Re: Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 09:16:13 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

..* 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.

You just contradicted yourself! First you said "I have no idea who would be the
worlds formost expert on mountain biking and the damage it causes", then you
said "I do know that it's definatly not you". One of those OBVIOUSLY
CONTRADICTORY statements must be a LIE, and it's NOT the first one!!!!! ROTFL.
Thanks for the laugh!

..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 Sat, 01 Oct 2005 06:49:50 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:

..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.

I just did, liar:

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.

..Happy trails,
..Gary (net.yogi.bear)

===
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 Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:17:40 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..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

Conveniently, you aren't able to name even ONE such "expert". (HINT: there
aren't any, other than me.)

..Guy

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 09:49:09 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."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.

Liar:

In 2003, Jason Lathrop wrote an excellent "critical literature review" on the
ecological impacts of mountain biking, raising some questions found nowhere
else. He quotes the BLM: "An estimated 13.5 million mountain bicyclists visit
public lands each year to enjoy the variety of trails. What was once a low use
activity that was easy to manage has become more complex". He criticizes all of
the studies for not using realistic representations of mountain biking. For
example, on Thurston and Reader, he says "this study's treatment passes at best
loosely approximate the forces exerted by actual mountain biking. On real
trails, riders possess widely varying levels of skill, resulting in variant
speeds, turning, and braking. This study does not address these variables."
Lathrop also makes the excellent point that "Direct mortality [of animals] is
virtually unstudied. I could find no references to it in the literature.
Anecdotal evidence suggests, however, that small mammals are vulnerable to
impact and are not uncommonly killed."

And: "Taylor (2001) concluded that short-term behavioral changes do not
vary between bicyclists and hikers on a per-encounter basis. However, because
bicyclists are capable of and, in most areas, typically do travel much farther
than hikers, it is reasonable to conclude that they will create a somewhat
higher total number of encounters and flushings."

..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.

No, you obviously don't. Because you refuse to state what they are!

..> .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 Sat, 01 Oct 2005 09:55:55 GMT, "Mark" <[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:
..>
..> .
..> ."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?

Because they decided that mountain biking is irrelevant to wilderness, since
it's not allowed. I agree. I spoke at their 1998 conference in India, so I AM an
expert.

..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?

Because even though they admitted that mountain biking has greater impacts than
hiking, they UNDERESTIMATED the difference, since they ignored distance
travelled. DUH!

===
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 Sat, 01 Oct 2005 09:49:09 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."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.
>
> Liar:
>
> In 2003, Jason Lathrop wrote an excellent "critical literature review" on
> the
> ecological impacts of mountain biking, raising some questions found
> nowhere
> else. He quotes the BLM: "An estimated 13.5 million mountain bicyclists
> visit
> public lands each year to enjoy the variety of trails. What was once a low
> use
> activity that was easy to manage has become more complex". He criticizes
> all of
> the studies for not using realistic representations of mountain biking.
> For
> example, on Thurston and Reader, he says "this study's treatment passes at
> best
> loosely approximate the forces exerted by actual mountain biking. On real
> trails, riders possess widely varying levels of skill, resulting in
> variant
> speeds, turning, and braking. This study does not address these
> variables."
> Lathrop also makes the excellent point that "Direct mortality [of animals]
> is
> virtually unstudied. I could find no references to it in the literature.
> Anecdotal evidence suggests, however, that small mammals are vulnerable to
> impact and are not uncommonly killed."
>
> And: "Taylor (2001) concluded that short-term behavioral changes do not
> vary between bicyclists and hikers on a per-encounter basis. However,
> because
> bicyclists are capable of and, in most areas, typically do travel much
> farther
> than hikers, it is reasonable to conclude that they will create a somewhat
> higher total number of encounters and flushings."

Ahh, the old resort of selective quoting.
Now carry one and quote the full conclusions, the there is a need for both
further investifgation and a holistic approach to the subject, and there is
not enough data collected to form firm conclusions.
But again, they dont conform to your 'theory' , so those conclusions simply
do not exaist in your mind, do they.
> .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.
>
> No, you obviously don't. Because you refuse to state what they are!
Not a liar. I have EXACTLY identical ENVIRONMENTAL qualifications as you.
None.
If you are suggesting I cannt comment because I have no formal environmental
qualifications thats fine, but you are in exactly the same situation. Or do
you think your thesis that a population of hispanic origin eat , shock
horror, Mexican food, makes you qualified in the environment? Hers a tip. It
doesnt, you have no more qualifications in this subject than a 10 year old
child.

> .> .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.
The lack of answer is taken as an admition of guilt of blatan fabrication
and duly noted.
Worthless liar, that is all you are, and it came out for all to see in this
thread. Peer reviewed? pathetic.

 

[Mark]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 09:55:55 GMT, "Mark" <[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:
> .>
> .> .
> .> ."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?
>
> Because they decided that mountain biking is irrelevant to wilderness,
> since
> it's not allowed. I agree. I spoke at their 1998 conference in India, so I
> AM an
> expert.
III. Understanding and Protecting Biodiversity
Wildlife Need Habitat Off Limits to Humans - Michael J. Vandeman

You did indeed, however again distorting the facts.
You presented the above titled paper, which as we know, with a bit of
research, is talking about creating pure habitat, as per your sig of many
years, it is indeed a noble cause.

However, it is interesting in 2 ways, firstly it does not major on the
mountain biking/hiking relationship at all, and so is just a smokescreen ,
and has no bearing on your credibility in this subject, yet you again lie
and claim you spoke of mountain biking here, are you a pathologocal liar?
You seem unable to stop.
Its also noteworthy that, even though, despite whatyou say here, you were
talking of the pure habitat , which is inedeed very relevant to the
wilderness congress, you have never appeared again to reiterate your theory.

As the 'worlds foremost expert' (on everything it seems) , why have your
'pure habitat' theories not been embraced as the number one agenda, why have
you not been published, why has no one seemed to take notice of the worlds
foremost expert.And most importantly, why is there no mention of you from
the wilderness congress apart from that one presentation in 1998. If your
ambition is to create your pure habitat, and as the 'worlds foremost
expert'(TM) why has no one from the wilderness congress followed up on your
theories?

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:10:48 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:

>Conveniently, you aren't able to name even ONE such "expert". (HINT: there
>aren't any, other than me.)

X: the unknown quantity. Spurt: a drip under pressure.

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

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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:57:01 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:

>.X: the unknown quantity. Spurt: a drip under pressure.
>Your failure to think of a single expert is duly noted.

You got that right. In a thread involving you there is, as you say,
no evidence of the existence of any experts in this field - which
indicates how unimportant it really is, and invites the question why
you are so obsessed with it. But of course we know the answer: your
own research has revealed that hiking causes damage, and you want to
believe that something you despise is /more/ damaging, so you can
continue to hike without feeling guilty, hypocritical bigot that you
are.

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

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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 21:26:07 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..I submit that on or about Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:10:48 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:
..
..>Conveniently, you aren't able to name even ONE such "expert". (HINT: there
..>aren't any, other than me.)
..
..X: the unknown quantity. Spurt: a drip under pressure.

Your failure to think of a single expert is duly noted.

..Guy

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:24:40 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 09:49:09 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."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.
..>
..> Liar:
..>
..> In 2003, Jason Lathrop wrote an excellent "critical literature review" on
..> the
..> ecological impacts of mountain biking, raising some questions found
..> nowhere
..> else. He quotes the BLM: "An estimated 13.5 million mountain bicyclists
..> visit
..> public lands each year to enjoy the variety of trails. What was once a low
..> use
..> activity that was easy to manage has become more complex". He criticizes
..> all of
..> the studies for not using realistic representations of mountain biking.
..> For
..> example, on Thurston and Reader, he says "this study's treatment passes at
..> best
..> loosely approximate the forces exerted by actual mountain biking. On real
..> trails, riders possess widely varying levels of skill, resulting in
..> variant
..> speeds, turning, and braking. This study does not address these
..> variables."
..> Lathrop also makes the excellent point that "Direct mortality [of animals]
..> is
..> virtually unstudied. I could find no references to it in the literature.
..> Anecdotal evidence suggests, however, that small mammals are vulnerable to
..> impact and are not uncommonly killed."
..>
..> And: "Taylor (2001) concluded that short-term behavioral changes do not
..> vary between bicyclists and hikers on a per-encounter basis. However,
..> because
..> bicyclists are capable of and, in most areas, typically do travel much
..> farther
..> than hikers, it is reasonable to conclude that they will create a somewhat
..> higher total number of encounters and flushings."
..
..Ahh, the old resort of selective quoting.
..Now carry one and quote the full conclusions, the there is a need for both
..further investifgation and a holistic approach to the subject, and there is
..not enough data collected to form firm conclusions.

They are wrong.

..But again, they dont conform to your 'theory' , so those conclusions simply
..do not exaist in your mind, do they.

They are wrong.

..> .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.
..>
..> No, you obviously don't. Because you refuse to state what they are!
..Not a liar. I have EXACTLY identical ENVIRONMENTAL qualifications as you.
..None.

Glad you admitted you have no qualifications. So what are you talking about.

..If you are suggesting I cannt comment because I have no formal environmental
..qualifications thats fine, but you are in exactly the same situation.

I never said that. You ADMITTED you have no qualifications.

Or do
..you think your thesis that a population of hispanic origin eat , shock
..horror, Mexican food, makes you qualified in the environment? Hers a tip. It
..doesnt, you have no more qualifications in this subject than a 10 year old
..child.

How would you, an admitted ignoramus, know?

..> .> .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.
..The lack of answer is taken as an admition of guilt of blatan fabrication
..and duly noted.
..Worthless liar, that is all you are, and it came out for all to see in this
..thread. Peer reviewed? pathetic.
..

===
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 Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:48:57 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 09:55:55 GMT, "Mark" <[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:
..> .>
..> .> .
..> .> ."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?
..>
..> Because they decided that mountain biking is irrelevant to wilderness,
..> since
..> it's not allowed. I agree. I spoke at their 1998 conference in India, so I
..> AM an
..> expert.
.. III. Understanding and Protecting Biodiversity
.. Wildlife Need Habitat Off Limits to Humans - Michael J. Vandeman
..
..You did indeed, however again distorting the facts.
..You presented the above titled paper, which as we know, with a bit of
..research, is talking about creating pure habitat, as per your sig of many
..years, it is indeed a noble cause.
..
..However, it is interesting in 2 ways, firstly it does not major on the
..mountain biking/hiking relationship at all,

BS. Bikes give people a larger range, so it relates to reducing human impacts
and human presence. But, as a mountain biker, you can't be expected to think
that far.

and so is just a smokescreen ,
..and has no bearing on your credibility in this subject,

It supports my scientific qualifications.

yet you again lie
..and claim you spoke of mountain biking here, are you a pathologocal liar?

Mountain biking is mentioned in my paper, which you would know, if you had
bothered to actually READ it! Of course, you would have to be able to read words
with more than one syl-la-ble..

..You seem unable to stop.
..Its also noteworthy that, even though, despite whatyou say here, you were
..talking of the pure habitat , which is inedeed very relevant to the
..wilderness congress, you have never appeared again to reiterate your theory.
..
..As the 'worlds foremost expert' (on everything it seems) , why have your
..'pure habitat' theories not been embraced as the number one agenda, why have
..you not been published,

My paper WAS published. DUH!

why has no one seemed to take notice of the worlds
..foremost expert.And most importantly, why is there no mention of you from
..the wilderness congress apart from that one presentation in 1998. If your
..ambition is to create your pure habitat, and as the 'worlds foremost
..expert'(TM) why has no one from the wilderness congress followed up on your
..theories?

How do you know thay haven't? You'd have to be able to READ.
===
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 Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:48:57 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 09:55:55 GMT, "Mark" <[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:
> .> .>
> .> .> .
> .> .> ."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?
> .>
> .> Because they decided that mountain biking is irrelevant to wilderness,
> .> since
> .> it's not allowed. I agree. I spoke at their 1998 conference in India,
> so I
> .> AM an
> .> expert.
> . III. Understanding and Protecting Biodiversity
> . Wildlife Need Habitat Off Limits to Humans - Michael J. Vandeman
> .
> .You did indeed, however again distorting the facts.
> .You presented the above titled paper, which as we know, with a bit of
> .research, is talking about creating pure habitat, as per your sig of many
> .years, it is indeed a noble cause.
> .
> .However, it is interesting in 2 ways, firstly it does not major on the
> .mountain biking/hiking relationship at all,
>
> BS. Bikes give people a larger range, so it relates to reducing human
> impacts
> and human presence. But, as a mountain biker, you can't be expected to
> think
> that far.
Interesting, you wish to bring up journey data, Im glad.
estimated worldwide mountain biking numbers are around 8 to 14 million,
numbers arent easy to find, but thats general concensus of the regular
mountain biking numbers.
Same for hiuking, hard numbers are difficult to come by, but sees to be the
region of 120 to 140 million.
Yes , perhaps an indicidual biker roams further, butobviously, given the 10
to 12 times larger hiking population, total hiking miles will far exceeed
total biking miles in a given time period.
Now again, regarding human impact and prescence, it would seem hiking is the
bigger threat per arbitary time period, by your logic of course.
> and so is just a smokescreen ,
> .and has no bearing on your credibility in this subject,
>
> It supports my scientific qualifications.
>
> yet you again lie
> .and claim you spoke of mountain biking here, are you a pathologocal liar?
>
> Mountain biking is mentioned in my paper, which you would know, if you had
> bothered to actually READ it! Of course, you would have to be able to read
> words
> with more than one syl-la-ble..
I do read, you said biking was irrelevant to the wilderness congress, I
thought even you would be able to stick to one story in one thread Mr
Vanderman, now which is it? You lectured to them on something irrelevant?
Or your paper was about pur habitat. Just so you are aware before answering,
the paper is available of the congress website.


> .You seem unable to stop.
> .Its also noteworthy that, even though, despite whatyou say here, you were
> .talking of the pure habitat , which is inedeed very relevant to the
> .wilderness congress, you have never appeared again to reiterate your
> theory.
> .
> .As the 'worlds foremost expert' (on everything it seems) , why have your
> .'pure habitat' theories not been embraced as the number one agenda, why
> have
> .you not been published,
>
> My paper WAS published. DUH!
Then please enlighten me, which scientific journal have you had your
mountain bike/hiking thesis published?
If you mean your pur habitat lecture, that is available in transcript from
the wilderness congress of course, but we are in the mountain biking forum
here, so Id like to stay on topic.
Which journals have you had your thesis that 'all mountain bikers lie' ,
that mountain bikers are untrustworthy, and which scientific journal has the
basis for all this, your literature 'review' and corelating theory been
published?

> why has no one seemed to take notice of the worlds
> .foremost expert.And most importantly, why is there no mention of you from
> .the wilderness congress apart from that one presentation in 1998. If your
> .ambition is to create your pure habitat, and as the 'worlds foremost
> .expert'(TM) why has no one from the wilderness congress followed up on
> your
> .theories?
>
> How do you know thay haven't? You'd have to be able to READ.

Ironic given that you are typing a reply to me.
I know because you are not mentioned anywhere , in all the major
environemntal review journals, even in the general science publications , I
can find no mention of your mountain bike theories, serching even the
organisations that gave you your 15 minutes, the wilderness congress, its
been 7 years since you spoke, I find no mention of pure habitat or M J
Vanderman since.
I guess the personal insults mean thats a raw nerve.

 

[Mark]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:24:40 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 09:49:09 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> .> wrote:
> .>
> .> .
> .> ."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.
> .>
> .> Liar:
> .>
> .> In 2003, Jason Lathrop wrote an excellent "critical literature review"
> on
> .> the
> .> ecological impacts of mountain biking, raising some questions found
> .> nowhere
> .> else. He quotes the BLM: "An estimated 13.5 million mountain bicyclists
> .> visit
> .> public lands each year to enjoy the variety of trails. What was once a
> low
> .> use
> .> activity that was easy to manage has become more complex". He
> criticizes
> .> all of
> .> the studies for not using realistic representations of mountain biking.
> .> For
> .> example, on Thurston and Reader, he says "this study's treatment passes
> at
> .> best
> .> loosely approximate the forces exerted by actual mountain biking. On
> real
> .> trails, riders possess widely varying levels of skill, resulting in
> .> variant
> .> speeds, turning, and braking. This study does not address these
> .> variables."
> .> Lathrop also makes the excellent point that "Direct mortality [of
> animals]
> .> is
> .> virtually unstudied. I could find no references to it in the
> literature.
> .> Anecdotal evidence suggests, however, that small mammals are vulnerable
> to
> .> impact and are not uncommonly killed."
> .>
> .> And: "Taylor (2001) concluded that short-term behavioral changes do not
> .> vary between bicyclists and hikers on a per-encounter basis. However,
> .> because
> .> bicyclists are capable of and, in most areas, typically do travel much
> .> farther
> .> than hikers, it is reasonable to conclude that they will create a
> somewhat
> .> higher total number of encounters and flushings."
> .
> .Ahh, the old resort of selective quoting.
> .Now carry one and quote the full conclusions, the there is a need for
> both
> .further investifgation and a holistic approach to the subject, and there
> is
> .not enough data collected to form firm conclusions.
>
> They are wrong.
Very scientific.
They dont agree therefor they are wrong.
Again you pick out parts you want, ignore that which doesnt agree.
Either the report is valid or invalid Mr Vanderman, if the conclusion is
invalid, the methods must also be in question, without the data you have
nothing to back up your argument, but with the authors conclusions attached
to that data the experts , as one, contradict your argument too.
Interesting mess for you there.


> .But again, they dont conform to your 'theory' , so those conclusions
> simply
> .do not exaist in your mind, do they.
>
> They are wrong.
See above.
They disagree therfore they are wrong.
Descartes you most certainly are not.

> .> .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.
> .>
> .> No, you obviously don't. Because you refuse to state what they are!
> .Not a liar. I have EXACTLY identical ENVIRONMENTAL qualifications as you.
> .None.
>
> Glad you admitted you have no qualifications. So what are you talking
> about.
Same as you, because you also have no environmental qualifications. But
carry on, attacking someone is a sure sign you havent the intelligence to
argue the point with me.


> .If you are suggesting I cannt comment because I have no formal
> environmental
> .qualifications thats fine, but you are in exactly the same situation.
>
> I never said that. You ADMITTED you have no qualifications.
You dont have to admit it, its true.Or have you got qualifications in the
same way your 'thesis' has been peer reeviewed. IE, you just made it up.

> Or do
> .you think your thesis that a population of hispanic origin eat , shock
> .horror, Mexican food, makes you qualified in the environment? Hers a tip.
> It
> .doesnt, you have no more qualifications in this subject than a 10 year
> old
> .child.
>
> How would you, an admitted ignoramus, know?
I see, name calling is last resort of the uneducated. I may be,in your
words, an ignoramus, but appear to know more about the requirements for a
literature review to be scientifically appraised than you do, Im also being
truthful.You are a blatant liar, claiming to have had that 'thesis', without
inclusion and search criteria peer reviewed, and its archived for all to
see, Mr Liar.and Are you now suggesting, Mr proven liar, that you have
environmental qualifications? You have already lied about your work being
peer reviewed, carry on and make up some environmental qualifications , you
are an habitual liar after all. Infact, the very thing you accuse mountain
bikers of.
I beleive the term 'projection' would be applicable here.

> .> .> .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.
> .The lack of answer is taken as an admition of guilt of blatan fabrication
> .and duly noted.
> .Worthless liar, that is all you are, and it came out for all to see in
> this
> .thread. Peer reviewed? pathetic.

Still no answer here Liar. You claim peer review on a literature review
without inclusion or search criteria. Complete lies.
If Im an ignoramus, and I know enough that a literature review need both,
something you seem to be blissfully unaware of when spouting your blatant
lies, it seems you are less educated than an ignoramus then.

 

[Jason]

* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 09:16:13 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .* 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.
>
> You just contradicted yourself! First you said "I have no idea who would be the
> worlds formost expert on mountain biking and the damage it causes", then you
> said "I do know that it's definatly not you". One of those OBVIOUSLY
> CONTRADICTORY statements must be a LIE, and it's NOT the first one!!!!! ROTFL.
> Thanks for the laugh!
>

Nope theres no contadictory statements in my response mikey. You can not
know who the worlds formost is but also know its not someone.

For example, I don't know who the worlds best rock climber is but I do
know it's not me, just as I don't know who the worlds formost expert on
mountain biking and the damage caused by it is but I also definatly know
it's not you.

Jason

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 21:53:31 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..I submit that on or about Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:57:01 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:
..
..>.X: the unknown quantity. Spurt: a drip under pressure.
..>Your failure to think of a single expert is duly noted.
..
..You got that right.

BS. I didn't say that.

In a thread involving you there is, as you say,
..no evidence of the existence of any experts in this field - which
..indicates how unimportant it really is, and invites the question why
..you are so obsessed with it. But of course we know the answer: your
..own research has revealed that hiking causes damage, and you want to
..believe that something you despise is /more/ damaging, so you can
..continue to hike without feeling guilty, hypocritical bigot that you
..are.
..
..Guy

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 06:50:48 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:48:57 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 09:55:55 GMT, "Mark" <[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:
..> .> .>
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> ."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?
..> .>
..> .> Because they decided that mountain biking is irrelevant to wilderness,
..> .> since
..> .> it's not allowed. I agree. I spoke at their 1998 conference in India,
..> so I
..> .> AM an
..> .> expert.
..> . III. Understanding and Protecting Biodiversity
..> . Wildlife Need Habitat Off Limits to Humans - Michael J. Vandeman
..> .
..> .You did indeed, however again distorting the facts.
..> .You presented the above titled paper, which as we know, with a bit of
..> .research, is talking about creating pure habitat, as per your sig of many
..> .years, it is indeed a noble cause.
..> .
..> .However, it is interesting in 2 ways, firstly it does not major on the
..> .mountain biking/hiking relationship at all,
..>
..> BS. Bikes give people a larger range, so it relates to reducing human
..> impacts
..> and human presence. But, as a mountain biker, you can't be expected to
..> think
..> that far.
..Interesting, you wish to bring up journey data, Im glad.
..estimated worldwide mountain biking numbers are around 8 to 14 million,
..numbers arent easy to find, but thats general concensus of the regular
..mountain biking numbers.
..Same for hiuking, hard numbers are difficult to come by, but sees to be the
..region of 120 to 140 million.
..Yes , perhaps an indicidual biker roams further, butobviously, given the 10
..to 12 times larger hiking population, total hiking miles will far exceeed
..total biking miles in a given time period.
..Now again, regarding human impact and prescence, it would seem hiking is the
..bigger threat per arbitary time period, by your logic of course.
..> and so is just a smokescreen ,
..> .and has no bearing on your credibility in this subject,
..>
..> It supports my scientific qualifications.
..>
..> yet you again lie
..> .and claim you spoke of mountain biking here, are you a pathologocal liar?
..>
..> Mountain biking is mentioned in my paper, which you would know, if you had
..> bothered to actually READ it! Of course, you would have to be able to read
..> words
..> with more than one syl-la-ble..
..I do read, you said biking was irrelevant to the wilderness congress, I
..thought even you would be able to stick to one story in one thread Mr
..Vanderman, now which is it? You lectured to them on something irrelevant?
..Or your paper was about pur habitat. Just so you are aware before answering,
..the paper is available of the congress website.
..
..
..> .You seem unable to stop.
..> .Its also noteworthy that, even though, despite whatyou say here, you were
..> .talking of the pure habitat , which is inedeed very relevant to the
..> .wilderness congress, you have never appeared again to reiterate your
..> theory.
..> .
..> .As the 'worlds foremost expert' (on everything it seems) , why have your
..> .'pure habitat' theories not been embraced as the number one agenda, why
..> have
..> .you not been published,
..>
..> My paper WAS published. DUH!
..Then please enlighten me, which scientific journal have you had your
..mountain bike/hiking thesis published?

That's for you to find. As if you were capable....

..If you mean your pur habitat lecture, that is available in transcript from
..the wilderness congress of course, but we are in the mountain biking forum
..here, so Id like to stay on topic.
..Which journals have you had your thesis that 'all mountain bikers lie' ,
..that mountain bikers are untrustworthy, and which scientific journal has the
..basis for all this, your literature 'review' and corelating theory been
..published?
..
..> why has no one seemed to take notice of the worlds
..> .foremost expert.And most importantly, why is there no mention of you from
..> .the wilderness congress apart from that one presentation in 1998. If your
..> .ambition is to create your pure habitat, and as the 'worlds foremost
..> .expert'(TM) why has no one from the wilderness congress followed up on
..> your
..> .theories?
..>
..> How do you know thay haven't? You'd have to be able to READ.
..
..Ironic given that you are typing a reply to me.
..I know because you are not mentioned anywhere , in all the major
..environemntal review journals, even in the general science publications , I
..can find no mention of your mountain bike theories, serching even the
..organisations that gave you your 15 minutes, the wilderness congress, its
..been 7 years since you spoke, I find no mention of pure habitat or M J
..Vanderman since.
..I guess the personal insults mean thats a raw nerve.
..

===
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 Sun, 2 Oct 2005 09:27:14 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

..* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
..> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 09:16:13 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .* 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.
..>
..> You just contradicted yourself! First you said "I have no idea who would be the
..> worlds formost expert on mountain biking and the damage it causes", then you
..> said "I do know that it's definatly not you". One of those OBVIOUSLY
..> CONTRADICTORY statements must be a LIE, and it's NOT the first one!!!!! ROTFL.
..> Thanks for the laugh!
..>
..
..Nope theres no contadictory statements in my response mikey. You can not
..know who the worlds formost is but also know its not someone.
..
..For example, I don't know who the worlds best rock climber is but I do
..know it's not me,

Because you know yourself.

just as I don't know who the worlds formost expert on
..mountain biking and the damage caused by it is but I also definatly know
..it's not you.

No you don't, because you don't know me.

..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]>:
> .> .> .
> .> .> .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.
> .>
> .> You just contradicted yourself! First you said "I have no idea who would be the
> .> worlds formost expert on mountain biking and the damage it causes", then you
> .> said "I do know that it's definatly not you". One of those OBVIOUSLY
> .> CONTRADICTORY statements must be a LIE, and it's NOT the first one!!!!! ROTFL.
> .> Thanks for the laugh!
> .>
> .
> .Nope theres no contadictory statements in my response mikey. You can not
> .know who the worlds formost is but also know its not someone.
> .
> .For example, I don't know who the worlds best rock climber is but I do
> .know it's not me,
>
> Because you know yourself.

Which is more then you can say about anything.

>
> just as I don't know who the worlds formost expert on
> .mountain biking and the damage caused by it is but I also definatly know
> .it's not you.
>
> No you don't, because you don't know me.


Sure I do mike, anyone who's managed to read the dribble you post here
and that farce you call a webpage knows you and you are definatly not
the worlds formost expert on mountain biking. What's your PHD in again?
What are you qualifications regarding mountain biking and the alleged
damage it causes?

Jason

 

[Charlie Maxwell]

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

Unconscious transfer of inner mental life. psychology: The unconscious
ascription of a personal thought, feeling, or impulse to somebody else,
especially a thought or feeling considered undesirable

mike, you truly are the definition of "Projection". Especially when it
comes to your projections using statements like "LIAR", "DUH", "dishonesty",
"prejudice","ignoramus", and the like.

Have a nice 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