BCT Trail Work Day

\On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:26:43 -0700, "GeeDubb" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Some of you might remember me talking about the new Black Canyon Trail
system going in North of Phoenix. We had another great turnout of people on
Saturday cutting in another half mile or more of trail through some pretty
tough terrain. For a few pictures, a short write-up and links to more
photos and the BCT website click below

http://www.spokejunkies.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5095

Disgusting. Where do you get the right to destroy wildlife habitat,
especially for cheap thrills like mountain biking? And you want to
call yourselves "environmentalists"?!

Quoted message said:

Gary

===
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

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

Quoted message said:

Some of you might remember me talking about the new Black Canyon Trail
system going in North of Phoenix. We had another great turnout of people
on Saturday cutting in another half mile or more of trail through some
pretty tough terrain. For a few pictures, a short write-up and links to
more photos and the BCT website click below

http://www.spokejunkies.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5095

Gary

A big thanks Gary, rode some of that trail X-Mas day. I spend time in
Prescott and will enjoy your guys hardwork soon.

Dean

Mike Vandeman said:

\On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:26:43 -0700, "GeeDubb" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Some of you might remember me talking about the new Black Canyon Trail
system going in North of Phoenix. We had another great turnout of people on
Saturday cutting in another half mile or more of trail through some pretty
tough terrain. For a few pictures, a short write-up and links to more
photos and the BCT website click below

http://www.spokejunkies.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5095

Disgusting. Where do you get the right to destroy wildlife habitat,
especially for cheap thrills like mountain biking? And you want to
call yourselves "environmentalists"?!

Doesn't it burn you up? How
about knowing you're
absolutely powerless to stop
it? How about knowing the
world laughs at you?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.spokejunkies.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5095

Disgusting. Where do you get the right to destroy wildlife habitat,
especially for cheap thrills like mountain biking? And you want to
call yourselves "environmentalists"?!

Mike,
Funny thing is, the article states that only about half of the people
there were Mountain Bikers. That means the other half were not. They were
demonstrating cooperation between groups.

The other half that were not mountain bikers, who were they? Were
they there for cheap thrills to? Probably not. Probably hikers,
equestrians and people who like to enjoy the outdoors. Not sitting inside,
angrily typing away on a computer to a bunch of people who ridicule you
every chance we get.

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

cc said:

Mike Vandeman said:

\On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:26:43 -0700, "GeeDubb" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some of you might remember me talking about the new Black Canyon Trail
system going in North of Phoenix. We had another great turnout of people on
Saturday cutting in another half mile or more of trail through some pretty
tough terrain. For a few pictures, a short write-up and links to more
photos and the BCT website click below

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.spokejunkies.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5095

Quoted message said:

Disgusting. Where do you get the right to destroy wildlife habitat,
especially for cheap thrills like mountain biking? And you want to
call yourselves "environmentalists"?!

Doesn't it burn you up? How
about knowing you're
absolutely powerless to stop
it? How about knowing the
world laughs at you?

Wait a minute - how is a hiking trail any different? You're talking
about a trail that is not that wide is such a large area? I'm a hiker,
mtn biker, canoer, orienteer, camper and soon to be sailor - why can't
bikers enjoy the outdoors. I mean the Appalachian Mountain Club
maintains the miles of trail every year - each year debris or erosion
has to be cleared/fixed, as well as trimming back of weeds, branches,
bushes, etc. How is this any different?

Now you can come back with an argument that some mtn bikers will make
new paths for challenges - true - some who don't think about the
impact, idiots - I personally wouldn't veer off the trails - but
that's right up there with campers/hikers who leave trash or cut down
trees.

And I'd rather see a THIN (in comparison to the entire park/area),
DEFINED bike trail than no trail at all - at least with a defined
trail, the majority of bikers will stick to the trail - as opposed to
no trail and every biker making there own trail and thus doing much
more overall damage.

You guys have to get a clue - it's just not your wilderness!

Kernix said:

cc said:

Mike Vandeman said:

\On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:26:43 -0700, "GeeDubb" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
> Some of you might remember me talking about the new Black Canyon Trail
> system going in North of Phoenix. We had another great turnout of people on
> Saturday cutting in another half mile or more of trail through some pretty
> tough terrain. For a few pictures, a short write-up and links to more
> photos and the BCT website click below
> http://www.spokejunkies.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5095
Disgusting. Where do you get the right to destroy wildlife habitat,
especially for cheap thrills like mountain biking? And you want to
call yourselves "environmentalists"?!

Doesn't it burn you up? How
about knowing you're
absolutely powerless to stop
it? How about knowing the
world laughs at you?

Wait a minute - how is a hiking trail any different? You're talking
about a trail that is not that wide is such a large area? I'm a hiker,
mtn biker, canoer, orienteer, camper and soon to be sailor - why can't
bikers enjoy the outdoors. I mean the Appalachian Mountain Club
maintains the miles of trail every year - each year debris or erosion
has to be cleared/fixed, as well as trimming back of weeds, branches,
bushes, etc. How is this any different?

Now you can come back with an argument that some mtn bikers will make
new paths for challenges - true - some who don't think about the
impact, idiots - I personally wouldn't veer off the trails - but
that's right up there with campers/hikers who leave trash or cut down
trees.

And I'd rather see a THIN (in comparison to the entire park/area),
DEFINED bike trail than no trail at all - at least with a defined
trail, the majority of bikers will stick to the trail - as opposed to
no trail and every biker making there own trail and thus doing much
more overall damage.

You guys have to get a clue - it's just not your wilderness!

We never said it was. Try
reading some threads around
here. . . I'm also many of the
things above, and the problem
with MV is not that we don't
share, but that we enjoy at all.

Kernix said:

cc said:

Mike Vandeman said:

\On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:26:43 -0700, "GeeDubb" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Some of you might remember me talking about the new Black Canyon Trail
> system going in North of Phoenix. We had another great turnout of people on
> Saturday cutting in another half mile or more of trail through some pretty
> tough terrain. For a few pictures, a short write-up and links to more
> photos and the BCT website click below

Quoted message said:

>http://www.spokejunkies.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5095

Quoted message said:

Disgusting. Where do you get the right to destroy wildlife habitat,
especially for cheap thrills like mountain biking? And you want to
call yourselves "environmentalists"?!

Doesn't it burn you up? How
about knowing you're
absolutely powerless to stop
it? How about knowing the
world laughs at you?

Wait a minute - how is a hiking trail any different?

It's narrower. Hikers can pass each other in less space than two
bikers can pass each other (due to the handlebars).

You're talking

Quoted message said:

about a trail that is not that wide is such a large area? I'm a hiker,
mtn biker, canoer, orienteer, camper and soon to be sailor - why can't
bikers enjoy the outdoors.

They CAN -- just like everyone else: on foot!

I mean the Appalachian Mountain Club

Quoted message said:

maintains the miles of trail every year - each year debris or erosion
has to be cleared/fixed, as well as trimming back of weeds, branches,
bushes, etc. How is this any different?

Now you can come back with an argument that some mtn bikers will make
new paths for challenges - true - some who don't think about the
impact, idiots - I personally wouldn't veer off the trails - but
that's right up there with campers/hikers who leave trash or cut down
trees.

And I'd rather see a THIN (in comparison to the entire park/area),
DEFINED bike trail than no trail at all - at least with a defined
trail, the majority of bikers will stick to the trail - as opposed to
no trail and every biker making there own trail and thus doing much
more overall damage.

You guys have to get a clue - it's just not your wilderness!

You make no sense whatsoever. How does a bike ban keep mountain bikers
out??????????????????????????????????? Idiot.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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 said:

Kernix said:

cc said:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> \On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:26:43 -0700, "GeeDubb" <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>> Some of you might remember me talking about the new Black Canyon Trail
>> system going in North of Phoenix. We had another great turnout of people on
>> Saturday cutting in another half mile or more of trail through some pretty
>> tough terrain. For a few pictures, a short write-up and links to more
>> photos and the BCT website click below
>> http://www.spokejunkies.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5095
> Disgusting. Where do you get the right to destroy wildlife habitat,
> especially for cheap thrills like mountain biking? And you want to
> call yourselves "environmentalists"?!
Doesn't it burn you up? How
about knowing you're
absolutely powerless to stop
it? How about knowing the
world laughs at you?

Wait a minute - how is a hiking trail any different?

It's narrower. Hikers can pass each other in less space than two
bikers can pass each other (due to the handlebars).

This is just incorrect. I've
been on countless biking and
hiking trails, and the
difference is negligible. Some
of the tightest trails I've
been on were for bikers and
hikers.

Quoted message said:

You're talking

Quoted message said:

about a trail that is not that wide is such a large area? I'm a hiker,
mtn biker, canoer, orienteer, camper and soon to be sailor - why can't
bikers enjoy the outdoors.

They CAN -- just like everyone else: on foot!

Mike, it's about time you
stopped posting this [censored]
semantic argument. If you ban
the bikes, you ban mountain
bikers. When I'm on the trail
without my bike, I'm a hiker.
Douchebag.

Quoted message said:

I mean the Appalachian Mountain Club

Quoted message said:

maintains the miles of trail every year - each year debris or erosion
has to be cleared/fixed, as well as trimming back of weeds, branches,
bushes, etc. How is this any different?

Now you can come back with an argument that some mtn bikers will make
new paths for challenges - true - some who don't think about the
impact, idiots - I personally wouldn't veer off the trails - but
that's right up there with campers/hikers who leave trash or cut down
trees.

And I'd rather see a THIN (in comparison to the entire park/area),
DEFINED bike trail than no trail at all - at least with a defined
trail, the majority of bikers will stick to the trail - as opposed to
no trail and every biker making there own trail and thus doing much
more overall damage.

You guys have to get a clue - it's just not your wilderness!

You make no sense whatsoever. How does a bike ban keep mountain bikers
out??????????????????????????????????? Idiot.

Mike, it's about time you
stopped posting this [censored]
semantic argument. If you ban
the bikes, you ban mountain
bikers. When I'm on the trail
without my bike, I'm a hiker.
Douchebag.

cc said:

Mike Vandeman said:

Kernix said:

On Feb 13, 12:41 am, cc <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> \On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:26:43 -0700, "GeeDubb" <[email hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>> Some of you might remember me talking about the new Black Canyon Trail
>>> system going in North of Phoenix. We had another great turnout of people on
>>> Saturday cutting in another half mile or more of trail through some pretty
>>> tough terrain. For a few pictures, a short write-up and links to more
>>> photos and the BCT website click below
>>> http://www.spokejunkies.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5095
>> Disgusting. Where do you get the right to destroy wildlife habitat,
>> especially for cheap thrills like mountain biking? And you want to
>> call yourselves "environmentalists"?!
> Doesn't it burn you up? How
> about knowing you're
> absolutely powerless to stop
> it? How about knowing the
> world laughs at you?
Wait a minute - how is a hiking trail any different?

It's narrower. Hikers can pass each other in less space than two
bikers can pass each other (due to the handlebars).

This is just incorrect. I've
been on countless biking and
hiking trails, and the
difference is negligible.

So you admit that there is a difference -- as I said! QED

Some

Quoted message said:

of the tightest trails I've
been on were for bikers and
hikers.

Quoted message said:

You're talking

Quoted message said:

about a trail that is not that wide is such a large area? I'm a hiker,
mtn biker, canoer, orienteer, camper and soon to be sailor - why can't
bikers enjoy the outdoors.

They CAN -- just like everyone else: on foot!

Mike, it's about time you
stopped posting this [censored]
semantic argument. If you ban
the bikes, you ban mountain
bikers. When I'm on the trail
without my bike, I'm a hiker.
Douchebag.

Quoted message said:

I mean the Appalachian Mountain Club

Quoted message said:

maintains the miles of trail every year - each year debris or erosion
has to be cleared/fixed, as well as trimming back of weeds, branches,
bushes, etc. How is this any different?

Now you can come back with an argument that some mtn bikers will make
new paths for challenges - true - some who don't think about the
impact, idiots - I personally wouldn't veer off the trails - but
that's right up there with campers/hikers who leave trash or cut down
trees.

And I'd rather see a THIN (in comparison to the entire park/area),
DEFINED bike trail than no trail at all - at least with a defined
trail, the majority of bikers will stick to the trail - as opposed to
no trail and every biker making there own trail and thus doing much
more overall damage.

You guys have to get a clue - it's just not your wilderness!

You make no sense whatsoever. How does a bike ban keep mountain bikers
out??????????????????????????????????? Idiot.

Mike, it's about time you
stopped posting this [censored]
semantic argument. If you ban
the bikes, you ban mountain
bikers. When I'm on the trail
without my bike, I'm a hiker.
Douchebag.

===
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 said:

cc said:

Mike Vandeman said:

On 13 Feb 2007 07:35:33 -0800, "Kernix" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> On Feb 13, 12:41 am, cc <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> \On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:26:43 -0700, "GeeDubb" <[email hidden]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Some of you might remember me talking about the new Black Canyon Trail
>>>> system going in North of Phoenix. We had another great turnout of people on
>>>> Saturday cutting in another half mile or more of trail through some pretty
>>>> tough terrain. For a few pictures, a short write-up and links to more
>>>> photos and the BCT website click below
>>>> http://www.spokejunkies.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5095
>>> Disgusting. Where do you get the right to destroy wildlife habitat,
>>> especially for cheap thrills like mountain biking? And you want to
>>> call yourselves "environmentalists"?!
>> Doesn't it burn you up? How
>> about knowing you're
>> absolutely powerless to stop
>> it? How about knowing the
>> world laughs at you?
> Wait a minute - how is a hiking trail any different?
It's narrower. Hikers can pass each other in less space than two
bikers can pass each other (due to the handlebars).

This is just incorrect. I've
been on countless biking and
hiking trails, and the
difference is negligible.

So you admit that there is a difference -- as I said! QED

You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

Some

Quoted message said:

of the tightest trails I've
been on were for bikers and
hikers.

Quoted message said:

You're talking
> about a trail that is not that wide is such a large area? I'm a hiker,
> mtn biker, canoer, orienteer, camper and soon to be sailor - why can't
> bikers enjoy the outdoors.
They CAN -- just like everyone else: on foot!

Mike, it's about time you
stopped posting this [censored]
semantic argument. If you ban
the bikes, you ban mountain
bikers. When I'm on the trail
without my bike, I'm a hiker.
Douchebag.

Quoted message said:

I mean the Appalachian Mountain Club
> maintains the miles of trail every year - each year debris or erosion
> has to be cleared/fixed, as well as trimming back of weeds, branches,
> bushes, etc. How is this any different?
>
> Now you can come back with an argument that some mtn bikers will make
> new paths for challenges - true - some who don't think about the
> impact, idiots - I personally wouldn't veer off the trails - but
> that's right up there with campers/hikers who leave trash or cut down
> trees.
>
> And I'd rather see a THIN (in comparison to the entire park/area),
> DEFINED bike trail than no trail at all - at least with a defined
> trail, the majority of bikers will stick to the trail - as opposed to
> no trail and every biker making there own trail and thus doing much
> more overall damage.
>
> You guys have to get a clue - it's just not your wilderness!
You make no sense whatsoever. How does a bike ban keep mountain bikers
out??????????????????????????????????? Idiot.

Mike, it's about time you
stopped posting this [censored]
semantic argument. If you ban
the bikes, you ban mountain
bikers. When I'm on the trail
without my bike, I'm a hiker.
Douchebag.

===
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

cc said:

Mike Vandeman said:

cc said:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2007 07:35:33 -0800, "Kernix" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 13, 12:41 am, cc <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>> \On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:26:43 -0700, "GeeDubb" <[email hidden]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Some of you might remember me talking about the new Black Canyon Trail
>>>>> system going in North of Phoenix. We had another great turnout of people on
>>>>> Saturday cutting in another half mile or more of trail through some pretty
>>>>> tough terrain. For a few pictures, a short write-up and links to more
>>>>> photos and the BCT website click below
>>>>> http://www.spokejunkies.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5095
>>>> Disgusting. Where do you get the right to destroy wildlife habitat,
>>>> especially for cheap thrills like mountain biking? And you want to
>>>> call yourselves "environmentalists"?!
>>> Doesn't it burn you up? How
>>> about knowing you're
>>> absolutely powerless to stop
>>> it? How about knowing the
>>> world laughs at you?
>> Wait a minute - how is a hiking trail any different?
> It's narrower. Hikers can pass each other in less space than two
> bikers can pass each other (due to the handlebars).
This is just incorrect. I've
been on countless biking and
hiking trails, and the
difference is negligible.

So you admit that there is a difference -- as I said! QED

You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science"😉.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some

Quoted message said:

of the tightest trails I've
been on were for bikers and
hikers.

> You're talking
>> about a trail that is not that wide is such a large area? I'm a hiker,
>> mtn biker, canoer, orienteer, camper and soon to be sailor - why can't
>> bikers enjoy the outdoors.
> They CAN -- just like everyone else: on foot!
Mike, it's about time you
stopped posting this [censored]
semantic argument. If you ban
the bikes, you ban mountain
bikers. When I'm on the trail
without my bike, I'm a hiker.
Douchebag.

> I mean the Appalachian Mountain Club
>> maintains the miles of trail every year - each year debris or erosion
>> has to be cleared/fixed, as well as trimming back of weeds, branches,
>> bushes, etc. How is this any different?
>>
>> Now you can come back with an argument that some mtn bikers will make
>> new paths for challenges - true - some who don't think about the
>> impact, idiots - I personally wouldn't veer off the trails - but
>> that's right up there with campers/hikers who leave trash or cut down
>> trees.
>>
>> And I'd rather see a THIN (in comparison to the entire park/area),
>> DEFINED bike trail than no trail at all - at least with a defined
>> trail, the majority of bikers will stick to the trail - as opposed to
>> no trail and every biker making there own trail and thus doing much
>> more overall damage.
>>
>> You guys have to get a clue - it's just not your wilderness!
> You make no sense whatsoever. How does a bike ban keep mountain bikers
> out??????????????????????????????????? Idiot.
Mike, it's about time you
stopped posting this [censored]
semantic argument. If you ban
the bikes, you ban mountain
bikers. When I'm on the trail
without my bike, I'm a hiker.
Douchebag.

===
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

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

Quoted message said:

I am a troll and it sucks to be me.

Couldn't agree more :>😉

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

Quoted message said:

cc said:

You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science"😉.

And what "science" are you referring to? YOU have not conducted actual field
research. You only take what others have done and either ignore what you do
not like to take only what is favorable to your opinion or you ridicule the
findings because they do not fall in line with your opinion.
The REAL research done by REAL researchers has been gathered by experts in
charge (without the benefit of your "reviews"😉 and have come to the
conclusion that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking in regards to trail
and habitat impact. The REAL information has lead to rules and regulations
nationwide recognizing the validity of off-road cycling in multi-use
designated areas. These rulings have driven the trail user cooperation and
expansion of cycling access.
YOUR opinion of what REAL science is has no measure in the matter.

S Curtiss said:

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

news:... On Thu said:

Quoted message said:

You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science"😉.

And what "science" are you referring to?

In addition to sloppy/home-brew "science," he doesn't seem capable of
correct grammar.

PH

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:45:13 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

cc said:

You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science"😉.

And what "science" are you referring to? YOU have not conducted actual field
research. You only take what others have done and either ignore what you do
not like to take only what is favorable to your opinion or you ridicule the
findings because they do not fall in line with your opinion.
The REAL research done by REAL researchers has been gathered by experts in
charge (without the benefit of your "reviews"😉 and have come to the
conclusion that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking in regards to trail
and habitat impact. The REAL information has lead to rules and regulations
nationwide recognizing the validity of off-road cycling in multi-use
designated areas. These rulings have driven the trail user cooperation and
expansion of cycling access.
YOUR opinion of what REAL science is has no measure in the matter.

Obviously you aren't capable of distinguishing real science from
fraud. I am, and I did. So far, I haven't found anyone who disagrees
with my conclusions except mountain bikers. Mountain bikers LIKE
fraud. It's their middle name.
===
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

pmh said:

S Curtiss said:

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

news:... On Thu said:

>You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
>think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
>trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
>each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science"😉.

And what "science" are you referring to?

In addition to sloppy/home-brew "science," he doesn't seem capable of
correct grammar.

What are you talking about?

Quoted message said:

PH

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

Quoted message said:

What are you talking about? I am so a troll. Boy does it ever suck to be
me.

Agreed

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

Quoted message said:

I just can't get enough trolling done in a day. It surely sucks to be me.

You can say that again.

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

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:45:13 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:25:55 -0800, cc <[email hidden]> wrote:

>
>You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
>think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
>trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
>each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science"😉.

And what "science" are you referring to? YOU have not conducted actual
field
research. You only take what others have done and either ignore what you
do
not like to take only what is favorable to your opinion or you ridicule
the
findings because they do not fall in line with your opinion.
The REAL research done by REAL researchers has been gathered by experts in
charge (without the benefit of your "reviews"😉 and have come to the
conclusion that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking in regards to
trail
and habitat impact. The REAL information has lead to rules and regulations
nationwide recognizing the validity of off-road cycling in multi-use
designated areas. These rulings have driven the trail user cooperation and
expansion of cycling access.
YOUR opinion of what REAL science is has no measure in the matter.

Obviously you aren't capable of distinguishing real science from
fraud. I am, and I did. So far, I haven't found anyone who disagrees
with my conclusions except mountain bikers. Mountain bikers LIKE
fraud. It's their middle name.
===

Obviously, you ignore the REAL scientists, environmentalists and researchers
who conduct and compile the research that has allowed off-road cycling to be
recognized by the NFS, NPS and land managers nationwide.
You say you have not "found anyone who disagrees...". Names? Locations? Who
are these "mystery people"? Where are the direct quotes from actual and real
scientists and environmental researchers who have said directlty that they
agree with the views of Mike Vandeman concerning off-road cycling?
What actual field research have you done? What are the opinions of those
whose actual work and research you butcher in order to claim a foundation
for your opinions? Your "reviews" have been put out to pasture as nobody
needs the services of a self-appointed "middle-man" to INTERPRET and SPIN
the results when the actual research and those conducting it are readily
available by the internet.
You have been requested for years to supply names that can be verified. You
only respond with "because I say so". Hardly scientific and definately not
the response from someone who has conviction in their statements.
If you have not found anyone with credentials who disagrees with your
opinions, you have been living in a bubble and purposefully looking away
from the truth.