WHOOPS! Another Mountain Biker Breaks His Neck!

Don't worry, I don't take him seriously at all. He is an occasional amusement only.

That said, I do find myself pitying him sometimes too. There must be a lot of rage inside for him to act as he does - and that is very corrosive.

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 7:41:28 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 9:25:55 PM UTC+12, Blackblade wrote:

No one has ever proved that I have lied, because I don't! You, on the other hand, have no idea what it means to tell the truth.







I proved it, in black and white, in this newsgroup last week. You lie frequently ... pretty much whenever it suits you.







When caught out, you go back to your usual childish behaviour and call everyone liars. At least get some more interesting epithets please ... it's getting boring !







I also don't have a criminal record. The judge wiped it out 3/26/13. DUH! Lie on.... My statement doesn't need proof, because it's the truth. Do your own homework....







No one is going to believe you Mike ... because you are a proven liar. So, bereft some proof, I don't believe you. It's your proposition, it should be the work of a few seconds to prove ... IF it's true ... so your reluctance to post such proof is duly noted.







If you hadn't been convicted of criminal offenses and therefore proven a person of dubious veracity perhaps we might take a different view; but you have. So, the consequences are that I don't believe you.



Don't take Vandeman seriously. He has no scientific credentials, has not had any major academic publications in the field of environmental management

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance or dishonesty: Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B.. Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156; expanded version also available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

and could be in need of some mental help. Ironically in my home country of New Zealand his ignorant criticism of the Redwoods Park is helping to promote the benefits of mountain biking in New Zealand to the world.

www.facebook.com/RedwoodsRotorua?fref=ts

Don't take Vandeman seriously. He has no scientific credentials, has not had any major academic publications in the field of environmental management

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance or dishonesty: Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156; expanded version also available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

Oh wow Mike ... you managed to get a small filler piece into a serious book ... by dint of massaging your standard diatribe with the addition of a couple of parts about reptiles and amphibians.

The piece is total drivel ... and old. You wrote it in 2005 and it was published in 2008 ... five years ago. So, after that great oeuvre did the world come knocking at your door for more ? No ????? Funny that !

That you would even bother to quote it says a lot more about you than you realise; it tells me that you can't get published anywhere serious.

Not surprising really; the piece really is total drivel.

"anecdotal evidence suggests"
"was apparently killed"
"personal communication"

.... it's full of this kind of idiocy. No measurement, conclusions mixed with premises and postulation and generally lacking in any merit whatsoever.

Do some real research !

On Friday, June 7, 2013 2:00:16 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
Don't take Vandeman seriously. He has no scientific credentials, has not had any major academic publications in the field of environmental management



Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance or dishonesty: Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156; expanded version also available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.



Oh wow Mike ... you managed to get a small filler piece into a serious book ... by dint of massaging your standard diatribe with the addition of a couple of parts about reptiles and amphibians.



The piece is total drivel ... and old. You wrote it in 2005 and it was published in 2008 ... five years ago. So, after that great oeuvre did the world come knocking at your door for more ? No ????? Funny that !



That you would even bother to quote it says a lot more about you than you realise; it tells me that you can't get published anywhere serious.



Not surprising really; the piece really is total drivel.



"anecdotal evidence suggests"

"was apparently killed"

"personal communication"



... it's full of this kind of idiocy. No measurement, conclusions mixed with premises and postulation and generally lacking in any merit whatsoever..



Do some real research !

Show us YOUR credentials (non-existent).

On 6/7/2013 2:00 AM, Blackblade wrote:

Not surprising really; the piece really is total drivel.

"anecdotal evidence suggests"
"was apparently killed"
"personal communication"

... it's full of this kind of idiocy. No measurement, conclusions mixed with premises and postulation and generally lacking in any merit whatsoever.

Do some real research !

He could get a job at Fox News. Just add "some people say" to the list!

It was hoped that his arrest and conviction would have led to an
epiphany that would have caused him to abandon his addiction to junk
science and focus his efforts on actual threats to the wilderness such
as motorized vehicles and horses.

Instead, he seems to have become even more bitter that no one takes him
seriously as an advocate for the wilderness and he has doubled down with
the junk science. Yet legitimate, peer-reviewed, scientifically-sound,
studies continue to disprove everything he claims to believe. I say
"claims to believe" because we all know that in reality he doesn't
believe mountain biking is harmful environmentally (at least no more
harmful than other "under your own steam" activities).

The reality is that he simply doesn't like sharing trails with mountain
bikers, and he probably doesn't like sharing them with horses either
(but he feels compelled to advocate for horses simply because one of his
only supporters is an equestrian).

It would be okay to say something like "hikers were here first so we
should have exclusive use of the trails" at least that would be an
honest position to have, however selfish. When I'm out hiking I really
don't like having mountain bikes going by, but I realize that the world
doesn't revolve around me, and that other trail users have a right to
use the trail.

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 2:16:25 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 6/7/2013 2:00 AM, Blackblade wrote:



Not surprising really; the piece really is total drivel.



"anecdotal evidence suggests"

"was apparently killed"

"personal communication"



... it's full of this kind of idiocy. No measurement, conclusions mixed with premises and postulation and generally lacking in any merit whatsoever.



Do some real research !



He could get a job at Fox News. Just add "some people say" to the list!



It was hoped that his arrest and conviction would have led to an

epiphany that would have caused him to abandon his addiction to junk

science and focus his efforts on actual threats to the wilderness such

as motorized vehicles and horses.



Instead, he seems to have become even more bitter that no one takes him

seriously as an advocate for the wilderness and he has doubled down with

the junk science. Yet legitimate, peer-reviewed, scientifically-sound,

studies continue to disprove everything he claims to believe. I say

"claims to believe" because we all know that in reality he doesn't

believe mountain biking is harmful environmentally (at least no more

harmful than other "under your own steam" activities).



The reality is that he simply doesn't like sharing trails with mountain

bikers, and he probably doesn't like sharing them with horses either

(but he feels compelled to advocate for horses simply because one of his

only supporters is an equestrian).



It would be okay to say something like "hikers were here first so we

should have exclusive use of the trails" at least that would be an

honest position to have, however selfish. When I'm out hiking I really

don't like having mountain bikes going by, but I realize that the world

doesn't revolve around me, and that other trail users have a right to

use the trail.

Mountain bikers have the right to use the trail -- ON FOOT, just like everyone else. There is no right to bring a bike with them. That was proved in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm. It figures that you would ignore that fact, just as you ignore all other facts.

Vandeman - I asked you to provide peer reviewed scientific evidence that mountain biking was doing damage at redwoods in NZ. You have nothing.

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 2:07:03 AM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
Vandeman - I asked you to provide peer reviewed scientific evidence that mountain biking was doing damage at redwoods in NZ. You have nothing.

I already did: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm. The article that started this thread also said that. Can't you READ????

Do some real research !


Show us YOUR credentials (non-existent).

BA Computing Science
MBA

Numerous conference papers on Artificial Intelligence, eCommerce and Social Graph Solutions

All of which is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. But, you don't have anything relevant either do you ?

I'm not claiming to be an expert in this field ... you are ... but you have no business doing so.

Mountain bikers have the right to use the trail -- ON FOOT, just like everyone else. There is no right to bring a bike with them. That was proved in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm. It figures that you would ignore that fact, just as you ignore all other facts.

I thought you said that "Courts prove nothing" Mike ?

Well, at least that's what you said when one found you guilty of three criminal offences.