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

[Mike Vandeman]

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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 27 May 2006 08:05:46 -0400, ChainSmoker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>>>
>>> There are rocky trails in this area that have been used for over 200
>>> years, and still are in the same shape as they were when they were used
>>> to haul iron ore... currently multi-use and will go for the next few
>>> hundred years....
>>
>> BS. Even solid rock will erode from enough mountain biking.
>> ===
>> 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
>
>Only as much as the sidewalks of a city will wear away with people
>walking on the sidewalks...

BS. Not too many natural rocks are made of cement! DUH! The damage to
the sandstone of the Southwest is very visible.
===
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 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]

On Sat, 27 May 2006 09:40:50 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 a suspicion as to why you [Vandeman] 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'.
>>
>> I swear to God that there is no asshole in the world like an English
>> asshole.
>
>I agree with you on this point Dolan, I am not English though.

He's Canadian -- i.e., someone who can't decide whether to be British,
French, American, or Inuit. A sort of missing link. Not good enough to
be an American, but too damaged for England or France to take them
back -- kind of like an Australian (i.e., descended from criminals).

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 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.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 27 May 2006 08:03:48 -0400, ChainSmoker
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:25:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>>1) You have not seen the document.
>>2) You are calling it "junk"
>>
>>That is closed minded.
>
> I've been informed of their methodology, which is ****. Garbage in,
> garbage out.
> ===
On the topic of garbage - you are the expert.

 

[S Curtiss]

"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]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 27 May 2006 09:40:50 GMT, "Jules Augley"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I swear to God that there is no asshole in the world like an English
>>> asshole.
>>
>>I agree with you on this point Dolan, I am not English though.
>
> He's Canadian -- i.e., someone who can't decide whether to be British,
> French, American, or Inuit. A sort of missing link. Not good enough to
> be an American, but too damaged for England or France to take them
> back -- kind of like an Australian (i.e., descended from criminals).
>
> ===
Wow - and I thought you were just bigoted against off-road cyclists! Turns
out - you're a total bigot.

 

[ChainSmoker]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sat, 27 May 2006 08:05:46 -0400, ChainSmoker
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>>>> There are rocky trails in this area that have been used for over 200
>>>> years, and still are in the same shape as they were when they were used
>>>> to haul iron ore... currently multi-use and will go for the next few
>>>> hundred years....
>>> BS. Even solid rock will erode from enough mountain biking.
>>> ===
>>> 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
>> Only as much as the sidewalks of a city will wear away with people
>> walking on the sidewalks...
>
> BS. Not too many natural rocks are made of cement! DUH! The damage to
> the sandstone of the Southwest is very visible.
> ===
> 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

Here (on the east coast) we have rock that is not sandstone. It much is
harder. You must realize sandstone is not as prevalent on the east
coast. The steel belted wagon wheels of the ore wagons from the 1700's
thru the early 1900's did not wear it out, nor will the rubber wheels of
mountain bikes.

 

[Michael Halliwell]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 06:04:18 GMT, Michael Halliwell
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>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 don't fault Mike for being an idealist or purist....but rather his
>>"science." If he wants to claim that the science supports him, he needs
>>to be solidly scientific...more so than those he is trying to "debunk."
>> Not answering a legitimate question (esp. those of a scientific
>>nature) or resorting to snubs ("Liar", "Did you say something" and so
>>forth) or personal attacks does not support his case.
>>
>>Given the way he comes across, it is not the least bit surprising that
>>he has drawn a number of people to dispute his posts. The "ganging up"
>>has as much to do with his posts as it does the responses.
>
>
> BS. Mountain bikers gang up on ANYONE who tells the truth about their
> selfish, destructive sport. If you were interested in science, you
> would address the science, instead of my image. You AREN'T!

Mike, your inflamatory postings just contribute to the "ganging up."
When people address the science or your constantly re-posted "reviews",
you don't reply with solid scientific fact but rather claim they are
citing "junk science" because it doesn't reflect your opinions or come
from your webspace. More often than not, you revert to comments such as
"Lair!" or "Did you say something?" or 'that's not true...see my
webpage' or something similar. You are equally as responsible for the
types of responses you get because, at least from my perspective, you
actively seek them out (troll for them).

>
>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>Personally, I try to avoid the "hiking" trails and stick to the "bike"
>>trails. Up here, there are plenty of both. If I find myself on
>>multi-use trails, I make sure I'm courteous and share the trail with
>>other users, be they hiking, biking, horseback riding or using an ORV.
>
>
> That does nothing to help those driven away by the presence of bikes.

No, neither does the presence of beer bottles, illegal camp fires,
litter and so forth I have seen left by HIKERS on the trails. I try not
to let the occasional "bad apple" ruin my objectivity...but some people
find any excuse to blame someone else for their problems.

Michael Halliwell

 

[Jules Augley]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 27 May 2006 09:40:50 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 a suspicion as to why you [Vandeman] 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'.
>>>
>>> I swear to God that there is no asshole in the world like an English
>>> asshole.
>>
>>I agree with you on this point Dolan, I am not English though.
>
> He's Canadian -- i.e., someone who can't decide whether to be British,
> French, American, or Inuit. A sort of missing link. Not good enough to
> be an American, but too damaged for England or France to take them
> back -- kind of like an Australian (i.e., descended from criminals).
>
Once again, as in your appreciation of science, you are wrong. If you had
followed my link to the example of a credible scientific study, you would
have seen where I am from. As S Curtiss has said, this is bigotry.

> 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]

"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.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 28 May 2006 11:37:57 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"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?

Right. All of those SCIENTISTS would be incapable of understanding my
paper, without YOU there to explain it to them! I have to hand it to
you. You are almost getting a sense of humor, even if unintended.

>>
><<<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.

As far as I know, no one has ever studied the animals squashed by
mountain bikers. I guess the bikers are afraid of what they'd find.
All we have is anecdotal evidence, which is better than nothing.

>> 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.
>>>> ===
>>>
>
===
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 Sun, 28 May 2006 12:50:30 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 27 May 2006 09:40:50 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I swear to God that there is no asshole in the world like an English
>>>> asshole.
>>>
>>>I agree with you on this point Dolan, I am not English though.
>>
>> He's Canadian -- i.e., someone who can't decide whether to be British,
>> French, American, or Inuit. A sort of missing link. Not good enough to
>> be an American, but too damaged for England or France to take them
>> back -- kind of like an Australian (i.e., descended from criminals).
>>
>> ===
>Wow - and I thought you were just bigoted against off-road cyclists! Turns
>out - you're a total bigot.

Leave it to a dodo like you to miss the smiley.
===
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 Sun, 28 May 2006 21:40:42 GMT, "Jules Augley"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 27 May 2006 09:40:50 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 a suspicion as to why you [Vandeman] 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'.
>>>>
>>>> I swear to God that there is no asshole in the world like an English
>>>> asshole.
>>>
>>>I agree with you on this point Dolan, I am not English though.
>>
>> He's Canadian -- i.e., someone who can't decide whether to be British,
>> French, American, or Inuit. A sort of missing link. Not good enough to
>> be an American, but too damaged for England or France to take them
>> back -- kind of like an Australian (i.e., descended from criminals).
>>
>Once again, as in your appreciation of science, you are wrong. If you had
>followed my link to the example of a credible scientific study, you would
>have seen where I am from. As S Curtiss has said, this is bigotry.

What kind of blinders are you wearing, that would cause you to miss
the smiley???? Carefulness isn't your forte, I guess.

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 28 May 2006 18:20:48 GMT, Michael Halliwell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 May 2006 06:04:18 GMT, Michael Halliwell
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>>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 don't fault Mike for being an idealist or purist....but rather his
>>>"science." If he wants to claim that the science supports him, he needs
>>>to be solidly scientific...more so than those he is trying to "debunk."
>>> Not answering a legitimate question (esp. those of a scientific
>>>nature) or resorting to snubs ("Liar", "Did you say something" and so
>>>forth) or personal attacks does not support his case.
>>>
>>>Given the way he comes across, it is not the least bit surprising that
>>>he has drawn a number of people to dispute his posts. The "ganging up"
>>>has as much to do with his posts as it does the responses.
>>
>>
>> BS. Mountain bikers gang up on ANYONE who tells the truth about their
>> selfish, destructive sport. If you were interested in science, you
>> would address the science, instead of my image. You AREN'T!
>
>Mike, your inflamatory postings just contribute to the "ganging up."
>When people address the science or your constantly re-posted "reviews",
>you don't reply with solid scientific fact but rather claim they are
>citing "junk science" because it doesn't reflect your opinions or come
>from your webspace. More often than not, you revert to comments such as
>"Lair!" or "Did you say something?" or 'that's not true...see my
>webpage' or something similar. You are equally as responsible for the
>types of responses you get because, at least from my perspective, you
>actively seek them out (troll for them).

Right. Blame the victim. It's easier than telling the truth.

>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Personally, I try to avoid the "hiking" trails and stick to the "bike"
>>>trails. Up here, there are plenty of both. If I find myself on
>>>multi-use trails, I make sure I'm courteous and share the trail with
>>>other users, be they hiking, biking, horseback riding or using an ORV.
>>
>>
>> That does nothing to help those driven away by the presence of bikes.
>
>No, neither does the presence of beer bottles, illegal camp fires,
>litter and so forth I have seen left by HIKERS on the trails. I try not
>to let the occasional "bad apple" ruin my objectivity...but some people
>find any excuse to blame someone else for their problems.

Nobody is talking about "a few bad apples". In the case of mountain
bikers, it is EVERYONE. The effect of bikes has nothing to do with
whether they are bad apples or not.

>Michael Halliwell
===
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 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

 

[Michael Halliwell]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

>>Mike, your inflamatory postings just contribute to the "ganging up."
>>When people address the science or your constantly re-posted "reviews",
>>you don't reply with solid scientific fact but rather claim they are
>>citing "junk science" because it doesn't reflect your opinions or come
>
>>from your webspace. More often than not, you revert to comments such as
>
>>"Lair!" or "Did you say something?" or 'that's not true...see my
>>webpage' or something similar. You are equally as responsible for the
>>types of responses you get because, at least from my perspective, you
>>actively seek them out (troll for them).
>
>
> Right. Blame the victim. It's easier than telling the truth.
>
>

and

>>>>Personally, I try to avoid the "hiking" trails and stick to the "bike"
>>>>trails. Up here, there are plenty of both. If I find myself on
>>>>multi-use trails, I make sure I'm courteous and share the trail with
>>>>other users, be they hiking, biking, horseback riding or using an ORV.
>>>
>>>
>>>That does nothing to help those driven away by the presence of bikes.
>>
>>No, neither does the presence of beer bottles, illegal camp fires,
>>litter and so forth I have seen left by HIKERS on the trails. I try not
>>to let the occasional "bad apple" ruin my objectivity...but some people
>>find any excuse to blame someone else for their problems.
>
>
> Nobody is talking about "a few bad apples". In the case of mountain
> bikers, it is EVERYONE. The effect of bikes has nothing to do with
> whether they are bad apples or not.
>


Thank you for making my point, Mike...you've never met me face to face,
seen the way I ride, where I ride, who I ride with or anything of the
sort, but you imply that I lie, then imply that because I ride a bike
off road I'm a "bad apple"...and you wonder why you attract the negative
responses that you post on yor webpage to bolster your "cause" and opinions.

Sheesh, when you become a real scientist, let me know, I might pay some
attention to you again.

Michael Halliwell

 

[Jules Augley]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 28 May 2006 21:40:42 GMT, "Jules Augley"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 27 May 2006 09:40:50 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 a suspicion as to why you [Vandeman] 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'.
>>>>>
>>>>> I swear to God that there is no asshole in the world like an English
>>>>> asshole.
>>>>
>>>>I agree with you on this point Dolan, I am not English though.
>>>
>>> He's Canadian -- i.e., someone who can't decide whether to be British,
>>> French, American, or Inuit. A sort of missing link. Not good enough to
>>> be an American, but too damaged for England or France to take them
>>> back -- kind of like an Australian (i.e., descended from criminals).
>>>
>>Once again, as in your appreciation of science, you are wrong. If you had
>>followed my link to the example of a credible scientific study, you would
>>have seen where I am from. As S Curtiss has said, this is bigotry.
>
> What kind of blinders are you wearing, that would cause you to miss
> the smiley???? Carefulness isn't your forte, I guess.

Adding a 'smiley' doesnt stop that being the comment of a bigot. Im guessing
by all those question marks that you realise this.