Re: Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking

[Mark]

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

So you admit now you havent read all the relevant reports and journals?
If you had done as you said, you would be well aware of such data. If you
have any knowledge of the environmental community, you would also know
exactly where to search.
If you wish, a simple google search will bring up the relevant documents.
Thank you for proving you are a liar.'Ive read all the literature' indeed.


> .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.
Ha ha. I see. You have a PhD in psychology do you not. So, you do not have
an environmental qualification.
LIAR again, claiming qualifications in something you dont possess, the mark
of a kook.

> 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.
Really? I know that a scientific literature review needs inclusion and
search criteria to be take seriously, something more than you obviously
being as you fail to have either after 10 years.
I also know you are a liar, claiming peer review on report the average 10
year old would better here in the UK. It is no more capable of being peer
reviewed by serious scientists that a copy of the beano. the fact you resort
to insults tells me you know it too, and have no answers.

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

 

[Chris Foster]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
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.

You are an EXPERT troll, thats about it.

>
> 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.

Thats a bald-faced LIE, Im not an EXPERT, and I dont agree.

>
> 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
>

 

[Mike Romain]

Charlie Maxwell wrote:
>
> "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

Hey, Mike hasn't mowed the lawn in his back yard for 10 years to make
his "pure habitat" and uses all this BS to try and justify the mess to
the neighbors....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

 

[Charlie Maxwell]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:44:52 GMT, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> That is a bald-faced LIE. I'm an expert, and I don't agree.
>
mike,
Should we be bow down and worship thee oh great omnipotent one?

You are an expert TROLL. I'll give you that much.

Have a great day mike,
Charlie Maxwell

 

[Charlie Maxwell]

"Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Charlie Maxwell wrote:
>>
>> "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
>
> Hey, Mike hasn't mowed the lawn in his back yard for 10 years to make
> his "pure habitat" and uses all this BS to try and justify the mess to
> the neighbors....
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Yo Mike,
The other mike (we will refer to him in lower case from here on out) needs
to wake up and smell the natural selection / evolution.

Can you imagine the stench that would follow him if he truly did care about
the environment the way he wants everyone else to believe he does and quit
showering, washing his clothes, etc... What a hypocrite he is! His lack of
social skills make me believe his PhD in psych must have come from a mail
order school or that he has had a few too many brain injuries. They
probably occurredwhile riding mountain bikes. Thus he is trying to protect
us from becoming a driveling idiot like himself.

Cheers good Mike.
Have a nice day driveling mike.
Charlie Maxwell

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:54:14 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."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.

All that is irrelevant. I am the world's foremost expert on the environmental
impacts of mountain biking, partly because the other so-called "experts" don't
tell the truth!

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.

Why? You know it's true.

..> 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.

Wisdom, M. J. ([email protected]), Alan A. Ager ([email protected] ), H. K.
Preisler ([email protected]), N. J. Cimon ([email protected]), and B. K.
Johnson ([email protected]), "Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and
elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference 69, 2004.
===
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 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:02:18 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> 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.
..
..So you admit now you havent read all the relevant reports and journals?
..If you had done as you said, you would be well aware of such data. If you
..have any knowledge of the environmental community, you would also know
..exactly where to search.
..If you wish, a simple google search will bring up the relevant documents.
..Thank you for proving you are a liar.'Ive read all the literature' indeed.

Provide even ONE relevant study that I missed. You haven't, so it's obvious that
you CAN'T!

..> .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.
..Ha ha. I see. You have a PhD in psychology do you not. So, you do not have
..an environmental qualification.

You said "scientific qualifications". I have that. What are YOUR
"qualifications" to pontificate on science? This should be good for a laugh.

..LIAR again, claiming qualifications in something you dont possess, the mark
..of a kook.
..
..> 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.
..Really? I know that a scientific literature review needs inclusion and
..search criteria to be take seriously, something more than you obviously
..being as you fail to have either after 10 years.
..I also know you are a liar, claiming peer review on report the average 10
..year old would better here in the UK. It is no more capable of being peer
..reviewed by serious scientists that a copy of the beano. the fact you resort
..to insults tells me you know it too, and have no answers.
..
..> .> .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 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:55:31 GMT, "Charlie Maxwell" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:44:52 GMT, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..<SNIP>
..> That is a bald-faced LIE. I'm an expert, and I don't agree.
..>
..mike,
..Should we be bow down and worship thee oh great omnipotent one?
..
..You are an expert TROLL. I'll give you that much.

But you're wrong. I just tell the truth, which mountain bikers are allergic to
doing.

..Have a great day mike,
..Charlie Maxwell
..

===
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 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:54:14 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> All that is irrelevant. I am the world's foremost expert on the
> environmental
> impacts of mountain biking, partly because the other so-called "experts"
> don't
> tell the truth!
>
mike,
you need to put down the crack pipe, quit smoking dope, or whatever it is
you do that causes these delusions of grandure that you are experiencing.
you are a SELF PROCLAIMED expert, but in reality, you are a completely
biased, hypocritcal, closed minded, un-scientific, babling, driveling idiot.

Cheers mike,
Charlie Maxwell

 

[Charlie Maxwell]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:55:31 GMT, "Charlie Maxwell"
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:44:52 GMT, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> .>
> .<SNIP>
> .> That is a bald-faced LIE. I'm an expert, and I don't agree.
> .>
> .mike,
> .Should we be bow down and worship thee oh great omnipotent one?
> .
> .You are an expert TROLL. I'll give you that much.
>
> But you're wrong. I just tell the truth, which mountain bikers are
> allergic to
> doing.

You tell the truth? You have no clue about the truth. You are a driveling
idiot.

Have a nice day mike,
Charlie Maxwell
>
> .Have a great day mike,
> .Charlie Maxwell
> .
>
> ===
> 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]>:
> All that is irrelevant. I am the world's foremost expert on the environmental
> impacts of mountain biking, partly because the other so-called "experts" don't
> tell the truth!

bwhahaha, you owe me a new keyboard and monitor mike. That much curry
will never come out. That is without a doubt the best laugh I've had all
week, maybe longer. "worlds most formost expert" bwhahahah Please stop
it's starting to hurt.


Jason

 

[SMS]

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

>>.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.

Omigod, I miss a lot of amusement with my kill-file.

The bottom line is that every _legitimate_ expert agrees about the
relative impacts, what Mike says is irrelevant. Look at all the papers
and articles on the subject, and the conclusion is always the same.
Mountain biking and hiking have similar impacts in most cases, but there
are some instances where hiking has a bigger impact. Even though I am
much more of a hiker than a mountain biker, my experiences jive with
what the experts on the subject all say.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:55:09 GMT, "Charlie Maxwell" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:54:14 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..<SNIP>
..> All that is irrelevant. I am the world's foremost expert on the
..> environmental
..> impacts of mountain biking, partly because the other so-called "experts"
..> don't
..> tell the truth!
..>
..mike,
..you need to put down the crack pipe, quit smoking dope, or whatever it is
..you do that causes these delusions of grandure that you are experiencing.
..you are a SELF PROCLAIMED expert, but in reality, you are a completely
..biased, hypocritcal, closed minded, un-scientific, babling, driveling idiot.
..
..Cheers mike,
..Charlie Maxwell

Look up "Projection" in a dictionary of Psychology.
===
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 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:48:10 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

..* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
..> All that is irrelevant. I am the world's foremost expert on the environmental
..> impacts of mountain biking, partly because the other so-called "experts" don't
..> tell the truth!
..
..bwhahaha, you owe me a new keyboard and monitor mike. That much curry
..will never come out. That is without a doubt the best laugh I've had all
..week, maybe longer. "worlds most formost expert" bwhahahah Please stop
..it's starting to hurt.
..
..
..Jason

Then who is it? This should be good for a laugh. I predict you will refuse to
name even ONE.
===
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 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:04:03 GMT, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

..Mark wrote:
..> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..
..>>.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.
..
..Omigod, I miss a lot of amusement with my kill-file.
..
..The bottom line is that every _legitimate_ expert agrees about the
..relative impacts, what Mike says is irrelevant. Look at all the papers
..and articles on the subject, and the conclusion is always the same.
..Mountain biking and hiking have similar impacts in most cases, but there
..are some instances where hiking has a bigger impact. Even though I am
..much more of a hiker than a mountain biker, my experiences jive with
..what the experts on the subject all say.

Conveniently, you aren't able to actually NAME even ONE of those "experts".
===
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 Sat, 01 Oct 2005 00:29:55 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Conveniently, you aren't able to actually NAME even ONE of those "experts".
>
Conveniently, you aren't able to actually NAME even ONE of your
supporters, or any "expert" who agrees with YOU.

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

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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:39:35 GMT, the person
known to the court as Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>All that is irrelevant. I am the world's foremost expert on the environmental
>impacts of mountain biking, partly because the other so-called "experts" don't
>tell the truth!

IOW you are the "foremost expert" in your view because all the others
disagree with you! That really is priceless! You really do have a
genius for making yourself look stupid :-D

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

 

[Mark]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:02:18 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> 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.
> .
> .So you admit now you havent read all the relevant reports and journals?
> .If you had done as you said, you would be well aware of such data. If you
> .have any knowledge of the environmental community, you would also know
> .exactly where to search.
> .If you wish, a simple google search will bring up the relevant documents.
> .Thank you for proving you are a liar.'Ive read all the literature'
> indeed.
>
> Provide even ONE relevant study that I missed. You haven't, so it's
> obvious that
> you CAN'T!

I have in previous threads remember?
Would you like me to repost a link to them for you, or do you just want to
check your own post history?
Or should I link to
http://www.wildlandscpr.org/resourcelibrary/reports/mountainbikingreport.htm

And point out that, ironically, a qualified environmentalist uses the same
studies as you do to state the impact of hiking and mountain biking is
similar.
The difference is this qualified environmentalist uses the authors own
conclusions, something you cannot do, because even the reports you claim to
support you contradict that view in the authors conclusions.

> .> .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.
> .Ha ha. I see. You have a PhD in psychology do you not. So, you do not
> have
> .an environmental qualification.
>
> You said "scientific qualifications". I have that. What are YOUR
> "qualifications" to pontificate on science? This should be good for a
> laugh.
Im not the one who claims to be an expert. For the record, I have as exactly
the same environmental qualifications as you do.


> .LIAR again, claiming qualifications in something you dont possess, the
> mark
> .of a kook.
> .
> .> 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.
> .Really? I know that a scientific literature review needs inclusion and
> .search criteria to be take seriously, something more than you obviously
> .being as you fail to have either after 10 years.
> .I also know you are a liar, claiming peer review on report the average
> 10
> .year old would better here in the UK. It is no more capable of being peer
> .reviewed by serious scientists that a copy of the beano. the fact you
> resort
> .to insults tells me you know it too, and have no answers.
> .
> .> .> .Search result 66000 hits.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .You havent read it all liar.
> .

 

[Mark]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:54:14 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."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.
>
> All that is irrelevant. I am the world's foremost expert on the
> environmental
> impacts of mountain biking, partly because the other so-called "experts"
> don't
> tell the truth!
I see. Then why is the worlds foremost expert not published? Why is the
worlds foremost expert not talking at international conferences, such as the
recent one in Anchorage Alaske on September the 29th, the world wilderness
congress. If you are the worlds foremost expert, where was your invite?
Or were you just making those self proclamations again.
Of course, you have already lied about your qualifications in this thread,
lied about your 'paper' being peer reviewed, so its only natural you will
also lie about your importance, after all, that is all this is about isnt
it, your fantasy that somewhere, outside the work cubicle, you are
important. Sadly, it is all make beleive, but you cant see that, Ive come to
the conclusion you do truly beleive you are important.I pity you.

> 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.
>
> Why? You know it's true.

Inability to prove the statement duly noted.

> .> 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.
>
> Wisdom, M. J. ([email protected]), Alan A. Ager ([email protected] ), H. K.
> Preisler ([email protected]), N. J. Cimon ([email protected]), and B. K.
> Johnson ([email protected]), "Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer
> and
> elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
> Conference 69, 2004.

If they prove what you say, why have you had to rewrite the conclusions the
authors wrote to conform with your assesment?

 

[Jason]

* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
> .
> .bwhahaha, you owe me a new keyboard and monitor mike. That much curry
> .will never come out. That is without a doubt the best laugh I've had all
> .week, maybe longer. "worlds most formost expert" bwhahahah Please stop
> .it's starting to hurt.
> .
> .
> .Jason
>
> Then who is it? This should be good for a laugh. I predict you will refuse to
> name even ONE.

Actually unlike you I can be honest and tell the truth. I have no idea
who would be the worlds formost expert on mountain biking and the damage
it causes. I do know that it's definatly not you.

Jason