Vandeman a fraud and professional failure

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:52:04 GMT, "JP"
wrote:

.
.I've been running trails for years and my experience negates yours.
.Bikers and runners the least, campers, horses the most. Hikers more
.towards the middle.

The science doesn't support your belief:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

Your home page is devoid of science, whether evidenciary or deductive.
This has been discussed at length but ignored by you or rebutted by
references to citations that exist solely on the website or anecdotal
conjecture or denigration. At this point the science doesn't support
your beliefs either which is why you attempt to manufacture it.


.This fight is about a self proclaimed expert trolling a newsgroup.

Telling relevant truths is not "trolling". You just don't want to admit
it.


You have no clue what I want, your "truths" are biased conjecture and
unsupported by accredited sources, your methodology is flawed, and
consequently your conclusions are worthless. You are aware of this
which is why you describe yourself with irrelevant academic credentials
that are not subject to examination; it is an attempt to buttress the
credibility lacking in your arguments.

An attempt at discussion with you is as productive as arguing with a three
year old about the moon being made of green cheese. "Prove I'm wrong"
cries the child, and then starts name calling in response to any reasonable
attempt at discussion. Or "yawn" or "Did you say something?"

You meet every criteria used to define a newsgroup troll.
You just don't want to admit it.
Currently you are successfully hijacking this group.
That's what trolls do.

On Tue, 17 May 2005 22:02:27 GMT, "JP" wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
.. On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:52:04 GMT, "JP"
..wrote:
..
.. .
.. .I've been running trails for years and my experience negates yours.
.. .Bikers and runners the least, campers, horses the most. Hikers more
.. .towards the middle.
..
.. The science doesn't support your belief:
..http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
..
..Your home page is devoid of science, whether evidenciary or deductive.
..This has been discussed at length but ignored by you or rebutted by
..references to citations that exist solely on the website or anecdotal
..conjecture or denigration. At this point the science doesn't support
..your beliefs either which is why you attempt to manufacture it.
..
..
.. .This fight is about a self proclaimed expert trolling a newsgroup.
..
.. Telling relevant truths is not "trolling". You just don't want to admit
..it.
..
..
..You have no clue what I want, your "truths" are biased conjecture and
..unsupported by accredited sources, your methodology is flawed, and
..consequently your conclusions are worthless. You are aware of this
..which is why you describe yourself with irrelevant academic credentials
..that are not subject to examination; it is an attempt to buttress the
..credibility lacking in your arguments.
..
..An attempt at discussion with you is as productive as arguing with a three
..year old about the moon being made of green cheese. "Prove I'm wrong"
..cries the child, and then starts name calling in response to any reasonable
..attempt at discussion. Or "yawn" or "Did you say something?"
..
..You meet every criteria used to define a newsgroup troll.
..You just don't want to admit it.
..Currently you are successfully hijacking this group.

Then why are you playing along with it, sucker?

..That's what trolls do.

===
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

On Sat, 21 May 2005 19:02:47 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 14:56:47 GMT, Mike Vandeman
wrote in message :

.I think the Society for Conservation Biology would differ with you on that.
.Idiot. They are the premier scientific body on conservation science.

.And your authority for that statement is? By what definition of
."premier"? By whose assessment? What of the UN Environment Agency,
.the Worldwide Fund for Nature or any one of a number of other bodies
.which have been heard of outside the very limited locus of activists?

.We need citations to back that claim, with objective evaluations of
.the primacy of the various organisations. You are a known bigot, so
.if you said coal is black I'd be sure to check it out myself!

Then do so.

I note that you have not answered the question. I think we can all
draw the correct inference from that.

Any organization which recognizes Mikey as an expert, is one which he
calls a premier scientific body. Don't you understand circular logic?

Of course, I am not aware of many reputable organizations which accept
a PhD in an entirely different subject area as a sole qualification.

I wonder how much environmental damage is done when Mikey travels to
these various international conferences. Maybe as long as he travels
by any means other than mountain bike, there is zero environmental
impact.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom