Re: The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature; Implication

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Jeff Strickland, Jan 10, 2005.

  1. On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:42:20 -0700, Argwailoe McCallister
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    ..i'll bet a mt biker stole his girl/boyfriend once upon a time and this
    ..is all just an attempt to 'deal' with his anger and grief

    It's just the opposite. While you guys are out bashing your heads against trees,
    we hikers are banging your women, who are unhappy about being "mountain bike
    widows".
    ===
    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
     


  2. Mike Vandeman wrote:
    > On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:42:20 -0700, Argwailoe McCallister
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > .i'll bet a mt biker stole his girl/boyfriend once upon a time and

    this
    > .is all just an attempt to 'deal' with his anger and grief
    >
    > It's just the opposite. While you guys are out bashing your heads

    against trees,
    > we hikers are banging your women, who are unhappy about being

    "mountain bike
    > widows".


    Yet more flawed science.

    Since you claim mountain-bikers cover more ground in less time,
    they would spend much more time at home than a hiker who is
    apt to be away for days or weeks at a time. Hence it would be the
    hikers
    wives who would likely have some mountain-biker banging them. Now you
    know why Mrs. Vandeman often talks about 10 inches of travel.
     
  3. On 23 Jan 2005 05:02:02 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

    ..
    ..Mike Vandeman wrote:
    ..> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:42:20 -0700, Argwailoe McCallister
    ..> <[email protected]> wrote:
    ..>
    ..> .i'll bet a mt biker stole his girl/boyfriend once upon a time and
    ..this
    ..> .is all just an attempt to 'deal' with his anger and grief
    ..>
    ..> It's just the opposite. While you guys are out bashing your heads
    ..against trees,
    ..> we hikers are banging your women, who are unhappy about being
    .."mountain bike
    ..> widows".
    ..
    ..Yet more flawed science.
    ..
    ..Since you claim mountain-bikers cover more ground in less time,
    ..they would spend much more time at home than a hiker who is
    ..apt to be away for days or weeks at a time.

    Nope, they actually spend MORE time away from home.

    ===
    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
     
  4. GaryG

    GaryG Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:12:20 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]>

    wrote:
    >
    > .
    > ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > .news:[email protected]
    > .>
    > .>>>>>>snipped out of consideration
    > .>
    > .> ..
    > .> ..--They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment yield produced by the
    > .> ..simulated--
    > .> ..--rainstorms at the downslope end of each plot", which they claim
    > .> .."correlates with--
    > .> ..--erosion". This doesn't seem like a good measure of erosion.--
    > .> ..
    > .> ..You didn't like the results so you attack the procedure. Your

    opinion.
    > .> ..Not supported, merely an opinion.
    > .> .
    > .> .You took that out of context. I proved it in the following sentences,
    > .which you
    > .> .conveniently omitted.
    > .>
    > .
    > .
    > .Since your sentences prove nothing lets look at them.
    > .
    > .
    > .> Here's the full text:
    > .>
    > .> The authors used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made
    > .available" by
    > .> the various treatments. They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment
    > .yield
    > .> produced by the simulated rainstorms at the downslope end of each

    plot",
    > .which
    > .> they claim "correlates with erosion". This doesn't seem like a good
    > .measure of
    > .> erosion. For example, if a large rock were dislodged, the very weak
    > ."simulated
    > .> rainfall" wouldn't be capable of transporting it into the collecting

    tray;
    > .only
    > .> very fine particles would be collected. In fact, they admit that the
    > .simulator's
    > .> "small size . meant that the kinetic energy of the simulated rainfall
    > .events was
    > .> roughly one-third that of natural rainstorms".
    > .
    > .Lets look at your proof. You've disputed their measure and then verbally
    > .made
    > .some criticism to discredit it. You don't offer any other study to back
    > .your
    > .disagreement, just "for example......" and a discussion based on your
    > .
    > . OPINION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    > .
    > .
    > .
    > .Call me a cynic Michael but since most of what you cite is available only
    > .through
    > .one of your various websites.......I DON'T TRUST IT. Your bias is
    > .obviously strong
    > .enough to challenge your judgement and maybe your integrity. My habit is
    > .verify
    > .information against third party disinterested sources, which kind of
    > .eliminates your websites.
    > .And most of your backup can only be found on your pages. Question of
    > .credibility.
    >
    > Stop beatng about the bush and address the "error" you mentioned above.

    Did he
    > measure erosion properly, or not?! You said that there's something wrong

    with
    > what I said, but you refuse to say exactly what's wrong with it! (Hint:

    the fact
    > that I gave an opinion isn't it.) Was I right, or wrong? So far, you have

    quoted
    > me out of context, but you haven't said what's wrong. (Hint: Yoy CAN'T!)


    Of course he can't...you're a psychopath, and nobody can "prove you wrong",
    because your mental state refuses to allow for that.

    > ===
    > 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
     
  5. Mike Vandeman wrote:
    > On 23 Jan 2005 05:02:02 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > .
    > .Mike Vandeman wrote:
    > .> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:42:20 -0700, Argwailoe McCallister
    > .> <[email protected]> wrote:
    > .>
    > .> .i'll bet a mt biker stole his girl/boyfriend once upon a time and
    > .this
    > .> .is all just an attempt to 'deal' with his anger and grief
    > .>
    > .> It's just the opposite. While you guys are out bashing your heads
    > .against trees,
    > .> we hikers are banging your women, who are unhappy about being
    > ."mountain bike
    > .> widows".
    > .
    > .Yet more flawed science.
    > .
    > .Since you claim mountain-bikers cover more ground in less time,
    > .they would spend much more time at home than a hiker who is
    > .apt to be away for days or weeks at a time.
    >
    > Nope, they actually spend MORE time away from home.


    Nope, hikers are away for days at a time.
    Do the math. Mike+Mrs.Mike=No Children=Limp Dick.
     
  6. Anyone notice Mike didn't refute that he's a limp dick?
     
Loading...
Loading...