On Feb 16, 11:43*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Feb 16, 7:21*pm, Shraga wrote:

Comparing yourself with a professor or editor is a stretch. You're
qualified for neither, and my argument stands. Your biased dogma
doesn't refute the science.

IMBA's lsi includes only junk science.

Then why was it the basis for your "scientific" literature review, and
why do you claim to have read all the science on the topic, if there
isn't any?

Make up your mind.

snip more recycled dogma

Stop waving around this minor accomplishment. If you're looking for
congratulations, you should go elsewhere.

It's not a minor accomplishment. Show us even ONE paper you have
published on ths subject, which you pretend to be an expert on!

Show me where I claimed to be an expert on the subject, liar.

And yes, getting two pages in a book is pretty minor, especially given
your preposterous claims at "expert" status. Stop kidding yourself.
Your lack of academic stature proves your irrelevance.

Your silly book chapter is irrelevant to the conversation, which you
seem to be having a LOT of trouble following.

You are bluffing again! You obviously haven't READ it.!

Bring it up all you want. It still has nothing to do with this
conversation. I responded to this post, intended for Dr. Hopkins:

"Just for grins, I wonder if you can find anything SPECIFIC that is
wrong with my paper? http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm. I doubt it."

That link doesn't go to your woefully brief book chapter. It goes to a
~15 page opinion piece, which I successfully refuted.

Besides, I can't access your mini-chapter because I don't have access
to that book. You keep posting an "expanded version," but that wasn't
published verbatim, now was it, Mike? Your bait and switch won't work
on me.

You know what I just did, Mike? I just skimmed over an article,
"Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on
vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America."
The authors of that peer-reviewed work performed an EXTENSIVE
literature review, citing around 130 related articles, including most
of the ones you cited in your opinion piece.

Obviously, they can't tell science from junk science, if they trust
that garbage.

Yet... Of the ~130, you know who is NOT cited or even mentioned?

You.

What's your point? Or IS there one?

You claim to be "the world expert on the harm that mountain biking
does" and that you "have given papers on the subject at a *couple
dozen* scientific conferences;" yet there is NO evidence to support
your "expert" status. You often challenge this forum to provide the
name of one expert who knows more than you on the topic. Well, the
authors of that paper did, in spades, and you, Mike, were NOT
included.

My point is this: despite over a decade of effort on the topic, you
are unknown and unsupported in the field you so desperately want to
think you are part of.

Instead, the most recognition you have achieved from your efforts thus
far is this:

http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealer...52810-37NC.htm