The Mike Vandeman "FAQ"



> .LOL, a whopping 40% of my PhD buddies are mountain bikers. Seems that,
yet
> .again, MV hasnt been doing his research properly.
>
> Take a look at this paper. It shows that when mountain bikers try to do
research
> with the express purpose of excusing mountain biking, they don't report
their
> own results honestly. There may be an honest mountain biker out there, but
I
> have yet to meet even ONE.

lol, whats this, diverting away from the point again - seems so :) You are a
crafty one MV, and see how everyone gets sucked into it too. As soon as the
retorts get tough, MV go's to find a new comment not even vaguely related to
get peoples backs up. Christ you must lead one dull life to actually enjoy
writing all this drivel. And if you are insunating that I'm not honest, I'll
give you the email addresses of each of my mates and let you ask them
yourself. But then you'd say I'd primed them to say that and that it's all
lies anyway - so no-one wins anyway.

J
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:53:17 +0000 (UTC), "Coyoteboy"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .> That just shows how little you know of the Ph.D. The Ph.D. is a
research
> .degree,
> .> and involves education in scientific method -- something foreign to
> .mountain
> .> bikers, but very apt.
> .
> .LOL, a whopping 40% of my PhD buddies are mountain bikers. Seems that,
yet
> .again, MV hasnt been doing his research properly.
>
> Take a look at this paper. It shows that when mountain bikers try to do
research
> with the express purpose of excusing mountain biking, they don't report
their
> own results honestly. There may be an honest mountain biker out there, but
I
> have yet to meet even ONE.
>
> Can you please share the following paper with all appropriate and
interested
> parties?
>
> The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
> A Review of the Literature
> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> July 3, 2004

Mike, you can't quote yourself when trying to support a highly opinionated
positon (note that I am NOT saying that the paper is opinionated, but the
your position "that when mountain bikers try to do research with the express
purpose of excusing mountain biking, they don't report their own results
honestly", is opinonated). That's just bad research. Personally, I agree
with you that someone defending themselves is likely to twist the facts.
It's called bias. Welcome to the non-objective world.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:08:13 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:53:17 +0000 (UTC), "Coyoteboy"
..<[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .> That just shows how little you know of the Ph.D. The Ph.D. is a
..research
..> .degree,
..> .> and involves education in scientific method -- something foreign to
..> .mountain
..> .> bikers, but very apt.
..> .
..> .LOL, a whopping 40% of my PhD buddies are mountain bikers. Seems that,
..yet
..> .again, MV hasnt been doing his research properly.
..>
..> Take a look at this paper. It shows that when mountain bikers try to do
..research
..> with the express purpose of excusing mountain biking, they don't report
..their
..> own results honestly. There may be an honest mountain biker out there, but
..I
..> have yet to meet even ONE.
..>
..> Can you please share the following paper with all appropriate and
..interested
..> parties?
..>
..> The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
..> A Review of the Literature
..> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
..> July 3, 2004
..
..Mike, you can't quote yourself when trying to support a highly opinionated
..positon (note that I am NOT saying that the paper is opinionated, but the
..your position "that when mountain bikers try to do research with the express
..purpose of excusing mountain biking, they don't report their own results
..honestly", is opinonated).

BS. it's PROVEN in my paper, which you are afraid to admit you can't read.

That's just bad research. Personally, I agree
..with you that someone defending themselves is likely to twist the facts.
..It's called bias. Welcome to the non-objective world.

That's not what science is supposed to do.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:08:13 GMT, "Scott Burley"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:53:17 +0000 (UTC), "Coyoteboy"
> .<[email protected]>
> .> wrote:
> .>
> .> .> That just shows how little you know of the Ph.D. The Ph.D. is a
> .research
> .> .degree,
> .> .> and involves education in scientific method -- something foreign to
> .> .mountain
> .> .> bikers, but very apt.
> .> .
> .> .LOL, a whopping 40% of my PhD buddies are mountain bikers. Seems that,
> .yet
> .> .again, MV hasnt been doing his research properly.
> .>
> .> Take a look at this paper. It shows that when mountain bikers try to do
> .research
> .> with the express purpose of excusing mountain biking, they don't report
> .their
> .> own results honestly. There may be an honest mountain biker out there,
but
> .I
> .> have yet to meet even ONE.
> .>
> .> Can you please share the following paper with all appropriate and
> .interested
> .> parties?
> .>
> .> The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
> .> A Review of the Literature
> .> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> .> July 3, 2004
> .
> .Mike, you can't quote yourself when trying to support a highly
opinionated
> .position (note that I am NOT saying that the paper is opinionated, but
the
> .your position "that when mountain bikers try to do research with the
express
> .purpose of excusing mountain biking, they don't report their own results
> .honestly", is opinionated).
>
> BS. it's PROVEN in my paper, which you are afraid to admit you can't read.

No, it's not. You called into question the methods of experimentation used
by the researchers and the conclusion they drew from their data, but not the
veracity of the data itself. You have not show that mountain bikers "don't
report their own results honestly", which implies that the researchers are
consciously lying. And please don't insinuate that I am illiterate, as it is
1) an irrelevant personal attack, and 2) obviously untrue.

> That's just bad research. Personally, I agree
> .with you that someone defending themselves is likely to twist the facts.
> .It's called bias. Welcome to the non-objective world.
>
> That's not what science is supposed to do.

Human beings are fundamentally illogical. Science is a tool, one that allows
us to use logic to develop working models of reality. It does not guarantee
that these models are accurate or complete. There is no such thing as
absolute scientific truth. Hence, objectivity does not exist.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
"Scott Burley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:D[email protected]...
> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:p[email protected]...
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:08:13 GMT, "Scott Burley"
> <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > .news:[email protected]...
> > .> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:53:17 +0000 (UTC), "Coyoteboy"
> > .<[email protected]>
> > .> wrote:
> > .>

<snip>

> Human beings are fundamentally illogical. Science is a tool, one that
allows
> us to use logic to develop working models of reality. It does not
guarantee
> that these models are accurate or complete. There is no such thing as
> absolute scientific truth. Hence, objectivity does not exist.
>

Very well put.
 
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 05:56:51 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:p[email protected]...
..> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:08:13 GMT, "Scott Burley"
..<[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:53:17 +0000 (UTC), "Coyoteboy"
..> .<[email protected]>
..> .> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .> That just shows how little you know of the Ph.D. The Ph.D. is a
..> .research
..> .> .degree,
..> .> .> and involves education in scientific method -- something foreign to
..> .> .mountain
..> .> .> bikers, but very apt.
..> .> .
..> .> .LOL, a whopping 40% of my PhD buddies are mountain bikers. Seems that,
..> .yet
..> .> .again, MV hasnt been doing his research properly.
..> .>
..> .> Take a look at this paper. It shows that when mountain bikers try to do
..> .research
..> .> with the express purpose of excusing mountain biking, they don't report
..> .their
..> .> own results honestly. There may be an honest mountain biker out there,
..but
..> .I
..> .> have yet to meet even ONE.
..> .>
..> .> Can you please share the following paper with all appropriate and
..> .interested
..> .> parties?
..> .>
..> .> The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
..> .> A Review of the Literature
..> .> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
..> .> July 3, 2004
..> .
..> .Mike, you can't quote yourself when trying to support a highly
..opinionated
..> .position (note that I am NOT saying that the paper is opinionated, but
..the
..> .your position "that when mountain bikers try to do research with the
..express
..> .purpose of excusing mountain biking, they don't report their own results
..> .honestly", is opinionated).
..>
..> BS. it's PROVEN in my paper, which you are afraid to admit you can't read.
..
..No, it's not. You called into question the methods of experimentation used
..by the researchers and the conclusion they drew from their data, but not the
..veracity of the data itself.

Not true. Wilson and Seney's data was bogus. Read my paper.

You have not show that mountain bikers "don't
..report their own results honestly", which implies that the researchers are
..consciously lying. And please don't insinuate that I am illiterate, as it is
..1) an irrelevant personal attack, and 2) obviously untrue.

Those mountain bikers who did those studies didn't report their results
properly.

..> That's just bad research. Personally, I agree
..> .with you that someone defending themselves is likely to twist the facts.
..> .It's called bias. Welcome to the non-objective world.
..>
..> That's not what science is supposed to do.
..
..Human beings are fundamentally illogical. Science is a tool, one that allows
..us to use logic to develop working models of reality. It does not guarantee
..that these models are accurate or complete. There is no such thing as
..absolute scientific truth. Hence, objectivity does not exist.

Yes, it does. Wisdom et al used purely mechanical measurements. No human was
present.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:10:58 -0700, "cc" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Scott Burley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:D[email protected]...
..> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> news:p[email protected]...
..> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:08:13 GMT, "Scott Burley"
..> <[email protected]>
..> > wrote:
..> >
..> > .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> > .news:[email protected]...
..> > .> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:53:17 +0000 (UTC), "Coyoteboy"
..> > .<[email protected]>
..> > .> wrote:
..> > .>
..
..<snip>
..
..> Human beings are fundamentally illogical. Science is a tool, one that
..allows
..> us to use logic to develop working models of reality. It does not
..guarantee
..> that these models are accurate or complete. There is no such thing as
..> absolute scientific truth. Hence, objectivity does not exist.
..>
..
..Very well put.

That's called "sour grapes". You are just upset that the research shows that
mountain bikng is more harmful than hiking.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:10:58 -0700, "cc" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Scott Burley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:D[email protected]...
> .> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> news:p[email protected]...
> .> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:08:13 GMT, "Scott Burley"
> .> <[email protected]>
> .> > wrote:
> .> >
> .> > .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> > .news:[email protected]...
> .> > .> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:53:17 +0000 (UTC), "Coyoteboy"
> .> > .<[email protected]>
> .> > .> wrote:
> .> > .>
> .
> .<snip>
> .
> .> Human beings are fundamentally illogical. Science is a tool, one that
> .allows
> .> us to use logic to develop working models of reality. It does not
> .guarantee
> .> that these models are accurate or complete. There is no such thing as
> .> absolute scientific truth. Hence, objectivity does not exist.
> .>
> .
> .Very well put.
>
> That's called "sour grapes". You are just upset that the research shows
that
> mountain bikng is more harmful than hiking.

Mike, you are so smart. Why do I even bother?

BTW - did you learn the meaning of the phrase "sour grapes" last week? You
seem especially fond of it. Here's a good one too:

Cognitive dissonance: a psychological phenomenon which refers to the
discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe,
and new information or interpretation.

cc
 
> .> Human beings are fundamentally illogical. Science is a tool, one that
> .allows
> .> us to use logic to develop working models of reality. It does not
> .guarantee
> .> that these models are accurate or complete. There is no such thing as
> .> absolute scientific truth. Hence, objectivity does not exist.
> .>
> .
> .Very well put.
>
> That's called "sour grapes". You are just upset that the research shows
that
> mountain bikng is more harmful than hiking.

Not sure if you're refering to me or cc, but I have no reason to be upset,
as I am not a mountain biker. If anything, I have a slight bias towards
hiking, though I understand you're none to fond of that either.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
> .> .Mike, you can't quote yourself when trying to support a highly
> .opinionated
> .> .position (note that I am NOT saying that the paper is opinionated, but
> .the
> .> .your position "that when mountain bikers try to do research with the
> .express
> .> .purpose of excusing mountain biking, they don't report their own
results
> .> .honestly", is opinionated).
> .>
> .> BS. it's PROVEN in my paper, which you are afraid to admit you can't
read.
> .
> .No, it's not. You called into question the methods of experimentation
used
> .by the researchers and the conclusion they drew from their data, but not
the
> .veracity of the data itself.
>
> Not true. Wilson and Seney's data was bogus. Read my paper.

I think we're quibbling over the definition of the word "honest". You claim
that the experiment was poorly designed and likely inaccurate, for which
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However, they still reported their
results honestly. The data was not falsified or deliberatly biased.

>
> You have not show that mountain bikers "don't
> .report their own results honestly", which implies that the researchers
are
> .consciously lying. And please don't insinuate that I am illiterate, as it
is
> .1) an irrelevant personal attack, and 2) obviously untrue.
>
> Those mountain bikers who did those studies didn't report their results
> properly.
>
> .> That's just bad research. Personally, I agree
> .> .with you that someone defending themselves is likely to twist the
facts.
> .> .It's called bias. Welcome to the non-objective world.
> .>
> .> That's not what science is supposed to do.
> .
> .Human beings are fundamentally illogical. Science is a tool, one that
allows
> .us to use logic to develop working models of reality. It does not
guarantee
> .that these models are accurate or complete. There is no such thing as
> .absolute scientific truth. Hence, objectivity does not exist.
>
> Yes, it does. Wisdom et al used purely mechanical measurements. No human
was
> present.

The test was still designed by humans. And, how can we know that some other,
unknown variable was not involved? For the most part, I'm not calling into
question this specific test as much science itself. You're bashing
scientific theory over people's heads, but you fail to examine the bigger
picture. So what if mountain biking causes damage? Everything causes damage!

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
Scott Burley wrote:
{MV, I assume:}
>> That's called "sour grapes". You are just upset that the research
>> shows that mountain bikng is more harmful than hiking.
>
> Not sure if you're refering to me or cc, but I have no reason to be
> upset, as I am not a mountain biker. If anything, I have a slight
> bias towards hiking, though I understand you're none to fond of that
> either.

Wrong. Mike gives lip service to advocating "pristine" wilderness, but
hikes in heavy lugged boots on a regular basis.

Bill "hell, he doesn't even ***** about HORSES shitting and leaving
post-holes all over trails" S.
 
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:50:08 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:

..Scott Burley wrote:
..{MV, I assume:}
..>> That's called "sour grapes". You are just upset that the research
..>> shows that mountain bikng is more harmful than hiking.
..>
..> Not sure if you're refering to me or cc, but I have no reason to be
..> upset, as I am not a mountain biker. If anything, I have a slight
..> bias towards hiking, though I understand you're none to fond of that
..> either.
..
..Wrong. Mike gives lip service to advocating "pristine" wilderness, but
..hikes in heavy lugged boots on a regular basis.

Anyone who has seen my web site (click on the mountain bike) knows that I hate
those I & have never used them.

..Bill "hell, he doesn't even ***** about HORSES shitting and leaving
..post-holes all over trails" S.

Horses are native. I do think they shouldn't be shod or used as vehicles,
however.

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:40:16 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..> .> .Mike, you can't quote yourself when trying to support a highly
..> .opinionated
..> .> .position (note that I am NOT saying that the paper is opinionated, but
..> .the
..> .> .your position "that when mountain bikers try to do research with the
..> .express
..> .> .purpose of excusing mountain biking, they don't report their own
..results
..> .> .honestly", is opinionated).
..> .>
..> .> BS. it's PROVEN in my paper, which you are afraid to admit you can't
..read.
..> .
..> .No, it's not. You called into question the methods of experimentation
..used
..> .by the researchers and the conclusion they drew from their data, but not
..the
..> .veracity of the data itself.
..>
..> Not true. Wilson and Seney's data was bogus. Read my paper.
..
..I think we're quibbling over the definition of the word "honest". You claim
..that the experiment was poorly designed and likely inaccurate, for which
..I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However, they still reported their
..results honestly. The data was not falsified or deliberatly biased.


Yes, it was. They concluded that bikers have less impact than hikers, even
though their data (properly interpreted) didn't show that.

..> You have not show that mountain bikers "don't
..> .report their own results honestly", which implies that the researchers
..are
..> .consciously lying. And please don't insinuate that I am illiterate, as it
..is
..> .1) an irrelevant personal attack, and 2) obviously untrue.
..>
..> Those mountain bikers who did those studies didn't report their results
..> properly.
..>
..> .> That's just bad research. Personally, I agree
..> .> .with you that someone defending themselves is likely to twist the
..facts.
..> .> .It's called bias. Welcome to the non-objective world.
..> .>
..> .> That's not what science is supposed to do.
..> .
..> .Human beings are fundamentally illogical. Science is a tool, one that
..allows
..> .us to use logic to develop working models of reality. It does not
..guarantee
..> .that these models are accurate or complete. There is no such thing as
..> .absolute scientific truth. Hence, objectivity does not exist.
..>
..> Yes, it does. Wisdom et al used purely mechanical measurements. No human
..was
..> present.
..
..The test was still designed by humans. And, how can we know that some other,
..unknown variable was not involved?

Like cosmic rays? Pretty unlikely. That's why it is such a good study: it
controlled for all those other variables. The only difference was type of
recreation.

For the most part, I'm not calling into
..question this specific test as much science itself. You're bashing
..scientific theory over people's heads, but you fail to examine the bigger
..picture. So what if mountain biking causes damage? Everything causes damage!

So we should ban all of those things that are frivolous and damaging.
===
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 think we're quibbling over the definition of the word "honest". You
claim
> .that the experiment was poorly designed and likely inaccurate, for which
> .I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However, they still reported
their
> .results honestly. The data was not falsified or deliberatly biased.
>
>
> Yes, it was. They concluded that bikers have less impact than hikers, even
> though their data (properly interpreted) didn't show that.

I'm going to stop trying to explain this and let you believe that you have
"won".

> .The test was still designed by humans. And, how can we know that some
other,
> .unknown variable was not involved?
>
> Like cosmic rays? Pretty unlikely. That's why it is such a good study: it
> controlled for all those other variables. The only difference was type of
> recreation.
>
> For the most part, I'm not calling into
> .question this specific test as much science itself. You're bashing
> .scientific theory over people's heads, but you fail to examine the bigger
> .picture. So what if mountain biking causes damage? Everything causes
damage!
>
> So we should ban all of those things that are frivolous and damaging.

Stop breathing Mike, you're filling up the atmosphere with dangerous carbon
dioxide. Think of the children! (Or if you're that far gone, think of the
juvenile animals!)

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:50:08 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Scott Burley wrote:
> .{MV, I assume:}
> .>> That's called "sour grapes". You are just upset that the research
> .>> shows that mountain bikng is more harmful than hiking.
> .>
> .> Not sure if you're refering to me or cc, but I have no reason to be
> .> upset, as I am not a mountain biker. If anything, I have a slight
> .> bias towards hiking, though I understand you're none to fond of that
> .> either.
> .
> .Wrong. Mike gives lip service to advocating "pristine" wilderness, but
> .hikes in heavy lugged boots on a regular basis.
>
> Anyone who has seen my web site (click on the mountain bike) knows that I hate
> those I & have never used them.
>
> .Bill "hell, he doesn't even ***** about HORSES shitting and leaving
> .post-holes all over trails" S.
>
> Horses are native. I do think they shouldn't be shod or used as vehicles,
> however.

Spanish explorers brought horses by ship in the sixteenth century
thus they are not "native." Your lack of basic knowledge is astounding.
 
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 04:30:59 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..> .I think we're quibbling over the definition of the word "honest". You
..claim
..> .that the experiment was poorly designed and likely inaccurate, for which
..> .I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However, they still reported
..their
..> .results honestly. The data was not falsified or deliberatly biased.
..>
..>
..> Yes, it was. They concluded that bikers have less impact than hikers, even
..> though their data (properly interpreted) didn't show that.
..
..I'm going to stop trying to explain this and let you believe that you have
.."won".

BS. You know you can't refute me, which is why you don't try.

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On 29 Aug 2004 04:42:33 -0700, [email protected] (R.White) wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:50:08 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .Scott Burley wrote:
..> .{MV, I assume:}
..> .>> That's called "sour grapes". You are just upset that the research
..> .>> shows that mountain bikng is more harmful than hiking.
..> .>
..> .> Not sure if you're refering to me or cc, but I have no reason to be
..> .> upset, as I am not a mountain biker. If anything, I have a slight
..> .> bias towards hiking, though I understand you're none to fond of that
..> .> either.
..> .
..> .Wrong. Mike gives lip service to advocating "pristine" wilderness, but
..> .hikes in heavy lugged boots on a regular basis.
..>
..> Anyone who has seen my web site (click on the mountain bike) knows that I hate
..> those I & have never used them.
..>
..> .Bill "hell, he doesn't even ***** about HORSES shitting and leaving
..> .post-holes all over trails" S.
..>
..> Horses are native. I do think they shouldn't be shod or used as vehicles,
..> however.
..
..Spanish explorers brought horses by ship in the sixteenth century
..thus they are not "native." Your lack of basic knowledge is astounding.

Horses evolved in North America. Thus horses are native to North America. Thanks
for demonstrating your ignorance of archaeology. And everything else. You need
to read this:

Flannery, Tim, The Eternal Frontier -- An Ecological History of North America
and Its Peoples. New York: Grove Press,2001.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 04:30:59 GMT, "Scott Burley"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .> .I think we're quibbling over the definition of the word "honest". You
> .claim
> .> .that the experiment was poorly designed and likely inaccurate, for
which
> .> .I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However, they still reported
> .their
> .> .results honestly. The data was not falsified or deliberatly biased.
> .>
> .>
> .> Yes, it was. They concluded that bikers have less impact than hikers,
even
> .> though their data (properly interpreted) didn't show that.
> .
> .I'm going to stop trying to explain this and let you believe that you
have
> ."won".
>
> BS. You know you can't refute me, which is why you don't try.

I don't want to refute you. W+S commited the sin of bad science. This is
indisputable. However, you seem to think that this makes them liars. I
don't. We are never going to agree on this, and it's all quite irrelevant,
so lets please stop arguing.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 29 Aug 2004 04:42:33 -0700, [email protected] (R.White) wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> .> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:50:08 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:
> .>
> .> .Scott Burley wrote:
> .> .{MV, I assume:}
> .> .>> That's called "sour grapes". You are just upset that the research
> .> .>> shows that mountain bikng is more harmful than hiking.
> .> .>
> .> .> Not sure if you're refering to me or cc, but I have no reason to be
> .> .> upset, as I am not a mountain biker. If anything, I have a slight
> .> .> bias towards hiking, though I understand you're none to fond of that
> .> .> either.
> .> .
> .> .Wrong. Mike gives lip service to advocating "pristine" wilderness, but
> .> .hikes in heavy lugged boots on a regular basis.
> .>
> .> Anyone who has seen my web site (click on the mountain bike) knows that I hate
> .> those I & have never used them.
> .>
> .> .Bill "hell, he doesn't even ***** about HORSES shitting and leaving
> .> .post-holes all over trails" S.
> .>
> .> Horses are native. I do think they shouldn't be shod or used as vehicles,
> .> however.
> .
> .Spanish explorers brought horses by ship in the sixteenth century
> .thus they are not "native." Your lack of basic knowledge is astounding.
>
> Horses evolved in North America. Thus horses are native to North America. Thanks
> for demonstrating your ignorance of archaeology. And everything else. You need
> to read this:
>

The horses that evolved in North America died off between 8,000 and
10,000 years ago.

Modern horses are descended of those imported by Spanish explorers and
others. They are not the native horses that once roamed and evolved here.
DUH!
 
On 29 Aug 2004 14:10:17 -0700, [email protected] (R.White) wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..> On 29 Aug 2004 04:42:33 -0700, [email protected] (R.White) wrote:
..>
..> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..> .> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:50:08 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .Scott Burley wrote:
..> .> .{MV, I assume:}
..> .> .>> That's called "sour grapes". You are just upset that the research
..> .> .>> shows that mountain bikng is more harmful than hiking.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Not sure if you're refering to me or cc, but I have no reason to be
..> .> .> upset, as I am not a mountain biker. If anything, I have a slight
..> .> .> bias towards hiking, though I understand you're none to fond of that
..> .> .> either.
..> .> .
..> .> .Wrong. Mike gives lip service to advocating "pristine" wilderness, but
..> .> .hikes in heavy lugged boots on a regular basis.
..> .>
..> .> Anyone who has seen my web site (click on the mountain bike) knows that I hate
..> .> those I & have never used them.
..> .>
..> .> .Bill "hell, he doesn't even ***** about HORSES shitting and leaving
..> .> .post-holes all over trails" S.
..> .>
..> .> Horses are native. I do think they shouldn't be shod or used as vehicles,
..> .> however.
..> .
..> .Spanish explorers brought horses by ship in the sixteenth century
..> .thus they are not "native." Your lack of basic knowledge is astounding.
..>
..> Horses evolved in North America. Thus horses are native to North America. Thanks
..> for demonstrating your ignorance of archaeology. And everything else. You need
..> to read this:
..>
..
..The horses that evolved in North America died off between 8,000 and
..10,000 years ago.

If that were true, we wouldn't have horses today! DUH!

..Modern horses are descended of those imported by Spanish explorers and
..others. They are not the native horses that once roamed and evolved here.
..DUH!

All animals die, but some of them pass on descendents. Those Spanish horses
wouldn't be there, unless they descended from the first horses that evolved on
the Earth! So horses ARE native to North America. DUH!
===
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back