M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:42:57 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:40:22 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>It is OBVIOUS you have not formed your OPINIONS through the process of
>>>>>actual research. You have fabricated research BECAUSE of your opinions.
>>>>>You
>>>>>have taken others' work out of context, ignored their conclusions and
>>>>>reinterpreted their findings using your OPINIONS as a gauge of any and
>>>>>all
>>>>>information they have developed. You have done NO actual research beyond
>>>>>regurgitating what others have done through the filter of your own
>>>>>viewpoint
>>>>>in an effort to give foundation to your OPINIONS.
>>>>>Your PhD does not give you creative license on a scientific level and
>>>>>your
>>>>>attempts to slander me or any other individual that points out the flaws
>>>>>of
>>>>>your OPINIONS by calling us names or eluding to our intelligence is
>>>>>simple
>>>>>misdirection away from your own lack of credibility.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. If you can't find anything specifically wrong with what I
>>>> said, then you are in the same boat: you have to admit that you can't
>>>> find anything I said that is actually WRONG! Vague generalities are
>>>> meaningless and don't cut it. QED
>>>>
>>>Your choice to be ignorant of past discussions (Google search "vandeman")
>>>is
>>>yours to make and does nothing but further decay your own statements.
>>
>> You can't fake honesty. You can't find a single inaccurate statement
>> in my paper, or you would be able to quote it right now. The fact is,
>> you CAN'T! QED.
>> ===
>All you have done is taken others' research and claim them to be wrong in
>thier conclusions then substitute your OPINIONS as proof. You have done no
>research yourself beyond read what others have done. When you come across a
>piece of information you can claim as support for your OPINIONS, you pull it
>away from the context of the whole and cite it as proof with no regard for
>the actual conclusions of the original author.
>Concerning "Wilson / Seney", you wrote:
>"But it has a number of defects that call its conclusions into question. The
>authors used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made available" by
>the various treatments. They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment yield
>produced by the simulated rainstorms at the downslope end of each plot",
>which they claim correlates with erosion" (they don't say what the
>correlation coefficient is). This doesn't seem like a good measure of
>erosion."
>
>You deride their process and findings with NO contrary research of YOUR OWN
>to support your supposition. You merely attack the findings through your
>OPINION.
>
>You also throw in your own variable (distance) as well as deride the
>findings because variables you claim exist were not accounted for (sideways
>displaced soil, for instance).:
>"The authors also ignored the relative distances that various trail users
>typically travel (for example, bikers generally travel several times as far
>as hikers, multiplying their impacts accordingly) and the additional impacts
>due to the mountain bike bringing new people to the trails that otherwise
>would not have been there (the same omission is true of all other studies,
>except Wisdom et al (2004)). They do say "Trail use in the last ten years
>has seen a dramatic increase in off-road bicycles" (p.86), but they don't
>incorporate this fact into their comparison. In addition, there is no
>recognition of different styles of riding and their effect on erosion.
>We don't know if the mountain bikers rode in representative fashion, or,
>more likely, rode more gently, with less skidding, acceleration, braking,
>and turning. There was also no recognition that soil displaced sideways
>(rather than downhill) also constitutes erosion damage. It seems likely that
>they underestimated the true impacts of mountain biking. I don't think that
>these results are reliable."
>
>You include "distance" as a "holy grail" while excluding "time". Cyclists
>may cover more distance, but are also less likely to linger and trample in a
>finite area. Cyclists cover the distance in less time and are out of the
>area while hikers remain longer. Since it is you that claim human presence
>itself is a danger, you exclude the additional time hikers remain as
>unimportant.
>
>You also attack them for "no recognition of different styles of riding and
>their effect on erosion" which is hysterical itself as YOU make NO
>distinction between careful riding and wreckless riding. You claim all
>riding is wreckless despite the mass of information to the contrary!
>
>You the close that paragraph with "It seems likely that they underestimated
>the true impacts of mountain biking. I don't think that these results are
>reliable."
>
>"It seems likely..." and "I don't think..." are nothing but suppositions
>fabricated from your opinions. You haven't disproved anything. You merely
>say their results are wrong because they do not fall in line with your view.
>
>
>
>Again you cite "distance" while ignoring "time" by attacking the findings in
>the "Chiu / Kriwoken" information:
>
>
>
>It is apparent he and the authors misstated the implications of the study.
>If we assume, as they claim, that bikers and hikers have the same impact per
>mile (which is what they measured), then it follows that mountain bikers
>have several times the impact of hikers, since they generally travel several
>times as far. (I haven't found any published statistics, but I have
>informally collected 72 mountain bikers' ride announcements, which advertise
>rides of a minimum of 8 miles, an average of 27 miles,
>
>and a maximum of 112 miles.)
>
>
>
>You "haven't found any published statistics..."? yet you make your claim? 8
>miles, 27 miles, 112 miles.... And how many hikes are published with
>similar distances? You don't say. Why is that? If you are going to claim
>harm by distance, then you should compare the two activities. But you do not
>do research yourself. That would imply accountability! You merely pull from
>others and select what you like and attack as "junk" what you don't. How
>long (time) would a hiker take to cover these distances? How much more
>damage is done by the hiker's presence by being in the vicinity for that
>much longer? Why do you ignore this variable but insist on cyclists'
>distance?
>
>
>
>You also make the supposition "Besides ignoring distance travelled, there
>were a number of other defects in the study. The biking that was compared
>with hiking
>
>was apparently not typical mountain biking. It was apparently slower than
>normal and included no skidding. Bikers who skidded (a normal occurrence)
>were not compared with hikers."
>
>
>
>"Apparently not typical..."? "Apparently slower than normal..." These are
>statements from your OPINIONS. You have no basis to create information and
>overlay it through their findings. Your OPINION of cyclists' riding is not a
>scientific variable in which to measure "typical". You insert (a normal
>occurence) concerning "skidding" as a statement of fact but have nothing
>beyond your OPINION that all cyclists ride in this way to offer to support
>the insertion.
>
>
>
>That is enough. Your fabrications only take existing studies and either
>support what follows your opinion and discard or deride what doesn't. You
>have done no actual research beyond reading what others have done and
>utilize what you like to support your view.
>
>
>
>You ignore or label as "junk" recent studies (2006) that support the FACT
>that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking. You ignore or label as
>"scandal" the FACT that the National Forests, National Parks, Land Managers
>and others have reviewed the same research (which you have picked apart with
>your opinions) to come to the conclusion that cycling is a viable (and
>acceptable) activity with similar comparisons to other allowed activities.
>
>
>
>The time has come and gone for your type of misinformation and
>fear-mongering to rule the process of land management. The internet and
>availability of actual information (not your interpretation of it) has taken
>the place of a handful of self-proclaimed "know-it-alls" controlling how
>things are done. Your OPINION of the research (which is all you present in
>your writings) does not supercede the actual findings. You OPINION of
>off-road cycling is no measure of the activity or those who engage in it.
>Your voice has nothing but a hollow ring of "because I say so".
>
>That is no longer good enough for those who make decisions when they can
>read and interpret the actual findings from the actual authors and
>researchers.
>
>Your PhD is no longer a measure of accountability as the authors and
>researchers you quote are also often accredited. Since they did the
>research, compiled the findings and formed their conclusions based on their
>ACTUAL experience, it is only OBVIOUS to take their findings over your
>interpretation of them.
>
>When one these actual researchers gives you a nod of approval for
>re-interpreting their findings, let us know. When you have verifiable names
>of environmental researchers or conference attendees that give your opinions
>a review, let us know. When one of these conferences you attend releases an
>action plan involving your recommendations, let us know.
>
>Otherwise... You have nothing.
>
As I said, you can't fake honesty. You can't find a single inaccurate
statement in my paper, or you would be able to quote it right now. The
fact is, you CAN'T! QED.
===
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
wrote:
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:40:22 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>It is OBVIOUS you have not formed your OPINIONS through the process of
>>>>>actual research. You have fabricated research BECAUSE of your opinions.
>>>>>You
>>>>>have taken others' work out of context, ignored their conclusions and
>>>>>reinterpreted their findings using your OPINIONS as a gauge of any and
>>>>>all
>>>>>information they have developed. You have done NO actual research beyond
>>>>>regurgitating what others have done through the filter of your own
>>>>>viewpoint
>>>>>in an effort to give foundation to your OPINIONS.
>>>>>Your PhD does not give you creative license on a scientific level and
>>>>>your
>>>>>attempts to slander me or any other individual that points out the flaws
>>>>>of
>>>>>your OPINIONS by calling us names or eluding to our intelligence is
>>>>>simple
>>>>>misdirection away from your own lack of credibility.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. If you can't find anything specifically wrong with what I
>>>> said, then you are in the same boat: you have to admit that you can't
>>>> find anything I said that is actually WRONG! Vague generalities are
>>>> meaningless and don't cut it. QED
>>>>
>>>Your choice to be ignorant of past discussions (Google search "vandeman")
>>>is
>>>yours to make and does nothing but further decay your own statements.
>>
>> You can't fake honesty. You can't find a single inaccurate statement
>> in my paper, or you would be able to quote it right now. The fact is,
>> you CAN'T! QED.
>> ===
>All you have done is taken others' research and claim them to be wrong in
>thier conclusions then substitute your OPINIONS as proof. You have done no
>research yourself beyond read what others have done. When you come across a
>piece of information you can claim as support for your OPINIONS, you pull it
>away from the context of the whole and cite it as proof with no regard for
>the actual conclusions of the original author.
>Concerning "Wilson / Seney", you wrote:
>"But it has a number of defects that call its conclusions into question. The
>authors used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made available" by
>the various treatments. They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment yield
>produced by the simulated rainstorms at the downslope end of each plot",
>which they claim correlates with erosion" (they don't say what the
>correlation coefficient is). This doesn't seem like a good measure of
>erosion."
>
>You deride their process and findings with NO contrary research of YOUR OWN
>to support your supposition. You merely attack the findings through your
>OPINION.
>
>You also throw in your own variable (distance) as well as deride the
>findings because variables you claim exist were not accounted for (sideways
>displaced soil, for instance).:
>"The authors also ignored the relative distances that various trail users
>typically travel (for example, bikers generally travel several times as far
>as hikers, multiplying their impacts accordingly) and the additional impacts
>due to the mountain bike bringing new people to the trails that otherwise
>would not have been there (the same omission is true of all other studies,
>except Wisdom et al (2004)). They do say "Trail use in the last ten years
>has seen a dramatic increase in off-road bicycles" (p.86), but they don't
>incorporate this fact into their comparison. In addition, there is no
>recognition of different styles of riding and their effect on erosion.
>We don't know if the mountain bikers rode in representative fashion, or,
>more likely, rode more gently, with less skidding, acceleration, braking,
>and turning. There was also no recognition that soil displaced sideways
>(rather than downhill) also constitutes erosion damage. It seems likely that
>they underestimated the true impacts of mountain biking. I don't think that
>these results are reliable."
>
>You include "distance" as a "holy grail" while excluding "time". Cyclists
>may cover more distance, but are also less likely to linger and trample in a
>finite area. Cyclists cover the distance in less time and are out of the
>area while hikers remain longer. Since it is you that claim human presence
>itself is a danger, you exclude the additional time hikers remain as
>unimportant.
>
>You also attack them for "no recognition of different styles of riding and
>their effect on erosion" which is hysterical itself as YOU make NO
>distinction between careful riding and wreckless riding. You claim all
>riding is wreckless despite the mass of information to the contrary!
>
>You the close that paragraph with "It seems likely that they underestimated
>the true impacts of mountain biking. I don't think that these results are
>reliable."
>
>"It seems likely..." and "I don't think..." are nothing but suppositions
>fabricated from your opinions. You haven't disproved anything. You merely
>say their results are wrong because they do not fall in line with your view.
>
>
>
>Again you cite "distance" while ignoring "time" by attacking the findings in
>the "Chiu / Kriwoken" information:
>
>
>
>It is apparent he and the authors misstated the implications of the study.
>If we assume, as they claim, that bikers and hikers have the same impact per
>mile (which is what they measured), then it follows that mountain bikers
>have several times the impact of hikers, since they generally travel several
>times as far. (I haven't found any published statistics, but I have
>informally collected 72 mountain bikers' ride announcements, which advertise
>rides of a minimum of 8 miles, an average of 27 miles,
>
>and a maximum of 112 miles.)
>
>
>
>You "haven't found any published statistics..."? yet you make your claim? 8
>miles, 27 miles, 112 miles.... And how many hikes are published with
>similar distances? You don't say. Why is that? If you are going to claim
>harm by distance, then you should compare the two activities. But you do not
>do research yourself. That would imply accountability! You merely pull from
>others and select what you like and attack as "junk" what you don't. How
>long (time) would a hiker take to cover these distances? How much more
>damage is done by the hiker's presence by being in the vicinity for that
>much longer? Why do you ignore this variable but insist on cyclists'
>distance?
>
>
>
>You also make the supposition "Besides ignoring distance travelled, there
>were a number of other defects in the study. The biking that was compared
>with hiking
>
>was apparently not typical mountain biking. It was apparently slower than
>normal and included no skidding. Bikers who skidded (a normal occurrence)
>were not compared with hikers."
>
>
>
>"Apparently not typical..."? "Apparently slower than normal..." These are
>statements from your OPINIONS. You have no basis to create information and
>overlay it through their findings. Your OPINION of cyclists' riding is not a
>scientific variable in which to measure "typical". You insert (a normal
>occurence) concerning "skidding" as a statement of fact but have nothing
>beyond your OPINION that all cyclists ride in this way to offer to support
>the insertion.
>
>
>
>That is enough. Your fabrications only take existing studies and either
>support what follows your opinion and discard or deride what doesn't. You
>have done no actual research beyond reading what others have done and
>utilize what you like to support your view.
>
>
>
>You ignore or label as "junk" recent studies (2006) that support the FACT
>that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking. You ignore or label as
>"scandal" the FACT that the National Forests, National Parks, Land Managers
>and others have reviewed the same research (which you have picked apart with
>your opinions) to come to the conclusion that cycling is a viable (and
>acceptable) activity with similar comparisons to other allowed activities.
>
>
>
>The time has come and gone for your type of misinformation and
>fear-mongering to rule the process of land management. The internet and
>availability of actual information (not your interpretation of it) has taken
>the place of a handful of self-proclaimed "know-it-alls" controlling how
>things are done. Your OPINION of the research (which is all you present in
>your writings) does not supercede the actual findings. You OPINION of
>off-road cycling is no measure of the activity or those who engage in it.
>Your voice has nothing but a hollow ring of "because I say so".
>
>That is no longer good enough for those who make decisions when they can
>read and interpret the actual findings from the actual authors and
>researchers.
>
>Your PhD is no longer a measure of accountability as the authors and
>researchers you quote are also often accredited. Since they did the
>research, compiled the findings and formed their conclusions based on their
>ACTUAL experience, it is only OBVIOUS to take their findings over your
>interpretation of them.
>
>When one these actual researchers gives you a nod of approval for
>re-interpreting their findings, let us know. When you have verifiable names
>of environmental researchers or conference attendees that give your opinions
>a review, let us know. When one of these conferences you attend releases an
>action plan involving your recommendations, let us know.
>
>Otherwise... You have nothing.
>
As I said, you can't fake honesty. You can't find a single inaccurate
statement in my paper, or you would be able to quote it right now. The
fact is, you CAN'T! QED.
===
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