ANOTHER Mountain Biker Dies!

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 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:18:23 -0800 (PST), 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.

Just for grins, I wonder if you can find anything SPECIFIC that is
wrong with my paper? http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm. I doubt it.
You have amply proven that you are nothing but hot air. I'm sure you
will try to wriggle out of this.

Take care, Rick


Your vaunted paper is just another piece of tripe posted to your own
web site. No peer review, no committee reading and approving your
dissertation. Just you crying in the wilderness.

Proof of what? Your delusions?
Cheers,

Schweik

On Feb 11, 9:37*am, Phil W Lee wrote:
Mike Vandeman considered Fri, 10 Feb 2012
00:13:00 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:





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.

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.

Sorry to disappoint you. I don't drink. All of the conferences, and my
talks, were full of scientists. NOT ONE has ever found anything wrong
with my papers. That is plenty of peer review. So is this: Vandeman,
Michael J. ), 2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking
on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R.
E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of
Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156;
expanded version also available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

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

On Feb 11, 9:50*am, Phil W Lee wrote:
Mike Vandeman considered Fri, 10 Feb 2012
13:05:23 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:





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.

You mean you bullied and browbeat her into it.

Nope. It hardly took any persuading, since the paper has been given
many times before.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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.

You mean it was completely ignored.
Not surprising really.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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.

Ah, so there is only ONE "paper", which all the scientific
establishment regard with such contempt that they utterly ignore it.

One is all it took. Debunking mountain biking is child's play.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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.

I think I see your problem. *You don't understand it, so you pretend
it can be ignored.

I was trained as a mathematician, so I understand that stuff more than
either of you two.

It's not all that surprising that you end up bitter and twisted when
people recognise your ignorance and disregard your "science".

I'm not surprized by corrupt mountain biker "scientists". Neither is
anyone else fooled.

You are wasting your time, because it's obvious that someone like you,
who is incapable of giving any specifics, is LYING. Also known as
"BLUFFING".

On Feb 10, 10:37*am, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 10, 3:13*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. snip
What a joke! You are nothing but an amateur pretending
to be a professional.

You have presented "papers" related to the harm that mountain biking
does at 24 conferences, huh?

Name the conferences. If you can't, then you are obviously lying
again.

Don't bother responding with anything other than a list of 24
conferences.

Ask how he got to said conferences. He sure as hell didn't hike,
especially to the ones overseas. He took one of the most harmful modes
of transportation, commercial airlines.

On Feb 11, 7:31*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:37*am, Phil W Lee wrote:









Mike Vandeman considered Fri, 10 Feb 2012
00:13:00 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

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.

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.

Sorry to disappoint you. I don't drink. All of the conferences, and my
talks, were full of scientists. NOT ONE has ever found anything wrong
with my papers. That is plenty of peer review. So is this: Vandeman,
Michael J. ), 2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking
on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R.
E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of
Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156;
expanded version also available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.


How did you get to these conferences?

Awhile back you denied you even attended them, now you boast about it.
Typical convicted criminal, always lying.

On Feb 11, 5:46*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:
On Feb 11, 7:31*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:





On Feb 11, 9:37*am, Phil W Lee wrote:

Mike Vandeman considered Fri, 10 Feb 2012
00:13:00 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

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.

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.

Sorry to disappoint you. I don't drink. All of the conferences, and my
talks, were full of scientists. NOT ONE has ever found anything wrong
with my papers. That is plenty of peer review. So is this: Vandeman,
Michael J. ), 2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking
on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R.
E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of
Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156;
expanded version also available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

How did you get to these conferences?

Awhile back you denied you even attended them, now you boast about it.
Typical convicted criminal, always lying.

You are full of it, like ALL mountain bikers. You wouldn't know the
truth if it bit you in the ass -- which it does frequently. If you
aren't going to tell the truth, why do you bother posting???

On Feb 11, 5:44*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:
On Feb 10, 10:37*am, Shraga wrote:





On Feb 10, 3:13*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. snip
What a joke! You are nothing but an amateur pretending
to be a professional.

You have presented "papers" related to the harm that mountain biking
does at 24 conferences, huh?

Name the conferences. If you can't, then you are obviously lying
again.

Don't bother responding with anything other than a list of 24
conferences.

Ask how he got to said conferences. He sure as hell didn't hike,
especially to the ones overseas. He took one of the most harmful modes
of transportation, commercial airlines.

Prove it, liar.

"Len McGoogle" wrote in message
...
[,,,]
Typical convicted criminal, always lying.

You lie about your name always. What's the matter? Afraid to use your real
name. The only lying coward here is you!

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

On Feb 11, 3:18*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.

Just for grins, I wonder if you can find anything SPECIFIC that is
wrong with my paper?http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm. I doubt it.
You have amply proven that you are nothing but hot air. I'm sure you
will try to wriggle out of this.



Take care, Rick

Just as I predicted! Dr. Hopkins runs away, rather than admit that he
can't provide any SPECIFICS. He is nothing but HOT AIR and gratuitous
insults. How "scientific"! Idiot.