Why Are Mountain Bikers All So DISHONEST????????

Question:

. When you develop your "habitat" are you going to tell anyone where it is? .I . bet the rides would be epic there. Lots of nice flora and fauna to visit . with. . .Which, despite Mike’s ambitious but highly misguided efforts, points out .exactly why it will never happen. Areas close to that have ALREADY happened — like the Condor Sanctuary. And many people have human-free habitat on their own land. An area designated as "uninhabited by .humans" would be a sanctuary for criminals. I’m not talking about the rogue .mountainbiker or car thief; I’m talking an ideal location for an enemy to .plot terrorist attacks against us. Why would they bother going to an area with no roads or trails, when they can "plot terrorist attacks" next door to you, with all the modern conveniences? You make no sense. .It’s just not going to happen. Sorry. . . . === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Response:

. .Actually, he ACCEPTED the use of mountain bikes by law enforcement . .personnel, so in THIS thread, where he reaffirms he hasn’t heard ONE good . .reason . . Irrelevant, since we are talking about mountain biking by the public. . .Whoops, ANOTHER backpedal on your part! How many is that today? None. You simply can’t follow logic.. === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Response:

. . Why should that be allowed? I have never heard even ONE good reason . why BIKES should be allowed on trails. . . . . We have already mentioned fundamental human rights such as the right to . life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We have mentioned the use of . mountain bikes by law enforcement personnel. Both arguments you either . ignore or reject. . .Actually, he ACCEPTED the use of mountain bikes by law enforcement .personnel, so in THIS thread, where he reaffirms he hasn’t heard ONE good .reason Irrelevant, since we are talking about mountain biking by the public. === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Response:

When you develop your "habitat" are you going to tell anyone where it is? I bet the rides would be epic there. Lots of nice flora and fauna to visit with.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes if you want to be ridiculously literal about the word "access" Not "literal", ACCURATE. HONEST. Something mountain bikers know NOTHING about. You complain that you don’t have "access", but you don’t spell out what you mean, because then you couldn’t get sympathy for being discriminated against (because it is the BIKES, not the BIKERS that are banned). people who mountain bike do have access to HIKE "every trail in the world" but you and I know we are not talking about hiking. We are talking about legal access to use a mountain bike (the thing with handlebars and two wheels) for actual riding on trails not just leaving at the trail head and walking. That would be access to bike to the trailhead or parking lot. We are talking about access to use the trail for mountain biking. Why should that be allowed? I have never heard even ONE good reason why BIKES should be allowed on trails. So back to my original point. In Boulder mountain parks. Of the 120 miles of unpaved dirt paths commonly referred to as trails, mountain bikers(meaning people riding mountain bikes)have access to 38 miles of those trails. That’s an abuse of the English language, because mountain bikers already have access to every trail. The fact that you continue to refuse to "tell it like it is" simply demonstrates your incorrigible DISHONESTY. Why do BIKES need access? They aren’t alive! They don’t have feelings! I think you know what I meant but if you want to get literal I’m happy to oblige. No, you aren’t. You continue to lie, because it sounds better to complain that you don’t have access, as if you were some new kind of minority. Mountain bikers have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else, always have, and always will. To complain that you are discriminated against is an insult to all the people who have ACTUALLY been abused. You are worse than a joke, you are criminal. -Brian Mike, by access I assumed you meant legal access which is a fair assumption. Hostile insults will never win your argument. Your assumption that because trails exist in the first place mountain bikers will use any and all off them at their own discression is absurd. There are laws regarding trails use and they are strictly enforced. I have no interest in riding a trail that is off limits to bikes. I have access to women’s restrooms too but you wont find me there either. Your access argument doesnt fly. You obviously still don’t get it, do you? I guess I have to spell it out for you: mountain bikers have access to every trail in the world, because they can (leave their bike at the trailhead and) WALK the trails, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE! After all, you are no different from anyone else. You aren’t surgically attached to your bikes. You don’t have any "special needs" that other people don’t have. You are just ordinary human beings — human beings that have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else. -Brian Mike you are clearly the one that doesnt understand all the issues. Mountain bikers do not "already have access to all the trails in the world". From what I have experienced here locally and across the United States mountain biking has been limited to specific trails. Thanks for demonstrating, once again, how little you guys understand even basic English. Mountain BIKERS have access to every trail in the world. I didn’t say that BIKES are allowed there. There are over 120 miles of trails in Boulder Mountain Parks. Of that only 38 miles are open to mountain biking. But all 120 miles ARE open to mountain BIKERS, as I said. Try telling the truth for a change. I think that is a pretty fair compromise. Many other communities have similiar situations. The mountain biking community is not out to take over every trail out there but we do feel that some limited trail use is justified. You already have 100% access to the trails. BIKES don’t have rights. And there is no RIGHT to take a bike on a trail. I can’t believe that you can’t understand that. People with dogs and horses have a much greater free reign of the trails. BS. Everyone has equal access to all trails. Dogs, horses, and BIKES don’t have equal access. And SHOULDN’T. By the way, BIKES aren’t alive, and don’t have rights. -Brian Good luck Mike. I think your heart is in the right place but also think you need to realize the value of some compromise in this matter. Mountain biking is not going away so you might want to try finding ways to work with people to find some kind of common ground. Focusing on an all out ban probably wont get you very far. That simply demonstrates that you don’t understand the issues. ALL compromises BETWEEN HUMANS are a LOSS for wildlife. Your point of view SEEMS reasonable, if only humans are considered, but that is supremely selfish. Your approach is: "Give me your house. Now, let’s compromise!" Mountain bikers ALREADY have access to every trail in the world. I can’t see any good reason to allow BIKES on those trails, and no mountain biker I have ever spoken with has been able to give one. Even ONE! === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Response:

That is just ridiculous to ask this lying question with such presumption. You would think the poster who asked this is possessed by the devil, the father of lies.

Response:

Apparently he decided to not live up to these principles: "Self Help Synanon stressed self help with an emphasis on self-reliance. Whereas Alcoholics Anonymous works with an individual’s reliance on a higher being, Synanon dealt with a person’s ability and desire to help himself. It was believed that "God helps those who help themselves." This principle was embodied in the following prayer that was read everyday at the morning meeting: Please let me first and always examine myself. Let me be honest and truthful. Let me seek and assume responsibility. Let me have trust and faith in myself and my fellow man. Let me love rather than be loved. Let me give rather than receive. Let me understand rather than be understood." –Karen M.

Response:

Yes if you want to be ridiculously literal

about the word "access" Not "literal", ACCURATE. HONEST. Something mountain bikers know NOTHING about. You complain that you don’t have "access", but you don’t spell out what you mean, because then you couldn’t get sympathy for being discriminated against (because it is the BIKES, not the BIKERS that are banned). people who mountain bike

do have access to HIKE "every trail in the world" but you and I know we are not talking about hiking. We are talking about legal access to use a mountain bike (the thing with handlebars and two wheels) for actual riding on trails not just leaving at the trail head and walking. That would be access to bike to the trailhead or parking lot. We are talking about access to use the trail for mountain biking. Why should that be allowed? I have never heard even ONE good reason why BIKES should be allowed on trails. So back to my original point. In Boulder mountain

parks. Of the 120 miles of unpaved dirt paths commonly referred to as trails, mountain bikers(meaning people riding mountain bikes)have access to 38 miles of those trails. That’s an abuse of the English language, because mountain bikers already have access to every trail. The fact that you continue to refuse to "tell it like it is" simply demonstrates your incorrigible DISHONESTY. Why do BIKES need access? They aren’t alive! They don’t have feelings! I think you know what I meant but if you want to get

literal I’m happy to oblige. No, you aren’t. You continue to lie, because it sounds better to complain that you don’t have access, as if you were some new kind of minority. Mountain bikers have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else, always have, and always will. To complain that you are discriminated against is an insult to all the people who have ACTUALLY been abused. You are worse than a joke, you are criminal. -Brian

Mike, by access I assumed you meant legal access which is a fair assumption. Hostile insults will never win your argument. Your assumption that because trails exist in the first place mountain bikers will use any and all off them at their own discression is absurd. There are laws regarding trails use and they are strictly enforced. I have no interest in riding a trail that is off limits to bikes. I have access to women’s restrooms too but you wont find me there either. Your access argument doesnt fly. You obviously still don’t get it, do you? I guess I have to spell it out for you: mountain bikers have access to every trail in the world, because they can (leave their bike at the trailhead and) WALK the trails, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE! After all, you are no different from anyone else. You aren’t surgically attached to your bikes. You don’t have any "special needs" that other people don’t have. You are just ordinary human beings — human beings that have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else. -Brian Mike you are clearly the one that doesnt understand all the issues. Mountain bikers do not "already have access to all the trails in the world". From what I have experienced here locally and across the United States mountain biking has been limited to specific trails. Thanks for demonstrating, once again, how little you guys understand even basic English. Mountain BIKERS have access to every trail in the world. I didn’t say that BIKES are allowed there. There are over 120 miles of trails in Boulder Mountain Parks. Of that only 38 miles are open to mountain biking. But all 120 miles ARE open to mountain BIKERS, as I said. Try telling the truth for a change. I think that is a pretty fair compromise. Many other communities have similiar situations. The mountain biking community is not out to take over every trail out there but we do feel that some limited trail use is justified. You already have 100% access to the trails. BIKES don’t have rights. And there is no RIGHT to take a bike on a trail. I can’t believe that you can’t understand that. People with dogs and horses have a much greater free reign of the trails. BS. Everyone has equal access to all trails. Dogs, horses, and BIKES don’t have equal access. And SHOULDN’T. By the way, BIKES aren’t alive, and don’t have rights. -Brian Good luck Mike. I think your heart is in the right place but also think you need to realize the value of some compromise in this matter. Mountain biking is not going away so you might want to try finding ways to work with people to find some kind of common ground. Focusing on an all out ban probably wont get you very far. That simply demonstrates that you don’t understand the issues. ALL compromises BETWEEN HUMANS are a LOSS for wildlife. Your point of view SEEMS reasonable, if only humans are considered, but that is supremely selfish. Your approach is: "Give me your house. Now, let’s compromise!" Mountain bikers ALREADY have access to every trail in the world. I can’t see any good reason to allow BIKES on those trails, and no mountain biker I have ever spoken with has been able to give one. Even ONE! === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Response:

I would not be human free if it is *their* land. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – An area designated as "uninhabited by .humans" would be a sanctuary for criminals. I’m not talking about the rogue .mountainbiker or car thief; I’m talking an ideal location for an enemy to .plot terrorist attacks against us. Why would they bother going to an area with no roads or trails, when they can "plot terrorist attacks" next door to you, with all the modern conveniences? You make no sense. .It’s just not going to happen. Sorry. . . . === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Response:

. Irrelevant, since we are talking about mountain biking by the public. . . . .Oh, you mean like forest service personnel doing field inspections, wildlife .photographers, biologists and environmental researchers, geologists, .artists, persons involved in physical conditioning and cross training for .other sport activities, campers on the way to a camp site? Aren’t these .just as legitimate activities as some that you personally partake in? Not if practiced in a way that harms the environment, like mountain biking. === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Response:

When you develop your "habitat" are you going to tell anyone where it is? I bet the rides would be epic there. Lots of nice flora and fauna to visit with.

Which, despite Mike’s ambitious but highly misguided efforts, points out exactly why it will never happen. An area designated as "uninhabited by humans" would be a sanctuary for criminals. I’m not talking about the rogue mountainbiker or car thief; I’m talking an ideal location for an enemy to plot terrorist attacks against us. It’s just not going to happen. Sorry.

Response:

.Actually, he ACCEPTED the use of mountain bikes by law enforcement .personnel, so in THIS thread, where he reaffirms he hasn’t heard ONE good .reason Irrelevant, since we are talking about mountain biking by the public.

Whoops, ANOTHER backpedal on your part! How many is that today?

Response:

Yes if you want to be ridiculously literal about the word "access" Not "literal", ACCURATE. HONEST. Something mountain bikers know NOTHING about. You complain that you don’t have "access", but you don’t spell out what you mean, because then you couldn’t get sympathy for being discriminated against (because it is the BIKES, not the BIKERS that are banned).

Following your logic, I now feel free to park in handicapped zones, as I will not be discriminating against the handicapped, just their vehicles.

Response:

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/synanon.html#beliefs Check out the URL above and read about "The Game." Doubtless mikey played it often during his Synanon years. It appears he has been playing his own version of "The Game" on usenet for years, with anyone he can entice into it. TD — World Without Cars Dictionary of Vandemisms (1998) still available at: http://www.geocities.com/trekkiedad/wwc.html ICQ# available on request

Response:

And I have never seen a reason why a bike should not be allowed on a trail What does a bike do that a boot does not? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So back to my original point. In Boulder mountain parks. Of the 120 miles of unpaved dirt paths commonly referred to as trails, mountain bikers(meaning people riding mountain bikes)have access to 38 miles of those trails. That’s an abuse of the English language, because mountain bikers already have access to every trail. The fact that you continue to refuse to "tell it like it is" simply demonstrates your incorrigible DISHONESTY. Why do BIKES need access? They aren’t alive! They don’t have feelings! I think you know what I meant but if you want to get literal I’m happy to oblige. No, you aren’t. You continue to lie, because it sounds better to complain that you don’t have access, as if you were some new kind of minority. Mountain bikers have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else, always have, and always will. To complain that you are discriminated against is an insult to all the people who have ACTUALLY been abused. You are worse than a joke, you are criminal.

No many trails do not allow mountain bikes or mountain bikers. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – -Brian Mike, by access I assumed you meant legal access which is a fair assumption. Hostile insults will never win your argument. Your assumption that because trails exist in the first place mountain bikers will use any and all off them at their own discression is absurd. There are laws regarding trails use and they are strictly enforced. I have no interest in riding a trail that is off limits to bikes. I have access to women’s restrooms too but you wont find me there either. Your access argument doesnt fly. You obviously still don’t get it, do you? I guess I have to spell it out for you: mountain bikers have access to every trail in the world, because they can (leave their bike at the trailhead and) WALK the trails, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE! After all, you are no different from anyone else. You aren’t surgically attached to your bikes. You don’t have any "special needs" that other people don’t have. You are just ordinary human beings — human beings that have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else. -Brian Mike you are clearly the one that doesnt understand all the issues. Mountain bikers do not "already have access to all the trails in the world". From what I have experienced here locally and across the United States mountain biking has been limited to specific trails. Thanks for demonstrating, once again, how little you guys understand even basic English. Mountain BIKERS have access to every trail in the world. I didn’t say that BIKES are allowed there. There are over 120 miles of trails in Boulder Mountain Parks. Of that only 38 miles are open to mountain biking. But all 120 miles ARE open to mountain BIKERS, as I said. Try telling the truth for a change. I think that is a pretty fair compromise. Many other communities have similiar situations. The mountain biking community is not out to take over every trail out there but we do feel that some limited trail use is justified. You already have 100% access to the trails. BIKES don’t have rights. And there is no RIGHT to take a bike on a trail. I can’t believe that you can’t understand that. People with dogs and horses have a much greater free reign of the trails. BS. Everyone has equal access to all trails. Dogs, horses, and BIKES don’t have equal access. And SHOULDN’T. By the way, BIKES aren’t alive, and don’t have rights. -Brian Good luck Mike. I think your heart is in the right place but also think you need to realize the value of some compromise in this matter. Mountain biking is not going away so you might want to try finding ways to work with people to find some kind of common ground. Focusing on an all out ban probably wont get you very far. That simply demonstrates that you don’t understand the issues. ALL compromises BETWEEN HUMANS are a LOSS for wildlife. Your point of view SEEMS reasonable, if only humans are considered, but that is supremely selfish. Your approach is: "Give me your house. Now, let’s compromise!" Mountain bikers ALREADY have access to every trail in the world. I can’t see any good reason to allow BIKES on those trails, and no mountain biker I have ever spoken with has been able to give one. Even ONE! === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Response:

Irrelevant, since we are talking about mountain biking by the public.

Oh, you mean like forest service personnel doing field inspections, wildlife photographers, biologists and environmental researchers, geologists, artists, persons involved in physical conditioning and cross training for other sport activities, campers on the way to a camp site? Aren’t these just as legitimate activities as some that you personally partake in?

Response:

. Yes if you want to be ridiculously literal . about the word "access" . . Not "literal", ACCURATE. HONEST. Something mountain bikers know . NOTHING about. You complain that you don’t have "access", but you . don’t spell out what you mean, because then you couldn’t get sympathy . for being discriminated against (because it is the BIKES, not the . BIKERS that are banned). . . people who mountain bike . do have access to HIKE "every trail in the . world" but you and I know we are not talking . about hiking. We are talking about legal access to . use a mountain bike (the thing with handlebars . and two wheels) for actual riding on trails . not just leaving at the trail head and walking. . That would be access to bike to the trailhead or parking . lot. We are talking about access to use the trail for . mountain biking. . . . Why should that be allowed? I have never heard even ONE good reason . why BIKES should be allowed on trails. . . . .We have already mentioned fundamental human rights such as the right to .life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That has NOTHING to do with allowng mountain biking. We have mentioned the use of .mountain bikes by law enforcement personnel. That has nothing to do with YOU, the public, mountain biking, which is what we are talking about. Both arguments you either .ignore or reject. Because they don’t answer my question. You refuse even engage in reasoned dialogue regarding the .relative merits of either argument. I can only surmise that you have no .interest in justice, liberty, freedom, free speach, or any of the other .principles that binds our society together. Your concern reflects a .tyrannical fanaticism to prevent other persons from enjoying their .recreational pursuits. It seems to me that you are a candidate to be a .participant in a war against a free and open society. Your issue is not .against mountain bikes, it is against the underlying principles of American .society. If you don’t want to participate according to the ground rules, .perhaps you should just pack your bags the leave the country. Not that you .would be any happier any where else in the world either. So you can’t come up with a good reason that mountain biking should be allowed? Just as I thought! === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Response:

Just walk up to the wall….. lean waaaaayyyy forward until your head slams

Response:

We have already mentioned fundamental human rights such as the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We have mentioned the use of mountain bikes by law enforcement personnel. Both arguments you either ignore or reject. You refuse even engage in reasoned dialogue regarding the relative merits of either argument. I can only surmise that you have no interest in justice, liberty, freedom, free speach, or any of the other principles that binds our society together. Your concern reflects a tyrannical fanaticism to prevent other persons from enjoying their recreational pursuits. It seems to me that you are a candidate to be a participant in a war against a free and open society. Your issue is not against mountain bikes, it is against the underlying principles of American society. If you don’t want to participate according to the ground rules, perhaps you should just pack your bags the leave the country. Not that you would be any happier any where else in the world either.

Response:

Why should that be allowed? I have never heard even ONE good reason why BIKES should be allowed on trails. We have already mentioned fundamental human rights such as the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We have mentioned the use of mountain bikes by law enforcement personnel. Both arguments you either ignore or reject.

Actually, he ACCEPTED the use of mountain bikes by law enforcement personnel, so in THIS thread, where he reaffirms he hasn’t heard ONE good reason yada yada yada, he lied. Just one of many lies of late. Press him on this and he’ll change his question around to fit his lies.

Response:

Filed under: Human Rights

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism