Re: Vandeman applying Republican tactics to the environment

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 scared trails. Who gives a good g.d. if they
cause any trail destruction or not. I do not want them on my scared
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 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

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Jules Augley said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

>
> 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 scared trails. Who gives a good g.d. if they
cause any trail destruction or not. I do not want them on my scared
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 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?

No, worse: DISHONEST. (Well, you could also be incompetent; it's hard
to tell the difference. Take your pick.)

As then are you, Mr Dolan.

Quoted message said:

Goodbye

===
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

On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:43:57 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

.... and represent high-quality research. Don't underestimate what you
don't understand.

He has not been "invited" as a keynote

Quoted message said:

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.

But not their morals or integrity, unfortunately.
===
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 said:

and represent high-quality research.

Actually you *mis*represent high quality research, as previously
documented multiple times. But since you are a lying trolling bigot we
expect nothing else. Your own supposed "research" is of course merely
low grade op-ed working back from your pre-existing conclusion. Even
serious conferences like a bit of comic relief I guess.

What's the list of peer-reviewed papers you've been published in again?

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:mGodg.14536$B42.2924@dukeread05...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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, 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.

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

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:43:57 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

> 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.

... and represent high-quality research. Don't underestimate what you
don't understand.

Do not claim what you have not accomplished. You have not done "research".
You have compiled selected bits and pieces of others' work to support your
opinion. There is nothing to show any effort of an objective beginning. You
began with a position and have only sought information you could use to
support that position. Any other data that is counter to your position you
simply disregard as "junk science". Any attempt to point to actual context
and conclusions of the actual researchers has you claiming they
misinterpreted their own findings! Any challenge to your "facts", which are
usually only your opinions or conclusions, gets a reply of "liar" or "stupid
mountain bikers". You present yourself as an authority on the basis of your
own claims and statements. Extensive searches of environment, mountain
biking, wildlife and other ecological topics return no other agency or
person of credibility to support your claim of being an "expert" on mountain
biking, the environment or anything. You have NOTHING.

Quoted message said:

He has not been "invited" as a keynote

Quoted message said:

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.

But not their morals or integrity, unfortunately.
===

Supposition, opinion. Unfounded statement based on bias against the
viewpoints being expressed. A non-statement.

Jules Augley said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:mGodg.14536$B42.2924@dukeread05...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

> 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?!

in fact you cant argue at all when, as you point out, he mistakes

Quoted message said:

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.
===
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

On Fri, 26 May 2006 12:31:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:43:57 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

... and represent high-quality research. Don't underestimate what you
don't understand.

Do not claim what you have not accomplished. You have not done "research".
You have compiled selected bits and pieces of others' work to support your
opinion.

BS. I guess you really didn't read it. I compiled "studies" that
claimed to prove mountain biking no more harmful than hiking, but
didn't.

There is nothing to show any effort of an objective beginning. You

Quoted message said:

began with a position and have only sought information you could use to
support that position. Any other data that is counter to your position you
simply disregard as "junk science". Any attempt to point to actual context
and conclusions of the actual researchers has you claiming they
misinterpreted their own findings! Any challenge to your "facts", which are
usually only your opinions or conclusions, gets a reply of "liar" or "stupid
mountain bikers". You present yourself as an authority on the basis of your
own claims and statements. Extensive searches of environment, mountain
biking, wildlife and other ecological topics return no other agency or
person of credibility to support your claim of being an "expert" on mountain
biking, the environment or anything. You have NOTHING.

That's because the field is too small. No one wants to research what's
obvious -- except mountain bikers, who desperately need some
scientific support, and will never get it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He has not been "invited" as a keynote

Quoted message said:

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.

But not their morals or integrity, unfortunately.
===

Supposition, opinion. Unfounded statement based on bias against the
viewpoints being expressed. A non-statement.

Nope, based on evidence provided by their teacher.
===
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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

>
> 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 ...

Regards,

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

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

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 26 May 2006 12:31:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>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.

... and represent high-quality research. Don't underestimate what you
don't understand.

Do not claim what you have not accomplished. You have not done "research".
You have compiled selected bits and pieces of others' work to support your
opinion.

BS. I guess you really didn't read it. I compiled "studies" that
claimed to prove mountain biking no more harmful than hiking, but
didn't.

Thats what I said - You have compiled studies to support your opinion. And
thanks for extending my point for me: "I compiled "studies" that claimed to
prove mountain biking no more harmful than hiking, but didn't."
Your statement only shows further how you use your opinion of off-road
cycling and your bias against off-road cycling as a filter to qualify
information.

Quoted message said:

There is nothing to show any effort of an objective beginning. You

Quoted message said:

began with a position and have only sought information you could use to
support that position. Any other data that is counter to your position you
simply disregard as "junk science". Any attempt to point to actual context
and conclusions of the actual researchers has you claiming they
misinterpreted their own findings! Any challenge to your "facts", which
are
usually only your opinions or conclusions, gets a reply of "liar" or
"stupid
mountain bikers". You present yourself as an authority on the basis of
your
own claims and statements. Extensive searches of environment, mountain
biking, wildlife and other ecological topics return no other agency or
person of credibility to support your claim of being an "expert" on
mountain
biking, the environment or anything. You have NOTHING.

That's because the field is too small. No one wants to research what's
obvious -- except mountain bikers, who desperately need some
scientific support, and will never get it.

I bet you know all the words to the "Tigger Song" from "Winnie the Pooh",
don't you?
And thanks again for completely disregarding the direct points of your
methods of "research" and attempting to turn focus towards a supposed "need"
of off-road cyclists. Off-road cycling has been recognized - it is your
"scientific" support that appears in question. Besides, on May 8 of this
year, you again state "I am recognized by many people as the world expert on
mountain biking impacts." yet you do not give names and here you state "the
field is too small" to reflect a search result. Either there are "many" who
recognize you or the field is "too small"... which is it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

But not their morals or integrity, unfortunately.
===

Supposition, opinion. Unfounded statement based on bias against the
viewpoints being expressed. A non-statement.

Nope, based on evidence provided by their teacher.
===

Based on "evidence" that does not fit into your opinion filter.

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

Quoted message said:

Jules Augley said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:mGodg.14536$B42.2924@dukeread05...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

in fact you cant argue at all when, as you point out, he mistakes

Quoted message said:

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.

On Sat, 27 May 2006 11:52:04 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 26 May 2006 12:31:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

>>>
>>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.
>
> ... and represent high-quality research. Don't underestimate what you
> don't understand.
Do not claim what you have not accomplished. You have not done "research".
You have compiled selected bits and pieces of others' work to support your
opinion.

BS. I guess you really didn't read it. I compiled "studies" that
claimed to prove mountain biking no more harmful than hiking, but
didn't.

Thats what I said - You have compiled studies to support your opinion.

I see that your comprehension leaves something to be desired. In other
words, you don't have a CLUE! I didn't look for studies that support
my view. I used IMBA's list, which is exactly the OPPOSITE of that:
studies that IMBA thought were favorable to mountain biking. How can
anyone be so DENSE?????????

And

Quoted message said:

thanks for extending my point for me: "I compiled "studies" that claimed to
prove mountain biking no more harmful than hiking, but didn't."
Your statement only shows further how you use your opinion of off-road
cycling and your bias against off-road cycling as a filter to qualify
information.

Quoted message said:

There is nothing to show any effort of an objective beginning. You

Quoted message said:

began with a position and have only sought information you could use to
support that position. Any other data that is counter to your position you
simply disregard as "junk science". Any attempt to point to actual context
and conclusions of the actual researchers has you claiming they
misinterpreted their own findings! Any challenge to your "facts", which
are
usually only your opinions or conclusions, gets a reply of "liar" or
"stupid
mountain bikers". You present yourself as an authority on the basis of
your
own claims and statements. Extensive searches of environment, mountain
biking, wildlife and other ecological topics return no other agency or
person of credibility to support your claim of being an "expert" on
mountain
biking, the environment or anything. You have NOTHING.

That's because the field is too small. No one wants to research what's
obvious -- except mountain bikers, who desperately need some
scientific support, and will never get it.

I bet you know all the words to the "Tigger Song" from "Winnie the Pooh",
don't you?
And thanks again for completely disregarding the direct points of your
methods of "research" and attempting to turn focus towards a supposed "need"
of off-road cyclists. Off-road cycling has been recognized - it is your
"scientific" support that appears in question. Besides, on May 8 of this
year, you again state "I am recognized by many people as the world expert on
mountain biking impacts." yet you do not give names and here you state "the
field is too small" to reflect a search result. Either there are "many" who
recognize you or the field is "too small"... which is it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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.
>
> But not their morals or integrity, unfortunately.
> ===
Supposition, opinion. Unfounded statement based on bias against the
viewpoints being expressed. A non-statement.

Nope, based on evidence provided by their teacher.
===

Based on "evidence" that does not fit into your opinion filter.

You make no sense whatsoever.
===
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

On Fri, 26 May 2006 23:00:52 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 27 May 2006 11:52:04 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 26 May 2006 12:31:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>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.
>>
>> ... and represent high-quality research. Don't underestimate what you
>> don't understand.
>Do not claim what you have not accomplished. You have not done
>"research".
>You have compiled selected bits and pieces of others' work to support
>your
>opinion.

BS. I guess you really didn't read it. I compiled "studies" that
claimed to prove mountain biking no more harmful than hiking, but
didn't.

Thats what I said - You have compiled studies to support your opinion.

I see that your comprehension leaves something to be desired. In other
words, you don't have a CLUE! I didn't look for studies that support
my view. I used IMBA's list, which is exactly the OPPOSITE of that:
studies that IMBA thought were favorable to mountain biking. How can
anyone be so DENSE?????????

You pulling pieces out of context and making your own conclusions while
superceding the conlusions of the actual researchers is hardly conclusive of
anything. You simply referencing a piece, then proclaiming "junk science"
and the conclusions as "lies" by mountain bikers have no validity. Where is
the colaboration of peer review? Where is the reference to your conclusions
by another established in the field of environmental research? Where is the
reference to your conclusions by anyone in authority to make policy? You
have the audacity to question my intelligence while you claim to discredit
real scientists, with actual credentials and references, as well as claim
their research is below par merely because their findings disagree with your
OPINIONS?
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

Quoted message said:

And

Quoted message said:

thanks for extending my point for me: "I compiled "studies" that claimed
to
prove mountain biking no more harmful than hiking, but didn't."
Your statement only shows further how you use your opinion of off-road
cycling and your bias against off-road cycling as a filter to qualify
information.

Quoted message said:

There is nothing to show any effort of an objective beginning. You
>began with a position and have only sought information you could use to
>support that position. Any other data that is counter to your position
>you
>simply disregard as "junk science". Any attempt to point to actual
>context
>and conclusions of the actual researchers has you claiming they
>misinterpreted their own findings! Any challenge to your "facts", which
>are
>usually only your opinions or conclusions, gets a reply of "liar" or
>"stupid
>mountain bikers". You present yourself as an authority on the basis of
>your
>own claims and statements. Extensive searches of environment, mountain
>biking, wildlife and other ecological topics return no other agency or
>person of credibility to support your claim of being an "expert" on
>mountain
>biking, the environment or anything. You have NOTHING.

That's because the field is too small. No one wants to research what's
obvious -- except mountain bikers, who desperately need some
scientific support, and will never get it.

I bet you know all the words to the "Tigger Song" from "Winnie the Pooh",
don't you?
And thanks again for completely disregarding the direct points of your
methods of "research" and attempting to turn focus towards a supposed
"need"
of off-road cyclists. Off-road cycling has been recognized - it is your
"scientific" support that appears in question. Besides, on May 8 of this
year, you again state "I am recognized by many people as the world expert
on
mountain biking impacts." yet you do not give names and here you state
"the
field is too small" to reflect a search result. Either there are "many"
who
recognize you or the field is "too small"... which is it?

Nothing here...?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> 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.
>>
>> But not their morals or integrity, unfortunately.
>> ===
>Supposition, opinion. Unfounded statement based on bias against the
>viewpoints being expressed. A non-statement.

Nope, based on evidence provided by their teacher.
===

Based on "evidence" that does not fit into your opinion filter.

You make no sense whatsoever.
===

Making sense to you is none of my concern. Making sense to someone else who
may be seeking actual information is my concern. Making sense to organizers
of conferences and symposiums who may be doing background research on
authors who have submitted to a "call for papers" is my concern. Countering
false information and misconception surrounding the activity of off-road
cycling and the cooperative efforts of cycling advocay groups is my concern.
You are of no concern beyond the FACT that your OPINIONS could be taken
seriously by someone who is seeking real information.

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

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 26 May 2006 23:00:52 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> "Jules Augley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> >
>>> I have. Start with http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7, which
>>> refutes
>>> the research you are doing before you have even done it, since you
>>> are
>>> falling into the same fallacy as all the other "researchers".
>>
>> I have seen your website. I want to know what peer-reviewed work you
>> have had published. Presentations at U.C. Berkeley dont count. All I
>> can see on your website is a very short list of mostly books, although
>> some primary literature with specific relevance to mountain bikes,
>> none
>> of which is yours by the way, that you say support your bizarre
>> 'peeve'.
>> I see no mention of any actual research you have done, no data,
>> nothing.
>> You claim to be an expert, well I want to see some objective evidence.
>> You could make sections of your phd and masters theses available for
>> scrutiny? How about that?. I should also point out, again, it was a
>> student of mine that did the research, and no this isnt me disowning
>> it,
>> its a good piece of work (albeit with a lack of maturity in the
>> writing
>> that only years of practice can remedy) and I would certainly view his
>> work as more scientifically objective and valid than any of the
>> polemic
>> you spew all over your webspace. I do admire your tenacity (or ability
>> to stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'lalalala'😉, however, you
>> could definitely do with a change of focus and try to do something
>> that
>> would actually make a difference to the world.
>
> Jules, I am the real expert on this matter of hiking vs. biking on
> trails. To my credit, I have not polluted my mind with any research.
> Yea,
> I am as pure as the driven snow.
>
> My credentials are that I hiked for 10 years almost every day for 8
> months of the year all over the US. I did this when I was in my 30's
> during the late 60's and early 70's. During that time I never
> encountered
> a single bike on any of my sacred trails. I mean, it does not get any
> better than that!
>
> In more recent years I have encountered some bikes on my sacred trails.
> They do not belong on my sacred trails. Who gives a good g.d. if they
> cause any trail destruction or not. I do not want them on my sacred
> trails. Let them get their own g.d. trails.
>
> Like all scholars, you are blind to the real issues. You do not need
> any
> higher degrees to know what is appropriate and what is not. All you
> need
> is some common sense. I suggest you get out of your freaking ivory
> tower
> and go do some hiking in the wilderness and then tell us if you would
> like bikers along side of you.
>
> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on my
> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your freaking
> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
> bikers polluting my sacred trails. That is what you have to wrap your
> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>
Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold mine
of
intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.

Goodbye

And good riddance to you too! I have hardly ever encountered any so-called
scientist who was not a coward. That is why they make such poor
politicians.
They bury themselves in 'research' and then try to make themselves
relevant,
but somehow they never do. What they do mainly is hide behind their
freaking
degrees and pretend to be experts. Quite pitiful really ...

AMEN. There are of course respectable scientists, but they mostly
don't concern themselves with obvious problems like mountain biking,
but with things that are much more difficult to understand.

On the other hand, WHY mountain bikers don't "get it", now THERE'S a
good research question. What goes wrong in their brains (or
elsewhere?) that makes them think that the wholesale destruction of
the natural world is a good hobby? Any thoughts, Dr. Dolan?

You mean as in the TOTAL destruction of natural land for a mall, apartment
or factory while a "cartoon scientist" like you whine "I tawt I taw a
bicycle"...
Your OPINION that a bicycle on a trail is causing the "wholesale destruction
of the natural world" while miles upon miles of new roads are being built
and acres upon acres of trees are coming down for sprawl and malls is why
you are a laughing stock on every level.

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:d5jeg.14940$B42.8239@dukeread05...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Jules Augley said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:mGodg.14536$B42.2924@dukeread05...
>
> "Jules Augley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>>> 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"

Quoted message said:

in fact you cant argue at all when, as you point out, he mistakes

Quoted message said:

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.

On Sun, 28 May 2006 11:11:59 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Jules Augley said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:mGodg.14536$B42.2924@dukeread05...
>
> "Jules Augley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>>> 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"

Quoted message said:

in fact you cant argue at all when, as you point out, he mistakes

Quoted message said:

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.

I'm doing them a FAVOR -- so they can correct their flawed methodology
BEFORE they embarrass themselves by trying to publish that [censored].

You

Quoted message said:

are insulting the entire scientific process by doing so.

===
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 said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:d5jeg.14940$B42.8239@dukeread05...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:25:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>
>"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:mGodg.14536$B42.2924@dukeread05...
>>
>> "Jules Augley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>>>> 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"

Quoted message said:

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.

I said "evidence", not their paper. You could tell us the research
design. That would immediately indicate how faulty it is.

Quoted message said:

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.

Exactly, which is why you should be interested in improving your
students' research design, instead of defending it and trying to keep
it secret.

There are thousands of

Quoted message said:

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.

The essence of the scientific method is honesty and openness. You are
trying to cover up bad science. You are also confusing STYLE with
science. I simply put my conclusion first, because (as in a newspaper
article) I wasn't sure how far I would get in my talk before I ran out
of time. That has nothing to do with the soundness of my conclusions,
which have been questioned by NOT ONE PERSON except mountain bikers.
===
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