More Mountain Biking Propaganda Posing as Science

On May 11, 12:02*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On May 10, 8:16*pm, Shraga wrote:

Asked and answered. If you didn't understand my response that's your
problem, not mine. It's a perfectly reasonable word to use when
summarizing a quantitative result.

BS. It's totally meaningless in a statistical context. I know, you
don't have the faintest idea what that means.

Idiot: It wasn't used in a statistical context in the paper.

I've explained that to you twice, asked twice for you to back your
claim up and you keep coming back with the same incorrect response,
proving you haven't read the article. The fact that I can respond to
you coherently and you can't provide the specific evidence I requested
proves I'm talking way over your head, as usual.

(Later in your response, where you whine that I'm not being specific,
you are LYING again because this is very specific to the article and
your layman's opinion of it.)

*As I wrote before, if you had any

experience reading scientific papers you would know that. Your
preposterous objection to it highlights your ignorance.

The fact that you don't understand the results section is noted.
Strike one.

Unless they will admit to being mountain bikers, there's no way to
know (they refuse to answer -- a dead giveaway of dishonesty), but in
my experience, ONLY MOUNTAIN BIKERS write slanted, unscientific papers
like that, that purport to be science. We know, of course, from my
survey paper (http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm) that that is a
common practice. .

What would I have to gain from reading an unpublished "paper"

Because it's the only place you will find the truth. You won't read it
simply because you don't care about the truth.

Not "truth." It's your subjective, faith-based, layman's opinion of
the science. I already told you that.

Get it published in a peer-reviewed journal, then I might take you
seriously. Until then, you're just another Internet kook.

Plus, this is another example of YOU changing the subject. I asked for
proof about the authors and you responded with another of your
Internet opinion pieces. Your dishonest opinion is not proof.

*written

by an amateur letter-writer? Can you recommend anything written by a
scientist instead?

I AM a scientist. That's what a Ph.D. is, dumdum.

You are are the poster boy for why there should be a statute of
limitations on having a PhD. Your degree in Psychometrics and research
experience in ethnic food preferences was about 40 years ago and has
NOTHING to do with the field in which you now claim expertise.

If we were discussing an article on Psychometrics, then I would give
you full credit for your ancient degree. However, we're not, so you
should try to be honest about your lack of qualifications.

So no. In this context, you are not a scientist.

I asked for proof, not your biased opinion. Do you need an adult to
explain the difference to you? Strike two.

In every jurisdiction in the world, off-trail riding is illegal. Why
would Australia be different? You are just afraid to admit that I am
100% correct.

If you're correct, then it shouldn't be a problem to quote a legal
precedent. You won't, because you can't. Strike three.

Prove that it's legal. You can't, because it isn't.

Quit being a weasel. I asked you a simple question. Answer it, idiot,
and don't change the subject.

I will quote YOU here, from a response you gave just two days ago in
this same thread: "You didn't cite any reaesrch [sic], because you
CAN'T."

YOU made the claim it was illegal, now back it up.

What you fail to understand, Mike, is that you're trying to refute
science with faith-based arguments and unsubstantiated opinions. A
real scientist would understand that it doesn't work that way. That's
why you'll have to observe from the sidelines and whine while good
scientists like Pickering et al. keep getting published.

How would YOU know what a "good scientist" is??? What are your
qualifications? NONE, I suspect, or you wouldn't STILL be sticking to
vague generalities.

I think it's fair to say her publication record and academic position
speak for themselves.

My qualifications are irrelevant, but that's not what we're
discussing, now is it? Again, quit trying to change the subject.

How many years have you been railing against mountain biking, Mike?
15? 20? And how many empirical studies, conference proceedings,
journal articles and book chapters have you produced in those lost
decades? Probably less than the average graduate student.

One is enough to know the truth. One honest article beats any number
of examples of biased propaganda.

Maybe you should try writing one, then. It might help your case.

You might want to hold off and do something worth mentioning before
calling yourself an "authority" on anything.

As I suspected, you can't say anythng SPECIFIC about the article,
because you haven't read i! That's why you keep changing the subject
to irrelevancies.

I was quite specific. Unfortunately, my responses seem to be too
complicated for you.

As to getting published in peer-reviewed publications, you seemt to
have overlooked this:

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 athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

Ready to throw in the towel? You have proved that you can't even use a
library! You aren't honest enough to admit that you are making
assertions about an article that you haven't even read! Typical
dishonest mountain biker. QED

Show me where I wrote you weren't published, idiot.

On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
"Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine

Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
longer to pick up if dropped?

On May 11, 2:57*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:
On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

"Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine

Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
longer to pick up if dropped?

Thanks for demonstrating, for the umpteenth time, exactly where
mountain bikers' minds are located (not that we didn't know
already...).

On May 11, 8:10*am, Shraga wrote:
On May 11, 12:02*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On May 10, 8:16*pm, Shraga wrote:
Asked and answered. If you didn't understand my response that's your
problem, not mine. It's a perfectly reasonable word to use when
summarizing a quantitative result.

BS. It's totally meaningless in a statistical context. I know, you
don't have the faintest idea what that means.

Idiot: It wasn't used in a statistical context in the paper.

I've explained that to you twice, asked twice for you to back your
claim up and you keep coming back with the same incorrect response,
proving you haven't read the article. The fact that I can respond to
you coherently and you can't provide the specific evidence I requested
proves I'm talking way over your head, as usual.

(Later in your response, where you whine that I'm not being specific,
you are LYING again because this is very specific to the article and
your layman's opinion of it.)





*As I wrote before, if you had any

experience reading scientific papers you would know that. Your
preposterous objection to it highlights your ignorance.

The fact that you don't understand the results section is noted.
Strike one.

Unless they will admit to being mountain bikers, there's no way to
know (they refuse to answer -- a dead giveaway of dishonesty), but in
my experience, ONLY MOUNTAIN BIKERS write slanted, unscientific papers
like that, that purport to be science. We know, of course, from my
survey paper (http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm) that that is a
common practice. .

What would I have to gain from reading an unpublished "paper"

Because it's the only place you will find the truth. You won't read it
simply because you don't care about the truth.

Not "truth." It's your subjective, faith-based, layman's opinion of
the science. I already told you that.

Get it published in a peer-reviewed journal, then I might take you
seriously. Until then, you're just another Internet kook.

Plus, this is another example of YOU changing the subject. I asked for
proof about the authors and you responded with another of your
Internet opinion pieces. Your dishonest opinion is not proof.

*written

by an amateur letter-writer? Can you recommend anything written by a
scientist instead?

I AM a scientist. That's what a Ph.D. is, dumdum.

You are are the poster boy for why there should be a statute of
limitations on having a PhD. Your degree in Psychometrics and research
experience in ethnic food preferences was about 40 years ago and has
NOTHING to do with the field in which you now claim expertise.

If we were discussing an article on Psychometrics, then I would give
you full credit for your ancient degree. However, we're not, so you
should try to be honest about your lack of qualifications.

So no. In this context, you are not a scientist.

I asked for proof, not your biased opinion. Do you need an adult to
explain the difference to you? Strike two.

In every jurisdiction in the world, off-trail riding is illegal. Why
would Australia be different? You are just afraid to admit that I am
100% correct.

If you're correct, then it shouldn't be a problem to quote a legal
precedent. You won't, because you can't. Strike three.

Prove that it's legal. You can't, because it isn't.

Quit being a weasel. I asked you a simple question. Answer it, idiot,
and don't change the subject.

I will quote YOU here, from a response you gave just two days ago in
this same thread: "You didn't cite any reaesrch [sic], because you
CAN'T."

YOU made the claim it was illegal, now back it up.

What you fail to understand, Mike, is that you're trying to refute
science with faith-based arguments and unsubstantiated opinions. A
real scientist would understand that it doesn't work that way. That's
why you'll have to observe from the sidelines and whine while good
scientists like Pickering et al. keep getting published.

How would YOU know what a "good scientist" is??? What are your
qualifications? NONE, I suspect, or you wouldn't STILL be sticking to
vague generalities.

I think it's fair to say her publication record and academic position
speak for themselves.

My qualifications are irrelevant, but that's not what we're
discussing, now is it? Again, quit trying to change the subject.

How many years have you been railing against mountain biking, Mike?
15? 20? And how many empirical studies, conference proceedings,
journal articles and book chapters have you produced in those lost
decades? Probably less than the average graduate student.

One is enough to know the truth. One honest article beats any number
of examples of biased propaganda.

Maybe you should try writing one, then. It might help your case.

You might want to hold off and do something worth mentioning before
calling yourself an "authority" on anything.

As I suspected, you can't say anythng SPECIFIC about the article,
because you haven't read i! That's why you keep changing the subject
to irrelevancies.

I was quite specific. Unfortunately, my responses seem to be too
complicated for you.

As to getting published in peer-reviewed publications, you seemt to
have overlooked this:

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 athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

Ready to throw in the towel? You have proved that you can't even use a
library! You aren't honest enough to admit that you are making
assertions about an article that you haven't even read! Typical
dishonest mountain biker. QED

Show me where I wrote you weren't published, idiot.

You are fooling NO ONE, except yourself. Your repeated failure to
mention even ONE specific detail of the article proved that you never
read it. But someone who is afraid to use his/her real name obviously
has nothing worthwhile to say, anyway. You are nothing but hot air,
like ALL mountain bikers.Thanks for demonstrating, for the umpteenth
time, exactly what mountain bikers are like: DISHONEST TO THE CORE.

On May 11, 11:01*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On May 11, 2:57*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:

On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

"Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine

Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
longer to pick up if dropped?

Thanks for demonstrating, for the umpteenth time, exactly where
mountain bikers' minds are located (not that we didn't know
already...).

Maybe it was liquid soap.

On May 11, 2:57*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:
On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

"Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine

Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
longer to pick up if dropped?

Keep it up! You are giving a very accurate picture of how mountain
bikers think! As always, THANKS FOR THE HELP! No wonder you are afraid
to use your real name....

On May 11, 11:06*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On May 11, 8:10*am, Shraga wrote:

Show me where I wrote you weren't published, idiot.

You are fooling NO ONE, except yourself. Your repeated failure to
mention even ONE specific detail of the article proved that you never
read it. But someone who is afraid to use his/her real name obviously
has nothing worthwhile to say, anyway. You are nothing but hot air,
like ALL mountain bikers.Thanks for demonstrating, for the umpteenth
time, exactly what mountain bikers are like: DISHONEST TO THE CORE.

You're welcome. And thank YOU, for demonstrating, for the umpteenth
time, your lack of scientific credentials by not being able to respond
to even my most basic questions about validating your biased opinion
piece.

Incidentally, why are you afraid to use your real name? Or did your
parents name you "Mike?"

On May 11, 4:57*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:
On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

"Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine

Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
longer to pick up if dropped?

what i dont get is why he does it. he has no support other than a
brain dead couch potato in the midwest. all he does is rant and rave
and with all his spent energy doest sway one soul from mountain
biking, and his cross posts to rec.backpacking just muck up the group
so very few real backpackers hang out there to exchange information.
mike - by arguing with mountain bikers you do nothing good. any trail
you "may" be lucky enough to ever close will not be due to any efforts
on rec.mountainbiking or rec.backpacking. so why not at least leave
rec.backpaking out of it? my guess is you crosspost in hopes of
getting hikers all upset at the horrors of MTBing and join your side,
but i see it isnt working.

this is so tiring, all you have done is **** off backpackers because
we cant have our group to our sport and we have to wade through all
your sewage. you really are deranged and obsessed with an alternative
reality. i truly wish you the worst. one asshole ruining what could
be a pleasurable group of backpackers. one asshole screaming all by
himself with nobody listening to what he says, just screaming back at
him to shut up. but you revel in that, and that is the sign of a
mental disorder.

about as successful as your fight to end auto dependency, isnt it?
go to hell MV, and godspeed doing it.

"charley" wrote in message
...

On May 11, 4:57 pm, Len McGoogle wrote:
On May 6, 12:12 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

"Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine

Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
longer to pick up if dropped?

The above was posted by an idiot who wants nothing better up his dumb ass
than a broom stick. Does he think you have to go to jail for that?

what i dont get is why he does it. he has no support other than a
brain dead couch potato in the midwest. all he does is rant and rave
and with all his spent energy doest sway one soul from mountain
biking, and his cross posts to rec.backpacking just muck up the group
so very few real backpackers hang out there to exchange information.
mike - by arguing with mountain bikers you do nothing good. any trail
you "may" be lucky enough to ever close will not be due to any efforts
on rec.mountainbiking or rec.backpacking. so why not at least leave
rec.backpaking out of it? my guess is you crosspost in hopes of
getting hikers all upset at the horrors of MTBing and join your side,
but i see it isnt working.

What you don’t get is just about everything. Any group which doesn't condemn
mountain biking deserves to get ****ed up. That goes for you too - you dumb
asshole!

this is so tiring, all you have done is **** off backpackers because
we cant have our group to our sport and we have to wade through all
your sewage. you really are deranged and obsessed with an alternative
reality. i truly wish you the worst. one asshole ruining what could
be a pleasurable group of backpackers. one asshole screaming all by
himself with nobody listening to what he says, just screaming back at
him to shut up. but you revel in that, and that is the sign of a
mental disorder.

The only one here with a mental disorder is yourself. Get with the program
or get lost - you dumb asshole!

about as successful as your fight to end auto dependency, isnt it?
go to hell MV, and godspeed doing it.

Anyone who thinks mountain biking on hiking trails is OK is a god damn
****ing idiot - you dumb asshole!

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

On May 16, 6:32*am, charley wrote:
On May 11, 4:57*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:

On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

"Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine

Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
longer to pick up if dropped?

what i dont get is why he does it. he has no support other than a
brain dead couch potato in the midwest. *all he does is rant and rave
and with all his spent energy doest sway one soul from mountain
biking, and his cross posts to rec.backpacking just muck up the group
so very few real backpackers hang out there to exchange information.
mike - by arguing with mountain bikers you do nothing good. *any trail
you "may" be lucky enough to ever close will not be due to any efforts
on rec.mountainbiking or rec.backpacking. so *why not at least leave
rec.backpaking out of it? *my guess is you crosspost in hopes of
getting hikers all upset at the horrors of MTBing and join your side,
but i see it isnt working.

this is so tiring, all you have done is **** off backpackers because
we cant have our group to our sport and we have to wade through all
your sewage. *you really are deranged and obsessed with an alternative
reality. *i truly wish you the worst. *one asshole ruining what could
be a pleasurable group of backpackers. *one asshole screaming all by
himself with nobody listening to what he says, just screaming back at
him to shut up. *but you revel in that, and that is the sign of a
mental disorder.

about as successful as your fight to end auto dependency, isnt it?
go to hell MV, and godspeed doing it.

If you don't understand the issues, why not read my posts and LEARN
something? Too difficult for you? Most of my posts aren't written by
me, but by professional reporters. Why don't you complain to THEM?
Don't like hearing the truth? I can suggest some countries which don't
have freedom of speech, where you might be more comfortable, like
North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc.