Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:12:06 -0800, cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:00:02 -0800, cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:23:36 -0800, cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:14:05 -0800, cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:44:36 -0800, cc wrote:
Roberto Baggio wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:
2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build
more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers
off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of
recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise.
So being fair to minorities is a bad thing?
You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot.
No, just honest -- something mountain bikers wouldn't understand.
Do you want me to spell it out
for you, moron? Describing
negative experiences with
mountain bikers is being
honest. Extrapolating those
experiences to EVERY mountain
biker is bigotry.
Nope, it's called "observation".
Again, you have done nothing
to demonstrate anything but
wild speculation. Observation
does in no case warrant such
ridiculous extrapolation or
zealous rhetoric. If you were
a scientist, you would realize
this. Obviously, you are not.
Observations are the foundation of science. DUH!
Yes, but only when applied
within the framework of a
scientific methodology (which
has been employed in various
studies that show mountain
biking to be of comparable
impact to hiking).
1. That's a LIE. Those studies were all seriously flawed, as you well
know.
Again, you mistake your
opinion of the studies with
one that is relevant. Your
voice is meaningless, as we
have established.
Nine international scientific conferences that heard my paper would
disagree. NOT ONE of the scientists found any flaw in my paper, either
then or now.
Mike, conferences are not
forums for serious peer-review
(as in "get this **** out of
here", which is surely what
everyone in those forums was
thinking). Questions are
generally directed at
elucidating details of the
studies. In any case, these
are NOT PEER-REVIEWED, as you
are well aware. End of story.
You present opinion, and
nothing more. Try DOING
RESEARCH. You are not a
scientist, and by calling
yourself one you insult the
entire community.
2. "Comparable" is not a scientific term. ANY two objects are
"comparable". It means nothing.
Obviously the meaning I
implied was "similar".
Grasping at straws, as usual.
Nope, "similar" is ALSO not scientific. It is not quantitative. Thanks
for demonstrating your total ignorance of science.
Well, first of all, comparable
and similar are both
acceptable in this context,
despite your semantic
flailing. You may argue over
the details, but both are
acceptable to imply that
effects are on the same order
of magnitude, and therefore
comparable and similar.
Secondly, I don't need to
defend myself as a scientist
in this situation. You do,
however, if you wish to attain
any credibility. (Hint: you
have none). I will say,
however, I was first published
in a peer-reviewed journal at
much less than half your age.
So your argument holds no water.
But what can one
expect from someone afraid to use his real name?! Stand up and be a
man!
Mike, I - unlike you - have a
career in science ahead of me.
God forbid some freaking
lunatic like you decide to do
something stupid.
Need I point out the irony in
you pointing out that you are
a man ?!
Try a
dictionary, asshole.
Yes. This has been amply established.
===
===
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.)
Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande