|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The Only Review of Mike's really old Literature
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:14:31 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:40:28 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: Mike picks and chooses the literature that fits his selfish agenda and posts it. Liar. I reviewed EVERY experimental study, 7 of 8 of which CLAIMED (dishonestly) that mountain biking is no more harmful than hiking. There is ample evidence that you are dishonest. We all agree that you are devoted to your cause, and that relative to your cause you mean well. But, you lie and cheat and misstate irrelevent facts so often that you are seen as utterly dishonest. You haven't found a single lie yet, LIAR. The really sad thing is, most of his self selected literature is inaccurate or does not apply to his agenda. You didn't really READ it, did you? IDIOT. -- Not only did I read it, we debated it several years ago. I provided no less than one example of real world experience to challenge eash the blanket assertions. You obviously didn't understand it, IF you read it. "Real world experience" is shorthand for "in my (unscientific) opinion". -- 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 |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The Only Review of Mike's really old Literature
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:19:16 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:40:28 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: Mike picks and chooses the literature that fits his selfish agenda and posts it. The really sad thing is, most of his self selected literature is inaccurate or does not apply to his agenda. The tipoff that you are lying is that you NEVER give any specifics to back up your BS. I'm exhausted of citing specifics. You ignore them anyway. Here's a specific for you, if you were 100% correct AND 100% of every route was an environmental wasteland that demanded complete intervention and restoration, we would have to step up to save 0.004% (rounded up) of the environment that was laid to waste because of bicycle activity. You STILL don't get it! The impact of the presence of humans is much greater than would be expected from the area of the trail, since animals can smell and hear people from over a mile away. You continue to ignore that FACT pointed out by Ed Grumbine in _Ghost Bears_ (I know, you haven't read that, either). When you find a cause that will save 4%, post a note. I might be able to raise some funding to help. -- 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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The Only Review of Mike's really old Literature
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:10:22 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote: On Aug 11, 12:19*am, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:40:28 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: Mike picks and chooses the literature that fits his selfish agenda and posts it. The really sad thing is, most of his self selected literature is inaccurate or does not apply to his agenda. The tipoff that you are lying is that you NEVER give any specifics to back up your BS. I'm exhausted of citing specifics. You ignore them anyway. Here's a specific for you, if you were 100% correct AND 100% of every route was an environmental wasteland that demanded complete intervention and restoration, we would have to step up to save 0.004% (rounded up) of the environment that was laid to waste because of bicycle activity. That's just one reason why Michael J. Vandeman is the laughing stock of the environmental movement, he chooses to fight a very minor problem while real habitat crumbles around him. At a rally this past Saturday, I mentioned his name to a few people and while some never heard of him, a few people started to laugh and comments of "nutcase" and "kook" were common. It was discussed how no one took him seriously and when I mentioned I believed he did more to hurt his cause than help it, all agreed. Mountain bikers, no doubt -- a notoriously unreliable source of information. A real problem that is being taken care of... http://www.centredaily.com/423/story/765635.html -- 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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The Only Review of Mike's really old Literature
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:10:22 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote: On Aug 11, 12:19*am, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:40:28 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: Mike picks and chooses the literature that fits his selfish agenda and posts it. The really sad thing is, most of his self selected literature is inaccurate or does not apply to his agenda. The tipoff that you are lying is that you NEVER give any specifics to back up your BS. I'm exhausted of citing specifics. You ignore them anyway. Here's a specific for you, if you were 100% correct AND 100% of every route was an environmental wasteland that demanded complete intervention and restoration, we would have to step up to save 0.004% (rounded up) of the environment that was laid to waste because of bicycle activity. That's just one reason why Michael J. Vandeman is the laughing stock of the environmental movement, he chooses to fight a very minor problem while real habitat crumbles around him. At a rally this past Saturday, I mentioned his name to a few people and while some never heard of him, a few people started to laugh and comments of "nutcase" and "kook" were common. It was discussed how no one took him seriously and when I mentioned I believed he did more to hurt his cause than help it, all agreed. Your OBSESSION with me is touching. Too bad you can't get a REAL life. -- 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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The Only Review of Mike's really old Literature
Mike Vandeman writes:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:19:16 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: snip You STILL don't get it! The impact of the presence of humans is much greater than would be expected from the area of the trail, since animals can smell and hear people from over a mile away. You continue to ignore that FACT pointed out by Ed Grumbine in _Ghost Bears_ (I know, you haven't read that, either). Are you by any chance aware that humans are animals, mammals in particular? Also, look at http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/HearingRange.html. It seems that the frequency range that a few species are sensitive to is less than ours. :-) Couldn't find a table for intensity, though. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The OnlyReview of Mike's really old Literature
On Aug 11, 11:53*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:10:22 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane wrote: On Aug 11, 12:19*am, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:40:28 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: Mike picks and chooses the literature that fits his selfish agenda and posts it. The really sad thing is, most of his self selected literature is inaccurate or does not apply to his agenda. The tipoff that you are lying is that you NEVER give any specifics to back up your BS. I'm exhausted of citing specifics. You ignore them anyway. Here's a specific for you, if you were 100% correct AND 100% of every route was an environmental wasteland that demanded complete intervention and restoration, we would have to step up to save 0.004% (rounded up) of the environment that was laid to waste because of bicycle activity. That's just one reason why Michael J. Vandeman is the laughing stock of the environmental movement, he chooses to fight a very minor problem while real habitat crumbles around him. At a rally this past Saturday, I mentioned his name to a few people and while some never heard of him, a few people started to laugh and comments of "nutcase" and "kook" were common. It was discussed how no one took him seriously and when I mentioned I believed he did more to hurt his cause than help it, all agreed. Mountain bikers, no doubt -- a notoriously unreliable source of information. So you were there? Sorry Michael J. Vandeman, you haven't a clue as to who was there, as usual. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The Only Review of Mike's really old Literature
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote: On Aug 11, 11:53*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:10:22 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane wrote: On Aug 11, 12:19*am, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:40:28 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: Mike picks and chooses the literature that fits his selfish agenda and posts it. The really sad thing is, most of his self selected literature is inaccurate or does not apply to his agenda. The tipoff that you are lying is that you NEVER give any specifics to back up your BS. I'm exhausted of citing specifics. You ignore them anyway. Here's a specific for you, if you were 100% correct AND 100% of every route was an environmental wasteland that demanded complete intervention and restoration, we would have to step up to save 0.004% (rounded up) of the environment that was laid to waste because of bicycle activity. That's just one reason why Michael J. Vandeman is the laughing stock of the environmental movement, he chooses to fight a very minor problem while real habitat crumbles around him. At a rally this past Saturday, I mentioned his name to a few people and while some never heard of him, a few people started to laugh and comments of "nutcase" and "kook" were common. It was discussed how no one took him seriously and when I mentioned I believed he did more to hurt his cause than help it, all agreed. Mountain bikers, no doubt -- a notoriously unreliable source of information. So you were there? Sorry Michael J. Vandeman, you haven't a clue as to who was there, as usual. And you, as usual, aren't honest enough to give any details. -- 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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Econut's avoidance of the truth
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:34:40 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: (Snip of Mike going off on a tangent again) Nonsense. What I left out was IRRELEVANT to the basic question of which form of recreation causes more erosion.. Irrelevant? Hmmm... So let me get this right. If you take a quote out of context No, I didn't. I quoted the relevant part. And it wasn't my major point, anyway, which was that they didn't measure erosion. and use it to formulate an argument against a report, yet you still consider it a good argument? Your "lit review" claims the Wilson and Seney quote you gave as a reason to question the results...but if you include the full quote, your argument isn't justified. ("E" for effort in trying to redirect the discussion away from your deception.) Yes, it is. The fact that you refuse to include any details is proof that you are LYING. Geee...sounds like your quote from Wisdom about flight speeds...you know the one. It's where you conveniently snip out the fact that the evening mean movement rate of elk for mountain bike events was the same as hiking events. The dot-dot-dot thing is a convenient way of glossing over that text you don't want others to see, ain't it? You are cherry-picking irrelevancies. Oh...and don't forget that Wisdom et al suggest things contrary to you...like the fact that participant populations needs to be included and addressed (Does recreationist equivalent ring a bell?). Irrelevant. And one more thing....have you figured out the difference between speed and distance yet? You keep posting your "lit review" where you talk about speed as proof about relative distances traveled. (You know...number of teams to cover a set distance over a set time...it's in you comments about Wisdom et al). I know certain vehicles with 100 mph average speeds (dragsters), but a hiker will go a lot further in typical distance covered. You are just trying to avoid admitting that I'm right: a mountain biker has a much greater impact on wildlife & the environment than a hiker. 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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The OnlyReview of Mike's really old Literature
On Aug 12, 9:15*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane wrote: On Aug 11, 11:53*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:10:22 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane wrote: On Aug 11, 12:19*am, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:40:28 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: Mike picks and chooses the literature that fits his selfish agenda and posts it. The really sad thing is, most of his self selected literature is inaccurate or does not apply to his agenda. The tipoff that you are lying is that you NEVER give any specifics to back up your BS. I'm exhausted of citing specifics. You ignore them anyway. Here's a specific for you, if you were 100% correct AND 100% of every route was an environmental wasteland that demanded complete intervention and restoration, we would have to step up to save 0.004% (rounded up) of the environment that was laid to waste because of bicycle activity. That's just one reason why Michael J. Vandeman is the laughing stock of the environmental movement, he chooses to fight a very minor problem while real habitat crumbles around him. At a rally this past Saturday, I mentioned his name to a few people and while some never heard of him, a few people started to laugh and comments of "nutcase" and "kook" were common. It was discussed how no one took him seriously and when I mentioned I believed he did more to hurt his cause than help it, all agreed. Mountain bikers, no doubt -- a notoriously unreliable source of information. So you were there? Sorry Michael J. Vandeman, you haven't a clue as to who was there, as usual. And you, as usual, aren't honest enough to give any details. Read the article, dummy. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The Only Honest Review of the Literature | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 37 | August 14th 08 12:40 PM |
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 2 | April 21st 08 02:25 AM |
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 5 | August 29th 07 05:43 AM |
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 11 | August 22nd 06 03:47 PM |
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature | Gary S. | Mountain Biking | 3 | April 25th 05 08:31 AM |