Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

snip
Actually, the US Constitution is the only document that gives US citizens
any 'rights' in the United States. If you think I am wrong, fly to Cuba
and start spewing your bull **** there, see how long you end up in
prison.

Horses are not mentioned in the Constitution, so they don't have any
rights at all.


Oh, yes they do!!!!!!!!!

A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a horse of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mister Ed.

Go right to the source and ask the horse
He'll give you the answer that you'll endorse.
He's always on a steady course.
Talk to Mister Ed.

People yakkity yak a streak and waste your time of day
But Mr. Ed will never speak unless he has something to say

A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And this one'll talk 'til his voice is hoarse.
You never heard of a talking horse?

Well listen to this: "I'm Mister Ed."

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:59:04 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 12 Dec 2006 17:40:35 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

As president bush does every thing he can to stop the US from passing
legislation that would limit the amount of CO2 into the World's atmosphere,
Vande-monkey is bashing a couple of people who I feel love the environment
and want to be part of it their own respective way.

Vande-monkey was frightened by some mean-old mountain biker 8 years ago.
He has been on a crusade ever since to try to get those mean-old mountain
bikers from scaring him again. Bet he has night mares from that initial
incident.

Mike,
So many people already ignore you, you appear to have a good heart and
good intent, but man, you are a fool if you actually believe that you have
convinced ONE mountain biker from never riding it again.

Stop wasting your time here and go be productive, because I am.

PLONK

Good riddance. You have nothing to offer but lies. Your post above is
a perfect example. You know NOTHING about me and why I oppose mountain
biking, in spite of it being spelled out clearly on my web site. But
you have to be able to read words of more than one syl-la-ble.

No, Mike, YOU haven't provided ONE good reason for disliking mountain
biking. Put up or shut up.


NOT A VADEMAN FAN....



However, I've heard bike riding in general is bad for the Earth for
two reasons:

1. When meansuring CO2 Generated per mile, per pound carred, per
person, some bike riders generated more CO2 than if they filled a fuel
efficient car, and just drove to their desination.

2. Bike riders are active, and increased activity levels can lead
towards longer lives. Each day a human is alive it generates CO2,
consumers water, and natural resources. So bike riding, can
indirectly lead to faster natural resource depletion.

Clearly all this means all bike riding should be banned.

XXX

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:44:31 -0800, cc wrote:

I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk
or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time.
But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything
questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the
talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is
something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has
been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying
colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about
scientific conferences.
Wrong answer, bucko. I am
intimately familiar with them.

No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR.

You read my specifics. You
just didn't un-der-stand them.
Moron.

" Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them."

Where do you see any specifics?
===
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, 13 Dec 2006 22:45:13 -0800, cc wrote:

Michael Halliwell wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:13:07 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:45:32 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:14:21 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:43:12 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:11:18 -0700, Paul Cassel
wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

Mountain
bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights.

Neither do hiking shoes.

Maybe if you didn't wear shoes, you'd have a leg to stand on.
Otherwise, you are just being a hypocrite.

No, the point is that - by engaging in an activity shown to do equal
damage to trails

Repeating that lie doesn't make it true.


That "lie" is backed up by
scientists who are accredited
and publish in peer-reviewed
journals.

Name ONE such scientist. (Hint: you can't.)

Mike, I'm not going to do your
homework for you. You know the
references I am referring to
very well, as you've cited
them in the pieces of trash
you continually post here.

(Just as I said: you can't!!!!!)

It's on your site. Try reading
YOUR OWN bibliography, moron.

Then you should have no trouble finding a peer-reviewed study, IF one
exists. You CAN'T, which is why you haven't answered. Put up or shut
up.

Wilson and Seney is published
in MRD, which is
peer-reviewed. AMONG OTHERS.
Don't you read the **** you
write, Mike?


"Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is the leading
interdisciplinary and development-oriented journal " In other words,
it is PRO-DEVELOPMENT, NOT an unbiased scientific journal.

Even "peer-reviewed" studies can be full of CRAP, as that one is:

This study is frequently cited by mountain bikers as proof that
mountain biking doesn't cause more impact than hiking. 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. For example, if a large rock were dislodged, the
very weak "simulated rainfall" wouldn't be capable of transporting it
into the collecting tray; only very fine particles would be collected.
In fact, they admit that the simulator's "small size … meant that the
kinetic energy of the simulated rainfall events was roughly one-third
that of natural rainstorms". Another reason to suspect that the
measurements aren't valid is that "none of the relationships between
water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil moisture, trail
roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant".

If they used a VALID measure of erosion, explain why there was no
correlation with slope! Everyone knows that erosion increases with
slope. That has been shown by other studies, although it's also common
sense.


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.”

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?

Woah there, Michael. That is a
LOT of big words for MV to
absorb. Especially at once !

You know, considering MV
claims he is an "expert" in
statistics, such an
"oversight" might lead one to
believe he's biased. No . . . .

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

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:44:31 -0800, cc wrote:

I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk
or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time.
But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything
questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the
talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is
something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has
been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying
colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about
scientific conferences.
Wrong answer, bucko. I am
intimately familiar with them.
No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR.
You read my specifics. You
just didn't un-der-stand them.
Moron.

" Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them."

Where do you see any specifics?

I don't need to tell you which
conferences I have attended or
spoken/presented at to make it
perfectly clear that I am
familiar with them.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:02:32 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:44:31 -0800, cc wrote:

I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk
or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time.
But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything
questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the
talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is
something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has
been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying
colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about
scientific conferences.
Wrong answer, bucko. I am
intimately familiar with them.
No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR.
You read my specifics. You
just didn't un-der-stand them.
Moron.

" Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them."

Where do you see any specifics?

I don't need to tell you which
conferences I have attended or
spoken/presented at to make it
perfectly clear that I am
familiar with them.

Yes, you do, because there is otherwise no reason to believe you.
Mountain bikers are NOTORIOUSLY dishonest. After all, there's no way
that mountain biking can be justified while being truthful! There is
no good reason to allow bikes into natural areas.
===
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:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:02:32 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:44:31 -0800, cc wrote:

I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk
or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time.
But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything
questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the
talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is
something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has
been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying
colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about
scientific conferences.
Wrong answer, bucko. I am
intimately familiar with them.
No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR.
You read my specifics. You
just didn't un-der-stand them.
Moron.
" Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them."

Where do you see any specifics?
I don't need to tell you which
conferences I have attended or
spoken/presented at to make it
perfectly clear that I am
familiar with them.

Yes, you do, because there is otherwise no reason to believe you.
Mountain bikers are NOTORIOUSLY dishonest. After all, there's no way
that mountain biking can be justified while being truthful! There is
no good reason to allow bikes into natural areas.

No, I do not, and will not. I
have given you ample specifics
above. Anyone but you would be
satisfied, and you aren't only
because you've got your
fingers in your ears. Knowing
my name and the conferences
won't change anything.
Besides, do we have proof that
you even gave your talk, or
that anyone attended? Or that
you weren't lambasted at your
yearly public issuance of
hate-speak? That burden of
proof is still on you.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:02:32 -0800, cc wrote:

Where do you see any specifics?

I don't need to tell you which
conferences I have attended or
spoken/presented at to make it
perfectly clear that I am
familiar with them.

Yes, you do, because there is otherwise no reason to believe you.
Mountain bikers are NOTORIOUSLY dishonest. After all, there's no way
that mountain biking can be justified while being truthful! There is
no good reason to allow bikes into natural areas.

No - He doesn't. It is you that is making claims that your OPINIONS be taken
as fact. The burden of proof is on you and your opinions which you claim to
be valid simply because you read your opinions to a finite audience at any
given conference. You CLAIM validity without offering substantial detail on
review which may be verified from outside sources. "Because you say so" is
not substantial.
Your OPINIONS of the activity are the only evidence you have ever put forth
to measure any reasons, facts or research given to support the activity.

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:47:03 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:02:32 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:44:31 -0800, cc wrote:

I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk
or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time.
But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything
questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the
talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is
something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has
been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying
colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about
scientific conferences.
Wrong answer, bucko. I am
intimately familiar with them.
No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR.
You read my specifics. You
just didn't un-der-stand them.
Moron.
" Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them."

Where do you see any specifics?
I don't need to tell you which
conferences I have attended or
spoken/presented at to make it
perfectly clear that I am
familiar with them.

Yes, you do, because there is otherwise no reason to believe you.
Mountain bikers are NOTORIOUSLY dishonest. After all, there's no way
that mountain biking can be justified while being truthful! There is
no good reason to allow bikes into natural areas.

No, I do not, and will not. I
have given you ample specifics
above. Anyone but you would be
satisfied, and you aren't only
because you've got your
fingers in your ears. Knowing
my name and the conferences
won't change anything.
Besides, do we have proof that
you even gave your talk, or
that anyone attended? Or that
you weren't lambasted at your
yearly public issuance of
hate-speak? That burden of
proof is still on you.

Did you say something? NO! As usual! But what can we expect from
someone afraid to give his real 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

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:47:03 -0800, cc wrote:

No, I do not, and will not. I
have given you ample specifics
above. Anyone but you would be
satisfied, and you aren't only
because you've got your
fingers in your ears. Knowing
my name and the conferences
won't change anything.
Besides, do we have proof that
you even gave your talk, or
that anyone attended? Or that
you weren't lambasted at your
yearly public issuance of
hate-speak? That burden of
proof is still on you.

Did you say something? NO! As usual! But what can we expect from
someone afraid to give his real name....
===
Have you said anything? NO! As usual! But what can we expect from someone
afraid to provide specifics of attendance and objective review from these
conferences you reference.