Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:22:21 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

Perhaps he could speak at something like this?
http://www.imba.com/resources/summit...ler_index.html

No, those "conferences" are censored.

"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message
roups.com...
Now, now - MJV is injured when you talk like that. He knows that
without peer-review, published papers are meaningless. And
self-published papers, by their very nature, are not peer-reviewed.

But MJV knows that his "research" would never be published in a real
scientific journal. And it hurts him that we all know this, too.

As he like to retort ad nauseum - the truth hurts.

E.P.

===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:22:21 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:


Perhaps he could speak at something like this?
http://www.imba.com/resources/summit...ler_index.html


No, those "conferences" are censored.



Censored? You mean they only allow real scientists to talk or people
that actually know what they're talking about? You fail on both
accounts, no wonder they wouldn't let you talk.

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:52:27 GMT, jason
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:22:21 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:


Perhaps he could speak at something like this?
http://www.imba.com/resources/summit...ler_index.html


No, those "conferences" are censored.



Censored? You mean they only allow real scientists to talk or people
that actually know what they're talking about? You fail on both
accounts, no wonder they wouldn't let you talk.

No, the opposite. They don't allow any real scientists -- people who
might tell the truth about mountain biking. But you already knew that,
didn't you?
===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 24 Nov 2006 23:28:35 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:
You haven't the authority to determine what is a "good reason". Those
that
do have already made the determination.

Ding! We have a winner! The reason is simple: people want to do it,
and it is allowed by law and land management personnel. Any attempt to
deconstruct this for semantics games is sophistry, but that won't stop
him, will it?

Why do land managers allow it? Because people want to do it,

Not a good reason. They want to grow marijuana, too, but they aren't
allowed. Try again.

and it
has the same impact on the land as recreational hiking.

That's a LIE, and you know it: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

Referencing yourself to support your opinions...? Again...? You are merely
showing how long you have been casting lies and missinformation. The FACT
that mountain biking IS recognized by the BLM and other OFFICIAL agencies
proves your OPINIONS have been REJECTED by those whose job it is protect
public lands.
The LIE is your presentation of off-road cycling as a harmful activity. That
LIE has been recognized for what it is.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 23 Nov 2006 13:09:04 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:

NONE of that is a reason to allow BIKES off-road. Show me where a BIKE
is necessary for off-road exercizing! Idiot. Try again....
Show where there is a reason to NOT allow them. You haven't.


That's because such reasons don't exist. And it really doesn't matter
whether off-road cycling is justified in MJV's mind. As long as land
managers see the reality of the situation, there will always be
off-road cycling, the huffing and puffing of whack-jobs like MJV
notwithstanding.

MTBs don't do any more harm to the landscape than hikers. A reason
that works for land managers, and works for me, too. BTW - this
assertion has been proved on multiple occasions, by different
researchers.

Anyone who actually READ those studies, as I did, but not you, would
see that they don't prove what they claim to prove. You are just LYING
-- nothing new, for a mountain biker.

The people whose job it is to assess information read those studies and came
to the conclusion that off-road cycling is ACCEPTABLE and recognized. Your
denial does not undermine the findings of REAL researchers and scientists
who have made these determinations. Your OPINIONS are simply wrong and your
selective use of others' work to support them is a fabrication of lies.
Your best contribution is the advancement of the poor stereotypes of the
"environmentalist". Fortunately, those of us with a grasp on reality have
been able to see beyond the stereotypes (of everyone interested in the
outdoors) to find the common ground of preservation.
Your lies have been defeated by your own actions. Your opinions have been
discounted by better minds. Your presentations and "website(s)" stand as a
parody to actual research.
We may even owe you a "thank you"! Your lies (and others like you) focused
attention on real available information while providing an incentive to
create better research methods which has provided the foundation of official
recognition. YOU pointed to research which stated more study was needed.
YOUR fabrications created a focus for research to make real determinations.
In the process, YOUR OPINIONS were shown to be baseless.
You may have done as much for the sport as the suspension fork!

I think we're done here.

E.P.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:44:03 -0800, cc wrote:


Very funny. My papers speak for themselves

Your papers speak TO themselves.

Mike Vandeman wrote:
No, those "conferences" are censored.



Censored? You mean they only allow real scientists to talk or people
that actually know what they're talking about? You fail on both
accounts, no wonder they wouldn't let you talk.


No, the opposite. They don't allow any real scientists -- people who
might tell the truth about mountain biking. But you already knew that,
didn't you?
===

You fail on that account too mikey. You've yet to tell the truth on
mountain biking. Which brings the question of the validity of your
apparent phd and the school that gave it to you.

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:20:57 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On 24 Nov 2006 23:28:35 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:
You haven't the authority to determine what is a "good reason". Those
that
do have already made the determination.

Ding! We have a winner! The reason is simple: people want to do it,
and it is allowed by law and land management personnel. Any attempt to
deconstruct this for semantics games is sophistry, but that won't stop
him, will it?

Why do land managers allow it? Because people want to do it,

Not a good reason. They want to grow marijuana, too, but they aren't
allowed. Try again.

and it
has the same impact on the land as recreational hiking.

That's a LIE, and you know it: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

Referencing yourself to support your opinions...? Again...? You are merely
showing how long you have been casting lies and missinformation. The FACT
that mountain biking IS recognized by the BLM and other OFFICIAL agencies
proves your OPINIONS have been REJECTED by those whose job it is protect
public lands.
The LIE is your presentation of off-road cycling as a harmful activity. That
LIE has been recognized for what it is.

Did you say something?
===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:55:31 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On 23 Nov 2006 13:09:04 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:

NONE of that is a reason to allow BIKES off-road. Show me where a BIKE
is necessary for off-road exercizing! Idiot. Try again....
Show where there is a reason to NOT allow them. You haven't.


That's because such reasons don't exist. And it really doesn't matter
whether off-road cycling is justified in MJV's mind. As long as land
managers see the reality of the situation, there will always be
off-road cycling, the huffing and puffing of whack-jobs like MJV
notwithstanding.

MTBs don't do any more harm to the landscape than hikers. A reason
that works for land managers, and works for me, too. BTW - this
assertion has been proved on multiple occasions, by different
researchers.

Anyone who actually READ those studies, as I did, but not you, would
see that they don't prove what they claim to prove. You are just LYING
-- nothing new, for a mountain biker.

The people whose job it is to assess information read those studies and came
to the conclusion that off-road cycling is ACCEPTABLE and recognized. Your
denial does not undermine the findings of REAL researchers and scientists
who have made these determinations. Your OPINIONS are simply wrong and your
selective use of others' work to support them is a fabrication of lies.
Your best contribution is the advancement of the poor stereotypes of the
"environmentalist". Fortunately, those of us with a grasp on reality have
been able to see beyond the stereotypes (of everyone interested in the
outdoors) to find the common ground of preservation.
Your lies have been defeated by your own actions. Your opinions have been
discounted by better minds. Your presentations and "website(s)" stand as a
parody to actual research.
We may even owe you a "thank you"! Your lies (and others like you) focused
attention on real available information while providing an incentive to
create better research methods which has provided the foundation of official
recognition. YOU pointed to research which stated more study was needed.
YOUR fabrications created a focus for research to make real determinations.
In the process, YOUR OPINIONS were shown to be baseless.
You may have done as much for the sport as the suspension fork!

Did you say something?

I think we're done here.

E.P.

===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:20:57 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:
You haven't the authority to determine what is a "good reason". Those
that
do have already made the determination.

Ding! We have a winner! The reason is simple: people want to do it,
and it is allowed by law and land management personnel. Any attempt to
deconstruct this for semantics games is sophistry, but that won't stop
him, will it?

Why do land managers allow it? Because people want to do it,

Not a good reason. They want to grow marijuana, too, but they aren't
allowed. Try again.

and it
has the same impact on the land as recreational hiking.

That's a LIE, and you know it: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

Referencing yourself to support your opinions...? Again...? You are
merely
showing how long you have been casting lies and missinformation. The FACT
that mountain biking IS recognized by the BLM and other OFFICIAL agencies
proves your OPINIONS have been REJECTED by those whose job it is protect
public lands.
The LIE is your presentation of off-road cycling as a harmful activity.
That
LIE has been recognized for what it is.

Did you say something?

Awwwwwwwwwwww.... Trapped by logic of reality and fact.... AGAIN!