going around 70mph--this drops to about 42 mpg when I'm averaging 80
mph. If I have the 2 bikes on the rack, 70 mph fuel economy drops to about
35 mpg, and 80 mph drops it to about 25 to 28 mpg. Similarly, it won't go
much over 90 like this, whereas with one bike inside my Insight will do
about 115 mph ( its a CVT , not the manual).
If I put the 4 wheels inside, and just the frames on the rack, it make only
a small difference in fuel economy, but this is kind of a pain ;-)
If you come up with any better ideas, let me know !
Regards,
Dan V
p e t e f a g e r l i n
news:10835239...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
If I want to get to better trails than my local ones I get there like this.
Many times it's much more fun to drive to the trails than it is to drive to
them.
http://www.petefagerlin.com/images/fftf04/lasals.jpg
Joel Crum
> I have the Saris Bones rack, which works well. The only mod you need
> is the attachment points at the top of the window/hatchback, need to
> be changed to the round rubber kind you use for glass. These are
> available at most bike stores.
Ah - cool.
> However, with 2 bikes on the back ( 2 Trek Liquid 25's) the drag
> interferes badly with fuel economy and top speed. I can average 50 mpg
> with one bike inside, going around 70mph--this drops to about 42 mpg
> when I'm averaging 80 mph. If I have the 2 bikes on the rack, 70 mph
> fuel economy drops to about 35 mpg, and 80 mph drops it to about 25 to
> 28 mpg. Similarly, it won't go much over 90 like this, whereas with
> one bike inside my Insight will do about 115 mph ( its a CVT , not the
> manual).
>
> If I put the 4 wheels inside, and just the frames on the rack, it make
> only a small difference in fuel economy, but this is kind of a pain
> ;-)
The manual has a similar performance. I get from 57 to 66 mpg (winter vs.
summer), and I was worried about what a rack would do to fuel economy.
It's good to know just the rack wouldn't be a big deal.
> If you come up with any better ideas, let me know !
Someone needs to start making us a hybrid truck. I wish I could mate a 4
cylinder Ranger with an Insight and drive the offspring. I'd love it
even if it looked like an El Camino.
--
- Joel C.
"I'm glad everybody is sorry. I'm sorry, too; it was a sorry incident."
FCC chief Michael Powell
Fred Fragger
"p e t e f a g e r l i n" <pete1...@petefagerlin.removethis.com> wrote in
message news:INTlc.60081$GX.4...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> "Doki" <do...@spamtroNspidar.com> wrote in message
> news:10835239...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
to
> them.
>
Benjamin Weiner
> Just an observation, no flames or any nasty mana intended, but why do
> people think that (a) just because you can't see the pollution from
> generator plants, electricity is "cleaner"? The pollution is only not
> as immediately noticeable e.g. car exhaust you can see compared to a
> remote plant miles away from built up areas.
> (b) Turbines used for electricity generation is at the very best about
> 30% efficient. Since most plants rely on burning fossil fuels -
> including oil, you are still indirectly feeding the oil complanies.
> Ok, there are plants that suppliment their output using renewable fuel
> sources e.g. wind and of course hydroplants but in the main fossil
> fuels are the bread and butter. Oh, not forgetting radioactive sources
> but that's another matter.
Automobile internal combustion engines are only about 25% efficient.
I think your number for turbines is low - it can be over 40%, e.g.
http://www.cogeneration.net/CombinedCyclePowerPlant.htm
Another factoid is that a power plant can have a much bigger
and more effective emissions control system than a car can
tote around. Power plants can be run off natural gas which is
somewhat cleaner and less politically dicey than oil.
Slash
[snip]
>Someone needs to start making us a hybrid truck. I wish I could mate a 4
>cylinder Ranger with an Insight and drive the offspring. I'd love it
>even if it looked like an El Camino.
Ford Escape Hybrid coming out soon... could be good. Could also be
bad, but let's hope for good.
-Slash
--
"Ebert Victorious"
-The Onion
Dan Volker
I have had the same thought. I've also thought about trying to add a foam
strip around where the hatchback closes, and add about 12 inches or so of
height to where the hatchback closes. Ive had the car filled with stuff so
that the back was about a foot and a half up from being able to close, and
it did nothing to fuel economy. With this much more room, you might be able
to rig some kind of two bike packing .....
Dan V
Corvus Corvax
>
> Automobile internal combustion engines are only about 25% efficient.
> I think your number for turbines is low - it can be over 40%, e.g.
> http://www.cogeneration.net/CombinedCyclePowerPlant.htm
> Another factoid is that a power plant can have a much bigger
> and more effective emissions control system than a car can
> tote around. Power plants can be run off natural gas which is
> somewhat cleaner and less politically dicey than oil.
But still emits copious quantities of greenhouse gases. Hybrid and
hydrogen fuel-call cars will probably do a lot of good for
traffic-generated air pollution in places like Los Angeles, and
certainly represent a massive improvement over the idiotic
gas-guzzlers that are in fashion these days. But fuel-cell vehicles in
particular are being sold to the public in a way that ignores basic
thermodynamics. ("A car that runs on water!") The energy to run your
car has to be generated somewhere, either by cracking natural gas or
using electricity to generate hydrogen from water.
If we're serious about greenhouse gas emission and about
automobile-related pollution, the only practical answer at is a
massive buildup of our nuclear power generation capacity. Which would
be a very good thing, but our national phobia of anything "nukulur" is
making this effectively impossible.
Finally, air pollution is only one of the deleterious effects of auto
dependence. Auto-based urban sprawl has done a serious number on
everybody's quality of life, and we will continue to neglect public
transportation and sensible urban planning as long as everybody in the
country insists on driving a tank absolutely everywhere they go. This
is what pisses me off so much about the whole hybrid SUV idea. It's
only addressing a part of the problem, but it allows the owner to be
environmentally smug and profoundly antisocial at the same time. What
progress.
CC
socks
"Corvus Corvax" <corvus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b202ac08.04050...@posting.google.com...
> But fuel-cell vehicles in
> particular are being sold to the public in a way that ignores basic
> thermodynamics. ("A car that runs on water!") The energy to run your
> car has to be generated somewhere, either by cracking natural gas or
> using electricity to generate hydrogen from water.
my peeve is when they call hydrogen an "energy source!"
it's not a "source" unless they have natural hydrogen to tap someplace.
if it is made (as you say), then it is an "energy transport."
Benjamin Weiner
[ a bunch of sensible stuff ]
> Finally, air pollution is only one of the deleterious effects of auto
> dependence. Auto-based urban sprawl has done a serious number on
> everybody's quality of life, and we will continue to neglect public
> transportation and sensible urban planning as long as everybody in the
> country insists on driving a tank absolutely everywhere they go. This
> is what pisses me off so much about the whole hybrid SUV idea. It's
> only addressing a part of the problem, but it allows the owner to be
> environmentally smug and profoundly antisocial at the same time. What
> progress.
Absolutely no argument from me. In the last 15 years I haven't
ever lived more than about 5 miles from work, 'cause I'm lazy and value
my time, but unfortunately many people can't or won't do that. I do
think that hybrid cars/SUVs will have to be smaller/lighter than
gas/diesel cars for the forseeable future, so that's one benefit -
"One Less Tank," so to speak. I don't get upset by the individual
drivers of hybrids, but by the powers-that-be (government and
auto industry) that jump up and shout "Fuel cells!" as if they were
a magic technological fix to what is really a social problem.
Even if everyone drives weeny little hybrid cars yet still commutes
50 miles or drives 20 miles from subdivision to grocery store and
back, the sprawl still eats away at everyone's time and life.
Cars are coffins, gas is crack.
That said, I have lived in some once-highly-polluted places
(Pittsburgh, LA) and it is impressive what improvements in
emission control from both manufacturing and autos have done.
Mike Vandeman
."Dan Volker" <dvo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:lSvlc.64724$oN1.50809
.@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
.
.> I use my Honda Insight ( gas /electric hybrid) and get 50 mpg, with the
.> bonus of not polluting nearly as much as normal cars.
.>
.
.I've got one of those as well. It's a great little car, but the bike shops
.keeps telling me it's a no-fit bike rack wise. When I want to haul a bike
.I have put it in the back. Do you do the same, or have you found another
.solution?
Why would any sane person put a bike on the back of a car? Bikes are for RIDING.
DUH!
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
Mike Vandeman
.Joel Crum wrote:
.> "Dan Volker" <dvo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
.> news:lSvlc.64724$oN1.50809 @bignews5.bellsouth.net:
.>
.>> I use my Honda Insight ( gas /electric hybrid) and get 50 mpg, with
.>> the bonus of not polluting nearly as much as normal cars.
.>>
.>
.> I've got one of those as well. It's a great little car, but the bike
.> shops keeps telling me it's a no-fit bike rack wise. When I want to
.> haul a bike I have put it in the back. Do you do the same, or have
.> you found another solution?
.
.Seems like a big oversight on Honda's part if that's really the case.
Or a good hint!
I bet
.the likelyhood of someone into eco-friendly cars having a bike (that may
.need to be driven somewhere sometime) is pretty high!
.
.Matt
.
Mike Vandeman
<pete1...@petefagerlin.removethis.com> wrote:
."Doki" <do...@spamtroNspidar.com> wrote in message
.news:10835239...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
.> Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
.
.If I want to get to better trails than my local ones I get there like this.
.
.Many times it's much more fun to drive to the trails than it is to drive to
.them.
.
.http://www.petefagerlin.com/images/fftf04/lasals.jpg
I guess anyone who thinks mountain biking is "fun" would also think driving a
car is "fun". Both are nothing but marketing hype.
Brett Jaffee
news:r86m901umkei6gei1...@4ax.com:
> I guess anyone who thinks mountain biking is "fun" would also think
> driving a car is "fun". Both are nothing but marketing hype.
Something tell me he thinks the same thing about sex.
periplaneta
> "periplaneta" <perip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3a4855b4.0405...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dan Volker" <dvo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:<lSvlc.64724$oN1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
[snip] [snip]
>
> Well, in the case of the Insight, the electric is charged by braking and
> coasting--the car charges itself. And all ratings of it showed it polluted
> much less than the normal car.
> As to electrical plants, looking at the Florida Power and Light plant in
> Rivera Beach, Fl ( which powers much of South Florida) it leaves belches out
> black soot daily, which falls like pollen all around it for many miles.
> Dan V
wow, they actually have these things running about in the real world
now. Guess I should surf more... How do you find it as compared to
normal cars during a drive? What about range and performance (speed
and hauling / carrying capacity) can you get from these?
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in
.news:r86m901umkei6gei1...@4ax.com:
.
.> I guess anyone who thinks mountain biking is "fun" would also think
.> driving a car is "fun". Both are nothing but marketing hype.
.
.Something tell me he thinks the same thing about sex.
We psychologists call that "projection".
Joel Crum
> From: Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
My first Vandeman reply! Aw, now I feel like part of the group. :-)
--
- Joel C.
Brett Jaffee
> On Fri, 07 May 2004 06:57:00 GMT, Brett Jaffee
> <NOSPAM...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in
> .news:r86m901umkei6gei1...@4ax.com:
> .
> .> I guess anyone who thinks mountain biking is "fun" would also think
> .> driving a car is "fun". Both are nothing but marketing hype.
> .
> .Something tell me he thinks the same thing about sex.
>
> We psychologists call that "projection".
We rational folk call it a damn good guess.
Please tell us Mike, what exactly do you do for fun?
Dan Volker
>
> wow, they actually have these things running about in the real world
> now. Guess I should surf more... How do you find it as compared to
> normal cars during a drive? What about range and performance (speed
> and hauling / carrying capacity) can you get from these?
The Insight drive like a sports car, provided you throw away the stock
tires, and put much wider/better tires on it. Mine does about 115 mph on a
flat turnpike type road ( very feasible between West Palm and Orlando, where
even the semi's are often doing close to this). It corners very well,
slaloms very well, and brakes much better than some sports cars.
Pickup from 50 mph to 80 mph is better than most "family cars", and good
enough so you can get into any traffic string with it, that you could
reasonably expect to with a sports car. Its worst performance would be 0 to
60, as it lags a little as the engine begins to spin up. It uses
continuously variable transmission, meaning it does not really shift into
fixed gears, the rpms gradually increase, and the gearing is on a cone
shaped system that feels like infinitely adjustable gearing. It can keep the
rpm's under 3000 at 70mph, allowing 50 mpg, given a flat road and headwind
under 30 mph :-)
Going down mountain roads the car essentially cuts off the gas engine, and
charges the battery while braking. The electric motor has plenty of torque,
so the car actually climbs steep hills quite well with the electric assist.
You can get 600 miles on a tank of gas (11.5 gal I think), but it is better
to count on more like 500 unless you are really anal about careful pacing
and acceleration for economy.
I can pack scuba gear for two people easily in the back. One mountain bike
will fit easily, but to put 2 mountain bikes inside is a huge pain in the
butt---remove both front and rear wheels, and try to arrange both frames
with wheels--the fit is tenuous at best. My Saris Bones rack transports both
bikes well, but gas mileage suffers badly unless you remove both front and
rear wheels and store them inside the hatchback.
Dan V
S o r n i
> We psychologists...
BWAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAHHAHAHHAA!
Gee, doc, I was thinking of some short-term therapy. When are your office
hours?
Bill "can you hang out a shingle from the funny farm / wacko ward?!?" S.
P e t e F a g e r l i n
<dvo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Going down mountain roads the car essentially cuts off the gas engine, and
>charges the battery while braking.
So what happens if you need to apply throttle to transfer weight to
the rear, while cornering for instance?
Is there a lag between the throttle input due to the engine being
cutoff or does the electric motor kick in to fill the gap?
Shawn Curry
That question strikes me kinda like asking how a crescent wrench works
as a hammer. Sure you could do it, but you you're banging the nail with
the wrong tool.
Shawn
P e t e F a g e r l i n
I disagree. The ability to be able to transfer weight to the rear is
important in any car.
I'm sure they've addressed it, I 'm just interested in how they did
it.
Dan Volker
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete1...@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
news:60sn9093ssd0ndvtk...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 May 2004 16:11:02 -0400, "Dan Volker"
> <dvo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Going down mountain roads the car essentially cuts off the gas engine,
and
> >charges the battery while braking.
>
> So what happens if you need to apply throttle to transfer weight to
> the rear, while cornering for instance?
The electric motor engages instantly for high torque. One of the neat
things about this car is that when stopped at an intersection, the car turns
off (but fan stays on, with radio, etc). The moment you take your foot off
the brake, before you can even touch the gas pedal, the car is already
on--acceleration is just as instantaneous as if you had been reving the
car--the only thing is that you will be starting at lower revs. If you need
the kind of handling I think you are going for here, it has an alternate to
Drive, this being S . If you put it in S, it runs much higher revs all the
time- including downhill, and you can eliminate the engine shut off with
this. Also, not having the Air Conditioner on the Economy setting , but
instead having it in Auto, will prevent car from doing the auto shut off.
When I accellerate hard at the midpoint in a turn, the front wheel drive
pulls the car around hard, and it really corners --I have had friends in
BMW's and Jags try to loose me, but as long as traffic on the Interstate
keeps them under 115, they can't loose me. That includes the clover leafs
and other big s turn type places we have screwed around. Yes they are
faster, but not enough for me to care.
Dan V
socks
> I disagree. The ability to be able to transfer weight to the rear is
> important in any car.
how do you do that on a weight-forward, font-wheel-drive car?
S o r n i
Stuff M%V in the trunk. Duh!
Bill "threat duly noted" S.
PS: font-wheel-drive -- now that's a TRUE type-o
p e t e f a g e r l i n
"socks" <so...@socks.invalid> wrote in message
news:SvSdnXGBSfO...@adelphia.com...
Step on the gas
socks
> "socks" <so...@socks.invalid> wrote in message
> news:SvSdnXGBSfO...@adelphia.com...
>> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree. The ability to be able to transfer weight to the rear is
>>> important in any car.
>>
>
> Step on the gas
i remember 1980s photos of rabbits and sciroccos racing scca with an inside
rear tire coming off the track on corners.
i had a couple of those (low power) weight forward and front-wheel-drive gti
and sciroccos. for those cars, i set the weight going in, and brought on
power as i could coming out ... not at all the same sensation as (higher
power) RWD cars that i can feel locking down with power coming on before the
apex.
i guess my thought was that the Prius would be somewhat like those 80's
rabbits, both in available power and weight distribution.
socks
> i remember 1980s photos of rabbits and sciroccos racing scca with an
> inside rear tire coming off the track on corners.
hey, google found me some pictures taht come close (2nd and 3rd down):
http://www.gccw.ch/vehicules.htm
Stephen Baker
> i remember 1980s photos of rabbits and sciroccos racing scca with an
> inside rear tire coming off the track on corners.
They all do that ;-) My Fox is worse than most because it has a real
weigh-forward problem due to the longitudinal engine. Most "racing" Foxes
(kinda oxymoronic, I know) have the battery re-located to the trunk. They all
lift a leg on the corners, even so.
Steve
Mike Vandeman
.Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in
.news:526m90tatgnfhcq8c...@4ax.com:
.
.> From: Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
.
.My first Vandeman reply! Aw, now I feel like part of the group. :-)
Whatever blows your skirt up.
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in
.news:lk9n905nt9865cd7q...@4ax.com:
.
.> On Fri, 07 May 2004 06:57:00 GMT, Brett Jaffee
.> <NOSPAM...@earthlink.net> wrote:
.>
.> .Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in
.> .news:r86m901umkei6gei1...@4ax.com:
.> .
.> .> I guess anyone who thinks mountain biking is "fun" would also think
.> .> driving a car is "fun". Both are nothing but marketing hype.
.> .
.> .Something tell me he thinks the same thing about sex.
.>
.> We psychologists call that "projection".
.
.We rational folk call it a damn good guess.
.
.Please tell us Mike, what exactly do you do for fun?
Tell the truth. I know you dont want to hear that.
BB
> They all lift a leg on the corners, even so.
So does my dog, but that doesn't make him high-performance. ;-)
--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
p e t e f a g e r l i n
"BB" <bbauer...@freeshell.org> wrote in message
news:2g4d4nF...@uni-berlin.de...
> On 08 May 2004 12:32:59 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
>
> > They all lift a leg on the corners, even so.
>
> So does my dog, but that doesn't make him high-performance. ;-)
Relatively high performance can sometimes come in some pretty deceiving
wrappers.
http://www.paradigmhosting.net/trackpix/gallery/albums/UNlimtedlaps32604/unlaps3_26_109.jpg
(diesel even)
Brett Jaffee
> Tell the truth. I know you dont want to hear that.
So listening to your own voice and reading your own writings is your only
source of fun? I wonder how "we" psychologists would characterize that?
Seriously, what do you consider fun in life versus the so-called "marketing
hype."
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in
.news:cntp90hdosi687pno...@4ax.com:
.
.
.> Tell the truth. I know you dont want to hear that.
.
.So listening to your own voice and reading your own writings is your only
.source of fun? I wonder how "we" psychologists would characterize that?
.
.Seriously, what do you consider fun in life versus the so-called "marketing
.hype."
Living. Without harming other people and wildlife. Something you know nothing
about.
NotaKnob
do...@spamtroNspidar.com says...
> Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
>
>
Ride, drive or take the train.
bruce
Dave W
> In article <10835239...@eunomia.uk.clara.net>,
> do...@spamtroNspidar.com says...
>> Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
by any means possible :)
Brett Jaffee
> On Sun, 09 May 2004 03:22:35 GMT, Brett Jaffee
> <NOSPAM...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in
> .news:cntp90hdosi687pno...@4ax.com:
> .
> .
> .> Tell the truth. I know you dont want to hear that.
> .
> .So listening to your own voice and reading your own writings is your
> only .source of fun? I wonder how "we" psychologists would
> characterize that? .
> .Seriously, what do you consider fun in life versus the so-called
> "marketing .hype."
>
> Living. Without harming other people and wildlife. Something you know
> nothing about.
Chose anything fun Mike, beyond simple existance. Bike on the road, play
basketball, watch cartoons, build sand castles, rollarblade, skateboard,
play handball, swim, surf, go sailing, play soccer, build models, arrange
flowers, work in your garden, redecorate other people's apartments, paint
something, take pictures...there's pretty much an infinite number of fun
things you can do in life.
You hate mountain biking...fine, we all know that. But beyond that, my
impression (or rather, the impression you put forth in this group) is that
you cannot fathom why anyone would actually need to have fun. You say
occasionally that you bike on the road, but I get the impression that you
see it as purely an alternative form of transportation, and not as
something "fun" to do.
If existance is the only true fun, well, I guess we're all victims of
"marketing hype." Well, everyone except you. Enjoy!
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in
.news:csns90t1c5q6v3pqj...@4ax.com:
.
.> On Sun, 09 May 2004 03:22:35 GMT, Brett Jaffee
.> <NOSPAM...@earthlink.net> wrote:
.>
.> .Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in
.> .news:cntp90hdosi687pno...@4ax.com:
.> .
.> .
.> .> Tell the truth. I know you dont want to hear that.
.> .
.> .So listening to your own voice and reading your own writings is your
.> only .source of fun? I wonder how "we" psychologists would
.> characterize that? .
.> .Seriously, what do you consider fun in life versus the so-called
.> "marketing .hype."
.>
.> Living. Without harming other people and wildlife. Something you know
.> nothing about.
.
.Chose anything fun Mike, beyond simple existance. Bike on the road, play
.basketball, watch cartoons, build sand castles, rollarblade, skateboard,
.play handball, swim, surf, go sailing, play soccer, build models, arrange
.flowers, work in your garden, redecorate other people's apartments, paint
.something, take pictures...there's pretty much an infinite number of fun
.things you can do in life.
.
.You hate mountain biking...fine, we all know that. But beyond that, my
.impression (or rather, the impression you put forth in this group) is that
.you cannot fathom why anyone would actually need to have fun. You say
.occasionally that you bike on the road, but I get the impression that you
.see it as purely an alternative form of transportation, and not as
.something "fun" to do.
It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever had in
the outdoors. It PREVENTED the enjoyment of nature and everything else.
.If existance is the only true fun, well, I guess we're all victims of
."marketing hype." Well, everyone except you. Enjoy!
I guess you guys feel you need to mountain bike precisely BECAUSE you are
incapable of enjoying anything else, e.g. hiking. I can't see any other reason
why someone would risk their life doing something that is no fun at all.
Smart people KNOW that every aspect of life is fun, and has been for the 6 (?)
million years humans have been around.
Jeff Strickland
"Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ek8v909rv0cr3thgr...@4ax.com...
>
> It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever had
in
> the outdoors. It PREVENTED the enjoyment of nature and everything else.
>
It is only NOT fun to you, Mike. everybody else, apparently, likes it.
Everybody else is capable of doing more than one thing at a time.
Stephen Baker
>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever had in
>the outdoors.
Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think it's great
fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or must we all
conform to the party line?
Steve ""Vive la difference"
BB
In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...
TM
>
> Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
> his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
> went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
> about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...
The shame of it all is that he never posted a ride report! All those posts
and he couldn't even share his one outing with everyone.
The sad truth in all of this is that he'd probably get hooked on a
singlespeed... then he and bill wheeler could tag team people when they
asked questions about shifting problems and etc.
.My bike doesn't shift...
DUH
Brett Jaffee
>> You say .occasionally that you bike on the road, but I get the
>> impression that you .see it as purely an alternative form of
>> transportation, and not as .something "fun" to do.
>>
> It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever
> had in the outdoors. It PREVENTED the enjoyment of nature and
> everything else.
Note, I said biking on PAVEMENT/ROAD. So from this I gather that you hate
any form of riding a bicycle...anywhere?
> I guess you guys feel you need to mountain bike precisely BECAUSE you
> are incapable of enjoying anything else
We already know what you think of mountain biking. All I asked you is what
do you find fun. It's a simple question.
Pete
"Brett Jaffee" <NOSPAM...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> We already know what you think of mountain biking. All I asked you is
what
> do you find fun. It's a simple question.
Bitching/ranting/berating on usenet is his 'fun'
It *must* be fun for him, beause he spends so much time doing it.
Pete
Slacker
I don't see how someone couldn't like sailing after trying it. It didn't
appeal too much to me till a went. Really made me want to buy one ...
who knows, maybe I will someday.
But then again, a http://www.yachts.com/listings/4.html is awfully
appealing too :-)
--
Slacker
Stephen Baker
>I don't see how someone couldn't like sailing after trying it.
My point exactly. ;-)
>But then again, a http://www.yachts.com/listings/4.html is awfully
>appealing too :-)
I liiken those things to being an overweight shuttle-monkey on an 80-lb DHeath
Trap with 10" of travel each end. Blech!
Steve
Shawn Curry
> Zilla says:
>
>
>>I don't see how someone couldn't like sailing after trying it.
>
>
> My point exactly. ;-)
>
> Steve
>
Sounds like soaring (you lurking Shelton?)
http://www.ssa.org/AboutGliding.asp
Those of us hooked, can't understand why more people aren't into it, yet
they stay away in droves. Go figure.
Shawn
socks
> Stephen Baker wrote:
>> Zilla says:
>>> I don't see how someone couldn't like sailing after trying it.
well, a bad first day can really put a damper on someone's enthusiasm. in
fact, i've heard the advice that you want to take newbies on a boring day
(from a sailor's perspective) with little wind or seas.
i had some good first days, and the scary stuff (point conception at
midnight, into 10ft seas and 40kts wind, with all the eletrics in the boat
going out leaving me, the helmsman, steering in total darkness) came later.
>> My point exactly. ;-)
> Sounds like soaring (you lurking Shelton?)
> http://www.ssa.org/AboutGliding.asp
> Those of us hooked, can't understand why more people aren't into it,
> yet they stay away in droves. Go figure.
i liked it, and even took my intro lesson, but what really killed it for me
was how far i had to drive(*) to get to the soaring grounds. i just can't
do those long commutes for recreation every weekend.
at least with biking i can do some local loops, and do the long trips on
occaision.
* - or fly ... the routine was actually to drive to a somewhat nearby
airport, get in my buddy's small plane, and we'd all fly out to the airport
with soaring.
Stephen Baker
>well, a bad first day can really put a damper on someone's enthusiasm.
> in
>fact, i've heard the advice that you want to take newbies on a boring day
>(from a sailor's perspective) with little wind or seas.
That's what we used to (try to) do at sailing school. Take the newbs out for a
gentle sail to get them used to the idea that the boat tipping is not
dangerous. Unfortunately, English Mondays are not predictable weather-wisae
any more than any other country's Mondays, so frequently we were taking them
out for an afternoon's sail in Force 8 (don't ask how many knots, I don't do
knots for windspeed) with every reef we had available. Beat out until they're
crying, then drop the main and coast home under bare poles (make sure you catch
the mooring....)
Steve
Shawn Curry
> Shawn Curry wrote:
>
>>Stephen Baker wrote:
>>
>>>Zilla says:
>
>
>>>>I don't see how someone couldn't like sailing after trying it.
>
>
> well, a bad first day can really put a damper on someone's enthusiasm. in
> fact, i've heard the advice that you want to take newbies on a boring day
> (from a sailor's perspective) with little wind or seas.
>
> i had some good first days, and the scary stuff (point conception at
> midnight, into 10ft seas and 40kts wind, with all the eletrics in the boat
> going out leaving me, the helmsman, steering in total darkness) came later.
>
>
>>>My point exactly. ;-)
>
>
>>Sounds like soaring (you lurking Shelton?)
>>http://www.ssa.org/AboutGliding.asp
>>Those of us hooked, can't understand why more people aren't into it,
>>yet they stay away in droves. Go figure.
>
>
> i liked it, and even took my intro lesson, but what really killed it for me
> was how far i had to drive(*) to get to the soaring grounds. i just can't
> do those long commutes for recreation every weekend.
Its a time intesive hobby if the airport is right around the corner.
Until the local towplane is flying, its six hours total driving for me.
Sucks, but I'm adicted.
> at least with biking i can do some local loops, and do the long trips on
> occaision.
I haven't had my bike on my car since last summer :-)
Shawn
Slacker
Actually, I dig both power and sail. But there is nothing like the
beautiful silence of simplicity cruising on a sail boat.
Ah, I really do miss living in the harbor...
--
Slacker
socks
> That's what we used to (try to) do at sailing school. Take the newbs
> out for a gentle sail to get them used to the idea that the boat
> tipping is not dangerous. Unfortunately, English Mondays are not
> predictable weather-wisae any more than any other country's Mondays,
> so frequently we were taking them out for an afternoon's sail in
> Force 8 (don't ask how many knots, I don't do knots for windspeed)
> with every reef we had available. Beat out until they're crying,
> then drop the main and coast home under bare poles (make sure you
> catch the mooring....)
i'm sure you see a lot more wind (and waves). for the most part the Pacific
earns its name around here. this bouy (with those archaic knot
measurements) isn't too far from me:
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.phtml?station=46025
Mike Vandeman
.On 10 May 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
.> MV blathers:
.>
.>>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever had in
.>>the outdoors.
.>
.> Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think it's great
.> fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or must we all
.> conform to the party line?
.
.In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
.(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
.Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
.
.Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
.his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
.went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
.about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...
No, a GOOD attitude. How can any sane person enjoy destroying nature? Only
environmental rapists like that kind of thing.
Mike Vandeman
.
."BB" <bbauer...@freeshell.org> wrote in message
.news:2gahi0...@uni-berlin.de...
.>
.> Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
.> his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
.> went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
.> about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...
.
.The shame of it all is that he never posted a ride report!
Yes I did, liar: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ebrpd16.htm.
All those posts
.and he couldn't even share his one outing with everyone.
.The sad truth in all of this is that he'd probably get hooked on a
.singlespeed... then he and bill wheeler could tag team people when they
.asked questions about shifting problems and etc.
.
..My bike doesn't shift...
.
.DUH
Stephen Baker
>Actually, I dig both power and sail.
Likewise - Although I go by "sailDesign", I draw power stuff, too.
http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/753/password//sort/1
/cat/500/page/3
The big Sportsfishermen just offend me, not least because the drivers (I refuse
to call them "helmsmen") know _exactly_ the speed that makes most wake, and
stick to it rigourously when they are within 1 mile of my little boat... ;-(
STeve
Stephen C. Baker - Yacht Designer
http://members.aol.com/SailDesign/private/scbweb/home.htm
TM
"Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:4q73a0dtb1mrkeqju...@4ax.com...
> .
> .The shame of it all is that he never posted a ride report!
>
> Yes I did, liar: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ebrpd16.htm.
>
Well, there is a difference in operational definition. I was hoping you'd
post a ride report similar to the ones more common in the newsgroup. To my
mind, your ride report is what I would classify as a persuasive letter - a
document addressed to policy makers hoping to influence their future
decision making.
I was hoping you would post a real ride report, that's all.
Mike Vandeman
.
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:4q73a0dtb1mrkeqju...@4ax.com...
.> .
.> .The shame of it all is that he never posted a ride report!
.>
.> Yes I did, liar: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ebrpd16.htm.
.>
.
.Well, there is a difference in operational definition. I was hoping you'd
.post a ride report similar to the ones more common in the newsgroup. To my
.mind, your ride report is what I would classify as a persuasive letter - a
.document addressed to policy makers hoping to influence their future
.decision making.
.
.I was hoping you would post a real ride report, that's all.
That IS a real (truthful) ride report. If you want a puff piece -- someone lying
through their teeth about mountain biking, pretending it's a fun, harmless
pasttime, you'll have to ask a mountain biker. They are used to lying, as you
obviously are.
Stephen Baker
>That IS a real (truthful) ride report. If you want a puff piece -- someone
>lying
>through their teeth about mountain biking, pretending it's a fun, harmless
>pasttime, you'll have to ask a mountain biker.
I'm simply amazed that all those millions of mountain-bikers just seem to be
able to go through the torture of riding a mountain bike offroad as often as
they do. They must all be unbelievably stupid.
Or could it be that the only stupid one is MV himself? Naaaah...
</sarcasm>
Steve "thick as a brick"
TM
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:47:04 GMT, "TM" <x...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> That IS a real (truthful) ride report.
Ok. Fine. I'll take you at your word that you did not write that to
influence anyone.
Jeff Strickland
> On 10 May 2004 23:29:04 GMT, BB <bbauer...@freeshell.org> wrote:
>
> .On 10 May 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
> .> MV blathers:
> .>
> .>>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever
had in
> .>>the outdoors.
> .>
> .> Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think it's
great
> .> fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or must
we all
> .> conform to the party line?
> .
> .In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
> .(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
> .Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
> .
> .Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
> .his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
> .went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
> .about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...
>
> No, a GOOD attitude. How can any sane person enjoy destroying nature? Only
> environmental rapists like that kind of thing.
There is no guarantee that nature must be destroyed while riding a bike on a
trail. But, your first argument in this post was that YOU didn't find it fun
to ride, and inferred that it must therefore not be fun for anybody. Your
analogy seems to be that because you are a baby, everybody else should also
be a baby. Clearly your premise is flawed.
You need to formulate an argument, and stick with it. You must not
constantly change the target as liberals are prone to do. It is perfeclty
fine to make several points, or arguments, but you cannot go around
switching from one argument to another. Your argument in this post, and I
quote, is "It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I
ever had in the outdoors." It is fine that you have such an argument to
make, but when it is refuted, you are not allowed to replace it with another
completely unrelated argument.
For a PhD, you are sure one stupid idiot.
Slacker
> Slacker says:
>
>
>>Actually, I dig both power and sail.
>
>
> Likewise - Although I go by "sailDesign", I draw power stuff, too.
> http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/753/password//sort/1
> /cat/500/page/3
Oooo, nice and sleek. Hey, what drawing program do you use again? I
wanna get one to play around with.
> The big Sportsfishermen just offend me, not least because the drivers (I refuse
> to call them "helmsmen") know _exactly_ the speed that makes most wake, and
> stick to it rigourously when they are within 1 mile of my little boat... ;-(
Hah, I hear ya; they used to piss me off too when I lived on a boat. No
respect!
--
Slacker
Stephen Baker
>Oooo, nice and sleek.
Thankee kindly ;-)
>Hey, what drawing program do you use again? I
>wanna get one to play around with
I use AutoShip for the raw hull design (one of those "if you have to ask, you
can't afford it" programs that I have grandfathered from a prevoious job, with
dongle ;-))
For everything else, and recently for some raw design, I use Rhinoceros
(www.rhino3d.com). Can't be beat, especially at the price.
Steve
Steve Curtiss
Mike Vandeman wrote:
Your OPINION. You didn't like it. Irrelevant.
>
>
> .If existance is the only true fun, well, I guess we're all victims of
> ."marketing hype." Well, everyone except you. Enjoy!
>
> I guess you guys feel you need to mountain bike precisely BECAUSE you are
> incapable of enjoying anything else, e.g. hiking. I can't see any other reason
> why someone would risk their life doing something that is no fun at all.
>
> Smart people KNOW that every aspect of life is fun, and has been for the 6 (?)
> million years humans have been around.
Smart people know there are zealots, elitists and fools. Fortunately, they are
easily discounted by the truly intelligent. The ONLY reason you are given the
attention you get is so we can discount you before others who are less
knowledgeable on this topic are persuaded by your OPINIONS.
Steve Curtiss
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On 10 May 2004 23:29:04 GMT, BB <bbauer...@freeshell.org> wrote:
>
> .On 10 May 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
> .> MV blathers:
> .>
> .>>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever had in
> .>>the outdoors.
> .>
> .> Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think it's great
> .> fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or must we all
> .> conform to the party line?
> .
> .In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
> .(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
> .Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
> .
> .Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
> .his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
> .went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
> .about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...
>
> No, a GOOD attitude. How can any sane person enjoy destroying nature? Only
> environmental rapists like that kind of thing.
...like developers who build on virgin land when existing structures may fit the
needs perfectly. So now mt bikers are "environmental rapists"? Guess what is more
dangerous than mt biking; Trying to follow MV on these leaps of logic! If you don't
break your leg, at least you will strain your brain.
Steve Curtiss
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:47:04 GMT, "TM" <x...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> .news:4q73a0dtb1mrkeqju...@4ax.com...
> .> .
> .> .The shame of it all is that he never posted a ride report!
> .>
> .> Yes I did, liar: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ebrpd16.htm.
> .>
> .
> .Well, there is a difference in operational definition. I was hoping you'd
> .post a ride report similar to the ones more common in the newsgroup. To my
> .mind, your ride report is what I would classify as a persuasive letter - a
> .document addressed to policy makers hoping to influence their future
> .decision making.
> .
> .I was hoping you would post a real ride report, that's all.
>
> That IS a real (truthful) ride report. If you want a puff piece -- someone lying
> through their teeth about mountain biking, pretending it's a fun, harmless
> pasttime, you'll have to ask a mountain biker. They are used to lying, as you
> obviously are.
"(I know that there are bikes with a so-called "suspension", but there is no way to
make
a ride like that "smooth" or enjoyable.)" OPINION
"but having to continually watch the trail and try to control the bike meant that it
was impossible to
enjoy the scenery or listen to the subtle sounds of nature" OPINION
In the opening "I rode only on fire roads". Yet later in the piece: "I saw the usual
damage -- bikes being ridden off-trail (e.g. east of the Abrigo Trail), trails
getting rutted or torn into powder, skid marks, and "moonscape" caused by the
presence of cows and bikes during wet conditions. Huge cracks cut through the
surface of the road, where upcoming rains would carry away large chunks of the road.
It is obvious that the erosion caused by bikes and cows will be extremely expensive
to repair, if it is even repairable (eroded and destroyed soil is not coming
back!)!"
Fire roads, by design, may have motor traffic. Jeeps, SUVS, forest equipment, etc.
Yet MV explains away ALL damage (as he calls it) by the presence of Mt Bikes.
(OK... Cows get some blame... but cows have enough trouble without throwing them
under the bus for MV...) Even his observations of this "fire road" are OPINION.
"I parked the bike at the east end of the Bear Creek Trail and hiked it and back,
looking for bike tracks (it is part of the tiny percentage of park trails off-limits
to bikes). Luckily, there were none." All mt bikers ride in posted areas...
except, apparently, in this case....
...and while on his hike "But I noticed that the feeling of ecstasy that I felt
while being in this wild area of the
park was present on none of the other trails." again... OPINION
"The hard part will be removing the huge network of roads (I know -- you call them
"trails"!), and the acres of exotic plants and animals, that prevent this
once-beautiful place from being what it so desperately wants and needs to be."
...so desperately wants and needs to be? What a bunch of "feel good" babble to throw
your emotion and desires onto the natural surroundings. It may well be a different
environment without the cows and trails. But to throw human traits onto other living
things is nothing more than a meaningless emotional statement. At least it isn't a
Wal-Mart and totally gone.
JG
My new house will be 3.25 miles from Stanky Creek,
(close enough to ride to ;-)
--
John G. in Memphis, TN Have a nice......... night.
http://www.shavings.net/images/Memphis/reflect_john.jpg
Brett Jaffee
news:40A2695C...@yahoo.com:
>> It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I
>> ever had in the outdoors. It PREVENTED the enjoyment of nature and
>> everything else.
>
> Your OPINION. You didn't like it. Irrelevant.
>
C'mon guys, you know you aren't going to convince him that mountain biking
is fun, even for other people. What's more interesting/disturbing is that
the whole concept of any kind of activity done for fun's sake seems alien
to him.
Mike Vandeman
.
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:nn73a0llnuc32ea4f...@4ax.com...
.> On 10 May 2004 23:29:04 GMT, BB <bbauer...@freeshell.org> wrote:
.>
.> .On 10 May 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
.> .> MV blathers:
.> .>
.> .>>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever
.had in
.> .>>the outdoors.
.> .>
.> .> Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think it's
.great
.> .> fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or must
.we all
.> .> conform to the party line?
.> .
.> .In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
.> .(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
.> .Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
.> .
.> .Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
.> .his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
.> .went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
.> .about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...
.>
.> No, a GOOD attitude. How can any sane person enjoy destroying nature? Only
.> environmental rapists like that kind of thing.
.
.There is no guarantee that nature must be destroyed while riding a bike on a
.trail.
Okay, explain how you can ride a bike on a trail and not kill animals & plants?
But, your first argument in this post was that YOU didn't find it fun
.to ride, and inferred that it must therefore not be fun for anybody.
BS. I never said anything about anyone else.
Your
.analogy seems to be that because you are a baby, everybody else should also
.be a baby. Clearly your premise is flawed.
.
.You need to formulate an argument, and stick with it. You must not
.constantly change the target as liberals are prone to do. It is perfeclty
.fine to make several points, or arguments, but you cannot go around
.switching from one argument to another. Your argument in this post, and I
.quote, is "It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I
.ever had in the outdoors." It is fine that you have such an argument to
.make, but when it is refuted, you are not allowed to replace it with another
.completely unrelated argument.
How can you refute my experience? It doesn't even make sense.
.For a PhD, you are sure one stupid idiot.
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.
.
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.
.> On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:47:04 GMT, "TM" <x...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.>
.> .
.> ."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.> .news:4q73a0dtb1mrkeqju...@4ax.com...
.> .> .
.> .> .The shame of it all is that he never posted a ride report!
.> .>
.> .> Yes I did, liar: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ebrpd16.htm.
.> .>
.> .
.> .Well, there is a difference in operational definition. I was hoping you'd
.> .post a ride report similar to the ones more common in the newsgroup. To my
.> .mind, your ride report is what I would classify as a persuasive letter - a
.> .document addressed to policy makers hoping to influence their future
.> .decision making.
.> .
.> .I was hoping you would post a real ride report, that's all.
.>
.> That IS a real (truthful) ride report. If you want a puff piece -- someone lying
.> through their teeth about mountain biking, pretending it's a fun, harmless
.> pasttime, you'll have to ask a mountain biker. They are used to lying, as you
.> obviously are.
.
."(I know that there are bikes with a so-called "suspension", but there is no way to
.make
.a ride like that "smooth" or enjoyable.)" OPINION
."but having to continually watch the trail and try to control the bike meant that it
.was impossible to
.enjoy the scenery or listen to the subtle sounds of nature" OPINION
.In the opening "I rode only on fire roads". Yet later in the piece: "I saw the usual
.damage -- bikes being ridden off-trail (e.g. east of the Abrigo Trail), trails
.getting rutted or torn into powder, skid marks, and "moonscape" caused by the
.presence of cows and bikes during wet conditions. Huge cracks cut through the
.surface of the road, where upcoming rains would carry away large chunks of the road.
.It is obvious that the erosion caused by bikes and cows will be extremely expensive
.to repair, if it is even repairable (eroded and destroyed soil is not coming
.back!)!"
.Fire roads, by design, may have motor traffic. Jeeps, SUVS, forest equipment, etc.
.Yet MV explains away ALL damage (as he calls it) by the presence of Mt Bikes.
.(OK... Cows get some blame... but cows have enough trouble without throwing them
.under the bus for MV...) Even his observations of this "fire road" are OPINION.
."I parked the bike at the east end of the Bear Creek Trail and hiked it and back,
.looking for bike tracks (it is part of the tiny percentage of park trails off-limits
.to bikes). Luckily, there were none." All mt bikers ride in posted areas...
.except, apparently, in this case....
....and while on his hike "But I noticed that the feeling of ecstasy that I felt
.while being in this wild area of the
.park was present on none of the other trails." again... OPINION
."The hard part will be removing the huge network of roads (I know -- you call them
."trails"!), and the acres of exotic plants and animals, that prevent this
.once-beautiful place from being what it so desperately wants and needs to be."
....so desperately wants and needs to be? What a bunch of "feel good" babble to throw
.your emotion and desires onto the natural surroundings. It may well be a different
.environment without the cows and trails. But to throw human traits onto other living
.things is nothing more than a meaningless emotional statement. At least it isn't a
.Wal-Mart and totally gone.
That says it all about mountan bikers' destruction of nature: "At least it isn't
a Wal-Mart and totally gone." You are SICK.
Steve Curtiss
Mike Vandeman wrote:
If by "sick" you mean I am upset that unneeded construction expands outward from
populated centers on a daily basis while you are consumed with a personal vendetta
against bicycles in the woods... then I accept your definition.
Jeff Strickland
> But, your first argument in this post was that YOU didn't find it fun
> .to ride, and inferred that it must therefore not be fun for anybody.
>
> BS. I never said anything about anyone else.
>
That is correct, you never SAID anything about anybody else, you INFERRED
that your experience should be extrapolated out to everybody else. You said
(I'll paraphrase here) that you are a baby, and inferred that we shoujld all
also be babies. We are not, thought clearly you are.
> Your
> .analogy seems to be that because you are a baby, everybody else should
also
> .be a baby. Clearly your premise is flawed.
> .
> .You need to formulate an argument, and stick with it. You must not
> .constantly change the target as liberals are prone to do. It is perfeclty
> .fine to make several points, or arguments, but you cannot go around
> .switching from one argument to another. Your argument in this post, and I
> .quote, is "It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant
time I
> .ever had in the outdoors." It is fine that you have such an argument to
> .make, but when it is refuted, you are not allowed to replace it with
another
> .completely unrelated argument.
>
> How can you refute my experience? It doesn't even make sense.
>
I can't refute YOUR experience, I can only refute your tendency to apply
that experience to anybody else, much less everybody else. Your experience
is just that, your experience. You had an unpleasant time, fine. It is
inappropriate to insist that everybody else also have an unpleasant time
when clearly they have a wonderful time more often than not.
> .For a PhD, you are sure one stupid idiot.
> .
>
Interesting that you do not refute the assertion that you are an idiot. I
will take this to mean that you agree that you are an idiot.
Steve Curtiss
Mike Vandeman wrote:
I haven't come back with blood on the bike yet. Stay on the trail and you don't hit
plants (duh). (*Of course, you say we don't stay on trail, but that is your OPINION)
As animals (yes the human being is an animal), we encounter insects all the time.
Like other larger animals, we may step on them unknowingly. Cycling is no different
than hiking. You step on an ant, we may roll over an ant. No difference. Saying
people (animals) do not belong in the woods at all is also invalid since we are also
animals. People (animals) and "wildlife" can co-exist in "natural" areas. The extra
presence of a bicycle (doesn't polute, doesn't shoot a projectile, doesn't eat,
doesn't kill by the mere presence of it) is of no relevance. You say it is.
(OPINION) As animals with machines, we are capable of destroying an area. (Bulldoze
it for a building, for example) Our mere presence as an animal is of no more
consequence than the presence of any other large animal. Adding a bicycle under our
presence is of no concern as the bicycle does not present a danger. You say we can't
ride without killing... your OPINION.
>
>
> But, your first argument in this post was that YOU didn't find it fun
> .to ride, and inferred that it must therefore not be fun for anybody.
>
> BS. I never said anything about anyone else.
Yes... you did.
"contrary to what the mountain bikers claim, riding a bike off of paved roads is no
fun at all!"
"...there is no way to make a ride like that "smooth" or enjoyable.)"
"So much for the mountain bikers' claims that they use bikes to "enjoy nature"!"
>
>
> Your
> .analogy seems to be that because you are a baby, everybody else should also
> .be a baby. Clearly your premise is flawed.
> .
> .You need to formulate an argument, and stick with it. You must not
> .constantly change the target as liberals are prone to do. It is perfeclty
> .fine to make several points, or arguments, but you cannot go around
> .switching from one argument to another. Your argument in this post, and I
> .quote, is "It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I
> .ever had in the outdoors." It is fine that you have such an argument to
> .make, but when it is refuted, you are not allowed to replace it with another
> .completely unrelated argument.
>
> How can you refute my experience? It doesn't even make sense.
Your experience is largely based on your OPINION. Your experience hardly overcomes
the thousands who ride off-road.
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.
.
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.
.> On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:25:23 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <bee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.>
.> .
.> ."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.> .news:nn73a0llnuc32ea4f...@4ax.com...
.> .> On 10 May 2004 23:29:04 GMT, BB <bbauer...@freeshell.org> wrote:
.> .>
.> .> .On 10 May 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
.> .> .> MV blathers:
.> .> .>
.> .> .>>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever
.> .had in
.> .> .>>the outdoors.
.> .> .>
.> .> .> Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think it's
.> .great
.> .> .> fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or must
.> .we all
.> .> .> conform to the party line?
.> .> .
.> .> .In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
.> .> .(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
.> .> .Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
.> .> .
.> .> .Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
.> .> .his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
.> .> .went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
.> .> .about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...
.> .>
.> .> No, a GOOD attitude. How can any sane person enjoy destroying nature? Only
.> .> environmental rapists like that kind of thing.
.> .
.> .There is no guarantee that nature must be destroyed while riding a bike on a
.> .trail.
.>
.> Okay, explain how you can ride a bike on a trail and not kill animals & plants?
.
.I haven't come back with blood on the bike yet.
How would you know? Don't forget that insects are also animals, and more animals
live in the soil.
Stay on the trail and you don't hit
.plants (duh).
Mountain bikers never stay on the trail, and besides, there are plants trhat try
to grow in the trail.
(*Of course, you say we don't stay on trail, but that is your OPINION)
.As animals (yes the human being is an animal), we encounter insects all the time.
.Like other larger animals, we may step on them unknowingly. Cycling is no different
.than hiking.
Yes it is, because (1) you travel several times as far as a hiker & (2) you have
FAR less control over what you run over.
You step on an ant, we may roll over an ant. No difference. Saying
.people (animals) do not belong in the woods at all is also invalid since we are also
.animals.
So are elephants, but they only belong where they are native. Humans are bative
only to Africa.
. People (animals) and "wildlife" can co-exist in "natural" areas.
BS. If that were true, there wouldn't be any endangered species.
The extra
.presence of a bicycle (doesn't polute, doesn't shoot a projectile, doesn't eat,
.doesn't kill by the mere presence of it)
Yes, it does kill small animals & plants.
is of no relevance. You say it is.
.(OPINION) As animals with machines, we are capable of destroying an area. (Bulldoze
.it for a building, for example) Our mere presence as an animal is of no more
.consequence than the presence of any other large animal.
BS. Read _Wildlife and Recreationists_. The presence of humans drives the
wildlife away.
Adding a bicycle under our
.presence is of no concern as the bicycle does not present a danger. You say we can't
.ride without killing... your OPINION.
No, FACT.
.> But, your first argument in this post was that YOU didn't find it fun
.> .to ride, and inferred that it must therefore not be fun for anybody.
.>
.> BS. I never said anything about anyone else.
.
.Yes... you did.
."contrary to what the mountain bikers claim, riding a bike off of paved roads is no
.fun at all!"
."...there is no way to make a ride like that "smooth" or enjoyable.)"
."So much for the mountain bikers' claims that they use bikes to "enjoy nature"!"
The subject of that sentence is "claims", not people.
.>
.> Your
.> .analogy seems to be that because you are a baby, everybody else should also
.> .be a baby. Clearly your premise is flawed.
.> .
.> .You need to formulate an argument, and stick with it. You must not
.> .constantly change the target as liberals are prone to do. It is perfeclty
.> .fine to make several points, or arguments, but you cannot go around
.> .switching from one argument to another. Your argument in this post, and I
.> .quote, is "It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I
.> .ever had in the outdoors." It is fine that you have such an argument to
.> .make, but when it is refuted, you are not allowed to replace it with another
.> .completely unrelated argument.
.>
.> How can you refute my experience? It doesn't even make sense.
.
.Your experience is largely based on your OPINION. Your experience hardly overcomes
.the thousands who ride off-road.
My experience can't be refuted, because it's a fact.
Stephen Baker
>Mountain bikers never stay on the trail,
Lie. I stay on the trail. Always.
>and besides, there are plants trhat try
>to grow in the trail.
And there are plants that try to grow on the highway, but I don't see you lying
down in the road to stop the cars. Wonder why not?
>So are elephants, but they only belong where they are native. Humans are
>bative
>only to Africa.
Then by your own lights, you should IMMEDIATELY emigrate to Africa, since by
your own admission (see above) that is where you belong. PLEASE say you will.
Pretty Please!
Steve "not holding his breath."
Steve Curtiss
Mike Vandeman wrote:
Hiking, horseback, biking... all are equally "guilty" if you want to play that card.
Stop pointing at cyclists as greater than any other.
>
> Stay on the trail and you don't hit
> .plants (duh).
>
> Mountain bikers never stay on the trail, and besides, there are plants trhat try
> to grow in the trail.
(See *) Hikers are more likely to go off trail. (My opinion... which has the same weight
as yours) Again... why do cyclists get the blame for crushing everything. If we all
ventured into the woods on foot, you would be upset because of too much foot traffic.
Traffic is traffic....
>
>
> (*Of course, you say we don't stay on trail, but that is your OPINION)
> .As animals (yes the human being is an animal), we encounter insects all the time.
> .Like other larger animals, we may step on them unknowingly. Cycling is no different
> .than hiking.
>
> Yes it is, because (1) you travel several times as far as a hiker & (2) you have
> FAR less control over what you run over.
I have as much control where I go as a hiker. The distance on a dirt trail is irrelevant.
The trail has a beginning and an end. Hikers go the distance as often as cyclists do.
Especially in park systems where trails are not so long.
>
>
> You step on an ant, we may roll over an ant. No difference. Saying
> .people (animals) do not belong in the woods at all is also invalid since we are also
> .animals.
>
> So are elephants, but they only belong where they are native. Humans are bative
> only to Africa.
>
So now you are going to tell wildlife where it can and can not go....
>
> . People (animals) and "wildlife" can co-exist in "natural" areas.
>
> BS. If that were true, there wouldn't be any endangered species.
You are confused. The abuse of the environment (polution, expanded construction, waste,
etc) cause depletion of habitat and life. To confuse destructive activities man can do
with riding a bicycle on a trail is delusional.
>
> The extra
> .presence of a bicycle (doesn't polute, doesn't shoot a projectile, doesn't eat,
> .doesn't kill by the mere presence of it)
>
> Yes, it does kill small animals & plants.
Your bias is showing... again.
>
> is of no relevance. You say it is.
> .(OPINION) As animals with machines, we are capable of destroying an area. (Bulldoze
> .it for a building, for example) Our mere presence as an animal is of no more
> .consequence than the presence of any other large animal.
>
> BS. Read _Wildlife and Recreationists_. The presence of humans drives the
> wildlife away.
>
I would say it is not the mere presence of humans, but the repeated abusive presence of
humans. Construction and hunting have conditioned species to flee from our presence. Our
presence is not a hazard. How we choose to live with other creatures is the thing. We can
kill them (hunting and destroying there homeland) or we can share with them. While the
bicycle may, at times, expand our presence, that alone is not going to destroy them.
>
> Adding a bicycle under our
> .presence is of no concern as the bicycle does not present a danger. You say we can't
> .ride without killing... your OPINION.
>
> No, FACT.
Then it is also a FACT that you kill whenever you venture into the woods on foot. Stop
transplanting your guilt of existence onto everybody else.
>
>
> .> But, your first argument in this post was that YOU didn't find it fun
> .> .to ride, and inferred that it must therefore not be fun for anybody.
> .>
> .> BS. I never said anything about anyone else.
> .
> .Yes... you did.
> ."contrary to what the mountain bikers claim, riding a bike off of paved roads is no
> .fun at all!"
> ."...there is no way to make a ride like that "smooth" or enjoyable.)"
> ."So much for the mountain bikers' claims that they use bikes to "enjoy nature"!"
>
> The subject of that sentence is "claims", not people.
The subject of a sentence is a noun, not a verb...
>
> .>
> .> Your
> .> .analogy seems to be that because you are a baby, everybody else should also
> .> .be a baby. Clearly your premise is flawed.
> .> .
> .> .You need to formulate an argument, and stick with it. You must not
> .> .constantly change the target as liberals are prone to do. It is perfeclty
> .> .fine to make several points, or arguments, but you cannot go around
> .> .switching from one argument to another. Your argument in this post, and I
> .> .quote, is "It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I
> .> .ever had in the outdoors." It is fine that you have such an argument to
> .> .make, but when it is refuted, you are not allowed to replace it with another
> .> .completely unrelated argument.
> .>
> .> How can you refute my experience? It doesn't even make sense.
> .
> .Your experience is largely based on your OPINION. Your experience hardly overcomes
> .the thousands who ride off-road.
>
> My experience can't be refuted, because it's a fact.
But it does not carry any more case for argument than the experience of any one else. My
experience says I haven't caused the destruction you blame me (and other off-road
cyclists) for.
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.
.
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.
.> On Fri, 14 May 2004 14:01:38 -0400, Steve Curtiss <stevec...@yahoo.com>
.> wrote:
.>
.> .
.> .
.> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> .
.> .> On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:25:23 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <bee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.> .>
.> .> .
.> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.> .> .news:nn73a0llnuc32ea4f...@4ax.com...
.> .> .> On 10 May 2004 23:29:04 GMT, BB <bbauer...@freeshell.org> wrote:
.> .> .>
.> .> .> .On 10 May 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
.> .> .> .> MV blathers:
.> .> .> .>
.> .> .> .>>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever
.> .> .had in
.> .> .> .>>the outdoors.
.> .> .> .>
.> .> .> .> Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think it's
.> .> .great
.> .> .> .> fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or must
.> .> .we all
.> .> .> .> conform to the party line?
.> .> .> .
.> .> .> .In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
.> .> .> .(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
.> .> .> .Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
.> .> .> .
.> .> .> .Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
.> .> .> .his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
.> .> .> .went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
.> .> .> .about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...
.> .> .>
.> .> .> No, a GOOD attitude. How can any sane person enjoy destroying nature? Only
.> .> .> environmental rapists like that kind of thing.
.> .> .
.> .> .There is no guarantee that nature must be destroyed while riding a bike on a
.> .> .trail.
.> .>
.> .> Okay, explain how you can ride a bike on a trail and not kill animals & plants?
.> .
.> .I haven't come back with blood on the bike yet.
.>
.> How would you know? Don't forget that insects are also animals, and more animals
.> live in the soil.
.
.Hiking, horseback, biking... all are equally "guilty" if you want to play that card.
.Stop pointing at cyclists as greater than any other.
Nonsense. Hikers can avoid stepping on insects. Bikers cannot. They are going
too fast, and can't watch the trail that closely, or they will crash. There are
too few horses to matter.
.> Stay on the trail and you don't hit
.> .plants (duh).
.>
.> Mountain bikers never stay on the trail, and besides, there are plants trhat try
.> to grow in the trail.
.
.(See *) Hikers are more likely to go off trail. (My opinion... which has the same weight
.as yours) Again... why do cyclists get the blame for crushing everything. If we all
.ventured into the woods on foot, you would be upset because of too much foot traffic.
.Traffic is traffic....
Mountain bikers travel SEVERAL TIMES as far as hikers. Stop trying to pretend
that their impacts are the same.
.> (*Of course, you say we don't stay on trail, but that is your OPINION)
.> .As animals (yes the human being is an animal), we encounter insects all the time.
.> .Like other larger animals, we may step on them unknowingly. Cycling is no different
.> .than hiking.
.>
.> Yes it is, because (1) you travel several times as far as a hiker & (2) you have
.> FAR less control over what you run over.
.
.I have as much control where I go as a hiker.
BS. You can't step over an animal or plant. You are rolling on the ground 99.99%
of the time.
The distance on a dirt trail is irrelevant.
.The trail has a beginning and an end. Hikers go the distance as often as cyclists do.
.Especially in park systems where trails are not so long.
Bikers can and do ride several times as far as hikers. If the finish one park,
they go to another and abuse it, too.
.> You step on an ant, we may roll over an ant. No difference. Saying
.> .people (animals) do not belong in the woods at all is also invalid since we are also
.> .animals.
.>
.> So are elephants, but they only belong where they are native. Humans are bative
.> only to Africa.
.>
.
.So now you are going to tell wildlife where it can and can not go....
We have always done that. Exotic species don't belong.
.> . People (animals) and "wildlife" can co-exist in "natural" areas.
.>
.> BS. If that were true, there wouldn't be any endangered species.
.
.You are confused. The abuse of the environment (polution, expanded construction, waste,
.etc) cause depletion of habitat and life. To confuse destructive activities man can do
.with riding a bicycle on a trail is delusional.
Anyone who is HONEST will agree that bikes are very destructive off of pavement.
.> The extra
.> .presence of a bicycle (doesn't polute, doesn't shoot a projectile, doesn't eat,
.> .doesn't kill by the mere presence of it)
.>
.> Yes, it does kill small animals & plants.
.
.Your bias is showing... again.
.
.>
.> is of no relevance. You say it is.
.> .(OPINION) As animals with machines, we are capable of destroying an area. (Bulldoze
.> .it for a building, for example) Our mere presence as an animal is of no more
.> .consequence than the presence of any other large animal.
.>
.> BS. Read _Wildlife and Recreationists_. The presence of humans drives the
.> wildlife away.
.>
.
.I would say it is not the mere presence of humans, but the repeated abusive presence of
.humans.
You obviously haven't read the book, and know NOTHING about conservation
biology.
Construction and hunting have conditioned species to flee from our presence. Our
.presence is not a hazard.
See above.
How we choose to live with other creatures is the thing. We can
.kill them (hunting and destroying there homeland) or we can share with them. While the
.bicycle may, at times, expand our presence, that alone is not going to destroy them.
Yes, it is. It drives them away from the resources that they need.
.> Adding a bicycle under our
.> .presence is of no concern as the bicycle does not present a danger. You say we can't
.> .ride without killing... your OPINION.
.>
.> No, FACT.
.
.Then it is also a FACT that you kill whenever you venture into the woods on foot. Stop
.transplanting your guilt of existence onto everybody else.
.
.>
.>
.> .> But, your first argument in this post was that YOU didn't find it fun
.> .> .to ride, and inferred that it must therefore not be fun for anybody.
.> .>
.> .> BS. I never said anything about anyone else.
.> .
.> .Yes... you did.
.> ."contrary to what the mountain bikers claim, riding a bike off of paved roads is no
.> .fun at all!"
.> ."...there is no way to make a ride like that "smooth" or enjoyable.)"
.> ."So much for the mountain bikers' claims that they use bikes to "enjoy nature"!"
.>
.> The subject of that sentence is "claims", not people.
.
.The subject of a sentence is a noun, not a verb...
Right, dummkopf. And "claims" in that sentence is a noun.
.> .> Your
.> .> .analogy seems to be that because you are a baby, everybody else should also
.> .> .be a baby. Clearly your premise is flawed.
.> .> .
.> .> .You need to formulate an argument, and stick with it. You must not
.> .> .constantly change the target as liberals are prone to do. It is perfeclty
.> .> .fine to make several points, or arguments, but you cannot go around
.> .> .switching from one argument to another. Your argument in this post, and I
.> .> .quote, is "It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I
.> .> .ever had in the outdoors." It is fine that you have such an argument to
.> .> .make, but when it is refuted, you are not allowed to replace it with another
.> .> .completely unrelated argument.
.> .>
.> .> How can you refute my experience? It doesn't even make sense.
.> .
.> .Your experience is largely based on your OPINION. Your experience hardly overcomes
.> .the thousands who ride off-road.
.>
.> My experience can't be refuted, because it's a fact.
.
.But it does not carry any more case for argument than the experience of any one else. My
.experience says I haven't caused the destruction you blame me (and other off-road
.cyclists) for.
You are LYING. You have killed numerous animals & plants.
Steve Curtiss
Mike Vandeman wrote:
So... when you hike, your eyes are on the ground 100% of the time. How do you "enjoy nature"
by staring at the ground?
>
>
> .> Stay on the trail and you don't hit
> .> .plants (duh).
> .>
> .> Mountain bikers never stay on the trail, and besides, there are plants trhat try
> .> to grow in the trail.
> .
> .(See *) Hikers are more likely to go off trail. (My opinion... which has the same weight
> .as yours) Again... why do cyclists get the blame for crushing everything. If we all
> .ventured into the woods on foot, you would be upset because of too much foot traffic.
> .Traffic is traffic....
>
> Mountain bikers travel SEVERAL TIMES as far as hikers. Stop trying to pretend
> that their impacts are the same.
Stop trying to say it is different. Hikers often cover the same ground. Cyclists may do it
more quickly. Hikers may spend hours in the woods. Cyclists can cover the ground, then leave
in a shorter time. The hiker is often in the wilderness longer causing the same impact as the
cyclists greater distance.
>
>
> .> (*Of course, you say we don't stay on trail, but that is your OPINION)
> .> .As animals (yes the human being is an animal), we encounter insects all the time.
> .> .Like other larger animals, we may step on them unknowingly. Cycling is no different
> .> .than hiking.
> .>
> .> Yes it is, because (1) you travel several times as far as a hiker & (2) you have
> .> FAR less control over what you run over.
> .
> .I have as much control where I go as a hiker.
>
> BS. You can't step over an animal or plant. You are rolling on the ground 99.99%
> of the time.
I can steer to avoid them. Or stop and let them pass off the path.
>
>
> The distance on a dirt trail is irrelevant.
> .The trail has a beginning and an end. Hikers go the distance as often as cyclists do.
> .Especially in park systems where trails are not so long.
>
> Bikers can and do ride several times as far as hikers. If the finish one park,
> they go to another and abuse it, too.
"Abuse" is your description.
>
> .> You step on an ant, we may roll over an ant. No difference. Saying
> .> .people (animals) do not belong in the woods at all is also invalid since we are also
> .> .animals.
> .>
> .> So are elephants, but they only belong where they are native. Humans are bative
> .> only to Africa.
> .>
> .
> .So now you are going to tell wildlife where it can and can not go....
>
> We have always done that. Exotic species don't belong.
The mere nature of life is to expand. That is the natural order. Do you plan on putting fences
in your "pure habitat" so these animals won't mix with those animals?
>
>
> .> . People (animals) and "wildlife" can co-exist in "natural" areas.
> .>
> .> BS. If that were true, there wouldn't be any endangered species.
> .
> .You are confused. The abuse of the environment (polution, expanded construction, waste,
> .etc) cause depletion of habitat and life. To confuse destructive activities man can do
> .with riding a bicycle on a trail is delusional.
>
> Anyone who is HONEST will agree that bikes are very destructive off of pavement.
Anyone who is HONEST would realize the mere existence of a human does not destroy. The mere
existence of a human with a bicycle is not destructive. The destruction is caused by removal
of habitat, not the co-existence in it.
You've obviously drawn your own conclusions interlaced with your own bias.
>
> How we choose to live with other creatures is the thing. We can
> .kill them (hunting and destroying there homeland) or we can share with them. While the
> .bicycle may, at times, expand our presence, that alone is not going to destroy them.
>
> Yes, it is. It drives them away from the resources that they need.
If they leave, how can we run over them?
>
> .> Adding a bicycle under our
> .> .presence is of no concern as the bicycle does not present a danger. You say we can't
> .> .ride without killing... your OPINION.
> .>
> .> No, FACT.
> .
> .Then it is also a FACT that you kill whenever you venture into the woods on foot. Stop
> .transplanting your guilt of existence onto everybody else.
> .
> Just noting how you skipped over that one...
> >.>
> .> .> But, your first argument in this post was that YOU didn't find it fun
> .> .> .to ride, and inferred that it must therefore not be fun for anybody.
> .> .>
> .> .> BS. I never said anything about anyone else.
> .> .
> .> .Yes... you did.
> .> ."contrary to what the mountain bikers claim, riding a bike off of paved roads is no
> .> .fun at all!"
> .> ."...there is no way to make a ride like that "smooth" or enjoyable.)"
> .> ."So much for the mountain bikers' claims that they use bikes to "enjoy nature"!"
> .>
> .> The subject of that sentence is "claims", not people.
> .
> .The subject of a sentence is a noun, not a verb...
>
> Right, dummkopf. And "claims" in that sentence is a noun.
If you say so... But you must include the entire phrase "mountain bikers' claims", which
does infer other people which does negate you phrase "BS. I never said anything about anyone
else." You said it wasn't fun for you and therefore could not be fun for anyone else. That is
clear in your own writing.
>
> .> .> Your
> .> .> .analogy seems to be that because you are a baby, everybody else should also
> .> .> .be a baby. Clearly your premise is flawed.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .You need to formulate an argument, and stick with it. You must not
> .> .> .constantly change the target as liberals are prone to do. It is perfeclty
> .> .> .fine to make several points, or arguments, but you cannot go around
> .> .> .switching from one argument to another. Your argument in this post, and I
> .> .> .quote, is "It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I
> .> .> .ever had in the outdoors." It is fine that you have such an argument to
> .> .> .make, but when it is refuted, you are not allowed to replace it with another
> .> .> .completely unrelated argument.
> .> .>
> .> .> How can you refute my experience? It doesn't even make sense.
> .> .
> .> .Your experience is largely based on your OPINION. Your experience hardly overcomes
> .> .the thousands who ride off-road.
> .>
> .> My experience can't be refuted, because it's a fact.
> .
> .But it does not carry any more case for argument than the experience of any one else. My
> .experience says I haven't caused the destruction you blame me (and other off-road
> .cyclists) for.
>
> You are LYING. You have killed numerous animals & plants.
You are LYING. You don't know how and where I ride. You don't know my experience on a bike.
You only know your experience. And it is of no more importance as an OPINION than any other
description of experience.
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat").
And apparently off-limits to wildlife he determines doesn't belong in any given area. How is
he going to keep unwelcome animals out? By policing it? Who is going to police it? People? How
will they get in to police it? By trails and roads? How will he remove animals that aren't
suppose to be there? By truck? Where will he put them? In there own designated area? How often
will he be trucking unwelcome animals back and forth to where they are supposed to be? How
will he determine where they are supposed to be? Will animals follow the rules? Do animals
understand the rules? Who will create the rules? MV? Poor animals.
> Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
Actually, he's spent most of it on usenet voicing OPINIONS about bicycles. As far as I know,
fighting road construction and auto dependence by attacking bicyclists is counter-productive.