Re: Proof that MOST Mountain Bikers Break the Law

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 07:50:36 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

To Cross or Not to Cross: Mt. Bicyclists'

Marvelously typical of a Vandeman post!
True to form, you post a piece (instead of linking to it), and create your
conclusions completely ignoring the conclusion of the people doing the
research.
"Education and enforcement regarding these two particular resource
conditions has not been a priority of land managers on Mt. Tamalpais. This
may, in part, explain the lack of compliance with the two resource trail
etiquette conditions examined. These two situations were chosen for a
subsequent quasi-experimental study because of the control they provided in
a field laboratory setting.
With an observational study such as this one it is impossible to speculate
whether the cyclists were even aware that the trail etiquette guidelines
exist or whether the bicyclists think that compliance with these guidelines
is expected. As is the case with the social etiquette study, it is possible
that the lack of compliance is based on unintentional or uninformed
violations (Gramann & Vander Stoep, 1987) and that education may be an
effective means of gaining compliance (Hendricks et al., 2000). Due to the
potential for additional resource degradation in these resource settings and
the lack of compliance in both the resource and social conditions trail
etiquette the Marin Municipal Water District may want to consider
reemphasizing educational programs and focus some energies on these
potential impacts."

You completely ignore the authors' conclusions, results and recommendation
to substitute your opinion. Beyond that, this piece is 6 years old
(published in 2000). In 6 years of further education, trail management and
etiquette programs these results must have changed for the better.

"MUST" have changed for the better? Why not for the worse? You are
FABRICATING, as usual. But I'm glad that you admit that a majority of
mountain bikers are lawbreakers, as this research found. I wonder why
IMBA put this on their web site, and then removed it? Could it be that
they don't want the truth to become widely known? NOOOOOO.... 🙂

After

Quoted message said:

all, off-road cycling continues to grow as an activity, continues to gain
recognition within the BLM and land managers, with increased awareness of
all involved. It seems the recommendations from the William W. Hendricks
study were implimented to a degree that allowed this expansion to take
place.
It is actually ironic that you post a study with an intention of sustaining
your opinion. However, you may have actually posted a piece that set a
foundation for further education and enforcement which may have contributed
to the cooperation and expansion we currently enjoy.

===
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

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 07:50:36 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You completely ignore the authors' conclusions, results and recommendation
to substitute your opinion. Beyond that, this piece is 6 years old
(published in 2000). In 6 years of further education, trail management and
etiquette programs these results must have changed for the better.

"MUST" have changed for the better? Why not for the worse? You are
FABRICATING, as usual.

Since you insist on splitting context, I will do so also. Yes - changed for
ther better. Not fabrication - It is FACT. As I stated in the rest of the
response you chose to ignore, the sport of off-road cycling continues to
grow as an activity, continues to gain recognition within the BLM and land
managers, with increased awareness of all involved.

Quoted message said:

But I'm glad that you admit that a majority of
mountain bikers are lawbreakers, as this research found.

Now - I want you to go through every word I typed as a response to your post
of this 6 year old piece you posted as something revolutionary. Find
ANYWHERE I make ANY admission of which you refer to.

Quoted message said:

I wonder why
IMBA put this on their web site, and then removed it? Could it be that
they don't want the truth to become widely known? NOOOOOO.... 🙂

Perhaps IMBA has no need of information that has changed and is no longer
relevant. Maybe you are imagining things. If it is so relevant, why don't
you have it on one of your websites. I looked (May 1, 2006) and did not find
this piece listed among the other "articles". Yes, you reference it (or the
pieces of it you can use) in other writings of your opinions... But I
don't see this piece in total. Why should you challenge IMBA to put outdated
information on their references... That is your area of expertise.

Quoted message said:

After all, off-road cycling continues to grow as an activity, continues to
gain

Quoted message said:

recognition within the BLM and land managers, with increased awareness of
all involved. It seems the recommendations from the William W. Hendricks
study were implimented to a degree that allowed this expansion to take
place.
It is actually ironic that you post a study with an intention of
sustaining
your opinion. However, you may have actually posted a piece that set a
foundation for further education and enforcement which may have
contributed
to the cooperation and expansion we currently enjoy.

On Mon, 1 May 2006 12:53:46 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 07:50:36 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You completely ignore the authors' conclusions, results and recommendation
to substitute your opinion. Beyond that, this piece is 6 years old
(published in 2000). In 6 years of further education, trail management and
etiquette programs these results must have changed for the better.

"MUST" have changed for the better? Why not for the worse? You are
FABRICATING, as usual.

Since you insist on splitting context, I will do so also. Yes - changed for
ther better. Not fabrication - It is FACT. As I stated in the rest of the
response you chose to ignore, the sport of off-road cycling continues to
grow as an activity, continues to gain recognition within the BLM and land
managers, with increased awareness of all involved.

Quoted message said:

But I'm glad that you admit that a majority of
mountain bikers are lawbreakers, as this research found.

Now - I want you to go through every word I typed as a response to your post
of this 6 year old piece you posted as something revolutionary. Find
ANYWHERE I make ANY admission of which you refer to.

Quoted message said:

I wonder why
IMBA put this on their web site, and then removed it? Could it be that
they don't want the truth to become widely known? NOOOOOO.... 🙂

Perhaps IMBA has no need of information that has changed and is no longer
relevant. Maybe you are imagining things. If it is so relevant, why don't
you have it on one of your websites. I looked (May 1, 2006) and did not find
this piece listed among the other "articles". Yes, you reference it (or the
pieces of it you can use) in other writings of your opinions... But I
don't see this piece in total.

See http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb76. I probably am still linking
to it on IMBA's web site.

Why should you challenge IMBA to put outdated

Quoted message said:

information on their references... That is your area of expertise.

Quoted message said:

After all, off-road cycling continues to grow as an activity, continues to
gain

Quoted message said:

recognition within the BLM and land managers, with increased awareness of
all involved. It seems the recommendations from the William W. Hendricks
study were implimented to a degree that allowed this expansion to take
place.
It is actually ironic that you post a study with an intention of
sustaining
your opinion. However, you may have actually posted a piece that set a
foundation for further education and enforcement which may have
contributed
to the cooperation and expansion we currently enjoy.

===
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

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 1 May 2006 12:53:46 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>You completely ignore the authors' conclusions, results and
>recommendation
>to substitute your opinion. Beyond that, this piece is 6 years old
>(published in 2000). In 6 years of further education, trail management
>and
>etiquette programs these results must have changed for the better.

"MUST" have changed for the better? Why not for the worse? You are
FABRICATING, as usual.

Since you insist on splitting context, I will do so also. Yes - changed
for
ther better. Not fabrication - It is FACT. As I stated in the rest of the
response you chose to ignore, the sport of off-road cycling continues to
grow as an activity, continues to gain recognition within the BLM and land
managers, with increased awareness of all involved.

Quoted message said:

But I'm glad that you admit that a majority of
mountain bikers are lawbreakers, as this research found.

Now - I want you to go through every word I typed as a response to your
post
of this 6 year old piece you posted as something revolutionary. Find
ANYWHERE I make ANY admission of which you refer to.

Nothing....? Nothing at all? You say I "admit" something but can not show
where it is...? I believe that means you lied, doesn't it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wonder why
IMBA put this on their web site, and then removed it? Could it be that
they don't want the truth to become widely known? NOOOOOO.... 🙂

Perhaps IMBA has no need of information that has changed and is no longer
relevant. Maybe you are imagining things. If it is so relevant, why don't
you have it on one of your websites. I looked (May 1, 2006) and did not
find
this piece listed among the other "articles". Yes, you reference it (or
the
pieces of it you can use) in other writings of your opinions... But I
don't see this piece in total.

See http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb76. I probably am still linking
to it on IMBA's web site.

This links to a page stored within your website directory. Where is the link
on the main page? It is not listed by title or by link in the html source.
Merely having it reside in the directory but having no link to it does not
assist anyone in finding it. Again, if it is so important and relevant, why
is it not shown with a link like the rest of the articles on your main page?

Quoted message said:

Why should you challenge IMBA to put outdated

Quoted message said:

information on their references... That is your area of expertise.

Quoted message said:

After all, off-road cycling continues to grow as an activity, continues
to
gain
>recognition within the BLM and land managers, with increased awareness
>of
>all involved. It seems the recommendations from the William W. Hendricks
>study were implimented to a degree that allowed this expansion to take
>place.
>It is actually ironic that you post a study with an intention of
>sustaining
>your opinion. However, you may have actually posted a piece that set a
>foundation for further education and enforcement which may have
>contributed
>to the cooperation and expansion we currently enjoy.
>

On Tue, 2 May 2006 12:55:05 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 1 May 2006 12:53:46 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

>>
>>You completely ignore the authors' conclusions, results and
>>recommendation
>>to substitute your opinion. Beyond that, this piece is 6 years old
>>(published in 2000). In 6 years of further education, trail management
>>and
>>etiquette programs these results must have changed for the better.
>
> "MUST" have changed for the better? Why not for the worse? You are
> FABRICATING, as usual.
Since you insist on splitting context, I will do so also. Yes - changed
for
ther better. Not fabrication - It is FACT. As I stated in the rest of the
response you chose to ignore, the sport of off-road cycling continues to
grow as an activity, continues to gain recognition within the BLM and land
managers, with increased awareness of all involved.

> But I'm glad that you admit that a majority of
> mountain bikers are lawbreakers, as this research found.
Now - I want you to go through every word I typed as a response to your
post
of this 6 year old piece you posted as something revolutionary. Find
ANYWHERE I make ANY admission of which you refer to.

Nothing....? Nothing at all? You say I "admit" something but can not show
where it is...? I believe that means you lied, doesn't it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I wonder why
> IMBA put this on their web site, and then removed it? Could it be that
> they don't want the truth to become widely known? NOOOOOO.... 🙂

Perhaps IMBA has no need of information that has changed and is no longer
relevant. Maybe you are imagining things. If it is so relevant, why don't
you have it on one of your websites. I looked (May 1, 2006) and did not
find
this piece listed among the other "articles". Yes, you reference it (or
the
pieces of it you can use) in other writings of your opinions... But I
don't see this piece in total.

See http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb76. I probably am still linking
to it on IMBA's web site.

This links to a page stored within your website directory. Where is the link
on the main page? It is not listed by title or by link in the html source.
Merely having it reside in the directory but having no link to it does not
assist anyone in finding it. Again, if it is so important and relevant, why
is it not shown with a link like the rest of the articles on your main page?

It's on my links page. DUH!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why should you challenge IMBA to put outdated

Quoted message said:

information on their references... That is your area of expertise.

>
> After all, off-road cycling continues to grow as an activity, continues
> to
> gain
>>recognition within the BLM and land managers, with increased awareness
>>of
>>all involved. It seems the recommendations from the William W. Hendricks
>>study were implimented to a degree that allowed this expansion to take
>>place.
>>It is actually ironic that you post a study with an intention of
>>sustaining
>>your opinion. However, you may have actually posted a piece that set a
>>foundation for further education and enforcement which may have
>>contributed
>>to the cooperation and expansion we currently enjoy.
>>

===
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

i hear that not only are mtn bikers liars- but they're thieves,
racists, murderers, and usually french.

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 2 May 2006 12:55:05 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>
>>>You completely ignore the authors' conclusions, results and
>>>recommendation
>>>to substitute your opinion. Beyond that, this piece is 6 years old
>>>(published in 2000). In 6 years of further education, trail management
>>>and
>>>etiquette programs these results must have changed for the better.
>>
>> "MUST" have changed for the better? Why not for the worse? You are
>> FABRICATING, as usual.
>Since you insist on splitting context, I will do so also. Yes - changed
>for
>ther better. Not fabrication - It is FACT. As I stated in the rest of
>the
>response you chose to ignore, the sport of off-road cycling continues to
>grow as an activity, continues to gain recognition within the BLM and
>land
>managers, with increased awareness of all involved.
>
>> But I'm glad that you admit that a majority of
>> mountain bikers are lawbreakers, as this research found.
>Now - I want you to go through every word I typed as a response to your
>post
>of this 6 year old piece you posted as something revolutionary. Find
>ANYWHERE I make ANY admission of which you refer to.

Nothing....? Nothing at all? You say I "admit" something but can not show
where it is...? I believe that means you lied, doesn't it?

Quoted message said:

>

Again- Nothing? You take the time to respond below about some silly link
buried inside a secondary page of your "website" yet you can not simply
defend a statement you make...? Typical! You run away from substance to play
a game of "hide and seek"...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>> I wonder why
>> IMBA put this on their web site, and then removed it? Could it be that
>> they don't want the truth to become widely known? NOOOOOO.... 🙂
>
>Perhaps IMBA has no need of information that has changed and is no
>longer
>relevant. Maybe you are imagining things. If it is so relevant, why
>don't
>you have it on one of your websites. I looked (May 1, 2006) and did not
>find
>this piece listed among the other "articles". Yes, you reference it (or
>the
>pieces of it you can use) in other writings of your opinions... But I
>don't see this piece in total.

See http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb76. I probably am still linking
to it on IMBA's web site.

This links to a page stored within your website directory. Where is the
link
on the main page? It is not listed by title or by link in the html source.
Merely having it reside in the directory but having no link to it does not
assist anyone in finding it. Again, if it is so important and relevant,
why
is it not shown with a link like the rest of the articles on your main
page?

It's on my links page. DUH!

So it is... I thought since you gave it so much importance, it would be in
a prominent spot on the front page instead of buried (and renamed to show
your OPINION) on a seperate page. Perhaps now you can change the title to
something more realistic... "Old Research Shows That MOST Mountain Bikers
Break the Law in One Study done in One Area without a Follow Up and the
Implied Conclusion of (MOST Mountain Bikers Break the Law) in no way
Reflects the Conclusions of the Author(s) of the Actual Study"

Of course, if you were interested in actually presenting anything close to
realistic information, you would have nothing to link to, would you?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why should you challenge IMBA to put outdated
>information on their references... That is your area of expertise.