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

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:15:29 -0600, "di" wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .

Of course. ALL wildlife has more seniority, and hence right to live,
than humans.


Ever hear of the basis of all of nature called "survival of the fittest",

Yes, of course. No ona has believed that BS for quite a while! Those
who survive aren't necessarily the "fittest"! They are just those who
happen to survive. To call them the "fittest" is circular reasoning.
Needless to say, no mountain biker would understand that.
===
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 12 Dec 2006 13:33:32 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On 11 Dec 2006 19:06:53 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 18:38:42 GMT, wizardB wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:52:02 GMT, "JP"
wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 03:52:22 GMT, "JP"
wrote:

wrote in message
ps.com...
Mike Vandeman wrote:
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:


Here's the reference to the original article, entitled
Gridlock in Wild Areas. The article
suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...2006/12/03/SPG
4O MO5321.DTL&hw=Tom+Stienstra&sn=001&sc=1000
So where's the lie? (Hint: there aren't any. That's why you
didn't quote any.)
Wrong, you poor wannabe naturalist.
Your unsubstantiated opinion is the LIE.
Yu haven't cited evidence to back any of your claims. Ever.
Your website is not proof.
But you can't help it. There is no evidence that supports any of
your claims.
No legitimate agenmcy will give you the time of day.
That is why your sad little impotent quest gets played out on AMB

1. Citizens have the right to use wilderness areas, our taxes
support them.

Nope, restrictions are allowed. That's why Yosmite National Park
doesn't allow mountain biking.

That use includes two wheeled non-motorized vehicles. I spooked
horses running on trails...LIAR!!!!

2. Hikers have no more right to trails than bikes, regardless of
your opinion.

\Bikes don't habve any rights. Hikers do.

Neither do horses. If an equestrian cannot control their animal
they do not belong in public. LIAR!!!

3. Bikes are no more harmful to the environment than pedestrian
use, in fact hikers like wider trails.

You know that's a lie.

Your continues rants don't make it so. LIAR!!!
4. Mountain bikes don't teach kids to beat on nature, that's
anouther BS LIE.

Yes, they do. That's exactly what they do.

5. Being able to ride a mopuntain bike is not evidence of being
able to walk.
Floyd Landis, who won the TDF, would be unable to walk a mile on
a hiking trail.

So what? He can still walk.

But he could ride them if he wished. Another specious remark by
Lying MIke Vandeman.
And there are thousands like him, with joint damage etc who
cannot hike yet can ride. LIAR!!!

Your biggest LIE of course is the one where you neglect to
mention the damage
caused by equestrian use. HORSES destroy trails!!! But you
have a hard-on for mountain bikes so you will colntinue to LIE!!!

Irrelevant. Horses, like many other animals, evolved in North
America and have a right to be here. Bikes have NO rights.
Once again proving your an idiot horses were brought to North
America by the Spaniards you dolt

Yes, but THE HORSE evolved in North America long before that! DUH!



True, but then died out along with the along with the mammoths and
saber- tooth tigers. The horses of today are not descendants of
horses that were native to North America.

Thanks for demonstrating your UTTER ignorance of bacis elementary
biology! How were the horses of today created, if they didnt descend
from their ancestors? VIRGIN BIRTH?!

No fool, they descended from the horses that survived, ones from Asia.

Since the horse evolved in North America, ALL horses descented from
them. DUH! Can't you admit it when you are wrong?

Didn't you read the article?? Or are you too good to actually do a
little research??

Do they still have rights?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

Of course. ALL wildlife has more seniority, and hence right to live,
than humans.

Not according to nature, which is based on "Survival of the Fittest"
(e.i. Kill or be Killed, Eat or be Eaten)


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.

What an idiot. Mountain bikes aren't mentioned there either, but they
can't be ridden in Wilderness.

Correct, it is a privilege. So is hiking, But the freedom of speech is a
Right. So, please do not talk/write about the rights of animals,
unfortunately they have none. You may think they do, but they do not.


Mike
To be credible, you need proof/evidance Something not written by
yourself that others agee with

I noticed that you did not respond to this? Where is your credible
proof/evidance?




Yawn......did you say something???

===
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
===
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
===
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
===
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
:

On 12 Dec 2006 13:35:05 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
m:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:38:50 GMT, "JP" wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:52:02 GMT, "JP"
wrote:



\Bikes don't habve any rights. Hikers do.

Specious nonsense. Bikes do not ride without a cyclist atop.
Cyclists have rights. Idiot.

Idiot. As I said, bikes have no rights.

Neither do horses. If an equestrian cannot control their animal
they do not
belong in public. LIAR!!!

3. Bikes are no more harmful to the environment than pedestrian
use, in fact
hikers like wider trails.

You know that's a lie.

Not so. Pedestrian traffic in the woods is not always single file.
The footprint of the bike is cushioned by a wide tire, lessening the
impact of human weight on the surface. In addition the bicycle
rolls along the
surface, it doesn't travel in a series of impacts like the
pedestrian.

Tire knobs DO impact the ground, and continually puncture it. Tires
have less total surface area on the ground than feet, hence exert
greater PRESSURE. DUH!

You really should take a couple of Physics classes. Then you would
see just how stupid you sound here

Since you are being VAGUE, it's easy to tell that you haven't a clue
about physics. I got straight As in Honore Physics at the greatest
university in the world. What about you? Idiot.

Are you and I going to brag about out respective PhD? Mine is from
University of Illinois in Electrical Engineering. I took EVERY physics
class they offer. You took physics for non-technical majors I presume?

I can provide you with a list of physics classes I took. Can you? If so
, do so, else, shut up.



Your continues rants don't make it so. LIAR!!!

4. Mountain bikes don't teach kids to beat on nature, that's
anouther BS LIE.

Yes, they do. That's exactly what they do.

Nonsense LIAR. That is a self serving opinion.



5. Being able to ride a mopuntain bike is not evidence of being
able to walk.
Floyd Landis, who won the TDF, would be unable to walk a mile on
a hiking trail.

So what? He can still walk.

The point is he can't. He hobbles in severe pain.
But you really don't care. This is not about access wilderness,
protection of nature or
and of the rest of your phony hypothesis.
Pure and simple, you are anti bike for reasons yet undisclosed.
When you stop lying perhaps real dialogue can ensue.


Irrelevant. Horses, like many other animals, evolved in North
America and have a right to be here. Bikes have NO rights.

Horses are plains aniimals. Their "rights" are not the topic of
discussion. The destruction they cause to trails is the point you
conveniently evade. That is the result of the rider directing the
animal where it does not belong.
The bike rider can use trails responsibly, the horse rider cannot.
Additionally the bike rider can always control his bicycle.
Not so the horse rider. But your lies ignore that.


Doesn't matter really. You are a solitary voice, impotent in your
quest. The only attention you get is here, in AMB.
What a pathetic way to spend your time.

Gotta go. I'm bored with you now.
Yawn..............................

===
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

===
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



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

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



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:27:07 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:
It's a proposal.
It's an OPINION. Please explain how interest in the outdoors
(including
hiking) continues to GROW if off-road cyclists are chasing everyone
away.

It isn't. It's decreasing. National parks are losing visitors.
I didn't say National Parks. I said the OUTDOORS. Can't you read?
National
Parks are brcoming difficult to visit (higher gas prices) while interest
in
other options are becoming more available.
Numbers are also fluctuating but not so drastically as being claimed.
While
they do show a trend lending to an overall decline, the factors involved
do
not include off-road cycling chasing people out

You are lying again. I have seen numerous parks where hikers &
equestrians were driven out by the presence of mountain bikers.

Anecdotal and meaningless.

BS. Anecdotal evidence was enough to win the 1994 federal lawsuit
against IMBA and close trails to bikes.
Which has been largely overturned due to the access of REAL information. The
BLM, NFS and even the Sierra Club recognize the validity of off-road cycling
and the cooperative efforts between user groups.
It is now 2006 (2007) and you cling to the past which has been changed with
the light of actual information. You claim "science" and throw out 12 year
old information and anecdotal nonsense...?
PATHETIC!


Your opinions automatically suspect cycling with
total disregard to any other factors.

(most National Parks do not
allow off-road cycling). It is the more local and available public
access
land that is attracting people with a wide variety of outdoor options.
Your attempt to throw cycling under the bus as a cause for National
Parks'
decline is simply a stupid gesture of impotence.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:35:45 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

hey mikey take a look, cell phones DONT cause cancer. Is the rest of
your research and facts as accurate?

Where in my signature do you see the word "cancer"? Idiot.
Then what danger are you referring to if not previous (and
controversial)
studies linking cell phones to cancer?

"Benign" tumors on the auditory nerve (done in Sweden). Breakdown of
the blood-brain barrier. Etc.

Non-conclusive in light of more recent information. Hardly scientific to
cast opinions in concrete as information constantly changes...

What the heck did you just say? Oh, NOTHING again.
===
Nothing you can refute, counter or criticize with ACTUAL FACT.
No wonder you can't process information - Sticking your head in the sand
whenever confronted with reality must clog your brain up a bit.

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:17:35 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:46:32 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:12:06 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:00:02 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:23:36 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:14:05 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:44:36 -0800, cc wrote:

Roberto Baggio wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:

2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build
more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers
off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of
recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise.
So being fair to minorities is a bad thing?

You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot.
No, just honest -- something mountain bikers wouldn't understand.

Do you want me to spell it out
for you, moron? Describing
negative experiences with
mountain bikers is being
honest. Extrapolating those
experiences to EVERY mountain
biker is bigotry.
Nope, it's called "observation".
Again, you have done nothing
to demonstrate anything but
wild speculation. Observation
does in no case warrant such
ridiculous extrapolation or
zealous rhetoric. If you were
a scientist, you would realize
this. Obviously, you are not.
Observations are the foundation of science. DUH!
Yes, but only when applied
within the framework of a
scientific methodology (which
has been employed in various
studies that show mountain
biking to be of comparable
impact to hiking).
1. That's a LIE. Those studies were all seriously flawed, as you well
know.
Again, you mistake your
opinion of the studies with
one that is relevant. Your
voice is meaningless, as we
have established.
Nine international scientific conferences that heard my paper would
disagree. NOT ONE of the scientists found any flaw in my paper, either
then or now.
Mike, conferences are not
forums for serious peer-review
(as in "get this **** out of
here", which is surely what
everyone in those forums was
thinking). Questions are
generally directed at
elucidating details of the
studies. In any case, these
are NOT PEER-REVIEWED
Idiot. What do you think a conference IS???? It is, by its very nature
one massive peer review, by LOTS more than 3 reviewers! I passed with
flying colors. You, of course, weren't even there.
Mike, it is an exhibition of
current research in the field,
meant to bring together
scientists of like interests
to foster the sharing of
ideas, along with networking
among business execs and those
that do pure research.

Because the content of the
talk is not given prior to
accepting abstracts, it may
not be judged prior to being
accepted or rejected. The
merits of your talk therefore
have nothing to do with it
being accepted.

BS. You can tell from the abstract if it is worthwhile, otherwise they
would require the entire paper.

In the conference, it is poor
etiquette to disparage a talk.

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.
So much so that I know you're
totally full of ****.


It is also a waste of time.
Questions are dedicated - as I
previously mentioned - to
clarification, asking what the
next steps are, and for
suggestions for things to try
or look at. Basically, you
should know if you're full of
****. Generally, scientists
will have already published or
be in the process of
publishing the material that
they speak about. This in
general ensures that the
content is of a suitable
caliber for delivering at a
conference. You obviously do
not fit this criterion.

Stop trying to snow the people
here who are not familiar with
how a conference works, and
how peer-review through
published literature is the
only meaningful benchmark.


, as you
are well aware. End of story.
You present opinion, and
nothing more. Try DOING
RESEARCH. You are not a
scientist, and by calling
yourself one you insult the
entire community.

2. "Comparable" is not a scientific term. ANY two objects are
"comparable". It means nothing.
Obviously the meaning I
implied was "similar".
Grasping at straws, as usual.
Nope, "similar" is ALSO not scientific. It is not quantitative. Thanks
for demonstrating your total ignorance of science.
Well, first of all, comparable
and similar are both
acceptable in this context,
despite your semantic
flailing. You may argue over
the details, but both are
acceptable to imply that
effects are on the same order
of magnitude, and therefore
comparable and similar.

Secondly, I don't need to
defend myself as a scientist
in this situation. You do,
however, if you wish to attain
any credibility. (Hint: you
have none). I will say,
however, I was first published
in a peer-reviewed journal at
much less than half your age.
So your argument holds no water.

But what can one
expect from someone afraid to use his real name?! Stand up and be a
man!
Mike, I - unlike you - have a
career in science ahead of me.
God forbid some freaking
lunatic like you decide to do
something stupid.

Need I point out the irony in
you pointing out that you are
a man ?!

Try a
dictionary, asshole.

Yes. This has been amply established.
===
===
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
===
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
===
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 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:31:40 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:27:07 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:
It's a proposal.
It's an OPINION. Please explain how interest in the outdoors
(including
hiking) continues to GROW if off-road cyclists are chasing everyone
away.

It isn't. It's decreasing. National parks are losing visitors.
I didn't say National Parks. I said the OUTDOORS. Can't you read?
National
Parks are brcoming difficult to visit (higher gas prices) while interest
in
other options are becoming more available.
Numbers are also fluctuating but not so drastically as being claimed.
While
they do show a trend lending to an overall decline, the factors involved
do
not include off-road cycling chasing people out

You are lying again. I have seen numerous parks where hikers &
equestrians were driven out by the presence of mountain bikers.

Anecdotal and meaningless.

BS. Anecdotal evidence was enough to win the 1994 federal lawsuit
against IMBA and close trails to bikes.
Which has been largely overturned due to the access of REAL information.

Whatever that means. The fact remains that there is no right to
mountain bike, as decided by the federal court. Any land manager who
wants to can close trails to bikes, and many have. E.g. Yosemite
National Park. Squirm all you want, it won't change that fact.

The
BLM, NFS and even the Sierra Club recognize the validity of off-road cycling
and the cooperative efforts between user groups.
It is now 2006 (2007) and you cling to the past which has been changed with
the light of actual information. You claim "science" and throw out 12 year
old information and anecdotal nonsense...?
PATHETIC!


Your opinions automatically suspect cycling with
total disregard to any other factors.

(most National Parks do not
allow off-road cycling). It is the more local and available public
access
land that is attracting people with a wide variety of outdoor options.
Your attempt to throw cycling under the bus as a cause for National
Parks'
decline is simply a stupid gesture of impotence.


===
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 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:36:49 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:17:35 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:46:32 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:12:06 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:00:02 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:23:36 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:14:05 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:44:36 -0800, cc wrote:

Roberto Baggio wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:

2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build
more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers
off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of
recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise.
So being fair to minorities is a bad thing?

You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot.
No, just honest -- something mountain bikers wouldn't understand.

Do you want me to spell it out
for you, moron? Describing
negative experiences with
mountain bikers is being
honest. Extrapolating those
experiences to EVERY mountain
biker is bigotry.
Nope, it's called "observation".
Again, you have done nothing
to demonstrate anything but
wild speculation. Observation
does in no case warrant such
ridiculous extrapolation or
zealous rhetoric. If you were
a scientist, you would realize
this. Obviously, you are not.
Observations are the foundation of science. DUH!
Yes, but only when applied
within the framework of a
scientific methodology (which
has been employed in various
studies that show mountain
biking to be of comparable
impact to hiking).
1. That's a LIE. Those studies were all seriously flawed, as you well
know.
Again, you mistake your
opinion of the studies with
one that is relevant. Your
voice is meaningless, as we
have established.
Nine international scientific conferences that heard my paper would
disagree. NOT ONE of the scientists found any flaw in my paper, either
then or now.
Mike, conferences are not
forums for serious peer-review
(as in "get this **** out of
here", which is surely what
everyone in those forums was
thinking). Questions are
generally directed at
elucidating details of the
studies. In any case, these
are NOT PEER-REVIEWED
Idiot. What do you think a conference IS???? It is, by its very nature
one massive peer review, by LOTS more than 3 reviewers! I passed with
flying colors. You, of course, weren't even there.
Mike, it is an exhibition of
current research in the field,
meant to bring together
scientists of like interests
to foster the sharing of
ideas, along with networking
among business execs and those
that do pure research.

Because the content of the
talk is not given prior to
accepting abstracts, it may
not be judged prior to being
accepted or rejected. The
merits of your talk therefore
have nothing to do with it
being accepted.

BS. You can tell from the abstract if it is worthwhile, otherwise they
would require the entire paper.

In the conference, it is poor
etiquette to disparage a talk.

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.

So much so that I know you're
totally full of ****.

Vague answers like that only prove that you don't know what you are
talking about.

It is also a waste of time.
Questions are dedicated - as I
previously mentioned - to
clarification, asking what the
next steps are, and for
suggestions for things to try
or look at. Basically, you
should know if you're full of
****. Generally, scientists
will have already published or
be in the process of
publishing the material that
they speak about. This in
general ensures that the
content is of a suitable
caliber for delivering at a
conference. You obviously do
not fit this criterion.

Stop trying to snow the people
here who are not familiar with
how a conference works, and
how peer-review through
published literature is the
only meaningful benchmark.


, as you
are well aware. End of story.
You present opinion, and
nothing more. Try DOING
RESEARCH. You are not a
scientist, and by calling
yourself one you insult the
entire community.

2. "Comparable" is not a scientific term. ANY two objects are
"comparable". It means nothing.
Obviously the meaning I
implied was "similar".
Grasping at straws, as usual.
Nope, "similar" is ALSO not scientific. It is not quantitative. Thanks
for demonstrating your total ignorance of science.
Well, first of all, comparable
and similar are both
acceptable in this context,
despite your semantic
flailing. You may argue over
the details, but both are
acceptable to imply that
effects are on the same order
of magnitude, and therefore
comparable and similar.

Secondly, I don't need to
defend myself as a scientist
in this situation. You do,
however, if you wish to attain
any credibility. (Hint: you
have none). I will say,
however, I was first published
in a peer-reviewed journal at
much less than half your age.
So your argument holds no water.

But what can one
expect from someone afraid to use his real name?! Stand up and be a
man!
Mike, I - unlike you - have a
career in science ahead of me.
God forbid some freaking
lunatic like you decide to do
something stupid.

Need I point out the irony in
you pointing out that you are
a man ?!

Try a
dictionary, asshole.

Yes. This has been amply established.
===
===
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
===
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
===
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
===
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 12 Dec 2006 17:18:12 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On 12 Dec 2006 13:35:05 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:38:50 GMT, "JP" wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:52:02 GMT, "JP"
wrote:



\Bikes don't habve any rights. Hikers do.

Specious nonsense. Bikes do not ride without a cyclist atop.
Cyclists have rights. Idiot.

Idiot. As I said, bikes have no rights.

Neither do horses. If an equestrian cannot control their animal
they do not
belong in public. LIAR!!!

3. Bikes are no more harmful to the environment than pedestrian
use, in fact
hikers like wider trails.

You know that's a lie.

Not so. Pedestrian traffic in the woods is not always single file.
The footprint of the bike is cushioned by a wide tire, lessening the
impact of human weight on the surface. In addition the bicycle
rolls along the
surface, it doesn't travel in a series of impacts like the
pedestrian.

Tire knobs DO impact the ground, and continually puncture it. Tires
have less total surface area on the ground than feet, hence exert
greater PRESSURE. DUH!

You really should take a couple of Physics classes. Then you would
see just how stupid you sound here

Since you are being VAGUE, it's easy to tell that you haven't a clue
about physics. I got straight As in Honore Physics at the greatest
university in the world. What about you? Idiot.

Are you and I going to brag about out respective PhD? Mine is from
University of Illinois in Electrical Engineering. I took EVERY physics
class they offer. You took physics for non-technical majors I presume?

Can't you read? HONORS Physics. The one taken by math & science
majors. Obviously a simple concept like "pressure" wasn't covered in
your classes. Or you forgot the information. Or you are simply LYING,
which is the most likely answer.

I can provide you with a list of physics classes I took. Can you? If so
, do so, else, shut up.



Your continues rants don't make it so. LIAR!!!

4. Mountain bikes don't teach kids to beat on nature, that's
anouther BS LIE.

Yes, they do. That's exactly what they do.

Nonsense LIAR. That is a self serving opinion.



5. Being able to ride a mopuntain bike is not evidence of being
able to walk.
Floyd Landis, who won the TDF, would be unable to walk a mile on
a hiking trail.

So what? He can still walk.

The point is he can't. He hobbles in severe pain.
But you really don't care. This is not about access wilderness,
protection of nature or
and of the rest of your phony hypothesis.
Pure and simple, you are anti bike for reasons yet undisclosed.
When you stop lying perhaps real dialogue can ensue.


Irrelevant. Horses, like many other animals, evolved in North
America and have a right to be here. Bikes have NO rights.

Horses are plains aniimals. Their "rights" are not the topic of
discussion. The destruction they cause to trails is the point you
conveniently evade. That is the result of the rider directing the
animal where it does not belong.
The bike rider can use trails responsibly, the horse rider cannot.
Additionally the bike rider can always control his bicycle.
Not so the horse rider. But your lies ignore that.


Doesn't matter really. You are a solitary voice, impotent in your
quest. The only attention you get is here, in AMB.
What a pathetic way to spend your time.

Gotta go. I'm bored with you now.
Yawn..............................

===
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

===
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

===
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