The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- Why Off-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited

[davebee]

He's Canadian -- i.e., someone who can't decide whether to be British,
French, American, or Inuit. A sort of missing link. Not good enough to
be an American, but too damaged for England or France to take them
back -- kind of like an Australian (i.e., descended from criminals).

I swear to God that there is no asshole in the world like an English
asshole.


Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Where are you two going to stop? Not only do you insist on cross posting, refute anything based on good science and promote your own bad science with the zealousness of international terror organisations, you also appear to be racist to the bone as well.

As for your comments regarding English people, you might like to know that I am English and I find that comment quite offensive, as I do with your comments regarding Canadians and Australians. However I am fully aware that there are lots of good people in YOUR country, so I am not going to stoop to your level and tarnish everybody in your country with the same brush.

I strongly advise that you never come to England with your views, or if you do you keep them to yourself in a very quiet and subdued manner, otherwise it is highly likely that some "English Asshole" will take offfence to your comments and make it known to you in ways that even you could not possibly misunderstand. Of course, it is more than likely that you just sit at home typing away on your keyboard within the saftey of the internet. You clearly don't have the bollocks, the bottle or the support needed to win your "war" in the real world so you settle for the losers prize of trolling internet messageboards. Everyone else lives in the real world and merely laughs at you as a complete ***** with no chance whatsoever of achieving anything other than getting on Wikipedia, and even they have axed you! Your star must be fading MV. As for Dolan I don't know who you are, where you are from or anything else about you other than what I know based what I have read from what you have written. If I were to meet you purely based on what I have read I would be tempted to greet you with a traditional Glasgow kiss.

 

[Jason]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>1) You have not seen the document.
>>2) You are calling it "junk"
>>
>>That is closed minded.
>
>
> I've been informed of their methodology, which is ****. Garbage in,
> garbage out.
> ===


Well that is certainly the only thing mike that you are qualified to
talk about. Seeing as everything you say or put in your "peer reviewed
paper" is garbage in and out.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 29 May 2006 06:58:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 28 May 2006 21:40:42 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sat, 27 May 2006 09:40:50 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> I have a suspicion as to why you [Vandeman] dont want mountain bikes
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> 'hiking' trails. You are a selfish person that doesnt like others
>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>> fun and you have been in a conflict situation with a mountain biker
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> out enjoying 'your' nature, and are hijacking conservation biology
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> ecology to further your own personal, as you put it, 'peeves'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I swear to God that there is no asshole in the world like an English
>>>>>> asshole.
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree with you on this point Dolan, I am not English though.
>>>>
>>>> He's Canadian -- i.e., someone who can't decide whether to be British,
>>>> French, American, or Inuit. A sort of missing link. Not good enough to
>>>> be an American, but too damaged for England or France to take them
>>>> back -- kind of like an Australian (i.e., descended from criminals).
>>>>
>>>Once again, as in your appreciation of science, you are wrong. If you had
>>>followed my link to the example of a credible scientific study, you would
>>>have seen where I am from. As S Curtiss has said, this is bigotry.
>>
>> What kind of blinders are you wearing, that would cause you to miss
>> the smiley???? Carefulness isn't your forte, I guess.
>
>Adding a 'smiley' doesnt stop that being the comment of a bigot. Im guessing
>by all those question marks that you realise this.

I see your problem: you are prejudiced. For normal people, a smiley
implies that nothing I say should should be taken seriously. But you
insist on taking it seriously anyway (obviously you are just trying to
cover up the fact that you didn't notice the smiley when it appeared).
According to your theory, everyone who makes a joke actually believes
what they said is factual. Congratulations: you have singlehandedly
wiped out the concept of a joke. Idiot.
===
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]

On Mon, 29 May 2006 05:52:11 GMT, Michael Halliwell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>>>Mike, your inflamatory postings just contribute to the "ganging up."
>>>When people address the science or your constantly re-posted "reviews",
>>>you don't reply with solid scientific fact but rather claim they are
>>>citing "junk science" because it doesn't reflect your opinions or come
>>
>>>from your webspace. More often than not, you revert to comments such as
>>
>>>"Lair!" or "Did you say something?" or 'that's not true...see my
>>>webpage' or something similar. You are equally as responsible for the
>>>types of responses you get because, at least from my perspective, you
>>>actively seek them out (troll for them).
>>
>>
>> Right. Blame the victim. It's easier than telling the truth.
>>
>>
>
>and
>
>>>>>Personally, I try to avoid the "hiking" trails and stick to the "bike"
>>>>>trails. Up here, there are plenty of both. If I find myself on
>>>>>multi-use trails, I make sure I'm courteous and share the trail with
>>>>>other users, be they hiking, biking, horseback riding or using an ORV.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That does nothing to help those driven away by the presence of bikes.
>>>
>>>No, neither does the presence of beer bottles, illegal camp fires,
>>>litter and so forth I have seen left by HIKERS on the trails. I try not
>>>to let the occasional "bad apple" ruin my objectivity...but some people
>>>find any excuse to blame someone else for their problems.
>>
>>
>> Nobody is talking about "a few bad apples". In the case of mountain
>> bikers, it is EVERYONE. The effect of bikes has nothing to do with
>> whether they are bad apples or not.
>>
>
>
>Thank you for making my point, Mike...you've never met me face to face,
>seen the way I ride, where I ride, who I ride with or anything of the
>sort, but you imply that I lie, then imply that because I ride a bike
>off road I'm a "bad apple"...and you wonder why you attract the negative
>responses that you post on yor webpage to bolster your "cause" and opinions.
>
>Sheesh, when you become a real scientist, let me know, I might pay some
>attention to you again.

I could care less whether you pay attention to me or not. Liars are
lower than dirt in my book. You give yourself too much importance.

>Michael Halliwell
===
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]

On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:34:45 +1000, davebee
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Mike Vandeman Wrote:
>>
>> He's Canadian -- i.e., someone who can't decide whether to be British,
>> French, American, or Inuit. A sort of missing link. Not good enough to
>> be an American, but too damaged for England or France to take them
>> back -- kind of like an Australian (i.e., descended from criminals).
>>
>>
>
>Edward Dolan Wrote:
>>
>> I swear to God that there is no asshole in the world like an English
>> asshole.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>Where are you two going to stop? Not only do you insist on cross
>posting, refute anything based on good science and promote your own bad
>science with the zealousness of international terror organisations, you
>also appear to be racist to the bone as well.
>
>As for your comments regarding English people, you might like to know
>that I am English and I find that comment quite offensive, as I do with
>your comments regarding Canadians and Australians. However I am fully
>aware that there are lots of good people in YOUR country, so I am not
>going to stoop to your level and tarnish everybody in your country with
>the same brush.

Um, look up "smiley" in the dictionary. Idiot.

>I strongly advise that you never come to England with your views, or if
>you do you keep them to yourself in a very quiet and subdued manner,
>otherwise it is highly likely that some "English Asshole" will take
>offfence to your comments and make it known to you in ways that even
>you could not possibly misunderstand. Of course, it is more than likely
>that you just sit at home typing away on your keyboard within the saftey
>of the internet. You clearly don't have the bollocks, the bottle or the
>support needed to win your "war" in the real world so you settle for
>the losers prize of trolling internet messageboards. Everyone else
>lives in the real world and merely laughs at you as a complete *****
>with no chance whatsoever of achieving anything other than getting on
>Wikipedia, and even they have axed you!

Only because they put IMBA in charge of the mountain biking material,
and IMBA doesn't allow any negative information about mountain biking
to appear.

Your star must be fading MV. As
>for Dolan I don't know who you are, where you are from or anything else
>about you other than what I know based what I have read from what you
>have written. If I were to meet you purely based on what I have read I
>would be tempted to greet you with a traditional Glasgow kiss.
===
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

 

[Michael Halliwell]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

>
> You give yourself too much importance.
>

Said the kettle to the pot...

Sheesh

 

[Jules Augley]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 29 May 2006 06:58:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 28 May 2006 21:40:42 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Sat, 27 May 2006 09:40:50 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> I have a suspicion as to why you [Vandeman] dont want mountain
>>>>>>>> bikes
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> 'hiking' trails. You are a selfish person that doesnt like others
>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>> fun and you have been in a conflict situation with a mountain biker
>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>> out enjoying 'your' nature, and are hijacking conservation biology
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> ecology to further your own personal, as you put it, 'peeves'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I swear to God that there is no asshole in the world like an English
>>>>>>> asshole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree with you on this point Dolan, I am not English though.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's Canadian -- i.e., someone who can't decide whether to be British,
>>>>> French, American, or Inuit. A sort of missing link. Not good enough to
>>>>> be an American, but too damaged for England or France to take them
>>>>> back -- kind of like an Australian (i.e., descended from criminals).
>>>>>
>>>>Once again, as in your appreciation of science, you are wrong. If you
>>>>had
>>>>followed my link to the example of a credible scientific study, you
>>>>would
>>>>have seen where I am from. As S Curtiss has said, this is bigotry.
>>>
>>> What kind of blinders are you wearing, that would cause you to miss
>>> the smiley???? Carefulness isn't your forte, I guess.
>>
>>Adding a 'smiley' doesnt stop that being the comment of a bigot. Im
>>guessing
>>by all those question marks that you realise this.
>
> I see your problem: you are prejudiced. For normal people, a smiley
> implies that nothing I say should should be taken seriously. But you
> insist on taking it seriously anyway (obviously you are just trying to
> cover up the fact that you didn't notice the smiley when it appeared).
> According to your theory, everyone who makes a joke actually believes
> what they said is factual. Congratulations: you have singlehandedly
> wiped out the concept of a joke. Idiot.


Why cant you admit you made a mistake? You made a comment about a national
stereotype, that is called bigotry. I have to say some of the things you
post here flabbergast me; you make a bigoted comment and then say I am
prejudiced. Please explain why? Adding smileys doesnt excuse anything, and
it is utterly ridiculous to say so.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 30 May 2006 07:49:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 29 May 2006 06:58:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sun, 28 May 2006 21:40:42 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 May 2006 09:40:50 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> I have a suspicion as to why you [Vandeman] dont want mountain
>>>>>>>>> bikes
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> 'hiking' trails. You are a selfish person that doesnt like others
>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>> fun and you have been in a conflict situation with a mountain biker
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>> out enjoying 'your' nature, and are hijacking conservation biology
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> ecology to further your own personal, as you put it, 'peeves'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I swear to God that there is no asshole in the world like an English
>>>>>>>> asshole.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I agree with you on this point Dolan, I am not English though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's Canadian -- i.e., someone who can't decide whether to be British,
>>>>>> French, American, or Inuit. A sort of missing link. Not good enough to
>>>>>> be an American, but too damaged for England or France to take them
>>>>>> back -- kind of like an Australian (i.e., descended from criminals).
>>>>>>
>>>>>Once again, as in your appreciation of science, you are wrong. If you
>>>>>had
>>>>>followed my link to the example of a credible scientific study, you
>>>>>would
>>>>>have seen where I am from. As S Curtiss has said, this is bigotry.
>>>>
>>>> What kind of blinders are you wearing, that would cause you to miss
>>>> the smiley???? Carefulness isn't your forte, I guess.
>>>
>>>Adding a 'smiley' doesnt stop that being the comment of a bigot. Im
>>>guessing
>>>by all those question marks that you realise this.
>>
>> I see your problem: you are prejudiced. For normal people, a smiley
>> implies that nothing I say should should be taken seriously. But you
>> insist on taking it seriously anyway (obviously you are just trying to
>> cover up the fact that you didn't notice the smiley when it appeared).
>> According to your theory, everyone who makes a joke actually believes
>> what they said is factual. Congratulations: you have singlehandedly
>> wiped out the concept of a joke. Idiot.
>
>
>Why cant you admit you made a mistake? You made a comment about a national
>stereotype, that is called bigotry. I have to say some of the things you
>post here flabbergast me; you make a bigoted comment and then say I am
>prejudiced. Please explain why? Adding smileys doesnt excuse anything, and
>it is utterly ridiculous to say so.

You must be pretty happy that we have slipped off the topic of the
newsgroup: mountain biking. You are much more comfortable talking
about imaginary prejudice, than revealing the faults in your students'
experimental design....
===
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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 28 May 2006 12:50:30 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 27 May 2006 09:40:50 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> I swear to God that there is no asshole in the world like an English
>>>>> asshole.
>>>>
>>>>I agree with you on this point Dolan, I am not English though.
>>>
>>> He's Canadian -- i.e., someone who can't decide whether to be British,
>>> French, American, or Inuit. A sort of missing link. Not good enough to
>>> be an American, but too damaged for England or France to take them
>>> back -- kind of like an Australian (i.e., descended from criminals).
>>>
>>> ===
>>Wow - and I thought you were just bigoted against off-road cyclists! Turns
>>out - you're a total bigot.
>
> Leave it to a dodo like you to miss the smiley.

You are an IDIOT
> ===
> 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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 07:49:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You must be pretty happy that we have slipped off the topic of the
> newsgroup: mountain biking. You are much more comfortable talking
> about imaginary prejudice, than revealing the faults in your students'
> experimental design....
> ===
It is YOU who first changed the topic by making the bigoted post in the
first place. It is also YOU who began a challenge to this gentleman and his
student(s) only because there was an implication there was information or
conclusions differing from yours that were possibly (again... keyword:
possibly) going to be included in some published format. It is also YOU who
began the character assasination with no indication to this person's
character, education or background:
JA: "In other words, no, Mr Vandeman: I gave you an extremely brief summary
of his results, and you assume his methods were flawed.
MV: "Sounds like I hit the nail on the head! Now you are too EMBARRASSED to
tell us what they said and where they are trying to publish, for fear their
incompetence will be exposed!"

It is also YOU who abandoned a more recent topic "USGS Study on trail
impact" because, it seems, you could not handle a direct statement towards
your line of reasoning trying to discredit that report also:
MV: "Because mountain bikers don't want their dishonesty/incompetence to be
exposed."
SC: "First of all, where does anything say this study was commissioned by or
for "mountain bikers".?
MV: "It's OBVIOUS. They are the ONLY people interested in justifying
mountain biking. DUH!"
DC: "This assessment was initiated in response to concerns by park staff and
the public regarding the possible environmental impacts associated with BSF
trail uses." Now - You show ANYWHERE in this paper that "mountain bikers"
commissioned this study for the purpose you just stated. Either do so, or
ADMIT your statement "It's OBVIOUS" is a direct reflection of your OPINION
and a LIE attempting to discredit the findings AND the real and accredited
researchers who authored the piece."
--------------
I'll tell you what is OBVIOUS! Your lack of desire to have REAL reseachers,
with credit, title and acknowledgement from official agencies, show you up
on science, fact, review and honesty of work.

I say Thank You to Jules Augley for not compromising the principles of the
process of publication or the validity of the student's work by sinking to
MV standards and usurping the very foundations of integrity in research.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 28 May 2006 11:11:59 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>>>>

>>>>
>>>>Anyway, it feels like bashing a head against a brick wall when arguing
>>>>objectively with vandeman, cos he doesnt do it. Keep up the fight.
>>>
>>> When I asked you to produce some EVIDENCE, you stonewalled. What's
>>> this about being "objective"?! You REFUSED to tell where your students
>>> were trying to publish their junk science.
>>> ===
>>Can't you READ? He has already stated the paper is being considered and is
>>not yet a "publishable manuscript". It is also his student's work so he
>>likely has no access to it beyond the general findings which he has only
>>eluded to (and you assumed to be derogatory to your POV in the first
>>place).
>>The paper is in consideration and therefore any discussion of who
>>negotiations are actually with would be inappropriate. Beyond any of your
>>silly accusations above, might I remind you Mr. Vandeman, we on this ng
>>have
>>been asking you for YEARS to produce peer-reviews of your writings (which
>>you claim exist) and EVIDENCE that your statemnents are recognized by
>>anyone
>>else with authority or credit for comparison. We have been requesting a
>>schedule of events so it may be possible to actually see you present, see
>>the audience in attendance, see their reactions to your presentation,
>>perhaps even ask some questions of detail on the presentation in front of
>>these "peers" you reference, yet you stonewall and refuse.
>>You have NO RIGHT to question this person on method, ethics or science.
>
> I'm doing them a FAVOR -- so they can correct their flawed methodology
> BEFORE they embarrass themselves by trying to publish that ****.

Too bad nobody attempted the same favor for you. At least in that case, it
would have been justified.
You pointing out a flaw in a paper you don't even have access to is a bit
like my dog pointing out a flaw in Discovery's launch procedure. The only
embarrassment is, obviously, yours.
>

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:34:45 +1000, davebee
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Mike Vandeman Wrote:
>>>
>>> He's Canadian -- i.e., someone who can't decide whether to be British,
>>> French, American, or Inuit. A sort of missing link. Not good enough to
>>> be an American, but too damaged for England or France to take them
>>> back -- kind of like an Australian (i.e., descended from criminals).
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Edward Dolan Wrote:
>>>
>>> I swear to God that there is no asshole in the world like an English
>>> asshole.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>> aka
>>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
>>
>>Where are you two going to stop? Not only do you insist on cross
>>posting, refute anything based on good science and promote your own bad
>>science with the zealousness of international terror organisations, you
>>also appear to be racist to the bone as well.
>>
>>As for your comments regarding English people, you might like to know
>>that I am English and I find that comment quite offensive, as I do with
>>your comments regarding Canadians and Australians. However I am fully
>>aware that there are lots of good people in YOUR country, so I am not
>>going to stoop to your level and tarnish everybody in your country with
>>the same brush.
>
> Um, look up "smiley" in the dictionary. Idiot.
>
>>I strongly advise that you never come to England with your views, or if
>>you do you keep them to yourself in a very quiet and subdued manner,
>>otherwise it is highly likely that some "English Asshole" will take
>>offfence to your comments and make it known to you in ways that even
>>you could not possibly misunderstand. Of course, it is more than likely
>>that you just sit at home typing away on your keyboard within the saftey
>>of the internet. You clearly don't have the bollocks, the bottle or the
>>support needed to win your "war" in the real world so you settle for
>>the losers prize of trolling internet messageboards. Everyone else
>>lives in the real world and merely laughs at you as a complete *****
>>with no chance whatsoever of achieving anything other than getting on
>>Wikipedia, and even they have axed you!
>
> Only because they put IMBA in charge of the mountain biking material,
> and IMBA doesn't allow any negative information about mountain biking
> to appear.

I do not see "authored, compiled and approved by IMBA" anywhere on the WIKI
topic of mountain biking.
Of course, I also do not see any positive or balanced information
referencing mountain biking on your "website" either.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 28 May 2006 11:37:57 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have. Start with http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7, which
>>>>>>>>> refutes
>>>>>>>>> the research you are doing before you have even done it, since you
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> falling into the same fallacy as all the other "researchers".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have seen your website. I want to know what peer-reviewed work you
>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>>had published. Presentations at U.C. Berkeley dont count.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of my conference papers were peer-reviewed. What do you think a
>>>>>>> conference is???
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is NO proof of any comments or review of ANY of your opinions,
>>>>>>statements or findings. If there is, post it or shut up. You have no
>>>>>>credibility except what you assign yourself. You answered a "call for
>>>>>>papers". Your response matched the parameters of the request. You
>>>>>>received
>>>>>>permission to present. You spoke for 15-20 minutes to an audience
>>>>>>comprised
>>>>>>mostly of other presenters. You have NEVER been sought after or
>>>>>>invited
>>>>>>as
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>title speaker. Your name has never been attached as a keynote speaker
>>>>>>on
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>published publicity information on any of these conferences. You
>>>>>>essentially
>>>>>>invite yourself by answering a "call for papers" then list it as a
>>>>>>reference
>>>>>>after the fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's nothing but LIES, since you weren't there and know NOTHING
>>>>> about the conferences.
>>>>I can't be too far off. I've seen enough similar gatherings to know how
>>>>these types of things come together.
>>>
>>> So you admit FABRICATING information, as usual. No wonder no one
>>> believes you.
>>?? Again you try to paint me simply as a "liar" rather than attemt to
>>dispute the statements on point.

Nothing here...?
>>>
>>> A lot of patting each other on the back
>>>>and name tags and suits that were in style 20 years ago. Convenient also
>>>>that we are on seperate ends of the country that makes it next to
>>>>impossible
>>>>for me to attend - especially when you do not show a schedule of events.
>>>
>>> Why would you want to attend? You already have all of my papers & have
>>> been unable to refute them, no matter how much time you have.
>>Your memory is too short. (Google group search "vandeman" shows years of
>>posts of myself and others picking apart your opinions on point and
>>reference)
Nothing here...?
>>>
>>>>>>You don't even provide an upcoming schedule.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should I? You've already read all of my papers. Your only possible
>>>>> purpose is to threaten & intimidate -- something mountain bikers are
>>>>> very fond of.
>>>>I have no desire whatsoever to "threaten & intimidate". That is your
>>>>fear
>>>>and your convenient scapegoat at the same time. However, it would be
>>>>interesting to question your findings, with correct references and
>>>>context,
>>>>in front of these "peers". It would be interesting to watch you resort
>>>>to
>>>>calling someone a "liar" or "moron" in front of everybody in attendance.
>>>>It
>>>>would be interesting to see how you explain away incredibly detailed
>>>>research as "junk science" merely because it offers a conlusion
>>>>different
>>>>from your own. After all, what is a "question and answer" period for if
>>>>not
>>>>to clarify or support the statements made by the speaker?
>>>
>>> No one would listen to you, since you haven't read my paper nor the
>>> ones I reviewed. And since you are only interested in rationalizing
>>> mountain biking, you would be VERY out of place in any scientific
>>> conference. They would see through you instantly. If you can't refute
>>> me here, how could you do so in person?
>>Apparently, your memory is so short you don't even remember the
>>conversation
>>you are in. You state here "since you haven't read my paper nor the ones I
>>reviewed" yet just above you state "Why should I? You've already read all
>>of
>>my papers. Your only possible purpose is to threaten & intimidate --
>>something mountain bikers are very fond of."
>>And why would I be out of place at a "scientific" conference? Is not the
>>purpose of science to gather and assimilate as much information as
>>possible?
>>Why, if you are going to claim a foundation of "science", would you have
>>any
>>concern as to whether I, or anybody else, was there? Either your science
>>stands on its own and can handle the scrutiny or it doesn't. Or are you
>>afraid that pointed questions on context and fact might allow your "peers"
>>to see through you instantly?
>
> Right. All of those SCIENTISTS would be incapable of understanding my
> paper, without YOU there to explain it to them! I have to hand it to
> you. You are almost getting a sense of humor, even if unintended.

There is no PROOF any scientist listened to, or agreed with, your
"presentation". Your statement of it is MEANINGLESS. We have not a SINGLE
post form any scientist (or anyone, for that matter) who has attended and
commented. You have not presented any post-conference directives,
conclusions, references or reviews from anyone. Are we merely supposed to
accept your statement that scientists reviewed and peers accepted your
conlusions...? Especially when you have a history, even in this very
thread, of contradiction and misdirection?
A sense of humor...? Hell, you're the one who should call Leno - You're
closer!
>
>>>
>><<<clipped>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it isn't. I can tell from your description that it ignores
>>>>>>> certain
>>>>>>> critical factors, e.g. distance travelled.
>>>>>>"Distance travelled" is your variable and meaningless without a
>>>>>>variable
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>time. A cyclist can cover more ground in 1 hour, meaning he is in and
>>>>>>away
>>>>>>from any one spot faster which also reduces his impact in that spot. A
>>>>>>hiker
>>>>>>is in any one spot for a longer amount of time, causing more
>>>>>>disturbance
>>>>>>by
>>>>>>his presence. After all, it is you that state our very presence is
>>>>>>harmful.
>>>>>>So "distance" is hardly a valid variable without the consideration of
>>>>>>"time". Hikers are often in the woods for a longer amount of "time",
>>>>>>rendering "distance" irrelevant, or at least simply another variable
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>be
>>>>>>considered but not, as you insist, as the only multiplier.
>>>>>
>>>>> BS. Squashed animals & plants are proportional to DISTANCE. Erosion is
>>>>> proportional to DISTANCE.
>>>>It is your opinion. The "squashed animals & plants" is anecdotal as any
>>>>traverse could do it.
>>>
>>> Not on foot. Too slow to kill fast-moving animals.
>>...and what of plants...? Selective again in your response. "Fast-moving"
>>animals are likely not to get hit by bikes either and is a convenient
>>claim
>>for you to make. It sure sounds plausible, but is still anecdotal.
>
> As far as I know, no one has ever studied the animals squashed by
> mountain bikers. I guess the bikers are afraid of what they'd find.
> All we have is anecdotal evidence, which is better than nothing.

You are the one who claims reals science. You are the one who claims
mountain bikers' science is "junk". You are the one who is making the claims
(as fact) it is happening. And now you are the one admitting "All we have is
anecdotal evidence". So much for your historical whipsnake...
>
>>> Foot prints, tire tracks, hooves... And erosion is
>>>>proportional to friction. Friction can be caused just as easily by feet
>>>>as
>>>>by tires. Rolling tire contact is fractional with time compared to the
>>>>step
>>>>of a walking person. A person's foot is in contact with the spot of
>>>>earth
>>>>much longer than any point of a rolling wheel. You can not disregard
>>>>"time"
>>>>as a variable any more than you can over-qualify the variable of
>>>>"distance".
>>>
>>> A stationary foot doesn't create erosion.
>>So how do you hike and stay stationary...? It is precisely this kind of
>>logic that makes all your comments questionable. And again, you attempt to
>>direct attention away from the application of the variable of "time" in
>>regards to impact.

Nothing...? Still waiting to hear how you can hike with stationary feet...
>>>
>>>>>>> (albeit
>>>>>>>>with a lack of maturity in the writing that only years of practice
>>>>>>>>can
>>>>>>>>remedy) and I would certainly view his work as more scientifically
>>>>>>>>objective
>>>>>>>>and valid than any of the polemic you spew all over your webspace. I
>>>>>>>>do
>>>>>>>>admire your tenacity (or ability to stick your fingers in your ears
>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>shout 'lalalala'), however, you could definitely do with a change of
>>>>>>>>focus
>>>>>>>>and try to do something that would actually make a difference to the
>>>>>>>>world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's funny how all mountain bikers want more than anything in the
>>>>>>> world for me to shut up and stop telling the truth about their
>>>>>>> selfish, destructive sport. NO WONDER! They haven't found any way to
>>>>>>> rationally defend it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You haven't found a way to rationally defeat it. If you had, character
>>>>>>assasination, name-calling, context removal and misdirection would not
>>>>>>be
>>>>>>your standard for defending your statements. You don't tell "truth",
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>spout OPINIONS which you present as truth. We only point it out for
>>>>>>anyone
>>>>>>looking for real information to see.
>>>>>
>>>>> LIES.
>>>>
>>>>OPINIONS.
>>>>> ===

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 30 May 2006 13:43:11 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 30 May 2006 07:49:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> You must be pretty happy that we have slipped off the topic of the
>> newsgroup: mountain biking. You are much more comfortable talking
>> about imaginary prejudice, than revealing the faults in your students'
>> experimental design....
>> ===
>It is YOU who first changed the topic by making the bigoted post in the
>first place. It is also YOU who began a challenge to this gentleman and his
>student(s) only because there was an implication there was information or
>conclusions differing from yours that were possibly (again... keyword:
>possibly) going to be included in some published format.

Not because they differ from mine. Because the methodology is so
flawed that the study can't support its own conclusions -- just like
EVERY other study by mountain bikers.

It is also YOU who
>began the character assasination with no indication to this person's
>character, education or background:
>JA: "In other words, no, Mr Vandeman: I gave you an extremely brief summary
>of his results, and you assume his methods were flawed.

It's obvious from what he said.

>MV: "Sounds like I hit the nail on the head! Now you are too EMBARRASSED to
>tell us what they said and where they are trying to publish, for fear their
>incompetence will be exposed!"
>
>It is also YOU who abandoned a more recent topic "USGS Study on trail
>impact" because, it seems, you could not handle a direct statement towards
>your line of reasoning trying to discredit that report also:
>MV: "Because mountain bikers don't want their dishonesty/incompetence to be
>exposed."
>SC: "First of all, where does anything say this study was commissioned by or
>for "mountain bikers".?

They aren't going to advertize it! DUH!

>MV: "It's OBVIOUS. They are the ONLY people interested in justifying
>mountain biking. DUH!"
>DC: "This assessment was initiated in response to concerns by park staff and
>the public regarding the possible environmental impacts associated with BSF
>trail uses." Now - You show ANYWHERE in this paper that "mountain bikers"
>commissioned this study for the purpose you just stated. Either do so, or
>ADMIT your statement "It's OBVIOUS" is a direct reflection of your OPINION
>and a LIE attempting to discredit the findings AND the real and accredited
>researchers who authored the piece."
>--------------
>I'll tell you what is OBVIOUS! Your lack of desire to have REAL reseachers,
>with credit, title and acknowledgement from official agencies, show you up
>on science, fact, review and honesty of work.

Why would I worry about THAT? It has never happened!

>I say Thank You to Jules Augley for not compromising the principles of the
>process of publication or the validity of the student's work by sinking to
>MV standards and usurping the very foundations of integrity in research.
===
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]

On Tue, 30 May 2006 13:43:11 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 30 May 2006 07:49:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> You must be pretty happy that we have slipped off the topic of the
>> newsgroup: mountain biking. You are much more comfortable talking
>> about imaginary prejudice, than revealing the faults in your students'
>> experimental design....
>> ===
>It is YOU who first changed the topic by making the bigoted post in the
>first place.

Look up "smiley" in the dictionary. DUH!

It is also YOU who began a challenge to this gentleman and his
>student(s) only because there was an implication there was information or
>conclusions differing from yours that were possibly (again... keyword:
>possibly) going to be included in some published format. It is also YOU who
>began the character assasination with no indication to this person's
>character, education or background:
>JA: "In other words, no, Mr Vandeman: I gave you an extremely brief summary
>of his results, and you assume his methods were flawed.
>MV: "Sounds like I hit the nail on the head! Now you are too EMBARRASSED to
>tell us what they said and where they are trying to publish, for fear their
>incompetence will be exposed!"
>
>It is also YOU who abandoned a more recent topic "USGS Study on trail
>impact" because, it seems, you could not handle a direct statement towards
>your line of reasoning trying to discredit that report also:
>MV: "Because mountain bikers don't want their dishonesty/incompetence to be
>exposed."
>SC: "First of all, where does anything say this study was commissioned by or
>for "mountain bikers".?
>MV: "It's OBVIOUS. They are the ONLY people interested in justifying
>mountain biking. DUH!"
>DC: "This assessment was initiated in response to concerns by park staff and
>the public regarding the possible environmental impacts associated with BSF
>trail uses." Now - You show ANYWHERE in this paper that "mountain bikers"
>commissioned this study for the purpose you just stated. Either do so, or
>ADMIT your statement "It's OBVIOUS" is a direct reflection of your OPINION
>and a LIE attempting to discredit the findings AND the real and accredited
>researchers who authored the piece."
>--------------
>I'll tell you what is OBVIOUS! Your lack of desire to have REAL reseachers,
>with credit, title and acknowledgement from official agencies, show you up
>on science, fact, review and honesty of work.
>
>I say Thank You to Jules Augley for not compromising the principles of the
>process of publication or the validity of the student's work by sinking to
>MV standards and usurping the very foundations of integrity in research.
>
>
>
>
>
===
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]

On Tue, 30 May 2006 13:49:44 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 28 May 2006 11:11:59 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyway, it feels like bashing a head against a brick wall when arguing
>>>>>objectively with vandeman, cos he doesnt do it. Keep up the fight.
>>>>
>>>> When I asked you to produce some EVIDENCE, you stonewalled. What's
>>>> this about being "objective"?! You REFUSED to tell where your students
>>>> were trying to publish their junk science.
>>>> ===
>>>Can't you READ? He has already stated the paper is being considered and is
>>>not yet a "publishable manuscript". It is also his student's work so he
>>>likely has no access to it beyond the general findings which he has only
>>>eluded to (and you assumed to be derogatory to your POV in the first
>>>place).
>>>The paper is in consideration and therefore any discussion of who
>>>negotiations are actually with would be inappropriate. Beyond any of your
>>>silly accusations above, might I remind you Mr. Vandeman, we on this ng
>>>have
>>>been asking you for YEARS to produce peer-reviews of your writings (which
>>>you claim exist) and EVIDENCE that your statemnents are recognized by
>>>anyone
>>>else with authority or credit for comparison. We have been requesting a
>>>schedule of events so it may be possible to actually see you present, see
>>>the audience in attendance, see their reactions to your presentation,
>>>perhaps even ask some questions of detail on the presentation in front of
>>>these "peers" you reference, yet you stonewall and refuse.
>>>You have NO RIGHT to question this person on method, ethics or science.
>>
>> I'm doing them a FAVOR -- so they can correct their flawed methodology
>> BEFORE they embarrass themselves by trying to publish that ****.
>
>Too bad nobody attempted the same favor for you. At least in that case, it
>would have been justified.
>You pointing out a flaw in a paper you don't even have access to is a bit
>like my dog pointing out a flaw in Discovery's launch procedure. The only
>embarrassment is, obviously, yours.

Don't insult dogs. They are a lot smarter than you are. They have even
diagnosed cancer.
===
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]

On Tue, 30 May 2006 14:10:46 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 28 May 2006 11:37:57 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have. Start with http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7, which
>>>>>>>>>> refutes
>>>>>>>>>> the research you are doing before you have even done it, since you
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> falling into the same fallacy as all the other "researchers".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I have seen your website. I want to know what peer-reviewed work you
>>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>>>had published. Presentations at U.C. Berkeley dont count.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of my conference papers were peer-reviewed. What do you think a
>>>>>>>> conference is???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is NO proof of any comments or review of ANY of your opinions,
>>>>>>>statements or findings. If there is, post it or shut up. You have no
>>>>>>>credibility except what you assign yourself. You answered a "call for
>>>>>>>papers". Your response matched the parameters of the request. You
>>>>>>>received
>>>>>>>permission to present. You spoke for 15-20 minutes to an audience
>>>>>>>comprised
>>>>>>>mostly of other presenters. You have NEVER been sought after or
>>>>>>>invited
>>>>>>>as
>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>title speaker. Your name has never been attached as a keynote speaker
>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>published publicity information on any of these conferences. You
>>>>>>>essentially
>>>>>>>invite yourself by answering a "call for papers" then list it as a
>>>>>>>reference
>>>>>>>after the fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's nothing but LIES, since you weren't there and know NOTHING
>>>>>> about the conferences.
>>>>>I can't be too far off. I've seen enough similar gatherings to know how
>>>>>these types of things come together.
>>>>
>>>> So you admit FABRICATING information, as usual. No wonder no one
>>>> believes you.
>>>?? Again you try to paint me simply as a "liar" rather than attemt to
>>>dispute the statements on point.
>
>Nothing here...?
>>>>
>>>> A lot of patting each other on the back
>>>>>and name tags and suits that were in style 20 years ago. Convenient also
>>>>>that we are on seperate ends of the country that makes it next to
>>>>>impossible
>>>>>for me to attend - especially when you do not show a schedule of events.
>>>>
>>>> Why would you want to attend? You already have all of my papers & have
>>>> been unable to refute them, no matter how much time you have.
>>>Your memory is too short. (Google group search "vandeman" shows years of
>>>posts of myself and others picking apart your opinions on point and
>>>reference)
>Nothing here...?
>>>>
>>>>>>>You don't even provide an upcoming schedule.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should I? You've already read all of my papers. Your only possible
>>>>>> purpose is to threaten & intimidate -- something mountain bikers are
>>>>>> very fond of.
>>>>>I have no desire whatsoever to "threaten & intimidate". That is your
>>>>>fear
>>>>>and your convenient scapegoat at the same time. However, it would be
>>>>>interesting to question your findings, with correct references and
>>>>>context,
>>>>>in front of these "peers". It would be interesting to watch you resort
>>>>>to
>>>>>calling someone a "liar" or "moron" in front of everybody in attendance.
>>>>>It
>>>>>would be interesting to see how you explain away incredibly detailed
>>>>>research as "junk science" merely because it offers a conlusion
>>>>>different
>>>>>from your own. After all, what is a "question and answer" period for if
>>>>>not
>>>>>to clarify or support the statements made by the speaker?
>>>>
>>>> No one would listen to you, since you haven't read my paper nor the
>>>> ones I reviewed. And since you are only interested in rationalizing
>>>> mountain biking, you would be VERY out of place in any scientific
>>>> conference. They would see through you instantly. If you can't refute
>>>> me here, how could you do so in person?
>>>Apparently, your memory is so short you don't even remember the
>>>conversation
>>>you are in. You state here "since you haven't read my paper nor the ones I
>>>reviewed" yet just above you state "Why should I? You've already read all
>>>of
>>>my papers. Your only possible purpose is to threaten & intimidate --
>>>something mountain bikers are very fond of."
>>>And why would I be out of place at a "scientific" conference? Is not the
>>>purpose of science to gather and assimilate as much information as
>>>possible?
>>>Why, if you are going to claim a foundation of "science", would you have
>>>any
>>>concern as to whether I, or anybody else, was there? Either your science
>>>stands on its own and can handle the scrutiny or it doesn't. Or are you
>>>afraid that pointed questions on context and fact might allow your "peers"
>>>to see through you instantly?
>>
>> Right. All of those SCIENTISTS would be incapable of understanding my
>> paper, without YOU there to explain it to them! I have to hand it to
>> you. You are almost getting a sense of humor, even if unintended.
>
>There is no PROOF any scientist listened to, or agreed with, your
>"presentation".

It's all on my web site. Learn to read.

Your statement of it is MEANINGLESS. We have not a SINGLE
>post form any scientist (or anyone, for that matter) who has attended and
>commented. You have not presented any post-conference directives,
>conclusions, references or reviews from anyone. Are we merely supposed to
>accept your statement that scientists reviewed and peers accepted your
>conlusions...? Especially when you have a history, even in this very
>thread, of contradiction and misdirection?
>A sense of humor...? Hell, you're the one who should call Leno - You're
>closer!
>>
>>>>
>>><<<clipped>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. I can tell from your description that it ignores
>>>>>>>> certain
>>>>>>>> critical factors, e.g. distance travelled.
>>>>>>>"Distance travelled" is your variable and meaningless without a
>>>>>>>variable
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>time. A cyclist can cover more ground in 1 hour, meaning he is in and
>>>>>>>away
>>>>>>>from any one spot faster which also reduces his impact in that spot. A
>>>>>>>hiker
>>>>>>>is in any one spot for a longer amount of time, causing more
>>>>>>>disturbance
>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>his presence. After all, it is you that state our very presence is
>>>>>>>harmful.
>>>>>>>So "distance" is hardly a valid variable without the consideration of
>>>>>>>"time". Hikers are often in the woods for a longer amount of "time",
>>>>>>>rendering "distance" irrelevant, or at least simply another variable
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>considered but not, as you insist, as the only multiplier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BS. Squashed animals & plants are proportional to DISTANCE. Erosion is
>>>>>> proportional to DISTANCE.
>>>>>It is your opinion. The "squashed animals & plants" is anecdotal as any
>>>>>traverse could do it.
>>>>
>>>> Not on foot. Too slow to kill fast-moving animals.
>>>...and what of plants...? Selective again in your response. "Fast-moving"
>>>animals are likely not to get hit by bikes either and is a convenient
>>>claim
>>>for you to make. It sure sounds plausible, but is still anecdotal.
>>
>> As far as I know, no one has ever studied the animals squashed by
>> mountain bikers. I guess the bikers are afraid of what they'd find.
>> All we have is anecdotal evidence, which is better than nothing.
>
>You are the one who claims reals science. You are the one who claims
>mountain bikers' science is "junk". You are the one who is making the claims
>(as fact) it is happening. And now you are the one admitting "All we have is
>anecdotal evidence". So much for your historical whipsnake...
>>
>>>> Foot prints, tire tracks, hooves... And erosion is
>>>>>proportional to friction. Friction can be caused just as easily by feet
>>>>>as
>>>>>by tires. Rolling tire contact is fractional with time compared to the
>>>>>step
>>>>>of a walking person. A person's foot is in contact with the spot of
>>>>>earth
>>>>>much longer than any point of a rolling wheel. You can not disregard
>>>>>"time"
>>>>>as a variable any more than you can over-qualify the variable of
>>>>>"distance".
>>>>
>>>> A stationary foot doesn't create erosion.
>>>So how do you hike and stay stationary...? It is precisely this kind of
>>>logic that makes all your comments questionable. And again, you attempt to
>>>direct attention away from the application of the variable of "time" in
>>>regards to impact.
>
>Nothing...? Still waiting to hear how you can hike with stationary feet...
>>>>
>>>>>>>> (albeit
>>>>>>>>>with a lack of maturity in the writing that only years of practice
>>>>>>>>>can
>>>>>>>>>remedy) and I would certainly view his work as more scientifically
>>>>>>>>>objective
>>>>>>>>>and valid than any of the polemic you spew all over your webspace. I
>>>>>>>>>do
>>>>>>>>>admire your tenacity (or ability to stick your fingers in your ears
>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>shout 'lalalala'), however, you could definitely do with a change of
>>>>>>>>>focus
>>>>>>>>>and try to do something that would actually make a difference to the
>>>>>>>>>world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's funny how all mountain bikers want more than anything in the
>>>>>>>> world for me to shut up and stop telling the truth about their
>>>>>>>> selfish, destructive sport. NO WONDER! They haven't found any way to
>>>>>>>> rationally defend it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You haven't found a way to rationally defeat it. If you had, character
>>>>>>>assasination, name-calling, context removal and misdirection would not
>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>your standard for defending your statements. You don't tell "truth",
>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>spout OPINIONS which you present as truth. We only point it out for
>>>>>>>anyone
>>>>>>>looking for real information to see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LIES.
>>>>>
>>>>>OPINIONS.
>>>>>> ===
>
===
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]

On Tue, 30 May 2006 13:56:21 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:34:45 +1000, davebee
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Mike Vandeman Wrote:
>>>>
>>>> He's Canadian -- i.e., someone who can't decide whether to be British,
>>>> French, American, or Inuit. A sort of missing link. Not good enough to
>>>> be an American, but too damaged for England or France to take them
>>>> back -- kind of like an Australian (i.e., descended from criminals).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Edward Dolan Wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I swear to God that there is no asshole in the world like an English
>>>> asshole.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>> aka
>>>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>>
>>>
>>>Where are you two going to stop? Not only do you insist on cross
>>>posting, refute anything based on good science and promote your own bad
>>>science with the zealousness of international terror organisations, you
>>>also appear to be racist to the bone as well.
>>>
>>>As for your comments regarding English people, you might like to know
>>>that I am English and I find that comment quite offensive, as I do with
>>>your comments regarding Canadians and Australians. However I am fully
>>>aware that there are lots of good people in YOUR country, so I am not
>>>going to stoop to your level and tarnish everybody in your country with
>>>the same brush.
>>
>> Um, look up "smiley" in the dictionary. Idiot.
>>
>>>I strongly advise that you never come to England with your views, or if
>>>you do you keep them to yourself in a very quiet and subdued manner,
>>>otherwise it is highly likely that some "English Asshole" will take
>>>offfence to your comments and make it known to you in ways that even
>>>you could not possibly misunderstand. Of course, it is more than likely
>>>that you just sit at home typing away on your keyboard within the saftey
>>>of the internet. You clearly don't have the bollocks, the bottle or the
>>>support needed to win your "war" in the real world so you settle for
>>>the losers prize of trolling internet messageboards. Everyone else
>>>lives in the real world and merely laughs at you as a complete *****
>>>with no chance whatsoever of achieving anything other than getting on
>>>Wikipedia, and even they have axed you!
>>
>> Only because they put IMBA in charge of the mountain biking material,
>> and IMBA doesn't allow any negative information about mountain biking
>> to appear.
>
>I do not see "authored, compiled and approved by IMBA" anywhere on the WIKI
>topic of mountain biking.

Are you really THAT naive? They aren't going to ADVERTIZE it! "Yes, we
are biased". Right.

>Of course, I also do not see any positive or balanced information
>referencing mountain biking on your "website" either.
>
===
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

 

[SMS]

Jules Augley wrote:

> As for calling my bluff, once the project has been marked I can post
> substantial pieces of the report. But for now, he conducted and experiment
> in a regional park in Scotland. The experiment consisted of measuring
> impacts caused by both mountain bikers and walkers on vegetation, in two
> different habitat types (woodland and grassland) and on three different
> gradients (downhill, uphill and flat). Guess what, the results of his ANOVA
> showed NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between mountain biking and walking. There
> were some significant p values in the interaction terms, but some of them
> showed a greater impact of walking in different habitats and gradients, and
> others showed the opposite. So, I have some evidence and have given you a
> very brief summary. If the work is published I can provide a link, if not I
> will ask the authors (plural) permission to post excerpts here.

Not surprising. There have been numerous studies that have measured the
relative effects on plant life, animal life, and trail erosion by
different trail users (bicyclists, hikers, and equestrians). In every
case, the erosion caused by bicyclists and hikers has been comparable,
while equestrians cause the most erosion. Bicyclists actually have the
least impact on wildlife, though there is debate as to the reason, with
the belief being that since bicyclists tend to travel through an area
more quickly and more quietly, the wildlife is not disturbed as much.

It's interesting to note that Vandeman has _never_ posted any evidence
to contradict all the studies, so it's inconceivable that he's not aware
that his statements have no basis in fact.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 13:49:44 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm doing them a FAVOR -- so they can correct their flawed methodology
>>> BEFORE they embarrass themselves by trying to publish that ****.
>>
>>Too bad nobody attempted the same favor for you. At least in that case, it
>>would have been justified.
>>You pointing out a flaw in a paper you don't even have access to is a bit
>>like my dog pointing out a flaw in Discovery's launch procedure. The only
>>embarrassment is, obviously, yours.
>
> Don't insult dogs. They are a lot smarter than you are. They have even
> diagnosed cancer.
> ===
Perfect! Again the attempt at misdirection is obviously, classicly Vandeman.
If diagnosing cancer is your measure of intelligence, I am the smart one as
I have diagnosed you as a cancer on the cause of conservation and
cooperation between everyone to make it happen.