ANOTHER Mountain Biker Dies!

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
[...]
Anyone competent would know that you just set the X-No-Archive flag to
"Yes", although it has to be admitted that the intersection of
"competent users" and "google groups users" is almost a null set.
Most properly designed and configured news clients have the option to
set a default value for this. It seems Google know their target
market well enough to realise it's not worth bothering with for them,
although they seem to have chosen the wrong setting as a default -
gurgle gropes lusers outpourings are rarely worth considering even in
the short term, and almost never beyond the time it takes to hit "D".

Nope, that would never work for me since I want my immortal words to live
forever! Think of it, someone a thousand years from now will read my words
of wisdom and wonder ... who was that genius who lived back then!

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Feb 13, 11:41*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Obviously, you have no intention of justifying your complaints with
any SPECIFICS -- a sure sign that yoiu are BLUFFING. You give vague
generalities only. Again, I challenge you to find ANYTHING
scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature.
Nobody else has been able to. Put up or shut up, as they say. I'm sure
you will just run away with your tail between your legs, as always,
while saying something totally irrelevant, as you did he

The claim that "Nobody else has been able to..." "find ANYTHING
scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature"
is, as usual for you, a lie.

Massive errors have been REPEATEDLY brought to your attention, and the
discussions, as usual, end with you making ludicrous claims that show
your lack of even the most basic understanding of what a "literature
review" is supposed to be. For example:

"Without defining the literature database, search terms and keywords
used, we cannot judge to what extent your known bias influenced
selection and exclusion of papers."
(http://groups.google.com/group/alt.m...se_frm/thread/
d5c8180c255cba85/18639068a7d41f3f?lnk=gst&q=selection
+criteria#18639068a7d41f3f)

Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
"literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Please post the citation when you're done.

On Feb 14, 11:17*am, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:41*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Obviously, you have no intention of justifying your complaints with
any SPECIFICS -- a sure sign that yoiu are BLUFFING. You give vague
generalities only. Again, I challenge you to find ANYTHING
scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature.
Nobody else has been able to. Put up or shut up, as they say. I'm sure
you will just run away with your tail between your legs, as always,
while saying something totally irrelevant, as you did he

The claim that "Nobody else has been able to..." "find ANYTHING
scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature"
is, as usual for you, a lie.

Massive errors have been REPEATEDLY brought to your attention, and the
discussions, as usual, end with you making ludicrous claims that show
your lack of even the most basic understanding of what a "literature
review" is supposed to be. For example:

"Without defining the literature database, search terms and keywords
used, we cannot judge to what extent your known bias influenced
selection and exclusion of papers."
(http://groups.google.com/group/alt.m...se_frm/thread/
d5c8180c255cba85/18639068a7d41f3f?lnk=gst&q=selection
+criteria#18639068a7d41f3f)

Thanks for demonstrating that you haven't even READ the paper you are
complaining about. I didn't "select" papers. I reviewed ALL of them to
date. Next time try READING what you are ctiticizing, first! Sheesh.

Thanks for demonstrating, for the millionth time, what IDIOTS mountain
bikers are!

Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
"literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Not possible, because I criticized the papers that they had already
mistakenly published, which they don't care to admit. You are very
naive!

On Feb 14, 11:17*am, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:41*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Obviously, you have no intention of justifying your complaints with
any SPECIFICS -- a sure sign that yoiu are BLUFFING. You give vague
generalities only. Again, I challenge you to find ANYTHING
scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature.
Nobody else has been able to. Put up or shut up, as they say. I'm sure
you will just run away with your tail between your legs, as always,
while saying something totally irrelevant, as you did he

The claim that "Nobody else has been able to..." "find ANYTHING
scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature"
is, as usual for you, a lie.

Massive errors have been REPEATEDLY brought to your attention,

BS. No objective error has ever been found. There aren't any!

and the
discussions, as usual, end with you making ludicrous claims that show
your lack of even the most basic understanding of what a "literature
review" is supposed to be. For example:

"Without defining the literature database, search terms and keywords
used, we cannot judge to what extent your known bias influenced
selection and exclusion of papers."
(http://groups.google.com/group/alt.m...se_frm/thread/
d5c8180c255cba85/18639068a7d41f3f?lnk=gst&q=selection
+criteria#18639068a7d41f3f)

Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
"literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Please post the citation when you're done.

On Feb 15, 1:01*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Feb 14, 11:17*am, Shraga wrote:









On Feb 13, 11:41*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Obviously, you have no intention of justifying your complaints with
any SPECIFICS -- a sure sign that yoiu are BLUFFING. You give vague
generalities only. Again, I challenge you to find ANYTHING
scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature.
Nobody else has been able to. Put up or shut up, as they say. I'm sure
you will just run away with your tail between your legs, as always,
while saying something totally irrelevant, as you did he

The claim that "Nobody else has been able to..." "find ANYTHING
scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature"
is, as usual for you, a lie.

Massive errors have been REPEATEDLY brought to your attention, and the
discussions, as usual, end with you making ludicrous claims that show
your lack of even the most basic understanding of what a "literature
review" is supposed to be. For example:

"Without defining the literature database, search terms and keywords
used, we cannot judge to what extent your known bias influenced
selection and exclusion of papers."
(http://groups.google.com/group/alt.m...se_frm/thread/
d5c8180c255cba85/18639068a7d41f3f?lnk=gst&q=selection
+criteria#18639068a7d41f3f)

Thanks for demonstrating that you haven't even READ the paper you are
complaining about. I didn't "select" papers. I reviewed ALL of them to
date. Next time try READING what you are ctiticizing, first! Sheesh.

Thanks for demonstrating, for the millionth time, what IDIOTS mountain
bikers are!

And thank YOU, Mike, for meeting my expectations by making ludicrous
claims that show your lack of even the most basic understanding of
what a "literature review" is supposed to be.

You would do well to follow your own advice, Mike. You clearly failed
to follow even one paragraph of what I wrote. You might want to hold
off on name-calling unless you're sure you don't meet your own
definitions, idiot.

Here... I'll write it again as numbered points to help you, since you
struggle so much with sentences:

Without defining the

(1) literature database,
(2) search terms and
(3) keywords used...

We cannot judge to what extent your known bias influenced selection
and exclusion of papers.

Your use of the word "all" is subjective and not at all scientific.

Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
"literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Not possible, because I criticized the papers that *they* had already
mistakenly published, which *they* don't care to admit. You are very
naive!

Bull****. It is very common to publish papers in response to research
you disagree with. Happens all the time. There is also more than one
journal you can submit to, idiot. You're just making excuses for your
incompetence, or you don't know the basics of getting published.

By the way, who is "they?"

On Feb 15, 8:54*am, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:01*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:





On Feb 14, 11:17*am, Shraga wrote:

On Feb 13, 11:41*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Obviously, you have no intention of justifying your complaints with
any SPECIFICS -- a sure sign that yoiu are BLUFFING. You give vague
generalities only. Again, I challenge you to find ANYTHING
scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature.
Nobody else has been able to. Put up or shut up, as they say. I'm sure
you will just run away with your tail between your legs, as always,
while saying something totally irrelevant, as you did he

The claim that "Nobody else has been able to..." "find ANYTHING
scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature"
is, as usual for you, a lie.

Massive errors have been REPEATEDLY brought to your attention, and the
discussions, as usual, end with you making ludicrous claims that show
your lack of even the most basic understanding of what a "literature
review" is supposed to be. For example:

"Without defining the literature database, search terms and keywords
used, we cannot judge to what extent your known bias influenced
selection and exclusion of papers."
(http://groups.google.com/group/alt.m...se_frm/thread/
d5c8180c255cba85/18639068a7d41f3f?lnk=gst&q=selection
+criteria#18639068a7d41f3f)

Thanks for demonstrating that you haven't even READ the paper you are
complaining about. I didn't "select" papers. I reviewed ALL of them to
date. Next time try READING what you are ctiticizing, first! Sheesh.

Thanks for demonstrating, for the millionth time, what IDIOTS mountain
bikers are!

And thank YOU, Mike, for meeting my expectations by making ludicrous
claims that show your lack of even the most basic understanding of
what a "literature review" is supposed to be.

You would do well to follow your own advice, Mike. You clearly failed
to follow even one paragraph of what I wrote. You might want to hold
off on name-calling unless you're sure you don't meet your own
definitions, idiot.

Here... I'll write it again as numbered points to help you, since you
struggle so much with sentences:

Without defining the

(1) literature database,
(2) search terms and
(3) keywords used...

We cannot judge to what extent your known bias influenced selection
and exclusion of papers.

Your use of the word "all" is subjective and not at all scientific.

No, because it's mathematical! All means "all". Ask your mommie what
that means. My review includes ALL experimental studies as of the date
I wrote it. So ALL of your comments (and the guy you stole them from)
are irrelevant.

You also obviously never even READ my paper, or you would know that I
reviewed ALL of the papers that IMBA selected. Obviously, they didn't
select them for making mountain biking look bad! So I can't be accused
of selection bias, since IMBA did the selection! I also included a
very good experimental study that IMBA REFUSED to put on their
website, because it is not favorable to mountain biking! So IMBA, NOT
I, is practicing selection bias. All of this is blatantly obvious, but
I'm sure you will never admit it. Mountain bikers think that simply
saying something makes it true.

Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
"literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Not possible, because I criticized the papers that *they* had already
mistakenly published, which *they* don't care to admit. You are very
naive!

Bull****. It is very common to publish papers in response to research
you disagree with. Happens all the time. There is also more than one
journal you can submit to, idiot. You're just making excuses for your
incompetence, or you don't know the basics of getting published.

By the way, who is "they?"

The editors who approved the publishing of the faulty articles. I
guess they are so embarrasseed that they don't want that mistake to be
exposed. Almost every alleged "scientific" study on mountain biking
was written by at least one mountain biker, and is deliberately biased
in favor of mountain biking.

On Feb 14, 11:17*am, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:41*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Obviously, you have no intention of justifying your complaints with
any SPECIFICS -- a sure sign that yoiu are BLUFFING. You give vague
generalities only. Again, I challenge you to find ANYTHING
scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature.
Nobody else has been able to. Put up or shut up, as they say. I'm sure
you will just run away with your tail between your legs, as always,
while saying something totally irrelevant, as you did he

The claim that "Nobody else has been able to..." "find ANYTHING
scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature"
is, as usual for you, a lie.

Massive errors have been REPEATEDLY brought to your attention, and the
discussions, as usual, end with you making ludicrous claims that show
your lack of even the most basic understanding of what a "literature
review" is supposed to be. For example:

"Without defining the literature database, search terms and keywords
used, we cannot judge to what extent your known bias influenced
selection and exclusion of papers."
(http://groups.google.com/group/alt.m...se_frm/thread/
d5c8180c255cba85/18639068a7d41f3f?lnk=gst&q=selection
+criteria#18639068a7d41f3f)

Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
"literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Please post the citation when you're done.

I did already. Sorry to disappoint you::

Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2008. The Impacts of
Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J.
C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society
for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation
3:155-156; expanded version also available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

On Feb 15, 4:17*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Feb 14, 11:17*am, Shraga wrote:

Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
"literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Please post the citation when you're done.

I did already. Sorry to disappoint you::

Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2008. The Impacts of
Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J.
C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society
for the , Herpetological Conservation
3:155-156; expanded version also available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

Did I write "book chapter?" No, I didn't. I wrote "peer-reviewed
journal."

You're redirecting again to hide the fact you can't publish a paper in
a referred journal. Still, that's not even relevant, because we're
discussing THIS paper:

http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm

I want to see you publish THAT paper in a peer-reviewed journal. My
point is, you can't, because it's a load of garbage, as you well know.

Try a little harder to follow the conversation next time, OK?

On Feb 15, 5:57*pm, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:17*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 14, 11:17*am, Shraga wrote:
Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
"literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Please post the citation when you're done.

I did already. Sorry to disappoint you::

Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2008. The Impacts of
Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J.
C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society
for the , Herpetological Conservation
3:155-156; expanded version also available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

Did I write "book chapter?" No, I didn't. I wrote "peer-reviewed
journal."

You're redirecting again to hide the fact you can't publish a paper in
a referred journal. Still, that's not even relevant, because we're
discussing THIS paper:

http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm

It's the same paper, just shortened to fit in the book. It was also,
of course, peer-reviewed. If it were really "a load of garbage", it
wouldn't have been published. DUH!

I want to see you publish THAT paper in a peer-reviewed journal. My
point is, you can't, because it's a load of garbage, as you well know.

How would you know? You haven't read it. My paper proves that "a load
of garbage" can get published in a "peer-reviewed" journal, when the
reviewers are either idiots, biased, or both. If you were as smart as
you THINK you are, you would already know that. Or are you too
dishonest to admit that?

On Feb 15, 7:15*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Feb 15, 5:57*pm, Shraga wrote:









On Feb 15, 4:17*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 14, 11:17*am, Shraga wrote:
Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
"literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Please post the citation when you're done.

I did already. Sorry to disappoint you::

Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2008. The Impacts of
Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J.
C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society
for the , Herpetological Conservation
3:155-156; expanded version also available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

Did I write "book chapter?" No, I didn't. I wrote "peer-reviewed
journal."

You're redirecting again to hide the fact you can't publish a paper in
a referred journal. Still, that's not even relevant, because we're
discussing THIS paper:

http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm

It's the same paper, just shortened to fit in the book. It was also,
of course, peer-reviewed. If it were really "a load of garbage", it
wouldn't have been published. DUH!

I want to see you publish THAT paper in a peer-reviewed journal. My
point is, you can't, because it's a load of garbage, as you well know.

How would you know? You haven't read it. My paper proves that "a load
of garbage" can get published in a "peer-reviewed" journal, when the
reviewers are either idiots, biased, or both. If you were as smart as
you THINK you are, you would already know that. Or are you too
dishonest to admit that?

Mike, you sadly show your ignorance of the methods and philosophy of
modern science once again. Modern science is based on the philosophy
of the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper. Mathematicians prove, but
scientist disprove hypothesis; we accept hypotheses that have not been
disproved as the best explanation until such time as new research
falsifies part of or the whole hypothesis. If you believe you have
"proved" anything, then you clearly do not understand the basic
tenants of science. You sadly, are simply a paranoid, religious
zealot. Yes, these journals are conspiring against someone who rails
on and on that "he alone" is right; some who is armed with nothing
more then biased opinions and has not done one whit of original
research. Yes, everyone is against you, except for Ed who it seems to
be nothing more than an internet lurker and poser.

Enjoy, Rick