A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Mountain Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mountain Bikers Prefer to Attack Me, Rather than Discuss the Harm that Mountain Biking Does!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 24th 08, 05:34 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Siskuwihane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 534
Default Pet Owners Prefer to Attack Others, Rather Than Discuss the Harmthat Their Free Running Cats Do!

On Jul 23, 11:28*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:43:58 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Mikey...


Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific
method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM.


Are you lying again? haha...science PHD...come on now...food science
doesn't count.


Your middle name is "Liar".

*You might be right up there with Emeril but

scientifically qualified you are not. And yes. We are qualified to
judge.


List your qualification(s).



List yours, you made the claim first.

In an attempt to excuse his past irresponsible pet ownership, Michael
J. Vandeman claimed the following:

"If I had known how many birds and other animals are killed by cats,
even well fed ones, I probably would never have chosen to adopt them."

Now how could someone who claims they are so "scientificaly qualified"
not even know basic biology? How can they claim they didn't know how
many birds and small animals are killed by cats? Surely no one with
such credentials could NOT know such a fundamental aspect of a felines
behavior? Michael J. Vandeman, outed again.

Ads
  #22  
Old July 24th 08, 05:38 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike
M. Halliwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:21:29 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:10:53 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

On Jul 22, 8:23 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:14:23 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:37 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited,
and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts
You are not qualified to settle the matter.
Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific
method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM.
Then why don't you do some science, Mike...rather than spouting your
point of view in exceptionally biased opinion papers you claim as
"literature reviews." There is no new material in what you post (i.e.
you haven't done your own research) and the only thing you seem to put
forward is personal opinion (using generalizations and emotionally
charged wording) on work that has been done.

If you, as you imply, have the expertise in the scientific method and
claim that all the other researchers have done their research or
analyses wrong, why don't you get some funding and do a proper,
defensible study and then get it published in a proper scientific
journal like other people who are qualified in the scientific method.

Oh but wait...that might not work for you. Can you stretch a psychology
degree and specialization in psychometrics (as well as cooking) to an
experimental design, physical assessment and analysis with draws from
ecology, forestry, biology, engineering, geology, hydrology and other
such fields? Seems to me to be a little out of your area of expertise.

I personally would side with Siskuwihane on this one....I don't believe
you are qualified to settle this matter.

Michael Halliwell
How would you know, not being qualified to judge. What are your
qualifications? This should be good!

You've been told them before (I could quote you and tell you to "do your
own homework").

But as you seem to have a very short memory:


You aren't worth even one good brain cell.


Very professional reply...I'm sure your alma mater is proud.

B.Sc. in Civil Engineering
M.Eng. in Environmental Engineering
CESA - Certified Environmental Site Assessor


None of these are research degrees. A Ph.D. is a research degree.
QED

Although research and experimental design were significant parts of my
Master's degree, I'm not going to waste my time debating it with you...
A research degree in an unrelated field like psychology hardly makes you
qualified to talk on the subject matter of physical effects of mountain
biking on nature. You *may* hazard a guess of what Bambi is thinking (if
you believe that Bambi has higher reasoning skills) but that is as far
as it goes...when it comes to the assessment of physical impacts (after
all, erosion is one of your favorite topics) you are simply out of your
area of expertise.

and a lot of years of experience in the assessment of both natural and
developed areas for human impacts and environmental health. I also work
as part of a multi-disciplinary team that includes ecologists,
biologist, engineers, geologists, hydrogeologists, foresters,
agrologists, chemists and environmental scientists (at varying levels,
but generally from M.Sc. to Ph.D.).


What? Not going to take issue with this too? Other than getting thrown
out of the Sierra Club, where is your field expertise in making
Environmental Impact Assessments? What about Environmental Screening
Reports? Or Environmental Site Assessments? When is the last time you
took part in a vegetation assessment, animal count or did surface or
groundwater flow modeling?


I am sure you will disagree, but I think my qualifications are more
directly applicable than your Ph.D. in psychology and "passion" for
biology and "peeve" of habitat destruction.


No comment here either....hmmm...avoiding defending how Ph.D. in
psychology makes you qualified to speak on things outside your area of
expertise? Just because you list something as a "like" or "peeve" on
your website, it doesn't make you an expert.

Michael Halliwell
  #23  
Old July 24th 08, 03:30 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:38:12 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:21:29 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:10:53 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

On Jul 22, 8:23 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:14:23 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:37 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited,
and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts
You are not qualified to settle the matter.
Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific
method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM.
Then why don't you do some science, Mike...rather than spouting your
point of view in exceptionally biased opinion papers you claim as
"literature reviews." There is no new material in what you post (i.e.
you haven't done your own research) and the only thing you seem to put
forward is personal opinion (using generalizations and emotionally
charged wording) on work that has been done.

If you, as you imply, have the expertise in the scientific method and
claim that all the other researchers have done their research or
analyses wrong, why don't you get some funding and do a proper,
defensible study and then get it published in a proper scientific
journal like other people who are qualified in the scientific method.

Oh but wait...that might not work for you. Can you stretch a psychology
degree and specialization in psychometrics (as well as cooking) to an
experimental design, physical assessment and analysis with draws from
ecology, forestry, biology, engineering, geology, hydrology and other
such fields? Seems to me to be a little out of your area of expertise.

I personally would side with Siskuwihane on this one....I don't believe
you are qualified to settle this matter.

Michael Halliwell
How would you know, not being qualified to judge. What are your
qualifications? This should be good!
You've been told them before (I could quote you and tell you to "do your
own homework").

But as you seem to have a very short memory:


You aren't worth even one good brain cell.


Very professional reply...I'm sure your alma mater is proud.


It's 100% accurate.

B.Sc. in Civil Engineering
M.Eng. in Environmental Engineering
CESA - Certified Environmental Site Assessor


None of these are research degrees. A Ph.D. is a research degree.
QED

Although research and experimental design were significant parts of my
Master's degree, I'm not going to waste my time debating it with you...
A research degree in an unrelated field like psychology hardly makes you
qualified to talk on the subject matter of physical effects of mountain
biking on nature.


That can only be settled by HONEST research, of which I was able to
find only ONE study (Wisdom et al). It supported my view that mountain
biking has greater impacts than hiking.

You *may* hazard a guess of what Bambi is thinking (if
you believe that Bambi has higher reasoning skills) but that is as far
as it goes...when it comes to the assessment of physical impacts (after
all, erosion is one of your favorite topics) you are simply out of your
area of expertise.


It's not rocket science, you dunce. If you are a qualified expert,
show us your OWN assessment of the research. And be SPECIFIC! I know
you CAN'T!

and a lot of years of experience in the assessment of both natural and
developed areas for human impacts and environmental health. I also work
as part of a multi-disciplinary team that includes ecologists,
biologist, engineers, geologists, hydrogeologists, foresters,
agrologists, chemists and environmental scientists (at varying levels,
but generally from M.Sc. to Ph.D.).


What? Not going to take issue with this too? Other than getting thrown
out of the Sierra Club,


LIAR.

where is your field expertise in making
Environmental Impact Assessments? What about Environmental Screening
Reports? Or Environmental Site Assessments? When is the last time you
took part in a vegetation assessment, animal count or did surface or
groundwater flow modeling?


I have no experience doing biased assessment, as you obviously DO.


I am sure you will disagree, but I think my qualifications are more
directly applicable than your Ph.D. in psychology and "passion" for
biology and "peeve" of habitat destruction.


No comment here either....hmmm...avoiding defending how Ph.D. in
psychology makes you qualified to speak on things outside your area of
expertise? Just because you list something as a "like" or "peeve" on
your website, it doesn't make you an expert.


My expertise comes from reading and observation -- the same place that
the so-called "experts" got theirs.

Michael Halliwell

--
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
  #24  
Old July 24th 08, 03:32 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Pet Owners Prefer to Attack Others, Rather Than Discuss the Harm that Their Free Running Cats Do!

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:34:57 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

On Jul 23, 11:28*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:43:58 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Mikey...


Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific
method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM.


Are you lying again? haha...science PHD...come on now...food science
doesn't count.


Your middle name is "Liar".

*You might be right up there with Emeril but

scientifically qualified you are not. And yes. We are qualified to
judge.


List your qualification(s).



List yours, you made the claim first.


I knew you wouldn't, because you don't want to be EMBARRASSED. Mine
are all on my website.

In an attempt to excuse his past irresponsible pet ownership, Michael
J. Vandeman claimed the following:

"If I had known how many birds and other animals are killed by cats,
even well fed ones, I probably would never have chosen to adopt them."

Now how could someone who claims they are so "scientificaly qualified"
not even know basic biology? How can they claim they didn't know how
many birds and small animals are killed by cats?


That happened before I learned that, obviously.

Surely no one with
such credentials could NOT know such a fundamental aspect of a felines
behavior? Michael J. Vandeman, outed again.

--
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
  #25  
Old July 24th 08, 05:52 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike
M. Halliwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.

Mike Vandeman wrote:


Although research and experimental design were significant parts of my
Master's degree, I'm not going to waste my time debating it with you...
A research degree in an unrelated field like psychology hardly makes you
qualified to talk on the subject matter of physical effects of mountain
biking on nature.


That can only be settled by HONEST research, of which I was able to
find only ONE study (Wisdom et al). It supported my view that mountain
biking has greater impacts than hiking.


Only on elk and deer and not dealing with physical impacts, but rather
what apparently seems to be a typical prey animal flight response to a
fast moving object. With your field of expertise, I can certainly see
how you'd draw the conclusion that Bambi is uncomfortable.


You *may* hazard a guess of what Bambi is thinking (if
you believe that Bambi has higher reasoning skills) but that is as far
as it goes...when it comes to the assessment of physical impacts (after
all, erosion is one of your favorite topics) you are simply out of your
area of expertise.


It's not rocket science, you dunce. If you are a qualified expert,
show us your OWN assessment of the research. And be SPECIFIC! I know
you CAN'T!


Mike, as you are the one saying all the research except Wisdom et al is
incorrect, the burden of proof is on you. There is a lot of research
out there already concluding that the physical effects of mountain
biking is comparable to hiking. Your "literature review" / opinion
paper does not qualify as "proof."


and a lot of years of experience in the assessment of both natural and
developed areas for human impacts and environmental health. I also work
as part of a multi-disciplinary team that includes ecologists,
biologist, engineers, geologists, hydrogeologists, foresters,
agrologists, chemists and environmental scientists (at varying levels,
but generally from M.Sc. to Ph.D.).

What? Not going to take issue with this too? Other than getting thrown
out of the Sierra Club,


LIAR.


My apologies, I didn't state that right...they didn't throw you out per
se, rather they banned you from holding leadership positions
(ouch...from being a major player to nothing!) and representing them in
any way shape or form...seems they like your money, just not you.


where is your field expertise in making
Environmental Impact Assessments? What about Environmental Screening
Reports? Or Environmental Site Assessments? When is the last time you
took part in a vegetation assessment, animal count or did surface or
groundwater flow modeling?


I have no experience doing biased assessment, as you obviously DO.


Biased? So, because you have admitted you have no experience in some of
the relevant methodologies, you claim they are biased? That hardly
supports your claim to be "the expert" on mountain biking impacts.


I am sure you will disagree, but I think my qualifications are more
directly applicable than your Ph.D. in psychology and "passion" for
biology and "peeve" of habitat destruction.

No comment here either....hmmm...avoiding defending how Ph.D. in
psychology makes you qualified to speak on things outside your area of
expertise? Just because you list something as a "like" or "peeve" on
your website, it doesn't make you an expert.


My expertise comes from reading and observation -- the same place that
the so-called "experts" got theirs.


Just because you read books (comic books don't count, btw) and claiming
"personal experience" and anecdotal evidence from your trail walks does
not prove anything. Just because you can see an example of something,
doesn't make it statistically significant....you, with your research
degree, should know that better than most.

Michael Halliwell
  #26  
Old July 24th 08, 07:09 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Siskuwihane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 534
Default Pet Owners Prefer to Attack Others, Rather Than Discuss the Harmthat Their Free Running Cats Do!

On Jul 24, 10:32*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:34:57 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:28*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:43:58 -0700 (PDT), "


wrote:
Mikey...


Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific
method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM.


Are you lying again? haha...science PHD...come on now...food science
doesn't count.


Your middle name is "Liar".


*You might be right up there with Emeril but


scientifically qualified you are not. And yes. We are qualified to
judge.


List your qualification(s).


List yours, you made the claim first.


I knew you wouldn't, because you don't want to be EMBARRASSED. Mine
are all on my website.



Um, heads up dipstick, I'm not the person you were asking to list
them. Try and keep up, it's not that hard.



In an attempt to excuse his past irresponsible pet ownership, Michael
J. Vandeman claimed the following:


"If I had known how many birds and other animals are killed by cats,
even well fed ones, I probably would never have chosen to adopt them."


Now how could someone who claims they are so "scientificaly qualified"
not even know basic biology? How can they claim they didn't know how
many birds and small animals are killed by cats?


That happened before I learned that, obviously.


BS. That's basic knowledge, even 6 y.o. children know, dummy.

*Surely no one withsuch credentials could NOT know such a fundamental aspect of a felines
behavior? Michael J. Vandeman, outed again.


And again.


  #27  
Old July 25th 08, 02:10 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 495
Default Pet Owners Prefer to Attack Others, Rather Than Discuss the Harmthat Their Free Running Cats Do!

scientifically qualified you are not. And yes. We are qualified to
judge.


List your qualification(s).


List yours, you made the claim first.



Yawn...you bore me Mike. I have listed actual PAPERS I wrote in the
past...papers of Chemistry elements and BioChemistry research you
could only dream to understand...not literary reviews of other's
material. My info was Research documents of factual experimental data
that I DID...you on the other hand...have nothing. NOTHING but copies
of other's material. You are a fabricator of lies and thousands of
your posts prove it. I will just call you flip flop from now on...You
loon. My experience across the board of research in areas have been
plentiful enough to fully diagnose you as a Sociopath. Verified by
thousands of posts as well. You're a joke. Like I said before...you
are a movie of the week at best...collecting dust on a floor
somewhere.
  #28  
Old July 25th 08, 02:57 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:52:33 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:


Although research and experimental design were significant parts of my
Master's degree, I'm not going to waste my time debating it with you...
A research degree in an unrelated field like psychology hardly makes you
qualified to talk on the subject matter of physical effects of mountain
biking on nature.


That can only be settled by HONEST research, of which I was able to
find only ONE study (Wisdom et al). It supported my view that mountain
biking has greater impacts than hiking.


Only on elk and deer and not dealing with physical impacts, but rather
what apparently seems to be a typical prey animal flight response to a
fast moving object. With your field of expertise, I can certainly see
how you'd draw the conclusion that Bambi is uncomfortable.


I see you either never read the study, or didn't understand it. It has
nothing to do with "being uncomfortable". The mountain bikers caused
the elk to flee, and to flee FARTHER than either hikers or
equestrians.

I also reviewed the studies on physical impacts (erosion & plant
damage), where mountain biking also did more harm than hiking.

You *may* hazard a guess of what Bambi is thinking (if
you believe that Bambi has higher reasoning skills) but that is as far
as it goes...when it comes to the assessment of physical impacts (after
all, erosion is one of your favorite topics) you are simply out of your
area of expertise.


It's not rocket science, you dunce. If you are a qualified expert,
show us your OWN assessment of the research. And be SPECIFIC! I know
you CAN'T!


I see you are afraid to answer that question! As I predicted....

Mike, as you are the one saying all the research except Wisdom et al is
incorrect, the burden of proof is on you. There is a lot of research
out there already concluding that the physical effects of mountain
biking is comparable to hiking. Your "literature review" / opinion
paper does not qualify as "proof."


If you actually READ those "studies", you would have to conclude that
those conclusions are not justified from that data.

and a lot of years of experience in the assessment of both natural and
developed areas for human impacts and environmental health. I also work
as part of a multi-disciplinary team that includes ecologists,
biologist, engineers, geologists, hydrogeologists, foresters,
agrologists, chemists and environmental scientists (at varying levels,
but generally from M.Sc. to Ph.D.).
What? Not going to take issue with this too? Other than getting thrown
out of the Sierra Club,


LIAR.


My apologies, I didn't state that right.


Exactly: you LIED.

...they didn't throw you out per
se, rather they banned you from holding leadership positions
(ouch...from being a major player to nothing!) and representing them in
any way shape or form...seems they like your money, just not you.


It's not surprizing that an organization like the Sierra Club doesn't
like people who rock the boat. I'm in good company: David Brower also
got fed up with the Sierra Club.

where is your field expertise in making
Environmental Impact Assessments? What about Environmental Screening
Reports? Or Environmental Site Assessments? When is the last time you
took part in a vegetation assessment, animal count or did surface or
groundwater flow modeling?


I have no experience doing biased assessment, as you obviously DO.


Biased? So, because you have admitted you have no experience in some of
the relevant methodologies, you claim they are biased? That hardly
supports your claim to be "the expert" on mountain biking impacts.


I'm the expert because I'm the only one who reports the science
HONESTLY. You can't even give us your own qualifications!

I am sure you will disagree, but I think my qualifications are more
directly applicable than your Ph.D. in psychology and "passion" for
biology and "peeve" of habitat destruction.
No comment here either....hmmm...avoiding defending how Ph.D. in
psychology makes you qualified to speak on things outside your area of
expertise? Just because you list something as a "like" or "peeve" on
your website, it doesn't make you an expert.


My expertise comes from reading and observation -- the same place that
the so-called "experts" got theirs.


Just because you read books (comic books don't count, btw) and claiming
"personal experience" and anecdotal evidence from your trail walks does
not prove anything. Just because you can see an example of something,
doesn't make it statistically significant....you, with your research
degree, should know that better than most.


Of course. But when you have enough data, it DOES. And I DO. And
observations don't lie. Such as the snake I found that was killed by a
mountain biker.

Michael Halliwell

--
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
  #29  
Old July 25th 08, 02:59 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Pet Owners Prefer to Attack Others, Rather Than Discuss the Harm that Their Free Running Cats Do!

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:09:32 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

On Jul 24, 10:32*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:34:57 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:28*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:43:58 -0700 (PDT), "


wrote:
Mikey...


Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific
method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM.


Are you lying again? haha...science PHD...come on now...food science
doesn't count.


Your middle name is "Liar".


*You might be right up there with Emeril but


scientifically qualified you are not. And yes. We are qualified to
judge.


List your qualification(s).


List yours, you made the claim first.


I knew you wouldn't, because you don't want to be EMBARRASSED. Mine
are all on my website.



Um, heads up dipstick, I'm not the person you were asking to list
them. Try and keep up, it's not that hard.


I know YOU don't have any.

In an attempt to excuse his past irresponsible pet ownership, Michael
J. Vandeman claimed the following:


"If I had known how many birds and other animals are killed by cats,
even well fed ones, I probably would never have chosen to adopt them."


Now how could someone who claims they are so "scientificaly qualified"
not even know basic biology? How can they claim they didn't know how
many birds and small animals are killed by cats?


That happened before I learned that, obviously.


BS. That's basic knowledge, even 6 y.o. children know, dummy.


Liar.
--
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
  #30  
Old July 25th 08, 03:00 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Pet Owners Prefer to Attack Others, Rather Than Discuss the Harm that Their Free Running Cats Do!

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:10:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

scientifically qualified you are not. And yes. We are qualified to
judge.


List your qualification(s).


List yours, you made the claim first.



Yawn...you bore me Mike. I have listed actual PAPERS I wrote in the
past...papers of Chemistry elements and BioChemistry research you
could only dream to understand...not literary reviews of other's
material. My info was Research documents of factual experimental data
that I DID...you on the other hand...have nothing. NOTHING but copies
of other's material. You are a fabricator of lies and thousands of
your posts prove it. I will just call you flip flop from now on...You
loon. My experience across the board of research in areas have been
plentiful enough to fully diagnose you as a Sociopath. Verified by
thousands of posts as well. You're a joke. Like I said before...you
are a movie of the week at best...collecting dust on a floor
somewhere.


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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mountain Bikers Rat Pack & Threaten Woman for Telling the Truth about Mountain Biking! Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 2 April 2nd 08 05:12 PM
Mountain Bikers Rat Pack & Threaten Woman for Telling the Truth about Mountain Biking! Mike Vandeman Social Issues 2 April 2nd 08 05:12 PM
Three (More) Mountain Bikers Arrested for Illegally Mountain Biking in Grand Canyon National Park Mike Vandeman Social Issues 8 March 18th 07 07:24 AM
Three (More) Mountain Bikers Arrested for Illegally Mountain Biking in Grand Canyon National Park Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 6 March 16th 07 04:35 AM
STILL Unrefuted, after15 Months of Mountain Bikers Fuming!: The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature di Mountain Biking 1 October 23rd 05 10:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.