A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old December 16th 06, 05:57 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
xxx
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Vandeman is a Fool

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:59:04 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 12 Dec 2006 17:40:35 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

As president bush does every thing he can to stop the US from passing
legislation that would limit the amount of CO2 into the World's atmosphere,
Vande-monkey is bashing a couple of people who I feel love the environment
and want to be part of it their own respective way.

Vande-monkey was frightened by some mean-old mountain biker 8 years ago.
He has been on a crusade ever since to try to get those mean-old mountain
bikers from scaring him again. Bet he has night mares from that initial
incident.

Mike,
So many people already ignore you, you appear to have a good heart and
good intent, but man, you are a fool if you actually believe that you have
convinced ONE mountain biker from never riding it again.

Stop wasting your time here and go be productive, because I am.

PLONK


Good riddance. You have nothing to offer but lies. Your post above is
a perfect example. You know NOTHING about me and why I oppose mountain
biking, in spite of it being spelled out clearly on my web site. But
you have to be able to read words of more than one syl-la-ble.


No, Mike, YOU haven't provided ONE good reason for disliking mountain
biking. Put up or shut up.



NOT A VADEMAN FAN....



However, I've heard bike riding in general is bad for the Earth for
two reasons:

1. When meansuring CO2 Generated per mile, per pound carred, per
person, some bike riders generated more CO2 than if they filled a fuel
efficient car, and just drove to their desination.

2. Bike riders are active, and increased activity levels can lead
towards longer lives. Each day a human is alive it generates CO2,
consumers water, and natural resources. So bike riding, can
indirectly lead to faster natural resource depletion.

Clearly all this means all bike riding should be banned.

XXX
Ads
  #122  
Old December 17th 06, 04:47 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:44:31 -0800, cc wrote:

I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk
or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time.
But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything
questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the
talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is
something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has
been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying
colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about
scientific conferences.
Wrong answer, bucko. I am
intimately familiar with them.


No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR.


You read my specifics. You
just didn't un-der-stand them.
Moron.


" Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them."

Where do you see any specifics?
===
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
  #123  
Old December 17th 06, 04:58 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:45:13 -0800, cc wrote:

Michael Halliwell wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:13:07 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:45:32 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:14:21 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:43:12 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:11:18 -0700, Paul Cassel
wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

Mountain
bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights.

Neither do hiking shoes.

Maybe if you didn't wear shoes, you'd have a leg to stand on.
Otherwise, you are just being a hypocrite.

No, the point is that - by engaging in an activity shown to do equal
damage to trails

Repeating that lie doesn't make it true.


That "lie" is backed up by
scientists who are accredited
and publish in peer-reviewed
journals.

Name ONE such scientist. (Hint: you can't.)

Mike, I'm not going to do your
homework for you. You know the
references I am referring to
very well, as you've cited
them in the pieces of trash
you continually post here.

(Just as I said: you can't!!!!!)

It's on your site. Try reading
YOUR OWN bibliography, moron.

Then you should have no trouble finding a peer-reviewed study, IF one
exists. You CAN'T, which is why you haven't answered. Put up or shut
up.

Wilson and Seney is published
in MRD, which is
peer-reviewed. AMONG OTHERS.
Don't you read the **** you
write, Mike?


"Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is the leading
interdisciplinary and development-oriented journal " In other words,
it is PRO-DEVELOPMENT, NOT an unbiased scientific journal.

Even "peer-reviewed" studies can be full of CRAP, as that one is:

This study is frequently cited by mountain bikers as proof that
mountain biking doesn't cause more impact than hiking. But it has a
number of defects that call its conclusions into question. The authors
used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made available" by
the various treatments. They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment
yield produced by the simulated rainstorms at the downslope end of
each plot", which they claim "correlates with erosion" (they don't say
what the correlation coefficient is). This doesn't seem like a good
measure of erosion. For example, if a large rock were dislodged, the
very weak "simulated rainfall" wouldn't be capable of transporting it
into the collecting tray; only very fine particles would be collected.
In fact, they admit that the simulator's "small size … meant that the
kinetic energy of the simulated rainfall events was roughly one-third
that of natural rainstorms". Another reason to suspect that the
measurements aren't valid is that "none of the relationships between
water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil moisture, trail
roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant".

If they used a VALID measure of erosion, explain why there was no
correlation with slope! Everyone knows that erosion increases with
slope. That has been shown by other studies, although it's also common
sense.


Don't YOU read the reports you claim are "junk science"? Or maybe you are
intentionally leaving out the full quote of Wilson and Seney:

“The initial regression results were not very encouraging in that none of the
relationships between water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil
moisture, trail roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant.



The switch to multiple regression and the inclusion of soil texture as a series
of indicator variables improved the model performance.”

and later when discussing the multiple regression model:

“…ten independent variables and cross-products combined to explain 70% of the
variability in sediment yield. Treating the cumulative contributions of the
different variables to the final result as a rough guide to their contributions
confirmed that soil texture (37%), slope (35%) and user treatment (35%) had the
most impact. Water run-off (9%) was one of three variables that made smaller
contributions.”


Or did the fact that it was the initial model that had the poor fit and didn't
account for slope, etc. which was corrected by using a different model escape you?


Woah there, Michael. That is a
LOT of big words for MV to
absorb. Especially at once !

You know, considering MV
claims he is an "expert" in
statistics, such an
"oversight" might lead one to
believe he's biased. No . . . .


If water run-off had only a 9% correlation with the measure of
erosion, it was obviously NOT a valid measure of erosion. 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
  #124  
Old December 17th 06, 06:02 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
cc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:44:31 -0800, cc wrote:

I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk
or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time.
But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything
questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the
talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is
something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has
been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying
colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about
scientific conferences.
Wrong answer, bucko. I am
intimately familiar with them.
No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR.

You read my specifics. You
just didn't un-der-stand them.
Moron.


" Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them."

Where do you see any specifics?


I don't need to tell you which
conferences I have attended or
spoken/presented at to make it
perfectly clear that I am
familiar with them.
  #125  
Old December 17th 06, 09:09 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:02:32 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:44:31 -0800, cc wrote:

I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk
or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time.
But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything
questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the
talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is
something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has
been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying
colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about
scientific conferences.
Wrong answer, bucko. I am
intimately familiar with them.
No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR.
You read my specifics. You
just didn't un-der-stand them.
Moron.


" Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them."

Where do you see any specifics?


I don't need to tell you which
conferences I have attended or
spoken/presented at to make it
perfectly clear that I am
familiar with them.


Yes, you do, because there is otherwise no reason to believe you.
Mountain bikers are NOTORIOUSLY dishonest. After all, there's no way
that mountain biking can be justified while being truthful! There is
no good reason to allow bikes into natural areas.
===
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
  #126  
Old December 17th 06, 09:47 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
cc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:02:32 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:44:31 -0800, cc wrote:

I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk
or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time.
But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything
questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the
talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is
something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has
been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying
colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about
scientific conferences.
Wrong answer, bucko. I am
intimately familiar with them.
No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR.
You read my specifics. You
just didn't un-der-stand them.
Moron.
" Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them."

Where do you see any specifics?

I don't need to tell you which
conferences I have attended or
spoken/presented at to make it
perfectly clear that I am
familiar with them.


Yes, you do, because there is otherwise no reason to believe you.
Mountain bikers are NOTORIOUSLY dishonest. After all, there's no way
that mountain biking can be justified while being truthful! There is
no good reason to allow bikes into natural areas.


No, I do not, and will not. I
have given you ample specifics
above. Anyone but you would be
satisfied, and you aren't only
because you've got your
fingers in your ears. Knowing
my name and the conferences
won't change anything.
Besides, do we have proof that
you even gave your talk, or
that anyone attended? Or that
you weren't lambasted at your
yearly public issuance of
hate-speak? That burden of
proof is still on you.
  #127  
Old December 17th 06, 04:09 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
S Curtiss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 459
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:02:32 -0800, cc wrote:

Where do you see any specifics?


I don't need to tell you which
conferences I have attended or
spoken/presented at to make it
perfectly clear that I am
familiar with them.


Yes, you do, because there is otherwise no reason to believe you.
Mountain bikers are NOTORIOUSLY dishonest. After all, there's no way
that mountain biking can be justified while being truthful! There is
no good reason to allow bikes into natural areas.


No - He doesn't. It is you that is making claims that your OPINIONS be taken
as fact. The burden of proof is on you and your opinions which you claim to
be valid simply because you read your opinions to a finite audience at any
given conference. You CLAIM validity without offering substantial detail on
review which may be verified from outside sources. "Because you say so" is
not substantial.
Your OPINIONS of the activity are the only evidence you have ever put forth
to measure any reasons, facts or research given to support the activity.


  #128  
Old December 17th 06, 04:45 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike
Michael Halliwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:45:13 -0800, cc wrote:



Michael Halliwell wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:



On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:13:07 -0800, cc
wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:



On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:45:32 -0800, cc
wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:



On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:14:21 -0800, cc
wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:



On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, cc
wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:



On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:43:12 -0800, cc
wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:



On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:11:18 -0700, Paul Cassel
wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:



Mountain bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights.



Neither do hiking shoes.



Maybe if you didn't wear shoes, you'd have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you are just being a hypocrite.



No, the point is that - by engaging in an activity shown to do equal damage to trails



Repeating that lie doesn't make it true.



That "lie" is backed up by scientists who are accredited and publish in peer-reviewed journals.



Name ONE such scientist. (Hint: you can't.)



Mike, I'm not going to do your homework for you. You know the references I am referring to very well, as you've cited them in the pieces of trash you continually post here.



(Just as I said: you can't!!!!!)



It's on your site. Try reading YOUR OWN bibliography, moron.



Then you should have no trouble finding a peer-reviewed study, IF one exists. You CAN'T, which is why you haven't answered. Put up or shut up.



Wilson and Seney is published in MRD, which is peer-reviewed. AMONG OTHERS. Don't you read the **** you write, Mike?



"Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is the leading interdisciplinary and development-oriented journal " In other words, it is PRO-DEVELOPMENT, NOT an unbiased scientific journal. Even "peer-reviewed" studies can be full of CRAP, as that one is: This study is frequently cited by mountain bikers as proof that mountain biking doesn't cause more impact than hiking. But it has a number of defects that call its conclusions into question. The authors used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made available" by the various treatments. They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment yield produced by the simulated rainstorms at the downslope end of each plot", which they claim "correlates with erosion" (they don't say what the correlation coefficient is). This doesn't seem like a good measure of erosion. For example, if a large rock were dislodged, the very weak "simulated rainfall" wouldn't be capable of transporting it into the collecting tray; only very fine particles would be collected. In fact, they admit that the simulator's "small size … meant that the kinetic energy of the simulated rainfall events was roughly one-third that of natural rainstorms". Another reason to suspect that the measurements aren't valid is that "none of the relationships between water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil moisture, trail roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant". If they used a VALID measure of erosion, explain why there was no correlation with slope! Everyone knows that erosion increases with slope. That has been shown by other studies, although it's also common sense.



Don't YOU read the reports you claim are "junk science"? Or maybe you are intentionally leaving out the full quote of Wilson and Seney: “The initial regression results were not very encouraging in that none of the relationships between water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil moisture, trail roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant. The switch to multiple regression and the inclusion of soil texture as a series of indicator variables improved the model performance.” and later when discussing the multiple regression model: “…ten independent variables and cross-products combined to explain 70% of the variability in sediment yield. Treating the cumulative contributions of the different variables to the final result as a rough guide to their contributions confirmed that soil texture (37%), slope (35%) and user treatment (35%) had the most impact. Water run-off (9%) was one of three variables that made smaller contributions.” Or did the fact that it was the initial model that had the poor fit and didn't account for slope, etc. which was corrected by using a different model escape you?



Woah there, Michael. That is a LOT of big words for MV to absorb. Especially at once ! You know, considering MV claims he is an "expert" in statistics, such an "oversight" might lead one to believe he's biased. No . . . .



If water run-off had only a 9% correlation with the measure of erosion, it was obviously NOT a valid measure of erosion. QED

You have no research (including of your own) to prove this assertation.  Please cite your source.  Don't quote your "literature review" as your arguement there was on the initial model not being able to correlate slope, not on the multiple regression model only indicating run-off having a 10% correlation (vs higher values for slope, soil texture and user treatment). Also, don't forget that user treatment (hiking vs mt. biking) has been your soap box for 12 years.



=== 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


  #129  
Old December 19th 06, 04:06 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:47:03 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:02:32 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:44:31 -0800, cc wrote:

I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk
or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time.
But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything
questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the
talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is
something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has
been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying
colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about
scientific conferences.
Wrong answer, bucko. I am
intimately familiar with them.
No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR.
You read my specifics. You
just didn't un-der-stand them.
Moron.
" Wrong answer, bucko. I am intimately familiar with them."

Where do you see any specifics?
I don't need to tell you which
conferences I have attended or
spoken/presented at to make it
perfectly clear that I am
familiar with them.


Yes, you do, because there is otherwise no reason to believe you.
Mountain bikers are NOTORIOUSLY dishonest. After all, there's no way
that mountain biking can be justified while being truthful! There is
no good reason to allow bikes into natural areas.


No, I do not, and will not. I
have given you ample specifics
above. Anyone but you would be
satisfied, and you aren't only
because you've got your
fingers in your ears. Knowing
my name and the conferences
won't change anything.
Besides, do we have proof that
you even gave your talk, or
that anyone attended? Or that
you weren't lambasted at your
yearly public issuance of
hate-speak? That burden of
proof is still on you.


Did you say something? NO! As usual! But what can we expect from
someone afraid to give his real name....
===
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
  #130  
Old December 19th 06, 09:08 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
S Curtiss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 459
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:47:03 -0800, cc wrote:

No, I do not, and will not. I
have given you ample specifics
above. Anyone but you would be
satisfied, and you aren't only
because you've got your
fingers in your ears. Knowing
my name and the conferences
won't change anything.
Besides, do we have proof that
you even gave your talk, or
that anyone attended? Or that
you weren't lambasted at your
yearly public issuance of
hate-speak? That burden of
proof is still on you.


Did you say something? NO! As usual! But what can we expect from
someone afraid to give his real name....
===

Have you said anything? NO! As usual! But what can we expect from someone
afraid to provide specifics of attendance and objective review from these
conferences you reference.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Girls gone wild" bus hits cyclist Werehatrack General 2 July 27th 06 02:49 PM
Muni "warm-up" routine(s) and best time of day to ride. terrybigwheel Unicycling 10 May 23rd 06 04:25 AM
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") spin156 Techniques 15 November 28th 05 07:21 PM
Payback Time or "Mr. Armstrong, your check has come due" matabala Racing 1 August 23rd 05 04:49 PM
"Challenges In One's Time Of Life Are Extraordinary" on 4-14-84 [email protected] Australia 0 January 4th 05 03:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.