|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:26:55 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:32:30 GMT, "M. Halliwell" templetagteam@shawdotca wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:17:49 GMT, "M. Halliwell" Because the other problems would take much more effort than just being a keyboard scientist. He choses to spend his time on a very minor "problem" MILLIONS of mountain bikers shredding trails every week is not "minor". Get real. But Mike, you have stated that the population is not important! You're contradicting yourself. No, I didn't, LIAR. I said it's not relevant in comparing the impacts of mountain biking with those of hiking. A comparison of the effects of aspirin and Tylenol doesn't require a count of the number of pills in the world. DUH! Mike, on July 25 you wrote: "Nonsense. If we give someone a bike, we multiply their impact by several times. QED How many OTHER people are mountain biking or hiking is totally irrelevant to his impact." Yet now you say that 'millions of mountain bikers shredding the trails is not "minor." Get real.'" So what is it? You really ARE dense, aren't you? Mountain biking increases one's impacts. In total, mountain bikers have a very significant impact. There's no conflict there. DUH! A mountain bike may increase one's impacts (though there is room to debate depending on what you are comparing it to and to use "increase" means there is some form of comparison going on), but you are extrapolating that to the entire population of "mountain bikers" while trying to say the number of bikers is irrelevant. If "mountain bikers" as a group have a significant impact, then the number of participants must be relevant. Is there a point there? -- 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 |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim it too loudly, Mike). Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology? Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state regulating body. BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer. First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth."...your first answer: "Yes." Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english language? NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN BIKER????? Michael Halliwell -- 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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
On Jul 31, 10:55*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell" templetagteam@shawdotca wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim it too loudly, Mike). Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology? Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state regulating body. BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer. First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth."...your first answer: "Yes." Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english language? NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN BIKER????? Michael J. Vandeman is an armchair environmentalist. He does no actual hands-on research himself so his "findings" are bogus. He has been proven wrong hundreds of times. He is also a mountain-biker by his own definition of the term. Case closed. He uses commercial avaiation because he is selfish. and his convenience outweighs damage to the upper atmosphere |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote: On Jul 31, 10:55*am, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell" templetagteam@shawdotca wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim it too loudly, Mike). Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology? Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state regulating body. BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer. First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth."...your first answer: "Yes." Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english language? NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN BIKER????? Michael J. Vandeman is an armchair environmentalist. He does no actual hands-on research himself so his "findings" are bogus. So a "review of the literature" isn't science? That would come a big news to all scientists. He has been proven wrong hundreds of times. BS. Not by any real SCIENTIST. None of the SCIENTISTS who have heard me speak have found anything wrong with my papers on mountain biking. -- 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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
On Jul 31, 5:57*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane wrote: On Jul 31, 10:55*am, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell" templetagteam@shawdotca wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim it too loudly, Mike). Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology? Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state regulating body. BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer. First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth."...your first answer: "Yes." Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english language? NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN BIKER????? Michael J. Vandeman is an armchair environmentalist. He does no actual hands-on research himself so his "findings" are bogus. So a "review of the literature" isn't science? That would come a big news to all scientists. No more than a review of the new Batman movie. Your "reviews" are on par with Roger Ebert, nothing more than opinion. *He has been proven wrong hundreds of times. BS. Not by any real SCIENTIST. None of the SCIENTISTS who have heard me speak have found anything wrong with my papers on mountain biking. I'm sure your papers were just fine for whiping asses when they restroom was out of toilet paper, but in the real world, ALL your claims have been refuted and proven false by REAL research. Deal with it. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote: On Jul 31, 5:57*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane wrote: On Jul 31, 10:55*am, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell" templetagteam@shawdotca wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim it too loudly, Mike). Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology? Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state regulating body. BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer. First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth."...your first answer: "Yes." Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english language? NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN BIKER????? Michael J. Vandeman is an armchair environmentalist. He does no actual hands-on research himself so his "findings" are bogus. So a "review of the literature" isn't science? That would come a big news to all scientists. No more than a review of the new Batman movie. Your "reviews" are on par with Roger Ebert, nothing more than opinion. *He has been proven wrong hundreds of times. BS. Not by any real SCIENTIST. None of the SCIENTISTS who have heard me speak have found anything wrong with my papers on mountain biking. I'm sure your papers were just fine for whiping asses when they restroom was out of toilet paper, but in the real world, ALL your claims have been refuted and proven false by REAL research. How would YOU know? You can't even SPELL, much less judge scientific quality. -- 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 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
On Aug 2, 1:30*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane wrote: On Jul 31, 5:57*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane wrote: On Jul 31, 10:55*am, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell" templetagteam@shawdotca wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim it too loudly, Mike). Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology? Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state regulating body. BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer. First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth."...your first answer: "Yes." Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english language? NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN BIKER????? Michael J. Vandeman is an armchair environmentalist. He does no actual hands-on research himself so his "findings" are bogus. So a "review of the literature" isn't science? That would come a big news to all scientists. No more than a review of the new Batman movie. Your "reviews" are on par with Roger Ebert, nothing more than opinion. *He has been proven wrong hundreds of times. BS. Not by any real SCIENTIST. None of the SCIENTISTS who have heard me speak have found anything wrong with my papers on mountain biking. I'm sure your papers were just fine for whiping asses when they restroom was out of toilet paper, but in the real world, ALL your claims have been refuted and proven false by REAL research. How would YOU know? You can't even SPELL, much less judge scientific quality. My misspelling of the word "wiping" doesn't negate your lack of qualifications, but you "probaby" knew that. Sorry that your claims about mountain-bikng were debunked by real researchers, I know that must be a tremendous blow to your fragile ego. You're |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 04:45:49 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote: On Aug 2, 1:30*am, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane wrote: On Jul 31, 5:57*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane wrote: On Jul 31, 10:55*am, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell" templetagteam@shawdotca wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim it too loudly, Mike). Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology? Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state regulating body. BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer. First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth."...your first answer: "Yes." Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english language? NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN BIKER????? Michael J. Vandeman is an armchair environmentalist. He does no actual hands-on research himself so his "findings" are bogus. So a "review of the literature" isn't science? That would come a big news to all scientists. No more than a review of the new Batman movie. Your "reviews" are on par with Roger Ebert, nothing more than opinion. *He has been proven wrong hundreds of times. BS. Not by any real SCIENTIST. None of the SCIENTISTS who have heard me speak have found anything wrong with my papers on mountain biking. I'm sure your papers were just fine for whiping asses when they restroom was out of toilet paper, but in the real world, ALL your claims have been refuted and proven false by REAL research. How would YOU know? You can't even SPELL, much less judge scientific quality. My misspelling of the word "wiping" doesn't negate your lack of qualifications, but you "probaby" knew that. Sorry that your claims about mountain-bikng were debunked by real researchers, LIAR. Name even ONE "real researcher" who has "debunked" my claims. I know you can't. You are nothing but hot air. -- 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 |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
On Aug 2, 1:51*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 04:45:49 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane wrote: On Aug 2, 1:30*am, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane wrote: On Jul 31, 5:57*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane wrote: On Jul 31, 10:55*am, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell" templetagteam@shawdotca wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim it too loudly, Mike). Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology? Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state regulating body. BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer. First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth."...your first answer: "Yes." Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english language? NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN BIKER????? Michael J. Vandeman is an armchair environmentalist. He does no actual hands-on research himself so his "findings" are bogus. So a "review of the literature" isn't science? That would come a big news to all scientists. No more than a review of the new Batman movie. Your "reviews" are on par with Roger Ebert, nothing more than opinion. *He has been proven wrong hundreds of times. BS. Not by any real SCIENTIST. None of the SCIENTISTS who have heard me speak have found anything wrong with my papers on mountain biking. I'm sure your papers were just fine for whiping asses when they restroom was out of toilet paper, but in the real world, ALL your claims have been refuted and proven false by REAL research. How would YOU know? You can't even SPELL, much less judge scientific quality. My misspelling of the word "wiping" doesn't negate your lack of qualifications, but you "probaby" knew that. Sorry that your claims about mountain-bikng were debunked by real researchers, LIAR. Name even ONE "real researcher" who has "debunked" my claims. I know you can't. You are nothing but hot air. Wilson and Seney debunked you years ago. You tried to refute their findings with opinion but you never did anything real to back it up, as usual. Your keyboard research is a farce. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:29:00 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote: On Aug 2, 1:51*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 04:45:49 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane wrote: On Aug 2, 1:30*am, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane wrote: On Jul 31, 5:57*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane wrote: On Jul 31, 10:55*am, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell" templetagteam@shawdotca wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim it too loudly, Mike). Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology? Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state regulating body. BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer. First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth."...your first answer: "Yes." Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english language? NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN BIKER????? Michael J. Vandeman is an armchair environmentalist. He does no actual hands-on research himself so his "findings" are bogus. So a "review of the literature" isn't science? That would come a big news to all scientists. No more than a review of the new Batman movie. Your "reviews" are on par with Roger Ebert, nothing more than opinion. *He has been proven wrong hundreds of times. BS. Not by any real SCIENTIST. None of the SCIENTISTS who have heard me speak have found anything wrong with my papers on mountain biking. I'm sure your papers were just fine for whiping asses when they restroom was out of toilet paper, but in the real world, ALL your claims have been refuted and proven false by REAL research. How would YOU know? You can't even SPELL, much less judge scientific quality. My misspelling of the word "wiping" doesn't negate your lack of qualifications, but you "probaby" knew that. Sorry that your claims about mountain-bikng were debunked by real researchers, LIAR. Name even ONE "real researcher" who has "debunked" my claims. I know you can't. You are nothing but hot air. Wilson and Seney debunked you years ago. That's an OBVIOUS LIE! Their article was published before mine! Their so-called "erosion study" was pure hokum, and they have NEVER responded to my critique or email -- obviously because I'm RIGHT! And NOT ONE of the SCIENTISTS who have heard or received my paper has ever found anythng wrong with it. You are full of it. I notice that you didn't respond, when I asked you to state your qualifications -- because you don't HAVE any! You tried to refute their findings with opinion but you never did anything real to back it up, as usual. Your keyboard research is a farce. It's obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are just blowing how air, like ALL mountain bikers. Thanks for a good laugh, FRAUD! But what can we expect from someone afraid to use their real name?! -- 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mountain Bikers Rat Pack & Threaten Woman for Telling the Truth about Mountain Biking! | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 2 | April 2nd 08 05:12 PM |
Mountain Bikers Rat Pack & Threaten Woman for Telling the Truth about Mountain Biking! | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 2 | April 2nd 08 05:12 PM |
Three (More) Mountain Bikers Arrested for Illegally Mountain Biking in Grand Canyon National Park | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 8 | March 18th 07 06:24 AM |
Three (More) Mountain Bikers Arrested for Illegally Mountain Biking in Grand Canyon National Park | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 6 | March 16th 07 03:35 AM |
STILL Unrefuted, after15 Months of Mountain Bikers Fuming!: The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature | di | Mountain Biking | 1 | October 23rd 05 10:09 PM |