Re: Mountain Bikers' New Year's Resolution: Start Telling the Truth!



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
 
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 17:57:52 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> It's interesting that you guys NEVER quote a single statement of mine
>> that you think is not correct. Because then you could easily be
>> refuted. It's easier to spout vague generalities, isn't it? After 12
>> years, not one mountain biker has ever been able to find a single
>> incorrect statement in my papers. If you could have done so, you would
>> have done so long ago. It's the same reason you are afraid ot use your
>> real name: people would find out you are full of it.

>
>
>
>I did Mikey. About a year and a half ago. Google it.
>Answered you point for point,
>showed the flaws in your assumptions and your reasoning.
>
>And your response........?
>
>"Yawn" "Did you say something?"


Probably because you didn't really address the issues. 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! Put up or shut up. QED.

>You're not looking for dialogue.
>You don't care about wildlife or wilderness.
>You're simply a troll seeking to incite for your own pathetic reasons.
>And a liar.
>Vande-Garbage.
>

===
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
 
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:44:05 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"JP" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> It's interesting that you guys NEVER quote a single statement of mine
>>> that you think is not correct. Because then you could easily be
>>> refuted. It's easier to spout vague generalities, isn't it? After 12
>>> years, not one mountain biker has ever been able to find a single
>>> incorrect statement in my papers. If you could have done so, you would
>>> have done so long ago. It's the same reason you are afraid ot use your
>>> real name: people would find out you are full of it.

>>
>>I did Mikey. About a year and a half ago. Google it.
>>Answered you point for point,
>>showed the flaws in your assumptions and your reasoning.
>>
>>And your response........?
>>
>>"Yawn" "Did you say something?"
>>
>>You're not looking for dialogue.
>>You don't care about wildlife or wilderness.
>>You're simply a troll seeking to incite for your own pathetic reasons.
>>And a liar.

>
>So don't reply to him. Shun him and he'll go away (or at least will
>be very, very bored if we all ignore him).


Why can't you follow your own advice? Hypocrite.

>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $795 ti frame

===
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
 
On Jan 1, 10:24 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's interesting that you guys NEVER quote a single statement of mine
> that you think is not correct.


I don't think that's correct.

-Beej
 
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 11:27:43 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:39:01 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
>>>>>>> A Review of the Literature
>>>>>>> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>>>>> July 3, 2004
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>This...? Again...?
>>>>>>All you have is a persistent insistence that your OPINIONS supercede
>>>>>>all
>>>>>>other information and research. You have yet to provide any other peer
>>>>>>comment or review on these opinions. You have yet to provide anything
>>>>>>beyond
>>>>>>your OPINION of mountain biking to substantiate your claims. Your
>>>>>>OPINIONS
>>>>>>continue to run counter to established and defined concepts. You use
>>>>>>your
>>>>>>OPINIONS to measure all data.
>>>>>>It is no wonder REAL experts, REAL scientists
>>>>>
>>>>> You wouldn't know a real scientist if he bit you in the ass. The fact
>>>>> is, no real scientist has found any flaw in my paper yet! (Hint:
>>>>> because there aren't any.)
>>>> Then give the NAMES of those who endorse your OPINIONS and
>>>> presentations.
>>>> Give the names of those who have heard you speak and commented directly
>>>> on
>>>> what YOU have said.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'll take one name. One.
>>>
>>>Mike, why doesn't the Sierra Club endorse your agenda anymore?

>>
>> Two chapters voted long ago to support my human-free habitat proopsal.
>> Those resolutions still stand.

>
>Two? That's all? That's a sad legacy, Mr. Vandeman.


Compared to your ZERO? Don't make me laugh.

>You can't even get support for your environmentalist agenda from the
>environmentalists. Very sad indeed. How many chapters are there? You got 2
>to go along with you. According to the SC's Website, there are 64 chapters
>in the USA, and 13 in California. However, getting 2 chapters to go along
>with your psychosis is astounding to me, especially since your avowed goal
>flies in the face of the Club's own mission statement -- Explore, enjoy and
>protect the wild places of the earth.
>
>Everything you stand for defies the goal of explore and enjoy, and does
>virtually nothing to protect.
>
>
>

===
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
 
On 3 Jan 2007 21:09:56 -0800, "Beej" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jan 1, 10:24 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's interesting that you guys NEVER quote a single statement of mine
>> that you think is not correct.

>
>I don't think that's correct.


It is. You just proved it, by
>-Beej

===
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
 
On 3 Jan 2007 21:09:56 -0800, "Beej" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jan 1, 10:24 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's interesting that you guys NEVER quote a single statement of mine
>> that you think is not correct.

>
>I don't think that's correct.


You just proved it's correct, by not quoting any statement of mine
that you think is incorrect.

>-Beej

===
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 wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2007 21:09:56 -0800, "Beej" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 1, 10:24 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> It's interesting that you guys NEVER quote a single statement of mine
>>> that you think is not correct.

>> I don't think that's correct.

>
> You just proved it's correct, by not quoting any statement of mine
> that you think is incorrect.
>
>> -Beej

> ===
> 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



How about this then: "It's interesting that you guys NEVER quote a
single statement of mine that you think is not correct."

There you go, one quote from you that is an incorrect statement.
 
On Jan 4, 8:22 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> You just proved it's correct, by not quoting any statement of mine
> that you think is incorrect.


It's the fact that you don't succumb to cold hard logic, Mike, that
keeps you from exploding like that one robot in Star Trek. Well done.

-Beej
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:42:57 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>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.
> ===

Apparently - You can't read.

Beyond the points shown in the reply you which you did NOT address, your
entire premise is innacurate:

"...convince people that mountain biking is no more harmful than hiking. But
there are two problems with this approach: (1) it's not true and (2) it's
irrelevant."

Your statement "It's not true" is innacurate. You have failed to show
anything to support that assumtion. You state your OPINION - That is all.
Your "review" of research is merely an application of your OPINION on
others' findings. When one of these researchers gives you a positive nod for
re-interpreting their findings, let us know.
Your other statement "It's irrelevant" is a non-issue. The FACT that
off-road cycling has been recognized by the agencies in charge and shown to
be no more impactful than hiking is certainly relevant. It is your OPINION
that is irrelevant. That has been proven as the organizations that determine
the rules (by way of examining the available research) have come to the
conclusion that off-road cycling be allowed. They do not need your
interpretation of the research as they have the actual findings to examine.
You can talk about "honesty" all you want but you have yet to apply it in
your own comments. You have attempted to FAKE credibility and honesty and
have so obviously failed.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 11:27:43 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>> Then give the NAMES of those who endorse your OPINIONS and
>>>>> presentations.
>>>>> Give the names of those who have heard you speak and commented
>>>>> directly
>>>>> on
>>>>> what YOU have said.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'll take one name. One.
>>>>
>>>>Mike, why doesn't the Sierra Club endorse your agenda anymore?
>>>
>>> Two chapters voted long ago to support my human-free habitat proopsal.
>>> Those resolutions still stand.

>>
>>Two? That's all? That's a sad legacy, Mr. Vandeman.

>
> Compared to your ZERO? Don't make me laugh.
>

Zero...? Hardly! The MAIN SITE for the Sierra Club lists a mountain bike
policy. The Los Angelas Chapter (your back yard!) has a Mountain Bike
Committee advocating the cooperative efforts of off-road cyclists within the
SC. It certainly seems the Sierra Club has passed over your opinions on the
complete ban of off-road cycling.
In case your PhD was shredded by your cat, the support for creating some
areas as "human free" is NOT the same as supporting a total ban of off-road
cycling. Since your post starting this thread offers your opinions on
off-road cycling, try to stay on the topic YOU began. Why doesn't the Sierra
Club endorse your agenda of a total ban on off-road cycling? (Apparently, JS
tried to give you the benefit of being intelligent enough to determine the
point of his question.)
 
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:41:57 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:42:57 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>> ===

>Apparently - You can't read.
>
>Beyond the points shown in the reply you which you did NOT address, your
>entire premise is innacurate:
>
>"...convince people that mountain biking is no more harmful than hiking. But
>there are two problems with this approach: (1) it's not true and (2) it's
>irrelevant."
>
>Your statement "It's not true" is innacurate. You have failed to show
>anything to support that assumtion.


Are you kidding? I show that several times over in that paper. But you
have to be able to read. And think.

You state your OPINION - That is all.
>Your "review" of research is merely an application of your OPINION on
>others' findings. When one of these researchers gives you a positive nod for
>re-interpreting their findings, let us know.
>Your other statement "It's irrelevant" is a non-issue. The FACT that
>off-road cycling has been recognized by the agencies in charge and shown to
>be no more impactful than hiking is certainly relevant. It is your OPINION
>that is irrelevant. That has been proven as the organizations that determine
>the rules (by way of examining the available research) have come to the
>conclusion that off-road cycling be allowed. They do not need your
>interpretation of the research as they have the actual findings to examine.
>You can talk about "honesty" all you want but you have yet to apply it in
>your own comments. You have attempted to FAKE credibility and honesty and
>have so obviously failed.
>

===
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
 
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:19:19 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 11:27:43 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>> Then give the NAMES of those who endorse your OPINIONS and
>>>>>> presentations.
>>>>>> Give the names of those who have heard you speak and commented
>>>>>> directly
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> what YOU have said.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll take one name. One.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike, why doesn't the Sierra Club endorse your agenda anymore?
>>>>
>>>> Two chapters voted long ago to support my human-free habitat proopsal.
>>>> Those resolutions still stand.
>>>
>>>Two? That's all? That's a sad legacy, Mr. Vandeman.

>>
>> Compared to your ZERO? Don't make me laugh.
>>

>Zero...? Hardly! The MAIN SITE for the Sierra Club lists a mountain bike
>policy.


Yeah, which says it's okay only when not environmentally damaging. But
it always IS. So their policy is the same as mine.

The Los Angelas Chapter (your back yard!) has a Mountain Bike
>Committee advocating the cooperative efforts of off-road cyclists within the
>SC. It certainly seems the Sierra Club has passed over your opinions on the
>complete ban of off-road cycling.
>In case your PhD was shredded by your cat, the support for creating some
>areas as "human free" is NOT the same as supporting a total ban of off-road
>cycling. Since your post starting this thread offers your opinions on
>off-road cycling, try to stay on the topic YOU began. Why doesn't the Sierra
>Club endorse your agenda of a total ban on off-road cycling? (Apparently, JS
>tried to give you the benefit of being intelligent enough to determine the
>point of his question.)
>

===
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
 
On 4 Jan 2007 09:30:14 -0800, "Beej" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jan 4, 8:22 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You just proved it's correct, by not quoting any statement of mine
>> that you think is incorrect.

>
>It's the fact that you don't succumb to cold hard logic, Mike, that
>keeps you from exploding like that one robot in Star Trek. Well done.
>
>-Beej


Huh?
===
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 wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:41:57 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:42:57 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> ===

>> Apparently - You can't read.
>>
>> Beyond the points shown in the reply you which you did NOT address, your
>> entire premise is innacurate:
>>
>> "...convince people that mountain biking is no more harmful than hiking. But
>> there are two problems with this approach: (1) it's not true and (2) it's
>> irrelevant."
>>
>> Your statement "It's not true" is innacurate. You have failed to show
>> anything to support that assumtion.

>
> Are you kidding? I show that several times over in that paper. But you
> have to be able to read. And think.
>


Mike, you obviously can't
read. You asked for something
that's been provided many
times over, yet you were
obliged amply. He simply
called you out. That's all.
You're a total fraud and a
lunatic to boot.


> You state your OPINION - That is all.
>> Your "review" of research is merely an application of your OPINION on
>> others' findings. When one of these researchers gives you a positive nod for
>> re-interpreting their findings, let us know.
>> Your other statement "It's irrelevant" is a non-issue. The FACT that
>> off-road cycling has been recognized by the agencies in charge and shown to
>> be no more impactful than hiking is certainly relevant. It is your OPINION
>> that is irrelevant. That has been proven as the organizations that determine
>> the rules (by way of examining the available research) have come to the
>> conclusion that off-road cycling be allowed. They do not need your
>> interpretation of the research as they have the actual findings to examine.
>> You can talk about "honesty" all you want but you have yet to apply it in
>> your own comments. You have attempted to FAKE credibility and honesty and
>> have so obviously failed.
>>

> ===
> 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
 
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:36:44 -0800, cc <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:41:57 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:42:57 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> ===
>>> Apparently - You can't read.
>>>
>>> Beyond the points shown in the reply you which you did NOT address, your
>>> entire premise is innacurate:
>>>
>>> "...convince people that mountain biking is no more harmful than hiking. But
>>> there are two problems with this approach: (1) it's not true and (2) it's
>>> irrelevant."
>>>
>>> Your statement "It's not true" is innacurate. You have failed to show
>>> anything to support that assumtion.

>>
>> Are you kidding? I show that several times over in that paper. But you
>> have to be able to read. And think.
>>

>
>Mike, you obviously can't
>read. You asked for something
>that's been provided many
>times over, yet you were
>obliged amply. He simply
>called you out. That's all.
>You're a total fraud and a
>lunatic to boot.


That's nice.

>> You state your OPINION - That is all.
>>> Your "review" of research is merely an application of your OPINION on
>>> others' findings. When one of these researchers gives you a positive nod for
>>> re-interpreting their findings, let us know.
>>> Your other statement "It's irrelevant" is a non-issue. The FACT that
>>> off-road cycling has been recognized by the agencies in charge and shown to
>>> be no more impactful than hiking is certainly relevant. It is your OPINION
>>> that is irrelevant. That has been proven as the organizations that determine
>>> the rules (by way of examining the available research) have come to the
>>> conclusion that off-road cycling be allowed. They do not need your
>>> interpretation of the research as they have the actual findings to examine.
>>> You can talk about "honesty" all you want but you have yet to apply it in
>>> your own comments. You have attempted to FAKE credibility and honesty and
>>> have so obviously failed.
>>>

>> ===
>> 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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Compared to your ZERO? Don't make me laugh.
>


But, I haven't tried to get the SC go go along with me.

I don't even LIKE the SC because they insist I stay home and watch the
Discovery Channel to get my fix on the outdoors.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:41:57 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:42:57 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>> ===

>>Apparently - You can't read.
>>
>>Beyond the points shown in the reply you which you did NOT address, your
>>entire premise is innacurate:
>>
>>"...convince people that mountain biking is no more harmful than hiking.
>>But
>>there are two problems with this approach: (1) it's not true and (2) it's
>>irrelevant."
>>
>>Your statement "It's not true" is innacurate. You have failed to show
>>anything to support that assumtion.

>
> Are you kidding? I show that several times over in that paper. But you
> have to be able to read. And think.

Merely staing your OPINION is not proof! Merely stating the original
research and authors are wrong is not proof!
When these authors give you a "review" for re-interpreting their findings,
let us know. Until then, we (and the NFS, NPS and other REAL organizations
and REAL scientists) will take the word of the original authors and their
interpretation of the findings from THEIR own work. You have nothing but an
usubstantiated opinion with a foundation on transparent context.

As stated below, btw, which you ignored because you can't refute a word of
it! You split context of response to draw attention away from your own lack
of credibility.
>
> You state your OPINION - That is all.
>>Your "review" of research is merely an application of your OPINION on
>>others' findings. When one of these researchers gives you a positive nod
>>for
>>re-interpreting their findings, let us know.
>>Your other statement "It's irrelevant" is a non-issue. The FACT that
>>off-road cycling has been recognized by the agencies in charge and shown
>>to
>>be no more impactful than hiking is certainly relevant. It is your OPINION
>>that is irrelevant. That has been proven as the organizations that
>>determine
>>the rules (by way of examining the available research) have come to the
>>conclusion that off-road cycling be allowed. They do not need your
>>interpretation of the research as they have the actual findings to
>>examine.
>>You can talk about "honesty" all you want but you have yet to apply it in
>>your own comments. You have attempted to FAKE credibility and honesty and
>>have so obviously failed.
>>

> ===
> 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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:19:19 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mike, why doesn't the Sierra Club endorse your agenda anymore?
>>>>>
>>>>> Two chapters voted long ago to support my human-free habitat proopsal.
>>>>> Those resolutions still stand.
>>>>
>>>>Two? That's all? That's a sad legacy, Mr. Vandeman.
>>>
>>> Compared to your ZERO? Don't make me laugh.
>>>

>>Zero...? Hardly! The MAIN SITE for the Sierra Club lists a mountain bike
>>policy.

>
> Yeah, which says it's okay only when not environmentally damaging. But
> it always IS. So their policy is the same as mine.

WRONG!!!! It is only your OPINION that it is environmentally damaging. It
is the policy of the SC to allow cycling when conditions are met. Since the
LA chapter has a mountain bike group within (and other chapters are finding
cooperation with cycling groups to be beneficial) it is OBVIOUS that the
"conditions" for allowing cycling off-road are being met more and more!
Especially with the advent of the internet and access to actual information
and not your perverted version of it.
>
> The Los Angelas Chapter (your back yard!) has a Mountain Bike
>>Committee advocating the cooperative efforts of off-road cyclists within
>>the
>>SC. It certainly seems the Sierra Club has passed over your opinions on
>>the
>>complete ban of off-road cycling.
>>In case your PhD was shredded by your cat, the support for creating some
>>areas as "human free" is NOT the same as supporting a total ban of
>>off-road
>>cycling. Since your post starting this thread offers your opinions on
>>off-road cycling, try to stay on the topic YOU began. Why doesn't the
>>Sierra
>>Club endorse your agenda of a total ban on off-road cycling? (Apparently,
>>JS
>>tried to give you the benefit of being intelligent enough to determine the
>>point of his question.)
>>

Nothing??? You split context above... Why? Can't you handle the complete
context of the response? Can't your brain reply to actual truth? What is so
hard about what is stated above? Can't refute it so you try to draw
attention away from it be splitting context with an attempt to redirect the
subject!
PATHETIC!!
 
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 17:10:36 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Compared to your ZERO? Don't make me laugh.
>>

>
>But, I haven't tried to get the SC go go along with me.
>
>I don't even LIKE the SC because they insist I stay home and watch the
>Discovery Channel to get my fix on the outdoors.


Sounds like they know you well!
===
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
 

Similar threads