Re: Vandeman applying Republican tactics to the environment



E

Edward Dolan

Guest
"Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
>> I have. Start with http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7, which refutes
>> the research you are doing before you have even done it, since you are
>> falling into the same fallacy as all the other "researchers".

>
> I have seen your website. I want to know what peer-reviewed work you have
> had published. Presentations at U.C. Berkeley dont count. All I can see
> on your website is a very short list of mostly books, although some
> primary literature with specific relevance to mountain bikes, none of
> which is yours by the way, that you say support your bizarre 'peeve'. I
> see no mention of any actual research you have done, no data, nothing. You
> claim to be an expert, well I want to see some objective evidence. You
> could make sections of your phd and masters theses available for scrutiny?
> How about that?. I should also point out, again, it was a student of mine
> that did the research, and no this isnt me disowning it, its a good piece
> of work (albeit with a lack of maturity in the writing that only years of
> practice can remedy) and I would certainly view his work as more
> scientifically objective and valid than any of the polemic you spew all
> over your webspace. I do admire your tenacity (or ability to stick your
> fingers in your ears and shout 'lalalala'), however, you could definitely
> do with a change of focus and try to do something that would actually make
> a difference to the world.


Jules, I am the real expert on this matter of hiking vs. biking on trails.
To my credit, I have not polluted my mind with any research. Yea, I am as
pure as the driven snow.

My credentials are that I hiked for 10 years almost every day for 8 months
of the year all over the US. I did this when I was in my 30's during the
late 60's and early 70's. During that time I never encountered a single bike
on any of my sacred trails. I mean, it does not get any better than that!

In more recent years I have encountered some bikes on my sacred trails. They
do not belong on my scared trails. Who gives a good g.d. if they cause any
trail destruction or not. I do not want them on my scared trails. Let them
get their own g.d. trails.

Like all scholars, you are blind to the real issues. You do not need any
higher degrees to know what is appropriate and what is not. All you need is
some common sense. I suggest you get out of your freaking ivory tower and go
do some hiking in the wilderness and then tell us if you would like bikers
along side of you.

I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on my
sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your freaking
research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like bikers
polluting my scared trails. That is what you have to wrap your mind around.
Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>>> I have. Start with http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7, which refutes
>>> the research you are doing before you have even done it, since you are
>>> falling into the same fallacy as all the other "researchers".

>>
>> I have seen your website. I want to know what peer-reviewed work you have
>> had published. Presentations at U.C. Berkeley dont count. All I can see
>> on your website is a very short list of mostly books, although some
>> primary literature with specific relevance to mountain bikes, none of
>> which is yours by the way, that you say support your bizarre 'peeve'. I
>> see no mention of any actual research you have done, no data, nothing.
>> You claim to be an expert, well I want to see some objective evidence.
>> You could make sections of your phd and masters theses available for
>> scrutiny? How about that?. I should also point out, again, it was a
>> student of mine that did the research, and no this isnt me disowning it,
>> its a good piece of work (albeit with a lack of maturity in the writing
>> that only years of practice can remedy) and I would certainly view his
>> work as more scientifically objective and valid than any of the polemic
>> you spew all over your webspace. I do admire your tenacity (or ability to
>> stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'lalalala'), however, you could
>> definitely do with a change of focus and try to do something that would
>> actually make a difference to the world.

>
> Jules, I am the real expert on this matter of hiking vs. biking on trails.
> To my credit, I have not polluted my mind with any research. Yea, I am as
> pure as the driven snow.
>
> My credentials are that I hiked for 10 years almost every day for 8 months
> of the year all over the US. I did this when I was in my 30's during the
> late 60's and early 70's. During that time I never encountered a single
> bike on any of my sacred trails. I mean, it does not get any better than
> that!
>
> In more recent years I have encountered some bikes on my sacred trails.
> They do not belong on my scared trails. Who gives a good g.d. if they
> cause any trail destruction or not. I do not want them on my scared
> trails. Let them get their own g.d. trails.
>
> Like all scholars, you are blind to the real issues. You do not need any
> higher degrees to know what is appropriate and what is not. All you need
> is some common sense. I suggest you get out of your freaking ivory tower
> and go do some hiking in the wilderness and then tell us if you would like
> bikers along side of you.
>
> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on my
> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your freaking
> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
> bikers polluting my scared trails. That is what you have to wrap your mind
> around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>

Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold mine of
intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.

Goodbye
 
"Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on my
>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your freaking
>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>> bikers polluting my scared trails. That is what you have to wrap your
>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>

> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold mine of
> intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>
> Goodbye
>

FYI - I and others have been pointing out vandeman's lack of substance for
many years (google group search "vandeman")
The only thing that has changed with his statements, opinions, postings and
claim of information is the date on the calander. He has answered several
"calls for papers" from various conferences and symposiums and has been
allowed to present his paper(s) because they fall within the guidelines of
the topics of the conference. He has not been "invited" as a keynote
speaker. He has not been listed in the publicity information as an invited
and featured speaker or expert. He then uses these 15 minute speaches to an
audience likely made up of other presenters as some reference of authority.
You might even find some interesting references, ideas and links to
information by checking the Google group search "vandeman" and all that has
been posted to challenge his opinion or refute his statements.
Good luck with your efforts. It seams there are still teachers involved with
and concerned for their students' progress.
 
On Thu, 25 May 2006 17:24:20 GMT, "Jules Augley"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> >
>>>> I have. Start with http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7, which refutes
>>>> the research you are doing before you have even done it, since you are
>>>> falling into the same fallacy as all the other "researchers".
>>>
>>> I have seen your website. I want to know what peer-reviewed work you have
>>> had published. Presentations at U.C. Berkeley dont count. All I can see
>>> on your website is a very short list of mostly books, although some
>>> primary literature with specific relevance to mountain bikes, none of
>>> which is yours by the way, that you say support your bizarre 'peeve'. I
>>> see no mention of any actual research you have done, no data, nothing.
>>> You claim to be an expert, well I want to see some objective evidence.
>>> You could make sections of your phd and masters theses available for
>>> scrutiny? How about that?. I should also point out, again, it was a
>>> student of mine that did the research, and no this isnt me disowning it,
>>> its a good piece of work (albeit with a lack of maturity in the writing
>>> that only years of practice can remedy) and I would certainly view his
>>> work as more scientifically objective and valid than any of the polemic
>>> you spew all over your webspace. I do admire your tenacity (or ability to
>>> stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'lalalala'), however, you could
>>> definitely do with a change of focus and try to do something that would
>>> actually make a difference to the world.

>>
>> Jules, I am the real expert on this matter of hiking vs. biking on trails.
>> To my credit, I have not polluted my mind with any research. Yea, I am as
>> pure as the driven snow.
>>
>> My credentials are that I hiked for 10 years almost every day for 8 months
>> of the year all over the US. I did this when I was in my 30's during the
>> late 60's and early 70's. During that time I never encountered a single
>> bike on any of my sacred trails. I mean, it does not get any better than
>> that!
>>
>> In more recent years I have encountered some bikes on my sacred trails.
>> They do not belong on my scared trails. Who gives a good g.d. if they
>> cause any trail destruction or not. I do not want them on my scared
>> trails. Let them get their own g.d. trails.
>>
>> Like all scholars, you are blind to the real issues. You do not need any
>> higher degrees to know what is appropriate and what is not. All you need
>> is some common sense. I suggest you get out of your freaking ivory tower
>> and go do some hiking in the wilderness and then tell us if you would like
>> bikers along side of you.
>>
>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on my
>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your freaking
>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>> bikers polluting my scared trails. That is what you have to wrap your mind
>> around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>

>Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold mine of
>intellect here. I am irrelevant?


No, worse: DISHONEST. (Well, you could also be incompetent; it's hard
to tell the difference. Take your pick.)

As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>
>Goodbye
>

===
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
 
On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:43:57 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on my
>>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your freaking
>>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>>> bikers polluting my scared trails. That is what you have to wrap your
>>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>>

>> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold mine of
>> intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>>
>> Goodbye
>>

>FYI - I and others have been pointing out vandeman's lack of substance for
>many years (google group search "vandeman")
>The only thing that has changed with his statements, opinions, postings and
>claim of information is the date on the calander. He has answered several
>"calls for papers" from various conferences and symposiums and has been
>allowed to present his paper(s) because they fall within the guidelines of
>the topics of the conference.


.... and represent high-quality research. Don't underestimate what you
don't understand.

He has not been "invited" as a keynote
>speaker. He has not been listed in the publicity information as an invited
>and featured speaker or expert. He then uses these 15 minute speaches to an
>audience likely made up of other presenters as some reference of authority.
>You might even find some interesting references, ideas and links to
>information by checking the Google group search "vandeman" and all that has
>been posted to challenge his opinion or refute his statements.
>Good luck with your efforts. It seams there are still teachers involved with
>and concerned for their students' progress.


But not their morals or integrity, unfortunately.
===
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 <[email protected]> wrote:

> and represent high-quality research.


Actually you *mis*represent high quality research, as previously
documented multiple times. But since you are a lying trolling bigot we
expect nothing else. Your own supposed "research" is of course merely
low grade op-ed working back from your pre-existing conclusion. Even
serious conferences like a bit of comic relief I guess.

What's the list of peer-reviewed papers you've been published in again?
 
"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:mGodg.14536$B42.2924@dukeread05...
>
> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on my
>>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your freaking
>>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>>> bikers polluting my scared trails. That is what you have to wrap your
>>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>>

>> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold mine
>> of intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>>
>> Goodbye
>>

> FYI - I and others have been pointing out vandeman's lack of substance for
> many years (google group search "vandeman")
> The only thing that has changed with his statements, opinions, postings
> and claim of information is the date on the calander. He has answered
> several "calls for papers" from various conferences and symposiums and has
> been allowed to present his paper(s) because they fall within the
> guidelines of the topics of the conference. He has not been "invited" as a
> keynote speaker. He has not been listed in the publicity information as an
> invited and featured speaker or expert. He then uses these 15 minute
> speaches to an audience likely made up of other presenters as some
> reference of authority.
> You might even find some interesting references, ideas and links to
> information by checking the Google group search "vandeman" and all that
> has been posted to challenge his opinion or refute his statements.
> Good luck with your efforts. It seams there are still teachers involved
> with and concerned for their students' progress.


I dont mean to step on anyones toes re: pointing out vandemans lack of
credibility. I do know a lot of people have been taking the time to do this
for a while. I guess he will never actually be what he purports to be, I
foolishly thought he was objective, my mistake, you cant argue objectively
with him, in fact you cant argue at all when, as you point out, he mistakes
his opinion for evidence.... Hes bizarre creature, sadly he also has the
potential to do a lot of harm. Im only glad hes confined himself to a small
part of california (I am in the UK) and the probability of me ever seeing
him in real life is close to zero. Actually, he could form a good case study
for students . It would highlight exactly how to be completely unobjective
and pass it off as truth or fact. I remember a teacher of mine, a few years
ago, used a website of another vandeman-like person to highlight some
pseudoscience (i.e. not peer-reviewed). The website was about how we humans
should voluntarily go extinct by refusing to have children, his name was,
amusingly, Les U Knight.

Anyway, it feels like bashing a head against a brick wall when arguing
objectively with vandeman, cos he doesnt do it. Keep up the fight.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:43:57 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on my
>>>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your freaking
>>>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>>>> bikers polluting my scared trails. That is what you have to wrap your
>>>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>>>
>>> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold mine
>>> of
>>> intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>>>
>>> Goodbye
>>>

>>FYI - I and others have been pointing out vandeman's lack of substance for
>>many years (google group search "vandeman")
>>The only thing that has changed with his statements, opinions, postings
>>and
>>claim of information is the date on the calander. He has answered several
>>"calls for papers" from various conferences and symposiums and has been
>>allowed to present his paper(s) because they fall within the guidelines of
>>the topics of the conference.

>
> ... and represent high-quality research. Don't underestimate what you
> don't understand.

Do not claim what you have not accomplished. You have not done "research".
You have compiled selected bits and pieces of others' work to support your
opinion. There is nothing to show any effort of an objective beginning. You
began with a position and have only sought information you could use to
support that position. Any other data that is counter to your position you
simply disregard as "junk science". Any attempt to point to actual context
and conclusions of the actual researchers has you claiming they
misinterpreted their own findings! Any challenge to your "facts", which are
usually only your opinions or conclusions, gets a reply of "liar" or "stupid
mountain bikers". You present yourself as an authority on the basis of your
own claims and statements. Extensive searches of environment, mountain
biking, wildlife and other ecological topics return no other agency or
person of credibility to support your claim of being an "expert" on mountain
biking, the environment or anything. You have NOTHING.
>
> He has not been "invited" as a keynote
>>speaker. He has not been listed in the publicity information as an invited
>>and featured speaker or expert. He then uses these 15 minute speaches to
>>an
>>audience likely made up of other presenters as some reference of
>>authority.
>>You might even find some interesting references, ideas and links to
>>information by checking the Google group search "vandeman" and all that
>>has
>>been posted to challenge his opinion or refute his statements.
>>Good luck with your efforts. It seams there are still teachers involved
>>with
>>and concerned for their students' progress.

>
> But not their morals or integrity, unfortunately.
> ===

Supposition, opinion. Unfounded statement based on bias against the
viewpoints being expressed. A non-statement.
 
On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:25:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:mGodg.14536$B42.2924@dukeread05...
>>
>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on my
>>>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your freaking
>>>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>>>> bikers polluting my scared trails. That is what you have to wrap your
>>>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>>>
>>> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold mine
>>> of intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>>>
>>> Goodbye
>>>

>> FYI - I and others have been pointing out vandeman's lack of substance for
>> many years (google group search "vandeman")
>> The only thing that has changed with his statements, opinions, postings
>> and claim of information is the date on the calander. He has answered
>> several "calls for papers" from various conferences and symposiums and has
>> been allowed to present his paper(s) because they fall within the
>> guidelines of the topics of the conference. He has not been "invited" as a
>> keynote speaker. He has not been listed in the publicity information as an
>> invited and featured speaker or expert. He then uses these 15 minute
>> speaches to an audience likely made up of other presenters as some
>> reference of authority.
>> You might even find some interesting references, ideas and links to
>> information by checking the Google group search "vandeman" and all that
>> has been posted to challenge his opinion or refute his statements.
>> Good luck with your efforts. It seams there are still teachers involved
>> with and concerned for their students' progress.

>
>I dont mean to step on anyones toes re: pointing out vandemans lack of
>credibility. I do know a lot of people have been taking the time to do this
>for a while. I guess he will never actually be what he purports to be, I
>foolishly thought he was objective, my mistake, you cant argue objectively
>with him,


Very funny. When did you EVER try to do that?!

in fact you cant argue at all when, as you point out, he mistakes
>his opinion for evidence.... Hes bizarre creature, sadly he also has the
>potential to do a lot of harm. Im only glad hes confined himself to a small
>part of california (I am in the UK) and the probability of me ever seeing
>him in real life is close to zero. Actually, he could form a good case study
>for students . It would highlight exactly how to be completely unobjective
>and pass it off as truth or fact. I remember a teacher of mine, a few years
>ago, used a website of another vandeman-like person to highlight some
>pseudoscience (i.e. not peer-reviewed). The website was about how we humans
>should voluntarily go extinct by refusing to have children, his name was,
>amusingly, Les U Knight.
>
>Anyway, it feels like bashing a head against a brick wall when arguing
>objectively with vandeman, cos he doesnt do it. Keep up the fight.


When I asked you to produce some EVIDENCE, you stonewalled. What's
this about being "objective"?! You REFUSED to tell where your students
were trying to publish their junk science.
===
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
 
On Fri, 26 May 2006 12:31:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:43:57 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on my
>>>>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your freaking
>>>>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>>>>> bikers polluting my scared trails. That is what you have to wrap your
>>>>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold mine
>>>> of
>>>> intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>>>>
>>>> Goodbye
>>>>
>>>FYI - I and others have been pointing out vandeman's lack of substance for
>>>many years (google group search "vandeman")
>>>The only thing that has changed with his statements, opinions, postings
>>>and
>>>claim of information is the date on the calander. He has answered several
>>>"calls for papers" from various conferences and symposiums and has been
>>>allowed to present his paper(s) because they fall within the guidelines of
>>>the topics of the conference.

>>
>> ... and represent high-quality research. Don't underestimate what you
>> don't understand.

>Do not claim what you have not accomplished. You have not done "research".
>You have compiled selected bits and pieces of others' work to support your
>opinion.


BS. I guess you really didn't read it. I compiled "studies" that
claimed to prove mountain biking no more harmful than hiking, but
didn't.

There is nothing to show any effort of an objective beginning. You
>began with a position and have only sought information you could use to
>support that position. Any other data that is counter to your position you
>simply disregard as "junk science". Any attempt to point to actual context
>and conclusions of the actual researchers has you claiming they
>misinterpreted their own findings! Any challenge to your "facts", which are
>usually only your opinions or conclusions, gets a reply of "liar" or "stupid
>mountain bikers". You present yourself as an authority on the basis of your
>own claims and statements. Extensive searches of environment, mountain
>biking, wildlife and other ecological topics return no other agency or
>person of credibility to support your claim of being an "expert" on mountain
>biking, the environment or anything. You have NOTHING.


That's because the field is too small. No one wants to research what's
obvious -- except mountain bikers, who desperately need some
scientific support, and will never get it.

>> He has not been "invited" as a keynote
>>>speaker. He has not been listed in the publicity information as an invited
>>>and featured speaker or expert. He then uses these 15 minute speaches to
>>>an
>>>audience likely made up of other presenters as some reference of
>>>authority.
>>>You might even find some interesting references, ideas and links to
>>>information by checking the Google group search "vandeman" and all that
>>>has
>>>been posted to challenge his opinion or refute his statements.
>>>Good luck with your efforts. It seams there are still teachers involved
>>>with
>>>and concerned for their students' progress.

>>
>> But not their morals or integrity, unfortunately.
>> ===

>Supposition, opinion. Unfounded statement based on bias against the
>viewpoints being expressed. A non-statement.


Nope, based on evidence provided by their teacher.
===
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
 
"Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> >
>>>> I have. Start with http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7, which refutes
>>>> the research you are doing before you have even done it, since you are
>>>> falling into the same fallacy as all the other "researchers".
>>>
>>> I have seen your website. I want to know what peer-reviewed work you
>>> have had published. Presentations at U.C. Berkeley dont count. All I
>>> can see on your website is a very short list of mostly books, although
>>> some primary literature with specific relevance to mountain bikes, none
>>> of which is yours by the way, that you say support your bizarre 'peeve'.
>>> I see no mention of any actual research you have done, no data, nothing.
>>> You claim to be an expert, well I want to see some objective evidence.
>>> You could make sections of your phd and masters theses available for
>>> scrutiny? How about that?. I should also point out, again, it was a
>>> student of mine that did the research, and no this isnt me disowning it,
>>> its a good piece of work (albeit with a lack of maturity in the writing
>>> that only years of practice can remedy) and I would certainly view his
>>> work as more scientifically objective and valid than any of the polemic
>>> you spew all over your webspace. I do admire your tenacity (or ability
>>> to stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'lalalala'), however, you
>>> could definitely do with a change of focus and try to do something that
>>> would actually make a difference to the world.

>>
>> Jules, I am the real expert on this matter of hiking vs. biking on
>> trails. To my credit, I have not polluted my mind with any research. Yea,
>> I am as pure as the driven snow.
>>
>> My credentials are that I hiked for 10 years almost every day for 8
>> months of the year all over the US. I did this when I was in my 30's
>> during the late 60's and early 70's. During that time I never encountered
>> a single bike on any of my sacred trails. I mean, it does not get any
>> better than that!
>>
>> In more recent years I have encountered some bikes on my sacred trails.
>> They do not belong on my sacred trails. Who gives a good g.d. if they
>> cause any trail destruction or not. I do not want them on my sacred
>> trails. Let them get their own g.d. trails.
>>
>> Like all scholars, you are blind to the real issues. You do not need any
>> higher degrees to know what is appropriate and what is not. All you need
>> is some common sense. I suggest you get out of your freaking ivory tower
>> and go do some hiking in the wilderness and then tell us if you would
>> like bikers along side of you.
>>
>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on my
>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your freaking
>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>> bikers polluting my sacred trails. That is what you have to wrap your
>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>

> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold mine of
> intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>
> Goodbye


And good riddance to you too! I have hardly ever encountered any so-called
scientist who was not a coward. That is why they make such poor politicians.
They bury themselves in 'research' and then try to make themselves relevant,
but somehow they never do. What they do mainly is hide behind their freaking
degrees and pretend to be experts. Quite pitiful really ...

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 12:31:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>FYI - I and others have been pointing out vandeman's lack of substance
>>>>for
>>>>many years (google group search "vandeman")
>>>>The only thing that has changed with his statements, opinions, postings
>>>>and
>>>>claim of information is the date on the calander. He has answered
>>>>several
>>>>"calls for papers" from various conferences and symposiums and has been
>>>>allowed to present his paper(s) because they fall within the guidelines
>>>>of
>>>>the topics of the conference.
>>>
>>> ... and represent high-quality research. Don't underestimate what you
>>> don't understand.

>>Do not claim what you have not accomplished. You have not done "research".
>>You have compiled selected bits and pieces of others' work to support your
>>opinion.

>
> BS. I guess you really didn't read it. I compiled "studies" that
> claimed to prove mountain biking no more harmful than hiking, but
> didn't.

Thats what I said - You have compiled studies to support your opinion. And
thanks for extending my point for me: "I compiled "studies" that claimed to
prove mountain biking no more harmful than hiking, but didn't."
Your statement only shows further how you use your opinion of off-road
cycling and your bias against off-road cycling as a filter to qualify
information.
>
> There is nothing to show any effort of an objective beginning. You
>>began with a position and have only sought information you could use to
>>support that position. Any other data that is counter to your position you
>>simply disregard as "junk science". Any attempt to point to actual context
>>and conclusions of the actual researchers has you claiming they
>>misinterpreted their own findings! Any challenge to your "facts", which
>>are
>>usually only your opinions or conclusions, gets a reply of "liar" or
>>"stupid
>>mountain bikers". You present yourself as an authority on the basis of
>>your
>>own claims and statements. Extensive searches of environment, mountain
>>biking, wildlife and other ecological topics return no other agency or
>>person of credibility to support your claim of being an "expert" on
>>mountain
>>biking, the environment or anything. You have NOTHING.

>
> That's because the field is too small. No one wants to research what's
> obvious -- except mountain bikers, who desperately need some
> scientific support, and will never get it.

I bet you know all the words to the "Tigger Song" from "Winnie the Pooh",
don't you?
And thanks again for completely disregarding the direct points of your
methods of "research" and attempting to turn focus towards a supposed "need"
of off-road cyclists. Off-road cycling has been recognized - it is your
"scientific" support that appears in question. Besides, on May 8 of this
year, you again state "I am recognized by many people as the world expert on
mountain biking impacts." yet you do not give names and here you state "the
field is too small" to reflect a search result. Either there are "many" who
recognize you or the field is "too small"... which is it?
>
>>> He has not been "invited" as a keynote
>>>>speaker. He has not been listed in the publicity information as an
>>>>invited
>>>>and featured speaker or expert. He then uses these 15 minute speaches to
>>>>an
>>>>audience likely made up of other presenters as some reference of
>>>>authority.
>>>>You might even find some interesting references, ideas and links to
>>>>information by checking the Google group search "vandeman" and all that
>>>>has
>>>>been posted to challenge his opinion or refute his statements.
>>>>Good luck with your efforts. It seams there are still teachers involved
>>>>with
>>>>and concerned for their students' progress.
>>>
>>> But not their morals or integrity, unfortunately.
>>> ===

>>Supposition, opinion. Unfounded statement based on bias against the
>>viewpoints being expressed. A non-statement.

>
> Nope, based on evidence provided by their teacher.
> ===

Based on "evidence" that does not fit into your opinion filter.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:25:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:mGodg.14536$B42.2924@dukeread05...
>>>
>>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on
>>>>> my
>>>>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your
>>>>> freaking
>>>>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>>>>> bikers polluting my scared trails. That is what you have to wrap your
>>>>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold mine
>>>> of intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>>>>
>>>> Goodbye
>>>>
>>> FYI - I and others have been pointing out vandeman's lack of substance
>>> for
>>> many years (google group search "vandeman")
>>> The only thing that has changed with his statements, opinions, postings
>>> and claim of information is the date on the calander. He has answered
>>> several "calls for papers" from various conferences and symposiums and
>>> has
>>> been allowed to present his paper(s) because they fall within the
>>> guidelines of the topics of the conference. He has not been "invited" as
>>> a
>>> keynote speaker. He has not been listed in the publicity information as
>>> an
>>> invited and featured speaker or expert. He then uses these 15 minute
>>> speaches to an audience likely made up of other presenters as some
>>> reference of authority.
>>> You might even find some interesting references, ideas and links to
>>> information by checking the Google group search "vandeman" and all that
>>> has been posted to challenge his opinion or refute his statements.
>>> Good luck with your efforts. It seams there are still teachers involved
>>> with and concerned for their students' progress.

>>
>>I dont mean to step on anyones toes re: pointing out vandemans lack of
>>credibility. I do know a lot of people have been taking the time to do
>>this
>>for a while. I guess he will never actually be what he purports to be, I
>>foolishly thought he was objective, my mistake, you cant argue objectively
>>with him,

>
> Very funny. When did you EVER try to do that?!
>


seems obvious to everyone else reading this, except Vandeman and his "logic
blinders"
> in fact you cant argue at all when, as you point out, he mistakes
>>his opinion for evidence.... Hes bizarre creature, sadly he also has the
>>potential to do a lot of harm. Im only glad hes confined himself to a
>>small
>>part of california (I am in the UK) and the probability of me ever seeing
>>him in real life is close to zero. Actually, he could form a good case
>>study
>>for students . It would highlight exactly how to be completely unobjective
>>and pass it off as truth or fact. I remember a teacher of mine, a few
>>years
>>ago, used a website of another vandeman-like person to highlight some
>>pseudoscience (i.e. not peer-reviewed). The website was about how we
>>humans
>>should voluntarily go extinct by refusing to have children, his name was,
>>amusingly, Les U Knight.
>>
>>Anyway, it feels like bashing a head against a brick wall when arguing
>>objectively with vandeman, cos he doesnt do it. Keep up the fight.

>
> When I asked you to produce some EVIDENCE, you stonewalled. What's
> this about being "objective"?! You REFUSED to tell where your students
> were trying to publish their junk science.
> ===

Can't you READ? He has already stated the paper is being considered and is
not yet a "publishable manuscript". It is also his student's work so he
likely has no access to it beyond the general findings which he has only
eluded to (and you assumed to be derogatory to your POV in the first place).
The paper is in consideration and therefore any discussion of who
negotiations are actually with would be inappropriate. Beyond any of your
silly accusations above, might I remind you Mr. Vandeman, we on this ng have
been asking you for YEARS to produce peer-reviews of your writings (which
you claim exist) and EVIDENCE that your statemnents are recognized by anyone
else with authority or credit for comparison. We have been requesting a
schedule of events so it may be possible to actually see you present, see
the audience in attendance, see their reactions to your presentation,
perhaps even ask some questions of detail on the presentation in front of
these "peers" you reference, yet you stonewall and refuse.
You have NO RIGHT to question this person on method, ethics or science. You
are insulting the entire scientific process by doing so.
 
On Sat, 27 May 2006 11:52:04 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 26 May 2006 12:31:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>FYI - I and others have been pointing out vandeman's lack of substance
>>>>>for
>>>>>many years (google group search "vandeman")
>>>>>The only thing that has changed with his statements, opinions, postings
>>>>>and
>>>>>claim of information is the date on the calander. He has answered
>>>>>several
>>>>>"calls for papers" from various conferences and symposiums and has been
>>>>>allowed to present his paper(s) because they fall within the guidelines
>>>>>of
>>>>>the topics of the conference.
>>>>
>>>> ... and represent high-quality research. Don't underestimate what you
>>>> don't understand.
>>>Do not claim what you have not accomplished. You have not done "research".
>>>You have compiled selected bits and pieces of others' work to support your
>>>opinion.

>>
>> BS. I guess you really didn't read it. I compiled "studies" that
>> claimed to prove mountain biking no more harmful than hiking, but
>> didn't.

>Thats what I said - You have compiled studies to support your opinion.


I see that your comprehension leaves something to be desired. In other
words, you don't have a CLUE! I didn't look for studies that support
my view. I used IMBA's list, which is exactly the OPPOSITE of that:
studies that IMBA thought were favorable to mountain biking. How can
anyone be so DENSE?????????

And
>thanks for extending my point for me: "I compiled "studies" that claimed to
>prove mountain biking no more harmful than hiking, but didn't."
>Your statement only shows further how you use your opinion of off-road
>cycling and your bias against off-road cycling as a filter to qualify
>information.
>>
>> There is nothing to show any effort of an objective beginning. You
>>>began with a position and have only sought information you could use to
>>>support that position. Any other data that is counter to your position you
>>>simply disregard as "junk science". Any attempt to point to actual context
>>>and conclusions of the actual researchers has you claiming they
>>>misinterpreted their own findings! Any challenge to your "facts", which
>>>are
>>>usually only your opinions or conclusions, gets a reply of "liar" or
>>>"stupid
>>>mountain bikers". You present yourself as an authority on the basis of
>>>your
>>>own claims and statements. Extensive searches of environment, mountain
>>>biking, wildlife and other ecological topics return no other agency or
>>>person of credibility to support your claim of being an "expert" on
>>>mountain
>>>biking, the environment or anything. You have NOTHING.

>>
>> That's because the field is too small. No one wants to research what's
>> obvious -- except mountain bikers, who desperately need some
>> scientific support, and will never get it.

>I bet you know all the words to the "Tigger Song" from "Winnie the Pooh",
>don't you?
>And thanks again for completely disregarding the direct points of your
>methods of "research" and attempting to turn focus towards a supposed "need"
>of off-road cyclists. Off-road cycling has been recognized - it is your
>"scientific" support that appears in question. Besides, on May 8 of this
>year, you again state "I am recognized by many people as the world expert on
>mountain biking impacts." yet you do not give names and here you state "the
>field is too small" to reflect a search result. Either there are "many" who
>recognize you or the field is "too small"... which is it?
>>
>>>> He has not been "invited" as a keynote
>>>>>speaker. He has not been listed in the publicity information as an
>>>>>invited
>>>>>and featured speaker or expert. He then uses these 15 minute speaches to
>>>>>an
>>>>>audience likely made up of other presenters as some reference of
>>>>>authority.
>>>>>You might even find some interesting references, ideas and links to
>>>>>information by checking the Google group search "vandeman" and all that
>>>>>has
>>>>>been posted to challenge his opinion or refute his statements.
>>>>>Good luck with your efforts. It seams there are still teachers involved
>>>>>with
>>>>>and concerned for their students' progress.
>>>>
>>>> But not their morals or integrity, unfortunately.
>>>> ===
>>>Supposition, opinion. Unfounded statement based on bias against the
>>>viewpoints being expressed. A non-statement.

>>
>> Nope, based on evidence provided by their teacher.
>> ===

>Based on "evidence" that does not fit into your opinion filter.


You make no sense whatsoever.
===
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
 
On Fri, 26 May 2006 23:00:52 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> >
>>>>> I have. Start with http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7, which refutes
>>>>> the research you are doing before you have even done it, since you are
>>>>> falling into the same fallacy as all the other "researchers".
>>>>
>>>> I have seen your website. I want to know what peer-reviewed work you
>>>> have had published. Presentations at U.C. Berkeley dont count. All I
>>>> can see on your website is a very short list of mostly books, although
>>>> some primary literature with specific relevance to mountain bikes, none
>>>> of which is yours by the way, that you say support your bizarre 'peeve'.
>>>> I see no mention of any actual research you have done, no data, nothing.
>>>> You claim to be an expert, well I want to see some objective evidence.
>>>> You could make sections of your phd and masters theses available for
>>>> scrutiny? How about that?. I should also point out, again, it was a
>>>> student of mine that did the research, and no this isnt me disowning it,
>>>> its a good piece of work (albeit with a lack of maturity in the writing
>>>> that only years of practice can remedy) and I would certainly view his
>>>> work as more scientifically objective and valid than any of the polemic
>>>> you spew all over your webspace. I do admire your tenacity (or ability
>>>> to stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'lalalala'), however, you
>>>> could definitely do with a change of focus and try to do something that
>>>> would actually make a difference to the world.
>>>
>>> Jules, I am the real expert on this matter of hiking vs. biking on
>>> trails. To my credit, I have not polluted my mind with any research. Yea,
>>> I am as pure as the driven snow.
>>>
>>> My credentials are that I hiked for 10 years almost every day for 8
>>> months of the year all over the US. I did this when I was in my 30's
>>> during the late 60's and early 70's. During that time I never encountered
>>> a single bike on any of my sacred trails. I mean, it does not get any
>>> better than that!
>>>
>>> In more recent years I have encountered some bikes on my sacred trails.
>>> They do not belong on my sacred trails. Who gives a good g.d. if they
>>> cause any trail destruction or not. I do not want them on my sacred
>>> trails. Let them get their own g.d. trails.
>>>
>>> Like all scholars, you are blind to the real issues. You do not need any
>>> higher degrees to know what is appropriate and what is not. All you need
>>> is some common sense. I suggest you get out of your freaking ivory tower
>>> and go do some hiking in the wilderness and then tell us if you would
>>> like bikers along side of you.
>>>
>>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on my
>>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your freaking
>>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>>> bikers polluting my sacred trails. That is what you have to wrap your
>>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>>

>> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold mine of
>> intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>>
>> Goodbye

>
>And good riddance to you too! I have hardly ever encountered any so-called
>scientist who was not a coward. That is why they make such poor politicians.
>They bury themselves in 'research' and then try to make themselves relevant,
>but somehow they never do. What they do mainly is hide behind their freaking
>degrees and pretend to be experts. Quite pitiful really ...


AMEN. There are of course respectable scientists, but they mostly
don't concern themselves with obvious problems like mountain biking,
but with things that are much more difficult to understand.

On the other hand, WHY mountain bikers don't "get it", now THERE'S a
good research question. What goes wrong in their brains (or
elsewhere?) that makes them think that the wholesale destruction of
the natural world is a good hobby? Any thoughts, Dr. Dolan?

>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>

===
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 27 May 2006 11:52:04 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 26 May 2006 12:31:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>FYI - I and others have been pointing out vandeman's lack of substance
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>many years (google group search "vandeman")
>>>>>>The only thing that has changed with his statements, opinions,
>>>>>>postings
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>claim of information is the date on the calander. He has answered
>>>>>>several
>>>>>>"calls for papers" from various conferences and symposiums and has
>>>>>>been
>>>>>>allowed to present his paper(s) because they fall within the
>>>>>>guidelines
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>the topics of the conference.
>>>>>
>>>>> ... and represent high-quality research. Don't underestimate what you
>>>>> don't understand.
>>>>Do not claim what you have not accomplished. You have not done
>>>>"research".
>>>>You have compiled selected bits and pieces of others' work to support
>>>>your
>>>>opinion.
>>>
>>> BS. I guess you really didn't read it. I compiled "studies" that
>>> claimed to prove mountain biking no more harmful than hiking, but
>>> didn't.

>>Thats what I said - You have compiled studies to support your opinion.

>
> I see that your comprehension leaves something to be desired. In other
> words, you don't have a CLUE! I didn't look for studies that support
> my view. I used IMBA's list, which is exactly the OPPOSITE of that:
> studies that IMBA thought were favorable to mountain biking. How can
> anyone be so DENSE?????????


You pulling pieces out of context and making your own conclusions while
superceding the conlusions of the actual researchers is hardly conclusive of
anything. You simply referencing a piece, then proclaiming "junk science"
and the conclusions as "lies" by mountain bikers have no validity. Where is
the colaboration of peer review? Where is the reference to your conclusions
by another established in the field of environmental research? Where is the
reference to your conclusions by anyone in authority to make policy? You
have the audacity to question my intelligence while you claim to discredit
real scientists, with actual credentials and references, as well as claim
their research is below par merely because their findings disagree with your
OPINIONS?
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
>
> And
>>thanks for extending my point for me: "I compiled "studies" that claimed
>>to
>>prove mountain biking no more harmful than hiking, but didn't."
>>Your statement only shows further how you use your opinion of off-road
>>cycling and your bias against off-road cycling as a filter to qualify
>>information.
>>>
>>> There is nothing to show any effort of an objective beginning. You
>>>>began with a position and have only sought information you could use to
>>>>support that position. Any other data that is counter to your position
>>>>you
>>>>simply disregard as "junk science". Any attempt to point to actual
>>>>context
>>>>and conclusions of the actual researchers has you claiming they
>>>>misinterpreted their own findings! Any challenge to your "facts", which
>>>>are
>>>>usually only your opinions or conclusions, gets a reply of "liar" or
>>>>"stupid
>>>>mountain bikers". You present yourself as an authority on the basis of
>>>>your
>>>>own claims and statements. Extensive searches of environment, mountain
>>>>biking, wildlife and other ecological topics return no other agency or
>>>>person of credibility to support your claim of being an "expert" on
>>>>mountain
>>>>biking, the environment or anything. You have NOTHING.
>>>
>>> That's because the field is too small. No one wants to research what's
>>> obvious -- except mountain bikers, who desperately need some
>>> scientific support, and will never get it.

>>I bet you know all the words to the "Tigger Song" from "Winnie the Pooh",
>>don't you?
>>And thanks again for completely disregarding the direct points of your
>>methods of "research" and attempting to turn focus towards a supposed
>>"need"
>>of off-road cyclists. Off-road cycling has been recognized - it is your
>>"scientific" support that appears in question. Besides, on May 8 of this
>>year, you again state "I am recognized by many people as the world expert
>>on
>>mountain biking impacts." yet you do not give names and here you state
>>"the
>>field is too small" to reflect a search result. Either there are "many"
>>who
>>recognize you or the field is "too small"... which is it?


Nothing here...?
>>>
>>>>> He has not been "invited" as a keynote
>>>>>>speaker. He has not been listed in the publicity information as an
>>>>>>invited
>>>>>>and featured speaker or expert. He then uses these 15 minute speaches
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>an
>>>>>>audience likely made up of other presenters as some reference of
>>>>>>authority.
>>>>>>You might even find some interesting references, ideas and links to
>>>>>>information by checking the Google group search "vandeman" and all
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>has
>>>>>>been posted to challenge his opinion or refute his statements.
>>>>>>Good luck with your efforts. It seams there are still teachers
>>>>>>involved
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>and concerned for their students' progress.
>>>>>
>>>>> But not their morals or integrity, unfortunately.
>>>>> ===
>>>>Supposition, opinion. Unfounded statement based on bias against the
>>>>viewpoints being expressed. A non-statement.
>>>
>>> Nope, based on evidence provided by their teacher.
>>> ===

>>Based on "evidence" that does not fit into your opinion filter.

>
> You make no sense whatsoever.
> ===

Making sense to you is none of my concern. Making sense to someone else who
may be seeking actual information is my concern. Making sense to organizers
of conferences and symposiums who may be doing background research on
authors who have submitted to a "call for papers" is my concern. Countering
false information and misconception surrounding the activity of off-road
cycling and the cooperative efforts of cycling advocay groups is my concern.
You are of no concern beyond the FACT that your OPINIONS could be taken
seriously by someone who is seeking real information.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 23:00:52 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> >
>>>>>> I have. Start with http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7, which
>>>>>> refutes
>>>>>> the research you are doing before you have even done it, since you
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> falling into the same fallacy as all the other "researchers".
>>>>>
>>>>> I have seen your website. I want to know what peer-reviewed work you
>>>>> have had published. Presentations at U.C. Berkeley dont count. All I
>>>>> can see on your website is a very short list of mostly books, although
>>>>> some primary literature with specific relevance to mountain bikes,
>>>>> none
>>>>> of which is yours by the way, that you say support your bizarre
>>>>> 'peeve'.
>>>>> I see no mention of any actual research you have done, no data,
>>>>> nothing.
>>>>> You claim to be an expert, well I want to see some objective evidence.
>>>>> You could make sections of your phd and masters theses available for
>>>>> scrutiny? How about that?. I should also point out, again, it was a
>>>>> student of mine that did the research, and no this isnt me disowning
>>>>> it,
>>>>> its a good piece of work (albeit with a lack of maturity in the
>>>>> writing
>>>>> that only years of practice can remedy) and I would certainly view his
>>>>> work as more scientifically objective and valid than any of the
>>>>> polemic
>>>>> you spew all over your webspace. I do admire your tenacity (or ability
>>>>> to stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'lalalala'), however, you
>>>>> could definitely do with a change of focus and try to do something
>>>>> that
>>>>> would actually make a difference to the world.
>>>>
>>>> Jules, I am the real expert on this matter of hiking vs. biking on
>>>> trails. To my credit, I have not polluted my mind with any research.
>>>> Yea,
>>>> I am as pure as the driven snow.
>>>>
>>>> My credentials are that I hiked for 10 years almost every day for 8
>>>> months of the year all over the US. I did this when I was in my 30's
>>>> during the late 60's and early 70's. During that time I never
>>>> encountered
>>>> a single bike on any of my sacred trails. I mean, it does not get any
>>>> better than that!
>>>>
>>>> In more recent years I have encountered some bikes on my sacred trails.
>>>> They do not belong on my sacred trails. Who gives a good g.d. if they
>>>> cause any trail destruction or not. I do not want them on my sacred
>>>> trails. Let them get their own g.d. trails.
>>>>
>>>> Like all scholars, you are blind to the real issues. You do not need
>>>> any
>>>> higher degrees to know what is appropriate and what is not. All you
>>>> need
>>>> is some common sense. I suggest you get out of your freaking ivory
>>>> tower
>>>> and go do some hiking in the wilderness and then tell us if you would
>>>> like bikers along side of you.
>>>>
>>>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on my
>>>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your freaking
>>>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>>>> bikers polluting my sacred trails. That is what you have to wrap your
>>>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>>>
>>> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold mine
>>> of
>>> intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>>>
>>> Goodbye

>>
>>And good riddance to you too! I have hardly ever encountered any so-called
>>scientist who was not a coward. That is why they make such poor
>>politicians.
>>They bury themselves in 'research' and then try to make themselves
>>relevant,
>>but somehow they never do. What they do mainly is hide behind their
>>freaking
>>degrees and pretend to be experts. Quite pitiful really ...

>
> AMEN. There are of course respectable scientists, but they mostly
> don't concern themselves with obvious problems like mountain biking,
> but with things that are much more difficult to understand.
>
> On the other hand, WHY mountain bikers don't "get it", now THERE'S a
> good research question. What goes wrong in their brains (or
> elsewhere?) that makes them think that the wholesale destruction of
> the natural world is a good hobby? Any thoughts, Dr. Dolan?


You mean as in the TOTAL destruction of natural land for a mall, apartment
or factory while a "cartoon scientist" like you whine "I tawt I taw a
bicycle"...
Your OPINION that a bicycle on a trail is causing the "wholesale destruction
of the natural world" while miles upon miles of new roads are being built
and acres upon acres of trees are coming down for sprawl and malls is why
you are a laughing stock on every level.
 
"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:d5jeg.14940$B42.8239@dukeread05...
>
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:25:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:mGodg.14536$B42.2924@dukeread05...
>>>>
>>>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your
>>>>>> freaking
>>>>>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>>>>>> bikers polluting my scared trails. That is what you have to wrap your
>>>>>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold
>>>>> mine
>>>>> of intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Goodbye
>>>>>
>>>> FYI - I and others have been pointing out vandeman's lack of substance
>>>> for
>>>> many years (google group search "vandeman")
>>>> The only thing that has changed with his statements, opinions, postings
>>>> and claim of information is the date on the calander. He has answered
>>>> several "calls for papers" from various conferences and symposiums and
>>>> has
>>>> been allowed to present his paper(s) because they fall within the
>>>> guidelines of the topics of the conference. He has not been "invited"
>>>> as a
>>>> keynote speaker. He has not been listed in the publicity information as
>>>> an
>>>> invited and featured speaker or expert. He then uses these 15 minute
>>>> speaches to an audience likely made up of other presenters as some
>>>> reference of authority.
>>>> You might even find some interesting references, ideas and links to
>>>> information by checking the Google group search "vandeman" and all that
>>>> has been posted to challenge his opinion or refute his statements.
>>>> Good luck with your efforts. It seams there are still teachers involved
>>>> with and concerned for their students' progress.
>>>
>>>I dont mean to step on anyones toes re: pointing out vandemans lack of
>>>credibility. I do know a lot of people have been taking the time to do
>>>this
>>>for a while. I guess he will never actually be what he purports to be, I
>>>foolishly thought he was objective, my mistake, you cant argue
>>>objectively
>>>with him,

>>
>> Very funny. When did you EVER try to do that?!
>>

>
> seems obvious to everyone else reading this, except Vandeman and his
> "logic blinders"
>> in fact you cant argue at all when, as you point out, he mistakes
>>>his opinion for evidence.... Hes bizarre creature, sadly he also has the
>>>potential to do a lot of harm. Im only glad hes confined himself to a
>>>small
>>>part of california (I am in the UK) and the probability of me ever seeing
>>>him in real life is close to zero. Actually, he could form a good case
>>>study
>>>for students . It would highlight exactly how to be completely
>>>unobjective
>>>and pass it off as truth or fact. I remember a teacher of mine, a few
>>>years
>>>ago, used a website of another vandeman-like person to highlight some
>>>pseudoscience (i.e. not peer-reviewed). The website was about how we
>>>humans
>>>should voluntarily go extinct by refusing to have children, his name was,
>>>amusingly, Les U Knight.
>>>
>>>Anyway, it feels like bashing a head against a brick wall when arguing
>>>objectively with vandeman, cos he doesnt do it. Keep up the fight.

>>
>> When I asked you to produce some EVIDENCE, you stonewalled. What's
>> this about being "objective"?! You REFUSED to tell where your students
>> were trying to publish their junk science.
>> ===

> Can't you READ? He has already stated the paper is being considered and is
> not yet a "publishable manuscript". It is also his student's work so he
> likely has no access to it beyond the general findings which he has only
> eluded to (and you assumed to be derogatory to your POV in the first
> place). The paper is in consideration and therefore any discussion of who
> negotiations are actually with would be inappropriate. Beyond any of your
> silly accusations above, might I remind you Mr. Vandeman, we on this ng
> have been asking you for YEARS to produce peer-reviews of your writings
> (which you claim exist) and EVIDENCE that your statemnents are recognized
> by anyone else with authority or credit for comparison. We have been
> requesting a schedule of events so it may be possible to actually see you
> present, see the audience in attendance, see their reactions to your
> presentation, perhaps even ask some questions of detail on the
> presentation in front of these "peers" you reference, yet you stonewall
> and refuse.
> You have NO RIGHT to question this person on method, ethics or science.
> You are insulting the entire scientific process by doing so.


I will restate this again, in the hope that MV will realise why I cant post
the report (or maybe he just doesnt read things?). The report HAS NOT BEEN
MARKED, therefore it would be illegal, not to mention completely
inappropriate to post any of the actual report he has written until AFTER
the student has received his grades. Please read that until it sinks in MV.

As for my objectivity, you are hardly an expert on that topic so no one can
take your comment seriously there. I originally posted a reply in this
thread, as it was cross-posted to sci.environment. That three letter
abbreviation stands for Science. Science, as I have been taught by ALL of my
teachers, professors and peers, depends on an acknowledgment that
objectivity is the ideal and is to be strived for. There are thousands of
reports, papers and other published works with scientists openly criticising
their own work and pointing out where that ideal may be compromised. That is
what HONEST scientists do. They do not start with an opinion and then
denounce work that may not agree with that opinion, that, MV is called
SUBJECTIVITY. Popperian scientific method, which I may add is influenced by
David Humes', who has a memorial in our hometown (thats Hume and me, big
hint there Dolan and MV) philosphy, depends on striving for objectivity. If
you claim to be an expert in the scientific method, then pass off your
opinions with no objective or empirical basis as scientific evidence, then
you are a scientific fraud. You could do everyone a huge favour and read up
on Poppers, his influences and the people he influenceds' work, maybe then
you can approach your topic more scientifically.
 
On Sun, 28 May 2006 11:11:59 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:25:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:mGodg.14536$B42.2924@dukeread05...
>>>>
>>>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your
>>>>>> freaking
>>>>>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>>>>>> bikers polluting my scared trails. That is what you have to wrap your
>>>>>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold mine
>>>>> of intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Goodbye
>>>>>
>>>> FYI - I and others have been pointing out vandeman's lack of substance
>>>> for
>>>> many years (google group search "vandeman")
>>>> The only thing that has changed with his statements, opinions, postings
>>>> and claim of information is the date on the calander. He has answered
>>>> several "calls for papers" from various conferences and symposiums and
>>>> has
>>>> been allowed to present his paper(s) because they fall within the
>>>> guidelines of the topics of the conference. He has not been "invited" as
>>>> a
>>>> keynote speaker. He has not been listed in the publicity information as
>>>> an
>>>> invited and featured speaker or expert. He then uses these 15 minute
>>>> speaches to an audience likely made up of other presenters as some
>>>> reference of authority.
>>>> You might even find some interesting references, ideas and links to
>>>> information by checking the Google group search "vandeman" and all that
>>>> has been posted to challenge his opinion or refute his statements.
>>>> Good luck with your efforts. It seams there are still teachers involved
>>>> with and concerned for their students' progress.
>>>
>>>I dont mean to step on anyones toes re: pointing out vandemans lack of
>>>credibility. I do know a lot of people have been taking the time to do
>>>this
>>>for a while. I guess he will never actually be what he purports to be, I
>>>foolishly thought he was objective, my mistake, you cant argue objectively
>>>with him,

>>
>> Very funny. When did you EVER try to do that?!
>>

>
>seems obvious to everyone else reading this, except Vandeman and his "logic
>blinders"
>> in fact you cant argue at all when, as you point out, he mistakes
>>>his opinion for evidence.... Hes bizarre creature, sadly he also has the
>>>potential to do a lot of harm. Im only glad hes confined himself to a
>>>small
>>>part of california (I am in the UK) and the probability of me ever seeing
>>>him in real life is close to zero. Actually, he could form a good case
>>>study
>>>for students . It would highlight exactly how to be completely unobjective
>>>and pass it off as truth or fact. I remember a teacher of mine, a few
>>>years
>>>ago, used a website of another vandeman-like person to highlight some
>>>pseudoscience (i.e. not peer-reviewed). The website was about how we
>>>humans
>>>should voluntarily go extinct by refusing to have children, his name was,
>>>amusingly, Les U Knight.
>>>
>>>Anyway, it feels like bashing a head against a brick wall when arguing
>>>objectively with vandeman, cos he doesnt do it. Keep up the fight.

>>
>> When I asked you to produce some EVIDENCE, you stonewalled. What's
>> this about being "objective"?! You REFUSED to tell where your students
>> were trying to publish their junk science.
>> ===

>Can't you READ? He has already stated the paper is being considered and is
>not yet a "publishable manuscript". It is also his student's work so he
>likely has no access to it beyond the general findings which he has only
>eluded to (and you assumed to be derogatory to your POV in the first place).
>The paper is in consideration and therefore any discussion of who
>negotiations are actually with would be inappropriate. Beyond any of your
>silly accusations above, might I remind you Mr. Vandeman, we on this ng have
>been asking you for YEARS to produce peer-reviews of your writings (which
>you claim exist) and EVIDENCE that your statemnents are recognized by anyone
>else with authority or credit for comparison. We have been requesting a
>schedule of events so it may be possible to actually see you present, see
>the audience in attendance, see their reactions to your presentation,
>perhaps even ask some questions of detail on the presentation in front of
>these "peers" you reference, yet you stonewall and refuse.
>You have NO RIGHT to question this person on method, ethics or science.


I'm doing them a FAVOR -- so they can correct their flawed methodology
BEFORE they embarrass themselves by trying to publish that ****.

You
>are insulting the entire scientific process by doing so.
>

===
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
 
On Sun, 28 May 2006 22:03:49 GMT, "Jules Augley"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:d5jeg.14940$B42.8239@dukeread05...
>>
>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:25:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:mGodg.14536$B42.2924@dukeread05...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on
>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>> sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your
>>>>>>> freaking
>>>>>>> research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like
>>>>>>> bikers polluting my scared trails. That is what you have to wrap your
>>>>>>> mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a gold
>>>>>> mine
>>>>>> of intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goodbye
>>>>>>
>>>>> FYI - I and others have been pointing out vandeman's lack of substance
>>>>> for
>>>>> many years (google group search "vandeman")
>>>>> The only thing that has changed with his statements, opinions, postings
>>>>> and claim of information is the date on the calander. He has answered
>>>>> several "calls for papers" from various conferences and symposiums and
>>>>> has
>>>>> been allowed to present his paper(s) because they fall within the
>>>>> guidelines of the topics of the conference. He has not been "invited"
>>>>> as a
>>>>> keynote speaker. He has not been listed in the publicity information as
>>>>> an
>>>>> invited and featured speaker or expert. He then uses these 15 minute
>>>>> speaches to an audience likely made up of other presenters as some
>>>>> reference of authority.
>>>>> You might even find some interesting references, ideas and links to
>>>>> information by checking the Google group search "vandeman" and all that
>>>>> has been posted to challenge his opinion or refute his statements.
>>>>> Good luck with your efforts. It seams there are still teachers involved
>>>>> with and concerned for their students' progress.
>>>>
>>>>I dont mean to step on anyones toes re: pointing out vandemans lack of
>>>>credibility. I do know a lot of people have been taking the time to do
>>>>this
>>>>for a while. I guess he will never actually be what he purports to be, I
>>>>foolishly thought he was objective, my mistake, you cant argue
>>>>objectively
>>>>with him,
>>>
>>> Very funny. When did you EVER try to do that?!
>>>

>>
>> seems obvious to everyone else reading this, except Vandeman and his
>> "logic blinders"
>>> in fact you cant argue at all when, as you point out, he mistakes
>>>>his opinion for evidence.... Hes bizarre creature, sadly he also has the
>>>>potential to do a lot of harm. Im only glad hes confined himself to a
>>>>small
>>>>part of california (I am in the UK) and the probability of me ever seeing
>>>>him in real life is close to zero. Actually, he could form a good case
>>>>study
>>>>for students . It would highlight exactly how to be completely
>>>>unobjective
>>>>and pass it off as truth or fact. I remember a teacher of mine, a few
>>>>years
>>>>ago, used a website of another vandeman-like person to highlight some
>>>>pseudoscience (i.e. not peer-reviewed). The website was about how we
>>>>humans
>>>>should voluntarily go extinct by refusing to have children, his name was,
>>>>amusingly, Les U Knight.
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, it feels like bashing a head against a brick wall when arguing
>>>>objectively with vandeman, cos he doesnt do it. Keep up the fight.
>>>
>>> When I asked you to produce some EVIDENCE, you stonewalled. What's
>>> this about being "objective"?! You REFUSED to tell where your students
>>> were trying to publish their junk science.
>>> ===

>> Can't you READ? He has already stated the paper is being considered and is
>> not yet a "publishable manuscript". It is also his student's work so he
>> likely has no access to it beyond the general findings which he has only
>> eluded to (and you assumed to be derogatory to your POV in the first
>> place). The paper is in consideration and therefore any discussion of who
>> negotiations are actually with would be inappropriate. Beyond any of your
>> silly accusations above, might I remind you Mr. Vandeman, we on this ng
>> have been asking you for YEARS to produce peer-reviews of your writings
>> (which you claim exist) and EVIDENCE that your statemnents are recognized
>> by anyone else with authority or credit for comparison. We have been
>> requesting a schedule of events so it may be possible to actually see you
>> present, see the audience in attendance, see their reactions to your
>> presentation, perhaps even ask some questions of detail on the
>> presentation in front of these "peers" you reference, yet you stonewall
>> and refuse.
>> You have NO RIGHT to question this person on method, ethics or science.
>> You are insulting the entire scientific process by doing so.

>
>I will restate this again, in the hope that MV will realise why I cant post
>the report (or maybe he just doesnt read things?). The report HAS NOT BEEN
>MARKED, therefore it would be illegal, not to mention completely
>inappropriate to post any of the actual report he has written until AFTER
>the student has received his grades. Please read that until it sinks in MV.


I said "evidence", not their paper. You could tell us the research
design. That would immediately indicate how faulty it is.

>As for my objectivity, you are hardly an expert on that topic so no one can
>take your comment seriously there. I originally posted a reply in this
>thread, as it was cross-posted to sci.environment. That three letter
>abbreviation stands for Science. Science, as I have been taught by ALL of my
>teachers, professors and peers, depends on an acknowledgment that
>objectivity is the ideal and is to be strived for.


Exactly, which is why you should be interested in improving your
students' research design, instead of defending it and trying to keep
it secret.

There are thousands of
>reports, papers and other published works with scientists openly criticising
>their own work and pointing out where that ideal may be compromised. That is
>what HONEST scientists do. They do not start with an opinion and then
>denounce work that may not agree with that opinion, that, MV is called
>SUBJECTIVITY. Popperian scientific method, which I may add is influenced by
>David Humes', who has a memorial in our hometown (thats Hume and me, big
>hint there Dolan and MV) philosphy, depends on striving for objectivity. If
>you claim to be an expert in the scientific method, then pass off your
>opinions with no objective or empirical basis as scientific evidence, then
>you are a scientific fraud. You could do everyone a huge favour and read up
>on Poppers, his influences and the people he influenceds' work, maybe then
>you can approach your topic more scientifically.


The essence of the scientific method is honesty and openness. You are
trying to cover up bad science. You are also confusing STYLE with
science. I simply put my conclusion first, because (as in a newspaper
article) I wasn't sure how far I would get in my talk before I ran out
of time. That has nothing to do with the soundness of my conclusions,
which have been questioned by NOT ONE PERSON except mountain bikers.
===
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
 

Similar threads