BCT Trail Work Day

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:36:10 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 07:35:33 -0800, "Kernix" wrote:

On Feb 13, 12:41 am, cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
\On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:26:43 -0700, "GeeDubb"
wrote:
Some of you might remember me talking about the new Black Canyon Trail
system going in North of Phoenix. We had another great turnout of people on
Saturday cutting in another half mile or more of trail through some pretty
tough terrain. For a few pictures, a short write-up and links to more
photos and the BCT website click below
http://www.spokejunkies.com/forum/in...showtopic=5095
Disgusting. Where do you get the right to destroy wildlife habitat,
especially for cheap thrills like mountain biking? And you want to
call yourselves "environmentalists"?!
Doesn't it burn you up? How
about knowing you're
absolutely powerless to stop
it? How about knowing the
world laughs at you?
Wait a minute - how is a hiking trail any different?
It's narrower. Hikers can pass each other in less space than two
bikers can pass each other (due to the handlebars).
This is just incorrect. I've
been on countless biking and
hiking trails, and the
difference is negligible.

So you admit that there is a difference -- as I said! QED

You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.


Some
of the tightest trails I've
been on were for bikers and
hikers.

You're talking
about a trail that is not that wide is such a large area? I'm a hiker,
mtn biker, canoer, orienteer, camper and soon to be sailor - why can't
bikers enjoy the outdoors.
They CAN -- just like everyone else: on foot!
Mike, it's about time you
stopped posting this bull****
semantic argument. If you ban
the bikes, you ban mountain
bikers. When I'm on the trail
without my bike, I'm a hiker.
Douchebag.

I mean the Appalachian Mountain Club
maintains the miles of trail every year - each year debris or erosion
has to be cleared/fixed, as well as trimming back of weeds, branches,
bushes, etc. How is this any different?

Now you can come back with an argument that some mtn bikers will make
new paths for challenges - true - some who don't think about the
impact, idiots - I personally wouldn't veer off the trails - but
that's right up there with campers/hikers who leave trash or cut down
trees.

And I'd rather see a THIN (in comparison to the entire park/area),
DEFINED bike trail than no trail at all - at least with a defined
trail, the majority of bikers will stick to the trail - as opposed to
no trail and every biker making there own trail and thus doing much
more overall damage.

You guys have to get a clue - it's just not your wilderness!
You make no sense whatsoever. How does a bike ban keep mountain bikers
out??????????????????????????????????? Idiot.
Mike, it's about time you
stopped posting this bull****
semantic argument. If you ban
the bikes, you ban mountain
bikers. When I'm on the trail
without my bike, I'm a hiker.
Douchebag.
===
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 Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:25:55 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:36:10 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 07:35:33 -0800, "Kernix" wrote:

On Feb 13, 12:41 am, cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
\On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:26:43 -0700, "GeeDubb"
wrote:
Some of you might remember me talking about the new Black Canyon Trail
system going in North of Phoenix. We had another great turnout of people on
Saturday cutting in another half mile or more of trail through some pretty
tough terrain. For a few pictures, a short write-up and links to more
photos and the BCT website click below
http://www.spokejunkies.com/forum/in...showtopic=5095
Disgusting. Where do you get the right to destroy wildlife habitat,
especially for cheap thrills like mountain biking? And you want to
call yourselves "environmentalists"?!
Doesn't it burn you up? How
about knowing you're
absolutely powerless to stop
it? How about knowing the
world laughs at you?
Wait a minute - how is a hiking trail any different?
It's narrower. Hikers can pass each other in less space than two
bikers can pass each other (due to the handlebars).
This is just incorrect. I've
been on countless biking and
hiking trails, and the
difference is negligible.

So you admit that there is a difference -- as I said! QED

You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science").

Some
of the tightest trails I've
been on were for bikers and
hikers.

You're talking
about a trail that is not that wide is such a large area? I'm a hiker,
mtn biker, canoer, orienteer, camper and soon to be sailor - why can't
bikers enjoy the outdoors.
They CAN -- just like everyone else: on foot!
Mike, it's about time you
stopped posting this bull****
semantic argument. If you ban
the bikes, you ban mountain
bikers. When I'm on the trail
without my bike, I'm a hiker.
Douchebag.

I mean the Appalachian Mountain Club
maintains the miles of trail every year - each year debris or erosion
has to be cleared/fixed, as well as trimming back of weeds, branches,
bushes, etc. How is this any different?

Now you can come back with an argument that some mtn bikers will make
new paths for challenges - true - some who don't think about the
impact, idiots - I personally wouldn't veer off the trails - but
that's right up there with campers/hikers who leave trash or cut down
trees.

And I'd rather see a THIN (in comparison to the entire park/area),
DEFINED bike trail than no trail at all - at least with a defined
trail, the majority of bikers will stick to the trail - as opposed to
no trail and every biker making there own trail and thus doing much
more overall damage.

You guys have to get a clue - it's just not your wilderness!
You make no sense whatsoever. How does a bike ban keep mountain bikers
out??????????????????????????????????? Idiot.
Mike, it's about time you
stopped posting this bull****
semantic argument. If you ban
the bikes, you ban mountain
bikers. When I'm on the trail
without my bike, I'm a hiker.
Douchebag.
===
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

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...

I am a troll and it sucks to be me.


Couldn't agree more :)

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:25:55 -0800, cc wrote:


You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science").

And what "science" are you referring to? YOU have not conducted actual field
research. You only take what others have done and either ignore what you do
not like to take only what is favorable to your opinion or you ridicule the
findings because they do not fall in line with your opinion.
The REAL research done by REAL researchers has been gathered by experts in
charge (without the benefit of your "reviews") and have come to the
conclusion that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking in regards to trail
and habitat impact. The REAL information has lead to rules and regulations
nationwide recognizing the validity of off-road cycling in multi-use
designated areas. These rulings have driven the trail user cooperation and
expansion of cycling access.
YOUR opinion of what REAL science is has no measure in the matter.

On Feb 24, 7:45 pm, "S Curtiss" wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

... On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:25:55 -0800, cc wrote:

You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science").

And what "science" are you referring to?

In addition to sloppy/home-brew "science," he doesn't seem capable of
correct grammar.

PH

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:45:13 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:25:55 -0800, cc wrote:


You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science").

And what "science" are you referring to? YOU have not conducted actual field
research. You only take what others have done and either ignore what you do
not like to take only what is favorable to your opinion or you ridicule the
findings because they do not fall in line with your opinion.
The REAL research done by REAL researchers has been gathered by experts in
charge (without the benefit of your "reviews") and have come to the
conclusion that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking in regards to trail
and habitat impact. The REAL information has lead to rules and regulations
nationwide recognizing the validity of off-road cycling in multi-use
designated areas. These rulings have driven the trail user cooperation and
expansion of cycling access.
YOUR opinion of what REAL science is has no measure in the matter.

Obviously you aren't capable of distinguishing real science from
fraud. I am, and I did. So far, I haven't found anyone who disagrees
with my conclusions except mountain bikers. Mountain bikers LIKE
fraud. It's their middle 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

On 24 Feb 2007 17:26:56 -0800, "pmh" wrote:

On Feb 24, 7:45 pm, "S Curtiss" wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

... On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:25:55 -0800, cc wrote:

You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science").

And what "science" are you referring to?

In addition to sloppy/home-brew "science," he doesn't seem capable of
correct grammar.

What are you talking about?

PH
===
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
news
What are you talking about? I am so a troll. Boy does it ever suck to be
me.


Agreed

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...

I just can't get enough trolling done in a day. It surely sucks to be me.

You can say that again.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:45:13 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:25:55 -0800, cc wrote:


You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science").

And what "science" are you referring to? YOU have not conducted actual
field
research. You only take what others have done and either ignore what you
do
not like to take only what is favorable to your opinion or you ridicule
the
findings because they do not fall in line with your opinion.
The REAL research done by REAL researchers has been gathered by experts in
charge (without the benefit of your "reviews") and have come to the
conclusion that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking in regards to
trail
and habitat impact. The REAL information has lead to rules and regulations
nationwide recognizing the validity of off-road cycling in multi-use
designated areas. These rulings have driven the trail user cooperation and
expansion of cycling access.
YOUR opinion of what REAL science is has no measure in the matter.

Obviously you aren't capable of distinguishing real science from
fraud. I am, and I did. So far, I haven't found anyone who disagrees
with my conclusions except mountain bikers. Mountain bikers LIKE
fraud. It's their middle name.
===
Obviously, you ignore the REAL scientists, environmentalists and researchers
who conduct and compile the research that has allowed off-road cycling to be
recognized by the NFS, NPS and land managers nationwide.
You say you have not "found anyone who disagrees...". Names? Locations? Who
are these "mystery people"? Where are the direct quotes from actual and real
scientists and environmental researchers who have said directlty that they
agree with the views of Mike Vandeman concerning off-road cycling?
What actual field research have you done? What are the opinions of those
whose actual work and research you butcher in order to claim a foundation
for your opinions? Your "reviews" have been put out to pasture as nobody
needs the services of a self-appointed "middle-man" to INTERPRET and SPIN
the results when the actual research and those conducting it are readily
available by the internet.
You have been requested for years to supply names that can be verified. You
only respond with "because I say so". Hardly scientific and definately not
the response from someone who has conviction in their statements.
If you have not found anyone with credentials who disagrees with your
opinions, you have been living in a bubble and purposefully looking away
from the truth.