Re: More Abusive Email from a Typical Mountain Biker

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 07 May 2005 15:43:15 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..On Sat, 07 May 2005 13:48:14 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..wrote in message <[email protected]>:
..
..>.I have gone out and actively looked for the evidence of relevant
..>.difference which you have failed to provide,
..
..>Liar. http://home/pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.htm.
..
..Ah, a literature review with no inclusion criteria.

That's a LIE. As I explained many times, and you continue to ignore, I included
ALL literature on the subject.

So that's
..entirely worthless, then. As anybody knows who is used to reading
..literature reviews, the inclusion criteria are vital: they indicate
..whether the selection of papers is biased, whether
..
..>. and not found it,
..
..>You obviously haven't LOOKED.
..
..Oh I did. I looked quite hard. But it's a question of what you look
..for - if you look for evidence that mountain biking causes damage,

I didn't do that, as you well know. I looked at all scientific literature on the
subject. You haven't read ANY of it, or you would know.

you
..will find it because all human use, including hiking (which you admit
..you do) and horse riding (with which you evidently take common cause)
..causes damage to some degree. So any distinction is arbitrary.
..
..What is missing is evidence of relevant difference - mountain biking
..is apparently not, according to the authorities responsible, any
..greater threat than, say, hiking or kayaking.

Those aren't scientific experts applying scientific evidence. The SCIENTISTS say
that mountain biking has greater impacts than hiking -- a fact that you continue
to avoid mentioning, liar that you are.

Wilderness camping is
..identified as a particular threat, as is off-road motor vehicle use,
..but none of them seem to prioritise mountain biking at all. And they
..all place recreational use well below commercial exploitation as a
..source of threat.
..
..You have spent years spamming and trolling in mountain bike
..newsgroups, but when challenged to prove relevant difference, you
..fail.

Hogwash. I've given it dozens of times. You just don't want to admit it, because
it doesn't suport your fantasies about mountain biking.

The conclusion is inescapable: there is no relevant difference,
..you are simply a bigot.
..
..Guy

===
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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 07 May 2005 18:36:30 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>.Ah, a literature review with no inclusion criteria.

>That's a LIE. As I explained many times, and you continue to ignore, I included
>ALL literature on the subject.

For what value of "all"? Anyone well versed in the history of risk
compensation as applied to road safety issues will know that,
depending on where you look you can get completely different answers.
No literature review can have any credibility without explicitly
defined inclusion criteria by which the observer can gauge whether the
search is likely to throw up anything contradicting the author's
conclusions. This is especially important when the author is a known
bigot and the conclusions so obviously precede the research.

[of evidence that wilderness agencies share Vandeman's monomania]
>.>You obviously haven't LOOKED.
>.Oh I did. I looked quite hard. But it's a question of what you look
>.for - if you look for evidence that mountain biking causes damage,

>I didn't do that, as you well know. I looked at all scientific literature on the
>subject. You haven't read ANY of it, or you would know.

So you say, but you have not listed your inclusion criteria so we have
no idea whether you're telling the truth. You have failed to
demonstrate that mountain biking represents a particular concern over
and above, say, wilderness camping or offroad motor vehicle use.
Relevant difference, Mike. It's a crucial difference between a
campaigner and a bigot.

>.What is missing is evidence of relevant difference - mountain biking
>.is apparently not, according to the authorities responsible, any
>.greater threat than, say, hiking or kayaking.

>Those aren't scientific experts applying scientific evidence.

Of course - the National Parks Service just hires anyone off the
streets, it's well known.

The wilderness protection agencies all seem to agree: all human
activity is a threat, albeit generally a low-level one. You hike,
therefore you are part of the problem. Your relentless hate campaign
against mountain biking is therefore based not on a principle - if it
was you could not in all conscience hike at all - but on arbitrary
criteria. It doesn't actually matter in this context whether mountain
biking does cause marginally more damage than hiking, you have chosen
to set the bar at a level where your preferred activity is acceptable
and your chosen pet hate is not. Others set the bar at different
levels. Since it is arbitrary, that is their choice.

There are other activities which plainly cause much more damage than
mountain biking, such as logging off-road driving and so on; you
demonstrate no relevant difference between mountain biking and these
other activities you leave alone. You are just a bigot.

>The SCIENTISTS say
>that mountain biking has greater impacts than hiking -- a fact that you continue
>to avoid mentioning, liar that you are.

I'm sure if you look really carefully you might be able to find one or
two posts where I say something that could be construed (perhaps with
the aid of some mental gymnastics) as avoiding acknowledging that
mountain biking has an impact, but you'll find at least as many and
probably more where I freely admit is does have an impact. Just that
the impact is not proven to be any greater than, say, horse riding or
wilderness camping. You've taken common cause with horse riders, I
note. You have completely failed to demonstrate a relevant difference
between mountain biking and offroad motor vehicle use, which is
identified as a particular problem by several agencies. You spend an
appreciable proportion of your life trolling mountain bike groups, but
where are you on rec.autos.4x4? Nowhere. No, you are just a plain
old-fashioned bigot.

>.You have spent years spamming and trolling in mountain bike
>.newsgroups, but when challenged to prove relevant difference, you
>.fail.

>Hogwash. I've given it dozens of times. You just don't want to admit it, because
>it doesn't suport your fantasies about mountain biking.

See, you say that, but actually the only evidence you've posted thus
far is your own literature review, which lacks any inclusion criteria
so is worthless as evidence.

So I went out and read up on what the wilderness protection bodies
say, and none of them identifies mountain biking as a specific threat
over and above any other recreational use. Fires from camping, yes,
off-road 4x4 use, hell yes, but not mountain biking.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 07 May 2005 21:24:40 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..On Sat, 07 May 2005 18:36:30 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..wrote in message <[email protected]>:
..
..>.Ah, a literature review with no inclusion criteria.
..
..>That's a LIE. As I explained many times, and you continue to ignore, I included
..>ALL literature on the subject.
..
..For what value of "all"?

Look it up in the dictionary, if you dont understand "all". DUH!

Anyone well versed in the history of risk
..compensation as applied to road safety issues will know that,
..depending on where you look you can get completely different answers.
..No literature review can have any credibility without explicitly
..defined inclusion criteria by which the observer can gauge whether the
..search is likely to throw up anything contradicting the author's
..conclusions. This is especially important when the author is a known
..bigot and the conclusions so obviously precede the research.
..
..[of evidence that wilderness agencies share Vandeman's monomania]
..>.>You obviously haven't LOOKED.
..>.Oh I did. I looked quite hard. But it's a question of what you look
..>.for - if you look for evidence that mountain biking causes damage,
..
..>I didn't do that, as you well know. I looked at all scientific literature on the
..>subject. You haven't read ANY of it, or you would know.
..
..So you say, but you have not listed your inclusion criteria

"all"

so we have
..no idea whether you're telling the truth. You have failed to
..demonstrate that mountain biking represents a particular concern over
..and above, say, wilderness camping or offroad motor vehicle use.
..Relevant difference, Mike. It's a crucial difference between a
..campaigner and a bigot.
..
..>.What is missing is evidence of relevant difference - mountain biking
..>.is apparently not, according to the authorities responsible, any
..>.greater threat than, say, hiking or kayaking.
..
..>Those aren't scientific experts applying scientific evidence.
..
..Of course - the National Parks Service just hires anyone off the
..streets, it's well known.
..
..The wilderness protection agencies all seem to agree: all human
..activity is a threat, albeit generally a low-level one. You hike,
..therefore you are part of the problem. Your relentless hate campaign
..against mountain biking is therefore based not on a principle - if it
..was you could not in all conscience hike at all - but on arbitrary
..criteria. It doesn't actually matter in this context whether mountain
..biking does cause marginally more damage than hiking, you have chosen
..to set the bar at a level where your preferred activity is acceptable
..and your chosen pet hate is not. Others set the bar at different
..levels. Since it is arbitrary, that is their choice.
..
..There are other activities which plainly cause much more damage than
..mountain biking, such as logging off-road driving and so on; you
..demonstrate no relevant difference between mountain biking and these
..other activities you leave alone. You are just a bigot.
..
..>The SCIENTISTS say
..>that mountain biking has greater impacts than hiking -- a fact that you continue
..>to avoid mentioning, liar that you are.
..
..I'm sure if you look really carefully you might be able to find one or
..two posts where I say something that could be construed (perhaps with
..the aid of some mental gymnastics) as avoiding acknowledging that
..mountain biking has an impact, but you'll find at least as many and
..probably more where I freely admit is does have an impact. Just that
..the impact is not proven to be any greater than, say, horse riding or
..wilderness camping. You've taken common cause with horse riders, I
..note. You have completely failed to demonstrate a relevant difference
..between mountain biking and offroad motor vehicle use, which is
..identified as a particular problem by several agencies. You spend an
..appreciable proportion of your life trolling mountain bike groups, but
..where are you on rec.autos.4x4? Nowhere. No, you are just a plain
..old-fashioned bigot.
..
..>.You have spent years spamming and trolling in mountain bike
..>.newsgroups, but when challenged to prove relevant difference, you
..>.fail.
..
..>Hogwash. I've given it dozens of times. You just don't want to admit it, because
..>it doesn't suport your fantasies about mountain biking.
..
..See, you say that, but actually the only evidence you've posted thus
..far is your own literature review, which lacks any inclusion criteria
..so is worthless as evidence.
..
..So I went out and read up on what the wilderness protection bodies
..say,

They aren't experts in mountain biking. I AM.

and none of them identifies mountain biking as a specific threat
..over and above any other recreational use. Fires from camping, yes,
..off-road 4x4 use, hell yes, but not mountain biking.
..
..Guy

===
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

 

[jtaylor]

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

>
> They aren't experts in mountain biking. I AM.
>

You own and ride a mountain bike?

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 7 May 2005 21:48:43 -0300, "jtaylor" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..
..>
..> They aren't experts in mountain biking. I AM.
..>
..
..You own and ride a mountain bike?

Correction. I obviously meant that I am expert in the environmental IMPACTS of
mountain biking.

===
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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 07 May 2005 23:52:59 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>.>.Ah, a literature review with no inclusion criteria.

>.>That's a LIE. As I explained many times, and you continue to ignore, I included
>.>ALL literature on the subject.

>.For what value of "all"?

>Look it up in the dictionary, if you dont understand "all". DUH!

Done that; unhelpful. As pointed out numerous times, what constitutes
"all" in a literature review depends on where you look. If you search
the medical literature for evidence that seat belts save lives you
will find it in abundance, with few if any gainsayers. If you review
a wider set of literature, including texts on risk management and road
safety, you will find that no seat belt law anywhere in the world has
been shown to have actually reduced casualty rates.

A literature review is worthless without stated inclusion criteria.

>.So I went out and read up on what the wilderness protection bodies
>.say,

>They aren't experts in mountain biking. I AM.

Yes, in the same way that Don Black is an expert in the Jewish
conspiracy.

You can specialise in bashing mountain biking until you're blue in the
face (indeed I suspect you have) but you cannot demonstrate relevant
difference - you are a bigot.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 7 May 2005 21:48:43 -0300, "jtaylor"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>> They aren't experts in mountain biking. I AM.
>You own and ride a mountain bike?

I don't know about that, but judging from the lies and abuse he hands
out he's a "typical mountain biker" ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 08 May 2005 00:58:18 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>.> They aren't experts in mountain biking. I AM.
>.You own and ride a mountain bike?
>Correction. I obviously meant that I am expert in the environmental IMPACTS of
>mountain biking.

And Don Black is an expert in the Jewish conspiracy in America.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 08 May 2005 08:12:08 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..On Sat, 07 May 2005 23:52:59 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..wrote in message <[email protected]>:
..
..>.>.Ah, a literature review with no inclusion criteria.
..
..>.>That's a LIE. As I explained many times, and you continue to ignore, I included
..>.>ALL literature on the subject.
..
..>.For what value of "all"?
..
..>Look it up in the dictionary, if you dont understand "all". DUH!
..
..Done that; unhelpful.

Hint: "all" means ALL. DUH! What a dunce!

As pointed out numerous times, what constitutes
.."all" in a literature review depends on where you look. If you search
..the medical literature for evidence that seat belts save lives you
..will find it in abundance, with few if any gainsayers. If you review
..a wider set of literature, including texts on risk management and road
..safety, you will find that no seat belt law anywhere in the world has
..been shown to have actually reduced casualty rates.
..
..A literature review is worthless without stated inclusion criteria.
..
..>.So I went out and read up on what the wilderness protection bodies
..>.say,
..
..>They aren't experts in mountain biking. I AM.
..
..Yes, in the same way that Don Black is an expert in the Jewish
..conspiracy.
..
..You can specialise in bashing mountain biking until you're blue in the
..face (indeed I suspect you have) but you cannot demonstrate relevant
..difference - you are a bigot.
..
..Guy

===
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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 09 May 2005 14:45:26 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>.>.>.Ah, a literature review with no inclusion criteria.
>.>.>That's a LIE. As I explained many times, and you continue to ignore, I included
>.>.>ALL literature on the subject.
>.>.For what value of "all"?
>.>Look it up in the dictionary, if you dont understand "all". DUH!
>.Done that; unhelpful.
>Hint: "all" means ALL. DUH! What a dunce!

Clearly not "all" since the vast majority of "the literature" has
nothing to say on the subject at all. As far as I can tell you are
the only one who thinks mountain biking is a particular threat over
and above any other kind of human activity. Wilderness protection
bodies seem to identify wilderness camping (fire risk) and offroad
driving as the most destructive recreational activities, and most
commercial activities as massively more destructive in turn.

I wonder why it is that you are so resistant to stating your inclusion
criteria? It couldn't be that your literature search was specifically
designed to throw up only those studies which support your pre-defined
conclusion could it? This, of course, is why a literature is
worthless without explicitly stated inclusion criteria.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 09 May 2005 19:32:43 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..On Mon, 09 May 2005 14:45:26 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..wrote in message <[email protected]>:
..
..>.>.>.Ah, a literature review with no inclusion criteria.
..>.>.>That's a LIE. As I explained many times, and you continue to ignore, I included
..>.>.>ALL literature on the subject.
..>.>.For what value of "all"?
..>.>Look it up in the dictionary, if you dont understand "all". DUH!
..>.Done that; unhelpful.
..>Hint: "all" means ALL. DUH! What a dunce!
..
..Clearly not "all" since the vast majority of "the literature" has
..nothing to say on the subject at all.

We are talking about ALL the scientific literature on mountain biking vs.
hiking.

As far as I can tell you are
..the only one who thinks mountain biking is a particular threat over
..and above any other kind of human activity. Wilderness protection
..bodies seem to identify wilderness camping (fire risk) and offroad
..driving as the most destructive recreational activities, and most
..commercial activities as massively more destructive in turn.
..
..I wonder why it is that you are so resistant to stating your inclusion
..criteria?

I already did many times, idiot.

It couldn't be that your literature search was specifically
..designed to throw up only those studies which support your pre-defined
..conclusion could it? This, of course, is why a literature is
..worthless without explicitly stated inclusion criteria.
..
..Guy

===
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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 10 May 2005 01:50:32 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>.Clearly not "all" since the vast majority of "the literature" has
>.nothing to say on the subject at all.

>We are talking about ALL the scientific literature on mountain biking vs.
>hiking.

All of it? From what database? What were your keywords? What did
you do about papers which showed no differential? What did you do
with the ones which consider, for example, "water run-off from trails
cut for hiking or mountain biking" - i.e. those which do not consider
mountain biking a specific threat? What criteria did you use to
measure the relative impact? What was your scoring system? How did
other activities like horse-riding score? None of this is in your
paper.

Your paper is polemic, not a literature review. A literature review
identifies its selection criteria so the reader can establish whether
the bias has influenced the outcome. That is especially important
where the author is a known bigot.

>.I wonder why it is that you are so resistant to stating your inclusion
>.criteria?

>I already did many times, idiot.

No you didn't. You engaged in arm-waving. The word "all" is not
transitive in context, and I have stated (many times) why this is so.
Here is a little demonstration for you:

I did a search on the UN Environment Programme's literature database
for keywords mountain biking (exact match) and damage, I got seven
papers, of which two were duplicates, none of which identified
mountain biking as a threat separate from other recreational activity
(it was always mentioned with other activities, usually hiking). A
search for hiking and damage yielded twelve documents, of which six
did not mention mountain biking at all. A search for recreational and
damage yielded something over 350 hits, and a search for commercial
exploitation (exact match) and damage yielded around a thousand hits,
mentioning such diverse threats as off-road motor vehicle use, chain
dragging, logging, wash and effluent from pleasure boats, fires
started by wild camping, and so on.

A number of documents spoke of mountain biking as a potentially
beneficial activity, even in wilderness areas, and some identified it
as a particular source of eco-tourism revenue which could, properly
managed, yield substantial benefits to the local ecology.

So, as you see, the inclusion criteria are all-important. Your review
of "all the literature" cites a total of under 20 papers, 10% of them
written by you and apparently never peer-reviewed. Mine shows that,
in as much as either activity is singled out, it is hiking which comes
in for more criticism. From my review I would be inclined to conclude
that mountain bikers should be subject to no greater control than any
other recreational user, and that anyone who focuses primarily on
mountain biking lacks perspective.

My search was rather unscientific - one search on one database - but
at least I have stated the source and the keywords, so people can work
out whether I'm telling the truth, and can try other keywords to see
if I have systematically excluded documents unhelpful to my case.
They can critique my conclusions (in as much as I draw any) because
they can test whether the criteria, sources and so on are a fair
reflection of the state of knowledge. They can work out if my
prejudices have skewed either selection or exclusion.

In your case you have no stated inclusion criteria, and you are a
known bigot, so your paper is worthless.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[GaryG]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 01:50:32 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >.Clearly not "all" since the vast majority of "the literature" has
> >.nothing to say on the subject at all.
>
> >We are talking about ALL the scientific literature on mountain biking vs.
> >hiking.
>
> All of it? From what database? What were your keywords? What did
> you do about papers which showed no differential? What did you do
> with the ones which consider, for example, "water run-off from trails
> cut for hiking or mountain biking" - i.e. those which do not consider
> mountain biking a specific threat? What criteria did you use to
> measure the relative impact? What was your scoring system? How did
> other activities like horse-riding score? None of this is in your
> paper.
>
> Your paper is polemic, not a literature review. A literature review
> identifies its selection criteria so the reader can establish whether
> the bias has influenced the outcome. That is especially important
> where the author is a known bigot.
>
> >.I wonder why it is that you are so resistant to stating your inclusion
> >.criteria?
>
> >I already did many times, idiot.
>
> No you didn't. You engaged in arm-waving. The word "all" is not
> transitive in context, and I have stated (many times) why this is so.
> Here is a little demonstration for you:
>
> I did a search on the UN Environment Programme's literature database
> for keywords mountain biking (exact match) and damage, I got seven
> papers, of which two were duplicates, none of which identified
> mountain biking as a threat separate from other recreational activity
> (it was always mentioned with other activities, usually hiking). A
> search for hiking and damage yielded twelve documents, of which six
> did not mention mountain biking at all. A search for recreational and
> damage yielded something over 350 hits, and a search for commercial
> exploitation (exact match) and damage yielded around a thousand hits,
> mentioning such diverse threats as off-road motor vehicle use, chain
> dragging, logging, wash and effluent from pleasure boats, fires
> started by wild camping, and so on.
>
> A number of documents spoke of mountain biking as a potentially
> beneficial activity, even in wilderness areas, and some identified it
> as a particular source of eco-tourism revenue which could, properly
> managed, yield substantial benefits to the local ecology.
>
> So, as you see, the inclusion criteria are all-important. Your review
> of "all the literature" cites a total of under 20 papers, 10% of them
> written by you and apparently never peer-reviewed. Mine shows that,
> in as much as either activity is singled out, it is hiking which comes
> in for more criticism. From my review I would be inclined to conclude
> that mountain bikers should be subject to no greater control than any
> other recreational user, and that anyone who focuses primarily on
> mountain biking lacks perspective.
>
> My search was rather unscientific - one search on one database - but
> at least I have stated the source and the keywords, so people can work
> out whether I'm telling the truth, and can try other keywords to see
> if I have systematically excluded documents unhelpful to my case.
> They can critique my conclusions (in as much as I draw any) because
> they can test whether the criteria, sources and so on are a fair
> reflection of the state of knowledge. They can work out if my
> prejudices have skewed either selection or exclusion.
>
> In your case you have not stated inclusion criteria, and you are a
> known bigot, so your paper is worthless.

Game, Set, and Match to Mr. Chapman. Well played, sir.

GG

>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 10 May 2005 13:24:05 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

..On Tue, 10 May 2005 01:50:32 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..
..>.Clearly not "all" since the vast majority of "the literature" has
..>.nothing to say on the subject at all.
..
..>We are talking about ALL the scientific literature on mountain biking vs.
..>hiking.
..
..All of it? From what database? What were your keywords? What did
..you do about papers which showed no differential? What did you do
..with the ones which consider, for example, "water run-off from trails
..cut for hiking or mountain biking" - i.e. those which do not consider
..mountain biking a specific threat? What criteria did you use to
..measure the relative impact? What was your scoring system? How did
..other activities like horse-riding score? None of this is in your
..paper.

Yes, it is. You obviously haven't READ it! Liar,

..Your paper is polemic, not a literature review. A literature review
..identifies its selection criteria so the reader can establish whether
..the bias has influenced the outcome. That is especially important
..where the author is a known bigot.
..
..>.I wonder why it is that you are so resistant to stating your inclusion
..>.criteria?
..
..>I already did many times, idiot.
..
..No you didn't. You engaged in arm-waving. The word "all" is not
..transitive in context, and I have stated (many times) why this is so.
..Here is a little demonstration for you:
..
..I did a search on the UN Environment Programme's literature database
..for keywords mountain biking (exact match) and damage, I got seven
..papers, of which two were duplicates, none of which identified
..mountain biking as a threat separate from other recreational activity
..(it was always mentioned with other activities, usually hiking). A
..search for hiking and damage yielded twelve documents, of which six
..did not mention mountain biking at all. A search for recreational and
..damage yielded something over 350 hits, and a search for commercial
..exploitation (exact match) and damage yielded around a thousand hits,
..mentioning such diverse threats as off-road motor vehicle use, chain
..dragging, logging, wash and effluent from pleasure boats, fires
..started by wild camping, and so on.

This isn't about databases, idiot.

..A number of documents spoke of mountain biking as a potentially
..beneficial activity, even in wilderness areas,

You obviously didn't restrict your search to SCIENTIFIC papers. DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

and some identified it
..as a particular source of eco-tourism revenue which could, properly
..managed, yield substantial benefits to the local ecology.
..
..So, as you see, the inclusion criteria are all-important. Your review
..of "all the literature" cites a total of under 20 papers, 10% of them
..written by you and apparently never peer-reviewed. Mine shows that,
..in as much as either activity is singled out, it is hiking which comes
..in for more criticism. From my review I would be inclined to conclude
..that mountain bikers should be subject to no greater control than any
..other recreational user, and that anyone who focuses primarily on
..mountain biking lacks perspective.
..
..My search was rather unscientific

You can say THAT again! Mine was NOT.

- one search on one database - but
..at least I have stated the source and the keywords, so people can work
..out whether I'm telling the truth, and can try other keywords to see
..if I have systematically excluded documents unhelpful to my case.
..They can critique my conclusions (in as much as I draw any) because
..they can test whether the criteria, sources and so on are a fair
..reflection of the state of knowledge. They can work out if my
..prejudices have skewed either selection or exclusion.

Yes. You included non-scientific papers. DUH! You are a complete waste of
everyone's time.

..In your case you have no stated inclusion criteria, and you are a
..known bigot, so your paper is worthless.
..
..Guy

===
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

 

[Gary S.]

On Tue, 10 May 2005 08:05:39 -0700, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> Your paper is polemic, not a literature review. A literature review
>> identifies its selection criteria so the reader can establish whether
>> the bias has influenced the outcome. That is especially important
>> where the author is a known bigot.
>>
>> In your case you have not stated inclusion criteria, and you are a
>> known bigot, so your paper is worthless.
>
>Game, Set, and Match to Mr. Chapman. Well played, sir.
>
>GG
>
Except that Mikey is not capable of accepting any information from
outside sources. His ego combined with his pathology will not alow him
to see or hear anything that does not agree with his existing
opinions.

He has little or no control over his actions, and is not capable of
seeing how much harm he is doing to the idea of protecting the
environment.

But he does not care about the environment or the wildlife nearly as
much as he cares about being "right" and "the world's foremost
authority".

Amuse yourself playing games with Mikey, but don't waste too much time
or energy on debating a smug and self-righteous ego-driven idiot with
mental health issues.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 10 May 2005 08:05:39 -0700, "GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote:

.."Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Tue, 10 May 2005 01:50:32 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> >.Clearly not "all" since the vast majority of "the literature" has
..> >.nothing to say on the subject at all.
..>
..> >We are talking about ALL the scientific literature on mountain biking vs.
..> >hiking.
..>
..> All of it? From what database? What were your keywords? What did
..> you do about papers which showed no differential? What did you do
..> with the ones which consider, for example, "water run-off from trails
..> cut for hiking or mountain biking" - i.e. those which do not consider
..> mountain biking a specific threat? What criteria did you use to
..> measure the relative impact? What was your scoring system? How did
..> other activities like horse-riding score? None of this is in your
..> paper.
..>
..> Your paper is polemic, not a literature review. A literature review
..> identifies its selection criteria so the reader can establish whether
..> the bias has influenced the outcome. That is especially important
..> where the author is a known bigot.
..>
..> >.I wonder why it is that you are so resistant to stating your inclusion
..> >.criteria?
..>
..> >I already did many times, idiot.
..>
..> No you didn't. You engaged in arm-waving. The word "all" is not
..> transitive in context, and I have stated (many times) why this is so.
..> Here is a little demonstration for you:
..>
..> I did a search on the UN Environment Programme's literature database
..> for keywords mountain biking (exact match) and damage, I got seven
..> papers, of which two were duplicates, none of which identified
..> mountain biking as a threat separate from other recreational activity
..> (it was always mentioned with other activities, usually hiking). A
..> search for hiking and damage yielded twelve documents, of which six
..> did not mention mountain biking at all. A search for recreational and
..> damage yielded something over 350 hits, and a search for commercial
..> exploitation (exact match) and damage yielded around a thousand hits,
..> mentioning such diverse threats as off-road motor vehicle use, chain
..> dragging, logging, wash and effluent from pleasure boats, fires
..> started by wild camping, and so on.
..>
..> A number of documents spoke of mountain biking as a potentially
..> beneficial activity, even in wilderness areas, and some identified it
..> as a particular source of eco-tourism revenue which could, properly
..> managed, yield substantial benefits to the local ecology.
..>
..> So, as you see, the inclusion criteria are all-important. Your review
..> of "all the literature" cites a total of under 20 papers, 10% of them
..> written by you and apparently never peer-reviewed. Mine shows that,
..> in as much as either activity is singled out, it is hiking which comes
..> in for more criticism. From my review I would be inclined to conclude
..> that mountain bikers should be subject to no greater control than any
..> other recreational user, and that anyone who focuses primarily on
..> mountain biking lacks perspective.
..>
..> My search was rather unscientific - one search on one database - but
..> at least I have stated the source and the keywords, so people can work
..> out whether I'm telling the truth, and can try other keywords to see
..> if I have systematically excluded documents unhelpful to my case.
..> They can critique my conclusions (in as much as I draw any) because
..> they can test whether the criteria, sources and so on are a fair
..> reflection of the state of knowledge. They can work out if my
..> prejudices have skewed either selection or exclusion.
..>
..> In your case you have not stated inclusion criteria, and you are a
..> known bigot, so your paper is worthless.
..
..Game, Set, and Match to Mr. Chapman. Well played, sir.

Proving that mountain bikers know NOTHING about science. Even the author
admitted "My search was rather unscientific". QED

..GG
..
..>
..> Guy
..> --
..> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
..> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
..>
..> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
..

===
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