Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--No Surprise,Hikers and Equestrians Cause More Trail Damage than Mountain Bikers

Ed Pirrero

On May 18, 9:20 am, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 17, 10:03 pm, "M. Halliwell" <templetagteam@shawdotca> wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> > On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >>> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
> >> >>> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
> >> >>> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
> >> >>> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
> >> >>> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
> >> >>> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
> >> >>> indisputable.
> >> >>> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
> >> >>> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
> >> >>> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
> >> >>> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
> >> >>> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
> >> >>> about trail impact.
> >> >>> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
> >> >>> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
> >> >>> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
> >> >> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
> >> >> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>
> >> > I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out
> >> > the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
> >> > actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of
> >> > "debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.
>
> >> > What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
> >> > review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours
> >> > on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.
>
> >> > E.P.
>
> >> Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
> >> biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
> >> his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
> >> newsgroup where he has stated this).
>
> >Yeah, I've laughed at that before.
>
> >Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the
> >world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research.
> >Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult
> >for the real scientist. With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go
> >out and actually do real science and have it published. Getting
> >funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the
> >environmentalist movement.
>
> >Of course, this assumes that his goal is to do anything but promote
> >MTBing. Over the years, more people have gotten out and ridden bikes
> >on the trails in pure spite of his commentary than have ever been
> >influenced against MTBing by his diatribes.
>
> >One of the best things about his constant trolling is the move to
> >forum-based MTB content. I prefer the forums to usenet, and he can't
> >participate there without getting his posts deleted. He can go right
> >on ahead and should to a nearly-empty room here - works for me.
>
> And we all know what censored information is worth: NOTHING.


Are you referring to your multiple personalities when you say "we"?
"We" don't know any such thing - web forums with less spam and noise
convey more information.

E.P.

Ed Pirrero

On May 18, 9:15 am, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:02:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
> >> >mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>
> >> >"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>
> >> >Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
> >> >reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
> >> >and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
> >> >indisputable.
>
> >> >There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
> >> >than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
> >> >and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
> >> >"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
> >> >users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
> >> >about trail impact.
>
> >> >The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
> >> >government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
> >> >Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>
> >> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
> >> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>
> >I only see the Cessford paper in common.
>
> 1. You obviously didn't read carefully.

I just read it again - yes, as I said before, it seems only Cessford
is the common link. Maybe you're confused?

> 2. Cessford's paper was a review paper, NOT research.

According to you, reviews aren't worth as much as original research,
so thanks for supporting my argument.

E.P.

Mike Vandeman

On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:03:44 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 18, 9:14 am, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:03:21 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>>
>>
>> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 16, 9:39 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>> >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On May 13, 3:50 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
>> >> >> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>>
>> >> >> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>>
>> >> >> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
>> >> >> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
>> >> >> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
>> >> >> indisputable.
>>
>> >> >> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
>> >> >> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
>> >> >> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
>> >> >> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
>> >> >> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
>> >> >> about trail impact.
>>
>> >> >> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
>> >> >> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
>> >> >> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>>
>> >> >Obviously, the studies and the overview were done by mountain bikers.
>> >> >Duh.
>>
>> >> Yes, but more importantly, they don't tell the truth.
>>
>> >Funny that you didn't quote a single thing that they lied about.
>>
>> >E.P.
>>
>> Obviously, you didn't read my paper...
>
>Obviously I did, which is irrelevant. You didn't address *this*
>article and its cited research. Most of which is not covered in your
>"response".

Here is your lie again: "you didn't quote a single thing that they
lied about". Explain why you lied.

>E.P.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:06:50 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 18, 9:20 am, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>>
>>
>> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 17, 10:03 pm, "M. Halliwell" <templetagteam@shawdotca> wrote:
>> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >> > On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
>> >> >>> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>> >> >>> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>> >> >>> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
>> >> >>> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
>> >> >>> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
>> >> >>> indisputable.
>> >> >>> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
>> >> >>> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
>> >> >>> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
>> >> >>> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
>> >> >>> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
>> >> >>> about trail impact.
>> >> >>> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
>> >> >>> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
>> >> >>> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>> >> >> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
>> >> >> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>>
>> >> > I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out
>> >> > the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
>> >> > actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of
>> >> > "debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.
>>
>> >> > What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
>> >> > review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours
>> >> > on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.
>>
>> >> > E.P.
>>
>> >> Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
>> >> biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
>> >> his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
>> >> newsgroup where he has stated this).
>>
>> >Yeah, I've laughed at that before.
>>
>> >Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the
>> >world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research.
>> >Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult
>> >for the real scientist. With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go
>> >out and actually do real science and have it published. Getting
>> >funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the
>> >environmentalist movement.
>>
>> >Of course, this assumes that his goal is to do anything but promote
>> >MTBing. Over the years, more people have gotten out and ridden bikes
>> >on the trails in pure spite of his commentary than have ever been
>> >influenced against MTBing by his diatribes.
>>
>> >One of the best things about his constant trolling is the move to
>> >forum-based MTB content. I prefer the forums to usenet, and he can't
>> >participate there without getting his posts deleted. He can go right
>> >on ahead and should to a nearly-empty room here - works for me.
>>
>> And we all know what censored information is worth: NOTHING.
>
>
>Are you referring to your multiple personalities when you say "we"?
>"We" don't know any such thing - web forums with less spam and noise
>convey more information.

BS. You mean like rec.bicycles.off-road? It's DEAD, as well as
censored. ZERO information, even when something was posted.

>E.P.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 18, 9:15 am, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:02:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>>
>>
>> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
>> >> >mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>>
>> >> >"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>>
>> >> >Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
>> >> >reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
>> >> >and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
>> >> >indisputable.
>>
>> >> >There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
>> >> >than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
>> >> >and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
>> >> >"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
>> >> >users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
>> >> >about trail impact.
>>
>> >> >The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
>> >> >government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
>> >> >Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>>
>> >> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
>> >> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>>
>> >I only see the Cessford paper in common.
>>
>> 1. You obviously didn't read carefully.
>
>I just read it again - yes, as I said before, it seems only Cessford
>is the common link. Maybe you're confused?

Nope. For example, you missed:

A 2001 study performed by botanist Richard Reader of the University of
Guelph (Canada) noted that "We've found that hikers have the same
effect as bikers do, regardless of the number of trips along the path.
In reality, both are equally damaging to the environment, but there is
increased trail wear because twice the number of people are now using
the trails." (Impacts of Experimentally Applied Mountain Biking and
Hiking on Vegetation and Soil of a Deciduous Forest - Eden Thurston
and Richard Reader).

as well as:

Perhaps the most widely accepted research on trail impacts of
different users is the Seney/Wilson Study as it compared all the user
groups together in one study (hikers, motorcycles, mountain bikes, and
horses). Some of the findings from the Seney/Wilson Study include:

"The sediment yields reported in part B of Table 4 indicates that
horse plots produced significantly more sediment yield than the
bicycle, control, or hiker plots." "Hiker and bicycle plots were not
significantly different from each other or the control plots." "
Indeed, hikers produced the second largest increase in sediment yield
following the horse treatments, and overall the horse and hiker plots
suggest that hooves and feet make more sediment available for removal
than wheels on pre-wetted soils. The results in Part D of Table 4
indicate horse traffic produced significantly more sediment than other
users on dry plots as well". (Erosional Impact of Hikers, Horses,
Motorcycles, and Off Road Bicycles on Mountain Trails in Montana- John
Wilson and Joseph Seney - Mountain Research and Development 1994)

It's obvious that you don't know how to read.

>> 2. Cessford's paper was a review paper, NOT research.
>
>According to you, reviews aren't worth as much as original research,
>so thanks for supporting my argument.

Except when the so-called "research" LIES, and the review tells the
truth, as I did.

>E.P.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Ed Pirrero

On May 18, 8:44*pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:03:44 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
>
>
> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 18, 9:14 am, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:03:21 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 16, 9:39 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On May 13, 3:50 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
> >> >> >> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>
> >> >> >> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>
> >> >> >> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
> >> >> >> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
> >> >> >> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
> >> >> >> indisputable.
>
> >> >> >> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
> >> >> >> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
> >> >> >> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
> >> >> >> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
> >> >> >> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
> >> >> >> about trail impact.
>
> >> >> >> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
> >> >> >> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
> >> >> >> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>
> >> >> >Obviously, the studies and the overview were done by mountain bikers.
> >> >> >Duh.
>
> >> >> Yes, but more importantly, they don't tell the truth.
>
> >> >Funny that you didn't quote a single thing that they lied about.
>
> >> >E.P.
>
> >> Obviously, you didn't read my paper...
>
> >Obviously I did, which is irrelevant. *You didn't address *this*
> >article and its cited research. *Most of which is not covered in your
> >"response".
>
> Here is your lie again: "you didn't quote a single thing that they
> lied about". Explain why you lied.

Explain where you quoted anything they lied about in the post above,
where you wrote, in its entirety:

"Yes, but more importantly, they don't tell the truth."

Zero text, other than your claim of lying.

E.P.

Ed Pirrero

On May 18, 8:51*pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> Except when the so-called "research" LIES, and the review tells the
> truth, as I did.

And, of course, your claim of "telling the truth" is unsupported by
anything resembling data, making it nothing more than your opinion.
Your opinion of what constitutes the truth is worth nothing.

Again, thank you for supporting my argument.

E.P.

Ed Pirrero

On May 18, 8:45*pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:06:50 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
>
>
> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 18, 9:20 am, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 17, 10:03 pm, "M. Halliwell" <templetagteam@shawdotca> wrote:
> >> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> >> > On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
> >> >> >>> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
> >> >> >>> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
> >> >> >>> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
> >> >> >>> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
> >> >> >>> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
> >> >> >>> indisputable.
> >> >> >>> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
> >> >> >>> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
> >> >> >>> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
> >> >> >>> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
> >> >> >>> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
> >> >> >>> about trail impact.
> >> >> >>> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest levelof
> >> >> >>> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
> >> >> >>> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
> >> >> >> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
> >> >> >> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>
> >> >> > I only see the Cessford paper in common. *Maybe you could point out
> >> >> > the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
> >> >> > actually list them in your bibliography. *Leaving aside the claim of
> >> >> > "debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.
>
> >> >> > What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
> >> >> > review or original research. *I don't notice any publications ofyours
> >> >> > on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.
>
> >> >> > E.P.
>
> >> >> Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
> >> >> biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
> >> >> his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
> >> >> newsgroup where he has stated this).
>
> >> >Yeah, I've laughed at that before.
>
> >> >Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the
> >> >world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research.
> >> >Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult
> >> >for the real scientist. *With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go
> >> >out and actually do real science and have it published. *Getting
> >> >funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the
> >> >environmentalist movement.
>
> >> >Of course, this assumes that his goal is to do anything but promote
> >> >MTBing. *Over the years, more people have gotten out and ridden bikes
> >> >on the trails in pure spite of his commentary than have ever been
> >> >influenced against MTBing by his diatribes.
>
> >> >One of the best things about his constant trolling is the move to
> >> >forum-based MTB content. *I prefer the forums to usenet, and he can't
> >> >participate there without getting his posts deleted. *He can go right
> >> >on ahead and should to a nearly-empty room here - works for me. *
>
> >> And we all know what censored information is worth: NOTHING.
>
> >Are you referring to your multiple personalities when you say "we"?
> >"We" don't know any such thing - web forums with less spam and noise
> >convey more information.
>
> BS. You mean like rec.bicycles.off-road?

If you cannot tell the difference between a web forum and a usenet
group, then educate yourself.

E.P.

Mike Vandeman

On Mon, 19 May 2008 09:02:55 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 18, 8:45*pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:06:50 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 18, 9:20 am, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>> >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On May 17, 10:03 pm, "M. Halliwell" <templetagteam@shawdotca> wrote:
>> >> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >> >> > On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
>> >> >> >>> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>> >> >> >>> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>> >> >> >>> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
>> >> >> >>> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
>> >> >> >>> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
>> >> >> >>> indisputable.
>> >> >> >>> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
>> >> >> >>> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
>> >> >> >>> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
>> >> >> >>> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
>> >> >> >>> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
>> >> >> >>> about trail impact.
>> >> >> >>> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
>> >> >> >>> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
>> >> >> >>> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>> >> >> >> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
>> >> >> >> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>>
>> >> >> > I only see the Cessford paper in common. *Maybe you could point out
>> >> >> > the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
>> >> >> > actually list them in your bibliography. *Leaving aside the claim of
>> >> >> > "debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.
>>
>> >> >> > What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
>> >> >> > review or original research. *I don't notice any publications of yours
>> >> >> > on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.
>>
>> >> >> > E.P.
>>
>> >> >> Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
>> >> >> biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
>> >> >> his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
>> >> >> newsgroup where he has stated this).
>>
>> >> >Yeah, I've laughed at that before.
>>
>> >> >Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the
>> >> >world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research.
>> >> >Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult
>> >> >for the real scientist. *With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go
>> >> >out and actually do real science and have it published. *Getting
>> >> >funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the
>> >> >environmentalist movement.
>>
>> >> >Of course, this assumes that his goal is to do anything but promote
>> >> >MTBing. *Over the years, more people have gotten out and ridden bikes
>> >> >on the trails in pure spite of his commentary than have ever been
>> >> >influenced against MTBing by his diatribes.
>>
>> >> >One of the best things about his constant trolling is the move to
>> >> >forum-based MTB content. *I prefer the forums to usenet, and he can't
>> >> >participate there without getting his posts deleted. *He can go right
>> >> >on ahead and should to a nearly-empty room here - works for me. *
>>
>> >> And we all know what censored information is worth: NOTHING.
>>
>> >Are you referring to your multiple personalities when you say "we"?
>> >"We" don't know any such thing - web forums with less spam and noise
>> >convey more information.
>>
>> BS. You mean like rec.bicycles.off-road?
>
>If you cannot tell the difference between a web forum and a usenet
>group, then educate yourself.

I know the difference, but it's irrelevant. The relevant factor os
that both are censored, hence unreliable.

>E.P.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 18, 8:51*pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>> Except when the so-called "research" LIES, and the review tells the
>> truth, as I did.
>
>And, of course, your claim of "telling the truth" is unsupported by
>anything resembling data, making it nothing more than your opinion.

BS. Whether or not it's my opinion, it's still the truth. That's all
that matters.

>Your opinion of what constitutes the truth is worth nothing.
>
>Again, thank you for supporting my argument.
>
>E.P.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Ed Pirrero

On May 19, 8:18 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:43:29 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 18, 8:44 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:03:44 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 18, 9:14 am, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:03:21 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On May 16, 9:39 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> >> >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On May 13, 3:50 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
> >> >> >> >> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>
> >> >> >> >> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>
> >> >> >> >> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
> >> >> >> >> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
> >> >> >> >> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
> >> >> >> >> indisputable.
>
> >> >> >> >> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
> >> >> >> >> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
> >> >> >> >> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
> >> >> >> >> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
> >> >> >> >> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
> >> >> >> >> about trail impact.
>
> >> >> >> >> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
> >> >> >> >> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
> >> >> >> >> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>
> >> >> >> >Obviously, the studies and the overview were done by mountain bikers.
> >> >> >> >Duh.
>
> >> >> >> Yes, but more importantly, they don't tell the truth.
>
> >> >> >Funny that you didn't quote a single thing that they lied about.
>
> >> >> >E.P.
>
> >> >> Obviously, you didn't read my paper...
>
> >> >Obviously I did, which is irrelevant. You didn't address *this*
> >> >article and its cited research. Most of which is not covered in your
> >> >"response".
>
> >> Here is your lie again: "you didn't quote a single thing that they
> >> lied about". Explain why you lied.
>
> >Explain where you quoted anything they lied about in the post above,
> >where you wrote, in its entirety:
>
> > "Yes, but more importantly, they don't tell the truth."
>
> >Zero text, other than your claim of lying.
>
> >E.P.
>
> Thanks for asking:

[snip irrelevant test]

Again, you quote none of what they wrote, nor offer any hard data to
counter it.

Can't live up to your own standards, huh? What a total shock.

E.P.

Ed Pirrero

On May 19, 8:15 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 09:02:55 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 18, 8:45 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:06:50 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 18, 9:20 am, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On May 17, 10:03 pm, "M. Halliwell" <templetagteam@shawdotca> wrote:
> >> >> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> >> >> > On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >>> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
> >> >> >> >>> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
> >> >> >> >>> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
> >> >> >> >>> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
> >> >> >> >>> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
> >> >> >> >>> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
> >> >> >> >>> indisputable.
> >> >> >> >>> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
> >> >> >> >>> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
> >> >> >> >>> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
> >> >> >> >>> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
> >> >> >> >>> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
> >> >> >> >>> about trail impact.
> >> >> >> >>> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
> >> >> >> >>> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
> >> >> >> >>> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
> >> >> >> >> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
> >> >> >> >> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>
> >> >> >> > I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out
> >> >> >> > the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
> >> >> >> > actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of
> >> >> >> > "debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.
>
> >> >> >> > What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
> >> >> >> > review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours
> >> >> >> > on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.
>
> >> >> >> > E.P.
>
> >> >> >> Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
> >> >> >> biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
> >> >> >> his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
> >> >> >> newsgroup where he has stated this).
>
> >> >> >Yeah, I've laughed at that before.
>
> >> >> >Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the
> >> >> >world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research.
> >> >> >Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult
> >> >> >for the real scientist. With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go
> >> >> >out and actually do real science and have it published. Getting
> >> >> >funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the
> >> >> >environmentalist movement.
>
> >> >> >Of course, this assumes that his goal is to do anything but promote
> >> >> >MTBing. Over the years, more people have gotten out and ridden bikes
> >> >> >on the trails in pure spite of his commentary than have ever been
> >> >> >influenced against MTBing by his diatribes.
>
> >> >> >One of the best things about his constant trolling is the move to
> >> >> >forum-based MTB content. I prefer the forums to usenet, and he can't
> >> >> >participate there without getting his posts deleted. He can go right
> >> >> >on ahead and should to a nearly-empty room here - works for me.
>
> >> >> And we all know what censored information is worth: NOTHING.
>
> >> >Are you referring to your multiple personalities when you say "we"?
> >> >"We" don't know any such thing - web forums with less spam and noise
> >> >convey more information.
>
> >> BS. You mean like rec.bicycles.off-road?
>
> >If you cannot tell the difference between a web forum and a usenet
> >group, then educate yourself.
>
> I know the difference, but it's irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. You are attempting to obfuscate. That trick
doesn't work on folks smarter than you, Mike.

> The relevant factor os
> that both are censored, hence unreliable.

Since you offer zero logic to support your claim that reliability and
censorship are related, I'll just consider it wishful thinking on your
part.

Get back to me when you can make a logical construct.

E.P.

Ed Pirrero

On May 19, 8:16 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 18, 8:51 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> Except when the so-called "research" LIES, and the review tells the
> >> truth, as I did.
>
> >And, of course, your claim of "telling the truth" is unsupported by
> >anything resembling data, making it nothing more than your opinion.
>
> BS. Whether or not it's my opinion, it's still the truth.

Circular reasoning is not logic. Try again.

E.P.

SMS

Ed Pirrero wrote:

> Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the
> world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research.
> Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult
> for the real scientist. With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go
> out and actually do real science and have it published. Getting
> funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the
> environmentalist movement.

Actually, getting kicked out of the Sierra Club probably doesn't qualify
as being "well-connected in the environmentalist movement" (not that I
consider the Sierra Club a true environmentalist organizations).