The Mike Vandeman "FAQ"

S o r n i Wrote:
This might explain Mike's angry outbursts lately (like, last TEN YEARS):

http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/424753|oddlyenough|09-01-2004::09:45|reuters.html

Bill "just a wild guess" S.
Now that's f'n funny. I don't care who you are. (larry the cable guy)

Good one bill!!!!!!


--
mark_kendrick

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 06:04:28 +1000, mark_kendrick
wrote:

..
..Mike Vandeman Wrote:
.. On 29 Aug 2004 14:10:17 -0700, (R.White) wrote:
..
.. ..Mike Vandeman wrote in message
.. . ..
.. .. On 29 Aug 2004 04:42:33 -0700, (R.White) wrote:
.. ..
.. .. .Mike Vandeman wrote in message
.. . ..
.. .. . On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:50:08 GMT, "S o r n i"
.. wrote:
.. .. .
.. .. . .Scott Burley wrote:
.. .. . .{MV, I assume:}
.. .. . . That's called "sour grapes". You are just upset that the
.. research
.. .. . . shows that mountain bikng is more harmful than hiking.
.. .. . .
.. .. . . Not sure if you're refering to me or cc, but I have no reason
.. to be
.. .. . . upset, as I am not a mountain biker. If anything, I have a
.. slight
.. .. . . bias towards hiking, though I understand you're none to fond
.. of that
.. .. . . either.
.. .. . .
.. .. . .Wrong. Mike gives lip service to advocating "pristine"
.. wilderness, but
.. .. . .hikes in heavy lugged boots on a regular basis.
.. .. .
.. .. . Anyone who has seen my web site (click on the mountain bike)
.. knows that I hate
.. .. . those I & have never used them.
.. .. .
.. .. . .Bill "hell, he doesn't even bitch about HORSES ****ting and
.. leaving
.. .. . .post-holes all over trails" S.
.. .. .
.. .. . Horses are native. I do think they shouldn't be shod or used as
.. vehicles,
.. .. . however.
.. .. .
.. .. .Spanish explorers brought horses by ship in the sixteenth century
.. .. .thus they are not "native." Your lack of basic knowledge is
.. astounding.
.. ..
.. .. Horses evolved in North America. Thus horses are native to North
.. America. Thanks
.. .. for demonstrating your ignorance of archaeology. And everything
.. else. You need
.. .. to read this:
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..The horses that evolved in North America died off between 8,000 and
.. ..10,000 years ago.
..
.. If that were true, we wouldn't have horses today! DUH!
..
.. ..Modern horses are descended of those imported by Spanish explorers
.. and
.. ..others. They are not the native horses that once roamed and evolved
.. here.
.. ..DUH!
..
.. All animals die, but some of them pass on descendents. Those Spanish
.. horses
.. wouldn't be there, unless they descended from the first horses that
.. evolved on
.. the Earth! So horses ARE native to North America. DUH!
.. ===
..
..The modern hose evolved in EUROPE not north america. It is a different
..species and therefore IS NOT NATIVE to north america.

I didn't say it is. I said "horses are native to North America".

..Under your logic elephants are ntive to N.Am. too... after all the
..wooly mammoth lived here once. I think we should introduce the bengal
..tiger here because the sabre tooth died off. (mike, notice the blatant
..sarcasm)
..
..You've got to be kidding but it's obvious you're just stupid

Good idea.
===
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" wrote
.
.The modern hose evolved in EUROPE not north america. It is a different
.species and therefore IS NOT NATIVE to north america.

I didn't say it is. I said "horses are native to North America".

So are dinosaurs. They have as much relevance as the 'native' horses you
speak of.

Pete

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 03:51:43 GMT, "Pete"

wrote:

.
."Mike Vandeman" wrote
. .
. .The modern hose evolved in EUROPE not north america. It is a
different
. .species and therefore IS NOT NATIVE to north america.
.
. I didn't say it is. I said "horses are native to North America".
.
.So are dinosaurs. They have as much relevance as the 'native' horses you
.speak of.

Mountain bikes aren't alive, so have NO rights.


Neither do dinosaurs...

That just shows how little you know of the Ph.D. The Ph.D. is a
research degree,
and involves education in scientific method -- something foreign to
mountain
bikers, but very apt.

===
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 enjoy how you refer to mountain bikers like a diferent species of
human. It reminds me of when the KKK guys talk about black guys on
Jerry Springer.


--
Mr_Kingkillaha

For a guy with a Ph.D, you are quite the MORON

There may be an honest mountain biker out there, but I
have yet to meet even ONE.

Sounds like prejudice.


I regularly see mountain bikers cutting off cross-country, even on
steep
slopes, for more of a challenge. They seem blind and deaf to the damage
they
cause. Admittedly, backpackers and horsepackers can cause damage to
wilderness
trails. But this is a poor argument to suggest that we add another
source of
damage to those trails." Dave Foreman

So as long as we only damage the enviroment in the same way we have
been it is okay?


"Studies show that bike impacts are similar to those of other
non-motorized
trail users." Jim Hasenauer (professor of rhetoric and member of the
board of
directors of the International Mountain Bicyclists Association)


I had been studying the impacts of the presence of humans on wildlife,
and had
come to the conclusion that there needs to be habitat that is entirely
off-limits to humans,

yet you still hike?


It occurred to me that the best way to reduce the
presence and impacts of humans is to restrict the technologies that
they are
allowed to utilize in natu e.g. prohibit bicycles and other vehicles
(and
perhaps even domesticated animals, when used as vehicles).

Pray Jesus, that domesticated animals shall not walk where wild animals
walk!

in the case of mountain bikers, many of
them just use nature, as a kind of playground or outdoor gymnasium! (Of
course,
there are also hikers, equestrians, and other recreationists who fall
into this
category.)

If you want to save the enviroment you should fight to save the
enviroment. Don't use it as an excuse to attack bikers.

Such a comparison would only be relevant if one were
committed to allowing only one activity or the other, and wanted to
know which
is more harmful. In reality, hiking is always allowed, and the question
is
whether to add mountain biking as a permitted activity. In that case,
the only
relevant question is: Is mountain biking harmful? Of course, it is.
However,
since many people seem interested in the outcome of the comparison, I
will
examine the research and try to answer it.


I'm going to ignore
this research,
Spoken like a true scientist!


"We found no biological justification for
managing mountain biking any differently than hiking" (p.961).
just ignore that too.

So what did we all learn here? I think you are not a hiker at all. Your
real goal is to stop everyone from enjoying wilderness. While you are
at it ban motor vehichles altogether, restrict using incandescent light
bulbs at night, ban everyone from walking in wilderness areas, we should
probably not breathe anymore- wildlife might use that oxygen. the only
way to solve the problems of this world is to build a giant rocket, and
take every last person excep for Mike Vandeman Ph.D, and send them to
mars where there is no wildlife to be annoyed with us.


--
Mr_Kingkillaha

Mike Vandeman Wrote:

You misread the article. The 5% included noncoding segments, which are
irrelevant. They said that 1% is still accurate. Other species are also
close
enough to expect some empathy, which would be necessary for successful
hunting.


empathy- (1)sympathetic understanding of another person (2) projection
of ones emotions on an object

telepathy- (1) communication between minds by means other than the
ordinary and normal


Also, you seem to be confusing
empathy for telepathy.

Not really. -MV

Yeah, actually you are.

You obviously lack empathy, or you would know that I know the
difference. -MV

No, that's telepathy. And a circular argument to boot.


how is empathy required for hunting?


--
Mr_Kingkillaha

Mike Vandeman Wrote:
If you like reading a bunch of mountain biker lies, see
http://bbtc.org/php/show_page.php?page_id=32.

It is interesting, however, that among the lies, the author also admits
that I
am mostly RIGHT. One doesn't get a Ph.D. by being "mostly" right. You
have to be
right 99+% of the time. I may not be always right, but I have yet to
hear of a
single factual (i.e., not subjective) assertion I have made that is
wrong. I am
still waiting....
===
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
Are you for real ? Where do you find the time to come up w/ this stuff.
I'm as environmentally aware as the next guy but you remind me of the
character in the movie "The Matrix" who equates humans to a virus. Tell
me you did'nt "lift" your thesis from hollywood. There are copyright's
you know !!!


--
davidmc

For a guy with a Ph.D, you are quite the MORON
Quote:
There may be an honest mountain biker out there, but I
have yet to meet even ONE.

Sounds like prejudice.

Quote:
I regularly see mountain bikers cutting off cross-country, even on
steep
slopes, for more of a challenge. They seem blind and deaf to the damage
they
cause. Admittedly, backpackers and horsepackers can cause damage to
wilderness
trails. But this is a poor argument to suggest that we add another
source of
damage to those trails." Dave Foreman

So as long as we only damage the enviroment in the same way we have
been it is okay?

Quote:
"Studies show that bike impacts are similar to those of other
non-motorized
trail users." Jim Hasenauer (professor of rhetoric and member of the
board of
directors of the International Mountain Bicyclists Association)

Quote:
I had been studying the impacts of the presence of humans on wildlife,
and had
come to the conclusion that there needs to be habitat that is entirely
off-limits to humans,

yet you still hike?

Quote:
It occurred to me that the best way to reduce the
presence and impacts of humans is to restrict the technologies that
they are
allowed to utilize in natu e.g. prohibit bicycles and other vehicles
(and
perhaps even domesticated animals, when used as vehicles).

Pray Jesus, that domesticated animals shall not walk where wild animals
walk!
Quote:
in the case of mountain bikers, many of
them just use nature, as a kind of playground or outdoor gymnasium! (Of
course,
there are also hikers, equestrians, and other recreationists who fall
into this
category.)

If you want to save the enviroment you should fight to save the
enviroment. Don't use it as an excuse to attack bikers.
Quote:
Such a comparison would only be relevant if one were
committed to allowing only one activity or the other, and wanted to
know which
is more harmful. In reality, hiking is always allowed, and the question
is
whether to add mountain biking as a permitted activity. In that case,
the only
relevant question is: Is mountain biking harmful? Of course, it is.
However,
since many people seem interested in the outcome of the comparison, I
will
examine the research and try to answer it.


Quote:
I'm going to ignore
this research,

Spoken like a true scientist!

Quote:
"We found no biological justification for
managing mountain biking any differently than hiking" (p.961).

just ignore that too.

So what did we all learn here? I think you are not a hiker at all. Your
real goal is to stop everyone from enjoying wilderness. While you are at
it ban motor vehichles altogether, restrict using incandescent light
bulbs at night, ban everyone from walking in wilderness areas, we
should probably not breathe anymore- wildlife might use that oxygen.
the only way to solve the problems of this world is to build a giant
rocket, and take every last person excep for Mike Vandeman Ph.D, and
send them to mars where there is no wildlife to be annoyed with us.

i just found out that the edit button i use on my forum does not edit
what usenet sees. so i am reposting this to make sure you see what my
finished statement.


--
Mr_Kingkillaha

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Vandeman
You misread the article. The 5% included noncoding segments, which are
irrelevant. They said that 1% is still accurate. Other species are also
close
enough to expect some empathy, which would be necessary for successful
hunting.


empathy- (1)sympathetic understanding of another person (2) projection
of ones emotions on an object

telepathy- (1) communication between minds by means other than the
ordinary and normal

Quote:
Also, you seem to be confusing
empathy for telepathy.

Not really. -MV

Yeah, actually you are.

You obviously lack empathy, or you would know that I know the
difference. -MV

No, that's telepathy. And a circular argument to boot.


how is empathy required for hunting?

another one i dont remeber if i edited.


--
Mr_Kingkillaha