Vandeman's ignorance busted (yet again) - this one!!!!!!

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 11:54:43 AM UTC-7, Stilton Cheesewright wrote:
In article ,

says...





BS. Mountain bikers travel much farther than hikers,





Errrrr,, A hiker, walker, car driver, UPS delivery man, dog etc

'travels' (lets say) ONE mile.



A Mountain Biker 'travels' lets say the SAME ONE MILE.



Do they not 'travel' the EXACT SAME??



SIGH And who has the alledged greater qualifications??



SC.

We're talking about ON THE TRAIL, dum dum. But you already knew that, and chose to ignore it.

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
Surely the level of environmental impact would be location specific?

There you go again, claiming that the laws of physics and biology are different in New Zealand from everywhere else. Idiot.

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 11:16:49 AM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:

Surely the level of environmental impact would be location specific?



There you go again, claiming that the laws of physics and biology are different in New Zealand from everywhere else. Idiot.

Thanks Mike! I will take that as a complement. I have always enjoyed working with you. Obviously you have read a about NZ's biodiversity and clearly are an expert. Are you looking forward to receiving a noble prize?

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 11:16:49 AM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:

Surely the level of environmental impact would be location specific?



There you go again, claiming that the laws of physics and biology are different in New Zealand from everywhere else. Idiot.

By the way do you know that New Zealand is not part of Australia!!!!

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 11:16:49 AM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:

Surely the level of environmental impact would be location specific?



There you go again, claiming that the laws of physics and biology are different in New Zealand from everywhere else. Idiot.

To the contrary you are the one who is an idiot. First, YOU have suggested the tasmanian tiger is an New Zealand native species when it isn't. Secondly, you have failed to read any of the science regarding New Zealand's environmental issues before commenting on them, which doesn't make you look good at all. In fact it makes you look dim. Finally, you fail to recognize my point that mountain biking is not widespread in New Zealand's national parks nor is it a huge environmental problem.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones or in your case massive rocks.....

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 6:01:49 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 11:16:49 AM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:



Surely the level of environmental impact would be location specific?







There you go again, claiming that the laws of physics and biology are different in New Zealand from everywhere else. Idiot.



To the contrary you are the one who is an idiot. First, YOU have suggested the tasmanian tiger is an New Zealand native species when it isn't.

No, I didn't, liar. Learn to READ.

Secondly, you have failed to read any of the science regarding New Zealand's environmental issues before commenting on them,

BS. I have read it. It's mostly junk science.

which doesn't make you look good at all. In fact it makes you look dim. Finally, you fail to recognize my point that mountain biking is not widespread in New Zealand's national parks nor is it a huge environmental problem.

In your opinion, which is worthless & dishonest.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones or in your case massive rocks....

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 1:29:01 PM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 6:01:49 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 11:16:49 AM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote:



On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:







Surely the level of environmental impact would be location specific?















There you go again, claiming that the laws of physics and biology are different in New Zealand from everywhere else. Idiot.







To the contrary you are the one who is an idiot. First, YOU have suggested the tasmanian tiger is an New Zealand native species when it isn't.



No, I didn't, liar. Learn to READ.



Secondly, you have failed to read any of the science regarding New Zealand's environmental issues before commenting on them,



BS. I have read it. It's mostly junk science.



which doesn't make you look good at all. In fact it makes you look dim. Finally, you fail to recognize my point that mountain biking is not widespread in New Zealand's national parks nor is it a huge environmental problem.



In your opinion, which is worthless & dishonest.



People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones or in your case massive rocks....

hahaha. Whatever. Nice try Mike. You are struggling now. That is obvious. A great example, is you calling someone else's work junk science without giving any explanation - this is a great example of anti-intellectualism in action.

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 1:29:01 PM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 6:01:49 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 11:16:49 AM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote:



On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:







Surely the level of environmental impact would be location specific?















There you go again, claiming that the laws of physics and biology are different in New Zealand from everywhere else. Idiot.







To the contrary you are the one who is an idiot. First, YOU have suggested the tasmanian tiger is an New Zealand native species when it isn't.



No, I didn't, liar. Learn to READ.



Secondly, you have failed to read any of the science regarding New Zealand's environmental issues before commenting on them,



BS. I have read it. It's mostly junk science.



which doesn't make you look good at all. In fact it makes you look dim. Finally, you fail to recognize my point that mountain biking is not widespread in New Zealand's national parks nor is it a huge environmental problem..



In your opinion, which is worthless & dishonest.



People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones or in your case massive rocks....

Again you I will ask you please provide some empirical evidence that mountain biking is doing unacceptable damage in new Zealand? This is not a trick question or multiple choice. Come on chop chop...And by the way your dribble is irrelevant...Why? It is not science.....

Liar. Cite even ONE scientific article that claims that hikers travel farther than mountain bikers. (HINT: you CAN'T, because it isn't true.)

Nice dishonesty there Mike ... reduce the sentence, omitting the key part, and then address a different point.

Are you surprised Blackblade? Vandeman isn't known for his intellectual honesty.