On Feb 9, 5:16*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:
On Feb 9, 2:23*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:





"Rick Hopkins" wrote in message

....
On Feb 9, 12:27 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
[...]

You seem to be good at name-calling, but not much else. You can't even
follow a conversation. No one labelled you a mountain biker. You
fantasized that. Reread my last post and reply to it. No more
longwinded irrelevant off-topic rants, please.
Your attention span and reading comprehension is rather poor. *If you

had actually read the post you will see I clearly answered your
questions. *Oh, and medical research show that mt. bike injuries have
declined 56% since 1995.

I think mountain biking itself has declined by at least that much. Only
dyed-in-the-wool assholes continue to do it.

Paper published in medical journal in 2011

completed a long study of mt. bike injuries since 1995 to 2007. *The
net result from the medical profession is that the benefits (heart
health - pre-existing conditions should follow drs. advice) *of mt.
biking outweigh any risk. *So this line of reasoning if simply bogus.
Enjoy, Rick

The only bogus character here is you. The medical profession does not know
**** about anything other than their specialties. What they know least of
all is what it takes to be fit and healthy. Your extreme sport regimen is
for idiots. You will come to grief with it sooner or later, but since you
are such a dunderhead, you will have to learn that the hard way.

By the way, whether you mountain bike much or not is not the point. You
defend it which is the same thing in my book. Therefore ... to the Devil
with you!

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Yeah why rely on experts when you and Mike just make **** up to fit
your tiny little world. *You guys remind me of when *Don Quixote quips
in the musical "Man of La Mancha" "facts are the enemy of truth". *I
take evidence based approaches. *If you dislike mt bikes in nature,
fine make your case, but relying on clearly deficient arguments makes
you two look stupider and stupider. * The clear consensus in the
medial profession (which are the experts on this not you two numnuts)
is that mt. biking has modest risk associated with it, and the health
benefits outweigh the risk. *I put you folks debating this point in
the same bucket of climate change deniers and creationist - you have a
preconceived notion and god forbid if anyone provides evidence which
disproves your preconceptions - instead of discarding poor arguments
and honing your opposition on evidence, you name call and attack those
who proffer contrary information as liars and mt. bikers. You are no
better then the anti-science crowd which controls the Republican Party
these days. *So no Ed, this is not a defense of mt biking, but one
that clearly exposes your line of reasoning that mt biking is so
dangerous it outweighs the health benefits (contrary to the opinion of
the experts that are trained to judge the relationship of health
benefit vs risk). *You and *Mike seems to be infatuated this notion
which is clearly deficient and wildly inconsistent with an evidence-
based approach. *But lacking facts has never stopped you two before
and doubt it will now. Enjoy

Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BS. I'm the world expert on the harm that mountain biking does, and I
have given papers on the subject at a couple dozen scientific
conferences. You haven't given a single citation to support your
contention. For example, how EXACTLY do you balance serious injury and
death against the alleged health benefits of mountain biking? What
WEIGHT, for example, to give a death? It can't be done, except
subjectively, so your conclusion is BS. That's like the m=land
managers who claim to be able to "BALANCE" recreation with
conservation. What a joke! You are nothing but an amateur pretending
to be a professional.