Re: Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking

[Charlie Maxwell]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:23:30 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
> .> That wasn't a peer-reviewed article.
> .
> .
> .Speaking of peer-reviewing articles mike how many times has your paper
> .been reviewed?
>
> Dozens of times. That's why it was accepted for presentation at several
> conferences.

Being given a few minutes to speak at a small conference does not equate to
a peer reviewed document.

Drivel on Mike!

CM

> .Jason
>
> ===
> 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

 

[Jason]

* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:23:30 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
> .> That wasn't a peer-reviewed article.
> .
> .
> .Speaking of peer-reviewing articles mike how many times has your paper
> .been reviewed?
>
> Dozens of times. That's why it was accepted for presentation at several
> conferences.
>

Got any links to the reviews so we too can read them?

Jason

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:55:36 GMT, "Charlie Maxwell" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:23:30 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
..> .> That wasn't a peer-reviewed article.
..> .
..> .
..> .Speaking of peer-reviewing articles mike how many times has your paper
..> .been reviewed?
..>
..> Dozens of times. That's why it was accepted for presentation at several
..> conferences.
..
..Being given a few minutes to speak

More like half an hour.

.. at a small conference

1700 scientists is "a small conference"? Maybe if mountain bikers told the
truth, they would get more respect.

does not equate to
..a peer reviewed document.
..
..Drivel on Mike!
..
..CM
..
..> .Jason
..>
..> ===
..> 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
..

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:32:13 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

..* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
..> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:23:30 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
..> .> That wasn't a peer-reviewed article.
..> .
..> .
..> .Speaking of peer-reviewing articles mike how many times has your paper
..> .been reviewed?
..>
..> Dozens of times. That's why it was accepted for presentation at several
..> conferences.
..>
..
..Got any links to the reviews so we too can read them?

No, of course not! They are always private/confidential, as you should know.

..Jason

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:19:26 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..GaryG wrote:
..
..{HUGE SNIP}
..
..> It may sound stupid to you, but the answers may very well help to
..> explain your multi-year history of incessant trolling, insults, and
..> paranoia. Your behavior over a long period of time has very clearly
..> made this "about you"...your obsessions, however, prevent you from
..> seeing that (along with many other things).
..
..{ANOTHER HUGE SNIP!!!}
..
..So, Gary, what explains YOUR repeatedly posting one-paragraph "barbs" in the
..middle of *17 KB* back-and-forths that no human being could possible follow
..even if one were so miserable as to try?!?
..
..We all know the do(r)c is incapable of rational or coherent discourse;
..what's your excuse???

Being a mountain biker. It's OBVIOUS. You should know that.

..Bill "aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh" S.


===
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

 

[Mark]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:32:13 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
> .> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:23:30 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
> .>
> .> .* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
> .> .> That wasn't a peer-reviewed article.
> .> .
> .> .
> .> .Speaking of peer-reviewing articles mike how many times has your paper
> .> .been reviewed?
> .>
> .> Dozens of times. That's why it was accepted for presentation at several
> .> conferences.
> .>
> .
> .Got any links to the reviews so we too can read them?
>
> No, of course not! They are always private/confidential, as you should
> know.

Peer reviewed? You dont even have the basic necessities for a scientific
apprasal, such as inclusion criteria.
More lies.

 

[Jason]

* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
> .> .Speaking of peer-reviewing articles mike how many times has your paper
> .> .been reviewed?
> .>
> .> Dozens of times. That's why it was accepted for presentation at several
> .> conferences.
> .>
> .
> .Got any links to the reviews so we too can read them?
>
> No, of course not! They are always private/confidential, as you should know.
>

Of course they are Mike, I was wondering what your cop out would be.

Jason

 

[Sohn]

"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news%[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:32:13 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> .* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
>> .> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:23:30 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
>> .>
>> .> .* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
>> .> .> That wasn't a peer-reviewed article.
>> .> .
>> .> .
>> .> .Speaking of peer-reviewing articles mike how many times has your
>> paper
>> .> .been reviewed?
>> .>
>> .> Dozens of times. That's why it was accepted for presentation at
>> several
>> .> conferences.
>> .>
>> .
>> .Got any links to the reviews so we too can read them?
>>
>> No, of course not! They are always private/confidential, as you should
>> know.
>
> Peer reviewed? You dont even have the basic necessities for a scientific
> apprasal, such as inclusion criteria.
> More lies.

Look at it from Mike's viewpoint. In all probability he stood in front of a
bathroom mirror and his cats were in the bathroom too. After his speech, he
asked if there were any questions. Since his reflection and the cats didn't
asked any questions, in his warped mind he is now peer reviewed.
Ron

 

[SMS]

Jason wrote:
> * Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:23:30 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>.* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
>>.> That wasn't a peer-reviewed article.
>>.
>>.
>>.Speaking of peer-reviewing articles mike how many times has your paper
>>.been reviewed?
>>
>>Dozens of times. That's why it was accepted for presentation at several
>>conferences.
>>
>
>
> Got any links to the reviews so we too can read them?

Funny stuff!

All the experts agree that hiking and mountain biking are about equal in
their impact to trails, except for wildlife impact where hikers have
more impact. You'll never see any evidence to the contrary because there
is none. MV can make up all the fiction he wants about his articles, but
no one believes him.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:17:58 GMT, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

..Jason wrote:
..> * Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
..>
..>>On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:23:30 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
..>>
..>>.* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
..>>.> That wasn't a peer-reviewed article.
..>>.
..>>.
..>>.Speaking of peer-reviewing articles mike how many times has your paper
..>>.been reviewed?
..>>
..>>Dozens of times. That's why it was accepted for presentation at several
..>>conferences.
..>>
..>
..>
..> Got any links to the reviews so we too can read them?
..
..Funny stuff!
..
..All the experts agree

Nope, NONE of the experts believe that BS. Only mountain bikers, who are too
LAZY to actually READ the research. No one who's actually READ it can still
believe that horsepucky.

that hiking and mountain biking are about equal in
..their impact to trails, except for wildlife impact where hikers have
..more impact. You'll never see any evidence to the contrary because there
..is none. MV can make up all the fiction he wants about his articles, but
..no one believes him.

===
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

 

[reader]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:17:58 GMT, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Nope, NONE of the experts believe that BS. Only mountain bikers, who are too
> LAZY to actually READ the research. No one who's actually READ it can still
> believe that horsepucky.
>

> ===
> 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

Prove it... show some reasearch on lazyness... are you too lazy?

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:49:18 -0400, reader <[email protected]> wrote:

..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:17:58 GMT, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
..
..>
..> Nope, NONE of the experts believe that BS. Only mountain bikers, who are too
..> LAZY to actually READ the research. No one who's actually READ it can still
..> believe that horsepucky.
..>
..
..> ===
..> 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
..
..Prove it... show some reasearch on lazyness... are you too lazy?

No, I read all of them. AND wrote a review of the literature. None of you are
willing to do that. Of course, you would have to learn to READ, first.
===
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

 

[Mark]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:49:18 -0400, reader <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:17:58 GMT, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> .
> .>
> .> Nope, NONE of the experts believe that BS. Only mountain bikers, who
> are too
> .> LAZY to actually READ the research. No one who's actually READ it can
> still
> .> believe that horsepucky.
> .>

> .Prove it... show some reasearch on lazyness... are you too lazy?
>
> No, I read all of them. AND wrote a review of the literature. None of you
> are
> willing to do that. Of course, you would have to learn to READ, first.
definition of 'all' please? That means your search and inclusion criteria.

Just to prove you a liar again, google, search field 'hiking and mountain
biking, ecological comparison'

Search result 66000 hits.

You havent read it all liar.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:10:18 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:49:18 -0400, reader <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> .> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:17:58 GMT, SMS <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..> .
..> .>
..> .> Nope, NONE of the experts believe that BS. Only mountain bikers, who
..> are too
..> .> LAZY to actually READ the research. No one who's actually READ it can
..> still
..> .> believe that horsepucky.
..> .>
..
..> .Prove it... show some reasearch on lazyness... are you too lazy?
..>
..> No, I read all of them. AND wrote a review of the literature. None of you
..> are
..> willing to do that. Of course, you would have to learn to READ, first.
..definition of 'all' please? That means your search and inclusion criteria.
..
..Just to prove you a liar again, google, search field 'hiking and mountain
..biking, ecological comparison'

Irrelevant. I am only interested in SCIENTIFIC research COMPARING HIKING WITH
MOUNTAIN BIKING. Of course, you already knew that, liar.

..Search result 66000 hits.
..
..You havent read it all liar.
..

===
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

 

[Mark]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:10:18 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:49:18 -0400, reader <[email protected]> wrote:
> .>
> .> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .> .> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:17:58 GMT, SMS <[email protected]>
> .> wrote:
> .> .
> .> .>
> .> .> Nope, NONE of the experts believe that BS. Only mountain bikers, who
> .> are too
> .> .> LAZY to actually READ the research. No one who's actually READ it
> can
> .> still
> .> .> believe that horsepucky.
> .> .>
> .
> .> .Prove it... show some reasearch on lazyness... are you too lazy?
> .>
> .> No, I read all of them. AND wrote a review of the literature. None of
> you
> .> are
> .> willing to do that. Of course, you would have to learn to READ, first.
> .definition of 'all' please? That means your search and inclusion
> criteria.
> .
> .Just to prove you a liar again, google, search field 'hiking and mountain
> .biking, ecological comparison'
>
> Irrelevant. I am only interested in SCIENTIFIC research COMPARING HIKING
> WITH
> MOUNTAIN BIKING. Of course, you already knew that, liar.

So if you havent read those articles, please tell me how you know they are
not scientific?
You have no inclusion criteria.
You said you had read it 'all'.
You are a LIAR.

So what do you consider scientific? What about the scientific reports that
completly have the opposite viewpoint than you, IE, that hikers , with their
prediliction for walking in groups rather than songle file actually degrade
and widen paths much more than bikers, the litter aspect of hiking that is
seen as one of the major ecological dangers to wilderness? Why are those
reports not included.

You cant say you have read 'all' when clearly you havent, you are a liar,
plain and simple.
Now what is the inclusion criteria? You cant give it , we both know that.
Without that there is no scientific base to your 'paper' , you claimed to
have had it peer reviewed. Again you are a LIAR.
Without inclusion and search criteria the 'paper' cannot be scientifically
appraised, they are the basic building blocks of scientific review.

You keep claiming 'science', yet you yourself have no scientific
qualifications, your 'paper' follows no scientific logic or protocols.
You are a liar, a substanceless bigot.


> .Search result 66000 hits.
> .
> .You havent read it all liar.

 

[SMS]

Mark wrote:

> So what do you consider scientific? What about the scientific reports that
> completly have the opposite viewpoint than you, IE, that hikers , with their
> prediliction for walking in groups rather than songle file actually degrade
> and widen paths much more than bikers, the litter aspect of hiking that is
> seen as one of the major ecological dangers to wilderness? Why are those
> reports not included.

This is true. All the experts agree that while both mountain biking and
hiking do impact trails, hiking has more of an impact due to the way
people tend to hike. If hikers went single file, didn't litter, didn't
cut switchbacks, and didn't make so much noise while hiking, then the
impact would probably be identical. But you have to look at the big
picture of what actually occurs in real life. I can definitely see
banning hikers in some areas, but allowing mountain bikes, just as some
areas allow hikers and bikers but ban horses.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:16:17 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:10:18 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:49:18 -0400, reader <[email protected]> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> .> .> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:17:58 GMT, SMS <[email protected]>
..> .> wrote:
..> .> .
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Nope, NONE of the experts believe that BS. Only mountain bikers, who
..> .> are too
..> .> .> LAZY to actually READ the research. No one who's actually READ it
..> can
..> .> still
..> .> .> believe that horsepucky.
..> .> .>
..> .
..> .> .Prove it... show some reasearch on lazyness... are you too lazy?
..> .>
..> .> No, I read all of them. AND wrote a review of the literature. None of
..> you
..> .> are
..> .> willing to do that. Of course, you would have to learn to READ, first.
..> .definition of 'all' please? That means your search and inclusion
..> criteria.
..> .
..> .Just to prove you a liar again, google, search field 'hiking and mountain
..> .biking, ecological comparison'
..>
..> Irrelevant. I am only interested in SCIENTIFIC research COMPARING HIKING
..> WITH
..> MOUNTAIN BIKING. Of course, you already knew that, liar.
..
..So if you havent read those articles, please tell me how you know they are
..not scientific?

Easy. IMBA searched and got all the FAVORABLE research they could find. That's
what I started with.

..You have no inclusion criteria.
..You said you had read it 'all'.
..You are a LIAR.
..
..So what do you consider scientific?

Honest & verifiable.

What about the scientific reports that
..completly have the opposite viewpoint than you, IE, that hikers , with their
..prediliction for walking in groups rather than songle file actually degrade
..and widen paths much more than bikers, the litter aspect of hiking that is
..seen as one of the major ecological dangers to wilderness? Why are those
..reports not included.

Where are they?! If there were any such SCIENTIFIC reports, IMBA would have
found them. Thay have far more resources than I do, and they are strongly
motivated to find FAVORABLE research.

..You cant say you have read 'all' when clearly you havent, you are a liar,
..plain and simple.
..Now what is the inclusion criteria? You cant give it , we both know that.
..Without that there is no scientific base to your 'paper' , you claimed to
..have had it peer reviewed. Again you are a LIAR.
..Without inclusion and search criteria the 'paper' cannot be scientifically
..appraised, they are the basic building blocks of scientific review.
..
..You keep claiming 'science', yet you yourself have no scientific
..qualifications,

A Ph.D., by definition, is scientific qualification -- obviously something YOU
can't claim.

your 'paper' follows no scientific logic or protocols.
..You are a liar, a substanceless bigot.

How would you know. All you know how to do, obviously, is throw around some big
words you overheard.

..> .Search result 66000 hits.
..> .
..> .You havent read it all liar.
..

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:44:52 GMT, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

..Mark wrote:
..
..> So what do you consider scientific? What about the scientific reports that
..> completly have the opposite viewpoint than you, IE, that hikers , with their
..> prediliction for walking in groups rather than songle file actually degrade
..> and widen paths much more than bikers, the litter aspect of hiking that is
..> seen as one of the major ecological dangers to wilderness? Why are those
..> reports not included.
..
..This is true. All the experts agree

That is a bald-faced LIE. I'm an expert, and I don't agree.

that while both mountain biking and
..hiking do impact trails, hiking has more of an impact due to the way
..people tend to hike.

PER PERSON PER TRIP, mountain bikers have FAR greater impacts than hikers,
partly because they travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAR!

If hikers went single file, didn't litter, didn't
..cut switchbacks, and didn't make so much noise while hiking, then the
..impact would probably be identical. But you have to look at the big
..picture of what actually occurs in real life. I can definitely see
..banning hikers in some areas, but allowing mountain bikes,

That makes no sense. Hiking has lower impacts than mountain biking.

just as some
..areas allow hikers and bikers but ban horses.

===
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

 

[Charlie Maxwell]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:16:17 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> wrote:

<SNIP>

> .You keep claiming 'science', yet you yourself have no scientific
> .qualifications,
>
> A Ph.D., by definition, is scientific qualification -- obviously something
> YOU
> can't claim.
>

Ohhhh geesh Mike, There you go again....... You truly are a nut case. Are
you a Ph. D in environmental science???? NO!!! Then big friggin deal.
I'm an S.O.B. and that trumps any unrelated degree to the subject at hand...
You do know that piece of paper really means nothing without actions to back
it up. What ACTIONS have you taken to improve the environment other than
spewing endless amounts of cross-posted, nonsenical, mindless drivel on the
internet for the past decade???

Have a nice day Mike,
Cheers!
Charlie Maxwell

 

[Mark]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:44:52 GMT, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Mark wrote:
> .
> .> So what do you consider scientific? What about the scientific reports
> that
> .> completly have the opposite viewpoint than you, IE, that hikers , with
> their
> .> prediliction for walking in groups rather than songle file actually
> degrade
> .> and widen paths much more than bikers, the litter aspect of hiking that
> is
> .> seen as one of the major ecological dangers to wilderness? Why are
> those
> .> reports not included.
> .
> .This is true. All the experts agree
>
> That is a bald-faced LIE. I'm an expert, and I don't agree.
That is a BALD FACED LIE Where are your published papers, where are your
environmental qualifications, where are your awards, where is your
recognised input into environmental study. You are a SELF PROCLAIMED expert,
it is meaningless.
> that while both mountain biking and
> .hiking do impact trails, hiking has more of an impact due to the way
> .people tend to hike.
>
> PER PERSON PER TRIP, mountain bikers have FAR greater impacts than hikers,
> partly because they travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAR!

Proof please.Acknolwedged, independantly assesed and verified proof.
> If hikers went single file, didn't litter, didn't
> .cut switchbacks, and didn't make so much noise while hiking, then the
> .impact would probably be identical. But you have to look at the big
> .picture of what actually occurs in real life. I can definitely see
> .banning hikers in some areas, but allowing mountain bikes,
>
> That makes no sense. Hiking has lower impacts than mountain biking.

Proof please.Acknolwedged, independantly assesed and verified proof.