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

[Mike Vandeman]

On 01 Jun 2006 14:01:36 GMT, Chris Foster
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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on your web site as fact, the OPINIONS are NOT peer reviewed.

"Pearls before swine" is the phrase that naturally comes to mind....
===
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 01 Jun 2006 13:57:34 GMT, Chris Foster
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Being the world expert on mountain biking impacts, my opinion and the
truth are one and the same.
===
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 Wed, 31 May 2006 14:36:54 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:

>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'.

Only when it deserves it.
===
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 01 Jun 2006 15:50:54 GMT, Chris Foster
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"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.

Do you have a point? So was the atomic bomb, but that doesn't make it
a good thing.
===
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

 

[Jason]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> Being the world expert on mountain biking impacts, my opinion and the
> truth are one and the same.


Oh my god mikey. That has to be the funniest thing I've read in a long
time on USENET. The ego, it's incredible. As usual totally false but wow
what an ego.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 01:32:45 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"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.

Your posts deserve a place of honor in the Smithsonian. Maybe I'll
work on that next....

>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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 Thu, 1 Jun 2006 02:37:32 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"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

You have really hit your stride! I think that this is my all-time
favorite post (except for mine, of course)! (smiley = fun)
===
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 Thu, 1 Jun 2006 05:19:30 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"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!

I take back what I said about your last post. THIS one is now my
favorite! OH, so many to choose from.

>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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

 

[Jules Augley]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
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!
>

Im glad I irritate you so much. As for you being a genius librarian, let me
address your first 'point'. Yes it has occured to me that maybe we should be
questioning scientific method, but guess what...that type of thinking is the
essence of science...Hooray! And yes I have read Kuhn and Feyeraband. Please
feel free to get as wound up as possible.

Love Jules
xxxx

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:51:04 GMT, Jason
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
> > Being the world expert on mountain biking impacts, my opinion and the
>> truth are one and the same.
>
>
>Oh my god mikey. That has to be the funniest thing I've read in a long
>time on USENET. The ego, it's incredible. As usual totally false but wow
>what an ego.

No ego, just the truth -- something moiuuntain bikers aren't used to
-- either hearing or stating.
===
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

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:

[newsgroups restored]

[...]
>> 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!
>
> 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.

One of the very few scared cows left on earth is that of science and the
scientific method. But finally most science just reduces to a technology
which everyone takes for granted. There was technology in the Middle Ages
too but they did not worship those who invented it.

The thing about science is the inevitability of it. It would not matter in
the least if any great scientist had ever lived or not. The state of our
scientific knowledge would be the same regardless. That is the difference
between science and art. If Beethoven had never lived, we would not have his
very unique music. If Einstein had never lived, it would not have made any
difference at all. Someone else would have made the same discoveries sooner
or later.

By the way, I do not harass anyone. I merely express rather forcefully some
views I have about certain individuals as they expose themselves to my Great
intellect. But I would rather discuss ideas than attack individuals. But
said individuals never give me that kind of opportunity because they are
always and forever into nothing but name calling. Well, I am very good at
that myself and I do see any reason why Usenet should be given over to
idiots, morons and imbeciles just because there are so many of them. Yea,
there can only be one Ed Dolan the Great, but I make up for it by being
singularly offensive when the occasion calls for it.

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]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
[...]
>> 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!
>>
>
> Im glad I irritate you so much. As for you being a genius librarian, let
> me address your first 'point'. Yes it has occured to me that maybe we
> should be questioning scientific method, but guess what...that type of
> thinking is the essence of science...Hooray! And yes I have read Kuhn and
> Feyeraband. Please feel free to get as wound up as possible.

My genius is not that of a librarian, but rather that of a man of the
liberal arts. I am your ultimate dilettante. I abhor all professionalism and
I love all amateurism. I know as much as I care to know about the scientific
method. After all, it is not rocket science.

The sciences properly understood are as much a part of the liberal arts as
is art or music or literature. In fact, my college that graduated from at
the University of Minnesota was formerly designated the College of Science,
Literature and the Arts (SLA). They had that exactly right, but I think they
have since changed it to something else.

What I don't like are scientists who pretend to a holier than thou attitude
due to their training. They are always putting down everyone else who did
not do the drudgery that goes with most scientific disciplines. Intellect is
intellect and there is nothing special about the scientific intellect. It
finally just reduces to a method of inquiry, but there are many other
methods of inquiry which are just as valid if not more so. You parade your
scientific credentials before me at your peril. I will respect them but I am
not in awe of them.

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:GXEfg.15542$B42.13761@dukeread05...
>
> "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.

It is a point of pride and honor for someone so august as Myself never to be
seen walking in the street. That is for trash people, not for Great Souls.
In fact, I would not be caught dead walking in the street. However, you are
quite right about me having the sidewalks all to myself. I often go for 2
hour walks around town in the middle of the day and never encounter anyone
on the sidewalks.

However, I am thinking about walking on the water of the local lake. I think
my Saintliness is almost up to the mark so that I can do this. Others have
started to notice a slight halo about my head lately. I have always known
that I am a Great Saint. I took the vows of poverty and chastity from my
early youth, but I was the pits on the vow of obedience. I am like the Devil
that way. I will NOT obey!

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:A1Ffg.15543$B42.1026@dukeread05...

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

> 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.

I am FOR America and if that means kicking some ass around the world, then I
am all for it. Thank God we have a professional military now and we do not
need to depend on the average American slob to defend the nation. America -
the Land of the Free BECAUSE of the Brave!

By the way, everyone in the world hates Americans (because of our
prosperity) and there is nothing to be done about it other than to make damn
sure they respect and fear us. Even the Soviets, as dumb as they were, had
that much figured out.

Regards,

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

PS. Anyone who takes Usenet seriously is a fool. Try to have some fun. That
is the only reason for the existence of Usenet.





> 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.
>
>

 

[Jules Augley]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
> [...]
>>> 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!
>>>
>>
>> Im glad I irritate you so much. As for you being a genius librarian, let
>> me address your first 'point'. Yes it has occured to me that maybe we
>> should be questioning scientific method, but guess what...that type of
>> thinking is the essence of science...Hooray! And yes I have read Kuhn and
>> Feyeraband. Please feel free to get as wound up as possible.
>
> My genius is not that of a librarian, but rather that of a man of the
> liberal arts. I am your ultimate dilettante. I abhor all professionalism
> and I love all amateurism. I know as much as I care to know about the
> scientific method. After all, it is not rocket science.
>
> The sciences properly understood are as much a part of the liberal arts as
> is art or music or literature. In fact, my college that graduated from at
> the University of Minnesota was formerly designated the College of
> Science, Literature and the Arts (SLA). They had that exactly right, but I
> think they have since changed it to something else.
>
> What I don't like are scientists who pretend to a holier than thou
> attitude due to their training. They are always putting down everyone else
> who did not do the drudgery that goes with most scientific disciplines.
> Intellect is intellect and there is nothing special about the scientific
> intellect. It finally just reduces to a method of inquiry, but there are
> many other methods of inquiry which are just as valid if not more so. You
> parade your scientific credentials before me at your peril. I will respect
> them but I am not in awe of them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>

You are right about science and the arts, in fact Einstein said as much:
'All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.' and 'The
most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source
of all true art and science.'




And where did I ever have a holier than thou attitude? I have never said
science is the pinnacle of intellectual achievement and I know, better than
you I suspect, that the scientific method IS just a method of inquiry. The
reason it has such popularity is because its so simple to understand and yet
is also a powerful tool. Why not try reading Intellectual Impostures by
Sokal and Bricmont. They exposed scientific and intellectual frauds at the
highest level.



No2: I have never expected ANYONE to be in awe of my work or degrees and I

have met very few (a tiny fraction) people in the same field with multiple
degrees and years of experience who have shown that type of arrogance. as
much as it pains me to say it I think I have the same opinion as you do on
that topic. Einstein again: 'Everyone should be respected as an individual,
but no one idolized' On this point, please dont flatter yourself that you
think I should feel the need to impress you, who, after all, are represented
to the (small) world of these Usenet groups as some words on a screen. Feel
free to clean up the punctuation and grammar, as I have noticed, is your
wont.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"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]...
>>>
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>> [...]
>>>> 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!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Im glad I irritate you so much. As for you being a genius librarian, let
>>> me address your first 'point'. Yes it has occured to me that maybe we
>>> should be questioning scientific method, but guess what...that type of
>>> thinking is the essence of science...Hooray! And yes I have read Kuhn
>>> and Feyeraband. Please feel free to get as wound up as possible.
>>
>> My genius is not that of a librarian, but rather that of a man of the
>> liberal arts. I am your ultimate dilettante. I abhor all professionalism
>> and I love all amateurism. I know as much as I care to know about the
>> scientific method. After all, it is not rocket science.
>>
>> The sciences properly understood are as much a part of the liberal arts
>> as is art or music or literature. In fact, my college that I graduated
>> from at the University of Minnesota was formerly designated the College
>> of Science, Literature and the Arts (SLA). They had that exactly right,
>> but I think they have since changed it to something else.
>>
>> What I don't like are scientists who pretend to a holier than thou
>> attitude due to their training. They are always putting down everyone
>> else who did not do the drudgery that goes with most scientific
>> disciplines. Intellect is intellect and there is nothing special about
>> the scientific intellect. It finally just reduces to a method of inquiry,
>> but there are many other methods of inquiry which are just as valid if
>> not more so. You parade your scientific credentials before me at your
>> peril. I will respect them but I am not in awe of them.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
>
> You are right about science and the arts, in fact Einstein said as much:
> 'All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.' and 'The
> most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source
> of all true art and science.'
>
>
>
>
> And where did I ever have a holier than thou attitude? I have never said
> science is the pinnacle of intellectual achievement and I know, better
> than you I suspect, that the scientific method IS just a method of
> inquiry. The reason it has such popularity is because its so simple to
> understand and yet is also a powerful tool. Why not try reading
> Intellectual Impostures by Sokal and Bricmont. They exposed scientific and
> intellectual frauds at the highest level.

I am past the age of ever reading anything again to improve my mind. I did
that all of my life and now I will go with what I have got. Damn the
torpedoes - full speed ahead!

> No2: I have never expected ANYONE to be in awe of my work or degrees and I
>
> have met very few (a tiny fraction) people in the same field with multiple
> degrees and years of experience who have shown that type of arrogance. as
> much as it pains me to say it I think I have the same opinion as you do on
> that topic. Einstein again: 'Everyone should be respected as an
> individual, but no one idolized' On this point, please dont flatter
> yourself that you think I should feel the need to impress you, who, after
> all, are represented to the (small) world of these Usenet groups as some
> words on a screen. Feel free to clean up the punctuation and grammar, as I
> have noticed, is your wont.

Damn! How the hell can I fight with someone who is being reasonable! Well
then, I will put on my diplomatic hat and become reasonable myself. Two can
play at that game.

Science and the scientific method is actually a miracle of human invention.
The Romans and the Greeks really had no science to speak of at all. The
ancient world relied on human slavery to get any work done. The Middle Ages
had a high technology, but that too was not science. Science came in with
the Renaissance and mankind has never looked back. It is what gave Western
Civilization an insurmountable advantage when confronting other
civilizations and it is why today the West has become the dominant culture
of the world (although the Muslims would like to dispute this matter with
us). There is no greater defender of science and of the West than myself.

However, I cannot do science. It is nothing but pure drudgery. The everyday
work of science is for, well, workers, but in the end a mighty edifice is
built which is the wonder of the world. I am only interested in this final
edifice. I leave the work of science to others in the same way I leave the
composition of music to Beethoven and his peers.

Almost all scientists are in fact quite humble about their knowledge. They
know that their Ph.D degree is only an admission to begin work. The most
arrogant bastards who have ever lived have been artists, but they are mostly
nuts anyway. Richard Wagner, for instance, was a genius, but an insufferable
one.

Regards,

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

PS. I will only attack others on their grammar if and when they **** me off
by being unreasonable. You have never done that and besides you write just
fine.

 

[jason]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:51:04 GMT, Jason
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> > Being the world expert on mountain biking impacts, my opinion and the
>>
>>>truth are one and the same.
>>
>>
>>Oh my god mikey. That has to be the funniest thing I've read in a long
>>time on USENET. The ego, it's incredible. As usual totally false but wow
>>what an ego.
>
>
> No ego, just the truth -- something moiuuntain bikers aren't used to
> -- either hearing or stating.

Wrong again mikey we all like the truth, both telling it and
hearing/reading it. I wish we saw it more here in a.m-b.

The problem is you and that other crack pot eddie wouldn't know the
truth if it walked up behind you and kicked you in the ****.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 07:31:39 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]...
>>>
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>> [...]
>>>> 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!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Im glad I irritate you so much. As for you being a genius librarian, let
>>> me address your first 'point'. Yes it has occured to me that maybe we
>>> should be questioning scientific method, but guess what...that type of
>>> thinking is the essence of science...Hooray! And yes I have read Kuhn and
>>> Feyeraband. Please feel free to get as wound up as possible.
>>
>> My genius is not that of a librarian, but rather that of a man of the
>> liberal arts. I am your ultimate dilettante. I abhor all professionalism
>> and I love all amateurism. I know as much as I care to know about the
>> scientific method. After all, it is not rocket science.
>>
>> The sciences properly understood are as much a part of the liberal arts as
>> is art or music or literature. In fact, my college that graduated from at
>> the University of Minnesota was formerly designated the College of
>> Science, Literature and the Arts (SLA). They had that exactly right, but I
>> think they have since changed it to something else.
>>
>> What I don't like are scientists who pretend to a holier than thou
>> attitude due to their training. They are always putting down everyone else
>> who did not do the drudgery that goes with most scientific disciplines.
>> Intellect is intellect and there is nothing special about the scientific
>> intellect. It finally just reduces to a method of inquiry, but there are
>> many other methods of inquiry which are just as valid if not more so. You
>> parade your scientific credentials before me at your peril. I will respect
>> them but I am not in awe of them.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
>
>You are right about science and the arts, in fact Einstein said as much:
>'All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.' and 'The
>most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source
>of all true art and science.'
>
>
>
>
>And where did I ever have a holier than thou attitude? I have never said
>science is the pinnacle of intellectual achievement and I know, better than
>you I suspect, that the scientific method IS just a method of inquiry. The
>reason it has such popularity is because its so simple to understand and yet
>is also a powerful tool. Why not try reading Intellectual Impostures by
>Sokal and Bricmont. They exposed scientific and intellectual frauds at the
>highest level.
>
>
>
>No2: I have never expected ANYONE to be in awe of my work or degrees

I beg to differ. You proudly directed me to your "peer-reviewed,
published paper" as the only way to be. I don't have much use for
liars and phoneys. You are obviously prejudiced against mefor not
publishing the same way you do, when that is completely IRRELEVANT.

There is a lot of **** passing for science these days. I'm reading a
study on trail damage by Jeff Marion that is full of statistics, but
lacks the most basic controls necessary to draw worthwhile
conclusions.

I haven't heard you criticizing HIM here....

and I
>
>have met very few (a tiny fraction) people in the same field with multiple
>degrees and years of experience who have shown that type of arrogance. as
>much as it pains me to say it I think I have the same opinion as you do on
>that topic. Einstein again: 'Everyone should be respected as an individual,
>but no one idolized' On this point, please dont flatter yourself that you
>think I should feel the need to impress you, who, after all, are represented
>to the (small) world of these Usenet groups as some words on a screen. Feel
>free to clean up the punctuation and grammar, as I have noticed, is your
>wont.
>
===
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 Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:41:26 GMT, jason <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:51:04 GMT, Jason
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> > Being the world expert on mountain biking impacts, my opinion and the
>>>
>>>>truth are one and the same.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh my god mikey. That has to be the funniest thing I've read in a long
>>>time on USENET. The ego, it's incredible. As usual totally false but wow
>>>what an ego.
>>
>>
>> No ego, just the truth -- something moiuuntain bikers aren't used to
>> -- either hearing or stating.
>
>Wrong again mikey we all like the truth, both telling it and
>hearing/reading it. I wish we saw it more here in a.m-b.
>
>The problem is you and that other crack pot eddie wouldn't know the
>truth if it walked up behind you and kicked you in the ****.

I sense your fear of the truth leaking out. That's why I and Ed and
others who tell the truth about mountain biking are attacked so
viciously. We are a threat to your chosen way of life (such as it is).
===
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:

>
> I sense your fear of the truth leaking out. That's why I and Ed and
> others who tell the truth about mountain biking are attacked so
> viciously. We are a threat to your chosen way of life (such as it is).

Hardly! I'd welcome an honest, emotionally neutral, minimally biased
discussion...but when someone tries to start one, you call them a
mountain biking liar and point to your webpage and the articles that you
have posted there...unfortunately, I have read your articles and found
them far more full of opinion, generalization and emotionally charged
rhetoric than actual science, logic or reasoning.

From my observation, your reply to anyone who disagrees with you is to
call them a liar, personally attack them and re-post your opinionated,
generalization filled and emotionally charged work. If they ask for
supporting documents, you hide behind statements such as "do your own
homework." If you want us to read your evidence, provide it...you
present the appearance of an individual who does not wish to show
validation for his claims and it severely undermines your credibility.

As for your webpage: those of us who mountain bike and have a vested
interest in this field could reply in kind by citing the IMBA webpage to
you all the time. I think I'm quite correct in thinking that you'd
regard it the same way most of us regard your personal webspace...as
"junk science."

Also, indicating that you want all bikes on road is rather counter
productive to your claims. If you increase road traffic, more roads
and/or lanes need to be developed to handle the additional traffic which
means that additional habitat is lost. Is that truly what you want?
You have stated that you are trying to avoid habitat loss.

Regards,

Michael Halliwell