"Mike Vandeman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 12:58:22 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> 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.
>>I can't be too far off. I've seen enough similar gatherings to know how
>>these types of things come together.
>
> So you admit FABRICATING information, as usual. No wonder no one
> believes you.
?? Again you try to paint me simply as a "liar" rather than attemt to
dispute the statements on point.
>
> A lot of patting each other on the back
>>and name tags and suits that were in style 20 years ago. Convenient also
>>that we are on seperate ends of the country that makes it next to
>>impossible
>>for me to attend - especially when you do not show a schedule of events.
>
> Why would you want to attend? You already have all of my papers & have
> been unable to refute them, no matter how much time you have.
Your memory is too short. (Google group search "vandeman" shows years of
posts of myself and others picking apart your opinions on point and
reference)
>
>>>>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.
>>I have no desire whatsoever to "threaten & intimidate". That is your fear
>>and your convenient scapegoat at the same time. However, it would be
>>interesting to question your findings, with correct references and
>>context,
>>in front of these "peers". It would be interesting to watch you resort to
>>calling someone a "liar" or "moron" in front of everybody in attendance.
>>It
>>would be interesting to see how you explain away incredibly detailed
>>research as "junk science" merely because it offers a conlusion different
>>from your own. After all, what is a "question and answer" period for if
>>not
>>to clarify or support the statements made by the speaker?
>
> No one would listen to you, since you haven't read my paper nor the
> ones I reviewed. And since you are only interested in rationalizing
> mountain biking, you would be VERY out of place in any scientific
> conference. They would see through you instantly. If you can't refute
> me here, how could you do so in person?
Apparently, your memory is so short you don't even remember the conversation
you are in. You state here "since you haven't read my paper nor the ones I
reviewed" yet just above you state "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."
And why would I be out of place at a "scientific" conference? Is not the
purpose of science to gather and assimilate as much information as possible?
Why, if you are going to claim a foundation of "science", would you have any
concern as to whether I, or anybody else, was there? Either your science
stands on its own and can handle the scrutiny or it doesn't. Or are you
afraid that pointed questions on context and fact might allow your "peers"
to see through you instantly?
>
<<<clipped>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>It is your opinion. The "squashed animals & plants" is anecdotal as any
>>traverse could do it.
>
> Not on foot. Too slow to kill fast-moving animals.
....and what of plants...? Selective again in your response. "Fast-moving"
animals are likely not to get hit by bikes either and is a convenient claim
for you to make. It sure sounds plausible, but is still anecdotal.
>
> Foot prints, tire tracks, hooves... And erosion is
>>proportional to friction. Friction can be caused just as easily by feet as
>>by tires. Rolling tire contact is fractional with time compared to the
>>step
>>of a walking person. A person's foot is in contact with the spot of earth
>>much longer than any point of a rolling wheel. You can not disregard
>>"time"
>>as a variable any more than you can over-qualify the variable of
>>"distance".
>
> A stationary foot doesn't create erosion.
So how do you hike and stay stationary...? It is precisely this kind of
logic that makes all your comments questionable. And again, you attempt to
direct attention away from the application of the variable of "time" in
regards to impact.
>
>>>>> (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.
>>
>>OPINIONS.
>>> ===
>>
