On May 18, 8:45*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:06:50 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero





wrote:
On May 18, 9:20 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero

wrote:
On May 17, 10:03 pm, "M. Halliwell" templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Ed Pirrero wrote:
On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS
wrote:

OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
indisputable.
There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
about trail impact.
The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

I only see the Cessford paper in common. *Maybe you could point out
the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
actually list them in your bibliography. *Leaving aside the claim of
"debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.

What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
review or original research. *I don't notice any publications of yours
on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.

E.P.

Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
newsgroup where he has stated this).

Yeah, I've laughed at that before.

Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the
world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research.
Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult
for the real scientist. *With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go
out and actually do real science and have it published. *Getting
funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the
environmentalist movement.

Of course, this assumes that his goal is to do anything but promote
MTBing. *Over the years, more people have gotten out and ridden bikes
on the trails in pure spite of his commentary than have ever been
influenced against MTBing by his diatribes.

One of the best things about his constant trolling is the move to
forum-based MTB content. *I prefer the forums to usenet, and he can't
participate there without getting his posts deleted. *He can go right
on ahead and should to a nearly-empty room here - works for me. *

And we all know what censored information is worth: NOTHING.

Are you referring to your multiple personalities when you say "we"?
"We" don't know any such thing - web forums with less spam and noise
convey more information.

BS. You mean like rec.bicycles.off-road?

If you cannot tell the difference between a web forum and a usenet
group, then educate yourself.

E.P.