|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:36:37 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:48:52 -0500, "S Curtiss" wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:12:23 -0500, "S Curtiss" wrote: Your choice not to acknowledge the several valid answers to this question over the years Show me even ONE valid answer. Since you CAN'T and DON'T, that proves my point. Your choice to split context and ignore the complete text (below) proves my point to everyone except you. That is all the proof I need as off-road cycling makes progress within the entire community and your voice has been dropped by the wayside. continues to leave you in a corner of your own making. Beyond that, you have NO power to make the request as you have NO power to wield in making decisions. Fortunately, your own lack of substance in dealing with the reality of the benefits put forth has left your credibility in a shambles and your voice empty in the actual discussions that continue to move forward. The expansion of access, the actual rules of access and the growth of cooperation between all groups continues to leave you and your phony "research" behind. Posted exactly one year ago (11/22/05): "Cycling off-road is an excellent physical and mental exercise, allows the rider to enjoy this exercise without the constraints and dangers of being in auto traffic, allows the rider to enjoy the natural environment, and develop an appreciation for the natural environment. 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. So you admit that there is absolutely no good reason to allow bikes off-road? QED Your spliiting of context is tiresome and beneath the intelligence you claim, (as is your use of name calling) "with your opinion firmly in place, you perceive anything you dislike or disagree with as being senseless, wasteful or hazardous in some way. You say "give me one good reason to bike off-road" in the same manner in which one would ask "give me one good reason to put your hand in a fire". Your opinion of the FACTS does not undermine their validity. The appreciation of any activity is highly subjective. If your PhD was worth the tissue paper it is written on, you would grasp that as fundamental. However, with your opinion firmly in place, you perceive anything you dislike or disagree with as being senseless, wasteful or hazardous in some way. You say "give me one good reason to bike off-road" in the same manner in which one would ask "give me one good reason to put your hand in a fire". Progress has been made while your distorted views show only more holes. === 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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:01:46 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:56:37 GMT, "Roberto Baggio" wrote: Because the public allows it, That's not a reason to allow it. You just restated the fact that it's allowed. WHY should it be allowed? OBVIOUSLY, you can't come up with a single good reason to allow bikes off-road. The simple reason they ARE allowed and continued access on public lands is expanding proves the reasons (as stated so many times) are valid. WHAT reasons? You haven't managed to give even ONE good reason to allow bikes off-road. Your choice to ignore these reasons is unimportant as cooperation, understanding and real progress continues. Your demand for a "reason" is merely your game of words and also unimportant. Your own choices to ignore information counter to your opinions and your own tactics of discussion in the face of this information has left you unimportant. The FACTS are that the groups involved in making regulations and the diverse groups of "outdoor visitors" and their policy makers ARE recognizing the validity of the "reasons" and the similarities of impacts to recognize the benefits of cooperative efforts. === 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 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:23:42 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:06:27 -0500, "S Curtiss" wrote: And he fails to grasp that the reality is that the good reasons are that MTBers, by real, verifiable research, don't leave any bigger footprint in nature than hikers. That's a LIE. That's why you didn't cite any such "research": there isn't any! Your choice to be ignorant of information contrary to your opinion does not make the statement in any way a "lie". "A study published in the summer 2006 Journal of Park and Recreation Administration (Volume 24, Number 12) takes a close look at the environmental impacts of mountain biking. Researchers measured trail erosion and other impacts on 31 trails used for mountain biking in the southwestern U.S. The study concludes that, "certain impacts to mountain bike trails, especially width, are comparable or less than hiking or multiple-use trails, and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle trails." Recreational ecologists Dave White from Arizona State University and Pam Foti from Northern Arizona University led the three-year research project titled "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." The researchers used "Common Ecological Regions" (CERs) to provide consistency in comparing the ecological effects of mountain biking with those of other recreational activities." Even the most recent research shows your opinions constitute the bulk of the lies being presented. "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006) 1. Are the authors mountain bikers? They seem to be promoting mountain biking -- trying to make it seem environmentally acceptable. Yawn.... Did you say something? Your credibility has been rendered suspect (by your own actions) to the point that your questions of this paper and your opinions of the research contained are unimportant. You do nothing to counter the information but ridicule the findings. And I give specific scientific REASONS why they are WORTHLESS. === 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 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 17:03:12 GMT, "Mike" wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:06:27 -0500, "S Curtiss" wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" wrote: S Curtiss wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" wrote: S Curtiss wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing bikes off of pavement. You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons. Ding! We have a winner. Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to, and am able to. You didn't read the question. I was asking for " ONE good reason for allowing bikes off of pavement." NOT why YOU should ride. Why someone else should LET you ride off-road. NOW answer the question. "Because YOU like it" is not a good reason for a LAND MANAGER to allow you to do it. Otherwise. that same reason would allow people to grow marijuana on public lands. Your failure to grasp reality is at the center of the issue. As long as you continue to insist your views and definitions are the only acceptable options, you will continue to be looked at as on a fool's errand. And he fails to grasp that the reality is that the good reasons are that MTBers, by real, verifiable research, don't leave any bigger footprint in nature than hikers. That's a LIE. That's why you didn't cite any such "research": there isn't any! Your choice to be ignorant of information contrary to your opinion does not make the statement in any way a "lie". "A study published in the summer 2006 Journal of Park and Recreation Administration (Volume 24, Number 12) takes a close look at the environmental impacts of mountain biking. Researchers measured trail erosion and other impacts on 31 trails used for mountain biking in the southwestern U.S. The study concludes that, "certain impacts to mountain bike trails, especially width, are comparable or less than hiking or multiple-use trails, and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle trails." Recreational ecologists Dave White from Arizona State University and Pam Foti from Northern Arizona University led the three-year research project titled "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." The researchers used "Common Ecological Regions" (CERs) to provide consistency in comparing the ecological effects of mountain biking with those of other recreational activities." Even the most recent research shows your opinions constitute the bulk of the lies being presented. And since the reality is that nobody is going to ban hikers, bikers (and their bikes) will continue to have access. The activity is growing, and reality matches that growth - more access to more places. Including National Parks! I don't think MJV would allow any sort of recreation in any area, if it were up to him. On foot, on bike, on horseback - none of it. So his opinion of what constitutes a "good reason" for allowing any of these things is essentially singular, and of no importance. 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 "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006) 1. Are the authors mountain bikers? They seem to be promoting mountain biking -- trying to make it seem environmentally acceptable. 2. Why does the abstract and paper make comparisons between hiking and mountain biking impacts? They apparently didn't collect any data that would allow them to make such a comparison. In fact, the only way to make such a comparison is with an experimental design, not a survey, as they have done. It is logically impossible to draw any useful conclusions from a design that includes measurements taken at only a single point in time. The data (trail width and depth) provide no way to distinguish between mountain biking impacts and the effects of trail construction, trail maintenance, wind, rain, hiking, animals, or any other factors. But if mountain bikes caused as much damage as you claim wouldn't it be obvious? That's not science. Science requires specific measurements. White et al didn't even measure a single hiking trail! Their comparison was nothing but rhetoric, not science. You state "The data (trail width and depth) provide no way to distinguish between mountain biking impacts and the effects of trail construction, trail maintenance, wind, rain, hiking, animals, or any other factors." So you are finally admitting that it is impossible to tell, from trail conditions, who is damaging the trail ? That's not what I said. I said that the researchers didn't scientifically distinguish those different factors, so can't make any claims about them. Learn to READ. So your method of dertermining that mountain bikers cause all the damage could br classified as science fiction. 3. The comparison of mountain biking vs. hiking impacts seems to rest on three bits of information: Wilson and Seney (1994), Thurston and Reader (2001), and a vague, non-statistical judgment about their measurements being "similar" to those of hiking trails. Maybe that's because it is similar between the two. That's not a scientific term. The Wilson and Seney study was discredited by Vandeman (2004), because they didn't measure erosion accurately: they dripped water on the trail and collected and weighed the solids carried into the collecting pan. This only takes into account very fine particles able to be transported by such "artificial rain"; it ignores all of the larger particles dislodged by feet or tires. That would also leave out erossion cuased by heavy rains. In areas with heavy rains the erossion would cause more damage than hiking and biking combined. It wasn't measured, so it can't be scientifically distinguished. The Wilson and Seney study thus provides no useful comparison between hiking and mountain biking impacts. No. The information is useful, not just useful to you. WHAT information? They provided no valid information. Of course, you would have to actually READ their study, as I did, to make a meaningful comment. 4. They also misrepresented Thurston and Reader's results. Actually, Thurston and Reader found that after 500 passes, mountain biking had greater impacts on plants than hiking. It doesn't take long to accumulate 500 passes. Some trails will receive that amount of traffic (250 visitors) in a day or two. Some trails, not all trails. Some trails may not see 500 passes in six months. But it's no different for hiking trails. Some hiking trails in, popular areas, may see 500 people a day. So this study actually provides no support for White et al's claim that hiking and mountain biking impacts are "comparable" Sure it does, see above. WHERE? (whatever that means). 5. The authors provide no other quantitative, statistical comparison between hiking and mountain biking impacts. The only way to do that would be to do an experimental study, where all factors except hiking vs. mountain biking are controlled (in other words, apply equal amounts of hiking and mountain biking to identical trails and measure the impacts using before-and-after measurements). Wouldn't that be next to impossible ? That would mean the trails to be compared would have to be identicle in every respect, such as same type of soil, same slope, same amount of rainfall, etc..... Now it's easy to see where "comparable" fits in. It's the scientist's responsibiity to do that, as best they can. White et al didn't even TRY. 6. Their estimate of the number of mountain bikers ("21% of the American public") seems grossly exaggerated. I think they need to find a more reliable source for that information. 7. They make claims about the benefits of mountain biking. This seems out of place in a scientific paper, especially since they provide no evidence for any such (net) benefits. It really doesn't take much smarts to figure that one out, does it? They are outdoors getting physical exercise. I have never heard were exercise wasn't good for you. You are LYING. Mountain bikers get killed or seriously injured all the time! Such claims are usually biased by tallying alleged positive benefits without subtracting the harm caused by mountain biking (e.g. accidents, environmental damage, wildlife impacts, and driving other trail users off of the trails). That only happens when idiots like you do the studies. 8. They claim "management actions that limit access can be controversial and raise issues of equity", but provide no evidence. I'm not aware of any limited access or issues of equity. Sure you are. You are always complaining about mountain bikers not having any rights to use the trails. You are LYING. I have NEVER said that. In fact, I have often said the OPPOSITE: mountain bikers have the right to use ALL trails (as long as they don't bring their bikes). How would you feel if the mountain bikers had exclusive use of the trails and you could no longer use them. How would that fit in to your "issuses of equity". Since only bicycles, not people, have ever been restricted, I don't see how they can make such a claim. In fact, it is very unlikely that there are any equity issues, since it was already determined by a federal court that bikes may be banned from trails (see http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10). 9. I'm glad they mention "questionable studies". There are, indeed, a lot of them! There sure are. You should read some of the crap that is written by a guy named Vandeman. But I wonder why they included some of them in their references, such as Wilson and Seney, and presented them without comment, as if they were sound science (see Vandeman 2004). You can't use the terms "sound science" and "Vandeman" in the same sentence as it is a contradiction of terms. They also misrepresented Thurston and Reader's results, as I explained above. 10. On p.24 they mention "visitor-related factors", but omitted impacts on other trail users. I think that that is one of the major impacts of mountain biking. I'm aware of many parks where mountain bikers have driven other trail users off the trails and out of the parks. Now we get down to the real reason for your hatred of mountain bikers. You don't want them on YOUR trails. More lies. I don't mind mountain bikers on my trails. I only object to BIKES on the trails. 11. On p.26 they claim that "the magnitude of ecological impacts attributed to mountain biking appear to be comparable to those of hiking". "Comparable" is vague or meaningless as a scientific term. It means that both activities have the same impact on the environment. BS. It's not scientific. Main Entry: sim·i·lar Pronunciation: 'si-m&-l&r, 'sim-l&r Function: adjective Etymology: French similaire, from Latin similis like, similar -- more at SAME 1 : having characteristics in common : strictly comparable 2 : alike in substance or essentials : CORRESPONDING no two animal habitats are exactly similar -- W. H. Dowdeswell 3 : not differing in shape but only in size or position similar triangles similar polygons The Earth is comparable to the Sun (they can be compared). Sure, if you are saying both are round objects. I think that they also misrepresent the implications of those studies Your opinion only. (see Vandeman 2004). I don't read science fiction. 12. On p.29 they mention "user-created" trails. Are you saying that the trails are not "user-created" ? Why use a euphemism, in a scientific paper? Those trails were built illegally. The authors only add to the impression that their paper is deliberately slanted. 13. They make a good point on p.36 about trail users having to leave the trail to allow mountain bikers to pass. This is a good reason to ban bikes from trails: they lead inevitably to trail widening. But the authors don't suggest banning bikes as an option, even though it is a very common management tool. This adds to the impression of bias. 14. On p.37 they claim that "the width and depth" of their trails is "similar" (not a scientific term, since it is so vague) to that of Marion & Leung, although their trails averaged 32" wide (median 26") and his median trail width was 17", so theirs was 50% greater. Why be scientifically precise in some contexts, but totally vague when they want to advocate for mountain biking? It is scientifically meaningless to compare trails in different areas, since the differences or similarities could be caused by many irrelevant factors, such as differences in soil type, kind and amount of use, management policies, etc. Exactly, now you should be able to see why they use the term "similar" so often. 15. Also on p.37 they claim that "The findings from our study thus reinforce results from previous research that certain impacts to mountain bike trails, especially width, are comparable or less than hiking ... trails". On the contrary, they presented zero data on the width of hiking trails. In fact, they gave evidence (see # 13 above) that mountain biking tends to widen hiking trails, by forcing hikers and equestrians off the trail. 16. They also say "average width in our study was similar to lower use mountain bike trails in Australia ... which [were] from 17 in. to 26 in." "Similar" is not a scientific term. It would appear, on the contrary, that their trails were much wider than those ones. But as I mentioned earlier, it is meaningless to compare trails in different areas. There is no way to determine the cause of any differences or lack of differences. 17. They claim on p.37 that "mountain biking is likely a sustainable activity on properly managed trails". What does that mean? Comprehension of the english language is not one of your strong points, I see. Then define it. They have just documented erosion and trail widening. Those effects are not "sustainable"; they constitute environmental damage, in addition to that of other trail users. It's the hikers using mountain bike trails that cause the widening of the trails, maybe all hikers should be banned. They go on to mention several other negative effects of mountain biking (wildlife impacts and spread of exotic species) that also contradict the idea that mountain biking is "sustainable". It would appear that they are bending over backwards to conclude that mountain biking is acceptable. Wouldn't those negative effects apply to hiking as well ? Hiking impacts are much less than mountain biking impacts, according to the science. 18. I fail to see the value of "the introduction of CERs" (Common Ecological Regions). It seems to have no relevance to policy or management, unless we are going to prohibit mountain biking in desert areas where trails can't be clearly delimited. But we already know that trail widening is harmful: it represents habitat destruction. Sure, adding another six inches to the width of the trail would just clear the wildlife right out of the forrest, wouldn't it ? In summary, I was bothered most by the authors' unquestioning acceptance at face value of (or even misrepresenting) some rather questionable studies, and their drawing conclusions not warranted by their data. If they really want to do science, and not just promote mountain biking, I think they should adhere better to what the data tell us. Maybe you should take that advice and use it in your own "studies". Actually, it's much easier than trying to slant results. Permit me to tell a little story. I was in graduate school at UCLA, was trying to write a literature-review paper, and was having a terrible time writing it -- until I realized that I was trying to make the results come out the way I wanted them to. When I decided to "just tell it like it was" and let the cards fall as they might, the paper almost wrote itself. It became easy. So what happened between then and now ? Mountain biking is such a contentious issue that there is a great temptation to slant the results to support one's preferred management policy. The result is a lot of questionable studies that don't really further science and don't really help provide scientific management of our precious remaining wildlife habitat. I would agree to that as your "studies" read like science fiction. I suggest that they first find out what kind of answers are needed (especially by land managers), and then design research specifically to answer those questions. I hope I am reading that wrong but it seems that's how studies are done now. They figure out the answer they want for the question and then find the research that gives the desired answer. How about a study that is done without bias that actually and thruthfully answers the questions at hand ? http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7. References: Thurston, E. and R. J. Reader. 2001. Impacts of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and soil of a deciduous forest. Environmental Management 27:397-409. Vandeman, M. J. 2004. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature. Available at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7. White, D. D., M. T. Waskey, G. P. Brodehl, and P. E. Foti. 2006. A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 24:2, 21-41. Wilson, J. P. and J. Seney. 1994. Erosional impact of hikers, horses, motorcycles, and off-road bicycles on mountain trails in Montana. Mountain Research and Development. 14:77-88. === 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 === 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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... You are LYING. I did NONE of those studies, and didn't weed anything out. I reviewed ALL experimental studies comparing hiking & mountain biking impacts. You MIGHT have reviewed them all, but you most certainly did not include them all. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
S Curtiss wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:48:52 -0500, "S Curtiss" wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:12:23 -0500, "S Curtiss" wrote: Your choice not to acknowledge the several valid answers to this question over the years Show me even ONE valid answer. Since you CAN'T and DON'T, that proves my point. Your choice to split context and ignore the complete text (below) proves my point to everyone except you. That is all the proof I need as off-road cycling makes progress within the entire community and your voice has been dropped by the wayside. continues to leave you in a corner of your own making. Beyond that, you have NO power to make the request as you have NO power to wield in making decisions. Fortunately, your own lack of substance in dealing with the reality of the benefits put forth has left your credibility in a shambles and your voice empty in the actual discussions that continue to move forward. The expansion of access, the actual rules of access and the growth of cooperation between all groups continues to leave you and your phony "research" behind. Posted exactly one year ago (11/22/05): "Cycling off-road is an excellent physical and mental exercise, allows the rider to enjoy this exercise without the constraints and dangers of being in auto traffic, allows the rider to enjoy the natural environment, and develop an appreciation for the natural environment. 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. The repetition of the research cites are not required, and the attempted refutation by ad hominem from MJV has no standing. I think we're done here. E.P. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-DeficitDisorder
S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:34:43 -0500, "S Curtiss" wrote: "JP" wrote in message newsx%8h.970$ki3.866@trndny01... See what I mean Steve? Did you really want to make him feel better? I don't think for a minute he is smart enough to look at it in the way you present. Even so, I like to believe at some point one of the people that organize these "conferences" he invites himself to through a "call for papers" will do a background check on him and reject his submissions. Very funny. My papers speak for themselves. Without INDEPENDANT review or comment from attendees, organizers or "peers" at these conferences, I believe you mean your papers speak TO themselves. Oh, but that's right....Mike has no peers as he's the only expert in the whole wide world when it comes to mountain bike impacts... The pesky little thing about not actually having done any research to prove any of his assumptions or generalizations is but a minor thing, so just take his word for it. After all, with all his vast lack of research, he can disprove any peer reviewed and published article and research finding. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
... It really doesn't take much smarts to figure that one out, does it? They are outdoors getting physical exercise. I have never heard were exercise wasn't good for you. You are LYING. Mountain bikers get killed or seriously injured all the time! What has that got to do with exercise? Given your logic, you'd have accept the following: hikers get killed and seriously injured all the time. Search and Rescue teams have to use a lot of time, resources, and often risk their lives to rescue them. Hiking should be banned. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
... On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 08:01:55 GMT, "Roberto Baggio" wrote: Can you explain how a conference is considered an independent confirmation? I wouldn't be allowed to speak (not just ONCE, but REPEATEDLY), if my paper weren't of scientific quality. That doesn't imply independent confirmation. It just implies that you were allowed speak more than once. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:36:37 -0500, "S Curtiss" wrote: Posted exactly one year ago (11/22/05): "Cycling off-road is an excellent physical and mental exercise, allows the rider to enjoy this exercise without the constraints and dangers of being in auto traffic, allows the rider to enjoy the natural environment, and develop an appreciation for the natural environment. 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. So you admit that there is absolutely no good reason to allow bikes off-road? QED Wordplay. You can not explain away your lack of credibility by grasping at a statement I did not make. The case has been made and ACCEPTED for off-road cycling. Your acceptance of this TRUTH is a non-issue. Your opinions are a non-issue in the scope of the reality of actual information and progress. Your spliiting of context is tiresome and beneath the intelligence you claim, (as is your use of name calling) "with your opinion firmly in place, you perceive anything you dislike or disagree with as being senseless, wasteful or hazardous in some way. You say "give me one good reason to bike off-road" in the same manner in which one would ask "give me one good reason to put your hand in a fire". Your opinion of the FACTS does not undermine their validity. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flouride in our water causes Attention Deficit Disorder - watch this that THEY won't show you. | Israel Goldbergstein | Australia | 14 | August 7th 06 12:50 AM |
It's not road rage but a mental disorder... | warrwych | Australia | 18 | June 8th 06 05:12 AM |
6 YO child + 45Kms = child abuse? | Shaw | Australia | 41 | January 18th 06 12:45 AM |
TOUR deficit! WANTED KEY TDF 2005 taped coverage.... | JEFS | Marketplace | 0 | July 29th 05 03:52 AM |
Victim of compulsive bike disorder! | nobody760 | UK | 9 | June 30th 04 12:15 AM |