Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:01:46 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

Because the public allows it,

That's not a reason to allow it. You just restated the fact that it's
allowed. WHY should it be allowed? OBVIOUSLY, you can't come up with a
single good reason to allow bikes off-road.
The simple reason they ARE allowed and continued access on public lands is
expanding proves the reasons (as stated so many times) are valid.

WHAT reasons? You haven't managed to give even ONE good reason to
allow bikes off-road.
We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you.

When it all comes down to it, *this* is really the final word.
Attempting to find MJV-acceptable reasons for a strawman of his
construction is a fool's errand.

He's not a land manager, and he has no sway with land managers, AND he
has no sway with those who do have sway with lab managers.

His demand for "reason[s]" to allow MTBing (on any land, really) is a
paraphrase of the question "Why should MJV be allowed to post in
alt.mountain-bike?"

If a tree fell in the forest, and MJV wasn't there to blame it on
MTBers, did it really matter at all to anyone?



E.P.

Roberto Baggio wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 08:01:55 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

Can you explain how a conference is considered an independent
confirmation?

I wouldn't be allowed to speak (not just ONCE, but REPEATEDLY), if my
paper weren't of scientific quality.

That doesn't imply independent confirmation. It just implies that you were
allowed speak more than once.

Now, now - MJV is injured when you talk like that. He knows that
without peer-review, published papers are meaningless. And
self-published papers, by their very nature, are not peer-reviewed.

But MJV knows that his "research" would never be published in a real
scientific journal. And it hurts him that we all know this, too.

As he like to retort ad nauseum - the truth hurts.

E.P.

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:44:03 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:34:43 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

"JP" wrote in message
newsx%8h.970$ki3.866@trndny01...
See what I mean Steve?

Did you really want to make him feel better?

I don't think for a minute he is smart enough to look at it in the way you
present. Even so, I like to believe at some point one of the people that
organize these "conferences" he invites himself to through a "call for
papers" will do a background check on him and reject his submissions.

Very funny. My papers speak for themselves.

Mike, who do you think you're
fooling? You have NEVER been
published in a peer-reviewed
journal, and are therefore
voiceless in any meaningful
scientific forum. PERIOD.

cc

Very funny. My papers speak for themselves
===
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 24 Nov 2006 12:32:17 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:01:46 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

Because the public allows it,

That's not a reason to allow it. You just restated the fact that it's
allowed. WHY should it be allowed? OBVIOUSLY, you can't come up with a
single good reason to allow bikes off-road.
The simple reason they ARE allowed and continued access on public lands is
expanding proves the reasons (as stated so many times) are valid.

WHAT reasons? You haven't managed to give even ONE good reason to
allow bikes off-road.
We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you.

When it all comes down to it, *this* is really the final word.
Attempting to find MJV-acceptable reasons for a strawman of his
construction is a fool's errand.

He's not a land manager, and he has no sway with land managers, AND he
has no sway with those who do have sway with lab managers.

His demand for "reason[s]" to allow MTBing (on any land, really) is a
paraphrase of the question "Why should MJV be allowed to post in
alt.mountain-bike?"

If a tree fell in the forest, and MJV wasn't there to blame it on
MTBers, did it really matter at all to anyone?



E.P.

You haven't managed to give even ONE good reason to allow bikes
off-road. Change the subject all you want, it's still true. QED.
===
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 message
...
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:44:03 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:34:43 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

"JP" wrote in message
newsx%8h.970$ki3.866@trndny01...
See what I mean Steve?

Did you really want to make him feel better?

I don't think for a minute he is smart enough to look at it in the way
you
present. Even so, I like to believe at some point one of the people
that
organize these "conferences" he invites himself to through a "call for
papers" will do a background check on him and reject his submissions.

Very funny. My papers speak for themselves.

Mike, who do you think you're
fooling? You have NEVER been
published in a peer-reviewed
journal, and are therefore
voiceless in any meaningful
scientific forum. PERIOD.

cc

Very funny. My papers speak for themselves


Well, your papers might speak for themselves, but it appears nobody listens.
The Sierra Club doesn't even listen to you anymore, and they are inclined to
believe in quacks like you.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:59:25 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:
Even the most recent research shows your opinions constitute the bulk
of
the lies being presented.



"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006)

1. Are the authors mountain bikers? They seem to be promoting mountain
biking -- trying to make it seem environmentally acceptable.

Yawn.... Did you say something?
Your credibility has been rendered suspect (by your own actions) to the
point that your questions of this paper and your opinions of the
research
contained are unimportant. You do nothing to counter the information but
ridicule the findings.

And I give specific scientific REASONS why they are WORTHLESS.

You haven't presented one good reason to accept your opinions are more
valid
than the findings presented by the actual researchers who performed the
actual study (or studies).

I just did, and you erased it. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

You said NOTHING but the same opinion you have stated before. You did what
you always do when confronted with information counter to your OPINION. You
simply proclaim it invalid and attempt to discredit it with your OPINION.
You have not performed a single field study yourself and rely on others to
do so. If it matches your opinion, you proclaim it is "proof". If it does
not support your opinion, you discount it.
I erased NOTHING because there was NOTHING to erase because you said NOTHING
of relevance.

You have not created a single bit of information.
You have simply pointed to research you agree with and proclaim it "valid"
and pointed to research counter to your opinion and proclaimed it "junk".
"Because you say so" is not good enough. That is proven as your opinions
have been presented time and again and discounted by the people whose job
it
is to assess information in the creation of rules of access and trail
useage.
You are merely a child making a huff for not getting his way. It is sad.
It
is pathetic. It is hysterical.

===
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 message
...
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:30:42 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:36:37 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

Posted exactly one year ago (11/22/05):
"Cycling off-road is an excellent physical and mental exercise, allows
the
rider to enjoy this exercise without the constraints and dangers of
being
in
auto traffic, allows the rider to enjoy the natural environment, and
develop
an appreciation for the natural environment.

NONE of that is a reason to allow BIKES off-road. Show me where a BIKE
is necessary for off-road exercizing! Idiot. Try again....
Show where there is a reason to NOT allow them. You haven't.

So you admit that there is absolutely no good reason to allow bikes
off-road? QED
Wordplay. You can not explain away your lack of credibility by grasping at
a
statement I did not make. The case has been made and ACCEPTED for off-road
cycling. Your acceptance of this TRUTH is a non-issue. Your opinions are a
non-issue in the scope of the reality of actual information and progress.

So you admit that there is absolutely no good reason to allow bikes
off-road? QED
I do not have to admit anything. Your weak attempt to turn the context into
something beyond your lack of credibility to criticize or accept real
information is pathetic. The FACT is, the real and actual information has
been gathered and reviewed by people that actually matter and the decisions
have been made and access for off-road cycling continues to grow both in
real trail use and in cooperative efforts with other organizations.
You can play your wordgames and vilify honest research all you want, but it
has had NO effect on anything but your own credibility.

Your spliiting of context is tiresome and beneath the intelligence you
claim, (as is your use of name calling)
"with your opinion firmly in place, you perceive anything you dislike or
disagree with as being senseless, wasteful or hazardous in some way. You
say
"give me one good reason to bike off-road" in the same manner in which
one
would ask "give me one good reason to put your hand in a fire".

Your opinion of the FACTS does not undermine their validity.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:39:28 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:01:46 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

Because the public allows it,

That's not a reason to allow it. You just restated the fact that it's
allowed. WHY should it be allowed? OBVIOUSLY, you can't come up with a
single good reason to allow bikes off-road.
The simple reason they ARE allowed and continued access on public lands
is
expanding proves the reasons (as stated so many times) are valid.

WHAT reasons? You haven't managed to give even ONE good reason to
allow bikes off-road.
We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you.

So you admit that there is absolutely no good reason to allow bikes
off-road? QED

Pathetic. Your own integrity suffers in the context of this entire
conversation. That is OBVIOUS. The FACT your opinions have not been
accepted by those in control of making decisions, who have access to all of
the research, speaks to the validity of the reasons to allow off-road
cycling much more than your missrepresented claims ever have.
The TRUTH is out there... on non-polluting, non-impacting, human powered
wheels.

Off-road cycling continues
to grow. The cooperative efforts continue to increase awareness and
acceptance. The community of off-road cyclists continues to create allies
with other groups and collectively create a larger voice against the
destruction of sprawl and development. The policy makers continue to
accept
the actual FACTS of comparative research despite your attempts at
presenting
lies.
You continue to stand in favor of development by attempting to drive
wedges
with missinformation. You must be proud. Your stated cause of 8 years (I
spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction.)
has been overshadowed by your current goal to decrease the cooperative
voice
to preserve.

Your lack of comment at this point has spoken volumes.

Your
choice to ignore these reasons is unimportant as cooperation,
understanding
and real progress continues. Your demand for a "reason" is merely your
game
of words and also unimportant. Your own choices to ignore information
counter to your opinions and your own tactics of discussion in the face
of
this information has left you unimportant.
The FACTS are that the groups involved in making regulations and the
diverse
groups of "outdoor visitors" and their policy makers ARE recognizing the
validity of the "reasons" and the similarities of impacts to recognize
the
benefits of cooperative efforts.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 24 Nov 2006 12:32:17 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:01:46 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

Because the public allows it,

That's not a reason to allow it. You just restated the fact that
it's
allowed. WHY should it be allowed? OBVIOUSLY, you can't come up with
a
single good reason to allow bikes off-road.
The simple reason they ARE allowed and continued access on public
lands is
expanding proves the reasons (as stated so many times) are valid.

WHAT reasons? You haven't managed to give even ONE good reason to
allow bikes off-road.
We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you.

When it all comes down to it, *this* is really the final word.
Attempting to find MJV-acceptable reasons for a strawman of his
construction is a fool's errand.

He's not a land manager, and he has no sway with land managers, AND he
has no sway with those who do have sway with lab managers.

His demand for "reason[s]" to allow MTBing (on any land, really) is a
paraphrase of the question "Why should MJV be allowed to post in
alt.mountain-bike?"

If a tree fell in the forest, and MJV wasn't there to blame it on
MTBers, did it really matter at all to anyone?



E.P.

You haven't managed to give even ONE good reason to allow bikes
off-road. Change the subject all you want, it's still true. QED.
===
He hasn't change the subject. But you are trying to. Away from your lack of
credibility to make claims or demands.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:52:05 GMT, "JP" wrote:



I wish you were right .
But I think he is smart enough, though not emotionally mature or
fulfilled.
The conferences I've googled are for the most part filled with
other crackpots though in different areas and I have the feeling
that they will always accept a "PhD" in their quest to appear legitimate.
He shares the podium with crystal worshippers, UFO abductees and other
wackos, which on the surface since the participants are never described
makes his resume appear more legitimate.

LIAR. These are scientific conferences, full of scientists, land
managers, and other people who are actually doing something worthwhile
with their lives, unlike you guys, who are only looking for cheap
thrills.


No Michael, you are the LIAR, as usual.
I did google and found you with the wackos.
Since you don't know what I do with my life
you don't know what I am looking for.
Again, LIAR!!!


Note to the sane on the board,
Please note that you are free to change the subject line in your response
and thus deny this poor cat killer the satisfaction of seeing his line
repeated
multiple times.

Michael, why don't you tell everyone how your irresponsibility killed your
pet cat?