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

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!

Marty


===
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 Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:47:41 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:37:17 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:58:21 GMT, Michael Halliwell
wrote:

Gee Mike....

You didn't answer my question the last time you tried posting this
opinion paper.....here, let me paraphrase where we left off (and this is
just on Wilson and Seney):

In early December 2006 on alt.mountain-bike I posted...

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."

But not enough to make the measure of erosion VALID: " Water run-off
(9%) was one of three variables that made smaller contributions." 9%
is too small to validate the measure.

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?

Nope. The measure of erosion is STILL not valid. It wasn't
"corrected". It was only "improved". 9% is still a very poor
performance.


Michael J. Vandeman replied:

If water run-off had only a 9% correlation with the measure of
erosion, it was obviously NOT a valid measure of erosion. QED

To which I replied:

You have no research (including of your own) to prove this
assertation.

My Ph.D., you forgot, is in PSYCHOMETRICS.


Psycho. That explains alot.

Your "research" is anacdotal at best. Pure mathematics says your theories
are full of ****. If one applied mathematics to the trail system as a
ratio
of the total environment through which the trails pass, then multiplied
the
result IN YOUR FAVOR by a factor of 100, the result says that if you were
100% accurate in EVERYTHING you say, the maximum impact to the environment
would be about 0.04% of trails would have an adverse impact on plant and
animal species, and that number would include the entire trail, not just
the
tiny fraction of which is actually damaged to the point of causing adverse
affect. Surely, of the 0.04% of impact, a considerable amount of that
impact
would result from multiple use, NOT just mountain biking activities. Take
out the impacts of multiple use and consider solely mountain bikes, and
you
have an environmental impact that should it be mitigated fully and
completely, would not present habitat preservation in any significant
amount. In an entire state park or forest, you _might_ save a space that
is
equivelent to the size of my residential property (about 7500 sq. ft.).
When
the park or forest is measured in hundreds, thousands, of square acres,
saving 7500 sq. ft. is not statistically significant.

That's nothing but your uneducated OPINION. The SCIENCE says
otherwise.



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.
===
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 1 Jan 2007 16:21:21 -0800, "JD" wrote:


Michael Halliwell wrote:
JD wrote:
Michael Halliwell wrote:


pete fagerlin wrote:



Michael Halliwell wrote:



Gee Mike....



It's too bad that you're just another ****ing idiot.

Message-Create filter from message-delete messages from


Bye!



Gee Pete....

Lovely response...are you always so well mannered?

Too bad you don't seem to want to have a little more ammo for when
Vandeman comes after your trails.Your loss.

Michael Halliwell




If you think arguing with an ineffective psycho like vandamnan is
something that will save access for mountain bikers anywhere, you are
even more of a dumbass than any of us thought to begin with.

JD


No....I know I will never change Vandeman's mind and that he is an "ineffective psycho" like you say....but for when he turns up at a land managers meeting, I thought I would at least float a little bit of info out there. A couple counter arguements to his claims on a scientific basis (not just "he's an 'ineffective psycho'") might be useful.

At least I'm posting information to this newsgroup, not flames (a la Liberator), claiming to be some saint of the wilderness (Dolan) or claiming that I am the be all and end all of environmental knowledge on mountain biking (Vandeman)....

Michael Halliwell


You just don't get it, do you? In the famous words of Bugs Bunny,
"What a maroon!"

SHHH! He's demonstrating exactly what the typical mountain biker is
like....

JD
===
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
...


It's interesting that you guys NEVER quote a single statement of mine
that you think is not correct. Because then you could easily be
refuted. It's easier to spout vague generalities, isn't it? After 12
years, not one mountain biker has ever been able to find a single
incorrect statement in my papers. If you could have done so, you would
have done so long ago. It's the same reason you are afraid ot use your
real name: people would find out you are full of it.



I did Mikey. About a year and a half ago. Google it.
Answered you point for point,
showed the flaws in your assumptions and your reasoning.

And your response........?

"Yawn" "Did you say something?"


You're not looking for dialogue.
You don't care about wildlife or wilderness.
You're simply a troll seeking to incite for your own pathetic reasons.
And a liar.
Vande-Garbage.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:40:22 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

It is OBVIOUS you have not formed your OPINIONS through the process of
actual research. You have fabricated research BECAUSE of your opinions.
You
have taken others' work out of context, ignored their conclusions and
reinterpreted their findings using your OPINIONS as a gauge of any and
all
information they have developed. You have done NO actual research beyond
regurgitating what others have done through the filter of your own
viewpoint
in an effort to give foundation to your OPINIONS.
Your PhD does not give you creative license on a scientific level and
your
attempts to slander me or any other individual that points out the flaws
of
your OPINIONS by calling us names or eluding to our intelligence is
simple
misdirection away from your own lack of credibility.

Irrelevant. If you can't find anything specifically wrong with what I
said, then you are in the same boat: you have to admit that you can't
find anything I said that is actually WRONG! Vague generalities are
meaningless and don't cut it. QED

Your choice to be ignorant of past discussions (Google search "vandeman")
is
yours to make and does nothing but further decay your own statements.

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.
===
All you have done is taken others' research and claim them to be wrong in
thier conclusions then substitute your OPINIONS as proof. You have done no
research yourself beyond read what others have done. When you come across a
piece of information you can claim as support for your OPINIONS, you pull it
away from the context of the whole and cite it as proof with no regard for
the actual conclusions of the original author.
Concerning "Wilson / Seney", you wrote:
"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."

You deride their process and findings with NO contrary research of YOUR OWN
to support your supposition. You merely attack the findings through your
OPINION.

You also throw in your own variable (distance) as well as deride the
findings because variables you claim exist were not accounted for (sideways
displaced soil, for instance).:
"The authors also ignored the relative distances that various trail users
typically travel (for example, bikers generally travel several times as far
as hikers, multiplying their impacts accordingly) and the additional impacts
due to the mountain bike bringing new people to the trails that otherwise
would not have been there (the same omission is true of all other studies,
except Wisdom et al (2004)). They do say "Trail use in the last ten years
has seen a dramatic increase in off-road bicycles" (p.86), but they don't
incorporate this fact into their comparison. In addition, there is no
recognition of different styles of riding and their effect on erosion.
We don't know if the mountain bikers rode in representative fashion, or,
more likely, rode more gently, with less skidding, acceleration, braking,
and turning. There was also no recognition that soil displaced sideways
(rather than downhill) also constitutes erosion damage. It seems likely that
they underestimated the true impacts of mountain biking. I don't think that
these results are reliable."

You include "distance" as a "holy grail" while excluding "time". Cyclists
may cover more distance, but are also less likely to linger and trample in a
finite area. Cyclists cover the distance in less time and are out of the
area while hikers remain longer. Since it is you that claim human presence
itself is a danger, you exclude the additional time hikers remain as
unimportant.

You also attack them for "no recognition of different styles of riding and
their effect on erosion" which is hysterical itself as YOU make NO
distinction between careful riding and wreckless riding. You claim all
riding is wreckless despite the mass of information to the contrary!

You the close that paragraph with "It seems likely that they underestimated
the true impacts of mountain biking. I don't think that these results are
reliable."

"It seems likely..." and "I don't think..." are nothing but suppositions
fabricated from your opinions. You haven't disproved anything. You merely
say their results are wrong because they do not fall in line with your view.



Again you cite "distance" while ignoring "time" by attacking the findings in
the "Chiu / Kriwoken" information:



It is apparent he and the authors misstated the implications of the study.
If we assume, as they claim, that bikers and hikers have the same impact per
mile (which is what they measured), then it follows that mountain bikers
have several times the impact of hikers, since they generally travel several
times as far. (I haven't found any published statistics, but I have
informally collected 72 mountain bikers' ride announcements, which advertise
rides of a minimum of 8 miles, an average of 27 miles,

and a maximum of 112 miles.)



You "haven't found any published statistics..."? yet you make your claim? 8
miles, 27 miles, 112 miles.... And how many hikes are published with
similar distances? You don't say. Why is that? If you are going to claim
harm by distance, then you should compare the two activities. But you do not
do research yourself. That would imply accountability! You merely pull from
others and select what you like and attack as "junk" what you don't. How
long (time) would a hiker take to cover these distances? How much more
damage is done by the hiker's presence by being in the vicinity for that
much longer? Why do you ignore this variable but insist on cyclists'
distance?



You also make the supposition "Besides ignoring distance travelled, there
were a number of other defects in the study. The biking that was compared
with hiking

was apparently not typical mountain biking. It was apparently slower than
normal and included no skidding. Bikers who skidded (a normal occurrence)
were not compared with hikers."



"Apparently not typical..."? "Apparently slower than normal..." These are
statements from your OPINIONS. You have no basis to create information and
overlay it through their findings. Your OPINION of cyclists' riding is not a
scientific variable in which to measure "typical". You insert (a normal
occurence) concerning "skidding" as a statement of fact but have nothing
beyond your OPINION that all cyclists ride in this way to offer to support
the insertion.



That is enough. Your fabrications only take existing studies and either
support what follows your opinion and discard or deride what doesn't. You
have done no actual research beyond reading what others have done and
utilize what you like to support your view.



You ignore or label as "junk" recent studies (2006) that support the FACT
that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking. You ignore or label as
"scandal" the FACT that the National Forests, National Parks, Land Managers
and others have reviewed the same research (which you have picked apart with
your opinions) to come to the conclusion that cycling is a viable (and
acceptable) activity with similar comparisons to other allowed activities.



The time has come and gone for your type of misinformation and
fear-mongering to rule the process of land management. The internet and
availability of actual information (not your interpretation of it) has taken
the place of a handful of self-proclaimed "know-it-alls" controlling how
things are done. Your OPINION of the research (which is all you present in
your writings) does not supercede the actual findings. You OPINION of
off-road cycling is no measure of the activity or those who engage in it.
Your voice has nothing but a hollow ring of "because I say so".

That is no longer good enough for those who make decisions when they can
read and interpret the actual findings from the actual authors and
researchers.

Your PhD is no longer a measure of accountability as the authors and
researchers you quote are also often accredited. Since they did the
research, compiled the findings and formed their conclusions based on their
ACTUAL experience, it is only OBVIOUS to take their findings over your
interpretation of them.

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.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:47:41 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
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.

"JP" wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote

It's interesting that you guys NEVER quote a single statement of mine
that you think is not correct. Because then you could easily be
refuted. It's easier to spout vague generalities, isn't it? After 12
years, not one mountain biker has ever been able to find a single
incorrect statement in my papers. If you could have done so, you would
have done so long ago. It's the same reason you are afraid ot use your
real name: people would find out you are full of it.

I did Mikey. About a year and a half ago. Google it.
Answered you point for point,
showed the flaws in your assumptions and your reasoning.

And your response........?

"Yawn" "Did you say something?"

You're not looking for dialogue.
You don't care about wildlife or wilderness.
You're simply a troll seeking to incite for your own pathetic reasons.
And a liar.

So don't reply to him. Shun him and he'll go away (or at least will
be very, very bored if we all ignore him).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

"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.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:39:01 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"S Curtiss" wrote in message
...


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

This...? Again...?
All you have is a persistent insistence that your OPINIONS supercede
all
other information and research. You have yet to provide any other peer
comment or review on these opinions. You have yet to provide anything
beyond
your OPINION of mountain biking to substantiate your claims. Your
OPINIONS
continue to run counter to established and defined concepts. You use
your
OPINIONS to measure all data.
It is no wonder REAL experts, REAL scientists

You wouldn't know a real scientist if he bit you in the ass. The fact
is, no real scientist has found any flaw in my paper yet! (Hint:
because there aren't any.)
Then give the NAMES of those who endorse your OPINIONS and
presentations.
Give the names of those who have heard you speak and commented directly
on
what YOU have said.


I'll take one name. One.

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.

You can't even get support for your environmentalist agenda from the
environmentalists. Very sad indeed. How many chapters are there? You got 2
to go along with you. According to the SC's Website, there are 64 chapters
in the USA, and 13 in California. However, getting 2 chapters to go along
with your psychosis is astounding to me, especially since your avowed goal
flies in the face of the Club's own mission statement -- Explore, enjoy and
protect the wild places of the earth.

Everything you stand for defies the goal of explore and enjoy, and does
virtually nothing to protect.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:42:57 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:40:22 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

It is OBVIOUS you have not formed your OPINIONS through the process of
actual research. You have fabricated research BECAUSE of your opinions.
You
have taken others' work out of context, ignored their conclusions and
reinterpreted their findings using your OPINIONS as a gauge of any and
all
information they have developed. You have done NO actual research beyond
regurgitating what others have done through the filter of your own
viewpoint
in an effort to give foundation to your OPINIONS.
Your PhD does not give you creative license on a scientific level and
your
attempts to slander me or any other individual that points out the flaws
of
your OPINIONS by calling us names or eluding to our intelligence is
simple
misdirection away from your own lack of credibility.

Irrelevant. If you can't find anything specifically wrong with what I
said, then you are in the same boat: you have to admit that you can't
find anything I said that is actually WRONG! Vague generalities are
meaningless and don't cut it. QED

Your choice to be ignorant of past discussions (Google search "vandeman")
is
yours to make and does nothing but further decay your own statements.

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.
===
All you have done is taken others' research and claim them to be wrong in
thier conclusions then substitute your OPINIONS as proof. You have done no
research yourself beyond read what others have done. When you come across a
piece of information you can claim as support for your OPINIONS, you pull it
away from the context of the whole and cite it as proof with no regard for
the actual conclusions of the original author.
Concerning "Wilson / Seney", you wrote:
"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."

You deride their process and findings with NO contrary research of YOUR OWN
to support your supposition. You merely attack the findings through your
OPINION.

You also throw in your own variable (distance) as well as deride the
findings because variables you claim exist were not accounted for (sideways
displaced soil, for instance).:
"The authors also ignored the relative distances that various trail users
typically travel (for example, bikers generally travel several times as far
as hikers, multiplying their impacts accordingly) and the additional impacts
due to the mountain bike bringing new people to the trails that otherwise
would not have been there (the same omission is true of all other studies,
except Wisdom et al (2004)). They do say "Trail use in the last ten years
has seen a dramatic increase in off-road bicycles" (p.86), but they don't
incorporate this fact into their comparison. In addition, there is no
recognition of different styles of riding and their effect on erosion.
We don't know if the mountain bikers rode in representative fashion, or,
more likely, rode more gently, with less skidding, acceleration, braking,
and turning. There was also no recognition that soil displaced sideways
(rather than downhill) also constitutes erosion damage. It seems likely that
they underestimated the true impacts of mountain biking. I don't think that
these results are reliable."

You include "distance" as a "holy grail" while excluding "time". Cyclists
may cover more distance, but are also less likely to linger and trample in a
finite area. Cyclists cover the distance in less time and are out of the
area while hikers remain longer. Since it is you that claim human presence
itself is a danger, you exclude the additional time hikers remain as
unimportant.

You also attack them for "no recognition of different styles of riding and
their effect on erosion" which is hysterical itself as YOU make NO
distinction between careful riding and wreckless riding. You claim all
riding is wreckless despite the mass of information to the contrary!

You the close that paragraph with "It seems likely that they underestimated
the true impacts of mountain biking. I don't think that these results are
reliable."

"It seems likely..." and "I don't think..." are nothing but suppositions
fabricated from your opinions. You haven't disproved anything. You merely
say their results are wrong because they do not fall in line with your view.



Again you cite "distance" while ignoring "time" by attacking the findings in
the "Chiu / Kriwoken" information:



It is apparent he and the authors misstated the implications of the study.
If we assume, as they claim, that bikers and hikers have the same impact per
mile (which is what they measured), then it follows that mountain bikers
have several times the impact of hikers, since they generally travel several
times as far. (I haven't found any published statistics, but I have
informally collected 72 mountain bikers' ride announcements, which advertise
rides of a minimum of 8 miles, an average of 27 miles,

and a maximum of 112 miles.)



You "haven't found any published statistics..."? yet you make your claim? 8
miles, 27 miles, 112 miles.... And how many hikes are published with
similar distances? You don't say. Why is that? If you are going to claim
harm by distance, then you should compare the two activities. But you do not
do research yourself. That would imply accountability! You merely pull from
others and select what you like and attack as "junk" what you don't. How
long (time) would a hiker take to cover these distances? How much more
damage is done by the hiker's presence by being in the vicinity for that
much longer? Why do you ignore this variable but insist on cyclists'
distance?



You also make the supposition "Besides ignoring distance travelled, there
were a number of other defects in the study. The biking that was compared
with hiking

was apparently not typical mountain biking. It was apparently slower than
normal and included no skidding. Bikers who skidded (a normal occurrence)
were not compared with hikers."



"Apparently not typical..."? "Apparently slower than normal..." These are
statements from your OPINIONS. You have no basis to create information and
overlay it through their findings. Your OPINION of cyclists' riding is not a
scientific variable in which to measure "typical". You insert (a normal
occurence) concerning "skidding" as a statement of fact but have nothing
beyond your OPINION that all cyclists ride in this way to offer to support
the insertion.



That is enough. Your fabrications only take existing studies and either
support what follows your opinion and discard or deride what doesn't. You
have done no actual research beyond reading what others have done and
utilize what you like to support your view.



You ignore or label as "junk" recent studies (2006) that support the FACT
that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking. You ignore or label as
"scandal" the FACT that the National Forests, National Parks, Land Managers
and others have reviewed the same research (which you have picked apart with
your opinions) to come to the conclusion that cycling is a viable (and
acceptable) activity with similar comparisons to other allowed activities.



The time has come and gone for your type of misinformation and
fear-mongering to rule the process of land management. The internet and
availability of actual information (not your interpretation of it) has taken
the place of a handful of self-proclaimed "know-it-alls" controlling how
things are done. Your OPINION of the research (which is all you present in
your writings) does not supercede the actual findings. You OPINION of
off-road cycling is no measure of the activity or those who engage in it.
Your voice has nothing but a hollow ring of "because I say so".

That is no longer good enough for those who make decisions when they can
read and interpret the actual findings from the actual authors and
researchers.

Your PhD is no longer a measure of accountability as the authors and
researchers you quote are also often accredited. Since they did the
research, compiled the findings and formed their conclusions based on their
ACTUAL experience, it is only OBVIOUS to take their findings over your
interpretation of them.

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.
===
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