ANOTHER Mountain Biker Dies!

"Bob Berger" wrote in message
...
[...]
Would you please list a few credible academic institutions and/or
scientific
organizations that in published documents have listed you as "the world
expert
on mountain biking impacts"; and please provide links to copies of those
documents. I'm thinking of institutions and organizations like, for
example,
Princeton University, Stanford, or the American Academy of Sciences.

What is all this blather about being published and academic institutions? I,
Ed Dolan the Great, have declared Michael Vandeman to be the world's
foremost expert on the damage that mountain biking does to hiking trails.
That should be good enough even for an idiot like you.

By the way, my credentials are impeccable (far superior to those of asshole
academics and their ****ed-up institutions) since I have hiked thousands of
milles on trails in the Western US. It used to be a pleasant experience
before the advent of mountain biking. ****'em all the way to Hell and back I
say!

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

On Feb 16, 4:58*pm, Bob Berger wrote:
In article ,
Mike Vandeman says...







On Feb 16, 8:39=A0am, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:15=A0pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 15, 5:57=A0pm, Shraga wrote:

On Feb 15, 4:17=A0pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 14, 11:17=A0am, Shraga wrote:
Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
"literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Please post the citation when you're done.

I did already. 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 , Herpetological Conservation
3:155-156; expanded version also available athttp://mjvande.nfshost=
.com/herp.htm.

Did I write "book chapter?" No, I didn't. I wrote "peer-reviewed
journal."

You're redirecting again to hide the fact you can't publish a paper i=
n
a referred journal. Still, that's not even relevant, because we're
discussing THIS paper:

http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm

It's the same paper, just shortened to fit in the book. It was also,
of course, peer-reviewed. If it were really "a load of garbage", it
wouldn't have been published. DUH!

It's not worth having a discussion with you if you can't even figure
out which paper we're discussing.

You couldn't "discuss" your way out of a paper bag. You haven't even
READ the paper you claim to be "discussing". The fact that you are
afraid to give your real name says it all: you are bluffing, and don't
know what you are talking about. You can't even come up with your own
criticisms! You plagiarized someone else's! And someone who obviously
didn't read or understand my paper. All of your hot air is simply a
smoke screen to avoid admitting that I am right: mountain biking is
extremely dangerous and destructive, and should be banned everywhere!

I want to see you publish THAT paper in a peer-reviewed journal. My
point is, you can't, because it's a load of garbage, as you well know=
.

How would you know? You haven't read it. My paper proves that "a load
of garbage" can get published in a "peer-reviewed" journal, when the
reviewers are either idiots, biased, or both. If you were as smart as
you THINK you are, you would already know that. Or are you too
dishonest to admit that?

Your "paper" proves only your inability to get published in a journal
and nothing more.

It's much more difficult to get a chapter in a BOOK, as I did, than to
publish in a journal.
I was INVITED to contribute to the book, because
they recognize that I am the world expert on mountain
biking impacts,

Would you please list a few credible academic institutions and/or scientific
organizations that in published documents have listed you as "the world expert
on mountain biking impacts"; and please provide links to copies of those
documents. I'm thinking of institutions and organizations like, for example,
Princeton University, Stanford, or the American Academy of Sciences.

which you also know but are afraid to admit. You are pathetic.

May I also ask you to explain a seeming inconsistency in what you wrote above.

First, you wrote: "It's the same paper, just shortened to fit in the book.. It

was also, of course, peer-reviewed. If it were really "a load of garbage", it
wouldn't have been published. DUH!"

Then you wrote," My paper proves that "a load of garbage" can get published in a
"peer-reviewed" journal, when the reviewers are either idiots, biased, or both."

I have a better idea: you tell ME who the world experts are. But if
you could have done that, you would already have done so! So it is I,
after all. QED

On Feb 16, 7:21*pm, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 16, 4:35*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 16, 9:17*am, Shraga wrote:
You are guilty of dishonesty or stupidity if you claim you reviewed
"ALL of them to date." Because you didn't do that. At all.

Yes, I did: EVERY experimental study to date. Show me even ONE that I
missed! You CAN'T, as you well know. In fact, you probably haven't
even read all of them, as I have.

So which is it, Mike? You read them all, or you just cherry-picked
them off IMBA's Web site?

If it's "all," then why are you afraid to post the name of this
miraculous search engine you use and your search terms?





By that same logic, your papers are deliberately biased against
mountain biking. What's your point?

No, they aren't. I just tell the truth. The studies' conclusions don't
follow from their data.

Mike, I have read your paper. If you were an undergraduate turning it
in for an introductory creative writing course, I would probably give
you an A. It's clever.

However, you fail in nearly every section to provide rational
scientific rebuttals to the passages in question. Instead, you provide
speculation based on your biased observations.

BS. I critique the studies just as an unbiased professor or editor
would do. Wilson and Seney's conclusions don't follow from their own
data! They claim to be measuring erosion, but don't do that! No
"citation" of anytone else's research is needed, because my point is
perfectly obvious. In all of the dozens of times I have discussed that
paper at scientific conferences, not one person has ever questioned or
argued with that point.

Nobody argues with you, Mike, because you are creepy. People hope the
less you are engaged, the sooner you will leave.

Awkward silences aren't evidence of success.

Comparing yourself with a professor or editor is a stretch. You're
qualified for neither, and my argument stands. Your biased dogma
doesn't refute the science.

snip more recycled dogma

You can prove me wrong by getting the full article published in a peer
reviewed journal.

I published in a book, but you choose to ignore it.

Stop waving around this minor accomplishment. If you're looking for
congratulations, you should go elsewhere.

Your silly book chapter is irrelevant to the conversation, which you
seem to be having a LOT of trouble following.

You would ignore
my paper, wherever it was published, because your mind is closed
against anything unfavorable to mountain biking. Why don't you get
IMBA to include the Wisdom et al paper on their website? It is good
science,but doesn't support mountain biking. I know you can't do that,
and won't even try, because you don't care about science or the truth.

Oh lord no, Mike. You are so very wrong there. I would LOVE to read
ANYTHING you get published in a peer-reviewed journal. That is the
absolute truth.

You know what I just did, Mike? I just skimmed over an article,
"Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on
vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America."

BS. If it was a real article, you would have supplied the citation.
Bluffing again?

The authors of that peer-reviewed work performed an EXTENSIVE
literature review, citing around 130 related articles, including most
of the ones you cited in your opinion piece.

Yet... Of the ~130, you know who is NOT cited or even mentioned?

You.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 16, 7:21*pm, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 16, 4:35*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 16, 9:17*am, Shraga wrote:
You are guilty of dishonesty or stupidity if you claim you reviewed
"ALL of them to date." Because you didn't do that. At all.

Yes, I did: EVERY experimental study to date. Show me even ONE that I
missed! You CAN'T, as you well know. In fact, you probably haven't
even read all of them, as I have.

So which is it, Mike? You read them all, or you just cherry-picked
them off IMBA's Web site?

If it's "all," then why are you afraid to post the name of this
miraculous search engine you use and your search terms?





By that same logic, your papers are deliberately biased against
mountain biking. What's your point?

No, they aren't. I just tell the truth. The studies' conclusions don't
follow from their data.

Mike, I have read your paper. If you were an undergraduate turning it
in for an introductory creative writing course, I would probably give
you an A. It's clever.

However, you fail in nearly every section to provide rational
scientific rebuttals to the passages in question. Instead, you provide
speculation based on your biased observations.

BS. I critique the studies just as an unbiased professor or editor
would do. Wilson and Seney's conclusions don't follow from their own
data! They claim to be measuring erosion, but don't do that! No
"citation" of anytone else's research is needed, because my point is
perfectly obvious. In all of the dozens of times I have discussed that
paper at scientific conferences, not one person has ever questioned or
argued with that point.

Nobody argues with you, Mike, because you are creepy.

Your statement disproves itself! Nice trick!

On Feb 17, 2:13*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Feb 16, 7:21*pm, Shraga wrote:

You know what I just did, Mike? I just skimmed over an article,
"Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on
vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America."

BS. If it was a real article, you would have supplied the citation.
Bluffing again?

No, but you're definitely lying again.

You see those quotes, moron? That means I quoted something. I figured
someone who tried to write a literature review would be able to figure
that out. Guess not.

Since you're too lazy to do it yourself, here you go:

http://bit.ly/xQcTh2

On Feb 16, 11:43*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Feb 16, 7:21*pm, Shraga wrote:

Comparing yourself with a professor or editor is a stretch. You're
qualified for neither, and my argument stands. Your biased dogma
doesn't refute the science.

IMBA's lsi includes only junk science.

Then why was it the basis for your "scientific" literature review, and
why do you claim to have read all the science on the topic, if there
isn't any?

Make up your mind.

snip more recycled dogma

Stop waving around this minor accomplishment. If you're looking for
congratulations, you should go elsewhere.

It's not a minor accomplishment. Show us even ONE paper you have
published on ths subject, which you pretend to be an expert on!

Show me where I claimed to be an expert on the subject, liar.

And yes, getting two pages in a book is pretty minor, especially given
your preposterous claims at "expert" status. Stop kidding yourself.
Your lack of academic stature proves your irrelevance.

Your silly book chapter is irrelevant to the conversation, which you
seem to be having a LOT of trouble following.

You are bluffing again! You obviously haven't READ it.!

Bring it up all you want. It still has nothing to do with this
conversation. I responded to this post, intended for Dr. Hopkins:

"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."

That link doesn't go to your woefully brief book chapter. It goes to a
~15 page opinion piece, which I successfully refuted.

Besides, I can't access your mini-chapter because I don't have access
to that book. You keep posting an "expanded version," but that wasn't
published verbatim, now was it, Mike? Your bait and switch won't work
on me.

You know what I just did, Mike? I just skimmed over an article,
"Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on
vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America."
The authors of that peer-reviewed work performed an EXTENSIVE
literature review, citing around 130 related articles, including most
of the ones you cited in your opinion piece.

Obviously, they can't tell science from junk science, if they trust
that garbage.

Yet... Of the ~130, you know who is NOT cited or even mentioned?

You.

What's your point? Or IS there one?

You claim to be "the world expert on the harm that mountain biking
does" and that you "have given papers on the subject at a *couple
dozen* scientific conferences;" yet there is NO evidence to support
your "expert" status. You often challenge this forum to provide the
name of one expert who knows more than you on the topic. Well, the
authors of that paper did, in spades, and you, Mike, were NOT
included.

My point is this: despite over a decade of effort on the topic, you
are unknown and unsupported in the field you so desperately want to
think you are part of.

Instead, the most recognition you have achieved from your efforts thus
far is this:

http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealer...52810-37NC.htm

On Feb 17, 9:13*am, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 16, 11:43*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 16, 7:21*pm, Shraga wrote:
Comparing yourself with a professor or editor is a stretch. You're
qualified for neither, and my argument stands. Your biased dogma
doesn't refute the science.

IMBA's lsi includes only junk science.

Then why was it the basis for your "scientific" literature review, and
why do you claim to have read all the science on the topic, if there
isn't any?

There is: Wisdom et al. Pay attention. I know it's hard for you.

Make up your mind.

snip more recycled dogma
Stop waving around this minor accomplishment. If you're looking for
congratulations, you should go elsewhere.

It's not a minor accomplishment. Show us even ONE paper you have
published on ths subject, which you pretend to be an expert on!

Show me where I claimed to be an expert on the subject, liar.

Then if you aren't an expert, do your homework, as I have. You
admitted to "skimming" an article. That is what passes for "study"
among mountain bikers.

And yes, getting two pages in a book is pretty minor, especially given
your preposterous claims at "expert" status. Stop kidding yourself.
Your lack of academic stature proves your irrelevance.

None of the other researchers were able to get even ONE page in that
book. That proves that I am the world expert.

Your silly book chapter is irrelevant to the conversation, which you
seem to be having a LOT of trouble following.

You are bluffing again! You obviously haven't READ it.!

Bring it up all you want. It still has nothing to do with this
conversation. I responded to this post, intended for Dr. Hopkins:

The "doctor" is out. Ran away with his tail between his legs, after
producing nothing but how air, just like you.

"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."

That link doesn't go to your woefully brief book chapter. It goes to a
~15 page opinion piece, which I successfully refuted.

BS. You weren't able to find a single thing scientifically wrong with
it.

Besides, I can't access your mini-chapter because I don't have access
to that book.

No money? Good. Evolution in action.

You keep posting an "expanded version," but that wasn't
published verbatim, now was it, Mike? Your bait and switch won't work
on me.

Yawn.

You know what I just did, Mike? I just skimmed over an article,
"Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on
vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America."
The authors of that peer-reviewed work performed an EXTENSIVE
literature review, citing around 130 related articles, including most
of the ones you cited in your opinion piece.

Obviously, they can't tell science from junk science, if they trust
that garbage.

Yet... Of the ~130, you know who is NOT cited or even mentioned?

You.

What's your point? Or IS there one?

You claim to be "the world expert on the harm that mountain biking
does" and that you "have given papers on the subject at a *couple
dozen* scientific conferences;" yet there is NO evidence to support
your "expert" status.

You just listed evidence of that.

You often challenge this forum to provide the
name of one expert who knows more than you on the topic. Well, the
authors of that paper did, in spades, and you, Mike, were NOT
included.

BS. That paper made the same mistake that the other junk science
authors did: their conclusions don't follow from their data. They
admitted that after 500 passes, mountain biking has greater impacts.
QED They also say mountain biking impacts are "similar" to hiking
impacts, an unscientific, unquantifiable word.

My point is this: despite over a decade of effort on the topic, you
are unknown and unsupported in the field you so desperately want to
think you are part of.

BS. They all know me and my work, they just don't want to admit that
I'm right.

Instead, the most recognition you have achieved from your efforts thus
far is this:

http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealer...52810-37NC.htm

Sorry to disappoint you: "Charge dismissed". Must have ruined your
day, if not your year.

On Feb 17, 1:49*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Feb 17, 9:13*am, Shraga wrote:

My point is this: despite over a decade of effort on the topic, you
are unknown and unsupported in the field you so desperately want to
think you are part of.

BS. They all know me and my work, they just don't want to admit that
I'm right.

Wrong. You just don't want to admit you are irrelevant.

It wouldn't surprise me if they knew your "work," Mike. They probably
had a good laugh at your desperate cries for attention right before
they properly categorized your email as junk.

Instead, the most recognition you have achieved from your efforts thus
far is this:

http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealer...52810-37NC.htm

Sorry to disappoint you: "Charge dismissed". Must have ruined your
day, if not your year.

Hardly. I chuckle every time I see your mugshot.

Go look up "recognition" in the dictionary, idiot. It has nothing to
do with whether you were innocent or guilty and EVERYTHING to do with
the fact that you are more widely recognized for being charged with
assault than you are for being an expert on anything.

On Feb 17, 12:11*pm, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 17, 1:49*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 17, 9:13*am, Shraga wrote:
My point is this: despite over a decade of effort on the topic, you
are unknown and unsupported in the field you so desperately want to
think you are part of.

BS. They all know me and my work, they just don't want to admit that
I'm right.

Wrong. You just don't want to admit you are irrelevant.

BS. If I were irrelevant, you would be spending your valuable time
attempting to discredit me, 100% unsuccessfully, of course..

Let us know when you decide to come clean and use your real name and
start telling the truth. Until then, you are hereby officially a non-
person.

In article ,
Mike Vandeman says...

On Feb 16, 4:58=A0pm, Bob Berger wrote:
In article =
om,
Mike Vandeman says...

SNIP

...I am the world expert on mountain
biking impacts,

Would you please list a few credible academic institutions and/or
scientific organizations that in published documents have listed
you as "the world expert on mountain biking impacts"; and please
provide links to copies of those documents. I'm thinking of
institutions and organizations like, for example, Princeton
University, Stanford, or the American Academy of Sciences.

SNIP

I have a better idea: you tell ME who the world experts are. But if
you could have done that, you would already have done so! So it is I,
after all. QED

It was a simple request. I asked that you backup your claim, and you dodged the
request; as I expected, since I doubt you can provide the information requested.
If you could have, you would have.

I have no idea who's recognized as the real world's expert on the subject.
Couldn't find any credible assignments of the title. But, since the topic is so
insignificant, it's quite possible no authoritative source has bothered.