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

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
Psychic Mike - giving your OPINIONS on a paper and research that ISN'T EVEN
AVAILABLE YET!
>
> 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.
Your OPINIONS are NOT a filter for all information concerning cycling and /
or the outdoors.
>
>>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!
We're still waiting....
>
>>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!
Denial, Mikey... Before you can heal, you first have to acknowledge your
dillusions.

>
>>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 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!

You're still an idiot
>

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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 reference to your own writings is MEANINGLESS. Your claim of it is
MEANINGLESS! Names, places, dates, contact info...?
Your non-response to topics on point throughout this post speaks VOLUMES.
>
> 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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 13:56:21 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
Why would you split the comment and reply above instead of addressing the
entire context...? Probably because you would have to admit the same bias
you accuse IMBA of... and you make your accusation without any foundation
of truth. After all, it is only your OPINION that IMBA is involved in a
conspiracy with Wikipedia. Unless you want to present FACTS confirming your
accusation, then you must admit your statement "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." is nothing but
another VANDEMAN LIE.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 30 May 2006 21:26:03 -0400, "S Curtiss"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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!
>
>You're still an idiot

Coming from you, that's an honor.
===
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 21:12:03 -0400, "S Curtiss"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"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.

Congratulations! You have arrived at the "Did you say something?"
stage.
===
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 17:36:14 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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.

BS. The truth is at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
===
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

 

[cc]

ChainSmoker wrote:
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:22:55 -0400, ChainSmoker
>
>>
>> Correct. ALL mountain bikers lie, ESPECIALLY "researchers". It's
>> obvious from what this guy says that their "research" is fatally
>> flawed. The only reason that mountain bikers do research is to try to
>> justify what is unjustifiable: their selfish, destructive sport.
>> ===
>> 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
>
>
> Mikey's reply translated in to Vandlespin...
>
> Correct. Vandelman lies, ESPECIALLY Vandelman's "research" site. It's
> obvious from what Vandelmans says that his "research" is fatally
> flawed. The only reason that Vandelman does research is to try to
> justify what is unjustifiable: his selfish, destructive sport.

You made a mistake here. MV does not do research. He disparages others'.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:d5jeg.14940$B42.8239@dukeread05...
>>
>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:25:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:mGodg.14536$B42.2924@dukeread05...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on
>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your
>>>>>>> freaking
>>>>>>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>>>>>>> bikers polluting my scared trails. That is what you have to wrap
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold
>>>>>> mine
>>>>>> of intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goodbye
>>>>>>
>>>>> FYI - I and others have been pointing out vandeman's lack of substance
>>>>> for
>>>>> many years (google group search "vandeman")
>>>>> The only thing that has changed with his statements, opinions,
>>>>> postings
>>>>> and claim of information is the date on the calander. He has answered
>>>>> several "calls for papers" from various conferences and symposiums and
>>>>> has
>>>>> been allowed to present his paper(s) because they fall within the
>>>>> guidelines of the topics of the conference. He has not been "invited"
>>>>> as a
>>>>> keynote speaker. He has not been listed in the publicity information
>>>>> as an
>>>>> invited and featured speaker or expert. He then uses these 15 minute
>>>>> speaches to an audience likely made up of other presenters as some
>>>>> reference of authority.
>>>>> You might even find some interesting references, ideas and links to
>>>>> information by checking the Google group search "vandeman" and all
>>>>> that
>>>>> has been posted to challenge his opinion or refute his statements.
>>>>> Good luck with your efforts. It seams there are still teachers
>>>>> involved
>>>>> with and concerned for their students' progress.
>>>>
>>>>I dont mean to step on anyones toes re: pointing out vandemans lack of
>>>>credibility. I do know a lot of people have been taking the time to do
>>>>this
>>>>for a while. I guess he will never actually be what he purports to be, I
>>>>foolishly thought he was objective, my mistake, you cant argue
>>>>objectively
>>>>with him,
>>>
>>> Very funny. When did you EVER try to do that?!
>>>
>>
>> seems obvious to everyone else reading this, except Vandeman and his
>> "logic blinders"
>>> in fact you cant argue at all when, as you point out, he mistakes
>>>>his opinion for evidence.... Hes bizarre creature, sadly he also has the
>>>>potential to do a lot of harm. Im only glad hes confined himself to a
>>>>small
>>>>part of california (I am in the UK) and the probability of me ever
>>>>seeing
>>>>him in real life is close to zero. Actually, he could form a good case
>>>>study
>>>>for students . It would highlight exactly how to be completely
>>>>unobjective
>>>>and pass it off as truth or fact. I remember a teacher of mine, a few
>>>>years
>>>>ago, used a website of another vandeman-like person to highlight some
>>>>pseudoscience (i.e. not peer-reviewed). The website was about how we
>>>>humans
>>>>should voluntarily go extinct by refusing to have children, his name
>>>>was,
>>>>amusingly, Les U Knight.
>>>>
>>>>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.
>> You are insulting the entire scientific process by doing so.
>
> I will restate this again, in the hope that MV will realise why I cant
> post the report (or maybe he just doesnt read things?). The report HAS NOT
> BEEN MARKED, therefore it would be illegal, not to mention completely
> inappropriate to post any of the actual report he has written until AFTER
> the student has received his grades. Please read that until it sinks in
> MV.
>
> As for my objectivity, you are hardly an expert on that topic so no one
> can take your comment seriously there. I originally posted a reply in this
> thread, as it was cross-posted to sci.environment. That three letter
> abbreviation stands for Science. Science, as I have been taught by ALL of
> my teachers, professors and peers, depends on an acknowledgment that
> objectivity is the ideal and is to be strived for. There are thousands of
> reports, papers and other published works with scientists openly
> criticising their own work and pointing out where that ideal may be
> compromised. That is what HONEST scientists do. They do not start with an
> opinion and then denounce work that may not agree with that opinion, that,
> MV is called SUBJECTIVITY. Popperian scientific method, which I may add is
> influenced by David Humes', who has a memorial in our hometown (thats Hume
> and me, big hint there Dolan and MV) philosphy, depends on striving for
> objectivity. If you claim to be an expert in the scientific method, then
> pass off your opinions with no objective or empirical basis as scientific
> evidence, then you are a scientific fraud. You could do everyone a huge
> favour and read up on Poppers, his influences and the people he
> influenceds' work, maybe then you can approach your topic more
> scientifically.

Has it ever occurred to Jules Augley that science and the scientific method
is vastly overrated. And there is nothing more overrated on the face of the
earth than the scientists themselves. But like all his breed, he buries his
head in meaningless research and hides behind his degrees. My contempt for
such types runneth over! Any old mediocre politician could make mince meat
out of him in a thrice!

Regards,

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

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 23:00:52 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> >
>>>>>> 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 I
>>>>> can see on your website is a very short list of mostly books, although
>>>>> some primary literature with specific relevance to mountain bikes,
>>>>> none
>>>>> of which is yours by the way, that you say support your bizarre
>>>>> 'peeve'.
>>>>> I see no mention of any actual research you have done, no data,
>>>>> nothing.
>>>>> You claim to be an expert, well I want to see some objective evidence.
>>>>> You could make sections of your phd and masters theses available for
>>>>> scrutiny? How about that?. I should also point out, again, it was a
>>>>> student of mine that did the research, and no this isnt me disowning
>>>>> it,
>>>>> its a good piece of work (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.
>>>>
>>>> Jules, I am the real expert on this matter of hiking vs. biking on
>>>> trails. To my credit, I have not polluted my mind with any research.
>>>> Yea,
>>>> I am as pure as the driven snow.
>>>>
>>>> My credentials are that I hiked for 10 years almost every day for 8
>>>> months of the year all over the US. I did this when I was in my 30's
>>>> during the late 60's and early 70's. During that time I never
>>>> encountered
>>>> a single bike on any of my sacred trails. I mean, it does not get any
>>>> better than that!
>>>>
>>>> In more recent years I have encountered some bikes on my sacred trails.
>>>> They do not belong on my sacred trails. Who gives a good g.d. if they
>>>> cause any trail destruction or not. I do not want them on my sacred
>>>> trails. Let them get their own g.d. trails.
>>>>
>>>> Like all scholars, you are blind to the real issues. You do not need
>>>> any
>>>> higher degrees to know what is appropriate and what is not. All you
>>>> need
>>>> is some common sense. I suggest you get out of your freaking ivory
>>>> tower
>>>> and go do some hiking in the wilderness and then tell us if you would
>>>> like bikers along side of you.
>>>>
>>>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on my
>>>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your freaking
>>>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>>>> bikers polluting my sacred trails. That is what you have to wrap your
>>>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>>>
>>> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold mine
>>> of
>>> intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>>>
>>> Goodbye
>>
>>And good riddance to you too! I have hardly ever encountered any so-called
>>scientist who was not a coward. That is why they make such poor
>>politicians.
>>They bury themselves in 'research' and then try to make themselves
>>relevant,
>>but somehow they never do. What they do mainly is hide behind their
>>freaking
>>degrees and pretend to be experts. Quite pitiful really ...
>
> AMEN. There are of course respectable scientists, but they mostly
> don't concern themselves with obvious problems like mountain biking,
> but with things that are much more difficult to understand.
>
> On the other hand, WHY mountain bikers don't "get it", now THERE'S a
> good research question. What goes wrong in their brains (or
> elsewhere?) that makes them think that the wholesale destruction of
> the natural world is a good hobby? Any thoughts, Dr. Dolan?

It all comes down to our human nature, which is why I am a permanent state
of despair about most things under the sun. By the time I was 21 I realized
there was nothing be done about anything. We humans will go on our self
destructive way until we are destroyed by something greater than ourselves.
I am betting on a virus or some type of microbe to do us in. One thing is
for sure, humanity will go out with a whimper, not a bang.

Regards,

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

 

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Hvkeg.14948$B42.3279@dukeread05...
>
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 26 May 2006 23:00:52 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> 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 I
>>>>>> can see on your website is a very short list of mostly books,
>>>>>> although
>>>>>> some primary literature with specific relevance to mountain bikes,
>>>>>> none
>>>>>> of which is yours by the way, that you say support your bizarre
>>>>>> 'peeve'.
>>>>>> I see no mention of any actual research you have done, no data,
>>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>> You claim to be an expert, well I want to see some objective
>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>> You could make sections of your phd and masters theses available for
>>>>>> scrutiny? How about that?. I should also point out, again, it was a
>>>>>> student of mine that did the research, and no this isnt me disowning
>>>>>> it,
>>>>>> its a good piece of work (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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jules, I am the real expert on this matter of hiking vs. biking on
>>>>> trails. To my credit, I have not polluted my mind with any research.
>>>>> Yea,
>>>>> I am as pure as the driven snow.
>>>>>
>>>>> My credentials are that I hiked for 10 years almost every day for 8
>>>>> months of the year all over the US. I did this when I was in my 30's
>>>>> during the late 60's and early 70's. During that time I never
>>>>> encountered
>>>>> a single bike on any of my sacred trails. I mean, it does not get any
>>>>> better than that!
>>>>>
>>>>> In more recent years I have encountered some bikes on my sacred
>>>>> trails.
>>>>> They do not belong on my sacred trails. Who gives a good g.d. if they
>>>>> cause any trail destruction or not. I do not want them on my sacred
>>>>> trails. Let them get their own g.d. trails.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like all scholars, you are blind to the real issues. You do not need
>>>>> any
>>>>> higher degrees to know what is appropriate and what is not. All you
>>>>> need
>>>>> is some common sense. I suggest you get out of your freaking ivory
>>>>> tower
>>>>> and go do some hiking in the wilderness and then tell us if you would
>>>>> like bikers along side of you.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on
>>>>> my
>>>>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your
>>>>> freaking
>>>>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>>>>> bikers polluting my sacred trails. That is what you have to wrap your
>>>>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold mine
>>>> of
>>>> intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>>>>
>>>> Goodbye
>>>
>>>And good riddance to you too! I have hardly ever encountered any
>>>so-called
>>>scientist who was not a coward. That is why they make such poor
>>>politicians.
>>>They bury themselves in 'research' and then try to make themselves
>>>relevant,
>>>but somehow they never do. What they do mainly is hide behind their
>>>freaking
>>>degrees and pretend to be experts. Quite pitiful really ...
>>
>> AMEN. There are of course respectable scientists, but they mostly
>> don't concern themselves with obvious problems like mountain biking,
>> but with things that are much more difficult to understand.
>>
>> On the other hand, WHY mountain bikers don't "get it", now THERE'S a
>> good research question. What goes wrong in their brains (or
>> elsewhere?) that makes them think that the wholesale destruction of
>> the natural world is a good hobby? Any thoughts, Dr. Dolan?
>
> You mean as in the TOTAL destruction of natural land for a mall, apartment
> or factory while a "cartoon scientist" like you whine "I tawt I taw a
> bicycle"...
> Your OPINION that a bicycle on a trail is causing the "wholesale
> destruction of the natural world" while miles upon miles of new roads are
> being built and acres upon acres of trees are coming down for sprawl and
> malls is why you are a laughing stock on every level.

Still, the world would be better off without any mountain bikes and the
kind of slobs who ride them. After all, there are plenty of roads for
bicycles to be on.

I notice the local yokels around here want to walk in the streets now even
though we have perfectly good sidewalks for them. Go figure?

Regards,

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

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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.

All this started because I called Jules Augley an English asshole! Mighty
oaks from little acorns grow!

Ah ... at long last Curtiss and Augley are moving into Dolan territory. Yes,
Vandeman is a near genius when it comes to expressing a stereotype, but he
can't hold a candle to me on that sort of thing. So let me advise one and
all that the English were never anything but oppressors of the Irish people
and hence never Great at all, but rather reprehensible in all their
essential national characteristics. Only a Margaret Thatcher or a Tony Blair
saves them from utter perdition.

Canadians have been permanent idiots thoughout their national existence.
Come on now, confess, have you ever known any Canadian who was not any
absolute idiot, besides being a scoundrel of course. The French are the
absolute pits, whether they are in Canada or in France. Europeans have
become nothing but traitors to Western Civilization and have been living off
the US all of my life. My God, anyone who would look to Europe for anything
other than their pre-20th century culture is beyond the pale. Just how
stupid can you get!

>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>

Vandeman's only mistake was adding a smiley. Why the hell add a smiley when
what you are saying reeks of nothing but the truth. It is high time we
Americans became as truly ugly as the rest of the world imagines us to be. I
say go everywhere and kick ass everywhere, especially European ass. But I
want to kick ass in the Middle East too. Hells Bells, like I said, let us
kick ass everywhere in the world. All that matters in the end is that we be
feared - and hence respected. Trying to be friends with knavish nations and
peoples is a fool's errand - something that only brain dead liberal left
wing ding bats think is worthwhile. I urge everyone to reread their
Machiavelli.

Curtiss and Augley, please oh please name-call me a bigot and a racist. That
will confirm everything I already know about you two bozos. But I just love
hypocrites like the two of you. Hells Bells, I have never known anyone in my
entire life who was not a racist and a bigot. Blacks are the biggest ones of
all - which is understandable. We would be too if we were Whites living in a
Black country like Uganda. But there is never anything quite like liberal
hypocrisy on the race issue.

Let's see, who else can I insult before I sign off? How about the Chinese
and the Indians. They have so overdeveloped their nations that they have
nothing left but surplus people. Now that we have opened our borders to the
Mexicans, maybe we could be brilliant enough to open our borders to the
teeming Chinese and Indians. They could come here in their billions and add
to our glory as a nation. The liberal Democrats would no doubt like that -
more voters for them don't you know?

Regards,

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

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

This can't be right! I am the garbage man and I will have no other garbage
men before me. I have been taking out the garbage here on ARBR for the past
3 years - and believe you me, I know garbage when I see it! I am the expert
on garbage as many others will attest.

Jason, all you ever have to do is to run something past me and I will let
you know whether it is garbage or not. Do not trust any others on this
subject because if you get a wrong opinion it could lead to your early
demise. Garbage is nothing to fool around with. When you want the best
opinion on garbage, just call on Ed Dolan the Great. He really knows
garbage!

Regards,

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

 

[Edward Dolan]

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

Well, I will stop calling you an English asshole if and when you stop being
one. But how likely is that since you are English to the bone.

Don't you just love it when an English asshole hypocrite calls you a racist.
I sure do because it confirms every bad thought I have ever had in my life
about English assholes like freaking Davebee. Here is a twit who likes to
call names but wants to remain anonymous - of course!

Hey Davebee, it is not so bad to be an English asshole, but it is really
inexcusable not be a racist. But of course you are, you are just a hypocrite
about the matter like all your tribe. Those who bring up matters of race and
bigotry are always heavily into it themselves. Liberals are the biggest
racists that ever were because the subject is always on their minuscule
minds. They just love to charge others with being racists when all they
would ever have to do to find one is to look in the mirror.

>>>>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 am NOT aware that there are any good people in England, Canada or
Australia. What I AM aware of is that there are lots and lots of assholes
in all those countries. Am I missing something?

>>> 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.

No, when I am in England I only associate with the upper crust. The
commoners are horrible. You can't even understand what they are babbling
about. Why can't the English learn how to speak English? Then they could
maybe understand what the word asshole means and thus come to know what they
are.

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!

Wikipedia is for idiots who do not mind lots and lots of false information.
But that sure describes you, doesn't it.
[...]

Regards,

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

 

[Chris Foster]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news[email protected]:

> On Tue, 30 May 2006 17:36:14 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> BS. The truth is at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

BS Your OPINION is at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

> ===
> 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
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Chris Foster]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Tue, 30 May 2006 21:12:03 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"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.
>
> Congratulations! You have arrived at the "Did you say something?"
> stage.

Congratulations! You have achieved Full Idiot status.

You make claims without any proof what so ever. You post your OPINIONS
on your web site as fact, the OPINIONS are NOT peer reviewed.


> ===
> 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
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Chris Foster]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:d5jeg.14940$B42.8239@dukeread05...
>>>
>>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:25:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:mGodg.14536$B42.2924@dukeread05...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like
>>>>>>>> bikes on my
>>>>>>>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your
>>>>>>>> freaking
>>>>>>>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not
>>>>>>>> like bikers polluting my scared trails. That is what you have
>>>>>>>> to wrap your
>>>>>>>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a
>>>>>>> gold mine
>>>>>>> of intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Goodbye
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI - I and others have been pointing out vandeman's lack of
>>>>>> substance for
>>>>>> many years (google group search "vandeman")
>>>>>> The only thing that has changed with his statements, opinions,
>>>>>> postings
>>>>>> and claim of information is the date on the calander. He has
>>>>>> answered several "calls for papers" from various conferences and
>>>>>> symposiums and has
>>>>>> been allowed to present his paper(s) because they fall within the
>>>>>> guidelines of the topics of the conference. He has not been
>>>>>> "invited" as a
>>>>>> keynote speaker. He has not been listed in the publicity
>>>>>> information as an
>>>>>> invited and featured speaker or expert. He then uses these 15
>>>>>> minute speaches to an audience likely made up of other presenters
>>>>>> as some reference of authority.
>>>>>> You might even find some interesting references, ideas and links
>>>>>> to information by checking the Google group search "vandeman" and
>>>>>> all that
>>>>>> has been posted to challenge his opinion or refute his
>>>>>> statements. Good luck with your efforts. It seams there are still
>>>>>> teachers involved
>>>>>> with and concerned for their students' progress.
>>>>>
>>>>>I dont mean to step on anyones toes re: pointing out vandemans lack
>>>>>of credibility. I do know a lot of people have been taking the time
>>>>>to do this
>>>>>for a while. I guess he will never actually be what he purports to
>>>>>be, I foolishly thought he was objective, my mistake, you cant
>>>>>argue objectively
>>>>>with him,
>>>>
>>>> Very funny. When did you EVER try to do that?!
>>>>
>>>
>>> seems obvious to everyone else reading this, except Vandeman and his
>>> "logic blinders"
>>>> in fact you cant argue at all when, as you point out, he mistakes
>>>>>his opinion for evidence.... Hes bizarre creature, sadly he also
>>>>>has the potential to do a lot of harm. Im only glad hes confined
>>>>>himself to a small
>>>>>part of california (I am in the UK) and the probability of me ever
>>>>>seeing
>>>>>him in real life is close to zero. Actually, he could form a good
>>>>>case study
>>>>>for students . It would highlight exactly how to be completely
>>>>>unobjective
>>>>>and pass it off as truth or fact. I remember a teacher of mine, a
>>>>>few years
>>>>>ago, used a website of another vandeman-like person to highlight
>>>>>some pseudoscience (i.e. not peer-reviewed). The website was about
>>>>>how we humans
>>>>>should voluntarily go extinct by refusing to have children, his
>>>>>name was,
>>>>>amusingly, Les U Knight.
>>>>>
>>>>>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. You are insulting the entire scientific process by doing
>>> so.
>>
>> I will restate this again, in the hope that MV will realise why I
>> cant post the report (or maybe he just doesnt read things?). The
>> report HAS NOT BEEN MARKED, therefore it would be illegal, not to
>> mention completely inappropriate to post any of the actual report he
>> has written until AFTER the student has received his grades. Please
>> read that until it sinks in MV.
>>
>> As for my objectivity, you are hardly an expert on that topic so no
>> one can take your comment seriously there. I originally posted a
>> reply in this thread, as it was cross-posted to sci.environment. That
>> three letter abbreviation stands for Science. Science, as I have been
>> taught by ALL of my teachers, professors and peers, depends on an
>> acknowledgment that objectivity is the ideal and is to be strived
>> for. There are thousands of reports, papers and other published works
>> with scientists openly criticising their own work and pointing out
>> where that ideal may be compromised. That is what HONEST scientists
>> do. They do not start with an opinion and then denounce work that may
>> not agree with that opinion, that, MV is called SUBJECTIVITY.
>> Popperian scientific method, which I may add is influenced by David
>> Humes', who has a memorial in our hometown (thats Hume and me, big
>> hint there Dolan and MV) philosphy, depends on striving for
>> objectivity. If you claim to be an expert in the scientific method,
>> then pass off your opinions with no objective or empirical basis as
>> scientific evidence, then you are a scientific fraud. You could do
>> everyone a huge favour and read up on Poppers, his influences and the
>> people he influenceds' work, maybe then you can approach your topic
>> more scientifically.
>
> Has it ever occurred to Jules Augley that science and the scientific
> method is vastly overrated. And there is nothing more overrated on the
> face of the earth than the scientists themselves. But like all his
> breed, he buries his head in meaningless research and hides behind his
> degrees. My contempt for such types runneth over! Any old mediocre
> politician could make mince meat out of him in a thrice!
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>


Ed,
Lok around you, almost everything that you see that is man made was a
product of a scientist. The computer you are actually harrasing him on
is a producy of a scientist.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> You mean as in the TOTAL destruction of natural land for a mall,
>> apartment or factory while a "cartoon scientist" like you whine "I tawt I
>> taw a bicycle"...
>> Your OPINION that a bicycle on a trail is causing the "wholesale
>> destruction of the natural world" while miles upon miles of new roads are
>> being built and acres upon acres of trees are coming down for sprawl and
>> malls is why you are a laughing stock on every level.
>
> Still, the world would be better off without any mountain bikes and the
> kind of slobs who ride them. After all, there are plenty of roads for
> bicycles to be on.
>
> I notice the local yokels around here want to walk in the streets now even
> though we have perfectly good sidewalks for them. Go figure?

You could join them. After all there are plenty of sidewalks for you to be
on. Now that "yokels" are walking in the streets, you should have the
"sacred sidewalks" all to yourself.
>

 

[S Curtiss]

No need to. Either you really believe the borders of a country dictate
intelligence or (and more likely) you are merely engaging in word games for
the sake of enjoyment or challenge - Like a chess game to see if the
opponent will take the fast bait or stick to strategy. You've by far
explained your motives of usenet so anything you say can be taken with a
grain of salt.

TOP POSTERS are KINGS of the WORLD!

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Curtiss and Augley, please oh please name-call me a bigot and a racist.
> That will confirm everything I already know about you two bozos. But I
> just love hypocrites like the two of you. Hells Bells, I have never known
> anyone in my entire life who was not a racist and a bigot. Blacks are the
> biggest ones of all - which is understandable. We would be too if we were
> Whites living in a Black country like Uganda. But there is never anything
> quite like liberal hypocrisy on the race issue.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 17:36:14 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> BS. The truth is at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

You can not validate your OPINIONS by referencing yourself. Idiot
> ===