ANOTHER Mountain Biker Dies!

On Feb 15, 10:15*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!

It's not worth having a discussion with you if you can't even figure
out which paper we're discussing.

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?

Your "paper" proves only your inability to get published in a journal
and nothing more.

On Feb 16, 8:39*am, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:15*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!

It's not worth having a discussion with you if you can't even figure
out which paper we're discussing.

You couldn't "discuss" your way out of a paper bag. You haven't even
READ the paper you claim to be "discussing". The fact that you are
afraid to give your real name says it all: you are bluffing, and don't
know what you are talking about. You can't even come up with your own
criticisms! You plagiarized someone else's! And someone who obviously
didn't read or understand my paper. All of your hot air is simply a
smoke screen to avoid admitting that I am right: mountain biking is
extremely dangerous and destructive, and should be banned everywhere!

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?

Your "paper" proves only your inability to get published in a journal
and nothing more.

It's much more difficult to get a chapter in a BOOK, as I did, than to
publish in a journal. I was INVITED to contribute to the book, because
they recognize that I am the world expert on mountain biking impacts,
which you also know but are afraid to admit. You are pathetic.

On Feb 15, 4:14*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Feb 15, 8:54*am, Shraga wrote:

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.

So in your world, "all" includes a small collection of studies posted
in a blog post on the IMBA Web site (as you FINALLY clarify below).
Looks like you're the one who needs remedial reading lessons. The word
you are looking for is "some" not "all." You're welcome.

I "stole" from no one. I quoted him, and pasted a link, moron.

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.

You are guilty of dishonesty or stupidity if you claim you reviewed
"ALL of them to date." Because you didn't do that. At all.

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.

By that same logic, your papers are deliberately biased against
mountain biking. What's your point?

Mike, I have read your paper. If you were an undergraduate turning it
in for an introductory creative writing course, I would probably give
you an A. It's clever.

However, you fail in nearly every section to provide rational
scientific rebuttals to the passages in question. Instead, you provide
speculation based on your biased observations. Your response to Gary's
interpretation of Wilson and Seney (1994) does not provide a single
citation backing up your claims. This is appropriate for an
introduction, but it does not fulfill your goal. You need to cite a
study that backs you up, or you need to provide empirical data. You do
neither. At the end of the paper you provide two reasonable
references, but these do nothing to back up the specific points you
made against Wilson and Seney.

The other problem is you don't even challenge Wilson and Seney. You
challenge an interpretation. Their actual conclusion (i.e., the one in
the paper) is quite reasonable and calls for caution in interpreting
the results of similar studies. You should read it instead of letting
Gary do your work for you.

So trying to refute your preposterous claims is equivalent to arguing
science against faith. You are using faith-based arguments against
scientific papers and demanding people respond to your dogma with
science. You're quite ridiculous.

There is no need to provide a scientific rebuttal to your paper
because you failed to refute any of the scientific articles. THAT is
why people don't respond to your inquiries on the topic, and that is
why you can't get it published. You wrote an opinion piece, nothing
more.

You can prove me wrong by getting the full article published in a peer
reviewed journal. Short of that, you're just spouting more dogma and
making excuses for your failure.

"Rick Hopkins" wrote in message
...
[...]
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.

All kinds of erroneous **** gets published in so-called "scientific
journals" and the "peer reviews" are often as crazy as the article being
reviewed. Your faith in such a procedure is extremely naive.

What is all this discussion about dark matter and dark energy by
cosmologists except an excuse for what is NOT known. Same goes for the
discussion about man made global warming. Faith indeed!

Like most ignoramuses, you do not have a proper contempt for facts. I
suggest you study less physical science and more social science. But if you
are not steeped in the Humanities, then you know practically nothing at all
worth knowing. It is why your knowledge of mountain bikers and their
psychology is so lacking.

Yes, everyone is against you, except for Ed who it seems to
be nothing more than an internet lurker and poser.

Ed Dolan the Great simply does not want mountain biking on hiking trails.
What Mr. Vandeman and I have accomplished, at least on these newsgroups, is
to put mountain bikers in their place - which is nowhere. Mr. Vandeman is
still trying to educate them whereas I consign them to Hell since they are
too stupid to be educated.

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

In article
,
Mike Vandeman wrote:

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?

Now there you go..... Mikey ADMITS in the above quotation, that his
paper is ""a load of garbage".... Well It is about time some "Truth"
came out of Mikey's IP Address...... Just Say'en.....

On Feb 16, 9:17*am, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:14*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:





On Feb 15, 8:54*am, Shraga wrote:
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.

So in your world, "all" includes a small collection of studies posted
in a blog post on the IMBA Web site (as you FINALLY clarify below).
Looks like you're the one who needs remedial reading lessons. The word
you are looking for is "some" not "all." You're welcome.

I "stole" from no one. I quoted him, and pasted a link, moron.

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.

You are guilty of dishonesty or stupidity if you claim you reviewed
"ALL of them to date." Because you didn't do that. At all.

Yes, I did: EVERY experimental study to date. Show me even ONE that I
missed! You CAN'T, as you well know. In fact, you probably haven't
even read all of them, as I have.

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.

By that same logic, your papers are deliberately biased against
mountain biking. What's your point?

No, they aren't. I just tell the truth. The studies' conclusions don't
follow from their data.

Mike, I have read your paper. If you were an undergraduate turning it
in for an introductory creative writing course, I would probably give
you an A. It's clever.

However, you fail in nearly every section to provide rational
scientific rebuttals to the passages in question. Instead, you provide
speculation based on your biased observations.

BS. I critique the studies just as an unbiased professor or editor
would do. Wilson and Seney's conclusions don't follow from their own
data! They claim to be measuring erosion, but don't do that! No
"citation" of anytone else's research is needed, because my point is
perfectly obvious. In all of the dozens of times I have discussed that
paper at scientific conferences, not one person has ever questioned or
argued with that point.

Your response to Gary's
interpretation of Wilson and Seney (1994) does not provide a single
citation backing up your claims. This is appropriate for an
introduction, but it does not fulfill your goal. You need to cite a
study that backs you up, or you need to provide empirical data.

BS. You obviously missed the point of my paper. All I am proving is
that Wilson and Seney's paper proved absolutely NOTHING. So all the
mountain bikers are LYING when they use that study to "prove" that
mountain biking is no more harmful than hiking. You seem to be an
intelligent guy, so I can only conclude that you are deliberately
lying. You are intelligent enough to understand my point, but you
pretend not to. You confirm my point: all mountain bikers lie.

You do
neither. At the end of the paper you provide two reasonable
references, but these do nothing to back up the specific points you
made against Wilson and Seney.

Because I don't need any "research" to prove that artificial rain on a
metal pan doesn't measure erosion.

The other problem is you don't even challenge Wilson and Seney. You
challenge an interpretation.

Yes, their own interpretation. Basically, they LIED.

Their actual conclusion (i.e., the one in
the paper) is quite reasonable and calls for caution in interpreting
the results of similar studies. You should read it instead of letting
Gary do your work for you.


All he did was find the studies for me. Of course, he ignored the
"unfavorable" studies.

So trying to refute your preposterous claims is equivalent to arguing
science against faith.

No, junk science against REAL science.

You are using faith-based arguments against
scientific papers and demanding people respond to your dogma with
science. You're quite ridiculous.

There is no need to provide a scientific rebuttal to your paper
because you failed to refute any of the scientific articles.

BS. You are obviously INCAPABLE of defending Wilson and Seney, as you
just demonstrated. That's okay, because they CAN'T be defended. Just
be honest enough to admit it.

THAT is
why people don't respond to your inquiries on the topic, and that is
why you can't get it published. You wrote an opinion piece, nothing
more.

You can prove me wrong by getting the full article published in a peer
reviewed journal.

I published in a book, but you choose to ignore it. You would ignore
my paper, wherever it was published, because your mind is closed
against anything unfavorable to mountain biking. Why don't you get
IMBA to include the Wisdom et al paper on their website? It is good
science,but doesn't support mountain biking. I know you can't do that,
and won't even try, because you don't care about science or the truth.

Short of that, you're just spouting more dogma and
making excuses for your failure

While you are at it, tell us what your real name is, coward. And your
email address. You CAN'T, because it would embarrass you, liar that
you are.

In article ,
Mike Vandeman says...

On Feb 16, 8:39=A0am, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:15=A0pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:





On Feb 15, 5:57=A0pm, Shraga wrote:

On Feb 15, 4:17=A0pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 14, 11:17=A0am, 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 i=
n
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!

It's not worth having a discussion with you if you can't even figure
out which paper we're discussing.

You couldn't "discuss" your way out of a paper bag. You haven't even
READ the paper you claim to be "discussing". The fact that you are
afraid to give your real name says it all: you are bluffing, and don't
know what you are talking about. You can't even come up with your own
criticisms! You plagiarized someone else's! And someone who obviously
didn't read or understand my paper. All of your hot air is simply a
smoke screen to avoid admitting that I am right: mountain biking is
extremely dangerous and destructive, and should be banned everywhere!

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?

Your "paper" proves only your inability to get published in a journal
and nothing more.

It's much more difficult to get a chapter in a BOOK, as I did, than to
publish in a journal.

I was INVITED to contribute to the book, because
they recognize that I am the world expert on mountain
biking impacts,

Would you please list a few credible academic institutions and/or scientific
organizations that in published documents have listed you as "the world expert
on mountain biking impacts"; and please provide links to copies of those
documents. I'm thinking of institutions and organizations like, for example,
Princeton University, Stanford, or the American Academy of Sciences.

which you also know but are afraid to admit. You are pathetic.

May I also ask you to explain a seeming inconsistency in what you wrote above.

First, you wrote: "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!"

Then you wrote," 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."

On Feb 16, 4:35*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Feb 16, 9:17*am, Shraga wrote:

You are guilty of dishonesty or stupidity if you claim you reviewed
"ALL of them to date." Because you didn't do that. At all.

Yes, I did: EVERY experimental study to date. Show me even ONE that I
missed! You CAN'T, as you well know. In fact, you probably haven't
even read all of them, as I have.

So which is it, Mike? You read them all, or you just cherry-picked
them off IMBA's Web site?

If it's "all," then why are you afraid to post the name of this
miraculous search engine you use and your search terms?

By that same logic, your papers are deliberately biased against
mountain biking. What's your point?

No, they aren't. I just tell the truth. The studies' conclusions don't
follow from their data.

Mike, I have read your paper. If you were an undergraduate turning it
in for an introductory creative writing course, I would probably give
you an A. It's clever.

However, you fail in nearly every section to provide rational
scientific rebuttals to the passages in question. Instead, you provide
speculation based on your biased observations.

BS. I critique the studies just as an unbiased professor or editor
would do. Wilson and Seney's conclusions don't follow from their own
data! They claim to be measuring erosion, but don't do that! No
"citation" of anytone else's research is needed, because my point is
perfectly obvious. In all of the dozens of times I have discussed that
paper at scientific conferences, not one person has ever questioned or
argued with that point.

Nobody argues with you, Mike, because you are creepy. People hope the
less you are engaged, the sooner you will leave.

Awkward silences aren't evidence of success.

Comparing yourself with a professor or editor is a stretch. You're
qualified for neither, and my argument stands. Your biased dogma
doesn't refute the science.

snip more recycled dogma

You can prove me wrong by getting the full article published in a peer
reviewed journal.

I published in a book, but you choose to ignore it.

Stop waving around this minor accomplishment. If you're looking for
congratulations, you should go elsewhere.

Your silly book chapter is irrelevant to the conversation, which you
seem to be having a LOT of trouble following.

You would ignore
my paper, wherever it was published, because your mind is closed
against anything unfavorable to mountain biking. Why don't you get
IMBA to include the Wisdom et al paper on their website? It is good
science,but doesn't support mountain biking. I know you can't do that,
and won't even try, because you don't care about science or the truth.

Oh lord no, Mike. You are so very wrong there. I would LOVE to read
ANYTHING you get published in a peer-reviewed journal. That is the
absolute truth.

You know what I just did, Mike? I just skimmed over an article,
"Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on
vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America."
The authors of that peer-reviewed work performed an EXTENSIVE
literature review, citing around 130 related articles, including most
of the ones you cited in your opinion piece.

Yet... Of the ~130, you know who is NOT cited or even mentioned?

You.

On Feb 16, 4:58*pm, Bob Berger wrote:
In article ,
Mike Vandeman says...







On Feb 16, 8:39=A0am, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:15=A0pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 15, 5:57=A0pm, Shraga wrote:

On Feb 15, 4:17=A0pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 14, 11:17=A0am, 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 i=
n
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!

It's not worth having a discussion with you if you can't even figure
out which paper we're discussing.

You couldn't "discuss" your way out of a paper bag. You haven't even
READ the paper you claim to be "discussing". The fact that you are
afraid to give your real name says it all: you are bluffing, and don't
know what you are talking about. You can't even come up with your own
criticisms! You plagiarized someone else's! And someone who obviously
didn't read or understand my paper. All of your hot air is simply a
smoke screen to avoid admitting that I am right: mountain biking is
extremely dangerous and destructive, and should be banned everywhere!

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?

Your "paper" proves only your inability to get published in a journal
and nothing more.

It's much more difficult to get a chapter in a BOOK, as I did, than to
publish in a journal.
I was INVITED to contribute to the book, because
they recognize that I am the world expert on mountain
biking impacts,

Would you please list a few credible academic institutions and/or scientific
organizations that in published documents have listed you as "the world expert
on mountain biking impacts"; and please provide links to copies of those
documents. I'm thinking of institutions and organizations like, for example,
Princeton University, Stanford, or the American Academy of Sciences.

which you also know but are afraid to admit. You are pathetic.

May I also ask you to explain a seeming inconsistency in what you wrote above.

First, you wrote: "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!"

Then you wrote," 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 had READ it, you would know: 7 of the 8 papers I reviewed were
published garbage (junk science), whether or not they were peer-
reviewed. Of course, those were the ones written by mountain bikers.
Their conclusions don't follow from their data! DUH!

On Feb 16, 7:21*pm, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 16, 4:35*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 16, 9:17*am, Shraga wrote:
You are guilty of dishonesty or stupidity if you claim you reviewed
"ALL of them to date." Because you didn't do that. At all.

Yes, I did: EVERY experimental study to date. Show me even ONE that I
missed! You CAN'T, as you well know. In fact, you probably haven't
even read all of them, as I have.

So which is it, Mike? You read them all, or you just cherry-picked
them off IMBA's Web site?

Both statements are true. ALL experimental papers = IMBA's list plus
the one I found.

If it's "all," then why are you afraid to post the name of this
miraculous search engine you use and your search terms?





By that same logic, your papers are deliberately biased against
mountain biking. What's your point?

No, they aren't. I just tell the truth. The studies' conclusions don't
follow from their data.

Mike, I have read your paper. If you were an undergraduate turning it
in for an introductory creative writing course, I would probably give
you an A. It's clever.

However, you fail in nearly every section to provide rational
scientific rebuttals to the passages in question. Instead, you provide
speculation based on your biased observations.

BS. I critique the studies just as an unbiased professor or editor
would do. Wilson and Seney's conclusions don't follow from their own
data! They claim to be measuring erosion, but don't do that! No
"citation" of anytone else's research is needed, because my point is
perfectly obvious. In all of the dozens of times I have discussed that
paper at scientific conferences, not one person has ever questioned or
argued with that point.

Nobody argues with you, Mike, because you are creepy. People hope the
less you are engaged, the sooner you will leave.

Awkward silences aren't evidence of success.

Scientists aren't shy about speaking up, IF they find a problem. They
didn't find any! Neither have YOU!

Comparing yourself with a professor or editor is a stretch. You're
qualified for neither, and my argument stands. Your biased dogma
doesn't refute the science.

IMBA's lsi includes only junk science.

snip more recycled dogma

You can prove me wrong by getting the full article published in a peer
reviewed journal.

I published in a book, but you choose to ignore it.

Stop waving around this minor accomplishment. If you're looking for
congratulations, you should go elsewhere.

It's not a minor accomplishment. Show us even ONE paper you have
published on ths subject, which you pretend to be an expert on!

Your silly book chapter is irrelevant to the conversation, which you
seem to be having a LOT of trouble following.

You are bluffing again! You obviously haven't READ it.!

You would ignore
my paper, wherever it was published, because your mind is closed
against anything unfavorable to mountain biking. Why don't you get
IMBA to include the Wisdom et al paper on their website? It is good
science,but doesn't support mountain biking. I know you can't do that,
and won't even try, because you don't care about science or the truth.

Oh lord no, Mike. You are so very wrong there. I would LOVE to read
ANYTHING you get published in a peer-reviewed journal. That is the
absolute truth.

BS. You can read it right now, but you won't, because you don't like
the conclusions.

You know what I just did, Mike? I just skimmed over an article,
"Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on
vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America."
The authors of that peer-reviewed work performed an EXTENSIVE
literature review, citing around 130 related articles, including most
of the ones you cited in your opinion piece.

Obviously, they can't tell science from junk science, if they trust
that garbage.

Yet... Of the ~130, you know who is NOT cited or even mentioned?

You.

What's your point? Or IS there one?