"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
[...]

I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
be asked to give such a paper.


Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.


Can you two please take your
stroking offline? It's making
me sick. And yes, there are
many qualified to do research
in this audience, and the
consensus is that you are
WRONG. So stop with your
fascist, bigoted polemic and
do something USEFUL!!

Mike Vandeman wrote:
There you go: you have no qualifications whatsoever (at least that you
are willing to talk about)!


Just as you aren't qualified to talk about this subject.


I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done.

I hope this isn't an example of how you got that paper Phd of yours or
how you do your research. If it is I am seriously concerned about the
university you went to that gave you a phd as well.

I love how you think everyone is wrong even the scientists who have real
phds in real science.



It
also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
results.

Yet you still think you're the only one in the world who can speak on
the damage caused even though you aren't qualified to speak on it.


Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
be asked to give such a paper.



So once again I ask let see some proof of these conferences you spoke at
and will be speaking at. I know we'd love to be at one just to hear you
speak and see the reaction of the others attending.

Edward Dolan wrote:


Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.



More broke back hiking I see, this time on usenet. Go get a room you two.

Edward Dolan wrote:
A Ph.D degree is primarily a research degree. By attaining that
degree you
are thereby qualified to undertake any research on any subject you choose.
The average person will not know how to do research. We will know how to do
a search, but not research. They are two different things entirely. You
would be wise to defer to Mr. Vandeman in this matter of trail damage and
damage to wild life done by mountain bikes as it appears he has done
considerable research on the subject.


eddy, mikey isn't any more qualified to discuss this subject then anyone
else on Usenet and is less qualified then many real scientists.

I wouldn't defer to him or you on anything. You're both so closed minded
and egotistical that you can't even think straight.

"cc" wrote in message ...
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
[...]

I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
be asked to give such a paper.


Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.


Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
polemic and do something USEFUL!!

I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.

Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.

Regards,

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

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:19:02 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
be asked to give such a paper.

Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.

I know. They are probably thinking right now that you are talking
about a different -- more base -- kind of rigor. I just hope that
there are some people like you out there that WILL understand. It took
10 years, but the wait was worth it.

Regards,

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

===
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

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:49:00 -0700, cc wrote:

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
[...]

I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
be asked to give such a paper.


Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.


Can you two please take your
stroking offline? It's making
me sick. And yes, there are
many qualified to do research
in this audience,

How would YOU know?????

and the
consensus is that you are
WRONG. So stop with your
fascist, bigoted polemic and
do something USEFUL!!
===
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

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 01:14:32 GMT, jason
wrote:

Edward Dolan wrote:


Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.



More broke back hiking I see, this time on usenet. Go get a room you two.

Lost? I think your home is alt.smut. You must have stumbled into this
newsgroup by accident.
===
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

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 01:13:52 GMT, jason
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
There you go: you have no qualifications whatsoever (at least that you
are willing to talk about)!


Just as you aren't qualified to talk about this subject.

That's not what the SCIENTISTS think. In fact, I have studied ALL of
the research on mountain biking impacts, which makes me the world
expert on that.

I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done.

I hope this isn't an example of how you got that paper Phd of yours or
how you do your research. If it is I am seriously concerned about the
university you went to that gave you a phd as well.

UCLA is alive and well, and certainly doesn't need YOUR help.

I love how you think everyone is wrong even the scientists who have real
phds in real science.

They aren't immune to bias. Especially when they are themselves
mountain bikers.

It
also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
results.

Yet you still think you're the only one in the world who can speak on
the damage caused even though you aren't qualified to speak on it.

I'm the most qualified person in the world to discuss this subject.
YOU certainly aren't the least bit qualified.

Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
be asked to give such a paper.



So once again I ask let see some proof of these conferences you spoke at
and will be speaking at. I know we'd love to be at one just to hear you
speak and see the reaction of the others attending.

See my web site. It's all there. But you have to be able to READ.
===
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

Edward Dolan wrote:
"cc" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
[...]


I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
be asked to give such a paper.


Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.


Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
polemic and do something USEFUL!!


I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.

Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.

You haven't a degree, which
you already admitted. And no,
working as a librarian does
NOT count.

I do have a research degree,
but it doesn't matter. I don't
have to defend myself to you,
who are clueless and mentally
incapacitated. Should I dig up
your post about needing your
medications?




Regards,

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