M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 16:14:43 GMT, "Michael Paul" <[email protected]> wrote:
. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 17:46:34 GMT, "Michael
Paul" <[email protected]> wrote: .> .<snip> . .> IS there a "real expert" around here? I doubt it. I
have read what those .> so-called "experts" write, and it's all junk science. ALL of it. After .all,
.> mountain bikers are the ONLY people motivated to rationalize mountain .biking. . .Case in point.
Others disagree with your views so their expert opinions .become pure junk science (as opposed to
your totally unscientific opinions .and views).
They aren't junk science because I disagree with them. They are junk science because they are junk
science. DUH!
Although your use of circular logic to rationalize your own .points never ceases to amaze me.
You're good at reciting retoric but none .of your arguments are based on any scientific knowledge.
They're all merely .your opinion. . .Taken from this link:
.http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/DogsInWaterfrontPark.html . .First he says
that the area consists of low value wildlife habitat, which I .accept. He is, I assume, an expert
on this. But then he leaves his field of .expertise to conclude that therefore it is okay to
degrade the area further .by allowing dogs there. If it is messed up a little, then that makes it
okay .to mess it up some more! .It seems to me that it is more logical to conclude that therefore
the area .should be restored to a condition that will make it good habitat for .wildlife. After
all, before man came here, it was perfectly good habitat! . .You criticize somebody for leaving
his field of expertise. Hmmmmm, sounds .familiar. Maybe similiar to somebody with math and psych
degrees relaying .his lack of wisdom and actual scientific knowledge onto others?
If that were true, I wouldn't have been invited o present scientific papers at numerous scientific
conferences. Nice try, but no banana.
Sure, you .say the studies disproving your opinions are flawed because they don't .support your
opinions but at least these people are publishing actual .studies (both for and against) instead of
relaying retoric and nothing but. . .I'm especially fond though when you wish to restore a park to
a condition to .make it good habititat becuase it was after all perfectly good before man .arrived.
I'm sure your house was also good habitat, as was all of the land .that U.C. Bezerkely, U.C.L.A,
and everything else that supports your .annoying, yet moderately amusing existence . .Michael .
===
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 protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 17:46:34 GMT, "Michael
Paul" <[email protected]> wrote: .> .<snip> . .> IS there a "real expert" around here? I doubt it. I
have read what those .> so-called "experts" write, and it's all junk science. ALL of it. After .all,
.> mountain bikers are the ONLY people motivated to rationalize mountain .biking. . .Case in point.
Others disagree with your views so their expert opinions .become pure junk science (as opposed to
your totally unscientific opinions .and views).
They aren't junk science because I disagree with them. They are junk science because they are junk
science. DUH!
Although your use of circular logic to rationalize your own .points never ceases to amaze me.
You're good at reciting retoric but none .of your arguments are based on any scientific knowledge.
They're all merely .your opinion. . .Taken from this link:
.http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/DogsInWaterfrontPark.html . .First he says
that the area consists of low value wildlife habitat, which I .accept. He is, I assume, an expert
on this. But then he leaves his field of .expertise to conclude that therefore it is okay to
degrade the area further .by allowing dogs there. If it is messed up a little, then that makes it
okay .to mess it up some more! .It seems to me that it is more logical to conclude that therefore
the area .should be restored to a condition that will make it good habitat for .wildlife. After
all, before man came here, it was perfectly good habitat! . .You criticize somebody for leaving
his field of expertise. Hmmmmm, sounds .familiar. Maybe similiar to somebody with math and psych
degrees relaying .his lack of wisdom and actual scientific knowledge onto others?
If that were true, I wouldn't have been invited o present scientific papers at numerous scientific
conferences. Nice try, but no banana.
Sure, you .say the studies disproving your opinions are flawed because they don't .support your
opinions but at least these people are publishing actual .studies (both for and against) instead of
relaying retoric and nothing but. . .I'm especially fond though when you wish to restore a park to
a condition to .make it good habititat becuase it was after all perfectly good before man .arrived.
I'm sure your house was also good habitat, as was all of the land .that U.C. Bezerkely, U.C.L.A,
and everything else that supports your .annoying, yet moderately amusing existence . .Michael .
===
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
