|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Vandeman is a Fool
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:59:04 -0800, cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote: On 12 Dec 2006 17:40:35 GMT, Chris Foster wrote: As president bush does every thing he can to stop the US from passing legislation that would limit the amount of CO2 into the World's atmosphere, Vande-monkey is bashing a couple of people who I feel love the environment and want to be part of it their own respective way. Vande-monkey was frightened by some mean-old mountain biker 8 years ago. He has been on a crusade ever since to try to get those mean-old mountain bikers from scaring him again. Bet he has night mares from that initial incident. Mike, So many people already ignore you, you appear to have a good heart and good intent, but man, you are a fool if you actually believe that you have convinced ONE mountain biker from never riding it again. Stop wasting your time here and go be productive, because I am. PLONK Good riddance. You have nothing to offer but lies. Your post above is a perfect example. You know NOTHING about me and why I oppose mountain biking, in spite of it being spelled out clearly on my web site. But you have to be able to read words of more than one syl-la-ble. No, Mike, YOU haven't provided ONE good reason for disliking mountain biking. Put up or shut up. NOT A VADEMAN FAN.... However, I've heard bike riding in general is bad for the Earth for two reasons: 1. When meansuring CO2 Generated per mile, per pound carred, per person, some bike riders generated more CO2 than if they filled a fuel efficient car, and just drove to their desination. 2. Bike riders are active, and increased activity levels can lead towards longer lives. Each day a human is alive it generates CO2, consumers water, and natural resources. So bike riding, can indirectly lead to faster natural resource depletion. Clearly all this means all bike riding should be banned. XXX |
Ads |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:44:31 -0800, cc wrote:
I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time. But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about scientific conferences. Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them. No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR. You read my specifics. You just didn't un-der-stand them. Moron. " Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them." Where do you see any specifics? === 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 |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:45:13 -0800, cc wrote:
Michael Halliwell wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:13:07 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:45:32 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:14:21 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:43:12 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:11:18 -0700, Paul Cassel wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: Mountain bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights. Neither do hiking shoes. Maybe if you didn't wear shoes, you'd have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you are just being a hypocrite. No, the point is that - by engaging in an activity shown to do equal damage to trails Repeating that lie doesn't make it true. That "lie" is backed up by scientists who are accredited and publish in peer-reviewed journals. Name ONE such scientist. (Hint: you can't.) Mike, I'm not going to do your homework for you. You know the references I am referring to very well, as you've cited them in the pieces of trash you continually post here. (Just as I said: you can't!!!!!) It's on your site. Try reading YOUR OWN bibliography, moron. Then you should have no trouble finding a peer-reviewed study, IF one exists. You CAN'T, which is why you haven't answered. Put up or shut up. Wilson and Seney is published in MRD, which is peer-reviewed. AMONG OTHERS. Don't you read the **** you write, Mike? "Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is the leading interdisciplinary and development-oriented journal " In other words, it is PRO-DEVELOPMENT, NOT an unbiased scientific journal. Even "peer-reviewed" studies can be full of CRAP, as that one is: This study is frequently cited by mountain bikers as proof that mountain biking doesn't cause more impact than hiking. But it has a number of defects that call its conclusions into question. The authors used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made available" by the various treatments. They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment yield produced by the simulated rainstorms at the downslope end of each plot", which they claim "correlates with erosion" (they don't say what the correlation coefficient is). This doesn't seem like a good measure of erosion. For example, if a large rock were dislodged, the very weak "simulated rainfall" wouldn't be capable of transporting it into the collecting tray; only very fine particles would be collected. In fact, they admit that the simulator's "small size … meant that the kinetic energy of the simulated rainfall events was roughly one-third that of natural rainstorms". Another reason to suspect that the measurements aren't valid is that "none of the relationships between water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil moisture, trail roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant". If they used a VALID measure of erosion, explain why there was no correlation with slope! Everyone knows that erosion increases with slope. That has been shown by other studies, although it's also common sense. Don't YOU read the reports you claim are "junk science"? Or maybe you are intentionally leaving out the full quote of Wilson and Seney: “The initial regression results were not very encouraging in that none of the relationships between water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil moisture, trail roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant. The switch to multiple regression and the inclusion of soil texture as a series of indicator variables improved the model performance.” and later when discussing the multiple regression model: “…ten independent variables and cross-products combined to explain 70% of the variability in sediment yield. Treating the cumulative contributions of the different variables to the final result as a rough guide to their contributions confirmed that soil texture (37%), slope (35%) and user treatment (35%) had the most impact. Water run-off (9%) was one of three variables that made smaller contributions.” Or did the fact that it was the initial model that had the poor fit and didn't account for slope, etc. which was corrected by using a different model escape you? Woah there, Michael. That is a LOT of big words for MV to absorb. Especially at once ! You know, considering MV claims he is an "expert" in statistics, such an "oversight" might lead one to believe he's biased. No . . . . If water run-off had only a 9% correlation with the measure of erosion, it was obviously NOT a valid measure of erosion. QED === 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 |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:44:31 -0800, cc wrote: I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time. But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about scientific conferences. Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them. No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR. You read my specifics. You just didn't un-der-stand them. Moron. " Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them." Where do you see any specifics? I don't need to tell you which conferences I have attended or spoken/presented at to make it perfectly clear that I am familiar with them. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:02:32 -0800, cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote: On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:44:31 -0800, cc wrote: I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time. But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about scientific conferences. Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them. No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR. You read my specifics. You just didn't un-der-stand them. Moron. " Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them." Where do you see any specifics? I don't need to tell you which conferences I have attended or spoken/presented at to make it perfectly clear that I am familiar with them. Yes, you do, because there is otherwise no reason to believe you. Mountain bikers are NOTORIOUSLY dishonest. After all, there's no way that mountain biking can be justified while being truthful! There is no good reason to allow bikes into natural areas. === 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 |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:02:32 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:44:31 -0800, cc wrote: I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time. But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about scientific conferences. Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them. No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR. You read my specifics. You just didn't un-der-stand them. Moron. " Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them." Where do you see any specifics? I don't need to tell you which conferences I have attended or spoken/presented at to make it perfectly clear that I am familiar with them. Yes, you do, because there is otherwise no reason to believe you. Mountain bikers are NOTORIOUSLY dishonest. After all, there's no way that mountain biking can be justified while being truthful! There is no good reason to allow bikes into natural areas. No, I do not, and will not. I have given you ample specifics above. Anyone but you would be satisfied, and you aren't only because you've got your fingers in your ears. Knowing my name and the conferences won't change anything. Besides, do we have proof that you even gave your talk, or that anyone attended? Or that you weren't lambasted at your yearly public issuance of hate-speak? That burden of proof is still on you. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:02:32 -0800, cc wrote: Where do you see any specifics? I don't need to tell you which conferences I have attended or spoken/presented at to make it perfectly clear that I am familiar with them. Yes, you do, because there is otherwise no reason to believe you. Mountain bikers are NOTORIOUSLY dishonest. After all, there's no way that mountain biking can be justified while being truthful! There is no good reason to allow bikes into natural areas. No - He doesn't. It is you that is making claims that your OPINIONS be taken as fact. The burden of proof is on you and your opinions which you claim to be valid simply because you read your opinions to a finite audience at any given conference. You CLAIM validity without offering substantial detail on review which may be verified from outside sources. "Because you say so" is not substantial. Your OPINIONS of the activity are the only evidence you have ever put forth to measure any reasons, facts or research given to support the activity. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:47:03 -0800, cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:02:32 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:44:31 -0800, cc wrote: I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time. But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about scientific conferences. Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them. No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR. You read my specifics. You just didn't un-der-stand them. Moron. " Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them." Where do you see any specifics? I don't need to tell you which conferences I have attended or spoken/presented at to make it perfectly clear that I am familiar with them. Yes, you do, because there is otherwise no reason to believe you. Mountain bikers are NOTORIOUSLY dishonest. After all, there's no way that mountain biking can be justified while being truthful! There is no good reason to allow bikes into natural areas. No, I do not, and will not. I have given you ample specifics above. Anyone but you would be satisfied, and you aren't only because you've got your fingers in your ears. Knowing my name and the conferences won't change anything. Besides, do we have proof that you even gave your talk, or that anyone attended? Or that you weren't lambasted at your yearly public issuance of hate-speak? That burden of proof is still on you. Did you say something? NO! As usual! But what can we expect from someone afraid to give his 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 |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:47:03 -0800, cc wrote: No, I do not, and will not. I have given you ample specifics above. Anyone but you would be satisfied, and you aren't only because you've got your fingers in your ears. Knowing my name and the conferences won't change anything. Besides, do we have proof that you even gave your talk, or that anyone attended? Or that you weren't lambasted at your yearly public issuance of hate-speak? That burden of proof is still on you. Did you say something? NO! As usual! But what can we expect from someone afraid to give his real name.... === Have you said anything? NO! As usual! But what can we expect from someone afraid to provide specifics of attendance and objective review from these conferences you reference. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Girls gone wild" bus hits cyclist | Werehatrack | General | 2 | July 27th 06 02:49 PM |
Muni "warm-up" routine(s) and best time of day to ride. | terrybigwheel | Unicycling | 10 | May 23rd 06 04:25 AM |
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") | spin156 | Techniques | 15 | November 28th 05 07:21 PM |
Payback Time or "Mr. Armstrong, your check has come due" | matabala | Racing | 1 | August 23rd 05 04:49 PM |
"Challenges In One's Time Of Life Are Extraordinary" on 4-14-84 | [email protected] | Australia | 0 | January 4th 05 03:04 PM |