Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:23:14 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:
You haven't presented one good reason to accept your opinions are more
valid
than the findings presented by the actual researchers who performed the
actual study (or studies).

I just did, and you erased it. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

You said NOTHING but the same opinion you have stated before. You did what
you always do when confronted with information counter to your OPINION.
You
simply proclaim it invalid and attempt to discredit it with your OPINION.
You have not performed a single field study yourself and rely on others to
do so. If it matches your opinion, you proclaim it is "proof". If it does
not support your opinion, you discount it.
I erased NOTHING because there was NOTHING to erase because you said
NOTHING
of relevance.

How would you know, since you obviously didn't READ it?

I've read it. But it was so infused with your unfounded opinions that it was
a joke to even refer to it as anything but a parody. You even referenced
yourself as a resource! Pathetic.

You have not created a single bit of information.
You have simply pointed to research you agree with and proclaim it
"valid"
and pointed to research counter to your opinion and proclaimed it
"junk".
"Because you say so" is not good enough. That is proven as your opinions
have been presented time and again and discounted by the people whose
job
it is to assess information in the creation of rules of access and trail
useage.You are merely a child making a huff for not getting his way. It
is sad. It
is pathetic. It is hysterical.
No comment on the full context...? No comment on the direct reference to
your methods...? I, and anyone else with a valid interest in the issue,
would read that as confirmation of your lack of integrity in review of
others' work.

Biking on-road is much more hazardous. Significantly more on-road cyclists
are injured or killed each year than off-road cyclists.

On-road cyclists require roads that are created by decimating tracts of
land. Paved roads will not recover for eons. Off-road tracks leave a
significantly smaller footprint and if not used, will completely recover in
a very short time.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:39:28 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:
So you admit that there is absolutely no good reason to allow bikes
off-road? QED

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:18:22 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 08:01:55 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

Can you explain how a conference is considered an independent
confirmation?

I wouldn't be allowed to speak (not just ONCE, but REPEATEDLY), if my
paper weren't of scientific quality.

That doesn't imply independent confirmation. It just implies that you
were
allowed speak more than once.

Yes, NINE times against mountain biking. Must be valid.

Interesting. So if someone I know has spoken numerous times on how to build
mountain bike trails, does that imply that their assertions are
scientifically valid? Does it imply that building mountain bike trails is
legal?

Regardless of your baseless opinions (and lies), there are numerous mountain
bike trails around here that are legally used every day. They will continue
to be legally used now, and in the future. This is also the case for
numerous locations all over the world. It is legal, it is promoted by land
owners and various branches of government, and you cannot do anything to
change that. Sorry, but that is the truth.

Perhaps he could speak at something like this?
http://www.imba.com/resources/summit...ler_index.html



"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message
oups.com...
Now, now - MJV is injured when you talk like that. He knows that
without peer-review, published papers are meaningless. And
self-published papers, by their very nature, are not peer-reviewed.

But MJV knows that his "research" would never be published in a real
scientific journal. And it hurts him that we all know this, too.

As he like to retort ad nauseum - the truth hurts.

E.P.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:44:03 -0800, cc wrote:
Very funny. My papers speak for themselves

Perhaps, but nobody is listening.

S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:30:00 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:
Wordplay. You can not explain away your lack of credibility by grasping
at
a
statement I did not make. The case has been made and ACCEPTED for
off-road
cycling. Your acceptance of this TRUTH is a non-issue. Your opinions are
a
non-issue in the scope of the reality of actual information and
progress.

So you admit that there is absolutely no good reason to allow bikes
off-road? QED
I do not have to admit anything.

So you don't want to admit that there is absolutely no good reason to
allow bikes off-road? QED

You haven't the authority to determine what is a "good reason". Those that
do have already made the determination.

Ding! We have a winner! The reason is simple: people want to do it,
and it is allowed by law and land management personnel. Any attempt to
deconstruct this for semantics games is sophistry, but that won't stop
him, will it?

Why do land managers allow it? Because people want to do it, and it
has the same impact on the land as recreational hiking. So no reason
NOT to allow it. Now, MJV wants to argue that the science doesn't
support it, but his opinions on what constitutes sound science is
suspect. (Very large understatement). Fact is, the ultimate land
owners (whether the public or the private lands manager) know very well
that use of the land for recreation is net benefit for all parties, and
that allowing such recreation as fits with the land only makes sense
(another area in which MJV is severely impaired.)

The question becomes, really, why should land managers disallow the use
of MTBs on those managed lands? Prove, with science, that the harms
are any different from other recreational uses that might be allowed
(like hiking, for instance.) Leave aside the Utopian pipe-dream of no
recreation anywhere. Since that's never going to happen, it's an
idiotic suggestion.

E.P.

And share the details of your responsible pet ownership.

You can't!!!!

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:44:03 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike, who do you think you're
fooling? You have NEVER been
published in a peer-reviewed
journal, and are therefore
voiceless in any meaningful
scientific forum. PERIOD.

cc

Very funny. My papers speak for themselves


Very funny. Your papers are fictional nonsense.
Post URL's to validate. Your LYING website doesn't count.
You cannot back up your lying rants at all.

On 24 Nov 2006 23:28:35 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:30:00 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:
Wordplay. You can not explain away your lack of credibility by grasping
at
a
statement I did not make. The case has been made and ACCEPTED for
off-road
cycling. Your acceptance of this TRUTH is a non-issue. Your opinions are
a
non-issue in the scope of the reality of actual information and
progress.

So you admit that there is absolutely no good reason to allow bikes
off-road? QED
I do not have to admit anything.

So you don't want to admit that there is absolutely no good reason to
allow bikes off-road? QED

You haven't the authority to determine what is a "good reason". Those that
do have already made the determination.

Ding! We have a winner! The reason is simple: people want to do it,
and it is allowed by law and land management personnel. Any attempt to
deconstruct this for semantics games is sophistry, but that won't stop
him, will it?

Why do land managers allow it? Because people want to do it,

Not a good reason. They want to grow marijuana, too, but they aren't
allowed. Try again.

and it
has the same impact on the land as recreational hiking.

That's a LIE, and you know it: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

So no reason
NOT to allow it. Now, MJV wants to argue that the science doesn't
support it, but his opinions on what constitutes sound science is
suspect. (Very large understatement). Fact is, the ultimate land
owners (whether the public or the private lands manager) know very well
that use of the land for recreation is net benefit for all parties, and
that allowing such recreation as fits with the land only makes sense
(another area in which MJV is severely impaired.)

The question becomes, really, why should land managers disallow the use
of MTBs on those managed lands? Prove, with science, that the harms
are any different from other recreational uses that might be allowed
(like hiking, for instance.) Leave aside the Utopian pipe-dream of no
recreation anywhere. Since that's never going to happen, it's an
idiotic suggestion.

E.P.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

Biking on-road is much more hazardous. Significantly more on-road cyclists
are injured or killed each year than off-road cyclists.

So what? Trails don't go to transportation destinations, so they are
irrelevant. The only solution to the car problem is to get rid of the
cars. DUH!

On-road cyclists require roads that are created by decimating tracts of
land. Paved roads will not recover for eons. Off-road tracks leave a
significantly smaller footprint and if not used, will completely recover in
a very short time.

That's a LIE, as you well know.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:39:28 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:
So you admit that there is absolutely no good reason to allow bikes
off-road? QED

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande