Vandeman - Why we do it

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

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 08:50:54 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

AGAIN You failed to produce even ONE reliable scientific source, as I
requested.

Actually, I did. Your opinion of those sources is IRRELEVANT.

Quoted message said:

.Again you reference back to Your Site and Your Interpretation. Give us
one
.reliable scientist who has reviewed your efforts. If you are so correct,
why
.can I not find ANY other scientist or biologist that even mentions your
.work.

Because reviews are confidential, not public.

Convenient... It certainly seems to me if you had favorable reviews of your
presentations or opinions or "research", you make them as public as possible
to lend weight to those conclusions. A "confidential review" serves no
purpose - Especially for anyone else looking for information and seeking to
confirm credibility.
If your statement is correct, do us a favor and delete your website. Make
your own "reviews" confidential.

Quoted message said:

.I can not find any other mention of your speeches by anyone except on
your
.own site

That only demonstrates your own incompetence.

What would you suggest? Is searching "comments" "presentations" and "Michael
J. Vandeman" to limiting? Should I just search "waste of 15 minutes of my
life at a conference"?
By all means, give me a link or two to someone's comments about your
presentations independant of your own site. Give me links to scientists,
biologists or envionmentalists that have seen your presentations and
commented on them.

Quoted message said:

and the "call for papers" schedule at some of the conferences. It
.seems odd that no one else who ever attends these conferences makes any
.mention of you. It seems odd there is very little follow-up after one of
.these conferences. Where is the review of information? Where is the
summary
.of presentation? Where is anything that says what was accomplished, what
was
.learned, what happens now?

Obviously, you have never been to a conference.

Irrelevant. But partially correct. I have not attended conferences of the
type you frequent. But as someone interested and can not travel extensively,
it would be of benefit to me to be able to see or read some type of report
on the information gathered, the opinions of those who did attend, any
conclusions drawn from the pool of presentations and any public release of
information and conclusions. Do you all just gather, speak, pat yourselves
on the back and go home? I see follow-up releases of this kind all the time
from area colleges and organizations.

Quoted message said:

I find it hard to grasp that these conferences
.are put together and there is no published report or review of the
.information put forth.

Sometimes there are, sometimes not.

Then where are they? I've searched several conference sites (those that are
still up...) of those listed on your site and can not find a comprehensive
report of information gathered.

Quoted message said:

Does no one take pictures at these things? I find
.very few. And I can not find any mention of you, a picture of you
speaking,
.a comment by someone about your presentations... nothing.
.So why would I accept your word as final? Why would I return to your own
.website for proof of anything? YOU say you debunked them? So what?

It's a fact -- something you know nothing about. You wouldn't know a fact
if it
hit you in the face.

opinion... and possible threat of violence....

Quoted message said:

.<below reposted>
.You will find MV's "research" has been carefully selected and worded to
.express his personal viewpoint. You will fins he has "spoken" at several
.conferences and symposiums. Of that, you will find these conferences did
not
.invite him as a keynote speaker, but rather he invited himself as anyone
can
.do by answering a "call for papers" witch results in 15 or 20 minutes to
.make your presentation. You will also find, if you do any research on MV
.himself, there is no real mention of him or his "research" outside of
.reference listing websites, which he also sent his own information out to
be
.listed. No other researcher mentions him... no other scientist or
.biologist, no other attendee at these conferences makes mention of him.
.Do a Google search of Usenet on MV... you will find years of data of
which
.he has talked himself into a corner and exited by calling everyone
"liars"
.and "idiots".
.Spend a rainy afternoon if you want a good laugh.
.But don't take my word for it.... or his. Just read it all for
yourself.
.Then go have a nice ride in the woods with a clear frame of mind.

... something mountain bikers are completely lacking: a mind.

Opinion. Character assassination. Slander.
....and absolutely no attempt to address the comments stated.

Quoted message said:

.> .> .> 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

OFF ROAD CYCLING IS FOR CHILDREN. YOU NEED TO GROW UP, QUIT SUCKING MOMMA'S
TEAT AND BECOME MEN.

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:1jv7f.6487$vS1.3063@dukeread03...

Quoted message said:

MV.> You guys still haven't been able to answer my original question!:

"Why

Quoted message said:

is the supply of Idiot Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???"

Quoted message said:

.> .

Because your slander on the effects of offroad cycling is endless - DUH!

Quoted message said:

.>

MV.> And just how does that turn mountain bikers into idiots, as you

suggest

Quoted message said:

it does?

Quoted message said:

More likely, they were from the beginning.

And just how does your response support your slander...? Likely, your
slander was there from the beginning ...
You may actually be partially correct... Your continuous slander draws

us

Quoted message said:

into a conversation with an idiot.

Quoted message said:

MV.> Mountain bikers have no will power whatsoever.

Yeah.... It should be easy to ignore the ramblings of a simpleton. It

should

Quoted message said:

be easy to ignore a self-proclaimed "expert" who hides behind selected

bits

Quoted message said:

and pieces of information. It should be easy to step away from a

discussion

Quoted message said:

which ultimately has no intellectual conclusion because the "expert" can
only defend his claims by resorting to name-calling and character
assassination.
But you make it so damn easy to have fun picking your silly assertions
apart... It is so much fun to watch you fall apart and start throwing the
names around. It is a game for the rest of us to see which one can get you
to say "yawn", "did you say something?" or throw a name at us. You are a
text driven video game.
Why do we play the game? So anyone else looking for real information will
know you are not the source of it.

SC

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:09:59 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 08:50:54 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:
..>
..>
..> AGAIN You failed to produce even ONE reliable scientific source, as I
..> requested.
..Actually, I did. Your opinion of those sources is IRRELEVANT.
..>
..> .Again you reference back to Your Site and Your Interpretation. Give us
..> one
..> .reliable scientist who has reviewed your efforts. If you are so correct,
..> why
..> .can I not find ANY other scientist or biologist that even mentions your
..> .work.
..>
..> Because reviews are confidential, not public.
..Convenient... It certainly seems to me if you had favorable reviews of your
..presentations or opinions or "research", you make them as public as possible
..to lend weight to those conclusions.

My paper speaks for itself. It would be a breach of confidentiality to reveal a
confidential review, which is anonymous, anyway, and not in electronic form.
DUH!

A "confidential review" serves no
..purpose - Especially for anyone else looking for information and seeking to
..confirm credibility.
..If your statement is correct, do us a favor and delete your website. Make
..your own "reviews" confidential.

It's obvious that mountain bikers want to censor any criticism of their selfish,
destructive sport.

..> .I can not find any other mention of your speeches by anyone except on
..> your
..> .own site
..>
..> That only demonstrates your own incompetence.
..What would you suggest? Is searching "comments" "presentations" and "Michael
..J. Vandeman" to limiting? Should I just search "waste of 15 minutes of my
..life at a conference"?
..By all means, give me a link or two to someone's comments about your
..presentations independant of your own site. Give me links to scientists,
..biologists or envionmentalists that have seen your presentations and
..commented on them.

Do your own homework.

..> and the "call for papers" schedule at some of the conferences. It
..> .seems odd that no one else who ever attends these conferences makes any
..> .mention of you. It seems odd there is very little follow-up after one of
..> .these conferences. Where is the review of information? Where is the
..> summary
..> .of presentation? Where is anything that says what was accomplished, what
..> was
..> .learned, what happens now?
..>
..> Obviously, you have never been to a conference.
..Irrelevant. But partially correct. I have not attended conferences of the
..type you frequent. But as someone interested and can not travel extensively,
..it would be of benefit to me to be able to see or read some type of report
..on the information gathered, the opinions of those who did attend, any
..conclusions drawn from the pool of presentations and any public release of
..information and conclusions. Do you all just gather, speak, pat yourselves
..on the back and go home? I see follow-up releases of this kind all the time
..from area colleges and organizations.

Sometimes (rarely) papers are published. That's it. The papers wouldn't be
allowed, if they weren't substantially correct.

..> I find it hard to grasp that these conferences
..> .are put together and there is no published report or review of the
..> .information put forth.
..>
..> Sometimes there are, sometimes not.
..Then where are they? I've searched several conference sites (those that are
..still up...) of those listed on your site and can not find a comprehensive
..report of information gathered.

Who cares? You can verify my accuracy by reading the papers I reviewed. You are
too lazy to do that. TOUGH.

..> Does no one take pictures at these things? I find
..> .very few. And I can not find any mention of you, a picture of you
..> speaking,
..> .a comment by someone about your presentations... nothing.
..> .So why would I accept your word as final? Why would I return to your own
..> .website for proof of anything? YOU say you debunked them? So what?
..>
..> It's a fact -- something you know nothing about. You wouldn't know a fact
..> if it
..> hit you in the face.
..opinion... and possible threat of violence....
..>
..> .<below reposted>
..> .You will find MV's "research" has been carefully selected and worded to
..> .express his personal viewpoint. You will fins he has "spoken" at several
..> .conferences and symposiums. Of that, you will find these conferences did
..> not
..> .invite him as a keynote speaker, but rather he invited himself as anyone
..> can
..> .do by answering a "call for papers" witch results in 15 or 20 minutes to
..> .make your presentation. You will also find, if you do any research on MV
..> .himself, there is no real mention of him or his "research" outside of
..> .reference listing websites, which he also sent his own information out to
..> be
..> .listed. No other researcher mentions him... no other scientist or
..> .biologist, no other attendee at these conferences makes mention of him.
..> .Do a Google search of Usenet on MV... you will find years of data of
..> which
..> .he has talked himself into a corner and exited by calling everyone
..> "liars"
..> .and "idiots".
..> .Spend a rainy afternoon if you want a good laugh.
..> .But don't take my word for it.... or his. Just read it all for
..> yourself.
..> .Then go have a nice ride in the woods with a clear frame of mind.
..>
..> ... something mountain bikers are completely lacking: a mind.
..Opinion. Character assassination. Slander.
.....and absolutely no attempt to address the comments stated.

But very relevant.

..> .> .> .> 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
..

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:35:35 -0800, "Carl Dithers" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

..OFF ROAD CYCLING IS FOR CHILDREN. YOU NEED TO GROW UP, QUIT SUCKING MOMMA'S
..TEAT AND BECOME MEN.

Good point. Their motto is "instant gratification!".

.."S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:1jv7f.6487$vS1.3063@dukeread03...
..> MV.> You guys still haven't been able to answer my original question!:
.."Why
..> is the supply of Idiot Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???"
..> > .> .
..> Because your slander on the effects of offroad cycling is endless - DUH!
..> > .>
..> MV.> And just how does that turn mountain bikers into idiots, as you
..suggest
..> it does?
..> > More likely, they were from the beginning.
..> And just how does your response support your slander...? Likely, your
..> slander was there from the beginning ...
..> You may actually be partially correct... Your continuous slander draws
..us
..> into a conversation with an idiot.
..> >
..> MV.> Mountain bikers have no will power whatsoever.
..>
..> Yeah.... It should be easy to ignore the ramblings of a simpleton. It
..should
..> be easy to ignore a self-proclaimed "expert" who hides behind selected
..bits
..> and pieces of information. It should be easy to step away from a
..discussion
..> which ultimately has no intellectual conclusion because the "expert" can
..> only defend his claims by resorting to name-calling and character
..> assassination.
..> But you make it so damn easy to have fun picking your silly assertions
..> apart... It is so much fun to watch you fall apart and start throwing the
..> names around. It is a game for the rest of us to see which one can get you
..> to say "yawn", "did you say something?" or throw a name at us. You are a
..> text driven video game.
..> Why do we play the game? So anyone else looking for real information will
..> know you are not the source of it.
..>
..> SC
..>
..>
..>
..

===
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

Just zis Guy said:

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 03:40:44 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It's the people who care about nature and wildlife who complain about
environmental rapists.

That is a subjective term and in any case applies to all people who
engage in recreation in wilderness areas (specifically: you, a
self-confessed hiker and proven pointless thin-skinned paranoid
trolling evasive lazy lying hypocritical habitat-destroying
crapflooding bigot).

Guy

Thats what i was thinking. 😄

Blake Roadking wrote:

Finally he uses his real name!

LOL

<Good point. Their motto is "instant gratification!".

They'd probably rather have a bike in bed with them than a woman.

Quoted message said:

."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.news:[email hidden]...
.> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 08:50:54 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
.>
.>
.> AGAIN You failed to produce even ONE reliable scientific source, as I
.> requested.
.Actually, I did. Your opinion of those sources is IRRELEVANT.
.>
.> .Again you reference back to Your Site and Your Interpretation. Give us
.> one
.> .reliable scientist who has reviewed your efforts. If you are so
correct,
.> why
.> .can I not find ANY other scientist or biologist that even mentions
your
.> .work.
.>
.> Because reviews are confidential, not public.
.Convenient... It certainly seems to me if you had favorable reviews of
your
.presentations or opinions or "research", you make them as public as
possible
.to lend weight to those conclusions.

My paper speaks for itself. It would be a breach of confidentiality to
reveal a
confidential review, which is anonymous, anyway, and not in electronic
form.
DUH!

Really? Are we supposed to just take your word for it? Why? Because you say
so?
Reviews are confidential...? How convenient! ....and MEANINGLESS!

Quoted message said:

A "confidential review" serves no
.purpose - Especially for anyone else looking for information and seeking
to
.confirm credibility.
.If your statement is correct, do us a favor and delete your website. Make
.your own "reviews" confidential.

It's obvious that mountain bikers want to censor any criticism of their
selfish,
destructive sport.

It's obvious people who claim science then have it blown apart by reality
view criticism and questions as the enemy.

Quoted message said:

.> .I can not find any other mention of your speeches by anyone except on
.> your
.> .own site
.>
.> That only demonstrates your own incompetence.
.What would you suggest? Is searching "comments" "presentations" and
"Michael
.J. Vandeman" to limiting? Should I just search "waste of 15 minutes of my
.life at a conference"?
.By all means, give me a link or two to someone's comments about your
.presentations independant of your own site. Give me links to scientists,
.biologists or envionmentalists that have seen your presentations and
.commented on them.

Do your own homework.

It is hard to do "homework" when there is nothing.

Quoted message said:

.> and the "call for papers" schedule at some of the conferences. It
.> .seems odd that no one else who ever attends these conferences makes
any
.> .mention of you. It seems odd there is very little follow-up after one
of
.> .these conferences. Where is the review of information? Where is the
.> summary
.> .of presentation? Where is anything that says what was accomplished,
what
.> was
.> .learned, what happens now?
.>
.> Obviously, you have never been to a conference.
.Irrelevant. But partially correct. I have not attended conferences of the
.type you frequent. But as someone interested and can not travel
extensively,
.it would be of benefit to me to be able to see or read some type of
report
.on the information gathered, the opinions of those who did attend, any
.conclusions drawn from the pool of presentations and any public release
of
.information and conclusions. Do you all just gather, speak, pat
yourselves
.on the back and go home? I see follow-up releases of this kind all the
time
.from area colleges and organizations.

Sometimes (rarely) papers are published. That's it. The papers wouldn't be
allowed, if they weren't substantially correct.

I've never seen these "rules". The "call for papers" just gives guidelines
as to the topic of the conference. It would be up to the audience to take
the presentation and question, review or believe it.

Quoted message said:

.> I find it hard to grasp that these conferences
.> .are put together and there is no published report or review of the
.> .information put forth.
.>
.> Sometimes there are, sometimes not.
.Then where are they? I've searched several conference sites (those that
are
.still up...) of those listed on your site and can not find a
comprehensive
.report of information gathered.

Who cares? You can verify my accuracy by reading the papers I reviewed.
You are
too lazy to do that. TOUGH.

What do you think we are doing? We are looking at the papers and we are
questioning your conclusions? It is you who are too lazy to defend your
conclusions.

Quoted message said:

.> Does no one take pictures at these things? I find
.> .very few. And I can not find any mention of you, a picture of you
.> speaking,
.> .a comment by someone about your presentations... nothing.
.> .So why would I accept your word as final? Why would I return to your
own
.> .website for proof of anything? YOU say you debunked them? So what?
.>
.> It's a fact -- something you know nothing about. You wouldn't know a
fact
.> if it
.> hit you in the face.
.opinion... and possible threat of violence....
.>
.> .<below reposted>
.> .You will find MV's "research" has been carefully selected and worded
to
.> .express his personal viewpoint. You will fins he has "spoken" at
several
.> .conferences and symposiums. Of that, you will find these conferences
did
.> not
.> .invite him as a keynote speaker, but rather he invited himself as
anyone
.> can
.> .do by answering a "call for papers" witch results in 15 or 20 minutes
to
.> .make your presentation. You will also find, if you do any research on
MV
.> .himself, there is no real mention of him or his "research" outside of
.> .reference listing websites, which he also sent his own information out
to
.> be
.> .listed. No other researcher mentions him... no other scientist or
.> .biologist, no other attendee at these conferences makes mention of
him.
.> .Do a Google search of Usenet on MV... you will find years of data of
.> which
.> .he has talked himself into a corner and exited by calling everyone
.> "liars"
.> .and "idiots".
.> .Spend a rainy afternoon if you want a good laugh.
.> .But don't take my word for it.... or his. Just read it all for
.> yourself.
.> .Then go have a nice ride in the woods with a clear frame of mind.
.>
.> ... something mountain bikers are completely lacking: a mind.
.Opinion. Character assassination. Slander.
....and absolutely no attempt to address the comments stated.

But very relevant.

Again... nothing.

Quoted message said:

.> .> .> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
.> .> .> .

"Carl Dithers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

OFF ROAD CYCLING IS FOR CHILDREN. YOU NEED TO GROW UP, QUIT SUCKING
MOMMA'S
TEAT AND BECOME MEN.

What an adult and manly comment.
What would you propose....? That I get a Campy equipped Colnago and hit the
road...?
Because I do that already. Either on my Colnago, my Merckx, my Pinarello, or
my Paramount.
I also hit the trail with either a front or full suspended mountain bike.
It seems to me to be more MANLY to indulge in a variety of activities rather
than set my identity on being an elitist roadie....

btw... isn't SHOUTING a little childish?

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

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:35:35 -0800, "Carl Dithers" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

.OFF ROAD CYCLING IS FOR CHILDREN. YOU NEED TO GROW UP, QUIT SUCKING
MOMMA'S
.TEAT AND BECOME MEN.

Good point. Their motto is "instant gratification!".

Nothing "instant" about improving endurance, strength or technique. It takes
practice, time and effort.
It is something MEN do. You would not understand.

"Blake Roadking" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<Good point. Their motto is "instant gratification!".

They'd probably rather have a bike in bed with them than a woman.

Funny. But this is funnier:
http://www.lotsofjokes.com/cat_201.htm

btw, Roadking.... what's in your bed?

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:47:40 -0800, "Blake Roadking" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

..<Good point. Their motto is "instant gratification!".
..
..They'd probably rather have a bike in bed with them than a woman.

Which may be one reason that we hikers are often taking care of their spouses,
while they are out raping the countryside. Maybe I shouldn't be opposing
mountain biking after all. 🙂
===
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 said:

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:47:40 -0800, "Blake Roadking"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

.<Good point. Their motto is "instant gratification!".
.
.They'd probably rather have a bike in bed with them than a woman.

Which may be one reason that we hikers are often taking care of their
spouses, while they are out raping the countryside. Maybe I shouldn't
be opposing mountain biking after all. 🙂

It's not often you get two Usenet Kooks of the Month together -- although
this one's a candidate for that sick "Man-Boy Love Association"!
{sideshowbobshudder.wav}

Suddenly Mikey refers to "we hikers" -- but when talking about trail
destruction, he acts like he's as light as friggin' Peter Pan! (Which, come
to think of it... JUST IN THE SHORTS, DO{R}C!)

Bill "Halloween mischief" S.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:36:55 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:35:35 -0800, "Carl Dithers" <[email hidden]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .OFF ROAD CYCLING IS FOR CHILDREN. YOU NEED TO GROW UP, QUIT SUCKING
..> MOMMA'S
..> .TEAT AND BECOME MEN.
..>
..> Good point. Their motto is "instant gratification!".
..>
..Nothing "instant" about improving endurance, strength or technique. It takes
..practice, time and effort.

Fine. Then do it on paved roads, and spare our scanty remaining wildlife your
selfish, destructive, sick sport.

..It is something MEN do. You would not understand.

Right. LIE. Break the law. Intimidate all other trail users, so that they can no
longer safely and enjoyably use the trails. Squash small animals and plants on
the trail. Swear at anyone who gets in your way. Right. Real men! Role models
for our children! You guys are sick.
===
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, 31 Oct 2005 18:36:55 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:35:35 -0800, "Carl Dithers" <[email hidden]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .OFF ROAD CYCLING IS FOR CHILDREN. YOU NEED TO GROW UP, QUIT SUCKING
..> MOMMA'S
..> .TEAT AND BECOME MEN.
..>
..> Good point. Their motto is "instant gratification!".
..>
..Nothing "instant" about improving endurance, strength or technique. It takes
..practice, time and effort.

Fine. Then do it on paved roads, and spare our scanty remaining wildlife your
selfish, destructive, sick sport.

..It is something MEN do. You would not understand.

Right. LIE. Break the law. Intimidate all other trail users, so that they can no
longer safely and enjoyably use the trails. Squash small animals and plants on
the trail. Swear at anyone who gets in your way. Right. Real men! Role models
for our children! You guys are sick.
===
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, 31 Oct 2005 18:36:55 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:35:35 -0800, "Carl Dithers" <[email hidden]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .OFF ROAD CYCLING IS FOR CHILDREN. YOU NEED TO GROW UP, QUIT SUCKING
..> MOMMA'S
..> .TEAT AND BECOME MEN.
..>
..> Good point. Their motto is "instant gratification!".
..>
..Nothing "instant" about improving endurance, strength or technique. It takes
..practice, time and effort.

Fine. Then do it on paved roads, and spare our scanty remaining wildlife your
selfish, destructive, sick sport.

..It is something MEN do. You would not understand.

Right. LIE. Break the law. Intimidate all other trail users, so that they can no
longer safely and enjoyably use the trails. Squash small animals and plants on
the trail. Swear at anyone who gets in your way. Right. Real men! Role models
for our children! You guys are sick.
===
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, 31 Oct 2005 14:13:21 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email hidden]...
..> .> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 08:50:54 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>
..> wrote:
..> .>
..> .>
..> .> AGAIN You failed to produce even ONE reliable scientific source, as I
..> .> requested.
..> .Actually, I did. Your opinion of those sources is IRRELEVANT.
..> .>
..> .> .Again you reference back to Your Site and Your Interpretation. Give us
..> .> one
..> .> .reliable scientist who has reviewed your efforts. If you are so
..> correct,
..> .> why
..> .> .can I not find ANY other scientist or biologist that even mentions
..> your
..> .> .work.
..> .>
..> .> Because reviews are confidential, not public.
..> .Convenient... It certainly seems to me if you had favorable reviews of
..> your
..> .presentations or opinions or "research", you make them as public as
..> possible
..> .to lend weight to those conclusions.
..>
..> My paper speaks for itself. It would be a breach of confidentiality to
..> reveal a
..> confidential review, which is anonymous, anyway, and not in electronic
..> form.
..> DUH!
..Really? Are we supposed to just take your word for it? Why? Because you say
..so?
..Reviews are confidential...? How convenient! ....and MEANINGLESS!

Why do you need someone else to think for you? Can't do your own evaluation,
like I did? What? You might have to READ?! I know, that's a tough requirement.

..> A "confidential review" serves no
..> .purpose - Especially for anyone else looking for information and seeking
..> to
..> .confirm credibility.
..> .If your statement is correct, do us a favor and delete your website. Make
..> .your own "reviews" confidential.
..>
..> It's obvious that mountain bikers want to censor any criticism of their
..> selfish,
..> destructive sport.
..It's obvious people who claim science then have it blown apart by reality
..view criticism and questions as the enemy.

I have yet to see anything "blown apart" by a mountain biker, except animals on
the trail.

..> .> .I can not find any other mention of your speeches by anyone except on
..> .> your
..> .> .own site
..> .>
..> .> That only demonstrates your own incompetence.
..> .What would you suggest? Is searching "comments" "presentations" and
..> "Michael
..> .J. Vandeman" to limiting? Should I just search "waste of 15 minutes of my
..> .life at a conference"?
..> .By all means, give me a link or two to someone's comments about your
..> .presentations independant of your own site. Give me links to scientists,
..> .biologists or envionmentalists that have seen your presentations and
..> .commented on them.
..>
..> Do your own homework.
..It is hard to do "homework" when there is nothing.

Read the papers I reference. They aren't "nothing". I know reading scares the
pants off of you.

..> .> and the "call for papers" schedule at some of the conferences. It
..> .> .seems odd that no one else who ever attends these conferences makes
..> any
..> .> .mention of you. It seems odd there is very little follow-up after one
..> of
..> .> .these conferences. Where is the review of information? Where is the
..> .> summary
..> .> .of presentation? Where is anything that says what was accomplished,
..> what
..> .> was
..> .> .learned, what happens now?
..> .>
..> .> Obviously, you have never been to a conference.
..> .Irrelevant. But partially correct. I have not attended conferences of the
..> .type you frequent. But as someone interested and can not travel
..> extensively,
..> .it would be of benefit to me to be able to see or read some type of
..> report
..> .on the information gathered, the opinions of those who did attend, any
..> .conclusions drawn from the pool of presentations and any public release
..> of
..> .information and conclusions. Do you all just gather, speak, pat
..> yourselves
..> .on the back and go home? I see follow-up releases of this kind all the
..> time
..> .from area colleges and organizations.
..>
..> Sometimes (rarely) papers are published. That's it. The papers wouldn't be
..> allowed, if they weren't substantially correct.
..I've never seen these "rules". The "call for papers" just gives guidelines
..as to the topic of the conference. It would be up to the audience to take
..the presentation and question, review or believe it.

BS. You have to be invited, or you aren't allowed in the program.

..> .> I find it hard to grasp that these conferences
..> .> .are put together and there is no published report or review of the
..> .> .information put forth.
..> .>
..> .> Sometimes there are, sometimes not.
..> .Then where are they? I've searched several conference sites (those that
..> are
..> .still up...) of those listed on your site and can not find a
..> comprehensive
..> .report of information gathered.
..>
..> Who cares? You can verify my accuracy by reading the papers I reviewed.
..> You are
..> too lazy to do that. TOUGH.
..What do you think we are doing? We are looking at the papers and we are
..questioning your conclusions? It is you who are too lazy to defend your
..conclusions.

You obviously haven't read the papers I reviewed, or you would have more
specific objections, instead of vague ones.

..> .> Does no one take pictures at these things? I find
..> .> .very few. And I can not find any mention of you, a picture of you
..> .> speaking,
..> .> .a comment by someone about your presentations... nothing.
..> .> .So why would I accept your word as final? Why would I return to your
..> own
..> .> .website for proof of anything? YOU say you debunked them? So what?
..> .>
..> .> It's a fact -- something you know nothing about. You wouldn't know a
..> fact
..> .> if it
..> .> hit you in the face.
..> .opinion... and possible threat of violence....
..> .>
..> .> .<below reposted>
..> .> .You will find MV's "research" has been carefully selected and worded
..> to
..> .> .express his personal viewpoint. You will fins he has "spoken" at
..> several
..> .> .conferences and symposiums. Of that, you will find these conferences
..> did
..> .> not
..> .> .invite him as a keynote speaker, but rather he invited himself as
..> anyone
..> .> can
..> .> .do by answering a "call for papers" witch results in 15 or 20 minutes
..> to
..> .> .make your presentation. You will also find, if you do any research on
..> MV
..> .> .himself, there is no real mention of him or his "research" outside of
..> .> .reference listing websites, which he also sent his own information out
..> to
..> .> be
..> .> .listed. No other researcher mentions him... no other scientist or
..> .> .biologist, no other attendee at these conferences makes mention of
..> him.
..> .> .Do a Google search of Usenet on MV... you will find years of data of
..> .> which
..> .> .he has talked himself into a corner and exited by calling everyone
..> .> "liars"
..> .> .and "idiots".
..> .> .Spend a rainy afternoon if you want a good laugh.
..> .> .But don't take my word for it.... or his. Just read it all for
..> .> yourself.
..> .> .Then go have a nice ride in the woods with a clear frame of mind.
..> .>
..> .> ... something mountain bikers are completely lacking: a mind.
..> .Opinion. Character assassination. Slander.
..> ....and absolutely no attempt to address the comments stated.
..>
..> But very relevant.
..Again... nothing.
..>
..> .> .> .> .> 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

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:13:21 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email hidden]...
..> .> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 08:50:54 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>
..> wrote:
..> .>
..> .>
..> .> AGAIN You failed to produce even ONE reliable scientific source, as I
..> .> requested.
..> .Actually, I did. Your opinion of those sources is IRRELEVANT.
..> .>
..> .> .Again you reference back to Your Site and Your Interpretation. Give us
..> .> one
..> .> .reliable scientist who has reviewed your efforts. If you are so
..> correct,
..> .> why
..> .> .can I not find ANY other scientist or biologist that even mentions
..> your
..> .> .work.
..> .>
..> .> Because reviews are confidential, not public.
..> .Convenient... It certainly seems to me if you had favorable reviews of
..> your
..> .presentations or opinions or "research", you make them as public as
..> possible
..> .to lend weight to those conclusions.
..>
..> My paper speaks for itself. It would be a breach of confidentiality to
..> reveal a
..> confidential review, which is anonymous, anyway, and not in electronic
..> form.
..> DUH!
..Really? Are we supposed to just take your word for it? Why? Because you say
..so?
..Reviews are confidential...? How convenient! ....and MEANINGLESS!

Why do you need someone else to think for you? Can't do your own evaluation,
like I did? What? You might have to READ?! I know, that's a tough requirement.

..> A "confidential review" serves no
..> .purpose - Especially for anyone else looking for information and seeking
..> to
..> .confirm credibility.
..> .If your statement is correct, do us a favor and delete your website. Make
..> .your own "reviews" confidential.
..>
..> It's obvious that mountain bikers want to censor any criticism of their
..> selfish,
..> destructive sport.
..It's obvious people who claim science then have it blown apart by reality
..view criticism and questions as the enemy.

I have yet to see anything "blown apart" by a mountain biker, except animals on
the trail.

..> .> .I can not find any other mention of your speeches by anyone except on
..> .> your
..> .> .own site
..> .>
..> .> That only demonstrates your own incompetence.
..> .What would you suggest? Is searching "comments" "presentations" and
..> "Michael
..> .J. Vandeman" to limiting? Should I just search "waste of 15 minutes of my
..> .life at a conference"?
..> .By all means, give me a link or two to someone's comments about your
..> .presentations independant of your own site. Give me links to scientists,
..> .biologists or envionmentalists that have seen your presentations and
..> .commented on them.
..>
..> Do your own homework.
..It is hard to do "homework" when there is nothing.

Read the papers I reference. They aren't "nothing". I know reading scares the
pants off of you.

..> .> and the "call for papers" schedule at some of the conferences. It
..> .> .seems odd that no one else who ever attends these conferences makes
..> any
..> .> .mention of you. It seems odd there is very little follow-up after one
..> of
..> .> .these conferences. Where is the review of information? Where is the
..> .> summary
..> .> .of presentation? Where is anything that says what was accomplished,
..> what
..> .> was
..> .> .learned, what happens now?
..> .>
..> .> Obviously, you have never been to a conference.
..> .Irrelevant. But partially correct. I have not attended conferences of the
..> .type you frequent. But as someone interested and can not travel
..> extensively,
..> .it would be of benefit to me to be able to see or read some type of
..> report
..> .on the information gathered, the opinions of those who did attend, any
..> .conclusions drawn from the pool of presentations and any public release
..> of
..> .information and conclusions. Do you all just gather, speak, pat
..> yourselves
..> .on the back and go home? I see follow-up releases of this kind all the
..> time
..> .from area colleges and organizations.
..>
..> Sometimes (rarely) papers are published. That's it. The papers wouldn't be
..> allowed, if they weren't substantially correct.
..I've never seen these "rules". The "call for papers" just gives guidelines
..as to the topic of the conference. It would be up to the audience to take
..the presentation and question, review or believe it.

BS. You have to be invited, or you aren't allowed in the program.

..> .> I find it hard to grasp that these conferences
..> .> .are put together and there is no published report or review of the
..> .> .information put forth.
..> .>
..> .> Sometimes there are, sometimes not.
..> .Then where are they? I've searched several conference sites (those that
..> are
..> .still up...) of those listed on your site and can not find a
..> comprehensive
..> .report of information gathered.
..>
..> Who cares? You can verify my accuracy by reading the papers I reviewed.
..> You are
..> too lazy to do that. TOUGH.
..What do you think we are doing? We are looking at the papers and we are
..questioning your conclusions? It is you who are too lazy to defend your
..conclusions.

You obviously haven't read the papers I reviewed, or you would have more
specific objections, instead of vague ones.

..> .> Does no one take pictures at these things? I find
..> .> .very few. And I can not find any mention of you, a picture of you
..> .> speaking,
..> .> .a comment by someone about your presentations... nothing.
..> .> .So why would I accept your word as final? Why would I return to your
..> own
..> .> .website for proof of anything? YOU say you debunked them? So what?
..> .>
..> .> It's a fact -- something you know nothing about. You wouldn't know a
..> fact
..> .> if it
..> .> hit you in the face.
..> .opinion... and possible threat of violence....
..> .>
..> .> .<below reposted>
..> .> .You will find MV's "research" has been carefully selected and worded
..> to
..> .> .express his personal viewpoint. You will fins he has "spoken" at
..> several
..> .> .conferences and symposiums. Of that, you will find these conferences
..> did
..> .> not
..> .> .invite him as a keynote speaker, but rather he invited himself as
..> anyone
..> .> can
..> .> .do by answering a "call for papers" witch results in 15 or 20 minutes
..> to
..> .> .make your presentation. You will also find, if you do any research on
..> MV
..> .> .himself, there is no real mention of him or his "research" outside of
..> .> .reference listing websites, which he also sent his own information out
..> to
..> .> be
..> .> .listed. No other researcher mentions him... no other scientist or
..> .> .biologist, no other attendee at these conferences makes mention of
..> him.
..> .> .Do a Google search of Usenet on MV... you will find years of data of
..> .> which
..> .> .he has talked himself into a corner and exited by calling everyone
..> .> "liars"
..> .> .and "idiots".
..> .> .Spend a rainy afternoon if you want a good laugh.
..> .> .But don't take my word for it.... or his. Just read it all for
..> .> yourself.
..> .> .Then go have a nice ride in the woods with a clear frame of mind.
..> .>
..> .> ... something mountain bikers are completely lacking: a mind.
..> .Opinion. Character assassination. Slander.
..> ....and absolutely no attempt to address the comments stated.
..>
..> But very relevant.
..Again... nothing.
..>
..> .> .> .> .> 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

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:13:21 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email hidden]...
..> .> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 08:50:54 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>
..> wrote:
..> .>
..> .>
..> .> AGAIN You failed to produce even ONE reliable scientific source, as I
..> .> requested.
..> .Actually, I did. Your opinion of those sources is IRRELEVANT.
..> .>
..> .> .Again you reference back to Your Site and Your Interpretation. Give us
..> .> one
..> .> .reliable scientist who has reviewed your efforts. If you are so
..> correct,
..> .> why
..> .> .can I not find ANY other scientist or biologist that even mentions
..> your
..> .> .work.
..> .>
..> .> Because reviews are confidential, not public.
..> .Convenient... It certainly seems to me if you had favorable reviews of
..> your
..> .presentations or opinions or "research", you make them as public as
..> possible
..> .to lend weight to those conclusions.
..>
..> My paper speaks for itself. It would be a breach of confidentiality to
..> reveal a
..> confidential review, which is anonymous, anyway, and not in electronic
..> form.
..> DUH!
..Really? Are we supposed to just take your word for it? Why? Because you say
..so?
..Reviews are confidential...? How convenient! ....and MEANINGLESS!

Why do you need someone else to think for you? Can't do your own evaluation,
like I did? What? You might have to READ?! I know, that's a tough requirement.

..> A "confidential review" serves no
..> .purpose - Especially for anyone else looking for information and seeking
..> to
..> .confirm credibility.
..> .If your statement is correct, do us a favor and delete your website. Make
..> .your own "reviews" confidential.
..>
..> It's obvious that mountain bikers want to censor any criticism of their
..> selfish,
..> destructive sport.
..It's obvious people who claim science then have it blown apart by reality
..view criticism and questions as the enemy.

I have yet to see anything "blown apart" by a mountain biker, except animals on
the trail.

..> .> .I can not find any other mention of your speeches by anyone except on
..> .> your
..> .> .own site
..> .>
..> .> That only demonstrates your own incompetence.
..> .What would you suggest? Is searching "comments" "presentations" and
..> "Michael
..> .J. Vandeman" to limiting? Should I just search "waste of 15 minutes of my
..> .life at a conference"?
..> .By all means, give me a link or two to someone's comments about your
..> .presentations independant of your own site. Give me links to scientists,
..> .biologists or envionmentalists that have seen your presentations and
..> .commented on them.
..>
..> Do your own homework.
..It is hard to do "homework" when there is nothing.

Read the papers I reference. They aren't "nothing". I know reading scares the
pants off of you.

..> .> and the "call for papers" schedule at some of the conferences. It
..> .> .seems odd that no one else who ever attends these conferences makes
..> any
..> .> .mention of you. It seems odd there is very little follow-up after one
..> of
..> .> .these conferences. Where is the review of information? Where is the
..> .> summary
..> .> .of presentation? Where is anything that says what was accomplished,
..> what
..> .> was
..> .> .learned, what happens now?
..> .>
..> .> Obviously, you have never been to a conference.
..> .Irrelevant. But partially correct. I have not attended conferences of the
..> .type you frequent. But as someone interested and can not travel
..> extensively,
..> .it would be of benefit to me to be able to see or read some type of
..> report
..> .on the information gathered, the opinions of those who did attend, any
..> .conclusions drawn from the pool of presentations and any public release
..> of
..> .information and conclusions. Do you all just gather, speak, pat
..> yourselves
..> .on the back and go home? I see follow-up releases of this kind all the
..> time
..> .from area colleges and organizations.
..>
..> Sometimes (rarely) papers are published. That's it. The papers wouldn't be
..> allowed, if they weren't substantially correct.
..I've never seen these "rules". The "call for papers" just gives guidelines
..as to the topic of the conference. It would be up to the audience to take
..the presentation and question, review or believe it.

BS. You have to be invited, or you aren't allowed in the program.

..> .> I find it hard to grasp that these conferences
..> .> .are put together and there is no published report or review of the
..> .> .information put forth.
..> .>
..> .> Sometimes there are, sometimes not.
..> .Then where are they? I've searched several conference sites (those that
..> are
..> .still up...) of those listed on your site and can not find a
..> comprehensive
..> .report of information gathered.
..>
..> Who cares? You can verify my accuracy by reading the papers I reviewed.
..> You are
..> too lazy to do that. TOUGH.
..What do you think we are doing? We are looking at the papers and we are
..questioning your conclusions? It is you who are too lazy to defend your
..conclusions.

You obviously haven't read the papers I reviewed, or you would have more
specific objections, instead of vague ones.

..> .> Does no one take pictures at these things? I find
..> .> .very few. And I can not find any mention of you, a picture of you
..> .> speaking,
..> .> .a comment by someone about your presentations... nothing.
..> .> .So why would I accept your word as final? Why would I return to your
..> own
..> .> .website for proof of anything? YOU say you debunked them? So what?
..> .>
..> .> It's a fact -- something you know nothing about. You wouldn't know a
..> fact
..> .> if it
..> .> hit you in the face.
..> .opinion... and possible threat of violence....
..> .>
..> .> .<below reposted>
..> .> .You will find MV's "research" has been carefully selected and worded
..> to
..> .> .express his personal viewpoint. You will fins he has "spoken" at
..> several
..> .> .conferences and symposiums. Of that, you will find these conferences
..> did
..> .> not
..> .> .invite him as a keynote speaker, but rather he invited himself as
..> anyone
..> .> can
..> .> .do by answering a "call for papers" witch results in 15 or 20 minutes
..> to
..> .> .make your presentation. You will also find, if you do any research on
..> MV
..> .> .himself, there is no real mention of him or his "research" outside of
..> .> .reference listing websites, which he also sent his own information out
..> to
..> .> be
..> .> .listed. No other researcher mentions him... no other scientist or
..> .> .biologist, no other attendee at these conferences makes mention of
..> him.
..> .> .Do a Google search of Usenet on MV... you will find years of data of
..> .> which
..> .> .he has talked himself into a corner and exited by calling everyone
..> .> "liars"
..> .> .and "idiots".
..> .> .Spend a rainy afternoon if you want a good laugh.
..> .> .But don't take my word for it.... or his. Just read it all for
..> .> yourself.
..> .> .Then go have a nice ride in the woods with a clear frame of mind.
..> .>
..> .> ... something mountain bikers are completely lacking: a mind.
..> .Opinion. Character assassination. Slander.
..> ....and absolutely no attempt to address the comments stated.
..>
..> But very relevant.
..Again... nothing.
..>
..> .> .> .> .> 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

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:33:40 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Carl Dithers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..> OFF ROAD CYCLING IS FOR CHILDREN. YOU NEED TO GROW UP, QUIT SUCKING
..> MOMMA'S
..> TEAT AND BECOME MEN.
..>
..What an adult and manly comment.
..What would you propose....? That I get a Campy equipped Colnago and hit the
..road...?
..Because I do that already. Either on my Colnago, my Merckx, my Pinarello, or
..my Paramount.
..I also hit the trail with either a front or full suspended mountain bike.
..It seems to me to be more MANLY to indulge in a variety of activities rather
..than set my identity on being an elitist roadie....
..
..btw... isn't SHOUTING a little childish?

When talking with CHILDREN, ....
===
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