> YOU
>say how mass transit is needed, showing your bias.

Perhaps. But that is placed here to explain why I oppose
your insertion of your bias on this macro-transportation issue
into bicycling advocacy.

Note I don't then go on and say; "So bicyclist advocacy must
intimately incorporate such and such very specific recipe for
society's overall spending on transportation and transportation
infrastructure."

However _you_did_ state:


"Therefore I conclude that
it is proper for bicycling advocates to oppose subsidizing a system that
reduces bicycling (and walking), creating chauffered motorists."

which drips with a specific bias both in view - and even in vocabulary
used to describe what you are talking about - and describes
promoting some such activity that you plan to call "bicyclist
advocacy".

I'm pushing for a bicyclist advocacy that leaves both our
biases on the extraneous topic out of the focused bicyclist
advocacy.

Ken