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

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:01:46 -0500, "S Curtiss"
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.
We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you. Off-road cycling continues
to grow. The cooperative efforts continue to increase awareness and
acceptance. The community of off-road cyclists continues to create allies
with other groups and collectively create a larger voice against the
destruction of sprawl and development. The policy makers continue to accept
the actual FACTS of comparative research despite your attempts at presenting
lies.
You continue to stand in favor of development by attempting to drive wedges
with missinformation. You must be proud. Your stated cause of 8 years (I
spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
has been overshadowed by your current goal to decrease the cooperative voice
to preserve.

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.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:52:05 GMT, "JP" wrote:

I wish you were right .
But I think he is smart enough, though not emotionally mature or
fulfilled.
The conferences I've googled are for the most part filled with
other crackpots though in different areas and I have the feeling
that they will always accept a "PhD" in their quest to appear legitimate.
He shares the podium with crystal worshippers, UFO abductees and other
wackos, which on the surface since the participants are never described
makes his resume appear more legitimate.

LIAR. These are scientific conferences, full of scientists, land
managers, and other people who are actually doing something worthwhile
with their lives, unlike you guys, who are only looking for cheap
thrills.
And they haven't had a word to offer on your opinions. That speaks volumes.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:23:42 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:



"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.

You haven't presented one good reason to accept your opinions are more valid
than the findings presented by the actual researchers who performed the
actual study (or studies). You have not created a single bit of information.
You have simply pointed to research you agree with and proclaim it "valid"
and pointed to research counter to your opinion and proclaimed it "junk".
"Because you say so" is not good enough. That is proven as your opinions
have been presented time and again and discounted by the people whose job it
is to assess information in the creation of rules of access and trail
useage.
You are merely a child making a huff for not getting his way. It is sad. It
is pathetic. It is hysterical.

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:30:42 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"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.

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.



===
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, 24 Nov 2006 01:39:28 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:01:46 -0500, "S Curtiss"
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.
We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you.

So you admit that there is absolutely no good reason to allow bikes
off-road? QED

Off-road cycling continues
to grow. The cooperative efforts continue to increase awareness and
acceptance. The community of off-road cyclists continues to create allies
with other groups and collectively create a larger voice against the
destruction of sprawl and development. The policy makers continue to accept
the actual FACTS of comparative research despite your attempts at presenting
lies.
You continue to stand in favor of development by attempting to drive wedges
with missinformation. You must be proud. Your stated cause of 8 years (I
spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
has been overshadowed by your current goal to decrease the cooperative voice
to preserve.

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

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:59:25 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:23:42 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:



"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.

You haven't presented one good reason to accept your opinions are more valid
than the findings presented by the actual researchers who performed the
actual study (or studies).

I just did, and you erased it. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

You have not created a single bit of information.
You have simply pointed to research you agree with and proclaim it "valid"
and pointed to research counter to your opinion and proclaimed it "junk".
"Because you say so" is not good enough. That is proven as your opinions
have been presented time and again and discounted by the people whose job it
is to assess information in the creation of rules of access and trail
useage.
You are merely a child making a huff for not getting his way. It is sad. It
is pathetic. It is hysterical.

===
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 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.

Mike, who do you think you're
fooling? You have NEVER been
published in a peer-reviewed
journal, and are therefore
voiceless in any meaningful
scientific forum. PERIOD.

cc

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:28:28 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"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.

Yes, I did. But you haven't verified it, because the truth hurts.
===
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 23 Nov 2006 13:09:04 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


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.

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 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.
===
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, 24 Nov 2006 01:18:22 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

"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.

Yes, NINE times against mountain biking. Must be valid.
===
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