Our super-secret and anonymous representative council - Page 5 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > 4x4 Land Use > Rules, Regulations, Trail, and ORV Park Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 27th, 2007, 03:49 PM   #81
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,384
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Hi Guys I streamlined a couple of threads that were doubling up on other stuff. so if you want to argue about the MMRC please do it here...Thanks.

don't blame OMB for the confusion in the thread...its my fault this time.
__________________
Yetti
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old April 14th, 2007, 11:23 PM   #82
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default Our super-secret and anonymous representative council

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trail_Fanatic View Post
6) GLFWDA's ORV Route Maintenance has been opened up for Member adoption. This is a great way for members/ Clubs to make a little money...
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dn...s_179305_7.pdf
(Page 2 under Orv Grant Recommendations and "Mr. Ranney".... ).

Which is yet another reason why the DNR has been forced to consider (thankfully) a little more orv non-profit 'house cleaning' in regards to subsidized grant funding.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dn...N_178708_7.pdf (bottom of page 4 (last comment in bold).

Is anybody dry enough behind the ears to remember $100 per student subsidies coming out of the orv sticker fund...and at least one training grant sponsor charging our fund $60 per kid simply to 'administer' each class; then charging that same parent to attend them? (or the 'task force' that later approached the state with a 'revised' $90 per kid proposal...then cried when the state simply called their bluff and turned the whole shebang over to law endorcement for a lot less per student just to get more of these kids 'some' kind of training as opposed to them perpetually waiting for the extremely limited 'free' classes that were being subsidized each year by sticker buyers).

By the way; your kid wants one of these bad (from the Polaris Ranger Club forum http://www.prcforum.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=255 )...and would sell your full-size if you weren't around to get one...so you just might want to keep up on the glorified golf cart and smaller machine "shared trail" issues also.

Last edited by OneManBanned; April 17th, 2007 at 06:33 AM. Reason: continuity
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2007, 09:50 PM   #83
Trail_Fanatic
Member since 1994
 
Trail_Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-25-06
Location: Muskegon and Oceana Counties
Posts: 3,175
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

OMB:

I see you're still here.
You said something about being banned and I didn't see you post for a while.

As long as you are, let's get back to this:

http://www.greatlakes4x4.com/showpos...4&postcount=26

Specifically:

"...I can post it when I get time, but admit that this is relatively low on my priority list right now. I can either spend time uploading all this, or I can spend that time doing something to further the sport.... it takes time to scan each page, upload all of the pages to photobucket, and then link them all here again....."

Since you're referring me to a 'revised' document published almost two years ago and this public has not seen a publicized document regarding (quote/unquote) "our" opinions from any Michigan orv representative group since that time and before....we can certainly see why this is an "either/or" choice for you and your arrogantly anonymous 'buddies' on this council.


This document has been linked to the DNR website the ENTIRE time it's been a topic.
Link:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7...4024--,00.html

I'm still willing to post the MMRC response, but it's a bit of a moot point now. The DNR has chosen to pull the Study from the Agenda. Their new intention is to wait until several other initiatives area completed and roll them all in to one comprehensive document to have a new public comment period, sometime in the future.

Current situation is, essentially, postponed.

Last edited by Trail_Fanatic; April 16th, 2007 at 11:02 PM.
Trail_Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2007, 05:43 PM   #84
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,384
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

ok I moved the arguement over here, but apparently the thread merged for some reason...don't ask me why its to early in the morning...
__________________
Yetti

Last edited by Yetti; April 17th, 2007 at 04:46 AM.
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2007, 06:18 AM   #85
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 21,059
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Default

Yetti, doesn't matter where you put it. As long as OMB is going to ramble and continue to criticize those that are getting involved in a positive way, I won't waste my time with it anyway.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2007, 07:02 AM   #86
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

[QUOTE=Trail_Fanatic;512644]
[B]OMB:...As long as you are, let's get back to this:

http://www.greatlakes4x4.com/showpos...4&postcount=26

Specifically:


Trail Fanatic:
"...I can post it when I get time, but admit that this is relatively low on my priority list right now. I can either spend time uploading all this, or I can spend that time doing something to further the sport.... it takes time to scan each page, upload all of the pages to photobucket, and then link them all here again....."


OMB:
Since you're referring me to a 'revised' document published almost two years ago and this public has not seen a publicized document regarding (quote/unquote) "our" opinions from any Michigan orv representative group since that time and before....we can certainly see why this is an "either/or" choice for you and your arrogantly anonymous 'buddies' on this council.



Trail Fanatic switching the focus yet again:
"...This document has been linked to the DNR website the ENTIRE time it's been a topic.
Link:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7...4024--,00.html


OMB:
Pat,
I've underlined the words "our" opinions for you above to illustrate the fact that the document you link following it...is anything but.
If you need further clarification as to how the state's position is currently being published...while the COMBINED orv community's isn't AND NEVER HAS BEEN SINCE '68 (with the MMRC's reign as our representative but anonymous 'gods' included)...then I'd be glad to 'clear this up' for you even further.

Again, I guess this type of bogus 'redirection' is designed to somehow make me effectively look bad and the yet to be published MMRC look like 'heroes'...yet I'm telling you, Pat...I think that folks can actually discern the difference.


"...I'm still willing to post the MMRC response, but..."

(lol) ...Pat, this simple request to allow us mere peons out here to view our own submitted opinions on critical orv issues has been on the table for how long now?...and your excuse "today" for not simply publishing our community-wide and held beliefs as to how this valuable resource should be maintained is now what???

"..but it's a bit of a moot point now...."

Aaaahhhhhh!!!.....oh yes, and let every one of us out here assure you, Pat....we all oh so much understand!

"...The DNR has chosen to pull the Study from the Agenda. Their new intention is to wait until several other initiatives area completed and roll them all in to one comprehensive document to have a new public comment period, [COLOR="red"]sometime in the future
...."

You guys are a joke....and I'm honestly sorry to have to be the only one willing to just come out and tell you this....but it's the truth.

Get that document up here, Pat; or risk yet even more good people jumping ship on you and your arrogant council's anonymous b.s.....because that's exactly what's about to happen.
You guys have weeded out more good people who actually care about the stewardship of this resource for the purpose of concentrating your individual power over it....than a nybody in the history of American motorized recreation.


"..Current situation is, essentially, postponed...."

And that's that, folks.

Last edited by OneManBanned; April 17th, 2007 at 07:27 AM.
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2007, 11:28 AM   #87
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,481
iTrader: (35)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneManBanned View Post
Yet it is the heavy 4 wheel drive enthusiast's responsibility to not act like the cyclist's have done and divide this community even further by supporting their crybaby "It's MY trail" crap any longer.
You folks have the power to finally shove these bastards into a corner and support a unified community instead of effectively ignoring what goes on in the weight class below you while believing that everybody seeking a trail of their own doesn't affect your progress whatsoever.
Wow - You don't seem to like cyclists much. I cannot weed through the 6 pages of posts since it all has been editied/moved around to different threads, but I do have one question:

Are you proposing 60" legislation for all ORV trails? I am not very informed on this issue, and hoping someone can fill me in.
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2007, 05:29 PM   #88
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScOoTeR View Post
Wow - You don't seem to like cyclists much. I cannot weed through the 6 pages of posts since it all has been editied/moved around to different threads, but I do have one question:

Are you proposing 60" legislation for all ORV trails? I am not very informed on this issue, and hoping someone can fill me in.
Love cyclists...hate anybody with a motor under their butt who believes he or she has any more right to access a publicly owned area than the next guy. If you can point out something that is not factual in this post...please, by all means, dispute it.
Otherwise; I do somewhat resent being told that I don't like anybody...save those who who don't necessary 'like' being questioned about their arrogant closed-door control of my resource.

Below is the bill that you ask about.

Now tell me...if you were one of the "22,000" Michigan enthusiasts that our MMRC represented while bragging about killing this bill in less than 29 hours...how in the heck could you now claim to not know a thing about it...with over 4,000 posts in this forum?
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...HLA-5343-3.pdf
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2007, 07:05 PM   #89
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,481
iTrader: (35)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneManBanned View Post
Love cyclists...hate anybody with a motor under their butt who believes he or she has any more right to access a publicly owned area than the next guy. If you can point out something that is not factual in this post...please, by all means, dispute it.
Otherwise; I do somewhat resent being told that I don't like anybody...save those who who don't necessary 'like' being questioned about their arrogant closed-door control of my resource.

Below is the bill that you ask about.

Now tell me...if you were one of the "22,000" Michigan enthusiasts that our MMRC represented while bragging about killing this bill in less than 29 hours...how in the heck could you now claim to not know a thing about it...with over 4,000 posts in this forum?
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...HLA-5343-3.pdf

You have an odd take on what I wrote. Let me reiterate so you do not misunderstand what I wrote as an object of your resentment:

Quote:
seem
–verb (used without object)
1. to appear to be, feel, do, etc.: She seems better this morning.
2. to appear to one's own senses, mind, observation, judgment, etc.: It seems to me that someone is calling.
3. to appear to exist: There seems no need to go now.
4. to appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems likely to rain.
5. to give the outward appearance of being or to pretend to be: He only seems friendly because he wants you to like him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScOoTeR
Wow - You don't seem to like cyclists much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onemanbanned
I do somewhat resent being told that I don't like anybody...
I offered my opinion, and now (as I have been able to read more of what you have written) I can see that you will berate anyone that does not share a similar viewpoint as yours.

I find this unfortunate. You definitely have a passion for ORV access, but I believe you have the potential to do more harm than good. Despite what you may think, if you can convey this to a complete stranger through your posts, I imagine that you immediately polarize DNR officials against you.

As far as comparing my post number to forum awareness - more posts does not make a person smarter, wish it would sometimes. :/

As for trail advocacy, I do not have the time that I would like to know everything, so that is a big reason I have been a CCC and AMA member since I got back into cycling a few years ago. I do remember the bill (thank you for the link) now that I read its description and I can agree with it not passing as written.
The way I understand it is that it would open up any trail in Michigan to be widened to 60"; to me, this would have the potential to ruin many great areas to provide access for the bigger vehicles. I do not want large (potential) ORVs denied access, however, changing the trail system to accommodate would change the sport for many people.

Of course, this is just my personal opinion - I think the bill made people panic (right or wrong) when they saw the words:
Quote:
The bill also would redefine
the term "forest trail" to mean a designated path or way capable of travel only by a
vehicle 60 inches or less in width.
This is what I think of when I see the words "Forest Trail":


IMHO, to cut a 5' wide path through there would ruin it for all but the "Big Rigs".
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2007, 08:18 PM   #90
Renegade II
Coil springs are for pens
 
Renegade II's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-30-06
Location: Frankenmuth, Mi.
Posts: 3,313
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneManBanned View Post
Love cyclists...hate anybody with a motor under their butt who believes he or she has any more right to access a publicly owned area than the next guy.


You want the trails widened to 60" which will allow your "Mule" (which you obviously bought knowing full well there were no legal trails to use it on) to be used recreationally. Doesn't that mean your the guy with the motor under your but thinking you have more right to access land than me the full size user? Hypocrite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneManBanned View Post
If you can point out something that is not factual in this post...please, by all means, dispute it.

Otherwise; I do somewhat resent being told that I don't like anybody...save those who who don't necessary 'like' being questioned about their arrogant closed-door control of my resource................


"Your resource" ???

The land is owned by the state, it is not "public" as you call it. You have no right to do with (or to) it whatever you please. If you don't believe me go try to build a house in the St. Helen scramble area or go dig up trees at a county park and see how that works for you. Under a narrow set of guidelines (laws) ultimately decided by the state they allow the public to access it. Advocacy groups that set on these advisory boards can beg plead and cry all they want about their organizations needs, but the state makes the ultimate determination of the "who, what, when, where and how" of things taking place on their land. If you feel these advisory boards wheel so much power and are keeping you down why don't you go make a friend and get put on one.
Renegade II is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2007, 08:45 PM   #91
Trail_Fanatic
Member since 1994
 
Trail_Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-25-06
Location: Muskegon and Oceana Counties
Posts: 3,175
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default My comments are in RED:

Trail Fanatic switching the focus yet again:
"...This document has been linked to the DNR website the ENTIRE time it's been a topic.
Link:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7...4024--,00.html

Switching focus?! I’m the person bring focus back to the issue after it’s been quiet for weeks. You complained about the Draft Forest Plan not being public. I pointed out that you were mistaken, and that it was linked to the DNR website all along. No switch there.

OMB:
Pat,
I've underlined the words "our" opinions for you above to illustrate the fact that the document you link following it...is anything but.
If you need further clarification as to how the state's position is currently being published...while the COMBINED orv community's isn't AND NEVER HAS BEEN SINCE '68 (with the MMRC's reign as our representative but anonymous 'gods' included)...then I'd be glad to 'clear this up' for you even further.

I explained before, but was apparently ineffective, so I‘ll try again. . .

The MMRC is comprised of, and represents, the 22,000 enthusiasts who care enough to join a statewide association for their given type of ORV – cycle, quad, or 4x4 (No RUV association exists yet). If you are not a member of a statewide association, then the MMRC does not represent you, nor do they purport to. There are approximately 350,000 registered ORVs in Michigan according to the SOS. There are approximately 1.5 MILLION OHV enthusiasts in Michigan according to the NFS study done by Cordell. Perhaps you fall into the 98.5% of enthusiasts who the MMRC does NOT represent (Imagine what a 1.5 million member Association could accomplish!). MMRC Representatives report to the Association BOD who has granted them the authority to represent that Association at Council meetings, not you. Association BODs report to their members, not you. I choose to try to answer your questions (when I can make sense of them) because an informed public is more likely to get involved.

If you DO belong to a statewide Association, you should be asking ALL of these questions of their BOD. This is actually the wrong format for these discussions.

"...I'm still willing to post the MMRC response, but..."

(lol) ...Pat, this simple request to allow us mere peons out here to view our own submitted opinions on critical orv issues has been on the table for how long now?...and your excuse "today" for not simply publishing our community-wide and held beliefs as to how this valuable resource should be maintained is now what???

I’ve underlined where you were mistaken in this section. The MMRC Comments are not representative of YOUR views. They are what the Association’s designated representatives could agree to submit together. Other comments that could not be agreed upon would have to have been submitted by the Association sponsoring the questioned clause on its own, without the MMRC’s approval or name attached.

Oh, and the ‘excuse’ (reason) is still the same as it was weeks ago . . . I tried and failed. I could only get the first page of it to post, none of the others, so I was asking for a volunteer to email it to so they could post it. The more you berate me for trying to help you, the less likely I am to do so, though. As I stated above, I answer to the GLFWDA BOD, not you. MMRC is NOT public, and is not required to inform or represent the desires of those enthusiasts who do not even care enough about motorized recreation to support a state level association with a membership fee and another body that can be added to the 22,000 count.


"..but it's a bit of a moot point now...."

Aaaahhhhhh!!!.....oh yes, and let every one of us out here assure you, Pat....we all oh so much understand!

The Department made a decision; I passed along the information. It seems simple enough to ‘understand’.

"...The DNR has chosen to pull the Study from the Agenda. Their new intention is to wait until several other initiatives area completed and roll them all in to one comprehensive document to have a new public comment period, sometime in the future...."

You guys are a joke....and I'm honestly sorry to have to be the only one willing to just come out and tell you this....but it's the truth.

If we’re such a joke, why are you so all-fired up and worried about what we think?
I guess it must be a joke with one heck of a punch line.

Get that document up here, Pat; or risk yet even more good people jumping ship on you and your arrogant council's anonymous b.s.....because that's exactly what's about to happen.

“Other” people? Who? You’re the only one asking.


You guys have weeded out more good people who actually care about the stewardship of this resource for the purpose of concentrating your individual power over it....than anybody in the history of American motorized recreation.

I counter that you are turning off more people with these nonsensical postings while doing nothing to further any of the motorized sports, than the MMRC might turn off while conducting the business of improving opportunities in Michigan (which I doubt they have done – except for you).

"..Current situation is, essentially, postponed...."

And that's that, folks.
Finally, you have issued a statement that I can understand AND agree with. . .
That IS that.

Last edited by Trail_Fanatic; April 17th, 2007 at 09:31 PM.
Trail_Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2007, 09:17 PM   #92
Trail_Fanatic
Member since 1994
 
Trail_Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-25-06
Location: Muskegon and Oceana Counties
Posts: 3,175
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renegade II View Post

"Your resource" ???

The land is owned by the state, it is not "public" as you call it. You have no right to do with (or to) it whatever you please. If you don't believe me go try to build a house in the St. Helen scramble area or go dig up trees at a county park and see how that works for you. Under a narrow set of guidelines (laws) ultimately decided by the state they allow the public to access it. Advocacy groups that set on these advisory boards can beg plead and cry all they want about their organizations needs, but the state makes the ultimate determination of the "who, what, when, where and how" of things taking place on their land. If you feel these advisory boards wheel so much power and are keeping you down why don't you go make a friend and get put on one.
WELL WRITTEN!
Trail_Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2007, 09:20 PM   #93
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

[QUOTE=ScOoTeR;515686]
"I offered my opinion, and now (as I have been able to read more of what you have written) I can see that you will berate anyone that does not share a similar viewpoint as yours..."

Not really, my friend....I simply don't allow arrogant members of the cycling community like yourself to play 'dumb' on major issues such as HB5343...when after all...every one of you did your damnest to purposely distort the details contained in that groundbreaking bill back in '05 also!

"....I find this unfortunate. You definitely have a passion for ORV access, but I believe you have the potential to do more harm than good. Despite what you may think, if you can convey this to a complete stranger through your posts, I imagine that you immediately polarize DNR officials against you...."

Aaaaahh, the pure 'let me tell you about yourself' arrogance of a Michigan cyclist....do you guys get some kind of training in belittling the rest of us out here...or is this simply who you are?

"... I do remember the bill now...The way I understand it is that it would open up any trail in Michigan to be widened to 60...Of course, this is just my personal opinion - I think the bill made people panic (right or wrong) when they saw the words...."

Gosh, 'scooter'...was it these words that 'scared' the rest of us mere peon goofs out here into not being able to "understand" what the bill proposed....(From the AMA District 14 website): http://www.ama-d14.org/news.php?id=23

OVER 1,000 MILES OF ORV TRAIL TO BE DESTROYED

...HB 5343, would widen all 50" trails, to 60", we have well over 1,000 miles of such trail and are marked "open to ATV travel" and "motorcycle".


....or was it slimy cycle guys like yourself still **ing to us about what that bill proposed... feigning ignorance (above) just as many times as you feel that you can get away with it...and unashamedly covering up for the fact that this wasn't a single-track loss 'cycle' issue at all; as your bogus picture above tries to misrepresent?

You know, Scooter....a **** comes in many forms; yet it's actually the ones who *** about ***ing that I really seem to have the most trouble with.(and there are people reading this right now who have allowed this disgusting myth to perpetuate that I could care less about either).

BTW, when you get done chewing on that one....why don't you sit us all down on the floor around you and tell us the one about how you cycle guys were jumping up and down about "environmental concerns" involving the widening of these 50" trails not even the width of my hand....or what independent 'study' you referenced while pulling the punk greenie interference that you did to make HB5343 appear to be an apocalyptic trail "destroying" issue.(Hold on....I'll got get the milk and cookies for everybody...).

Last edited by OneManBanned; April 17th, 2007 at 10:02 PM.
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2007, 09:40 PM   #94
Trail_Fanatic
Member since 1994
 
Trail_Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-25-06
Location: Muskegon and Oceana Counties
Posts: 3,175
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Can I be next?

I LOVE the entertainment value of watching you turn off everyone you come in contact with!



It seems like a sane man would question his approach after awhile, but not you . . . :miff:

You're like the Energizer Bunny. You keep going, and going, and going . . . :tonka:

It's really quite laughable, after a person realizes that you don't have a clue, don't want a clue, and wouldn't know what to do with a clue if someone gave one to you.

( I normally don't like to be "Un-PC, but this is getting down right funny)

Last edited by Trail_Fanatic; April 17th, 2007 at 09:44 PM.
Trail_Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2007, 09:41 PM   #95
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,449
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

hey banned guy,

Can you please take a sip of some kind of alcoholic beverage and convey your thoughts like a normal person does so others can figure out what you're trying to get at?
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2007, 09:48 PM   #96
Trail_Fanatic
Member since 1994
 
Trail_Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-25-06
Location: Muskegon and Oceana Counties
Posts: 3,175
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
hey banned guy,

Can you please take a sip of some kind of alcoholic beverage and convey your thoughts like a normal person does so others can figure out what you're trying to get at?



So I'm right?

His posts are hard to decipher?

. . . and I really try to get what he's trying to convey!

Last edited by Trail_Fanatic; April 18th, 2007 at 06:34 AM.
Trail_Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2007, 05:42 AM   #97
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,481
iTrader: (35)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

[QUOTE=OneManBanned;516011]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScOoTeR View Post
"I offered my opinion, and now (as I have been able to read more of what you have written) I can see that you will berate anyone that does not share a similar viewpoint as yours..."

Not really, my friend....I simply don't allow arrogant members of the cycling community like yourself to play 'dumb' on major issues such as HB5343...when after all...every one of you did your damnest to purposely distort the details contained in that groundbreaking bill back in '05 also!

"....I find this unfortunate. You definitely have a passion for ORV access, but I believe you have the potential to do more harm than good. Despite what you may think, if you can convey this to a complete stranger through your posts, I imagine that you immediately polarize DNR officials against you...."

Aaaaahh, the pure 'let me tell you about yourself' arrogance of a Michigan cyclist....do you guys get some kind of training in belittling the rest of us out here...or is this simply who you are?

"... I do remember the bill now...The way I understand it is that it would open up any trail in Michigan to be widened to 60...Of course, this is just my personal opinion - I think the bill made people panic (right or wrong) when they saw the words...."

Gosh, 'scooter'...was it these words that 'scared' the rest of us mere peon goofs out here into not being able to "understand" what the bill proposed....(From the AMA District 14 website): http://www.ama-d14.org/news.php?id=23

OVER 1,000 MILES OF ORV TRAIL TO BE DESTROYED

...HB 5343, would widen all 50" trails, to 60", we have well over 1,000 miles of such trail and are marked "open to ATV travel" and "motorcycle".


....or was it slimy cycle guys like yourself still **ing to us about what that bill proposed... feigning ignorance (above) just as many times as you feel that you can get away with it...and unashamedly covering up for the fact that this wasn't a single-track loss 'cycle' issue at all; as your bogus picture above tries to misrepresent?

You know, Scooter....a **** comes in many forms; yet it's actually the ones who *** about ***ing that I really seem to have the most trouble with.(and there are people reading this right now who have allowed this disgusting myth to perpetuate that I could care less about either).

BTW, when you get done chewing on that one....why don't you sit us all down on the floor around you and tell us the one about how you cycle guys were jumping up and down about "environmental concerns" involving the widening of these 50" trails not even the width of my hand....or what independent 'study' you referenced while pulling the punk greenie interference that you did to make HB5343 appear to be an apocalyptic trail "destroying" issue.(Hold on....I'll got get the milk and cookies for everybody...).

Arrogant cyclist? LOL Not sure what you mean, but you have alienated yet another person (myself).

While I cannot fathom what your impetus is behind your ravings here, I can tell very much about the person you are.


I'll see you on the trails.

Oh wait, no I won't. :tonka: Those are only for off-road vehicles.
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2007, 06:49 AM   #98
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 21,059
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Default

Scooter, Renegade II,

Now you see why I gave up. He alienates everyone he comes in contact with. can't believe TF is still trying...............
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2007, 06:53 AM   #99
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Well 'scooter'....you ducked commenting on the previous 4 pages of this thread in favor of attempting to discredit me while spinning the widening issue with your bogus 'threatened' picture...and then passed yet again on owning up to your intentional misdirection just as TF and Clarkston chose to do before you.

If nobody here is evidently man or woman enough to even so much as 'challenge' you guys on this...then I suppose that we've just been given a pretty good insight as to how many folks will send money in to just about anybody in a Michigan off-road non-profit....regardless of their character.("just make sure you send me that pretty little 'sticker'...O.K.?).

And gosh, TF; with all this extra time that you have to be 'entertained' by my posts...why don't you simply post up your (supposedly 'our') recommendations to the state regarding all these issues that you promised earlier? (heck, we can't even get this info from the state without a FOIA request..so what's the big secret here?).
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2007, 06:54 AM   #100
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,449
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

I think you guys need a rest. Someone PM farm_boy and to take over for awhile.
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > 4x4 Land Use > Rules, Regulations, Trail, and ORV Park Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:02 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.67058 seconds with 80 queries