ANOTHER Mountain Biker Dies!

On Feb 10, 12:13*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:16*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:









On Feb 9, 2:23*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

"Rick Hopkins" wrote in message

....
On Feb 9, 12:27 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
[...]

You seem to be good at name-calling, but not much else. You can't even
follow a conversation. No one labelled you a mountain biker. You
fantasized that. Reread my last post and reply to it. No more
longwinded irrelevant off-topic rants, please.
Your attention span and reading comprehension is rather poor. *If you

had actually read the post you will see I clearly answered your
questions. *Oh, and medical research show that mt. bike injuries have
declined 56% since 1995.

I think mountain biking itself has declined by at least that much. Only
dyed-in-the-wool assholes continue to do it.

Paper published in medical journal in 2011

completed a long study of mt. bike injuries since 1995 to 2007. *The
net result from the medical profession is that the benefits (heart
health - pre-existing conditions should follow drs. advice) *of mt.
biking outweigh any risk. *So this line of reasoning if simply bogus.
Enjoy, Rick

The only bogus character here is you. The medical profession does not know
**** about anything other than their specialties. What they know least of
all is what it takes to be fit and healthy. Your extreme sport regimen is
for idiots. You will come to grief with it sooner or later, but since you
are such a dunderhead, you will have to learn that the hard way.

By the way, whether you mountain bike much or not is not the point. You
defend it which is the same thing in my book. Therefore ... to the Devil
with you!

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

Yeah why rely on experts when you and Mike just make **** up to fit
your tiny little world. *You guys remind me of when *Don Quixote quips
in the musical "Man of La Mancha" "facts are the enemy of truth". *I
take evidence based approaches. *If you dislike mt bikes in nature,
fine make your case, but relying on clearly deficient arguments makes
you two look stupider and stupider. * The clear consensus in the
medial profession (which are the experts on this not you two numnuts)
is that mt. biking has modest risk associated with it, and the health
benefits outweigh the risk. *I put you folks debating this point in
the same bucket of climate change deniers and creationist - you have a
preconceived notion and god forbid if anyone provides evidence which
disproves your preconceptions - instead of discarding poor arguments
and honing your opposition on evidence, you name call and attack those
who proffer contrary information as liars and mt. bikers. You are no
better then the anti-science crowd which controls the Republican Party
these days. *So no Ed, this is not a defense of mt biking, but one
that clearly exposes your line of reasoning that mt biking is so
dangerous it outweighs the health benefits (contrary to the opinion of
the experts that are trained to judge the relationship of health
benefit vs risk). *You and *Mike seems to be infatuated this notion
which is clearly deficient and wildly inconsistent with an evidence-
based approach. *But lacking facts has never stopped you two before
and doubt it will now. Enjoy

Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BS. I'm the world expert on the harm that mountain biking does, and I
have given papers on the subject at a couple dozen scientific
conferences. You haven't given a single citation to support your
contention. For example, how EXACTLY do you balance serious injury and
death against the alleged health benefits of mountain biking? What
WEIGHT, for example, to give a death? It can't be done, except
subjectively, so your conclusion is BS. That's like the m=land
managers who claim to be able to "BALANCE" recreation with
conservation. What a joke! You are nothing but an amateur pretending
to be a professional.

Mike, you have published no peered reviewed scientific articles on the
subject in any credible journal (Ecology, Con Bio, J. Animal Ecology,
J Wildlife Mgt, etc.). Some of your talks are not official talks and
some are at feel good conferences where abstract rejection is near
zero. - at the SCB talk in Sj a few years ago, during the break (I
assume your abstract was rejected because it was was fantasy - oh btw
I gave a rather well received talked on using sophisticated spatial
models to identify suitable habitats and landscape linkages in a
40,000 Km2 landscape in SoCal for the cougar) - you on the other hand,
badgered the monitor to let you speak during the break to the handful
of people who were simply hanging around. She later told us over beers
she was hijacked and was completely ****ed off by you. In fact a
highly respected international conservation biologist leaned over to
where I and my colleagues were sitting and quipped " my god he has
just sucked all of the science out of the room" - and he did not mean
that as a compliment. So you are the world authority only in your
mind. You and Ed have been completely ineffective and have had
absolutely no influence on land use decisions relating to mt. bikes.

I have not been on news groups for months and out of boredom peaked in
a few days ago and imagine my surprise when I noted nothing has
changed and 80% of the post were you and Ed. Kind of like a bad soap
opera. I was only mildly surprised to find out you were arrested
sometime ago and had to do a little digging to find out what that was
all about. You speak to an audience of 12, news groups are dying.
Facebook, specific bike forums (they monitor and throw malcontents
off), etc, have replaced news groups - you guys are dinosaurs.

Enjoy speaking to a small crowd, I doubt I will run into you again,
unless of course you break into another meeting in a disingenuous
manner. And thank god I will never run into Ed as he seems way to
ignorant to have anything remotely approaching a conversation.

Take care, Rick

On Feb 10, 11:44*am, Rick Hopkins wrote:
On Feb 10, 12:13*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:





On Feb 9, 5:16*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:

On Feb 9, 2:23*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

"Rick Hopkins" wrote in message

...
On Feb 9, 12:27 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
[...]

You seem to be good at name-calling, but not much else. You can't even
follow a conversation. No one labelled you a mountain biker. You
fantasized that. Reread my last post and reply to it. No more
longwinded irrelevant off-topic rants, please.
Your attention span and reading comprehension is rather poor. *If you

had actually read the post you will see I clearly answered your
questions. *Oh, and medical research show that mt. bike injuries have
declined 56% since 1995.

I think mountain biking itself has declined by at least that much. Only
dyed-in-the-wool assholes continue to do it.

Paper published in medical journal in 2011

completed a long study of mt. bike injuries since 1995 to 2007. *The
net result from the medical profession is that the benefits (heart
health - pre-existing conditions should follow drs. advice) *of mt.

On Feb 10, 1:05*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Feb 10, 11:44*am, Rick Hopkins wrote:









On Feb 10, 12:13*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 9, 5:16*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:

On Feb 9, 2:23*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

"Rick Hopkins" wrote in message

...
On Feb 9, 12:27 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
[...]

You seem to be good at name-calling, but not much else. You can't even
follow a conversation. No one labelled you a mountain biker. You
fantasized that. Reread my last post and reply to it. No more
longwinded irrelevant off-topic rants, please.
Your attention span and reading comprehension is rather poor. *If you

had actually read the post you will see I clearly answered your
questions. *Oh, and medical research show that mt. bike injuries have
declined 56% since 1995.

I think mountain biking itself has declined by at least that much.. Only
dyed-in-the-wool assholes continue to do it.

Paper published in medical journal in 2011

completed a long study of mt. bike injuries since 1995 to 2007. *The
net result from the medical profession is that the benefits (heart
health - pre-existing conditions should follow drs. advice) *of mt.
biking outweigh any risk. *So this line of reasoning if simply bogus.
Enjoy, Rick

The only bogus character here is you. The medical profession does not know
**** about anything other than their specialties. What they know least of
all is what it takes to be fit and healthy. Your extreme sport regimen is
for idiots. You will come to grief with it sooner or later, but since you
are such a dunderhead, you will have to learn that the hard way.

By the way, whether you mountain bike much or not is not the point. You
defend it which is the same thing in my book. Therefore ... to the Devil
with you!

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

Yeah why rely on experts when you and Mike just make **** up to fit
your tiny little world. *You guys remind me of when *Don Quixote quips
in the musical "Man of La Mancha" "facts are the enemy of truth". *I
take evidence based approaches. *If you dislike mt bikes in nature,
fine make your case, but relying on clearly deficient arguments makes
you two look stupider and stupider. * The clear consensus in the
medial profession (which are the experts on this not you two numnuts)
is that mt. biking has modest risk associated with it, and the health
benefits outweigh the risk. *I put you folks debating this point in
the same bucket of climate change deniers and creationist - you have a
preconceived notion and god forbid if anyone provides evidence which
disproves your preconceptions - instead of discarding poor arguments
and honing your opposition on evidence, you name call and attack those
who proffer contrary information as liars and mt. bikers. You are no
better then the anti-science crowd which controls the Republican Party
these days. *So no Ed, this is not a defense of mt biking, but one
that clearly exposes your line of reasoning that mt biking is so
dangerous it outweighs the health benefits (contrary to the opinion of
the experts that are trained to judge the relationship of health
benefit vs risk). *You and *Mike seems to be infatuated this notion
which is clearly deficient and wildly inconsistent with an evidence-
based approach. *But lacking facts has never stopped you two before
and doubt it will now. Enjoy

Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BS. I'm the world expert on the harm that mountain biking does, and I
have given papers on the subject at a couple dozen scientific
conferences. You haven't given a single citation to support your
contention. For example, how EXACTLY do you balance serious injury and
death against the alleged health benefits of mountain biking? What
WEIGHT, for example, to give a death? It can't be done, except
subjectively, so your conclusion is BS. That's like the m=land
managers who claim to be able to "BALANCE" recreation with
conservation. What a joke! You are nothing but an amateur pretending
to be a professional.

Mike, you have published no peered reviewed scientific articles on the
subject in any credible journal (Ecology, Con Bio, J. Animal Ecology,
J Wildlife Mgt, etc.). *Some of your talks are not official talks and
some are at feel good conferences where abstract rejection is near
zero. *- at the SCB talk in Sj a few years ago, during the break (I
assume your abstract was rejected because it was was fantasy - oh btw
I gave a rather well received talked on using sophisticated spatial
models to identify suitable habitats and landscape linkages in a
40,000 Km2 landscape in SoCal for the cougar) - you on the other hand,
badgered the monitor to let you speak during the break to the handful
of people who were simply hanging around. She later told us over beers
she was hijacked and was completely ****ed off by you. *In fact a
highly respected international conservation biologist leaned over to
where I and my colleagues were sitting and quipped " my god he has
just sucked all of the science out of the room" - and he did not mean
that as a compliment. *So you are the world authority only in your
mind. *You and Ed have been completely ineffective and have had
absolutely no influence on land use decisions relating to mt. bikes.

I have not been on news groups for months and out of boredom peaked in
a few days ago and imagine my surprise when I noted nothing has
changed and 80% of the post were you and Ed. * Kind of like a bad soap
opera. *I was only mildly surprised to find out you were arrested
sometime ago and had to do a little digging to find out what that was
all about. *You speak to an audience of 12, news groups are dying.
Facebook, specific bike forums (they monitor and throw malcontents
off), etc, have *replaced news groups - you guys are dinosaurs.

Enjoy speaking to a small crowd, I doubt I will run into you again,
unless of course you break into another meeting in a disingenuous
manner. *And thank god I will never run into Ed as he seems way to
ignorant to have anything remotely approaching a conversation.

Take care, Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

I have never spoken "during a break". The moderator agreed to let me
speak to replace someone who didn't show up. I gave the same paper I
have given at a dozen other conferences (none of them "feel good",
whatever that is), without a single objection or disagreement. I know
that some so-called "scientists" like you let their personal biases
cloud their judgment. Nothing new there. No real scientist has ever
found anything wrong with my paper, which is why it's so popular. Are
you saying that the scientists who screen the papers don't know what
they are doing? You are the one who doesn't know what you are doing.
You may be able to snow people who don't know anything about math, but
any mathematician knows that "modelling" papers are BS. Living things
don't obey your simple-minded math, or even complicated-minded math.

It was a break and the moderator disagrees and felt totally hijacked
by you. there was no scheduled paper at that time. Face it your
abstract was rejected and you found another way to speak to a handful
of us who were hanging around waiting for the session to start again.
As to modeling, I suggest you read the high end journals to find out
just how stupid and silly you are - you are not connected to anything
important. Face it you are an expert only in your own mind (and Ed's
balls).

Take care, I have now bored of you. It posting dozens of time to a
small audience makes you feel important keep at it. Have a nice life
and try and stay out of jail.

"Rick Hopkins" wrote in message
...
On Feb 10, 12:13 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
[...]
BS. I'm the world expert on the harm that mountain biking does, and I
have given papers on the subject at a couple dozen scientific
conferences. You haven't given a single citation to support your
contention. For example, how EXACTLY do you balance serious injury and
death against the alleged health benefits of mountain biking? What
WEIGHT, for example, to give a death? It can't be done, except
subjectively, so your conclusion is BS. That's like the m=land
managers who claim to be able to "BALANCE" recreation with
conservation. What a joke! You are nothing but an amateur pretending
to be a professional.

Mike, you have published no peered reviewed scientific articles on the
subject in any credible journal (Ecology, Con Bio, J. Animal Ecology,
J Wildlife Mgt, etc.). Some of your talks are not official talks and
some are at feel good conferences where abstract rejection is near
zero. - at the SCB talk in Sj a few years ago, during the break (I
assume your abstract was rejected because it was was fantasy - oh btw
I gave a rather well received talked on using sophisticated spatial
models to identify suitable habitats and landscape linkages in a
40,000 Km2 landscape in SoCal for the cougar) - you on the other hand,
badgered the monitor to let you speak during the break to the handful
of people who were simply hanging around. She later told us over beers
she was hijacked and was completely ****ed off by you. In fact a
highly respected international conservation biologist leaned over to
where I and my colleagues were sitting and quipped " my god he has
just sucked all of the science out of the room" - and he did not mean
that as a compliment. So you are the world authority only in your
mind. You and Ed have been completely ineffective and have had
absolutely no influence on land use decisions relating to mt. bikes.

As a former university librarian who had to read those damn scientific
journals I can tell you that I am not enamored of any of them. Academicians
are forced to publish all sorts of nonsense in order to retain status and
prestige in their careers. Most of it is nothing but foolishness and
unreadable.

There is actually quite an active community who hate mountain biking and who
have had and are having an effect on land managers. I think you will see
more and more closures to mountain biking in the future as a result of the
activities of Mr. Vandeman. I will admit I am just an onlooker.

I have not been on news groups for months and out of boredom peaked
[peeked] in
a few days ago and imagine my surprise when I noted nothing has
changed and 80% of the post were you and Ed. Kind of like a bad soap
opera. I was only mildly surprised to find out you were arrested
sometime ago and had to do a little digging to find out what that was
all about. You speak to an audience of 12, news groups are dying.
Facebook, specific bike forums (they monitor and throw malcontents
off), etc, have replaced news groups - you guys are dinosaurs.

I agree with you that Usenet newsgroups are either dead or dying. I have
been ranting against unmoderated newsgroups for years, yet I do not like to
be moderated by fools which is invariably the case with moderated
newsgroups. Facebook is for mindless social chatter and specific bike forums
on websites are for those who like to be bored to death by conventional
blather. I say post free or die ... even though I must admit it doesn't work
very well.

Your problem is that you dislike being disagreed with and you would killfile
anyone for that reason alone. Unlike you, I thrive on disagreement and it
doesn't bother me how heated the discussion gets. I will make my points and
I allow my opponent to make his points. Being fair in that regard is all
that counts with me.

Enjoy speaking to a small crowd, I doubt I will run into you again,
unless of course you break into another meeting in a disingenuous
manner. And thank god I will never run into Ed as he seems way to
[too] ignorant to have anything remotely approaching a conversation.

You know nothing of how mountain bikers communicate their messages on Usenet
cycling forums. They mostly threaten and bully, but I have done them better
in those departments. Mr. Vandeman is a gentleman and a scholar. I am
neither. You have to get to the level of whoever it is you are communicating
with. Otherwise you end up frustrated by their boorishness.

You do not fall into the typical mountain biker category. If you did, all
you would be doing by now is name calling - something that I am also quite
expert at!

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

"Rick Hopkins" wrote in message
...
On Feb 10, 1:05 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
[...]
Sorry to disappoint you: Vandeman, Michael J. ),
2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In
Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B.
Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of Amphibians and
Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156; expanded version also
available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

I have never spoken "during a break". The moderator agreed to let me
speak to replace someone who didn't show up. I gave the same paper I
have given at a dozen other conferences (none of them "feel good",
whatever that is), without a single objection or disagreement. I know
that some so-called "scientists" like you let their personal biases
cloud their judgment. Nothing new there. No real scientist has ever
found anything wrong with my paper, which is why it's so popular. Are
you saying that the scientists who screen the papers don't know what
they are doing? You are the one who doesn't know what you are doing.
You may be able to snow people who don't know anything about math, but
any mathematician knows that "modelling" papers are BS. Living things
don't obey your simple-minded math, or even complicated-minded math.

It was a break and the moderator disagrees and felt totally hijacked
by you. there was no scheduled paper at that time. Face it your
abstract was rejected and you found another way to speak to a handful
of us who were hanging around waiting for the session to start again.
As to modeling, I suggest you read the high end journals to find out
just how stupid and silly you are - you are not connected to anything
important. Face it you are an expert only in your own mind (and Ed's
balls).

You need to check your own balls if you can find them. I think you have
supplanted them with your brain in that location instead. In any event,
allusions to the groin are always helpful as it tells me what kind of an
asshole you are. I now know exactly how to treat you in all subsequent
communications. Welcome to my world!

Take care, I have [am] now bored of [with] you. It [If] posting dozens
of time to a
small audience makes you feel important keep at it. Have a nice life
and try and [to] stay out of jail.

Your solicitation for anyone's welfare but your own rings false. We all know
you are a fitness freak who has no regard for nature. Indeed, how could you.
You rush through it at top speed without regard to anything but your own
heart rate. Tell me Rick, were you born stupid or did you have to work at
it?

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

On Feb 10, 1:12*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:
On Feb 10, 1:05*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:





On Feb 10, 11:44*am, Rick Hopkins wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:13*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 9, 5:16*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:

On Feb 9, 2:23*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

"Rick Hopkins" wrote in message

...
On Feb 9, 12:27 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
[...]

You seem to be good at name-calling, but not much else. You can't even
follow a conversation. No one labelled you a mountain biker. You
fantasized that. Reread my last post and reply to it. No more
longwinded irrelevant off-topic rants, please.
Your attention span and reading comprehension is rather poor.. *If you

had actually read the post you will see I clearly answered your
questions. *Oh, and medical research show that mt. bike injuries have
declined 56% since 1995.

I think mountain biking itself has declined by at least that much. Only
dyed-in-the-wool assholes continue to do it.

Paper published in medical journal in 2011

completed a long study of mt. bike injuries since 1995 to 2007. *The
net result from the medical profession is that the benefits (heart
health - pre-existing conditions should follow drs. advice) *of mt.
biking outweigh any risk. *So this line of reasoning if simply bogus.
Enjoy, Rick

The only bogus character here is you. The medical profession does not know
**** about anything other than their specialties. What they know least of
all is what it takes to be fit and healthy. Your extreme sport regimen is
for idiots. You will come to grief with it sooner or later, but since you
are such a dunderhead, you will have to learn that the hard way..

By the way, whether you mountain bike much or not is not the point. You
defend it which is the same thing in my book. Therefore ... to the Devil
with you!

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

Yeah why rely on experts when you and Mike just make **** up to fit
your tiny little world. *You guys remind me of when *Don Quixote quips
in the musical "Man of La Mancha" "facts are the enemy of truth". *I
take evidence based approaches. *If you dislike mt bikes in nature,
fine make your case, but relying on clearly deficient arguments makes
you two look stupider and stupider. * The clear consensus in the
medial profession (which are the experts on this not you two numnuts)
is that mt. biking has modest risk associated with it, and the health
benefits outweigh the risk. *I put you folks debating this point in
the same bucket of climate change deniers and creationist - you have a
preconceived notion and god forbid if anyone provides evidence which
disproves your preconceptions - instead of discarding poor arguments
and honing your opposition on evidence, you name call and attack those
who proffer contrary information as liars and mt. bikers. You are no
better then the anti-science crowd which controls the Republican Party
these days. *So no Ed, this is not a defense of mt biking, but one
that clearly exposes your line of reasoning that mt biking is so
dangerous it outweighs the health benefits (contrary to the opinion of
the experts that are trained to judge the relationship of health
benefit vs risk). *You and *Mike seems to be infatuated this notion
which is clearly deficient and wildly inconsistent with an evidence-
based approach. *But lacking facts has never stopped you two before
and doubt it will now. Enjoy

Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BS. I'm the world expert on the harm that mountain biking does, and I
have given papers on the subject at a couple dozen scientific
conferences. You haven't given a single citation to support your
contention. For example, how EXACTLY do you balance serious injury and
death against the alleged health benefits of mountain biking? What
WEIGHT, for example, to give a death? It can't be done, except
subjectively, so your conclusion is BS. That's like the m=land
managers who claim to be able to "BALANCE" recreation with
conservation. What a joke! You are nothing but an amateur pretending
to be a professional.

Mike, you have published no peered reviewed scientific articles on the
subject in any credible journal (Ecology, Con Bio, J. Animal Ecology,
J Wildlife Mgt, etc.). *Some of your talks are not official talks and
some are at feel good conferences where abstract rejection is near
zero. *- at the SCB talk in Sj a few years ago, during the break (I
assume your abstract was rejected because it was was fantasy - oh btw
I gave a rather well received talked on using sophisticated spatial
models to identify suitable habitats and landscape linkages in a
40,000 Km2 landscape in SoCal for the cougar) - you on the other hand,
badgered the monitor to let you speak during the break to the handful
of people who were simply hanging around. She later told us over beers
she was hijacked and was completely ****ed off by you. *In fact a
highly respected international conservation biologist leaned over to
where I and my colleagues were sitting and quipped " my god he has
just sucked all of the science out of the room" - and he did not mean
that as a compliment. *So you are the world authority only in your
mind. *You and Ed have been completely ineffective and have had
absolutely no influence on land use decisions relating to mt. bikes.

I have not been on news groups for months and out of boredom peaked in
a few days ago and imagine my surprise when I noted nothing has
changed and 80% of the post were you and Ed. * Kind of like a bad soap
opera. *I was only mildly surprised to find out you were arrested
sometime ago and had to do a little digging to find out what that was
all about. *You speak to an audience of 12, news groups are dying.
Facebook, specific bike forums (they monitor and throw malcontents
off), etc, have *replaced news groups - you guys are dinosaurs.

Enjoy speaking to a small crowd, I doubt I will run into you again,
unless of course you break into another meeting in a disingenuous
manner. *And thank god I will never run into Ed as he seems way to
ignorant to have anything remotely approaching a conversation.

Take care, Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

I have never spoken "during a break". The moderator agreed to let me
speak to replace someone who didn't show up. I gave the same paper I
have given at a dozen other conferences (none of them "feel good",
whatever that is), without a single objection or disagreement. I know
that some so-called "scientists" like you let their personal biases
cloud their judgment. Nothing new there. No real scientist has ever
found anything wrong with my paper, which is why it's so popular. Are
you saying that the scientists who screen the papers don't know what
they are doing? You are the one who doesn't know what you are doing.
You may be able to snow people who don't know anything about math, but
any mathematician knows that "modelling" papers are BS. Living things
don't obey your simple-minded math, or even complicated-minded math.

It was a break and the moderator disagrees and felt totally hijacked
by you. *there was no scheduled paper at that time. Face it your
abstract was rejected and you found another way to speak to a handful
of us who were hanging around waiting for the session to start again.
As to modeling, I suggest you read the high end journals to find out
just how stupid and silly you are - you are not connected to anything
important. Face it you are an expert only in your own mind (and Ed's
balls).

Take care, I have now bored of you. *It posting dozens of time to a
small audience makes you feel important keep at it. Have a nice life
and try and stay out of jail.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Typical! Depart when you find that your disguise (as a scientist) no
longer fools anyone.

Either you (probably) or she is lying. I asked her if I could give my
paper then, because the scheduled person didn't show up. She agreed!
Then in the middle of it, she changed her mind and said she was going
to have a break instead, and refused to explain why, either then or
later. There seems to be a rash of dishonest alleged "scientists"
around the subject of mountain biking, as though they can't be
objective when it's their sport. I feel sorry for any student who has
to deal with you.

On Feb 10, 10:01*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Feb 10, 1:12*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:

On Feb 10, 1:05*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 10, 11:44*am, Rick Hopkins wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:13*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 9, 5:16*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:

On Feb 9, 2:23*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

"Rick Hopkins" wrote in message

...
On Feb 9, 12:27 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
[...]

You seem to be good at name-calling, but not much else. You can't even
follow a conversation. No one labelled you a mountain biker.. You
fantasized that. Reread my last post and reply to it. No more
longwinded irrelevant off-topic rants, please.
Your attention span and reading comprehension is rather poor. *If you

had actually read the post you will see I clearly answered your
questions. *Oh, and medical research show that mt. bike injuries have
declined 56% since 1995.

I think mountain biking itself has declined by at least that much. Only
dyed-in-the-wool assholes continue to do it.

Paper published in medical journal in 2011

completed a long study of mt. bike injuries since 1995 to 2007. *The
net result from the medical profession is that the benefits (heart
health - pre-existing conditions should follow drs. advice) *of mt.
biking outweigh any risk. *So this line of reasoning if simply bogus.
Enjoy, Rick

The only bogus character here is you. The medical profession does not know
**** about anything other than their specialties. What they know least of
all is what it takes to be fit and healthy. Your extreme sport regimen is
for idiots. You will come to grief with it sooner or later, but since you
are such a dunderhead, you will have to learn that the hard way.

By the way, whether you mountain bike much or not is not the point. You
defend it which is the same thing in my book. Therefore ... to the Devil
with you!

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

Yeah why rely on experts when you and Mike just make **** up to fit
your tiny little world. *You guys remind me of when *Don Quixote quips
in the musical "Man of La Mancha" "facts are the enemy of truth". *I
take evidence based approaches. *If you dislike mt bikes in nature,
fine make your case, but relying on clearly deficient arguments makes
you two look stupider and stupider. * The clear consensus in the
medial profession (which are the experts on this not you two numnuts)
is that mt. biking has modest risk associated with it, and the health
benefits outweigh the risk. *I put you folks debating this point in
the same bucket of climate change deniers and creationist - you have a
preconceived notion and god forbid if anyone provides evidence which
disproves your preconceptions - instead of discarding poor arguments
and honing your opposition on evidence, you name call and attack those
who proffer contrary information as liars and mt. bikers. You are no
better then the anti-science crowd which controls the Republican Party
these days. *So no Ed, this is not a defense of mt biking, but one
that clearly exposes your line of reasoning that mt biking is so
dangerous it outweighs the health benefits (contrary to the opinion of
the experts that are trained to judge the relationship of health
benefit vs risk). *You and *Mike seems to be infatuated this notion
which is clearly deficient and wildly inconsistent with an evidence-
based approach. *But lacking facts has never stopped you two before
and doubt it will now. Enjoy

Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BS. I'm the world expert on the harm that mountain biking does, and I
have given papers on the subject at a couple dozen scientific
conferences. You haven't given a single citation to support your
contention. For example, how EXACTLY do you balance serious injury and
death against the alleged health benefits of mountain biking? What
WEIGHT, for example, to give a death? It can't be done, except
subjectively, so your conclusion is BS. That's like the m=land
managers who claim to be able to "BALANCE" recreation with
conservation. What a joke! You are nothing but an amateur pretending
to be a professional.

Mike, you have published no peered reviewed scientific articles on the
subject in any credible journal (Ecology, Con Bio, J. Animal Ecology,
J Wildlife Mgt, etc.). *Some of your talks are not official talks and
some are at feel good conferences where abstract rejection is near
zero. *- at the SCB talk in Sj a few years ago, during the break (I
assume your abstract was rejected because it was was fantasy - oh btw
I gave a rather well received talked on using sophisticated spatial
models to identify suitable habitats and landscape linkages in a
40,000 Km2 landscape in SoCal for the cougar) - you on the other hand,
badgered the monitor to let you speak during the break to the handful
of people who were simply hanging around. She later told us over beers
she was hijacked and was completely ****ed off by you. *In fact a
highly respected international conservation biologist leaned over to
where I and my colleagues were sitting and quipped " my god he has
just sucked all of the science out of the room" - and he did not mean
that as a compliment. *So you are the world authority only in your
mind. *You and Ed have been completely ineffective and have had
absolutely no influence on land use decisions relating to mt. bikes..

I have not been on news groups for months and out of boredom peaked in
a few days ago and imagine my surprise when I noted nothing has
changed and 80% of the post were you and Ed. * Kind of like a bad soap
opera. *I was only mildly surprised to find out you were arrested
sometime ago and had to do a little digging to find out what that was
all about. *You speak to an audience of 12, news groups are dying..
Facebook, specific bike forums (they monitor and throw malcontents
off), etc, have *replaced news groups - you guys are dinosaurs.

Enjoy speaking to a small crowd, I doubt I will run into you again,
unless of course you break into another meeting in a disingenuous
manner. *And thank god I will never run into Ed as he seems way to
ignorant to have anything remotely approaching a conversation.

Take care, Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

I have never spoken "during a break". The moderator agreed to let me
speak to replace someone who didn't show up. I gave the same paper I
have given at a dozen other conferences (none of them "feel good",
whatever that is), without a single objection or disagreement. I know
that some so-called "scientists" like you let their personal biases
cloud their judgment. Nothing new there. No real scientist has ever
found anything wrong with my paper, which is why it's so popular. Are
you saying that the scientists who screen the papers don't know what
they are doing? You are the one who doesn't know what you are doing.
You may be able to snow people who don't know anything about math, but
any mathematician knows that "modelling" papers are BS. Living things
don't obey your simple-minded math, or even complicated-minded math.

It was a break and the moderator disagrees and felt totally hijacked
by you. *there was no scheduled paper at that time. Face it your
abstract was rejected and you found another way to speak to a handful
of us who were hanging around waiting for the session to start again.
As to modeling, I suggest you read the high end journals to find out
just how stupid and silly you are - you are not connected to anything
important. Face it you are an expert only in your own mind (and Ed's
balls).

Take care, I have now bored of you. *It posting dozens of time to a
small audience makes you feel important keep at it. Have a nice life
and try and stay out of jail.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Typical! Depart when you find that your disguise (as a scientist) no
longer fools anyone.

Either you (probably) or she is lying. I asked her if I could give my
paper then, because the scheduled person didn't show up. She agreed!
Then in the middle of it, she changed her mind and said she was going
to have a break instead, and refused to explain why, either then or
later. There seems to be a rash of dishonest alleged "scientists"
around the subject of mountain biking, as though they can't be
objective when it's their sport. I feel sorry for any student who has
to deal with you.

You first claimed it was official you were taking the place of a
cancelled talk, then now you admit that I was correct. Please tell
the group what I know to be true, you submitted an abstract to give a
talk and it was rejected by the official committee; you then
bamboozled your way into unofficially trying to give a talk, when the
moderator realized she had been had and you were a nut case, she
stopped you - I was there and witnessed the whole thing; your
ramblings were viewed by those of us in the room as unintelligible and
pointless. The scientists with whom you are trying to align yourself
- (so the group can understand this was the international conference
of the Society of Conservation Biology - the top conservation
scientist in the world mind you), did not want to be associated with
you as you have nothing to offer us. You are not an expert in any
conservation field as you have conducted not one minute of original
research. You expertise is only found deeply embedded in your own
mind. You are simply irrelevant and reduced to posting ad naseum to a
small news group.

Enjoy, Rick

On Feb 10, 10:51*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:
On Feb 10, 10:01*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 10, 1:12*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:

On Feb 10, 1:05*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 10, 11:44*am, Rick Hopkins wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:13*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 9, 5:16*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:

On Feb 9, 2:23*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

"Rick Hopkins" wrote in message

...
On Feb 9, 12:27 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
[...]

You seem to be good at name-calling, but not much else. You can't even
follow a conversation. No one labelled you a mountain biker. You
fantasized that. Reread my last post and reply to it. No more
longwinded irrelevant off-topic rants, please.
Your attention span and reading comprehension is rather poor. *If you

had actually read the post you will see I clearly answered your
questions. *Oh, and medical research show that mt. bike injuries have
declined 56% since 1995.

I think mountain biking itself has declined by at least that much. Only
dyed-in-the-wool assholes continue to do it.

Paper published in medical journal in 2011

completed a long study of mt. bike injuries since 1995 to 2007. *The
net result from the medical profession is that the benefits (heart
health - pre-existing conditions should follow drs. advice) *of mt.
biking outweigh any risk. *So this line of reasoning if simply bogus.
Enjoy, Rick

The only bogus character here is you. The medical profession does not know
**** about anything other than their specialties. What they know least of
all is what it takes to be fit and healthy. Your extreme sport regimen is
for idiots. You will come to grief with it sooner or later, but since you
are such a dunderhead, you will have to learn that the hard way.

By the way, whether you mountain bike much or not is not the point. You
defend it which is the same thing in my book. Therefore ... to the Devil
with you!

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

Yeah why rely on experts when you and Mike just make **** up to fit
your tiny little world. *You guys remind me of when *Don Quixote quips
in the musical "Man of La Mancha" "facts are the enemy of truth". *I
take evidence based approaches. *If you dislike mt bikes in nature,
fine make your case, but relying on clearly deficient arguments makes
you two look stupider and stupider. * The clear consensus in the
medial profession (which are the experts on this not you two numnuts)
is that mt. biking has modest risk associated with it, and the health
benefits outweigh the risk. *I put you folks debating this point in
the same bucket of climate change deniers and creationist - you have a
preconceived notion and god forbid if anyone provides evidence which
disproves your preconceptions - instead of discarding poor arguments
and honing your opposition on evidence, you name call and attack those
who proffer contrary information as liars and mt. bikers. You are no
better then the anti-science crowd which controls the Republican Party
these days. *So no Ed, this is not a defense of mt biking, but one
that clearly exposes your line of reasoning that mt biking is so
dangerous it outweighs the health benefits (contrary to the opinion of
the experts that are trained to judge the relationship of health
benefit vs risk). *You and *Mike seems to be infatuated this notion
which is clearly deficient and wildly inconsistent with an evidence-
based approach. *But lacking facts has never stopped you two before
and doubt it will now. Enjoy

Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BS. I'm the world expert on the harm that mountain biking does, and I
have given papers on the subject at a couple dozen scientific
conferences. You haven't given a single citation to support your
contention. For example, how EXACTLY do you balance serious injury and
death against the alleged health benefits of mountain biking? What
WEIGHT, for example, to give a death? It can't be done, except
subjectively, so your conclusion is BS. That's like the m=land
managers who claim to be able to "BALANCE" recreation with
conservation. What a joke! You are nothing but an amateur pretending
to be a professional.

Mike, you have published no peered reviewed scientific articles on the
subject in any credible journal (Ecology, Con Bio, J. Animal Ecology,
J Wildlife Mgt, etc.). *Some of your talks are not official talks and
some are at feel good conferences where abstract rejection is near
zero. *- at the SCB talk in Sj a few years ago, during the break (I
assume your abstract was rejected because it was was fantasy - oh btw
I gave a rather well received talked on using sophisticated spatial
models to identify suitable habitats and landscape linkages in a
40,000 Km2 landscape in SoCal for the cougar) - you on the other hand,
badgered the monitor to let you speak during the break to the handful
of people who were simply hanging around. She later told us over beers
she was hijacked and was completely ****ed off by you. *In fact a
highly respected international conservation biologist leaned over to
where I and my colleagues were sitting and quipped " my god he has
just sucked all of the science out of the room" - and he did not mean
that as a compliment. *So you are the world authority only in your
mind. *You and Ed have been completely ineffective and have had
absolutely no influence on land use decisions relating to mt. bikes.

I have not been on news groups for months and out of boredom peaked in
a few days ago and imagine my surprise when I noted nothing has
changed and 80% of the post were you and Ed. * Kind of like a bad soap
opera. *I was only mildly surprised to find out you were arrested
sometime ago and had to do a little digging to find out what that was
all about. *You speak to an audience of 12, news groups are dying.
Facebook, specific bike forums (they monitor and throw malcontents
off), etc, have *replaced news groups - you guys are dinosaurs.

Enjoy speaking to a small crowd, I doubt I will run into you again,
unless of course you break into another meeting in a disingenuous
manner. *And thank god I will never run into Ed as he seems way to
ignorant to have anything remotely approaching a conversation.

Take care, Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

I have never spoken "during a break". The moderator agreed to let me
speak to replace someone who didn't show up. I gave the same paper I
have given at a dozen other conferences (none of them "feel good",
whatever that is), without a single objection or disagreement. I know
that some so-called "scientists" like you let their personal biases
cloud their judgment. Nothing new there. No real scientist has ever
found anything wrong with my paper, which is why it's so popular. Are
you saying that the scientists who screen the papers don't know what
they are doing? You are the one who doesn't know what you are doing..
You may be able to snow people who don't know anything about math, but
any mathematician knows that "modelling" papers are BS. Living things
don't obey your simple-minded math, or even complicated-minded math..

It was a break and the moderator disagrees and felt totally hijacked
by you. *there was no scheduled paper at that time. Face it your
abstract was rejected and you found another way to speak to a handful
of us who were hanging around waiting for the session to start again.
As to modeling, I suggest you read the high end journals to find out
just how stupid and silly you are - you are not connected to anything
important. Face it you are an expert only in your own mind (and Ed's
balls).

Take care, I have now bored of you. *It posting dozens of time to a
small audience makes you feel important keep at it. Have a nice life
and try and stay out of jail.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Typical! Depart when you find that your disguise (as a scientist) no
longer fools anyone.

Either you (probably) or she is lying. I asked her if I could give my
paper then, because the scheduled person didn't show up. She agreed!
Then in the middle of it, she changed her mind and said she was going
to have a break instead, and refused to explain why, either then or
later. There seems to be a rash of dishonest alleged "scientists"
around the subject of mountain biking, as though they can't be
objective when it's their sport. I feel sorry for any student who has
to deal with you.

You first claimed it was official

You are a liar (just like everyone else who mountain bikes)! I never
said any such thing.

you were taking the place of a
cancelled talk,

Yes, she agreed to have me give my talk then.

then now you admit that I was correct. *Please tell
the group what I know to be true, you submitted an abstract to give a
talk and it was rejected by the official committee; you then
bamboozled your way into unofficially trying to give a talk, when *the
moderator realized she had been had and you were a nut case,

BS. I have given the exact same talk at SCB conferences before,
starting at Columbia University in 2004. No one else has ever had a
single objection to it. She agreed to let me present my paper, then
changed her mind when she didn't like my conclusions. Or something
like that. She refused to say why, leading me to conclude, logically,
that she can't defend her actions openly.

she
stopped you - I was there and witnessed the whole thing; your
ramblings were viewed by those of us in the room as unintelligible and
pointless.

You must be pretty stupid, if you can't understand my talk. No one
else has ever said that (except mountain bikers -- what a
coincidence!).

*The scientists with whom you are trying to align yourself
- (so the group can understand this was the international conference
of the Society of Conservation Biology - the top conservation
scientist in the world mind you), did not want to be associated with
you as you have nothing to offer us. *You are not an expert in any
conservation field

I'm the world expert on mountain biking impacts, which is well known.
Can you name even ONE person who knows more about the subject than I
do, AND IS HONEST? Most of the researchers are themselves mountain
bikers, and produce nothing but biased "research" intended to justify
their sport. If you knew anything about the sport and research on it,
you would know that.

as you have conducted not one minute of original
research.

So what? It's not my profession. But I am qualified to judge the
research of others, most of which is worthless and biased, due to the
researcher trying to justify mountain biking. If you knew anything
about the subject, you would know that.

*You expertise is only found deeply embedded in your own
mind. *You are simply irrelevant and reduced to posting ad naseum to a
small news group.

Enjoy, Rick

On Feb 10, 10:51*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:
On Feb 10, 10:01*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 10, 1:12*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:

On Feb 10, 1:05*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 10, 11:44*am, Rick Hopkins wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:13*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 9, 5:16*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:

On Feb 9, 2:23*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

"Rick Hopkins" wrote in message

...
On Feb 9, 12:27 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
[...]

You seem to be good at name-calling, but not much else. You can't even
follow a conversation. No one labelled you a mountain biker. You
fantasized that. Reread my last post and reply to it. No more
longwinded irrelevant off-topic rants, please.
Your attention span and reading comprehension is rather poor. *If you

had actually read the post you will see I clearly answered your
questions. *Oh, and medical research show that mt. bike injuries have
declined 56% since 1995.

I think mountain biking itself has declined by at least that much. Only
dyed-in-the-wool assholes continue to do it.

Paper published in medical journal in 2011

completed a long study of mt. bike injuries since 1995 to 2007. *The
net result from the medical profession is that the benefits (heart
health - pre-existing conditions should follow drs. advice) *of mt.
biking outweigh any risk. *So this line of reasoning if simply bogus.
Enjoy, Rick

The only bogus character here is you. The medical profession does not know
**** about anything other than their specialties. What they know least of
all is what it takes to be fit and healthy. Your extreme sport regimen is
for idiots. You will come to grief with it sooner or later, but since you
are such a dunderhead, you will have to learn that the hard way.

By the way, whether you mountain bike much or not is not the point. You
defend it which is the same thing in my book. Therefore ... to the Devil
with you!

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

Yeah why rely on experts when you and Mike just make **** up to fit
your tiny little world. *You guys remind me of when *Don Quixote quips
in the musical "Man of La Mancha" "facts are the enemy of truth". *I
take evidence based approaches. *If you dislike mt bikes in nature,
fine make your case, but relying on clearly deficient arguments makes
you two look stupider and stupider. * The clear consensus in the
medial profession (which are the experts on this not you two numnuts)
is that mt. biking has modest risk associated with it, and the health
benefits outweigh the risk. *I put you folks debating this point in
the same bucket of climate change deniers and creationist - you have a
preconceived notion and god forbid if anyone provides evidence which
disproves your preconceptions - instead of discarding poor arguments
and honing your opposition on evidence, you name call and attack those
who proffer contrary information as liars and mt. bikers. You are no
better then the anti-science crowd which controls the Republican Party
these days. *So no Ed, this is not a defense of mt biking, but one
that clearly exposes your line of reasoning that mt biking is so
dangerous it outweighs the health benefits (contrary to the opinion of
the experts that are trained to judge the relationship of health
benefit vs risk). *You and *Mike seems to be infatuated this notion
which is clearly deficient and wildly inconsistent with an evidence-
based approach. *But lacking facts has never stopped you two before
and doubt it will now. Enjoy

Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BS. I'm the world expert on the harm that mountain biking does, and I
have given papers on the subject at a couple dozen scientific
conferences. You haven't given a single citation to support your
contention. For example, how EXACTLY do you balance serious injury and
death against the alleged health benefits of mountain biking? What
WEIGHT, for example, to give a death? It can't be done, except
subjectively, so your conclusion is BS. That's like the m=land
managers who claim to be able to "BALANCE" recreation with
conservation. What a joke! You are nothing but an amateur pretending
to be a professional.

Mike, you have published no peered reviewed scientific articles on the
subject in any credible journal (Ecology, Con Bio, J. Animal Ecology,
J Wildlife Mgt, etc.). *Some of your talks are not official talks and
some are at feel good conferences where abstract rejection is near
zero. *- at the SCB talk in Sj a few years ago, during the break (I
assume your abstract was rejected because it was was fantasy - oh btw
I gave a rather well received talked on using sophisticated spatial
models to identify suitable habitats and landscape linkages in a
40,000 Km2 landscape in SoCal for the cougar) - you on the other hand,
badgered the monitor to let you speak during the break to the handful
of people who were simply hanging around. She later told us over beers
she was hijacked and was completely ****ed off by you. *In fact a
highly respected international conservation biologist leaned over to
where I and my colleagues were sitting and quipped " my god he has
just sucked all of the science out of the room" - and he did not mean
that as a compliment. *So you are the world authority only in your
mind. *You and Ed have been completely ineffective and have had
absolutely no influence on land use decisions relating to mt. bikes.

I have not been on news groups for months and out of boredom peaked in
a few days ago and imagine my surprise when I noted nothing has
changed and 80% of the post were you and Ed. * Kind of like a bad soap
opera. *I was only mildly surprised to find out you were arrested
sometime ago and had to do a little digging to find out what that was
all about. *You speak to an audience of 12, news groups are dying.
Facebook, specific bike forums (they monitor and throw malcontents
off), etc, have *replaced news groups - you guys are dinosaurs.

Enjoy speaking to a small crowd, I doubt I will run into you again,
unless of course you break into another meeting in a disingenuous
manner. *And thank god I will never run into Ed as he seems way to
ignorant to have anything remotely approaching a conversation.

Take care, Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

I have never spoken "during a break". The moderator agreed to let me
speak to replace someone who didn't show up. I gave the same paper I
have given at a dozen other conferences (none of them "feel good",
whatever that is), without a single objection or disagreement. I know
that some so-called "scientists" like you let their personal biases
cloud their judgment. Nothing new there. No real scientist has ever
found anything wrong with my paper, which is why it's so popular. Are
you saying that the scientists who screen the papers don't know what
they are doing? You are the one who doesn't know what you are doing..
You may be able to snow people who don't know anything about math, but
any mathematician knows that "modelling" papers are BS. Living things
don't obey your simple-minded math, or even complicated-minded math..

It was a break and the moderator disagrees and felt totally hijacked
by you. *there was no scheduled paper at that time. Face it your
abstract was rejected and you found another way to speak to a handful
of us who were hanging around waiting for the session to start again.
As to modeling, I suggest you read the high end journals to find out
just how stupid and silly you are - you are not connected to anything
important. Face it you are an expert only in your own mind (and Ed's
balls).

Take care, I have now bored of you. *It posting dozens of time to a
small audience makes you feel important keep at it. Have a nice life
and try and stay out of jail.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Typical! Depart when you find that your disguise (as a scientist) no
longer fools anyone.

Either you (probably) or she is lying. I asked her if I could give my
paper then, because the scheduled person didn't show up. She agreed!
Then in the middle of it, she changed her mind and said she was going
to have a break instead, and refused to explain why, either then or
later. There seems to be a rash of dishonest alleged "scientists"
around the subject of mountain biking, as though they can't be
objective when it's their sport. I feel sorry for any student who has
to deal with you.

You first claimed it was official you were taking the place of a
cancelled talk, then now you admit that I was correct. *Please tell
the group what I know to be true, you submitted an abstract to give a
talk and it was rejected by the official committee; you then
bamboozled your way into unofficially trying to give a talk, when *the
moderator realized she had been had and you were a nut case, she
stopped you - I was there and witnessed the whole thing; your
ramblings were viewed by those of us in the room as unintelligible and
pointless. *The scientists with whom you are trying to align yourself
- (so the group can understand this was the international conference
of the Society of Conservation Biology - the top conservation
scientist in the world mind you), did not want to be associated with
you as you have nothing to offer us. *You are not an expert in any
conservation field as you have conducted not one minute of original
research. *You expertise is only found deeply embedded in your own
mind. *You are simply irrelevant and reduced to posting ad naseum to a
small news group.

You, on the other hand, are here for a more noble purpose, right?
Which is? ...

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
[...] You mean that on at least 24 occasions, you have ranted to a bunch of
your fellow conspirators, probably over a considerable quantity of
alcohol.

I think you'll find that doesn't quite qualify as "peer review".

The only conspirators I know about are mountain bikers who are all without
any exceptions LIARS and DISHONEST. Mr. Vandeman sure knows how to tell it
like it is. I would add that they are also assholes and ****heads who
deserve whatever injuries they bring on themselves in pursuit of their
insanely stupid sport. When they manage to kill themselves riding their
bikes on hiking trails, I rejoice. Just one less fool in the world. Or as
the Great Michael Vandeman would say ... evolution in action. ****'em all to
Hell I say!

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