The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- Why Off-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited

[Michael Halliwell]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Michael Halliwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:aDRcg.184273$7a.163938@pd7tw1no...
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:23:08 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:tc9cg.14353$B42.4898@dukeread05...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Vandeman must be a closet Republican - After all, it is the Republicans
>>>>>who usually subscribe to the notion "If You Say Something Often Enough
>>>>>People Will Believe It To Be True"
>>>>>
>>>>>This same piece has been posted and refuted many times over the years.
>>>>>If its raining outside, kill some time by reviewing Google Group search
>>>>>"vandeman" "The Effects of Mountain Biking" - You will find many replies
>>>>>and Vandeman's tactic responses to them. You will find Vandeman's
>>>>>"science" reduced to the reality of name-calling, character assasination
>>>>>and slander on his part towards anyone who questions his opinions.
>>>>>Happy reading!
>>>>
>>>>Im well aware of Vandemans 'work' and website.
>>>>
>>>>As for calling my bluff, once the project has been marked I can post
>>>>substantial pieces of the report. But for now, he conducted and
>>>>experiment in a regional park in Scotland. The experiment consisted of
>>>>measuring impacts caused by both mountain bikers and walkers on
>>>>vegetation, in two different habitat types (woodland and grassland) and
>>>>on three different gradients (downhill, uphill and flat). Guess what, the
>>>>results of his ANOVA showed NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between mountain
>>>>biking and walking.
>>>
>>>
>>>So, in other words, he made the same error in logic that all other
>>>"researchers" did: ignoring the grossly different DISTANCES that
>>>hikers vs. bikers travel. Since he only measured impact PER FOOT, it
>>>follows that mountain bikers have several times the impact of hikers,
>>>since they travel several times as far! Idiot.
>>>
>>> There
>>
>>Mike, we've been over this before. Impact per foot is the same and you
>>appear to have no problem with that statement.
>>
>>Granted, bikes do go further; however, you keep forgetting that hikers
>>have more impact in the areas they do travel due to their sheer
>>numbers....one cyclist going 2x or 3x as far has less impact than the 100
>>hikers out there for every mountain biker.
>
>
> Most trails that hikers have a great impact on are rather short trails
> located near popular trail heads and visitor centers. Once you get beyond
> the first few miles, you are into true hiking country where there are few
> hikers at which point there is very little impact on the trail. As usual,
> Vandeman is right and Halliwell is wrong.
>


Funny...I'm seeing more and more hikers out trying to get away from the
"go for a walk in the woods with the kids" crowd and venturing further
and further out....more hikers = more damage.

Besides, have you seen what the day trippers are doing to the trail heads?

>
>>Taken as a whole with total impacts of mountain biking vs hiking (and
>>taking into account the relative populations of participants in the
>>sport), then mountain biking does less *total* damage. Perhaps you should
>>be trying to get Ed to stay off his walking paths, hiking trails and
>>"sacred places?" There are a few good hiking related newsgroups out there
>>that I'm sure would be happy to hear from you.
>
>
> The Great Ed Dolan mainly treks where few others venture to go. On many of
> my hikes I can go for days without ever encountering anyone at all. When
> that happens, I know I am in paradise.

Good for you...that puts you in a slightly different league than a vast
majority of the "hikers" out there.


>
> Curtiss and his ilk want mountain bikes to be able to go everywhere,
> desecrating and despoiling everything in their wake. They are soulless
> creatures who know nothing of the sacred and have no notion of wilderness
> and what it is good for. The out-of-doors is nothing but a playground to
> them. They are the ultimate savages and not worthy of living in a civilized
> society. In short, they belong in New Guinea or Borneo.

I see...you haven't read his stated goals...he (Mr. Curtiss) has stated
his aim is not to cycle *everywhere* and that there are areas he feels
should be protected (i.e. areas with wilderness designations). Besides
that, do you want to send mountain bikers to some of the almost
untouched areas of the south pacific? Sure, it would be a beautiiful
ride, but I thought you were into the protection of wilderness thing,
not the "ship the mountain bikers off to ride elsewhere" thing (in less
developed areas, at that!)

Michael Halliwell

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Michael Halliwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:V2adg.186610$7a.47709@pd7tw1no...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Michael Halliwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:aDRcg.184273$7a.163938@pd7tw1no...
>>
>>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:23:08 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:tc9cg.14353$B42.4898@dukeread05...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Vandeman must be a closet Republican - After all, it is the
>>>>>>Republicans who usually subscribe to the notion "If You Say Something
>>>>>>Often Enough People Will Believe It To Be True"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This same piece has been posted and refuted many times over the years.
>>>>>>If its raining outside, kill some time by reviewing Google Group
>>>>>>search "vandeman" "The Effects of Mountain Biking" - You will find
>>>>>>many replies and Vandeman's tactic responses to them. You will find
>>>>>>Vandeman's "science" reduced to the reality of name-calling, character
>>>>>>assasination and slander on his part towards anyone who questions his
>>>>>>opinions.
>>>>>>Happy reading!
>>>>>
>>>>>Im well aware of Vandemans 'work' and website.
>>>>>
>>>>>As for calling my bluff, once the project has been marked I can post
>>>>>substantial pieces of the report. But for now, he conducted and
>>>>>experiment in a regional park in Scotland. The experiment consisted of
>>>>>measuring impacts caused by both mountain bikers and walkers on
>>>>>vegetation, in two different habitat types (woodland and grassland) and
>>>>>on three different gradients (downhill, uphill and flat). Guess what,
>>>>>the results of his ANOVA showed NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between
>>>>>mountain biking and walking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So, in other words, he made the same error in logic that all other
>>>>"researchers" did: ignoring the grossly different DISTANCES that
>>>>hikers vs. bikers travel. Since he only measured impact PER FOOT, it
>>>>follows that mountain bikers have several times the impact of hikers,
>>>>since they travel several times as far! Idiot.
>>>>
>>>> There
>>>
>>>Mike, we've been over this before. Impact per foot is the same and you
>>>appear to have no problem with that statement.
>>>
>>>Granted, bikes do go further; however, you keep forgetting that hikers
>>>have more impact in the areas they do travel due to their sheer
>>>numbers....one cyclist going 2x or 3x as far has less impact than the 100
>>>hikers out there for every mountain biker.
>>
>>
>> Most trails that hikers have a great impact on are rather short trails
>> located near popular trail heads and visitor centers. Once you get beyond
>> the first few miles, you are into true hiking country where there are few
>> hikers at which point there is very little impact on the trail. As usual,
>> Vandeman is right and Halliwell is wrong.
>>
>
>
> Funny...I'm seeing more and more hikers out trying to get away from the
> "go for a walk in the woods with the kids" crowd and venturing further and
> further out....more hikers = more damage.
>
> Besides, have you seen what the day trippers are doing to the trail heads?

I have already admitted that hikers can be as slovenly as bikers.
Enforcement of the rules and regulations is the answer. I do fault the
rangers for not being strict enough. Some stiff fines would solve a lot of
the problems.

>>>Taken as a whole with total impacts of mountain biking vs hiking (and
>>>taking into account the relative populations of participants in the
>>>sport), then mountain biking does less *total* damage. Perhaps you
>>>should be trying to get Ed to stay off his walking paths, hiking trails
>>>and "sacred places?" There are a few good hiking related newsgroups out
>>>there that I'm sure would be happy to hear from you.
>>
>>
>> The Great Ed Dolan mainly treks where few others venture to go. On many
>> of my hikes I can go for days without ever encountering anyone at all.
>> When that happens, I know I am in paradise.
>
> Good for you...that puts you in a slightly different league than a vast
> majority of the "hikers" out there.

I once went hiking in the central Idaho wilderness (Bob Marshall) and scared
myself half to death. It goes on forever and there is never anyone in that
area. I think it is mainly set up for equestrians as I never saw another
hiker for the entire week I was there. Hells Bells, I didn't even see any
equestrians.

>> Curtiss and his ilk want mountain bikes to be able to go everywhere,
>> desecrating and despoiling everything in their wake. They are soulless
>> creatures who know nothing of the sacred and have no notion of wilderness
>> and what it is good for. The out-of-doors is nothing but a playground to
>> them. They are the ultimate savages and not worthy of living in a
>> civilized society. In short, they belong in New Guinea or Borneo.
>
> I see...you haven't read his stated goals...he (Mr. Curtiss) has stated
> his aim is not to cycle *everywhere* and that there are areas he feels
> should be protected (i.e. areas with wilderness designations). Besides
> that, do you want to send mountain bikers to some of the almost untouched
> areas of the south pacific? Sure, it would be a beautiiful ride, but I
> thought you were into the protection of wilderness thing, not the "ship
> the mountain bikers off to ride elsewhere" thing (in less developed areas,
> at that!)

Yes, I am aware of where Curtiss is at, but it is just too much fun to kid
him. Besides, I do not like the way all of you gang up on Vandeman. He is
purist admittedly, but we need his type to remind us of what would be ideal
in a perfect world.

I would just like mountain bikers to stay on some kind of road as opposed to
any kind of trail. Here in the Upper Midwest there are literally thousands
of miles of gravel roads. The Black Hills of South Dakota is like this too.
It just seems to me that there is hardly ever any reason for mountain bikes
to be on hiking trails when there are so many unpaved roads for them to be
on.

Regards,

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

 

[Jules Augley]

>
> 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.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"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

 

[ChainSmoker]

Jules Augley wrote:
>> 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,
You are applying logic and facts - two things that Mikey will ignore.
His main thrust is to simply try to work up those that read this
newsgroup. I am sure I am telling you nothing you don't already know. He
will reply with the same ****... he will not make any headway to change
things since he simply attacks this group. I have never once seen a
responsible logical reply from Mikey...

Looking forward to seeing the work of your student. Mikey will call it
lies even before he sees it...

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:14:56 GMT, "Jules Augley"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> 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 of my conference papers were peer-reviewed. What do you think a
conference is???

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.

It's obvious from my website. E.g. I have reviewed all available
research comparing mountain biking with hiking.

You could make sections
>of your phd and masters theses available for scrutiny? How about that?

If you knew what a Ph.D. dissertation was, you'd know that they are
ALL published and available. Try getting a Ph.D., and you'll find out.

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

No, it isn't. I can tell from your description that it ignores certain
critical factors, e.g. distance travelled.

(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.

It's funny how all mountain bikers want more than anything in the
world for me to shut up and stop telling the truth about their
selfish, destructive sport. NO WONDER! They haven't found any way to
rationally defend it.
===
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 Thu, 25 May 2006 10:22:55 -0400, ChainSmoker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jules Augley wrote:
>>> 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,
>You are applying logic and facts - two things that Mikey will ignore.
>His main thrust is to simply try to work up those that read this
>newsgroup. I am sure I am telling you nothing you don't already know. He
>will reply with the same ****... he will not make any headway to change
>things since he simply attacks this group. I have never once seen a
>responsible logical reply from Mikey...
>
>Looking forward to seeing the work of your student. Mikey will call it
>lies even before he sees it...

Correct. ALL mountain bikers lie, ESPECIALLY "researchers". It's
obvious from what this guy says that their "research" is fatally
flawed. The only reason that mountain bikers do research is to try to
justify what is unjustifiable: their selfish, destructive sport.
===
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

 

[cc]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:14:56 GMT, "Jules Augley"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>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 of my conference papers were peer-reviewed. What do you think a
> conference is???

That's ********, and you know it. You only need to have an abstract
accepted, which by no means is a critique of the quality of your work.
Which is god-awful, by the way. Your peers assuredly snicker behind your
back. Get used to it.

>
> 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.
>
>
> It's obvious from my website. E.g. I have reviewed all available
> research comparing mountain biking with hiking.
>
> You could make sections
>
>>of your phd and masters theses available for scrutiny? How about that?
>
>
> If you knew what a Ph.D. dissertation was, you'd know that they are
> ALL published and available. Try getting a Ph.D., and you'll find out.
>

The problem is that mike got his PhD is something totally ridiculous and
completely unrelated to what he proclaims to be an expert in. Google the
newsgroup, and you can find it. Something about feeding habits or
something equally uninteresting and of no impact whatsoever.

> 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
>
>
> No, it isn't. I can tell from your description that it ignores certain
> critical factors, e.g. distance travelled.

LIAR.

>
> (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.
>
>
> It's funny how all mountain bikers want more than anything in the
> world for me to shut up and stop telling the truth about their
> selfish, destructive sport. NO WONDER! They haven't found any way to
> rationally defend it.

Although is HAS been defended extensively with rational argument, under
the "threat" of your weakly posed, illogical, and bigoted arguments,
there is no need.

 

[cc]

Jules Augley wrote:
>>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.

That's because there is NONE. Keywords: fraud, zealot, psychopath.

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.

Well-put.

 

[ChainSmoker]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:22:55 -0400, ChainSmoker

>
> Correct. ALL mountain bikers lie, ESPECIALLY "researchers". It's
> obvious from what this guy says that their "research" is fatally
> flawed. The only reason that mountain bikers do research is to try to
> justify what is unjustifiable: their selfish, destructive sport.
> ===
> 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


Mikey's reply translated in to Vandlespin...

Correct. Vandelman lies, ESPECIALLY Vandelman's "research" site. It's
obvious from what Vandelmans says that his "research" is fatally
flawed. The only reason that Vandelman does research is to try to
justify what is unjustifiable: his selfish, destructive sport.

 

[Jules Augley]

"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]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:14:56 GMT, "Jules Augley"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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 of my conference papers were peer-reviewed. What do you think a
> conference is???
>
> 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.
>
> It's obvious from my website. E.g. I have reviewed all available
> research comparing mountain biking with hiking.
>
> You could make sections
>>of your phd and masters theses available for scrutiny? How about that?
>
> If you knew what a Ph.D. dissertation was, you'd know that they are
> ALL published and available. Try getting a Ph.D., and you'll find out.
>
> 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
>
> No, it isn't. I can tell from your description that it ignores certain
> critical factors, e.g. distance travelled.
>
> (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.
>
> It's funny how all mountain bikers want more than anything in the
> world for me to shut up and stop telling the truth about their
> selfish, destructive sport. NO WONDER! They haven't found any way to
> rationally defend it.
Still dont see any evidence, sorry. And no conferences are not
peer-reviewed. I am more interested in the response of the audience.

As for a phd, in one years time I will have completed my phd, I work with
hundreds of people that have completed phds, and I know for a fact that they
are not all published and available; the norm is for a copy to be placed in
the awarding institutions library, that is not published in the sense that I
mean, and I know you know this. Publication in any credible journal means
your work has been reviewed by experts in that field, until you get a
published work, you cant call yourself an expert. Here is an example:
http://www1.elsevier.com/homepage/sad/downloads/02727714.html
Look at number 8 on the list, the 3rd Author is me. That, Dr Vandeman, is a
peer-reviewed article. That is what I am asking you to show me, where are
your peer-reviewed articles?. By no means am I proclaiming to be an expert
at anything, but I can spot a fraud whan I see one (that means you MV).

I have a suspicion as to why you dont want mountain bikes on 'hiking'
trails. You are a selfish person that doesnt like others having fun and you
have been in a conflict situation with a mountain biker when out enjoying
'your' nature, and are hijacking conservation biology and ecology to further
your own personal, as you put it, 'peeves'.

Until you show everyone otherwise, you are a scientific fraudster. I think
CCs' keywords summed you up nicely.

p.s. For your and Mr Dolans information, I am not a mountain biker, and have
no aspirations to take a bike off-road. I do enjoy walking however, and have
never been put off by mountain bikers.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:14:56 GMT, "Jules Augley"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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 of my conference papers were peer-reviewed. What do you think a
> conference is???

There is NO proof of any comments or review of ANY of your opinions,
statements or findings. If there is, post it or shut up. You have no
credibility except what you assign yourself. You answered a "call for
papers". Your response matched the parameters of the request. You received
permission to present. You spoke for 15-20 minutes to an audience comprised
mostly of other presenters. You have NEVER been sought after or invited as a
title speaker. Your name has never been attached as a keynote speaker on the
published publicity information on any of these conferences. You essentially
invite yourself by answering a "call for papers" then list it as a reference
after the fact.
You don't even provide an upcoming schedule. Your website doesn't have any
conferences attended for 2006. You have NOTHING but references back to
yourself to support your statements. It is OBVIOUS! Duh!
>
> 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.
>
> It's obvious from my website. E.g. I have reviewed all available
> research comparing mountain biking with hiking.
And presented your OPINIONS as fact and then referenced your own opinions as
foundation!
>
> You could make sections
>>of your phd and masters theses available for scrutiny? How about that?
MV PhD dissertation "Chemical description of food taste preferences among
..Black, Japanese, and Mexican Americans derived by means of nonmetric
..multidimensional scaling"
>
> If you knew what a Ph.D. dissertation was, you'd know that they are
> ALL published and available. Try getting a Ph.D., and you'll find out.
>
> 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
>
> No, it isn't. I can tell from your description that it ignores certain
> critical factors, e.g. distance travelled.
"Distance travelled" is your variable and meaningless without a variable of
time. A cyclist can cover more ground in 1 hour, meaning he is in and away
from any one spot faster which also reduces his impact in that spot. A hiker
is in any one spot for a longer amount of time, causing more disturbance by
his presence. After all, it is you that state our very presence is harmful.
So "distance" is hardly a valid variable without the consideration of
"time". Hikers are often in the woods for a longer amount of "time",
rendering "distance" irrelevant, or at least simply another variable to be
considered but not, as you insist, as the only multiplier.
>
> (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.
>
> It's funny how all mountain bikers want more than anything in the
> world for me to shut up and stop telling the truth about their
> selfish, destructive sport. NO WONDER! They haven't found any way to
> rationally defend it.

You haven't found a way to rationally defeat it. If you had, character
assasination, name-calling, context removal and misdirection would not be
your standard for defending your statements. You don't tell "truth", you
spout OPINIONS which you present as truth. We only point it out for anyone
looking for real information to see.

 

[S Curtiss]

"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.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 25 May 2006 13:14:18 -0400, ChainSmoker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:22:55 -0400, ChainSmoker
>
>>
>> Correct. ALL mountain bikers lie, ESPECIALLY "researchers". It's
>> obvious from what this guy says that their "research" is fatally
>> flawed. The only reason that mountain bikers do research is to try to
>> justify what is unjustifiable: their selfish, destructive sport.
>> ===
>> 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
>
>
>Mikey's reply translated in to Vandlespin...
>
>Correct. Vandelman lies, ESPECIALLY Vandelman's "research" site. It's
>obvious from what Vandelmans says that his "research" is fatally
>flawed. The only reason that Vandelman does research is to try to
>justify what is unjustifiable: his selfish, destructive sport.

Anyone who believes someone called "ChainSmoker" needs to have their
head examined.
===
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 Thu, 25 May 2006 08:53:48 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:14:56 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>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 of my conference papers were peer-reviewed. What do you think a
>> conference is???
>
>That's ********, and you know it. You only need to have an abstract
>accepted, which by no means is a critique of the quality of your work.

They also listen to the paper. So far, NOT ONE PERSON has found any
defect in my papers.

>Which is god-awful, by the way. Your peers assuredly snicker behind your
>back. Get used to it.
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> It's obvious from my website. E.g. I have reviewed all available
>> research comparing mountain biking with hiking.
>>
>> You could make sections
>>
>>>of your phd and masters theses available for scrutiny? How about that?
>>
>>
>> If you knew what a Ph.D. dissertation was, you'd know that they are
>> ALL published and available. Try getting a Ph.D., and you'll find out.
>>
>
>The problem is that mike got his PhD is something totally ridiculous and
>completely unrelated to what he proclaims to be an expert in. Google the
>newsgroup, and you can find it. Something about feeding habits or
>something equally uninteresting and of no impact whatsoever.

What does that have to do with the harm that mountain biking does?
Just a red herring.

>>>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
>>
>>
>> No, it isn't. I can tell from your description that it ignores certain
>> critical factors, e.g. distance travelled.
>
>LIAR.

It's true. Look for yourself.

>> (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.
>>
>>
>> It's funny how all mountain bikers want more than anything in the
>> world for me to shut up and stop telling the truth about their
>> selfish, destructive sport. NO WONDER! They haven't found any way to
>> rationally defend it.
>
>Although is HAS been defended extensively with rational argument, under
>the "threat" of your weakly posed, illogical, and bigoted arguments,
>there is no need.

Don't make me laugh.
===
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 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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

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]

On Thu, 25 May 2006 17:38:37 GMT, "Jules Augley"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:14:56 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 of my conference papers were peer-reviewed. What do you think a
>> conference is???
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> It's obvious from my website. E.g. I have reviewed all available
>> research comparing mountain biking with hiking.
>>
>> You could make sections
>>>of your phd and masters theses available for scrutiny? How about that?
>>
>> If you knew what a Ph.D. dissertation was, you'd know that they are
>> ALL published and available. Try getting a Ph.D., and you'll find out.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> No, it isn't. I can tell from your description that it ignores certain
>> critical factors, e.g. distance travelled.
>>
>> (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.
>>
>> It's funny how all mountain bikers want more than anything in the
>> world for me to shut up and stop telling the truth about their
>> selfish, destructive sport. NO WONDER! They haven't found any way to
>> rationally defend it.
>Still dont see any evidence, sorry. And no conferences are not
>peer-reviewed. I am more interested in the response of the audience.
>
>As for a phd, in one years time I will have completed my phd, I work with
>hundreds of people that have completed phds, and I know for a fact that they
>are not all published and available; the norm is for a copy to be placed in
>the awarding institutions library, that is not published in the sense that I
>mean, and I know you know this. Publication in any credible journal means
>your work has been reviewed by experts in that field, until you get a
>published work, you cant call yourself an expert.

BS. In the area of mountain biking impacts, I am THE expert.

Here is an example:
>http://www1.elsevier.com/homepage/sad/downloads/02727714.html
>Look at number 8 on the list, the 3rd Author is me. That, Dr Vandeman, is a
>peer-reviewed article. That is what I am asking you to show me, where are
>your peer-reviewed articles?. By no means am I proclaiming to be an expert
>at anything, but I can spot a fraud whan I see one (that means you MV).

A fraud is someone who promotes falsehoods or pretends to know more
than they do. You are the only one in THIS thread. It's interesting
that I am the expert in mountain biking, but YOU are challenging me
even though it's not your expertise. That's called a "FRAUD".

>I have a suspicion as to why you dont want mountain bikes on 'hiking'
>trails. You are a selfish person that doesnt like others having fun and you
>have been in a conflict situation with a mountain biker when out enjoying
>'your' nature, and are hijacking conservation biology and ecology to further
>your own personal, as you put it, 'peeves'.

Your attempt at pop psychology (remember, I am the real thing) is duly
noted.

>Until you show everyone otherwise, you are a scientific fraudster. I think
>CCs' keywords summed you up nicely.
>
>p.s. For your and Mr Dolans information, I am not a mountain biker, and have
>no aspirations to take a bike off-road. I do enjoy walking however, and have
>never been put off by mountain bikers.

Obviously you have no concern for the wildlife or the environment.
===
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 Thu, 25 May 2006 14:03:47 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:14:56 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 of my conference papers were peer-reviewed. What do you think a
>> conference is???
>
>There is NO proof of any comments or review of ANY of your opinions,
>statements or findings. If there is, post it or shut up. You have no
>credibility except what you assign yourself. You answered a "call for
>papers". Your response matched the parameters of the request. You received
>permission to present. You spoke for 15-20 minutes to an audience comprised
>mostly of other presenters. You have NEVER been sought after or invited as a
>title speaker. Your name has never been attached as a keynote speaker on the
>published publicity information on any of these conferences. You essentially
>invite yourself by answering a "call for papers" then list it as a reference
>after the fact.

That's nothing but LIES, since you weren't there and know NOTHING
about the conferences.

>You don't even provide an upcoming schedule.

Why should I? You've already read all of my papers. Your only possible
purpose is to threaten & intimidate -- something mountain bikers are
very fond of.

Your website doesn't have any
>conferences attended for 2006. You have NOTHING but references back to
>yourself to support your statements. It is OBVIOUS! Duh!
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> It's obvious from my website. E.g. I have reviewed all available
>> research comparing mountain biking with hiking.
>And presented your OPINIONS as fact and then referenced your own opinions as
>foundation!
>>
>> You could make sections
>>>of your phd and masters theses available for scrutiny? How about that?
>MV PhD dissertation "Chemical description of food taste preferences among
>.Black, Japanese, and Mexican Americans derived by means of nonmetric
>.multidimensional scaling"
>>
>> If you knew what a Ph.D. dissertation was, you'd know that they are
>> ALL published and available. Try getting a Ph.D., and you'll find out.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> No, it isn't. I can tell from your description that it ignores certain
>> critical factors, e.g. distance travelled.
>"Distance travelled" is your variable and meaningless without a variable of
>time. A cyclist can cover more ground in 1 hour, meaning he is in and away
>from any one spot faster which also reduces his impact in that spot. A hiker
>is in any one spot for a longer amount of time, causing more disturbance by
>his presence. After all, it is you that state our very presence is harmful.
>So "distance" is hardly a valid variable without the consideration of
>"time". Hikers are often in the woods for a longer amount of "time",
>rendering "distance" irrelevant, or at least simply another variable to be
>considered but not, as you insist, as the only multiplier.

BS. Squashed animals & plants are proportional to DISTANCE. Erosion is
proportional to DISTANCE.

>> (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.
>>
>> It's funny how all mountain bikers want more than anything in the
>> world for me to shut up and stop telling the truth about their
>> selfish, destructive sport. NO WONDER! They haven't found any way to
>> rationally defend it.
>
>You haven't found a way to rationally defeat it. If you had, character
>assasination, name-calling, context removal and misdirection would not be
>your standard for defending your statements. You don't tell "truth", you
>spout OPINIONS which you present as truth. We only point it out for anyone
>looking for real information to see.

LIES.
===
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