Mountain Bikers Prefer to Attack Me, Rather than Discuss the Harm that Mountain Biking Does!

On Jul 24, 10:00*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:10:06 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
scientifically qualified you are not. And yes. We are qualified to
judge.

List your qualification(s).

List yours, you made the claim first.

Yawn...you bore me Mike. I have listed actual PAPERS I wrote in the
past...papers of Chemistry elements and BioChemistry research you
could only dream to understand...not literary reviews of other's
material. My info was Research documents of factual experimental data
that I DID...you on the other hand...have nothing. NOTHING but copies
of other's material. You are a fabricator of lies and thousands of
your posts prove it. I will just call you flip flop from now on...You
loon. My experience across the board of research in areas have been
plentiful enough to fully diagnose you as a Sociopath. Verified by
thousands of posts as well. You're a joke. Like I said before...you
are a movie of the week at best...collecting dust on a floor
somewhere.

Did you say something?

When backed into a corner, Michael J. Vandeman capitulates with the
same old "did you say something" because he has nothing left, he
cannot refute the facts that have been presented so he babbles his
tired nonsense. He's been cyber slapped and he's incoherent from
getting his ass kicked so much.


Mike got showed the door on his"scientific method" and outed as a
sociopath, a diagnosis that the poster seems qualified to make. Looks
like Mike loses...again.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:13:18 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

On Jul 24, 10:00*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:10:06 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
scientifically qualified you are not. And yes. We are qualified to
judge.

List your qualification(s).

List yours, you made the claim first.

Yawn...you bore me Mike. I have listed actual PAPERS I wrote in the
past...papers of Chemistry elements and BioChemistry research you
could only dream to understand...not literary reviews of other's
material. My info was Research documents of factual experimental data
that I DID...you on the other hand...have nothing. NOTHING but copies
of other's material. You are a fabricator of lies and thousands of
your posts prove it. I will just call you flip flop from now on...You
loon. My experience across the board of research in areas have been
plentiful enough to fully diagnose you as a Sociopath. Verified by
thousands of posts as well. You're a joke. Like I said before...you
are a movie of the week at best...collecting dust on a floor
somewhere.

Did you say something?

When backed into a corner, Michael J. Vandeman capitulates with the
same old "did you say something" because he has nothing left, he
cannot refute the facts that have been presented so he babbles his
tired nonsense. He's been cyber slapped and he's incoherent from
getting his ass kicked so much.


Mike got showed the door on his"scientific method" and outed as a
sociopath, a diagnosis that the poster seems qualified to make. Looks
like Mike loses...again.

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 Jul 25, 10:35*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:13:18 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Jul 24, 10:00*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:10:06 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
scientifically qualified you are not. And yes. We are qualified to
judge.

List your qualification(s).

List yours, you made the claim first.

Yawn...you bore me Mike. I have listed actual PAPERS I wrote in the
past...papers of Chemistry elements and BioChemistry research you
could only dream to understand...not literary reviews of other's
material. My info was Research documents of factual experimental data
that I DID...you on the other hand...have nothing. NOTHING but copies
of other's material. You are a fabricator of lies and thousands of
your posts prove it. I will just call you flip flop from now on...You
loon. My experience across the board of research in areas have been
plentiful enough to fully diagnose you as a Sociopath. Verified by
thousands of posts as well. You're a joke. Like I said before...you
are a movie of the week at best...collecting dust on a floor
somewhere.

Did you say something?

When backed into a corner, Michael J. Vandeman capitulates with the
same old "did you say something" because he has nothing left, he
cannot refute the facts that have been presented so he babbles his
tired nonsense. *He's been cyber slapped and he's incoherent from
getting his ass kicked so much.

Mike got showed the door on his"scientific method" and outed *as a
sociopath, a diagnosis that the poster seems qualified to make. Looks
like Mike loses...again.

Did you say something?

When backed into a corner, Michael J. Vandeman capitulates with the
same old "did you say something" because he has nothing left, he
cannot refute the facts that have been presented so he babbles his
tired nonsense. He's been cyber slapped and he's incoherent from
getting his ass kicked so much.

Mike got showed the door on his"scientific method" and outed as a
sociopath, a diagnosis that the poster seems qualified to make. Looks
like Mike loses...again.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:14:23 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

On Jul 20, 10:37 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they
cited,
and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts


You are not qualified to settle the matter.

Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific
method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM.


You are NOT qualified to do anything more than make unfounded assertions
that you extrapolate from anecdotal information intended to illustrate
entirely different sets of conditions. But, thanks for playing.

For example, you recently asserted that mountain biking is inherently
dangerous BECAUSE a tourist riding his bike on a roadway in South America
was killed by thieves and his body was tossed over a cliff.

Mike Vandeman wrote:


I see you either never read the study, or didn't understand it. It has
nothing to do with "being uncomfortable". The mountain bikers caused
the elk to flee, and to flee FARTHER than either hikers or
equestrians.

I also reviewed the studies on physical impacts (erosion & plant
damage), where mountain biking also did more harm than hiking.

Mike, I've also observed animal behavior...elk and deer tend to flee
from *anything* that is larger and fast moving. The larger and more fast
moving, the greater the response...it is a typical flight response that
they use for protection from predators. Put a sumo suit on and run
through the woods and you'll get a similar response. I'm not denying the
response, but rather the true impact of it. If the elk and deer realize
a bike is not a predator, it will not generate the same response in the
future.


You *may* hazard a guess of what Bambi is thinking (if
you believe that Bambi has higher reasoning skills) but that is as far
as it goes...when it comes to the assessment of physical impacts (after
all, erosion is one of your favorite topics) you are simply out of your
area of expertise.
It's not rocket science, you dunce. If you are a qualified expert,
show us your OWN assessment of the research. And be SPECIFIC! I know
you CAN'T!

I see you are afraid to answer that question! As I predicted....

Mike, as I, like you, do not have all the raw data to run an assessment
on, the best either of us can do is a literature review. You've
pretended to do yours and managed an opinion paper full of bias.

You still haven't answered the question on how your degree in psychology
qualifies you to comment on something out of your area of expertise. As
you claim that the analytical methodologies are all biased, then
apparently you have the answer to fixing them all....I anxiously await
your publishing your findings and the correct methodologies.


Mike, as you are the one saying all the research except Wisdom et al is
incorrect, the burden of proof is on you. There is a lot of research
out there already concluding that the physical effects of mountain
biking is comparable to hiking. Your "literature review" / opinion
paper does not qualify as "proof."

If you actually READ those "studies", you would have to conclude that
those conclusions are not justified from that data.

Actually, Mike, I have read almost all the studies you cite in your
opinion paper (with the exception of only one which I have note been
able to get a copy of by this date). Although I do agree that there are
limitations to all the research, many of the researchers identify those
limitations and what they have done to isolate their impacts.

You, on the other hand, keep bringing up relative distances traveled by
these groups but ignoring participant populations, which would have a
significant influence on damage caused. For a scientist, that seems
pretty biased or ignorant.

and a lot of years of experience in the assessment of both natural and
developed areas for human impacts and environmental health. I also work
as part of a multi-disciplinary team that includes ecologists,
biologist, engineers, geologists, hydrogeologists, foresters,
agrologists, chemists and environmental scientists (at varying levels,
but generally from M.Sc. to Ph.D.).
What? Not going to take issue with this too? Other than getting thrown
out of the Sierra Club,
LIAR.
My apologies, I didn't state that right.

Exactly: you LIED.

BS...prove I lied. They threw you out of leadership in the organization
and don't want you claiming that you represent them (which obviously you
have done to mislead others if they needed to take that step). That
makes you a LIAR....oh but wait...according to your your logic, you are
mountain biker and mountain bikers always lie...so I guess I should have
expected that.


..they didn't throw you out per
se, rather they banned you from holding leadership positions
(ouch...from being a major player to nothing!) and representing them in
any way shape or form...seems they like your money, just not you.

It's not surprizing that an organization like the Sierra Club doesn't
like people who rock the boat. I'm in good company: David Brower also
got fed up with the Sierra Club.


Fed up and banned are two different things. Learn to read! Duh!


where is your field expertise in making
Environmental Impact Assessments? What about Environmental Screening
Reports? Or Environmental Site Assessments? When is the last time you
took part in a vegetation assessment, animal count or did surface or
groundwater flow modeling?
I have no experience doing biased assessment, as you obviously DO.
Biased? So, because you have admitted you have no experience in some of
the relevant methodologies, you claim they are biased? That hardly
supports your claim to be "the expert" on mountain biking impacts.

I'm the expert because I'm the only one who reports the science
HONESTLY. You can't even give us your own qualifications!

Your bias is clearly evident in your "literature review" / opinion
paper. To claim honesty under such bias seems an intentional attempt to
mislead...you're not LYING again, are you Mike?


Just because you read books (comic books don't count, btw) and claiming
"personal experience" and anecdotal evidence from your trail walks does
not prove anything. Just because you can see an example of something,
doesn't make it statistically significant....you, with your research
degree, should know that better than most.

Of course. But when you have enough data, it DOES. And I DO. And
observations don't lie. Such as the snake I found that was killed by a
mountain biker.

I'd love to see your data set....please provide it and the statistical
analysis. I will assume that your failure to do so means that either you
don't have any, haven't done it or are simply lying. Telling me to "do
my own homework" is not a valid response as our geographical areas are
different and you cannot be certain that my data will be the same as
yours and support your observations.

Also, you did the postmortem on the snake? Please provide your
documentation. I'm assuming that your observation was that the snake was
run over, but how did you prove that it was not run over after it died?

Michael Halliwell

In article ,
Siskuwihane says...

On Jul 23, 11:28=A0pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:43:58 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Mikey...

Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific
method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM.

Are you lying again? haha...science PHD...come on now...food science
doesn't count.

Your middle name is "Liar".

=A0You might be right up there with Emeril but

scientifically qualified you are not. And yes. We are qualified to
judge.

List your qualification(s).


List yours, you made the claim first.

In an attempt to excuse his past irresponsible pet ownership, Michael
J. Vandeman claimed the following:

"If I had known how many birds and other animals are killed by cats,
even well fed ones, I probably would never have chosen to adopt them."

Now how could someone who claims they are so "scientificaly qualified"
not even know basic biology? How can they claim they didn't know how
many birds and small animals are killed by cats? Surely no one with
such credentials could NOT know such a fundamental aspect of a felines
behavior? Michael J. Vandeman, outed again.

How did domestic cats get into this?

If there was/is a thread or sub-thread on the topic, would someone please point
me to it.

And, if anyone has knowledge of scientific studies documenting statistically
significant negative impacts of domestic cats in U.S. urban environments, please
point me to them also. (Online references, if possible).

Bob

Did you say something

As usual Yep...because you read and respond...and can't refute the
info.



How did domestic cats get into this?


Mike has many strange fascinations...including a stalker type
fascination with Mike VandeRman...It's a sociopathic personality
thing.
Mike Vandeman is kinda creepy....and factless as usual.

On Jul 25, 6:13*pm, Bob Berger wrote:
In article ,
Siskuwihane says...







On Jul 23, 11:28=A0pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:43:58 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Mikey...

Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific
method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM.

Are you lying again? haha...science PHD...come on now...food science
doesn't count.

Your middle name is "Liar".

=A0You might be right up there with Emeril but

scientifically qualified you are not. And yes. We are qualified to
judge.

List your qualification(s).

List yours, you made the claim first.

In an attempt to excuse his past irresponsible pet ownership, Michael
J. Vandeman claimed the following:

"If I had known how many birds and other animals are killed by cats,
even well fed ones, I probably would never have chosen to adopt them."

Now how could someone who claims they are so "scientificaly qualified"
not even know basic biology? How can they claim they didn't know how
many birds and small animals are killed by cats? Surely no one with
such credentials could NOT know such a fundamental aspect of a felines
behavior? Michael J. Vandeman, outed again.

How did domestic cats get into this?

By combining the scientific method with Vandelogic you can pretty much
inject anything into any subject.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:48:24 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

On Jul 25, 10:35*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:13:18 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Jul 24, 10:00*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:10:06 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
scientifically qualified you are not. And yes. We are qualified to
judge.

List your qualification(s).

List yours, you made the claim first.

Yawn...you bore me Mike. I have listed actual PAPERS I wrote in the
past...papers of Chemistry elements and BioChemistry research you
could only dream to understand...not literary reviews of other's
material. My info was Research documents of factual experimental data
that I DID...you on the other hand...have nothing. NOTHING but copies
of other's material. You are a fabricator of lies and thousands of
your posts prove it. I will just call you flip flop from now on...You
loon. My experience across the board of research in areas have been
plentiful enough to fully diagnose you as a Sociopath. Verified by
thousands of posts as well. You're a joke. Like I said before...you
are a movie of the week at best...collecting dust on a floor
somewhere.

Did you say something?

When backed into a corner, Michael J. Vandeman capitulates with the
same old "did you say something" because he has nothing left, he
cannot refute the facts that have been presented so he babbles his
tired nonsense. *He's been cyber slapped and he's incoherent from
getting his ass kicked so much.

Mike got showed the door on his"scientific method" and outed *as a
sociopath, a diagnosis that the poster seems qualified to make. Looks
like Mike loses...again.

Did you say something?

When backed into a corner, Michael J. Vandeman capitulates with the
same old "did you say something" because he has nothing left, he
cannot refute the facts that have been presented so he babbles his
tired nonsense. He's been cyber slapped and he's incoherent from
getting his ass kicked so much.

Mike got showed the door on his"scientific method" and outed as a
sociopath, a diagnosis that the poster seems qualified to make. Looks
like Mike loses...again.




Did you cut & paste 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 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:01:29 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:


I see you either never read the study, or didn't understand it. It has
nothing to do with "being uncomfortable". The mountain bikers caused
the elk to flee, and to flee FARTHER than either hikers or
equestrians.

I also reviewed the studies on physical impacts (erosion & plant
damage), where mountain biking also did more harm than hiking.

Mike, I've also observed animal behavior...elk and deer tend to flee
from *anything* that is larger and fast moving. The larger and more fast
moving, the greater the response...it is a typical flight response that
they use for protection from predators. Put a sumo suit on and run
through the woods and you'll get a similar response. I'm not denying the
response, but rather the true impact of it. If the elk and deer realize
a bike is not a predator, it will not generate the same response in the
future.

Your armchair speculation is no substitute for RESEARCH.

You *may* hazard a guess of what Bambi is thinking (if
you believe that Bambi has higher reasoning skills) but that is as far
as it goes...when it comes to the assessment of physical impacts (after
all, erosion is one of your favorite topics) you are simply out of your
area of expertise.
It's not rocket science, you dunce. If you are a qualified expert,
show us your OWN assessment of the research. And be SPECIFIC! I know
you CAN'T!

I see you are afraid to answer that question! As I predicted....

Mike, as I, like you, do not have all the raw data to run an assessment
on, the best either of us can do is a literature review. You've
pretended to do yours and managed an opinion paper full of bias.

Why haven't YOU done one? Do you buy IMBA's propaganda?

You still haven't answered the question on how your degree in psychology
qualifies you to comment on something out of your area of expertise.

Yes, I did. Every science Ph.D. gives one research expertise.

As
you claim that the analytical methodologies are all biased, then
apparently you have the answer to fixing them all....I anxiously await
your publishing your findings and the correct methodologies.

I did in my paper. Did you READ it? Sheesh.

Mike, as you are the one saying all the research except Wisdom et al is
incorrect, the burden of proof is on you. There is a lot of research
out there already concluding that the physical effects of mountain
biking is comparable to hiking. Your "literature review" / opinion
paper does not qualify as "proof."

If you actually READ those "studies", you would have to conclude that
those conclusions are not justified from that data.

Actually, Mike, I have read almost all the studies you cite in your
opinion paper (with the exception of only one which I have note been
able to get a copy of by this date). Although I do agree that there are
limitations to all the research, many of the researchers identify those
limitations and what they have done to isolate their impacts.

That's pure vague BS. Without getting SPECIFIC, we know you are just
blowing hot air. You really don't have a clue how to judge those
papers (even the ones you read), do you?!

You, on the other hand, keep bringing up relative distances traveled by
these groups but ignoring participant populations, which would have a
significant influence on damage caused. For a scientist, that seems
pretty biased or ignorant.

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.

and a lot of years of experience in the assessment of both natural and
developed areas for human impacts and environmental health. I also work
as part of a multi-disciplinary team that includes ecologists,
biologist, engineers, geologists, hydrogeologists, foresters,
agrologists, chemists and environmental scientists (at varying levels,
but generally from M.Sc. to Ph.D.).
What? Not going to take issue with this too? Other than getting thrown
out of the Sierra Club,
LIAR.
My apologies, I didn't state that right.

Exactly: you LIED.

BS...prove I lied.

Anyone can see you lied. Just look up a few lines.

They threw you out of leadership in the organization
and don't want you claiming that you represent them (which obviously you
have done to mislead others if they needed to take that step). That
makes you a LIAR....oh but wait...according to your your logic, you are
mountain biker and mountain bikers always lie...so I guess I should have
expected that.


..they didn't throw you out per
se, rather they banned you from holding leadership positions
(ouch...from being a major player to nothing!) and representing them in
any way shape or form...seems they like your money, just not you.

It's not surprizing that an organization like the Sierra Club doesn't
like people who rock the boat. I'm in good company: David Brower also
got fed up with the Sierra Club.


Fed up and banned are two different things. Learn to read! Duh!

I just don't recall if he was banned or left voluntarily.

where is your field expertise in making
Environmental Impact Assessments? What about Environmental Screening
Reports? Or Environmental Site Assessments? When is the last time you
took part in a vegetation assessment, animal count or did surface or
groundwater flow modeling?
I have no experience doing biased assessment, as you obviously DO.
Biased? So, because you have admitted you have no experience in some of
the relevant methodologies, you claim they are biased? That hardly
supports your claim to be "the expert" on mountain biking impacts.

I'm the expert because I'm the only one who reports the science
HONESTLY. You can't even give us your own qualifications!

Your bias is clearly evident in your "literature review" / opinion
paper. To claim honesty under such bias seems an intentional attempt to
mislead...you're not LYING again, are you Mike?

I never lie. I don't need to, because the truth is on my side!

Just because you read books (comic books don't count, btw) and claiming
"personal experience" and anecdotal evidence from your trail walks does
not prove anything. Just because you can see an example of something,
doesn't make it statistically significant....you, with your research
degree, should know that better than most.

Of course. But when you have enough data, it DOES. And I DO. And
observations don't lie. Such as the snake I found that was killed by a
mountain biker.

I'd love to see your data set....please provide it and the statistical
analysis. I will assume that your failure to do so means that either you
don't have any, haven't done it or are simply lying.

So your failure to provide your qualifications means you don't have
any?

Telling me to "do
my own homework" is not a valid response as our geographical areas are
different and you cannot be certain that my data will be the same as
yours and support your observations.

Also, you did the postmortem on the snake?

What does that mean? I see the mountain bike track across its back.
DUH!

Please provide your
documentation. I'm assuming that your observation was that the snake was
run over, but how did you prove that it was not run over after it died?

You are AMAZINGLY stupid. Snakes don't just die in the trail. Why
can't you admit that I'm right?

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