Mountain Bikers Prefer to Attack Me, Rather than Discuss the Harm that Mountain Biking Does!

On Jul 22, 10:26*pm, "Jeff Strickland" wrote:
wrote in message

...

Once again...I obviously did say something...you listened and
responded. I forgot to mention you're an asshole!

You could be right about my personal attributes, but I directed my comments
to Mike not you, so I'm not sure why you are taking aim at me

He's not taking aim at you Jeff, he just doesn't "quote" too often.
He's responding to Vandemans "Did you say something?" reply.

Siskuwihane wrote:
On Jul 22, 8:23 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:14:23 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:37 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited,
and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts
You are not qualified to settle the matter.
Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific
method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM.

You can't even grasp the rhythm method let alone the scientific
method.

Neither could his parents apparently.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
It's a sure sign that they can't defend their selfish, destructive,
disgusting sport with any FACTS or LOGIC!

Mike


OR, it's a sign that you make a very weak argument to support your
agenda, and we are growing weary of listening to you spew the same pack
of lies year after year.

I, for one, have shown that your agenda to close bike routes (if 100%
successful) would save only 0.004% of the habitat they pass through.
Hardly an effort in preservation that covers the cost. I doubt you could
ever be 100% effective, since you have not been effective so far in
getting anything done so far.

I believe that Mikey has actually been effective in getting more people
into mountain biking. I know his posts get me to thinking I need to get
out on the trails on my bike more often.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

On Jul 22, 8:23 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:14:23 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:37 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited,
and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts
You are not qualified to settle the matter.
Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific
method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM.

Then why don't you do some science, Mike...rather than spouting your
point of view in exceptionally biased opinion papers you claim as
"literature reviews." There is no new material in what you post (i.e.
you haven't done your own research) and the only thing you seem to put
forward is personal opinion (using generalizations and emotionally
charged wording) on work that has been done.

If you, as you imply, have the expertise in the scientific method and
claim that all the other researchers have done their research or
analyses wrong, why don't you get some funding and do a proper,
defensible study and then get it published in a proper scientific
journal like other people who are qualified in the scientific method.

Oh but wait...that might not work for you. Can you stretch a psychology
degree and specialization in psychometrics (as well as cooking) to an
experimental design, physical assessment and analysis with draws from
ecology, forestry, biology, engineering, geology, hydrology and other
such fields? Seems to me to be a little out of your area of expertise.

I personally would side with Siskuwihane on this one....I don't believe
you are qualified to settle this matter.

Michael Halliwell

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:48:18 -0500, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
It's a sure sign that they can't defend their selfish, destructive,
disgusting sport with any FACTS or LOGIC!

Mike


OR, it's a sign that you make a very weak argument to support your
agenda, and we are growing weary of listening to you spew the same pack
of lies year after year.

I, for one, have shown that your agenda to close bike routes (if 100%
successful) would save only 0.004% of the habitat they pass through.
Hardly an effort in preservation that covers the cost. I doubt you could
ever be 100% effective, since you have not been effective so far in
getting anything done so far.

I believe that Mikey has actually been effective in getting more people
into mountain biking. I know his posts get me to thinking I need to get
out on the trails on my bike more often.

Proving that Ed Dolan is right: you are a complete idiot.
--
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 Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:10:53 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

On Jul 22, 8:23 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:14:23 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:37 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited,
and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts
You are not qualified to settle the matter.
Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific
method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM.

Then why don't you do some science, Mike...rather than spouting your
point of view in exceptionally biased opinion papers you claim as
"literature reviews." There is no new material in what you post (i.e.
you haven't done your own research) and the only thing you seem to put
forward is personal opinion (using generalizations and emotionally
charged wording) on work that has been done.

If you, as you imply, have the expertise in the scientific method and
claim that all the other researchers have done their research or
analyses wrong, why don't you get some funding and do a proper,
defensible study and then get it published in a proper scientific
journal like other people who are qualified in the scientific method.

Oh but wait...that might not work for you. Can you stretch a psychology
degree and specialization in psychometrics (as well as cooking) to an
experimental design, physical assessment and analysis with draws from
ecology, forestry, biology, engineering, geology, hydrology and other
such fields? Seems to me to be a little out of your area of expertise.

I personally would side with Siskuwihane on this one....I don't believe
you are qualified to settle this matter.

Michael Halliwell

How would you know, not being qualified to judge. What are your
qualifications? This should be good!
--
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

Mikey...

Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific
method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM.

Are you lying again? haha...science PHD...come on now...food science
doesn't count. You might be right up there with Emeril but
scientifically qualified you are not. And yes. We are qualified to
judge. You judge without any knowledge all the time. we can read all
your posts and see the twists and turns of your wording and your
avoidance and hiding all the time. then again, that is the mind of a
sociopath.

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:10:53 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

On Jul 22, 8:23 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:14:23 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:37 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited,
and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts
You are not qualified to settle the matter.
Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific
method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM.
Then why don't you do some science, Mike...rather than spouting your
point of view in exceptionally biased opinion papers you claim as
"literature reviews." There is no new material in what you post (i.e.
you haven't done your own research) and the only thing you seem to put
forward is personal opinion (using generalizations and emotionally
charged wording) on work that has been done.

If you, as you imply, have the expertise in the scientific method and
claim that all the other researchers have done their research or
analyses wrong, why don't you get some funding and do a proper,
defensible study and then get it published in a proper scientific
journal like other people who are qualified in the scientific method.

Oh but wait...that might not work for you. Can you stretch a psychology
degree and specialization in psychometrics (as well as cooking) to an
experimental design, physical assessment and analysis with draws from
ecology, forestry, biology, engineering, geology, hydrology and other
such fields? Seems to me to be a little out of your area of expertise.

I personally would side with Siskuwihane on this one....I don't believe
you are qualified to settle this matter.

Michael Halliwell

How would you know, not being qualified to judge. What are your
qualifications? This should be good!

You've been told them before (I could quote you and tell you to "do your
own homework").

But as you seem to have a very short memory:

B.Sc. in Civil Engineering
M.Eng. in Environmental Engineering
CESA - Certified Environmental Site Assessor
and a lot of years of experience in the assessment of both natural and
developed areas for human impacts and environmental health. I also work
as part of a multi-disciplinary team that includes ecologists,
biologist, engineers, geologists, hydrogeologists, foresters,
agrologists, chemists and environmental scientists (at varying levels,
but generally from M.Sc. to Ph.D.).

I am sure you will disagree, but I think my qualifications are more
directly applicable than your Ph.D. in psychology and "passion" for
biology and "peeve" of habitat destruction.

Michael Halliwell

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:43:58 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Mikey...

Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific
method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM.

Are you lying again? haha...science PHD...come on now...food science
doesn't count.

Your middle name is "Liar".

You might be right up there with Emeril but
scientifically qualified you are not. And yes. We are qualified to
judge.

List your qualification(s).

You judge without any knowledge all the time. we can read all
your posts and see the twists and turns of your wording and your
avoidance and hiding all the time. then again, that is the mind of a
sociopath.
--
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 Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:21:29 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:10:53 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

On Jul 22, 8:23 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:14:23 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:37 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited,
and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts
You are not qualified to settle the matter.
Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific
method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM.
Then why don't you do some science, Mike...rather than spouting your
point of view in exceptionally biased opinion papers you claim as
"literature reviews." There is no new material in what you post (i.e.
you haven't done your own research) and the only thing you seem to put
forward is personal opinion (using generalizations and emotionally
charged wording) on work that has been done.

If you, as you imply, have the expertise in the scientific method and
claim that all the other researchers have done their research or
analyses wrong, why don't you get some funding and do a proper,
defensible study and then get it published in a proper scientific
journal like other people who are qualified in the scientific method.

Oh but wait...that might not work for you. Can you stretch a psychology
degree and specialization in psychometrics (as well as cooking) to an
experimental design, physical assessment and analysis with draws from
ecology, forestry, biology, engineering, geology, hydrology and other
such fields? Seems to me to be a little out of your area of expertise.

I personally would side with Siskuwihane on this one....I don't believe
you are qualified to settle this matter.

Michael Halliwell

How would you know, not being qualified to judge. What are your
qualifications? This should be good!

You've been told them before (I could quote you and tell you to "do your
own homework").

But as you seem to have a very short memory:

You aren't worth even one good brain cell.

B.Sc. in Civil Engineering
M.Eng. in Environmental Engineering
CESA - Certified Environmental Site Assessor

None of these are research degrees. A Ph.D. is a research degree.
QED

and a lot of years of experience in the assessment of both natural and
developed areas for human impacts and environmental health. I also work
as part of a multi-disciplinary team that includes ecologists,
biologist, engineers, geologists, hydrogeologists, foresters,
agrologists, chemists and environmental scientists (at varying levels,
but generally from M.Sc. to Ph.D.).

I am sure you will disagree, but I think my qualifications are more
directly applicable than your Ph.D. in psychology and "passion" for
biology and "peeve" of habitat destruction.

Michael Halliwell
--
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