Mountain Bikers' New Year's Resolution: Start Telling the Truth!

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:40:50 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 17:32:17 -0500, "Marty"
wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
A Review of the Literature
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
July 3, 2004


Troll troll wiggle wiggle jerk jerk.....

Gotcha again............

It's like shooting fish in a barrel. You guys are sooo easy!


Are we watching the same
convo? Mike spews garbage.
Mike is called out and
refuted.

Dreamer! Hasn't happened yet!

Mike acts like a
five-year-old. Repeat ad nauseum.
===
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 Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:40:50 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 17:32:17 -0500, "Marty"
wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
A Review of the Literature
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
July 3, 2004

Troll troll wiggle wiggle jerk jerk.....

Gotcha again............
It's like shooting fish in a barrel. You guys are sooo easy!

Are we watching the same
convo? Mike spews garbage.
Mike is called out and
refuted.

(Step one: Mike spews garbage.)

Dreamer! Hasn't happened yet!

(cf. current thread for steps
two and three)


Mike acts like a
five-year-old. Repeat ad nauseum.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 11:06:47 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..

The science of my mathematics conflicts with the science of your
psychosis.
Mathematics trumps psychosis. You lose.

I have an MA in math from Harvard. What about you? Have you finished
grade school yet? Besides, this is biology, not math. It's amazing how
you keep coming back for more punishment, no matter how many times you
get whipped.

You haven't figured out that you are fighting to save 0.004% of the
environment -- and that assumes you are 100% corrects AND I give you a 100
fold benefit of the doubt about how much land area is actually adversely
affected by bike riding, AND ignores any other form or activity that can
cause or contribute to the adversity you assert.

My math trumps your psychosis.

BS. Human impacts aren't restricted to the width of the trail -- a
fact of basic biology that has never penetrated your thick skull --
and , I predict, never will. It's one of those "inconvenient truths".



Talk about "inconvenient truth"! I've actually INCLUDED the off-the-trail
affects by giving you the ENTIRE length of the trail and giving you a 100
fold benefit of the doubt. I've given you the maximum advangtage, and you
still can credit yoruself with no more than 0.004% of habitat preservation.
My instinct is that your preservation efforts are much less effective ...

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...

Compared to your ZERO? Don't make me laugh.


But, I haven't tried to get the SC go go along with me.

I don't even LIKE the SC because they insist I stay home and watch the
Discovery Channel to get my fix on the outdoors.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:24:13 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:




The science of my mathematics conflicts with the science of your
psychosis.
Mathematics trumps psychosis. You lose.

I have an MA in math from Harvard. What about you? Have you finished
grade school yet? Besides, this is biology, not math. It's amazing how
you keep coming back for more punishment, no matter how many times you
get whipped.
===
Nice ATTEMPT at redirection away from the actual points he made.
Attacking
his background or intelligence in NO WAY minimizes the statements made
by
JS. It only highlights your choice to not address them. Your MA has no
relevance in the reply since you did not address the points made. Citing
where you "earned" your MA holds more embarrassment for Harvard through
association rather than give you any credibility since you disregarded
his
statements in the reply.
Attacking character is no substitute for a reply on point.

As I said, you can't fake honesty. You can't find a single inaccurate
statement in my paper, or you would be able to quote it right now. The
fact is, you CAN'T! QED.

YOU haven't addressed the points made by JS... You simply try to push
attention away from your lack of response on point. Try to keep up.

He didn't even attempt to refute me. He just said "that's your
opinion", which means NOTHING.
You are right! Your opinion does mean nothing! Now try to answer his direct
inquiry on the subject rather than dance around it with your silly attempt
at missdirection! He offered specifics on the paper YOU claimed to review
yet you attempt to throw attention away from his point rather than address
it! Typical and PATHETIC for someone who claims "science".

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:41:57 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:42:57 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:



When one these actual researchers gives you a nod of approval for
re-interpreting their findings, let us know. When you have verifiable
names
of environmental researchers or conference attendees that give your
opinions
a review, let us know. When one of these conferences you attend releases
an
action plan involving your recommendations, let us know.

Otherwise... You have nothing.


As I said, you can't fake honesty. You can't find a single inaccurate
statement in my paper, or you would be able to quote it right now. The
fact is, you CAN'T! QED.
===
Apparently - You can't read.

Beyond the points shown in the reply you which you did NOT address, your
entire premise is innacurate:

"...convince people that mountain biking is no more harmful than hiking.
But
there are two problems with this approach: (1) it's not true and (2) it's
irrelevant."

Your statement "It's not true" is innacurate. You have failed to show
anything to support that assumtion.

Are you kidding? I show that several times over in that paper. But you
have to be able to read. And think.
Merely staing your OPINION is not proof! Merely stating the original
research and authors are wrong is not proof!
When these authors give you a "review" for re-interpreting their findings,
let us know. Until then, we (and the NFS, NPS and other REAL organizations
and REAL scientists) will take the word of the original authors and their
interpretation of the findings from THEIR own work. You have nothing but an
usubstantiated opinion with a foundation on transparent context.

As stated below, btw, which you ignored because you can't refute a word of
it! You split context of response to draw attention away from your own lack
of credibility.

You state your OPINION - That is all.
Your "review" of research is merely an application of your OPINION on
others' findings. When one of these researchers gives you a positive nod
for
re-interpreting their findings, let us know.
Your other statement "It's irrelevant" is a non-issue. The FACT that
off-road cycling has been recognized by the agencies in charge and shown
to
be no more impactful than hiking is certainly relevant. It is your OPINION
that is irrelevant. That has been proven as the organizations that
determine
the rules (by way of examining the available research) have come to the
conclusion that off-road cycling be allowed. They do not need your
interpretation of the research as they have the actual findings to
examine.
You can talk about "honesty" all you want but you have yet to apply it in
your own comments. You have attempted to FAKE credibility and honesty and
have so obviously failed.

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:19:19 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

Mike, why doesn't the Sierra Club endorse your agenda anymore?

Two chapters voted long ago to support my human-free habitat proopsal.
Those resolutions still stand.

Two? That's all? That's a sad legacy, Mr. Vandeman.

Compared to your ZERO? Don't make me laugh.

Zero...? Hardly! The MAIN SITE for the Sierra Club lists a mountain bike
policy.

Yeah, which says it's okay only when not environmentally damaging. But
it always IS. So their policy is the same as mine.
WRONG!!!! It is only your OPINION that it is environmentally damaging. It
is the policy of the SC to allow cycling when conditions are met. Since the
LA chapter has a mountain bike group within (and other chapters are finding
cooperation with cycling groups to be beneficial) it is OBVIOUS that the
"conditions" for allowing cycling off-road are being met more and more!
Especially with the advent of the internet and access to actual information
and not your perverted version of it.

The Los Angelas Chapter (your back yard!) has a Mountain Bike
Committee advocating the cooperative efforts of off-road cyclists within
the
SC. It certainly seems the Sierra Club has passed over your opinions on
the
complete ban of off-road cycling.
In case your PhD was shredded by your cat, the support for creating some
areas as "human free" is NOT the same as supporting a total ban of
off-road
cycling. Since your post starting this thread offers your opinions on
off-road cycling, try to stay on the topic YOU began. Why doesn't the
Sierra
Club endorse your agenda of a total ban on off-road cycling? (Apparently,
JS
tried to give you the benefit of being intelligent enough to determine the
point of his question.)

Nothing??? You split context above... Why? Can't you handle the complete
context of the response? Can't your brain reply to actual truth? What is so
hard about what is stated above? Can't refute it so you try to draw
attention away from it be splitting context with an attempt to redirect the
subject!
PATHETIC!!

Would you please type his name correctly in future.
You missed out the e and this lot slipped thru my net.

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 17:10:36 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .

Compared to your ZERO? Don't make me laugh.


But, I haven't tried to get the SC go go along with me.

I don't even LIKE the SC because they insist I stay home and watch the
Discovery Channel to get my fix on the outdoors.

Sounds like they know you well!
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 17:10:36 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..

Compared to your ZERO? Don't make me laugh.


But, I haven't tried to get the SC go go along with me.

I don't even LIKE the SC because they insist I stay home and watch the
Discovery Channel to get my fix on the outdoors.

Sounds like they know you well!


Sounds like they know YOU well too. They won't even embrace your agenda, and
you are they. I EXPECT them to not embrace my agenda because I advocate
visiting the great outdoors.