Re: Science Proves that Mountain Biking Has Greater Impacts than Hiking and Horseback Riding

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I predict that mountain bikers will completely ignore this study. In fact,
>it
> has already happened! IMBA, in spite of asking people to send them
> research on
> this topic, have refused to acknowledge this study, since it doesn't
> support
> mountain biking! Other mountain bikers have tried to minimize it and
> pretend
> that it doesn't prove anything. In fact, this is the most carefully
> executed
> study of mountain biking ever done. It eliminates human bias, by using
> electronically collected GPS data.
>
> Mike
>
>
> EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION ON MULE DEER AND ELK

Essentially, your "proof" boils down to the results stated in one paragraph.
Everything else is an explanation of method and / or conlusions drawn from
the results.
"Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass
were highest for ATV riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by
mountain bike riding (17 yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding
and hiking (both about 15 yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon run,
movement rates of elk again were highest during ATV riding (13
yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by horseback riding (about 11
yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and mountain bike riding (about 10
yards/minute [9 m/min])."

ATV (motorized vehicles) naturally had a higher result. Mt biking was only
slightly higher than hiking in the AM (17 yards / 15 yards) and even with
hiking in the PM (10 yards / 10 yards). So the "impact" of cyclists was
minimal to nothing compared to hiking.
While this may give a butterfly wing's weight to any argument you sustain
for "human free" habitat, it does not sustain your argument to remove
bicycles from existing parks, multi-use plans, fire roads, and designated
access park systems. Your arguments have been to TOTALLY remove cycling from
ALL areas. Park systems and wooded areas which allow "multi use" do not
carry the "human free" designation.
Beyond that, this study you cite does not note the initial disturbance to
the animals for being tagged and collared. That initial fright by the humans
conducting the study "tainted" any further contact because now the animals
are more wary of human presence than they were before the study was
initiated.
I'll say it again... your crusade for a "human free habitat" and areas
large enough to sustain that designation is a lofty and valid cause.
However, chasing bicycles out of ALL areas which currently allow human
access and multi-use does not do anything to achieve that goal. If you want
"human free habitat", stop chasing bicycles and join the groups, which you
always say "there is already someone doing that", which are working to stop
sprawl and destruction of habitat for more buildings. Once that Wal Mart is
built, the animals are permanently displaced. The bicycle on a currently
designated trail in a currently designated park system is only a temporary
situation. The cyclist will leave. The Wal Mart will not.
You have stated in the past you "tried" to initiate cyclists into your idea
and were met with hostility. You did not ask them for help in creating your
"human free habitat", you demanded they remove their bikes from the park.
You have sustained this hostility to this day with your comments,
half-truths, name calling and finger pointing. Any and all discredit on you
and your viewpoints has been brought on by your own actions.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:17:36 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..>I predict that mountain bikers will completely ignore this study. In fact,
..>it
..> has already happened! IMBA, in spite of asking people to send them
..> research on
..> this topic, have refused to acknowledge this study, since it doesn't
..> support
..> mountain biking! Other mountain bikers have tried to minimize it and
..> pretend
..> that it doesn't prove anything. In fact, this is the most carefully
..> executed
..> study of mountain biking ever done. It eliminates human bias, by using
..> electronically collected GPS data.
..>
..> Mike
..>
..>
..> EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION ON MULE DEER AND ELK
..
..Essentially, your "proof" boils down to the results stated in one paragraph.
..Everything else is an explanation of method and / or conlusions drawn from
..the results.
.."Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass
..were highest for ATV riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by
..mountain bike riding (17 yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding
..and hiking (both about 15 yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon run,
..movement rates of elk again were highest during ATV riding (13
..yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by horseback riding (about 11
..yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and mountain bike riding (about 10
..yards/minute [9 m/min])."

You conveniently omitted the rest of the conclusions, which clearly say that
mountain bikng has greater impacts than hiking. AND horseback riding.

..ATV (motorized vehicles) naturally had a higher result. Mt biking was only
..slightly higher than hiking in the AM (17 yards / 15 yards) and even with
..hiking in the PM (10 yards / 10 yards). So the "impact" of cyclists was
..minimal to nothing compared to hiking.

BS. It was statistically significant -- something you haven't a clue about.

..While this may give a butterfly wing's weight to any argument you sustain
..for "human free" habitat, it does not sustain your argument to remove
..bicycles from existing parks, multi-use plans, fire roads, and designated
..access park systems. Your arguments have been to TOTALLY remove cycling from
..ALL areas.


No, LIAR, only non-paved areas.

..Park systems and wooded areas which allow "multi use" do not
..carry the "human free" designation.
..Beyond that, this study you cite does not note the initial disturbance to
..the animals for being tagged and collared. That initial fright by the humans
..conducting the study "tainted" any further contact because now the animals
..are more wary of human presence than they were before the study was
..initiated.

So no research is possible? That's very anti-science, but not unexpected, from a
mountain biker.

..I'll say it again... your crusade for a "human free habitat" and areas
..large enough to sustain that designation is a lofty and valid cause.

Then why aren't you helping promote it? Answer: because you want to mountain
bike everywhere.

..However, chasing bicycles out of ALL areas which currently allow human
..access and multi-use does not do anything to achieve that goal. If you want
.."human free habitat", stop chasing bicycles and join the groups, which you
..always say "there is already someone doing that", which are working to stop
..sprawl and destruction of habitat for more buildings. Once that Wal Mart is
..built, the animals are permanently displaced. The bicycle on a currently
..designated trail in a currently designated park system is only a temporary
..situation. The cyclist will leave. The Wal Mart will not.
..You have stated in the past you "tried" to initiate cyclists into your idea
..and were met with hostility. You did not ask them for help in creating your
.."human free habitat", you demanded they remove their bikes from the park.
..You have sustained this hostility to this day with your comments,
..half-truths, name calling and finger pointing. Any and all discredit on you
..and your viewpoints has been brought on by your own actions.

I am not stopping mountain bikers from supporting human-free areas. If i had
that much power, I would get them to stop riding off of pavement. Your excuses
don't wash.
===
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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 05:15:01 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>You conveniently omitted the rest of the conclusions, which clearly say that
>mountain bikng has greater impacts than hiking. AND horseback riding.

Just as you conveniently ignore the fact that the report calls for an
holistic approach, not focusing on any one activity, but looking at
all activities and all impacts in the round - so it turns out that you
are using the report to justify doing the *exact opposite* of what it
recommends.

>.ATV (motorized vehicles) naturally had a higher result. Mt biking was only
>.slightly higher than hiking in the AM (17 yards / 15 yards) and even with
>.hiking in the PM (10 yards / 10 yards). So the "impact" of cyclists was
>.minimal to nothing compared to hiking.

>BS. It was statistically significant -- something you haven't a clue about.

The difference between unpowered and powered was significant, the
difference between the various unpowered activities much less so. Why
are you not trolling the ATV newsgroups?

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:17:36 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .>I predict that mountain bikers will completely ignore this study. In
> fact,
> .>it
> .> has already happened! IMBA, in spite of asking people to send them
> .> research on
> .> this topic, have refused to acknowledge this study, since it doesn't
> .> support
> .> mountain biking! Other mountain bikers have tried to minimize it and
> .> pretend
> .> that it doesn't prove anything. In fact, this is the most carefully
> .> executed
> .> study of mountain biking ever done. It eliminates human bias, by using
> .> electronically collected GPS data.
> .>
> .> Mike
> .>
> .>
> .> EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION ON MULE DEER AND ELK
> .
> .Essentially, your "proof" boils down to the results stated in one
> paragraph.
> .Everything else is an explanation of method and / or conlusions drawn
> from
> .the results.
> ."Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass
> .were highest for ATV riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by
> .mountain bike riding (17 yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding
> .and hiking (both about 15 yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon
> run,
> .movement rates of elk again were highest during ATV riding (13
> .yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by horseback riding (about 11
> .yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and mountain bike riding (about 10
> .yards/minute [9 m/min])."
>
> You conveniently omitted the rest of the conclusions, which clearly say
> that
> mountain bikng has greater impacts than hiking. AND horseback riding.
You conveniently ignore the FACT I posted the test results which led to
those "conclusions".
>
> .ATV (motorized vehicles) naturally had a higher result. Mt biking was
> only
> .slightly higher than hiking in the AM (17 yards / 15 yards) and even with
> .hiking in the PM (10 yards / 10 yards). So the "impact" of cyclists was
> .minimal to nothing compared to hiking.
>
> BS. It was statistically significant -- something you haven't a clue
> about.
There is no mention of "statistics" in the article. Any "statistically
significant" differences are being extrapolated by you and your bias. The
numbers show a slight increase during the AM hours for elk for the activity
of mt biking and even less over all for the mule deer. The conclusions in
this piece also state the the size of the "watershed" is significant to the
amount of disturbance. So again... why are you so concerned about mt bikes
in designated multi-use areas when it is the major construction and sprawl
which decreases the size of the watershed and forces these animals onto
smaller habitats?
>
> .While this may give a butterfly wing's weight to any argument you sustain
> .for "human free" habitat, it does not sustain your argument to remove
> .bicycles from existing parks, multi-use plans, fire roads, and designated
> .access park systems. Your arguments have been to TOTALLY remove cycling
> from
> .ALL areas.
>
>
> No, LIAR, only non-paved areas.
Oops.. my mistake. I assumed you were smart enough to know I was referring
to "All 'trail and park systems'".
>
> .Park systems and wooded areas which allow "multi use" do not
> .carry the "human free" designation.
> .Beyond that, this study you cite does not note the initial disturbance to
> .the animals for being tagged and collared. That initial fright by the
> humans
> .conducting the study "tainted" any further contact because now the
> animals
> .are more wary of human presence than they were before the study was
> .initiated.
>
> So no research is possible? That's very anti-science, but not unexpected,
> from a
> mountain biker.
Of course research is possible. But every variable must be accounted. There
is no doubt human incursion into wilderness causes some kind of response
from the animals in the area. Any predator chasing prey will cause a flight
response to the animals in the area. However, that study is for your "human
free habitat". Chasing bicycles off of current multi-use park systems and
human accessible areas is a different issue. You want all bicycles off of
all trails. That is different than creating habitat that allows no humans on
no trails.
>
> .I'll say it again... your crusade for a "human free habitat" and areas
> .large enough to sustain that designation is a lofty and valid cause.
>
> Then why aren't you helping promote it? Answer: because you want to
> mountain
> bike everywhere.
I live in Virginia and there are vast areas of mountain region that are
inaccesible to bikes (or foot traffic in a reasonable time). I have no
desire to ride there. I do not want to mt bike everywhere. I do, however,
enjoy access at designated multi-use trail systems and parks which allow
bicycles. Your "selfish" desire to have bicycles banned from ALL of these
areas is only as significant as my own desire to ride a bicycle there. Your
voice is no more important than mine. Unless you call me names and
stereotype me. Then your voice just becomes meaningless rhetoric.
>
> .However, chasing bicycles out of ALL areas which currently allow human
> .access and multi-use does not do anything to achieve that goal. If you
> want
> ."human free habitat", stop chasing bicycles and join the groups, which
> you
> .always say "there is already someone doing that", which are working to
> stop
> .sprawl and destruction of habitat for more buildings. Once that Wal Mart
> is
> .built, the animals are permanently displaced. The bicycle on a currently
> .designated trail in a currently designated park system is only a
> temporary
> .situation. The cyclist will leave. The Wal Mart will not.
> .You have stated in the past you "tried" to initiate cyclists into your
> idea
> .and were met with hostility. You did not ask them for help in creating
> your
> ."human free habitat", you demanded they remove their bikes from the park.
> .You have sustained this hostility to this day with your comments,
> .half-truths, name calling and finger pointing. Any and all discredit on
> you
> .and your viewpoints has been brought on by your own actions.
>
> I am not stopping mountain bikers from supporting human-free areas. If i
> had
> that much power, I would get them to stop riding off of pavement. Your
> excuses
> don't wash.
Yes... you are stopping off road cycling enthusiasts from supporting human
free areas. By attempting to stop ALL access to bicycles in designated
multi-use areas, you are doing nothing to enlist the support of these people
in creating any area that would be designated "human free". You don't get
that because your view is partisan to the extreme.
I support the sustainment of designated areas as "human free". The process
is ongoing anyway with wilderness areas management policies.
I also support the use of bicycles in park systems, trails and wooded areas
that are designated as multi-use and recreational. The two notions are not
exclusive of each other. Unless you are Micheal Vandeman.

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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 13:11:14 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

..On Tue, 31 May 2005 05:15:01 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..
..>You conveniently omitted the rest of the conclusions, which clearly say that
..>mountain bikng has greater impacts than hiking. AND horseback riding.
..
..Just as you conveniently ignore the fact that the report calls for an
..holistic approach, not focusing on any one activity, but looking at
..all activities and all impacts in the round - so it turns out that you
..are using the report to justify doing the *exact opposite* of what it
..recommends.
..
..>.ATV (motorized vehicles) naturally had a higher result. Mt biking was only
..>.slightly higher than hiking in the AM (17 yards / 15 yards) and even with
..>.hiking in the PM (10 yards / 10 yards). So the "impact" of cyclists was
..>.minimal to nothing compared to hiking.
..
..>BS. It was statistically significant -- something you haven't a clue about.
..
..The difference between unpowered and powered was significant, the
..difference between the various unpowered activities much less so. Why
..are you not trolling the ATV newsgroups?
..
..http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php
..
..Guy

Yawn.
===
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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 01:45:53 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>Yawn.

Thank you for confirming that you have no rebuttal.

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 Tue, 31 May 2005 12:53:05 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:17:36 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .>I predict that mountain bikers will completely ignore this study. In
..> fact,
..> .>it
..> .> has already happened! IMBA, in spite of asking people to send them
..> .> research on
..> .> this topic, have refused to acknowledge this study, since it doesn't
..> .> support
..> .> mountain biking! Other mountain bikers have tried to minimize it and
..> .> pretend
..> .> that it doesn't prove anything. In fact, this is the most carefully
..> .> executed
..> .> study of mountain biking ever done. It eliminates human bias, by using
..> .> electronically collected GPS data.
..> .>
..> .> Mike
..> .>
..> .>
..> .> EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION ON MULE DEER AND ELK
..> .
..> .Essentially, your "proof" boils down to the results stated in one
..> paragraph.
..> .Everything else is an explanation of method and / or conlusions drawn
..> from
..> .the results.
..> ."Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass
..> .were highest for ATV riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by
..> .mountain bike riding (17 yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding
..> .and hiking (both about 15 yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon
..> run,
..> .movement rates of elk again were highest during ATV riding (13
..> .yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by horseback riding (about 11
..> .yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and mountain bike riding (about 10
..> .yards/minute [9 m/min])."
..>
..> You conveniently omitted the rest of the conclusions, which clearly say
..> that
..> mountain bikng has greater impacts than hiking. AND horseback riding.
..You conveniently ignore the FACT I posted the test results which led to
..those "conclusions".
..>
..> .ATV (motorized vehicles) naturally had a higher result. Mt biking was
..> only
..> .slightly higher than hiking in the AM (17 yards / 15 yards) and even with
..> .hiking in the PM (10 yards / 10 yards). So the "impact" of cyclists was
..> .minimal to nothing compared to hiking.
..>
..> BS. It was statistically significant -- something you haven't a clue
..> about.
..There is no mention of "statistics" in the article. Any "statistically
..significant" differences are being extrapolated by you and your bias.

Very funny, and thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance of science.
Statistics are so much a part of science that they aren't even mentioned.

I guess you missed this: "Haiganoush K. Preisler
Statistician
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station"

And: "These probabilities were nearly identical among all four activities and
not significantly different than the null probability of 0.05 set for
control periods, suggesting that deer were not exhibiting the same
tendency for flight as shown by elk in relation to off-road activities"

The
..numbers show a slight increase during the AM hours for elk for the activity
..of mt biking and even less over all for the mule deer. The conclusions in
..this piece also state the the size of the "watershed" is significant to the
..amount of disturbance. So again... why are you so concerned about mt bikes
..in designated multi-use areas when it is the major construction and sprawl
..which decreases the size of the watershed and forces these animals onto
..smaller habitats?

Because mountain biking is additional harm. DUH!

..> .While this may give a butterfly wing's weight to any argument you sustain
..> .for "human free" habitat, it does not sustain your argument to remove
..> .bicycles from existing parks, multi-use plans, fire roads, and designated
..> .access park systems. Your arguments have been to TOTALLY remove cycling
..> from
..> .ALL areas.
..>
..>
..> No, LIAR, only non-paved areas.
..Oops.. my mistake. I assumed you were smart enough to know I was referring
..to "All 'trail and park systems'".
..>
..> .Park systems and wooded areas which allow "multi use" do not
..> .carry the "human free" designation.
..> .Beyond that, this study you cite does not note the initial disturbance to
..> .the animals for being tagged and collared. That initial fright by the
..> humans
..> .conducting the study "tainted" any further contact because now the
..> animals
..> .are more wary of human presence than they were before the study was
..> .initiated.
..>
..> So no research is possible? That's very anti-science, but not unexpected,
..> from a
..> mountain biker.
..Of course research is possible. But every variable must be accounted. There
..is no doubt human incursion into wilderness causes some kind of response
..from the animals in the area. Any predator chasing prey will cause a flight
..response to the animals in the area. However, that study is for your "human
..free habitat". Chasing bicycles off of current multi-use park systems and
..human accessible areas is a different issue. You want all bicycles off of
..all trails. That is different than creating habitat that allows no humans on
..no trails.

BS. Bikes carry HUMANS. DUH!

..> .I'll say it again... your crusade for a "human free habitat" and areas
..> .large enough to sustain that designation is a lofty and valid cause.
..>
..> Then why aren't you helping promote it? Answer: because you want to
..> mountain
..> bike everywhere.
..I live in Virginia and there are vast areas of mountain region that are
..inaccesible to bikes (or foot traffic in a reasonable time). I have no
..desire to ride there. I do not want to mt bike everywhere. I do, however,
..enjoy access at designated multi-use trail systems and parks which allow
..bicycles. Your "selfish" desire to have bicycles banned from ALL of these
..areas is only as significant as my own desire to ride a bicycle there. Your
..voice is no more important than mine. Unless you call me names and
..stereotype me. Then your voice just becomes meaningless rhetoric.

Protecting wildlife is not selfish, but UNselfish. DUH!

..> .However, chasing bicycles out of ALL areas which currently allow human
..> .access and multi-use does not do anything to achieve that goal. If you
..> want
..> ."human free habitat", stop chasing bicycles and join the groups, which
..> you
..> .always say "there is already someone doing that", which are working to
..> stop
..> .sprawl and destruction of habitat for more buildings. Once that Wal Mart
..> is
..> .built, the animals are permanently displaced. The bicycle on a currently
..> .designated trail in a currently designated park system is only a
..> temporary
..> .situation. The cyclist will leave. The Wal Mart will not.
..> .You have stated in the past you "tried" to initiate cyclists into your
..> idea
..> .and were met with hostility. You did not ask them for help in creating
..> your
..> ."human free habitat", you demanded they remove their bikes from the park.
..> .You have sustained this hostility to this day with your comments,
..> .half-truths, name calling and finger pointing. Any and all discredit on
..> you
..> .and your viewpoints has been brought on by your own actions.
..>
..> I am not stopping mountain bikers from supporting human-free areas. If i
..> had
..> that much power, I would get them to stop riding off of pavement. Your
..> excuses
..> don't wash.
..Yes... you are stopping off road cycling enthusiasts from supporting human
..free areas.

BS. If I had that much power, I wuld use it to stop them from riding off-road.

By attempting to stop ALL access to bicycles in designated
..multi-use areas, you are doing nothing to enlist the support of these people
..in creating any area that would be designated "human free". You don't get
..that because your view is partisan to the extreme.
..I support the sustainment of designated areas as "human free". The process
..is ongoing anyway with wilderness areas management policies.

No, it isn't.

..I also support the use of bicycles in park systems, trails and wooded areas
..that are designated as multi-use and recreational. The two notions are not
..exclusive of each other. Unless you are Micheal Vandeman.

Which I am not.
===
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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:53:05 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:17:36 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> .>
> .> .
> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> .news:[email protected]...
> .> .>I predict that mountain bikers will completely ignore this study. In
> .> fact,
> .> .>it
> .> .> has already happened! IMBA, in spite of asking people to send them
> .> .> research on
> .> .> this topic, have refused to acknowledge this study, since it doesn't
> .> .> support
> .> .> mountain biking! Other mountain bikers have tried to minimize it and
> .> .> pretend
> .> .> that it doesn't prove anything. In fact, this is the most carefully
> .> .> executed
> .> .> study of mountain biking ever done. It eliminates human bias, by
> using
> .> .> electronically collected GPS data.
> .> .>
> .> .> Mike
> .> .>
> .> .>
> .> .> EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION ON MULE DEER AND ELK
> .> .
> .> .Essentially, your "proof" boils down to the results stated in one
> .> paragraph.
> .> .Everything else is an explanation of method and / or conlusions drawn
> .> from
> .> .the results.
> .> ."Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass
> .> .were highest for ATV riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by
> .> .mountain bike riding (17 yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding
> .> .and hiking (both about 15 yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon
> .> run,
> .> .movement rates of elk again were highest during ATV riding (13
> .> .yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by horseback riding (about 11
> .> .yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and mountain bike riding (about 10
> .> .yards/minute [9 m/min])."
> .>
> .> You conveniently omitted the rest of the conclusions, which clearly say
> .> that
> .> mountain bikng has greater impacts than hiking. AND horseback riding.
> .You conveniently ignore the FACT I posted the test results which led to
> .those "conclusions".
> .>
> .> .ATV (motorized vehicles) naturally had a higher result. Mt biking was
> .> only
> .> .slightly higher than hiking in the AM (17 yards / 15 yards) and even
> with
> .> .hiking in the PM (10 yards / 10 yards). So the "impact" of cyclists
> was
> .> .minimal to nothing compared to hiking.
> .>
> .> BS. It was statistically significant -- something you haven't a clue
> .> about.
> .There is no mention of "statistics" in the article. Any "statistically
> .significant" differences are being extrapolated by you and your bias.
>
> Very funny, and thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance of science.
> Statistics are so much a part of science that they aren't even mentioned.
>
> I guess you missed this: "Haiganoush K. Preisler
> Statistician
> USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station"
>
> And: "These probabilities were nearly identical among all four activities
> and
> not significantly different than the null probability of 0.05 set for
> control periods, suggesting that deer were not exhibiting the same
> tendency for flight as shown by elk in relation to off-road activities"

"These probabilities were nearly identical among all four activities and not
significantly different than the null probability..." proving our point, not
yours. The findings show only slight differences to none at all for
non-powered activity.
>
> The
> .numbers show a slight increase during the AM hours for elk for the
> activity
> .of mt biking and even less over all for the mule deer. The conclusions in
> .this piece also state the the size of the "watershed" is significant to
> the
> .amount of disturbance. So again... why are you so concerned about mt
> bikes
> .in designated multi-use areas when it is the major construction and
> sprawl
> .which decreases the size of the watershed and forces these animals onto
> .smaller habitats?
>
> Because mountain biking is additional harm. DUH!
It would not be "additional harm" to the "human free" area because it would
not be happening in the "human free" area. Mt biking would continue in
designated "multi-use" areas and parks.
>
> .> .While this may give a butterfly wing's weight to any argument you
> sustain
> .> .for "human free" habitat, it does not sustain your argument to remove
> .> .bicycles from existing parks, multi-use plans, fire roads, and
> designated
> .> .access park systems. Your arguments have been to TOTALLY remove
> cycling
> .> from
> .> .ALL areas.
> .>
> .>
> .> No, LIAR, only non-paved areas.
> .Oops.. my mistake. I assumed you were smart enough to know I was
> referring
> .to "All 'trail and park systems'".
> .>
> .> .Park systems and wooded areas which allow "multi use" do not
> .> .carry the "human free" designation.
> .> .Beyond that, this study you cite does not note the initial disturbance
> to
> .> .the animals for being tagged and collared. That initial fright by the
> .> humans
> .> .conducting the study "tainted" any further contact because now the
> .> animals
> .> .are more wary of human presence than they were before the study was
> .> .initiated.
> .>
> .> So no research is possible? That's very anti-science, but not
> unexpected,
> .> from a
> .> mountain biker.
> .Of course research is possible. But every variable must be accounted.
> There
> .is no doubt human incursion into wilderness causes some kind of response
> .from the animals in the area. Any predator chasing prey will cause a
> flight
> .response to the animals in the area. However, that study is for your
> "human
> .free habitat". Chasing bicycles off of current multi-use park systems and
> .human accessible areas is a different issue. You want all bicycles off of
> .all trails. That is different than creating habitat that allows no humans
> on
> .no trails.
>
> BS. Bikes carry HUMANS. DUH!
A "human free" area would be "no humans", "no trails" and therefore "no
bikes". That is not the same argument as continued sharing of bicycle access
in areas designated as "multi- use" or "human accessible". Bicycles carrying
humans in designated use areas has no effect on any area designated "human
free" because the bikes (with the humans being carried) would not be there.
DUH!
>
> .> .I'll say it again... your crusade for a "human free habitat" and
> areas
> .> .large enough to sustain that designation is a lofty and valid cause.
> .>
> .> Then why aren't you helping promote it? Answer: because you want to
> .> mountain
> .> bike everywhere.
> .I live in Virginia and there are vast areas of mountain region that are
> .inaccesible to bikes (or foot traffic in a reasonable time). I have no
> .desire to ride there. I do not want to mt bike everywhere. I do, however,
> .enjoy access at designated multi-use trail systems and parks which allow
> .bicycles. Your "selfish" desire to have bicycles banned from ALL of these
> .areas is only as significant as my own desire to ride a bicycle there.
> Your
> .voice is no more important than mine. Unless you call me names and
> .stereotype me. Then your voice just becomes meaningless rhetoric.
>
> Protecting wildlife is not selfish, but UNselfish. DUH!
Then be un-selfish and stop trying to legislate your point of view as the
only one possible. The wildlife you want to protect by creating the "human
free" zone would not be in any harm from mt bikes because the mt bikes would
be in the designated multi-use areas with the other humans enjoying their
own activities.
>
> .> .However, chasing bicycles out of ALL areas which currently allow human
> .> .access and multi-use does not do anything to achieve that goal. If you
> .> want
> .> ."human free habitat", stop chasing bicycles and join the groups, which
> .> you
> .> .always say "there is already someone doing that", which are working to
> .> stop
> .> .sprawl and destruction of habitat for more buildings. Once that Wal
> Mart
> .> is
> .> .built, the animals are permanently displaced. The bicycle on a
> currently
> .> .designated trail in a currently designated park system is only a
> .> temporary
> .> .situation. The cyclist will leave. The Wal Mart will not.
> .> .You have stated in the past you "tried" to initiate cyclists into your
> .> idea
> .> .and were met with hostility. You did not ask them for help in creating
> .> your
> .> ."human free habitat", you demanded they remove their bikes from the
> park.
> .> .You have sustained this hostility to this day with your comments,
> .> .half-truths, name calling and finger pointing. Any and all discredit
> on
> .> you
> .> .and your viewpoints has been brought on by your own actions.
> .>
> .> I am not stopping mountain bikers from supporting human-free areas. If
> i
> .> had
> .> that much power, I would get them to stop riding off of pavement. Your
> .> excuses
> .> don't wash.
> .Yes... you are stopping off road cycling enthusiasts from supporting
> human
> .free areas.
>
> BS. If I had that much power, I wuld use it to stop them from riding
> off-road.
>
> By attempting to stop ALL access to bicycles in designated
> .multi-use areas, you are doing nothing to enlist the support of these
> people
> .in creating any area that would be designated "human free". You don't get
> .that because your view is partisan to the extreme.
> .I support the sustainment of designated areas as "human free". The
> process
> .is ongoing anyway with wilderness areas management policies.
>
> No, it isn't.
So you do not support the sustainment of wilderness management?
>
> .I also support the use of bicycles in park systems, trails and wooded
> areas
> .that are designated as multi-use and recreational. The two notions are
> not
> .exclusive of each other. Unless you are Micheal Vandeman.
>
> Which I am not.
OK fine.... maybe you are a whipsnake.
> ===
> 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

 

[Chris Foster]

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

> On Tue, 31 May 2005 13:11:14 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .On Tue, 31 May 2005 05:15:01 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
> .wrote:
> .
> .>You conveniently omitted the rest of the conclusions, which clearly
> say that .>mountain bikng has greater impacts than hiking. AND
> horseback riding. .
> .Just as you conveniently ignore the fact that the report calls for an
> .holistic approach, not focusing on any one activity, but looking at
> .all activities and all impacts in the round - so it turns out that
> you .are using the report to justify doing the *exact opposite* of
> what it .recommends.
> .
> .>.ATV (motorized vehicles) naturally had a higher result. Mt biking
> was only .>.slightly higher than hiking in the AM (17 yards / 15
> yards) and even with .>.hiking in the PM (10 yards / 10 yards). So
> the "impact" of cyclists was .>.minimal to nothing compared to hiking.
> .
> .>BS. It was statistically significant -- something you haven't a clue
> about. .
> .The difference between unpowered and powered was significant, the
> .difference between the various unpowered activities much less so.
> Why .are you not trolling the ATV newsgroups?
> .
> .http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php
> .
> .Guy
>
> Yawn.


Every time you do that 'Yawn' thing, you lose what little credibity you
once had.



> ===
> 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
>

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 19:52:11 GMT, Chris Foster
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<1117828331.db5cb8869519446721acf2a10f413c38@teranews>:

>Every time you do that 'Yawn' thing, you lose what little credibity you
>once had.

What Vandeman has is not credibility but "incredibility" - that is to
say, it is incredible that he still believes his incessant trolling
has any value whatsoever.

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 Fri, 03 Jun 2005 21:39:03 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 19:52:11 GMT, Chris Foster
..<[email protected]> wrote in message
..<1117828331.db5cb8869519446721acf2a10f413c38@teranews>:
..
..>Every time you do that 'Yawn' thing, you lose what little credibity you
..>once had.
..
..What Vandeman has is not credibility but "incredibility" - that is to
..say, it is incredible that he still believes his incessant trolling
..has any value whatsoever.

And why do you ALWAYS take the bait? This should be good!

..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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 12:56:05 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:53:05 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> .>
> .> .
> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> .news:[email protected]...
> .> .> On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:17:36 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> .> wrote:
> .> .>
> .> .> .
> .> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> .> .news:[email protected]...
> .> .> .>I predict that mountain bikers will completely ignore this study.
> In
> .> .> fact,
> .> .> .>it
> .> .> .> has already happened! IMBA, in spite of asking people to send
> them
> .> .> .> research on
> .> .> .> this topic, have refused to acknowledge this study, since it
> doesn't
> .> .> .> support
> .> .> .> mountain biking! Other mountain bikers have tried to minimize it
> and
> .> .> .> pretend
> .> .> .> that it doesn't prove anything. In fact, this is the most
> carefully
> .> .> .> executed
> .> .> .> study of mountain biking ever done. It eliminates human bias, by
> .> using
> .> .> .> electronically collected GPS data.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> Mike
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION ON MULE DEER AND ELK
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Essentially, your "proof" boils down to the results stated in one
> .> .> paragraph.
> .> .> .Everything else is an explanation of method and / or conlusions
> drawn
> .> .> from
> .> .> .the results.
> .> .> ."Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass
> .> .> .were highest for ATV riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed
> by
> .> .> .mountain bike riding (17 yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback
> riding
> .> .> .and hiking (both about 15 yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the
> afternoon
> .> .> run,
> .> .> .movement rates of elk again were highest during ATV riding (13
> .> .> .yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by horseback riding (about 11
> .> .> .yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and mountain bike riding (about
> 10
> .> .> .yards/minute [9 m/min])."
> .> .>
> .> .> You conveniently omitted the rest of the conclusions, which clearly
> say
> .> .> that
> .> .> mountain bikng has greater impacts than hiking. AND horseback
> riding.
> .> .You conveniently ignore the FACT I posted the test results which led
> to
> .> .those "conclusions".
> .> .>
> .> .> .ATV (motorized vehicles) naturally had a higher result. Mt biking
> was
> .> .> only
> .> .> .slightly higher than hiking in the AM (17 yards / 15 yards) and
> even
> .> with
> .> .> .hiking in the PM (10 yards / 10 yards). So the "impact" of
> cyclists
> .> was
> .> .> .minimal to nothing compared to hiking.
> .> .>
> .> .> BS. It was statistically significant -- something you haven't a clue
> .> .> about.
> .> .There is no mention of "statistics" in the article. Any "statistically
> .> .significant" differences are being extrapolated by you and your bias.
> .>
> .> Very funny, and thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance of
> science.
> .> Statistics are so much a part of science that they aren't even
> mentioned.
> .>
> .> I guess you missed this: "Haiganoush K. Preisler
> .> Statistician
> .> USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station"
> .>
> .> And: "These probabilities were nearly identical among all four
> activities
> .> and
> .> not significantly different than the null probability of 0.05 set for
> .> control periods, suggesting that deer were not exhibiting the same
> .> tendency for flight as shown by elk in relation to off-road activities"
> .
> ."These probabilities were nearly identical among all four activities and
> not
> .significantly different than the null probability..." proving our point,
> not
> .yours. The findings show only slight differences to none at all for
> .non-powered activity.
>
> You are talking about your subjective judgments, NOT scientifically proven
> statistically significant differences. You don't know the first thing
> about
> science.
What makes you the science expert? Because you claim to be? Be cause you
have a PhD from a dissertation about ethnic tastes? Because you "write"
documents that take selective bits of information to prove that you are
correct? Your "science" is no better than mine and you have proven that by
your own double-standards, your own name-calling, your own side-stepping of
direct questions and your own bias in judgements of the issues being brought
forth. >
> .> The
> .> .numbers show a slight increase during the AM hours for elk for the
> .> activity
> .> .of mt biking and even less over all for the mule deer. The conclusions
> in
> .> .this piece also state the the size of the "watershed" is significant
> to
> .> the
> .> .amount of disturbance. So again... why are you so concerned about mt
> .> bikes
> .> .in designated multi-use areas when it is the major construction and
> .> sprawl
> .> .which decreases the size of the watershed and forces these animals
> onto
> .> .smaller habitats?
> .>
> .> Because mountain biking is additional harm. DUH!
> .It would not be "additional harm" to the "human free" area because it
> would
> .not be happening in the "human free" area. Mt biking would continue in
> .designated "multi-use" areas and parks.
>
> It is in addition to other recreation. DUH!
That is a non-statement. What other "recreation"? Your narrow idea of what
"recreation" is supposed to be? You have lost your focus, and your argument.
>
> .> .> .While this may give a butterfly wing's weight to any argument you
> .> sustain
> .> .> .for "human free" habitat, it does not sustain your argument to
> remove
> .> .> .bicycles from existing parks, multi-use plans, fire roads, and
> .> designated
> .> .> .access park systems. Your arguments have been to TOTALLY remove
> .> cycling
> .> .> from
> .> .> .ALL areas.
> .> .>
> .> .>
> .> .> No, LIAR, only non-paved areas.
> .> .Oops.. my mistake. I assumed you were smart enough to know I was
> .> referring
> .> .to "All 'trail and park systems'".
> .> .>
> .> .> .Park systems and wooded areas which allow "multi use" do not
> .> .> .carry the "human free" designation.
> .> .> .Beyond that, this study you cite does not note the initial
> disturbance
> .> to
> .> .> .the animals for being tagged and collared. That initial fright by
> the
> .> .> humans
> .> .> .conducting the study "tainted" any further contact because now the
> .> .> animals
> .> .> .are more wary of human presence than they were before the study was
> .> .> .initiated.
> .> .>
> .> .> So no research is possible? That's very anti-science, but not
> .> unexpected,
> .> .> from a
> .> .> mountain biker.
> .> .Of course research is possible. But every variable must be accounted.
> .> There
> .> .is no doubt human incursion into wilderness causes some kind of
> response
> .> .from the animals in the area. Any predator chasing prey will cause a
> .> flight
> .> .response to the animals in the area. However, that study is for your
> .> "human
> .> .free habitat". Chasing bicycles off of current multi-use park systems
> and
> .> .human accessible areas is a different issue. You want all bicycles off
> of
> .> .all trails. That is different than creating habitat that allows no
> humans
> .> on
> .> .no trails.
> .>
> .> BS. Bikes carry HUMANS. DUH!
> .A "human free" area would be "no humans", "no trails" and therefore "no
> .bikes". That is not the same argument as continued sharing of bicycle
> access
> .in areas designated as "multi- use" or "human accessible". Bicycles
> carrying
> .humans in designated use areas has no effect on any area designated
> "human
> .free" because the bikes (with the humans being carried) would not be
> there.
> .DUH!
>
> They increase human presence in the parks where they are allowed. DUH!
OK... so 100 additional bikers are now 100 additional hikiers. Same human
presence, idiot. The multi-use designation still does nothing to damage the
"human free" habitat you wish to create. Go ahead. Create your "human-free"
habitat. "Multi-use" areas will still exist for humans to venture into. On
foor, by bike, by snowmobile or boat. That is why "multi-use" and
"human-free" would be different areas. You don't want bikes in the places
whhere you hike because you don't like the bikes. Admit it! Coward! Allowing
bikes in "multi-use" areas does nothing to impede your creation, or the
support of, "human free" habitat.
>
> .> .> .I'll say it again... your crusade for a "human free habitat" and
> .> areas
> .> .> .large enough to sustain that designation is a lofty and valid
> cause.
> .> .>
> .> .> Then why aren't you helping promote it? Answer: because you want to
> .> .> mountain
> .> .> bike everywhere.
> .> .I live in Virginia and there are vast areas of mountain region that
> are
> .> .inaccesible to bikes (or foot traffic in a reasonable time). I have no
> .> .desire to ride there. I do not want to mt bike everywhere. I do,
> however,
> .> .enjoy access at designated multi-use trail systems and parks which
> allow
> .> .bicycles. Your "selfish" desire to have bicycles banned from ALL of
> these
> .> .areas is only as significant as my own desire to ride a bicycle there.
> .> Your
> .> .voice is no more important than mine. Unless you call me names and
> .> .stereotype me. Then your voice just becomes meaningless rhetoric.
> .>
> .> Protecting wildlife is not selfish, but UNselfish. DUH!
> .Then be un-selfish and stop trying to legislate your point of view as the
> .only one possible. The wildlife you want to protect by creating the
> "human
> .free" zone would not be in any harm from mt bikes because the mt bikes
> would
> .be in the designated multi-use areas with the other humans enjoying their
> .own activities.
>
> They cause harm in those areas where bikes are allowed. DUH!
So you say... again and again and again and over and over. But your science
is flawed because you have been PROVEN to quote out of context, pick
selective data, and voice opinion as fact. Bikes only cause more harm
because you choose to see it that way. What a pathetic, self-righteous point
of view to believe you are better than someone else because you have nothing
else to cling to. You claim to champion "wildlife", but all you really want
is to go hiking without seeing someone else enjoying a bicycle ride.
>
> .> .> .However, chasing bicycles out of ALL areas which currently allow
> human
> .> .> .access and multi-use does not do anything to achieve that goal. If
> you
> .> .> want
> .> .> ."human free habitat", stop chasing bicycles and join the groups,
> which
> .> .> you
> .> .> .always say "there is already someone doing that", which are working
> to
> .> .> stop
> .> .> .sprawl and destruction of habitat for more buildings. Once that Wal
> .> Mart
> .> .> is
> .> .> .built, the animals are permanently displaced. The bicycle on a
> .> currently
> .> .> .designated trail in a currently designated park system is only a
> .> .> temporary
> .> .> .situation. The cyclist will leave. The Wal Mart will not.
> .> .> .You have stated in the past you "tried" to initiate cyclists into
> your
> .> .> idea
> .> .> .and were met with hostility. You did not ask them for help in
> creating
> .> .> your
> .> .> ."human free habitat", you demanded they remove their bikes from the
> .> park.
> .> .> .You have sustained this hostility to this day with your comments,
> .> .> .half-truths, name calling and finger pointing. Any and all
> discredit
> .> on
> .> .> you
> .> .> .and your viewpoints has been brought on by your own actions.
> .> .>
> .> .> I am not stopping mountain bikers from supporting human-free areas.
> If
> .> i
> .> .> had
> .> .> that much power, I would get them to stop riding off of pavement.
> Your
> .> .> excuses
> .> .> don't wash.
> .> .Yes... you are stopping off road cycling enthusiasts from supporting
> .> human
> .> .free areas.
> .>
> .> BS. If I had that much power, I wuld use it to stop them from riding
> .> off-road.
> .>
> .> By attempting to stop ALL access to bicycles in designated
> .> .multi-use areas, you are doing nothing to enlist the support of these
> .> people
> .> .in creating any area that would be designated "human free". You don't
> get
> .> .that because your view is partisan to the extreme.
> .> .I support the sustainment of designated areas as "human free". The
> .> process
> .> .is ongoing anyway with wilderness areas management policies.
> .>
> .> No, it isn't.
> .So you do not support the sustainment of wilderness management?
> .>
> .> .I also support the use of bicycles in park systems, trails and wooded
> .> areas
> .> .that are designated as multi-use and recreational. The two notions are
> .> not
> .> .exclusive of each other. Unless you are Micheal Vandeman.
> .>
> .> Which I am not.
> .OK fine.... maybe you are a whipsnake.
> .> ===
> .> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> .> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> .> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
> .>
> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
> .
>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Sat, 04 Jun 2005 04:43:27 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:

>.What Vandeman has is not credibility but "incredibility" - that is to
>.say, it is incredible that he still believes his incessant trolling
>.has any value whatsoever.

>And why do you ALWAYS take the bait? This should be good!

Simple: I think hate-speech should not be left unchallenged.

I dislike bigots, and when those bigots (in this case you) make
assertions which are provably false, or distort a tiny subset of fact
and represent it as the general case, or fail to back their assertions
with evidence - well, then I just have to get in there and make sure
that innocent bystanders realise that the bigot is not telling
anything like the whole story.

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

 

[SuperG]

Too bad someone does not post a message each week such that contains all
the "filter" elements to allow us not to see Mikey's worthless messages
and the replies. That would be worth it's weight in gold....


Jason wrote:
> * Chris Foster <[email protected]>:
>
>>>Yawn.
>>
>>
>>Every time you do that 'Yawn' thing, you lose what little credibity you
>>once had.
>>
>
>
> It's just a sign that Mike lost the arguement and knows it and a yawn or
> duh is the only thing his little underused troll mind can come up with
> as a reply.
>
> Jason

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 12:00:35 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..I submit that on or about Sat, 04 Jun 2005 04:43:27 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:
..
..>.What Vandeman has is not credibility but "incredibility" - that is to
..>.say, it is incredible that he still believes his incessant trolling
..>.has any value whatsoever.
..
..>And why do you ALWAYS take the bait? This should be good!
..
..Simple: I think hate-speech should not be left unchallenged.
..
..I dislike bigots, and when those bigots (in this case you) make
..assertions which are provably false, or distort a tiny subset of fact
..and represent it as the general case, or fail to back their assertions
..with evidence - well, then I just have to get in there and make sure
..that innocent bystanders realise that the bigot is not telling
..anything like the whole story.
..
..Guy

Hogwash. Anyone who can read can simply read (of course that doesn't include
mountain bikers, who ignore any evidence that mountain biking is harmful) the
same works I referenced and see that I interpreted them correctly:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7. You add nothing but lies and bigotry. Look
up "Projection" in any 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 Sat, 4 Jun 2005 10:39:54 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

..* Chris Foster <[email protected]>:
..>>
..>> Yawn.
..>
..>
..> Every time you do that 'Yawn' thing, you lose what little credibity you
..> once had.
..>
..
..It's just a sign that Mike lost the arguement and knows it and a yawn or
..duh is the only thing his little underused troll mind can come up with
..as a reply.
..
..Jason

Yawn. (Once more you added NOTHING.)
===
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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Sat, 04 Jun 2005 21:28:10 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:

>.>And why do you ALWAYS take the bait? This should be good!

>.Simple: I think hate-speech should not be left unchallenged.

>.I dislike bigots, and when those bigots (in this case you) make
>.assertions which are provably false, or distort a tiny subset of fact
>.and represent it as the general case, or fail to back their assertions
>.with evidence - well, then I just have to get in there and make sure
>.that innocent bystanders realise that the bigot is not telling
>.anything like the whole story.

>Hogwash. Anyone who can read can simply read (of course that doesn't include
>mountain bikers,

Prove, with citations, that the incidence of illiteracy is higher
among mountain bikers than among the general population. Verifiable
peer-reviewed external sources required, I'm not taking the word of a
known bigot on this one!

>who ignore any evidence that mountain biking is harmful)

LIAR! (was the all-caps correct there?) The evidence has been
discussed here in great detail; it has plainly *not* been ignored.
What has been ignored - by you - is the recommendation to take a
holistic approach rather than focusing on one particular activity.

>the
>same works I referenced and see that I interpreted them correctly:
>http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7. You add nothing but lies and bigotry.

LOL! That page is as credible as the Aryan Nation's take on the
Jewish conspiracy in American politics!

>Look up "Projection" in any dictionary of Psychology.

Projection: interesting word. You hike, yet your data shows that
hiking has an impact not significantly different form mountain biking
(a view supported by the fact that nobody who matters views the two
differently). Yet you spend years trolling mountain biking newsgroups
and spewing your bigotry. Hmmm. Yes, projection is exactly the word
I was looking for. Thanks for the heads-up!

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?]

At Sun, 05 Jun 2005 15:18:01 GMT, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Mike
Vandeman <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>.>Hogwash. Anyone who can read can simply read (of course that doesn't include
>.>mountain bikers,

>.Prove, with citations, that the incidence of illiteracy is higher
>.among mountain bikers than among the general population. Verifiable
>.peer-reviewed external sources required, I'm not taking the word of a
>.known bigot on this one!

>Do your own homework, you lazy bum.

Why should I prove your assertions for you? You made the claim, you
prove it. But you can't. It's just more bigotry.

>.>who ignore any evidence that mountain biking is harmful)

>.LIAR! (was the all-caps correct there?) The evidence has been
>.discussed here in great detail; it has plainly *not* been ignored.
>.What has been ignored - by you - is the recommendation to take a
>.holistic approach rather than focusing on one particular activity.

>That doesn't eliminate the significance of the study's findings: that mountain
>biking is more harmful than hiking AND horseback riding.

Is that what it says? I don't think so. It says the elk run somewhat
more readily from mountain bikers, but there's nothing like the
response as experienced to the motorised user, and in any case the
study is very equivocal about the actual scale of impact this flight
represents. As usual there is no logically consistent position based
on this report which opposes mountain biking but allows hiking and
horse riding (let alone for saying nothing about ATV use).

What the report recommends is an holistic approach based on all
activities and impacts - which is pretty much the exact opposite of
your mad crusade!

>.Projection: interesting word. You hike, yet your data shows that
>.hiking has an impact not significantly different form mountain biking
>.(a view supported by the fact that nobody who matters views the two
>.differently).

>Hmmmm. ZERO science. That's just your own assertion, NOTHING MORE.

Unlike you, Mike, I don't claim to be an expert in things where I am
not. But the idea of projection does neatly explain the otherwise
very perplexing fact that you have spent *years* bashing mountain
biking, which nobody who matters considers a threat over and above any
other recreational activity, while ignoring much bigger issues like
commercial exploitation, water pollution, species introduction,
offroad motor vehicle use and so on.

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?]

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 21:39:29 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Yawn.

Translation: Vandeman has no rebuttal to this point.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 21:02:24 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..At Sun, 05 Jun 2005 15:18:01 GMT, message
..<[email protected]> was posted by Mike
..Vandeman <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
..following:
..
..>.>Hogwash. Anyone who can read can simply read (of course that doesn't include
..>.>mountain bikers,
..
..>.Prove, with citations, that the incidence of illiteracy is higher
..>.among mountain bikers than among the general population. Verifiable
..>.peer-reviewed external sources required, I'm not taking the word of a
..>.known bigot on this one!
..
..>Do your own homework, you lazy bum.
..
..Why should I prove your assertions for you? You made the claim, you
..prove it. But you can't. It's just more bigotry.
..
..>.>who ignore any evidence that mountain biking is harmful)
..
..>.LIAR! (was the all-caps correct there?) The evidence has been
..>.discussed here in great detail; it has plainly *not* been ignored.
..>.What has been ignored - by you - is the recommendation to take a
..>.holistic approach rather than focusing on one particular activity.
..
..>That doesn't eliminate the significance of the study's findings: that mountain
..>biking is more harmful than hiking AND horseback riding.
..
..Is that what it says? I don't think so. It says the elk run somewhat
..more readily from mountain bikers, but there's nothing like the
..response as experienced to the motorised user, and in any case the
..study is very equivocal about the actual scale of impact this flight
..represents. As usual there is no logically consistent position based
..on this report which opposes mountain biking but allows hiking and
..horse riding (let alone for saying nothing about ATV use).
..
..What the report recommends is an holistic approach based on all
..activities and impacts - which is pretty much the exact opposite of
..your mad crusade!
..
..>.Projection: interesting word. You hike, yet your data shows that
..>.hiking has an impact not significantly different form mountain biking
..>.(a view supported by the fact that nobody who matters views the two
..>.differently).
..
..>Hmmmm. ZERO science. That's just your own assertion, NOTHING MORE.
..
..Unlike you, Mike, I don't claim to be an expert in things where I am
..not. But the idea of projection does neatly explain the otherwise
..very perplexing fact that you have spent *years* bashing mountain
..biking, which nobody who matters considers a threat over and above any
..other recreational activity, while ignoring much bigger issues like
..commercial exploitation, water pollution, species introduction,
..offroad motor vehicle use and so on.
..
..Guy

Yawn.
===
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