|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:19:02 -0500, "Edward Dolan" wrote: [...] I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. by miss-quoting it or re-stating the actual researchers' conclusions to fit your OPINIONS. It also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction). You don't really believe you need university instruction to learn something new....? Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely on the basis of official credentials. So why is it so important you make everyone aware you have a PhD? Since there ARE no official credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers disqualify themselves based on this criterion), Your OPINION of the activity is no filter for determining the intelligence of anyone intelligence, and results. Does this also mean re-stating other researchers' results to fit your OPINION? Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts) indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less be asked to give such a paper. You have answered a "call for papers". Anyone can submit if they care to and have the financial base or time span to spend their own money on travel and board. Anyone who submits and meets the criteria of the request may be "invited" to present. You have never been listed as a keynote speaker. You have never been invited as a credible expert listed on the publicity information. You pay your own way, speak to a few other presenters in the room, pat yourself on the back and list it as a reference. When you are listed as a keynote speaker... when your travel, room and board are paid for by the admission costs of the other attendees, then perhaps you may have a worthwhile credit for your bio. It equals about the same as being an "extra" in any given movie. Wow! Impressive. Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines. I know. They are probably thinking right now that you are talking about a different -- more base -- kind of rigor. I just hope that there are some people like you out there that WILL understand. It took 10 years, but the wait was worth it. 10 years and have ONE?! Yeah! |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On 19 Jun 2006 13:42:43 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote in : On 19 Jun 2006 12:43:46 GMT, Chris Foster wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote in : On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss" wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message om... On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" wrote: "SMS" wrote in message et... Edward Dolan wrote: My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that. You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails. Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the trails. Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking trails. Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things up for hikers. I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers to not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn to share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles. I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some trails for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not like to see bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the West which have always been thought of as wilderness. The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail impact that have no basis in fact. I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature and wilderness. I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is that it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician saying "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get along; it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their bikes, mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are at least TOLERABLE idiots and liars. At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his "experience" that is his determining factor. It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife. You have to sidestep that and try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure. It is OBVIOUS your goal is to have your "experience" as you like it. Nature and wildlife is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool you use to gain that which you desire. If it weren't you would be more concerned about the permanent distruction caused by building than whining about a few bikes. People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that issue? He is doing about as much as you are. You both are doing nothing but complaining about each other in a newsgroup. Mike, I have seen you do absolutely nothing constructive. All that you actually do is bitch in this NG. BS. I have educated the whole world about the impacts of mountain biking -- something you are incapable of doing. That accomplishes nothing. You have done what? Educated the whole world? Oh my god, you have quite a high opinion of your self. Other than a few people on the NG who you bitch with, nobody has even heard of you. And sadly, the very few people who have heard of you, don't agree with you. Get a grip Mikey. Just admit it, you're a complete failure. If you've failed to learn anything, that's not MY failure. I doubt that many of your teachers would but that BS. That is the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife is of secondary importance. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota === 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.) 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.) 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.) 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.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."
S Curtiss wrote:
I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it. You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a vote to elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to portray all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives as you. At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude. Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers tend to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other to engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding without talking. There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are prohibited, but rarely will you find solitude until you're very far from the trail head. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:22:32 -0700, cc wrote: Edward Dolan wrote: "cc" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message om... [...] I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction). Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts) indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less be asked to give such a paper. Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines. Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted polemic and do something USEFUL!! I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless. Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference. You haven't a degree, which you already admitted. And no, working as a librarian does NOT count. I do have a research degree, but it doesn't matter. Right. It also takes honesty, which is sorely lacking among mountain bikers. Mike, I am stating my opinion. My interpretation of the facts. I am being honest, and I think you are wrong. Get it straight, idiot. At least when I state my OPINION I am clear about it. That is a requisite of science. Something which you clearly know nothing about. What did they teach you in school Mike? How to write your name? It certainly wasn't how to do research or interpret data . . . ever heard of the "scientific method" ? |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
Mike Vandeman wrote in
: On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:41:01 -0700, SMS wrote: S Curtiss wrote: I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it. You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a vote to elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to portray all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives as you. At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude. Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers tend to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other to engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding without talking. There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are prohibited, It SOUNDS good, but I have never been on a hiking trail that didn't have mountain bike tracks on it from illegal mountain biking. And, no, it is NOT just A FEW bad apples. There are plenty to go around.... I have, plenty of them. I have NEVER seen mountain bike tracks in RMNP. but rarely will you find solitude until you're very far from the trail head. === 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.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:41:01 -0700, SMS
wrote: S Curtiss wrote: I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it. You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a vote to elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to portray all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives as you. At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude. Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers tend to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other to engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding without talking. There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are prohibited, It SOUNDS good, but I have never been on a hiking trail that didn't have mountain bike tracks on it from illegal mountain biking. And, no, it is NOT just A FEW bad apples. There are plenty to go around.... but rarely will you find solitude until you're very far from the trail head. === 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.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:59:20 -0700, cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:22:32 -0700, cc wrote: Edward Dolan wrote: "cc" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message news:jobb92doebg5qh5qj7k7j8tlpei5a5f4hr@4ax. com... [...] I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction). Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts) indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less be asked to give such a paper. Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines. Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted polemic and do something USEFUL!! I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless. Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference. You haven't a degree, which you already admitted. And no, working as a librarian does NOT count. I do have a research degree, but it doesn't matter. Right. It also takes honesty, which is sorely lacking among mountain bikers. Mike, I am stating my opinion. My interpretation of the facts. I am being honest, and I think you are wrong. Get it straight, idiot. At least when I state my OPINION I am clear about it. That is a requisite of science. Something which you clearly know nothing about. That last sentence is an ASSERTION OF FACT that is FALSE. That is known as a "lie". You didn't say it was an opinion. So, no, you are NOT honest, nor do you know anything about science. What did they teach you in school Mike? How to write your name? It certainly wasn't how to do research or interpret data . . . ever heard of the "scientific method" ? === 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.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:59:20 -0700, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:22:32 -0700, cc wrote: Edward Dolan wrote: "cc" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message news:jobb92doebg5qh5qj7k7j8tlpei5a5f4hr@4ax .com... [...] I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction). Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts) indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less be asked to give such a paper. Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines. Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted polemic and do something USEFUL!! I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless. Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference. You haven't a degree, which you already admitted. And no, working as a librarian does NOT count. I do have a research degree, but it doesn't matter. Right. It also takes honesty, which is sorely lacking among mountain bikers. Mike, I am stating my opinion. My interpretation of the facts. I am being honest, and I think you are wrong. Get it straight, idiot. At least when I state my OPINION I am clear about it. That is a requisite of science. Something which you clearly know nothing about. Bah . . that is clearly an opinion based on the data of your inane conversation, which are strong, as it happens. You're grasping at straws. That last sentence is an ASSERTION OF FACT that is FALSE. That is known as a "lie". You didn't say it was an opinion. So, no, you are NOT honest, nor do you know anything about science. What did they teach you in school Mike? How to write your name? It certainly wasn't how to do research or interpret data . . . ever heard of the "scientific method" ? === 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.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:55:35 -0700, SMS wrote: S Curtiss wrote: At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his "experience" that is his determining factor. Yes, it's refreshing to see some honesty about that. I think that many hikers would agree that they don't like the disruption of their experience. Still, it's a mistake to believe that mountain bikers don't also like the "experience" of solitude. You have to sidestep that and try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure. Yes, I think that's why MV always loses these arguments. He's trying to base his dislike of mountain bikes on something other than the disruption of his hiking enjoyment. Since every study has shown that mountain bikers don't disrupt wildlife, or cause more trail damage, than hikers, he'd be well advised to at least be honest enough to take the same approach as Dolan in his arguments against mountain bikes. I AM being honest. That's exactly what drives mountain bikers so crazy! They can't believe that anyone could be less selfish than they are! What drives us is your constant insistence that your OPINIONS are fact, that your view of environmental protection or access is the ONLY viewpoint possible and that you inflate the importance of your OPINIONS by referencing yourself and some conferences that allowed you 15 minutes to read your statements. We continue to band together nationwide with other groups and organizations to cooperate on access, stewardship and voice against total destruction of the areas we enjoy from sprawl and construction. Your OPINIONS of the activity (off-road cycling) is not a filter to determine the mental state of anyone involved in that activity. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:41:01 -0700, SMS wrote: S Curtiss wrote: I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it. You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a vote to elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to portray all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives as you. At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude. Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers tend to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other to engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding without talking. There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are prohibited, It SOUNDS good, but I have never been on a hiking trail that didn't have mountain bike tracks on it from illegal mountain biking. And, no, it is NOT just A FEW bad apples. There are plenty to go around.... What an easy and meaningless comment! Especially since you consider ALL mountain biking to be illegal! Your OPINION is not a filter in determining the legality of cyclists' access. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking." | Edward Dolan | General | 147 | July 24th 06 07:03 PM |
Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 18 | July 16th 04 04:28 AM |
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking | BB | Mountain Biking | 31 | July 4th 04 02:35 AM |
EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION (Including Mountain Biking) ON MULE DEER AND ELK | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 1 | May 5th 04 03:40 AM |
EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION (Including Mountain Biking) ON MULE DEER AND ELK | BB | Mountain Biking | 1 | April 27th 04 07:05 AM |