More Mountain Biking Propaganda Posing as Science

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

"Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
April 29, 2012

Pickering et al did a study comparing hiking and mountain biking
impacts on plants and soil compaction. Like Thurston and Reader, they
found that "Mountain biking does cause more damage than hiking, but
only at the highest levels of use tested [500 passes] and only for
some variables" (p.3056). In the long run, of course, users will
exceed 500 passes. In fact, that could easily happen in a single day!
Their abstract, however, continued the tradition, popular among
mountain bikers, of using the unscientific, unquantifiable word
"similar": "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
environmental impacts" (p.3049). They also continued the tradition of
testing only gentle, straight-line mountain biking with no skidding or
speeding. That is not representative of real mountain biking.

It would seem that the authors were attempting to "greenwash"
mountain biking, by minimizing its impacts and comparing it favorably
with hiking. Whether mountain biking does more damage than hiking is
really irrelevant. That damage is additional damage that wouldn't
exist, if bikes weren't allowed on trails: mountain bikers always
claim to be discriminated against and "excluded", when bikes are
banned, implying that without bike access, they wouldn't use the
parks; they claim to be "bored" with hiking. In order to minimize harm
to the parks, the obvious conclusion is that bikes should be banned
from trails and restricted to pavement.

The article is full of euphemisms. Instead of admitting that
mountain bikers break the law, they say mountain bikers ride "beyond
formed trails", blaming it on the capabilities of their equipment: "a
result of diversification in equipment" (p.3049). Instead of "illegal
trails", they are called "social trails" (p.3050). Instead of "illegal
trail building", the euphemism "unauthorized trail technical features"
is used (p.3056).

Apparently the research was conducted, at least in part, by
mountain bikers. It is an ethical violation not to divulge this
conflict of interest. With only one exception that I know of (where
the conclusions didn't favor mountain biking), research on mountain
biking impacts is conducted by mountain bikers and is heavily slanted
to avoid admitting how much harm mountain biking does. The purpose of
the current article seems to be to support the last clause of its
abstract: "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
environmental impacts" (p.3049). This is a "sound bite" that mountain
bikers can (and frequently do) use to convince land managers to treat
mountain biking the same as they do hiking. Of course, the word
"similar" is unscientific and unquantifiable.

The authors misuse statistics to support this point: "Mountain
biking caused more damage than hiking but only at high use (500
passes)" (p.3049). Statistics cannot prove two effects to be equal; it
can only fail to prove them different. In the latter case, the failure
may be due to the methodology. For example, after 25 passes, the
mountain bikng and hiking impacts weren't found to differ. That could
be due to the insensitivity of the measuring tool. We can't conclude
that hiking and mountain biking have the same level of impacts. Those
measurements shouldn't even be reported. The goal is to use as many
cases as possible, so that the research will have the greatest chance
of detecting a difference. To exaggerate in order to make this point
clear, measuring after a single pass would be pointless.

The correct conclusion from this research should have been that
mountain biking has a greater impact on plants than hiking. One
wonders what the "peer reviewers" were thinking, that they missed
these glaring errors?

References:

Pickering, Catherine Marina ), Sebastian
Rossi ), and Agustina Barros
), "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking
and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental
protocol". Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.92, 2011, pp.
3049-3057.

Thurston, Eden and Richard J. Reader ), "Impacts
of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and
soil of a deciduous forest". Environmental Management, Vol.27, No.3,
2001, pp.397-409.

Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2004. "The Impacts of
Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature".
Available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 5/5/2012 11:12 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
> grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> [...]

How about an article on the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon?

Or using a HANDSAW to cut down trees to make a tree fort?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 5, 10:30*pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 5/5/2012 11:12 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> > "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
> > grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
> > Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> > [...]
>
> How about an article on the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon?
>
> Or using a HANDSAW to cut down trees to make a tree fort?
>
> --
> Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
> Post Free or Die!

Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance, once again. Can you say
"charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint you.

[Bob Berger[_2_]]

In article >,
Mike Vandeman says...
>
>On May 5, 10:30=A0pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
>$southslope.net"> wrote:
>> On 5/5/2012 11:12 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>> > "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
>> > grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
>> > Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
>> > [...]
>>
>> How about an article on the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon?
>>
>> Or using a HANDSAW to cut down trees to make a tree fort?
>>
>> --
>> T=BAm Sherm=AAn - 42.435731=B0N, 83.985007=B0W
>> Post Free or Die!
>
>Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance, once again. Can you say
>"charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint you.

You do have a short memory.

One more time, let's review your trial; see:

http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defendant/

which contains in part:

- - - - - - - - - -

For vandalizing Ian Richards’ bike tire: not guilty.
>
For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>
For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>
For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>
For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.

- - - - - - - - -

To which you replied when I last posted that review:

>BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF
>COURSE, WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know
>that juries convict the innocent and free the guilty all
>the time. Sorry to disappoint you.

So, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and
not all the charges were dismissed. You were found guilty on
three counts; guilty, guilty, guilty.

Thus you are, in fact, a convicted criminal.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 6, 4:29*pm, Bob Berger > wrote:
> In article >,
> Mike Vandeman says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 5, 10:30=A0pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> >$southslope.net"> wrote:
> >> On 5/5/2012 11:12 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> >> > "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
> >> > grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
> >> > Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> >> > [...]
>
> >> How about an article on the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon?
>
> >> Or using a HANDSAW to cut down trees to make a tree fort?
>
> >> --
> >> T=BAm Sherm=AAn - 42.435731=B0N, 83.985007=B0W
> >> Post Free or Die!
>
> >Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance, once again. Can you say
> >"charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint you.
>
> You do have a short memory.
>
> One more time, let's review your trial; see:
>
> http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe...
>
> which contains in part:
>
> - - - - - - - - - -
>
> For vandalizing Ian Richards’ bike tire: not guilty.
>
> For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>
> For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>
> For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>
> For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>
> - - - - - - - - -
>
> To which you replied when I last posted that review:
>
> >BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF
> >COURSE, WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know
> >that juries convict the innocent and free the guilty all
> >the time. Sorry to disappoint you.
>
> So, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and
> not all the charges were dismissed. You were found guilty on
> three counts; guilty, guilty, guilty.

Not really. Juries convict the innocent all the time, as you well
know.

But he was talking about "the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon", a
charge that was DISMISSED. Try to follow the conversation. I know it;s
hard for you.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 5/6/2012 6:29 PM, Bob Berger wrote:
> In >,
> Mike Vandeman says...
>>
>> On May 5, 10:30=A0pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
>> $southslope.net"> wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2012 11:12 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
>>>> grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
>>>> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> How about an article on the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon?
>>>
>>> Or using a HANDSAW to cut down trees to make a tree fort?
>>>
>>> --
>>> T=BAm Sherm=AAn - 42.435731=B0N, 83.985007=B0W
>>> Post Free or Die!
>>
>> Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance, once again. Can you say
>> "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint you.
>
> You do have a short memory.
>
> One more time, let's review your trial; see:
>
> http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defendant/
>
> which contains in part:
>
> - - - - - - - - - -
>
> For vandalizing Ian Richards� bike tire: not guilty.
>>
> For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>>
> For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>>
> For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>>
> For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>
> - - - - - - - - -
>
> To which you replied when I last posted that review:
>
>> BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF
>> COURSE, WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know
>> that juries convict the innocent and free the guilty all
>> the time. Sorry to disappoint you.
>
> So, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and
> not all the charges were dismissed. You were found guilty on
> three counts; guilty, guilty, guilty.
>
> Thus you are, in fact, a convicted criminal.
>
And the "deadly weapon" referenced above was a HANDSAW.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 5/6/2012 7:54 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On May 6, 4:29�pm, Bob > wrote:
>> In >,
>> Mike Vandeman says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 5, 10:30=A0pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
>>> $southslope.net"> wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/2012 11:12 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
>>>>> grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
>>>>> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>>> [...]
>>
>>>> How about an article on the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon?
>>
>>>> Or using a HANDSAW to cut down trees to make a tree fort?
>>
>>>> --
>>>> T=BAm Sherm=AAn - 42.435731=B0N, 83.985007=B0W
>>>> Post Free or Die!
>>
>>> Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance, once again. Can you say
>>> "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint you.
>>
>> You do have a short memory.
>>
>> One more time, let's review your trial; see:
>>
>> http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe...
>>
>> which contains in part:
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - -
>>
>> For vandalizing Ian Richards� bike tire: not guilty.
>>
>> For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>>
>> For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>>
>> For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>>
>> For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>>
>> - - - - - - - - -
>>
>> To which you replied when I last posted that review:
>>
>>> BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF
>>> COURSE, WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know
>>> that juries convict the innocent and free the guilty all
>>> the time. Sorry to disappoint you.
>>
>> So, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and
>> not all the charges were dismissed. You were found guilty on
>> three counts; guilty, guilty, guilty.
>
> Not really. Juries convict the innocent all the time, as you well
> know.
>
> But he was talking about "the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon", a
> charge that was DISMISSED. Try to follow the conversation. I know it;s
> hard for you.

Hey Mikey,

Did you not admit to once cutting trees to make a TREE FORT?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Bob Berger[_2_]]

In article >,
Mike Vandeman says...
>
>On May 6, 4:29=A0pm, Bob Berger > wrote:
>> In article .=
>com>,
>> Mike Vandeman says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 5, 10:30=3DA0pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
>> >$southslope.net"> wrote:
>> >> On 5/5/2012 11:12 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>> >> > "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
>> >> > grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
>> >> > Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
>> >> > [...]
>>
>> >> How about an article on the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon?
>>
>> >> Or using a HANDSAW to cut down trees to make a tree fort?
>>
>> >> --
>> >> T=3DBAm Sherm=3DAAn - 42.435731=3DB0N, 83.985007=3DB0W
>> >> Post Free or Die!
>>
>> >Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance, once again. Can you say
>> >"charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint you.
>>
>> You do have a short memory.
>>
>> One more time, let's review your trial; see:
>>
>> http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe...
>>
>> which contains in part:
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - -
>>
>> For vandalizing Ian Richards=92 bike tire: not guilty.
>>
>> For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>>
>> For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>>
>> For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>>
>> For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>>
>> - - - - - - - - -
>>
>> To which you replied when I last posted that review:
>>
>> >BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF
>> >COURSE, WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know
>> >that juries convict the innocent and free the guilty all
>> >the time. Sorry to disappoint you.
>>
>> So, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and
>> not all the charges were dismissed. You were found guilty on
>> three counts; guilty, guilty, guilty.
>
>Not really. Juries convict the innocent all the time, as you well
>know.

So readers can better judge the odds that you were wrongly convicted, care to
estimate the percentage of the time "Juries convict the innocent"?

Also, care to estimate the percentage of the time that memebers of a jury are
"PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED"? I assert it's effectively zero, since
being present would be grounds for a mistrial.

>But he was talking about "the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon", a
>charge that was DISMISSED.

Wrong. He never used the word "charge" nor did he make reference to the trial.
YOU brought them up. (Yes, I too can pick nits).

>Try to follow the conversation. I know it;s hard for you.

I follow well enough to note that you snipped from my post the key sentence,
"Thus you are, in fact, a convicted criminal". Wonder why you did that. Hmmm...

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 6, 6:43*pm, Bob Berger > wrote:
> In article >,
> Mike Vandeman says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 6, 4:29=A0pm, Bob Berger > wrote:
> >> In article .=
> >com>,
> >> Mike Vandeman says...
>
> >> >On May 5, 10:30=3DA0pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> >> >$southslope.net"> wrote:
> >> >> On 5/5/2012 11:12 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> >> >> > "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
> >> >> > grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
> >> >> > Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> >> >> > [...]
>
> >> >> How about an article on the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon?
>
> >> >> Or using a HANDSAW to cut down trees to make a tree fort?
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> T=3DBAm Sherm=3DAAn - 42.435731=3DB0N, 83.985007=3DB0W
> >> >> Post Free or Die!
>
> >> >Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance, once again. Can you say
> >> >"charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint you.
>
> >> You do have a short memory.
>
> >> One more time, let's review your trial; see:
>
> >>http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe....
>
> >> which contains in part:
>
> >> - - - - - - - - - -
>
> >> For vandalizing Ian Richards=92 bike tire: not guilty.
>
> >> For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>
> >> For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>
> >> For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>
> >> For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>
> >> - - - - - - - - -
>
> >> To which you replied when I last posted that review:
>
> >> >BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF
> >> >COURSE, WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know
> >> >that juries convict the innocent and free the guilty all
> >> >the time. Sorry to disappoint you.
>
> >> So, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and
> >> not all the charges were dismissed. You were found guilty on
> >> three counts; guilty, guilty, guilty.
>
> >Not really. Juries convict the innocent all the time, as you well
> >know.
>
> So readers can better judge the odds that you were wrongly convicted, care to
> estimate the percentage of the time "Juries convict the innocent"?

100% in my case.

> Also, care to estimate the percentage of the time that memebers of a jury are
> "PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED"? I assert it's effectively zero, since
> being present would be grounds for a mistrial.

Which is backwards! They are required to be ignorant!

> >But he was talking about "the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon", a
> >charge that was DISMISSED.
>
> Wrong. He never used the word "charge" nor did he make reference to the trial.
> YOU brought them up. (Yes, I too can pick nits).

Did you have a point? I didn't think so.

> >Try to follow the conversation. I know it;s hard for you.
>
> I follow well enough to note that you snipped from my post the key sentence,
> "Thus you are, in fact, a convicted criminal". Wonder why you did that. Hmmm...

Because it's irrelevant. DUH! So are you, since you know even less
than the jury! DUH!

[Shraga]

On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
> grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> April 29, 2012
>
> * * *Pickering et al did a study comparing hiking and mountain biking
> impacts on plants and soil compaction. Like Thurston and Reader, they
> found that "Mountain biking does cause more damage than hiking, but
> only at the highest levels of use tested [500 passes] and only for
> some variables" (p.3056). In the long run, of course, users will
> exceed 500 passes. In fact, that could easily happen in a single day!
> Their abstract, however, continued the tradition, popular among
> mountain bikers, of using the unscientific, unquantifiable word
> "similar": "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
> environmental impacts" (p.3049). They also continued the tradition of
> testing only gentle, straight-line mountain biking with no skidding or
> speeding. That is not representative of real mountain biking.
>
> * * *It would seem that the authors were attempting to "greenwash"
> mountain biking, by minimizing its impacts and comparing it favorably
> with hiking. Whether mountain biking does more damage than hiking is
> really irrelevant. That damage is additional damage that wouldn't
> exist, if bikes weren't allowed on trails: mountain bikers always
> claim to be discriminated against and "excluded", when bikes are
> banned, implying that without bike access, they wouldn't use the
> parks; they claim to be "bored" with hiking. In order to minimize harm
> to the parks, the obvious conclusion is that bikes should be banned
> from trails and restricted to pavement.
>
> * * *The article is full of euphemisms. Instead of admitting that
> mountain bikers break the law, they say mountain bikers ride "beyond
> formed trails", blaming it on the capabilities of their equipment: "a
> result of diversification in equipment" (p.3049). Instead of "illegal
> trails", they are called "social trails" (p.3050). Instead of "illegal
> trail building", the euphemism "unauthorized trail technical features"
> is used (p.3056).
>
> * * *Apparently the research was conducted, at least in part, by
> mountain bikers. It is an ethical violation not to divulge this
> conflict of interest. With only one exception that I know of (where
> the conclusions didn't favor mountain biking), research on mountain
> biking impacts is conducted by mountain bikers and is heavily slanted
> to avoid admitting how much harm mountain biking does. The purpose of
> the current article seems to be to support the last clause of its
> abstract: "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
> environmental impacts" (p.3049). This is a "sound bite" that mountain
> bikers can (and frequently do) use to convince land managers to treat
> mountain biking the same as they do hiking. Of course, the word
> "similar" is unscientific and unquantifiable.
>
> * * *The authors misuse statistics to support this point: "Mountain
> biking caused more damage than hiking but only at high use (500
> passes)" (p.3049). Statistics cannot prove two effects to be equal; it
> can only fail to prove them different. In the latter case, the failure
> may be due to the methodology. For example, after 25 passes, the
> mountain bikng and hiking impacts weren't found to differ. That could
> be due to the insensitivity of the measuring tool. We can't conclude
> that hiking and mountain biking have the same level of impacts. Those
> measurements shouldn't even be reported. The goal is to use as many
> cases as possible, so that the research will have the greatest chance
> of detecting a difference. To exaggerate in order to make this point
> clear, measuring after a single pass would be pointless.
>
> * * *The correct conclusion from this research should have been that
> mountain biking has a greater impact on plants than hiking. One
> wonders what the "peer reviewers" were thinking, that they missed
> these glaring errors?
>
> References:
>
> Pickering, Catherine Marina ), Sebastian
> Rossi ), and Agustina Barros
> ), "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking
> and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental
> protocol". Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.92, 2011, pp.
> 3049-3057.
>
> Thurston, Eden and Richard J. Reader ), "Impacts
> of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and
> soil of a deciduous forest". Environmental Management, Vol.27, No.3,
> 2001, pp.397-409.
>
> Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2004. "The Impacts of
> Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature".
> Available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm.

Speaking of "sound bites," based on your citations, you apparently
skimmed the abstract and introduction, skipped the meat of the
article, and jumped right to the discussion. No wonder you
misinterpreted the article; you were being lazy, as usual.

Why don't you go ahead and read the whole thing and get back to us
with a useful review?

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 7, 10:54*am, Shraga > wrote:
> On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
> > grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
> > Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> > April 29, 2012
>
> > * * *Pickering et al did a study comparing hiking and mountain biking
> > impacts on plants and soil compaction. Like Thurston and Reader, they
> > found that "Mountain biking does cause more damage than hiking, but
> > only at the highest levels of use tested [500 passes] and only for
> > some variables" (p.3056). In the long run, of course, users will
> > exceed 500 passes. In fact, that could easily happen in a single day!
> > Their abstract, however, continued the tradition, popular among
> > mountain bikers, of using the unscientific, unquantifiable word
> > "similar": "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
> > environmental impacts" (p.3049). They also continued the tradition of
> > testing only gentle, straight-line mountain biking with no skidding or
> > speeding. That is not representative of real mountain biking.
>
> > * * *It would seem that the authors were attempting to "greenwash"
> > mountain biking, by minimizing its impacts and comparing it favorably
> > with hiking. Whether mountain biking does more damage than hiking is
> > really irrelevant. That damage is additional damage that wouldn't
> > exist, if bikes weren't allowed on trails: mountain bikers always
> > claim to be discriminated against and "excluded", when bikes are
> > banned, implying that without bike access, they wouldn't use the
> > parks; they claim to be "bored" with hiking. In order to minimize harm
> > to the parks, the obvious conclusion is that bikes should be banned
> > from trails and restricted to pavement.
>
> > * * *The article is full of euphemisms. Instead of admitting that
> > mountain bikers break the law, they say mountain bikers ride "beyond
> > formed trails", blaming it on the capabilities of their equipment: "a
> > result of diversification in equipment" (p.3049). Instead of "illegal
> > trails", they are called "social trails" (p.3050). Instead of "illegal
> > trail building", the euphemism "unauthorized trail technical features"
> > is used (p.3056).
>
> > * * *Apparently the research was conducted, at least in part, by
> > mountain bikers. It is an ethical violation not to divulge this
> > conflict of interest. With only one exception that I know of (where
> > the conclusions didn't favor mountain biking), research on mountain
> > biking impacts is conducted by mountain bikers and is heavily slanted
> > to avoid admitting how much harm mountain biking does. The purpose of
> > the current article seems to be to support the last clause of its
> > abstract: "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
> > environmental impacts" (p.3049). This is a "sound bite" that mountain
> > bikers can (and frequently do) use to convince land managers to treat
> > mountain biking the same as they do hiking. Of course, the word
> > "similar" is unscientific and unquantifiable.
>
> > * * *The authors misuse statistics to support this point: "Mountain
> > biking caused more damage than hiking but only at high use (500
> > passes)" (p.3049). Statistics cannot prove two effects to be equal; it
> > can only fail to prove them different. In the latter case, the failure
> > may be due to the methodology. For example, after 25 passes, the
> > mountain bikng and hiking impacts weren't found to differ. That could
> > be due to the insensitivity of the measuring tool. We can't conclude
> > that hiking and mountain biking have the same level of impacts. Those
> > measurements shouldn't even be reported. The goal is to use as many
> > cases as possible, so that the research will have the greatest chance
> > of detecting a difference. To exaggerate in order to make this point
> > clear, measuring after a single pass would be pointless.
>
> > * * *The correct conclusion from this research should have been that
> > mountain biking has a greater impact on plants than hiking. One
> > wonders what the "peer reviewers" were thinking, that they missed
> > these glaring errors?
>
> > References:
>
> > Pickering, Catherine Marina ), Sebastian
> > Rossi ), and Agustina Barros
> > ), "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking
> > and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental
> > protocol". Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.92, 2011, pp.
> > 3049-3057.
>
> > Thurston, Eden and Richard J. Reader ), "Impacts
> > of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and
> > soil of a deciduous forest". Environmental Management, Vol.27, No.3,
> > 2001, pp.397-409.
>
> > Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2004. "The Impacts of
> > Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature".
> > Available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm.
>
> Speaking of "sound bites," based on your citations, you apparently
> skimmed the abstract and introduction, skipped the meat of the
> article, and jumped right to the discussion. No wonder you
> misinterpreted the article; you were being lazy, as usual.
>
> Why don't you go ahead and read the whole thing and get back to us
> with a useful review?

I read every word, which is more than you did. But you wouldn't
understand it even if you read it, due to it containing words with
more than one syl-la-ble.

[Shraga]

On May 7, 11:53*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> On May 7, 10:54*am, Shraga > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
> > > grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
> > > Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> > > April 29, 2012
>
> > > * * *Pickering et al did a study comparing hiking and mountain biking
> > > impacts on plants and soil compaction. Like Thurston and Reader, they
> > > found that "Mountain biking does cause more damage than hiking, but
> > > only at the highest levels of use tested [500 passes] and only for
> > > some variables" (p.3056). In the long run, of course, users will
> > > exceed 500 passes. In fact, that could easily happen in a single day!
> > > Their abstract, however, continued the tradition, popular among
> > > mountain bikers, of using the unscientific, unquantifiable word
> > > "similar": "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
> > > environmental impacts" (p.3049). They also continued the tradition of
> > > testing only gentle, straight-line mountain biking with no skidding or
> > > speeding. That is not representative of real mountain biking.
>
> > > * * *It would seem that the authors were attempting to "greenwash"
> > > mountain biking, by minimizing its impacts and comparing it favorably
> > > with hiking. Whether mountain biking does more damage than hiking is
> > > really irrelevant. That damage is additional damage that wouldn't
> > > exist, if bikes weren't allowed on trails: mountain bikers always
> > > claim to be discriminated against and "excluded", when bikes are
> > > banned, implying that without bike access, they wouldn't use the
> > > parks; they claim to be "bored" with hiking. In order to minimize harm
> > > to the parks, the obvious conclusion is that bikes should be banned
> > > from trails and restricted to pavement.
>
> > > * * *The article is full of euphemisms. Instead of admitting that
> > > mountain bikers break the law, they say mountain bikers ride "beyond
> > > formed trails", blaming it on the capabilities of their equipment: "a
> > > result of diversification in equipment" (p.3049). Instead of "illegal
> > > trails", they are called "social trails" (p.3050). Instead of "illegal
> > > trail building", the euphemism "unauthorized trail technical features"
> > > is used (p.3056).
>
> > > * * *Apparently the research was conducted, at least in part, by
> > > mountain bikers. It is an ethical violation not to divulge this
> > > conflict of interest. With only one exception that I know of (where
> > > the conclusions didn't favor mountain biking), research on mountain
> > > biking impacts is conducted by mountain bikers and is heavily slanted
> > > to avoid admitting how much harm mountain biking does. The purpose of
> > > the current article seems to be to support the last clause of its
> > > abstract: "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
> > > environmental impacts" (p.3049). This is a "sound bite" that mountain
> > > bikers can (and frequently do) use to convince land managers to treat
> > > mountain biking the same as they do hiking. Of course, the word
> > > "similar" is unscientific and unquantifiable.
>
> > > * * *The authors misuse statistics to support this point: "Mountain
> > > biking caused more damage than hiking but only at high use (500
> > > passes)" (p.3049). Statistics cannot prove two effects to be equal; it
> > > can only fail to prove them different. In the latter case, the failure
> > > may be due to the methodology. For example, after 25 passes, the
> > > mountain bikng and hiking impacts weren't found to differ. That could
> > > be due to the insensitivity of the measuring tool. We can't conclude
> > > that hiking and mountain biking have the same level of impacts. Those
> > > measurements shouldn't even be reported. The goal is to use as many
> > > cases as possible, so that the research will have the greatest chance
> > > of detecting a difference. To exaggerate in order to make this point
> > > clear, measuring after a single pass would be pointless.
>
> > > * * *The correct conclusion from this research should have been that
> > > mountain biking has a greater impact on plants than hiking. One
> > > wonders what the "peer reviewers" were thinking, that they missed
> > > these glaring errors?
>
> > > References:
>
> > > Pickering, Catherine Marina ), Sebastian
> > > Rossi ), and Agustina Barros
> > > ), "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking
> > > and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental
> > > protocol". Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.92, 2011, pp.
> > > 3049-3057.
>
> > > Thurston, Eden and Richard J. Reader ), "Impacts
> > > of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and
> > > soil of a deciduous forest". Environmental Management, Vol.27, No.3,
> > > 2001, pp.397-409.
>
> > > Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2004. "The Impacts of
> > > Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature"..
> > > Available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm.
>
> > Speaking of "sound bites," based on your citations, you apparently
> > skimmed the abstract and introduction, skipped the meat of the
> > article, and jumped right to the discussion. No wonder you
> > misinterpreted the article; you were being lazy, as usual.
>
> > Why don't you go ahead and read the whole thing and get back to us
> > with a useful review?
>
> I read every word, which is more than you did. But you wouldn't
> understand it even if you read it, due to it containing words with
> more than one syl-la-ble.

Silly child, to you "understanding it" means approaching it applying
your ridiculous confirmation bias. You see, the way you're supposed to
read a scientific article is to remain objective. Sadly, for you that
is clearly impossible. You dismiss everything that remotely supports
mountain biking and regard as gospel everything that condemns it, no
matter how ridiculous. That's why this article got through peer
review... Because qualified people reviewed it, not an armchair
quarterback like you. Your "review" is useless.

Any idiot (i.e., you) can tear down an article like you did. It takes
experience, intelligence and ability to do the work behind it. That's
why Catherine Pickering is the world authority on the impacts of
mountain biking, and you bark like a agitated puppy from your
keyboard.

Incidentally, where is your *empirical* study of the impacts of
mountain biking? I'd love to review it for you.

[SMS]

On 5/7/2012 10:54 AM, Shraga wrote:

> Why don't you go ahead and read the whole thing and get back to us
> with a useful review?

Because our resident convicted criminal has never believed in
scientifically accurate, peer-reviewed, statistically sound, research.

The facts conflict with what he wishes was true.

Bottom line, there is _no_ research showing that mountain biking is any
more damaging to trails or wildlife than other recreational activities
such as hiking or horesback riding. In fact, horseback riding has
significantly greater impact on erosion and wildlife than hiking or
mountain biking. But equestrians are usually well-connected politically,
as well as being well-off financially, so attempts to ban horses from
these areas have been fruitless.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 8, 9:38*am, Shraga > wrote:
> On May 7, 11:53*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 10:54*am, Shraga > wrote:
>
> > > On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > > "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
> > > > grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
> > > > Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> > > > April 29, 2012
>
> > > > * * *Pickering et al did a study comparing hiking and mountain biking
> > > > impacts on plants and soil compaction. Like Thurston and Reader, they
> > > > found that "Mountain biking does cause more damage than hiking, but
> > > > only at the highest levels of use tested [500 passes] and only for
> > > > some variables" (p.3056). In the long run, of course, users will
> > > > exceed 500 passes. In fact, that could easily happen in a single day!
> > > > Their abstract, however, continued the tradition, popular among
> > > > mountain bikers, of using the unscientific, unquantifiable word
> > > > "similar": "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
> > > > environmental impacts" (p.3049). They also continued the tradition of
> > > > testing only gentle, straight-line mountain biking with no skidding or
> > > > speeding. That is not representative of real mountain biking.
>
> > > > * * *It would seem that the authors were attempting to "greenwash"
> > > > mountain biking, by minimizing its impacts and comparing it favorably
> > > > with hiking. Whether mountain biking does more damage than hiking is
> > > > really irrelevant. That damage is additional damage that wouldn't
> > > > exist, if bikes weren't allowed on trails: mountain bikers always
> > > > claim to be discriminated against and "excluded", when bikes are
> > > > banned, implying that without bike access, they wouldn't use the
> > > > parks; they claim to be "bored" with hiking. In order to minimize harm
> > > > to the parks, the obvious conclusion is that bikes should be banned
> > > > from trails and restricted to pavement.
>
> > > > * * *The article is full of euphemisms. Instead of admitting that
> > > > mountain bikers break the law, they say mountain bikers ride "beyond
> > > > formed trails", blaming it on the capabilities of their equipment: "a
> > > > result of diversification in equipment" (p.3049). Instead of "illegal
> > > > trails", they are called "social trails" (p.3050). Instead of "illegal
> > > > trail building", the euphemism "unauthorized trail technical features"
> > > > is used (p.3056).
>
> > > > * * *Apparently the research was conducted, at least in part, by
> > > > mountain bikers. It is an ethical violation not to divulge this
> > > > conflict of interest. With only one exception that I know of (where
> > > > the conclusions didn't favor mountain biking), research on mountain
> > > > biking impacts is conducted by mountain bikers and is heavily slanted
> > > > to avoid admitting how much harm mountain biking does. The purpose of
> > > > the current article seems to be to support the last clause of its
> > > > abstract: "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
> > > > environmental impacts" (p.3049). This is a "sound bite" that mountain
> > > > bikers can (and frequently do) use to convince land managers to treat
> > > > mountain biking the same as they do hiking. Of course, the word
> > > > "similar" is unscientific and unquantifiable.
>
> > > > * * *The authors misuse statistics to support this point: "Mountain
> > > > biking caused more damage than hiking but only at high use (500
> > > > passes)" (p.3049). Statistics cannot prove two effects to be equal; it
> > > > can only fail to prove them different. In the latter case, the failure
> > > > may be due to the methodology. For example, after 25 passes, the
> > > > mountain bikng and hiking impacts weren't found to differ. That could
> > > > be due to the insensitivity of the measuring tool. We can't conclude
> > > > that hiking and mountain biking have the same level of impacts. Those
> > > > measurements shouldn't even be reported. The goal is to use as many
> > > > cases as possible, so that the research will have the greatest chance
> > > > of detecting a difference. To exaggerate in order to make this point
> > > > clear, measuring after a single pass would be pointless.
>
> > > > * * *The correct conclusion from this research should have been that
> > > > mountain biking has a greater impact on plants than hiking. One
> > > > wonders what the "peer reviewers" were thinking, that they missed
> > > > these glaring errors?
>
> > > > References:
>
> > > > Pickering, Catherine Marina ), Sebastian
> > > > Rossi ), and Agustina Barros
> > > > ), "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking
> > > > and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental
> > > > protocol". Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.92, 2011, pp.
> > > > 3049-3057.
>
> > > > Thurston, Eden and Richard J. Reader ), "Impacts
> > > > of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and
> > > > soil of a deciduous forest". Environmental Management, Vol.27, No.3,
> > > > 2001, pp.397-409.
>
> > > > Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2004. "The Impacts of
> > > > Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature".
> > > > Available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm.
>
> > > Speaking of "sound bites," based on your citations, you apparently
> > > skimmed the abstract and introduction, skipped the meat of the
> > > article, and jumped right to the discussion. No wonder you
> > > misinterpreted the article; you were being lazy, as usual.
>
> > > Why don't you go ahead and read the whole thing and get back to us
> > > with a useful review?
>
> > I read every word, which is more than you did. But you wouldn't
> > understand it even if you read it, due to it containing words with
> > more than one syl-la-ble.
>
> Silly child, to you "understanding it" means approaching it applying
> your ridiculous confirmation bias. You see, the way you're supposed to
> read a scientific article is to remain objective. Sadly, for you that
> is clearly impossible. You dismiss everything that remotely supports
> mountain biking and regard as gospel everything that condemns it, no
> matter how ridiculous. That's why this article got through peer
> review... Because qualified people reviewed it, not an armchair
> quarterback like you. Your "review" is useless.
>
> Any idiot (i.e., you) can tear down an article like you did. It takes
> experience, intelligence and ability to do the work behind it. That's
> why Catherine Pickering is the world authority on the impacts of
> mountain biking, and you bark like a agitated puppy from your
> keyboard.
>
> Incidentally, where is your *empirical* study of the impacts of
> mountain biking? I'd love to review it for you.

You haven't even READ her article. If you did, you'd have to admit
that everything I said is true! I've never met someone so willing to
blab about something he knows nothing about! She isn't a "world
authority" on anything, except maybe greenwashing mountain biking. You
aren't an authority on ANYTHING relevant. I'm still the world
authority on mountain biking impacts.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 8, 5:37*pm, SMS > wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 10:54 AM, Shraga wrote:
>
> > Why don't you go ahead and read the whole thing and get back to us
> > with a useful review?
>
> Because our resident convicted criminal has never believed in
> scientifically accurate, peer-reviewed, statistically sound, research.
>
> The facts conflict with what he wishes was true.
>
> Bottom line, there is _no_ research showing that mountain biking is any
> more damaging to trails or wildlife than other recreational activities
> such as hiking or horesback riding.

Yes there is. See http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm (Wisdom et al).

In fact, horseback riding has
> significantly greater impact on erosion and wildlife than hiking or
> mountain biking. But equestrians are usually well-connected politically,
> as well as being well-off financially, so attempts to ban horses from
> these areas have been fruitless.

BS. You didn't cite any reaesrch (as I did), because you CAN'T. It
doesn't exist!

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 5, 9:12*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
> grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> April 29, 2012
>
> * * *Pickering et al did a study comparing hiking and mountain biking
> impacts on plants and soil compaction. Like Thurston and Reader, they
> found that "Mountain biking does cause more damage than hiking, but
> only at the highest levels of use tested [500 passes] and only for
> some variables" (p.3056). In the long run, of course, users will
> exceed 500 passes. In fact, that could easily happen in a single day!
> Their abstract, however, continued the tradition, popular among
> mountain bikers, of using the unscientific, unquantifiable word
> "similar": "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
> environmental impacts" (p.3049). They also continued the tradition of
> testing only gentle, straight-line mountain biking with no skidding or
> speeding. That is not representative of real mountain biking.
>
> * * *It would seem that the authors were attempting to "greenwash"
> mountain biking, by minimizing its impacts and comparing it favorably
> with hiking. Whether mountain biking does more damage than hiking is
> really irrelevant. That damage is additional damage that wouldn't
> exist, if bikes weren't allowed on trails: mountain bikers always
> claim to be discriminated against and "excluded", when bikes are
> banned, implying that without bike access, they wouldn't use the
> parks; they claim to be "bored" with hiking. In order to minimize harm
> to the parks, the obvious conclusion is that bikes should be banned
> from trails and restricted to pavement.
>
> * * *The article is full of euphemisms. Instead of admitting that
> mountain bikers break the law, they say mountain bikers ride "beyond
> formed trails", blaming it on the capabilities of their equipment: "a
> result of diversification in equipment" (p.3049). Instead of "illegal
> trails", they are called "social trails" (p.3050). Instead of "illegal
> trail building", the euphemism "unauthorized trail technical features"
> is used (p.3056).
>
> * * *Apparently the research was conducted, at least in part, by
> mountain bikers. It is an ethical violation not to divulge this
> conflict of interest. With only one exception that I know of (where
> the conclusions didn't favor mountain biking), research on mountain
> biking impacts is conducted by mountain bikers and is heavily slanted
> to avoid admitting how much harm mountain biking does. The purpose of
> the current article seems to be to support the last clause of its
> abstract: "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
> environmental impacts" (p.3049). This is a "sound bite" that mountain
> bikers can (and frequently do) use to convince land managers to treat
> mountain biking the same as they do hiking. Of course, the word
> "similar" is unscientific and unquantifiable.
>
> * * *The authors misuse statistics to support this point: "Mountain
> biking caused more damage than hiking but only at high use (500
> passes)" (p.3049). Statistics cannot prove two effects to be equal; it
> can only fail to prove them different. In the latter case, the failure
> may be due to the methodology. For example, after 25 passes, the
> mountain bikng and hiking impacts weren't found to differ. That could
> be due to the insensitivity of the measuring tool. We can't conclude
> that hiking and mountain biking have the same level of impacts. Those
> measurements shouldn't even be reported. The goal is to use as many
> cases as possible, so that the research will have the greatest chance
> of detecting a difference. To exaggerate in order to make this point
> clear, measuring after a single pass would be pointless.
>
> * * *The correct conclusion from this research should have been that
> mountain biking has a greater impact on plants than hiking. One
> wonders what the "peer reviewers" were thinking, that they missed
> these glaring errors?
>
> References:
>
> Pickering, Catherine Marina ), Sebastian
> Rossi ), and Agustina Barros
> ), "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking
> and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental
> protocol". Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.92, 2011, pp.
> 3049-3057.
>
> Thurston, Eden and Richard J. Reader ), "Impacts
> of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and
> soil of a deciduous forest". Environmental Management, Vol.27, No.3,
> 2001, pp.397-409.
>
> Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2004. "The Impacts of
> Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature".
> Available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm.

P.S. They also make the same mistake as every other mountain biking
researcher: they ignore distance travelled. Even if mountain bikers
did no more harm per foot (which is what they measured) as hikers, the
fact that they travel several times as fast and several times as far
as hikers would imply that they do several times as much damage!

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 9, 9:14*pm, Shraga > wrote:
> On May 9, 10:30*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > On May 9, 8:30*am, Shraga > wrote:
>
> > > On May 9, 12:23*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 8, 9:38*am, Shraga > wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 7, 11:53*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 7, 10:54*am, Shraga > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
> > > > > > > > grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
> > > > > > > > Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> > > > > > > > April 29, 2012
>
> > > > > > > > * * *Pickering et al did a study comparing hiking and mountain biking
> > > > > > > > impacts on plants and soil compaction. Like Thurston and Reader, they
> > > > > > > > found that "Mountain biking does cause more damage than hiking, but
> > > > > > > > only at the highest levels of use tested [500 passes] and only for
> > > > > > > > some variables" (p.3056). In the long run, of course, users will
> > > > > > > > exceed 500 passes. In fact, that could easily happen in a single day!
> > > > > > > > Their abstract, however, continued the tradition, popular among
> > > > > > > > mountain bikers, of using the unscientific, unquantifiable word
> > > > > > > > "similar": "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
> > > > > > > > environmental impacts" (p.3049). They also continued the tradition of
> > > > > > > > testing only gentle, straight-line mountain biking with no skidding or
> > > > > > > > speeding. That is not representative of real mountain biking.
>
> > > > > > > > * * *It would seem that the authors were attempting to "greenwash"
> > > > > > > > mountain biking, by minimizing its impacts and comparing it favorably
> > > > > > > > with hiking. Whether mountain biking does more damage than hiking is
> > > > > > > > really irrelevant. That damage is additional damage that wouldn't
> > > > > > > > exist, if bikes weren't allowed on trails: mountain bikers always
> > > > > > > > claim to be discriminated against and "excluded", when bikes are
> > > > > > > > banned, implying that without bike access, they wouldn't use the
> > > > > > > > parks; they claim to be "bored" with hiking. In order to minimize harm
> > > > > > > > to the parks, the obvious conclusion is that bikes should be banned
> > > > > > > > from trails and restricted to pavement.
>
> > > > > > > > * * *The article is full of euphemisms. Instead of admitting that
> > > > > > > > mountain bikers break the law, they say mountain bikers ride "beyond
> > > > > > > > formed trails", blaming it on the capabilities of their equipment: "a
> > > > > > > > result of diversification in equipment" (p.3049). Instead of "illegal
> > > > > > > > trails", they are called "social trails" (p.3050). Instead of "illegal
> > > > > > > > trail building", the euphemism "unauthorized trail technical features"
> > > > > > > > is used (p.3056).
>
> > > > > > > > * * *Apparently the research was conducted, at least in part, by
> > > > > > > > mountain bikers. It is an ethical violation not to divulge this
> > > > > > > > conflict of interest. With only one exception that I know of (where
> > > > > > > > the conclusions didn't favor mountain biking), research on mountain
> > > > > > > > biking impacts is conducted by mountain bikers and is heavily slanted
> > > > > > > > to avoid admitting how much harm mountain biking does. The purpose of
> > > > > > > > the current article seems to be to support the last clause of its
> > > > > > > > abstract: "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
> > > > > > > > environmental impacts" (p.3049). This is a "sound bite" that mountain
> > > > > > > > bikers can (and frequently do) use to convince land managers to treat
> > > > > > > > mountain biking the same as they do hiking. Of course, the word
> > > > > > > > "similar" is unscientific and unquantifiable.
>
> > > > > > > > * * *The authors misuse statistics to support this point: "Mountain
> > > > > > > > biking caused more damage than hiking but only at high use (500
> > > > > > > > passes)" (p.3049). Statistics cannot prove two effects to be equal; it
> > > > > > > > can only fail to prove them different. In the latter case, the failure
> > > > > > > > may be due to the methodology. For example, after 25 passes, the
> > > > > > > > mountain bikng and hiking impacts weren't found to differ. That could
> > > > > > > > be due to the insensitivity of the measuring tool. We can't conclude
> > > > > > > > that hiking and mountain biking have the same level of impacts. Those
> > > > > > > > measurements shouldn't even be reported. The goal is to use as many
> > > > > > > > cases as possible, so that the research will have the greatest chance
> > > > > > > > of detecting a difference. To exaggerate in order to make this point
> > > > > > > > clear, measuring after a single pass would be pointless.
>
> > > > > > > > * * *The correct conclusion from this research should have been that
> > > > > > > > mountain biking has a greater impact on plants than hiking. One
> > > > > > > > wonders what the "peer reviewers" were thinking, that they missed
> > > > > > > > these glaring errors?
>
> > > > > > > > References:
>
> > > > > > > > Pickering, Catherine Marina ), Sebastian
> > > > > > > > Rossi ), and Agustina Barros
> > > > > > > > ), "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking
> > > > > > > > and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental
> > > > > > > > protocol". Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.92, 2011, pp.
> > > > > > > > 3049-3057.
>
> > > > > > > > Thurston, Eden and Richard J. Reader ), "Impacts
> > > > > > > > of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and
> > > > > > > > soil of a deciduous forest". Environmental Management, Vol.27, No.3,
> > > > > > > > 2001, pp.397-409.
>
> > > > > > > > Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2004. "The Impacts of
> > > > > > > > Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature".
> > > > > > > > Available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm.
>
> > > > > > > Speaking of "sound bites," based on your citations, you apparently
> > > > > > > skimmed the abstract and introduction, skipped the meat of the
> > > > > > > article, and jumped right to the discussion. No wonder you
> > > > > > > misinterpreted the article; you were being lazy, as usual.
>
> > > > > > > Why don't you go ahead and read the whole thing and get back to us
> > > > > > > with a useful review?
>
> > > > > > I read every word, which is more than you did. But you wouldn't
> > > > > > understand it even if you read it, due to it containing words with
> > > > > > more than one syl-la-ble.
>
> > > > > Silly child, to you "understanding it" means approaching it applying
> > > > > your ridiculous confirmation bias. You see, the way you're supposed to
> > > > > read a scientific article is to remain objective. Sadly, for you that
> > > > > is clearly impossible. You dismiss everything that remotely supports
> > > > > mountain biking and regard as gospel everything that condemns it, no
> > > > > matter how ridiculous. That's why this article got through peer
> > > > > review... Because qualified people reviewed it, not an armchair
> > > > > quarterback like you. Your "review" is useless.
>
> > > > > Any idiot (i.e., you) can tear down an article like you did. It takes
> > > > > experience, intelligence and ability to do the work behind it. That's
> > > > > why Catherine Pickering is the world authority on the impacts of
> > > > > mountain biking, and you bark like a agitated puppy from your
> > > > > keyboard.
>
> > > > > Incidentally, where is your *empirical* study of the impacts of
> > > > > mountain biking? I'd love to review it for you.
>
> > > > You haven't even READ her article. If you did, you'd have to admit
> > > > that everything I said is true! I've never met someone so willing to
> > > > blab about something he knows nothing about! She isn't a "world
> > > > authority" on anything, except maybe greenwashing mountain biking. You
> > > > aren't an authority on ANYTHING relevant. I'm still the world
> > > > authority on mountain biking impacts.
>
> > > I don't have to admit anything. The bulk of your senseless yammering
> > > has to do with subjective preferences in terminology driven by your
> > > personal prejudices. You hardly touch their methods, and when you do
> > > it's about a topic they specifically address in the discussion. In
> > > short, you are whining because their objective article doesn't support
> > > YOUR bias.
>
> > > Worse still, you question the ethics of the research team because you
> > > suspect one or more of them may be mountain bikers while providing
> > > ZERO supporting evidence. But a complete lack of evidence never
> > > stopped you from drawing incorrect conclusions before, now did it? I
> > > guess this shouldn't be any different. Did you disclose that you liked
> > > food when you wrote your dissertation? Because that would be a clear
> > > conflict of interest too.
>
> > > You have never published a refereed journal article on the impacts of
> > > mountain biking. You have also never produced the results of an
> > > empirical study on the topic. That makes you an equivalent authority
> > > as everyone else in the world who has never been published on it. You
> > > are not qualified to review anyone's research on the environmental
> > > impacts of ANYTHING because you haven't done any yourself.
>
> > > As I wrote before, you are, at best, an armchair quarterback who likes
> > > to whine.
>
> > > My statement stands. Catherine Pickering is the world authority on the
> > > impacts of mountain biking, as demonstrated by her command of the
> > > related literature and her ability to conduct research not just on the
> > > topic directly, but also on related domains. You, in contrast, are a
> > > local loon with a penchant for writing letters.
>
> > Very funny. You forgot that it's as plain as day that you haven't read
> > nor understood her paper, since there is a TOTAL lack of specifics in
> > your comment. Mountain bikers are SO easy!
>
> > It's obvious that at least one of the researchers is a mountain biker,
> > although they violated the journal's ethical standard by not
> > disclosing that fact. The "peer" reviewers are also probably mountain
> > bikers. Who else could miss the GLARING errors in her paper??? Any
> > elementary statistics student knows that statistics can never prove
> > two things equal. The most you can do is fail to prove them
> > significantly different. So she misstates her results, by saying that
> > mountain biking & hiking have "similar" impacts. DUH!
>
> > Either get specific (reply to my points individually), or shut up.
>
> How about I answer however I want instead?
>
> Given your extensive history of dodging questions, changing the
> subject and providing non-answers to specific questions, you are the
> LAST person who should be demanding specifics from anybody.
>
> In any case, I was plenty specific with the issues I raised (i.e., you
> aren't qualified to review a scientific article). You're just trying
> to change the subject again to help yourself feel relevant, I guess.
>
> Still, I'm feeling charitable, so here are some specifics for you:
>
> You are misrepresenting (i.e., lying) their use of the word,
> "similar," as a "result." The authors provide extensive quantitative
> data describing their results (which you conveniently withheld);
> following that, they use the word "similar" to summarize a portion of
> those results, which is completely reasonable and not uncommon in a
> scientific paper. So, Mike, if you have a problem with the results and
> you read beyond the introduction as you claim, you should have no
> problem explaining to me why you disagree that the SPECIFIC NUMERICAL
> RESULTS they provide should not be described using the word,
> "similar."
>
> When you're done with that, post a link citing the journal's specific
> "ethical standard" that was violated, provide the evidence that one or
> more of the authors is a mountain biker, and provide the evidence that
> one or more of the blind reviewers is a mountain biker. If it's
> "obvious" you should have no problem providing that evidence, right?
>
> Finally, cite the Australian laws/statutes/precedents that show riding
> "beyond formed trails" and "social trails" are illegal in the location
> where the research was being conducted.
>
> There, that specific enough for you, jackass?

No, of course not. You have said NOTHING specific about their paper
that one might know if you had actually READ it. You continue to
bluff. Address each of my complaints, and why, GIVEN YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF
THE PAPER (you might actually have to READ it), you disagree with my
assessment. As I clearly stated before, "similar" is not a scientific
word, since it's not quantifiable.

Unless they will admit to being mountain bikers, there's no way to
know (they refuse to answer -- a dead giveaway of dishonesty), but in
my experience, ONLY MOUNTAIN BIKERS write slanted, unscientific papers
like that, that purport to be science. We know, of course, from my
survey paper (http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm) that that is a
common practice. .

In every jurisdiction in the world, off-trail riding is illegal. Why
would Australia be different? You are just afraid to admit that I am
100% correct.

> If my questions make you uncomfortable, feel free to run along and
> write a letter to an editor somewhere and leave the science to the
> scientists.

[Shraga]

On May 10, 8:06*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> On May 9, 9:14*pm, Shraga > wrote:

> > > Either get specific (reply to my points individually), or shut up.
>
> > How about I answer however I want instead?
>
> > Given your extensive history of dodging questions, changing the
> > subject and providing non-answers to specific questions, you are the
> > LAST person who should be demanding specifics from anybody.
>
> > In any case, I was plenty specific with the issues I raised (i.e., you
> > aren't qualified to review a scientific article). You're just trying
> > to change the subject again to help yourself feel relevant, I guess.
>
> > Still, I'm feeling charitable, so here are some specifics for you:
>
> > You are misrepresenting (i.e., lying) their use of the word,
> > "similar," as a "result." The authors provide extensive quantitative
> > data describing their results (which you conveniently withheld);
> > following that, they use the word "similar" to summarize a portion of
> > those results, which is completely reasonable and not uncommon in a
> > scientific paper. So, Mike, if you have a problem with the results and
> > you read beyond the introduction as you claim, you should have no
> > problem explaining to me why you disagree that the SPECIFIC NUMERICAL
> > RESULTS they provide should not be described using the word,
> > "similar."
>
> > When you're done with that, post a link citing the journal's specific
> > "ethical standard" that was violated, provide the evidence that one or
> > more of the authors is a mountain biker, and provide the evidence that
> > one or more of the blind reviewers is a mountain biker. If it's
> > "obvious" you should have no problem providing that evidence, right?
>
> > Finally, cite the Australian laws/statutes/precedents that show riding
> > "beyond formed trails" and "social trails" are illegal in the location
> > where the research was being conducted.
>
> > There, that specific enough for you, jackass?
>
> No, of course not. You have said NOTHING specific about their paper
> that one might know if you had actually READ it. You continue to
> bluff. Address each of my complaints, and why, GIVEN YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF
> THE PAPER (you might actually have to READ it), you disagree with my
> assessment. As I clearly stated before, "similar" is not a scientific
> word, since it's not quantifiable.

Asked and answered. If you didn't understand my response that's your
problem, not mine. It's a perfectly reasonable word to use when
summarizing a quantitative result. As I wrote before, if you had any
experience reading scientific papers you would know that. Your
preposterous objection to it highlights your ignorance.

The fact that you don't understand the results section is noted.
Strike one.

> Unless they will admit to being mountain bikers, there's no way to
> know (they refuse to answer -- a dead giveaway of dishonesty), but in
> my experience, ONLY MOUNTAIN BIKERS write slanted, unscientific papers
> like that, that purport to be science. We know, of course, from my
> survey paper (http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm) that that is a
> common practice. .

What would I have to gain from reading an unpublished "paper" written
by an amateur letter-writer? Can you recommend anything written by a
scientist instead?

I asked for proof, not your biased opinion. Do you need an adult to
explain the difference to you? Strike two.

> In every jurisdiction in the world, off-trail riding is illegal. Why
> would Australia be different? You are just afraid to admit that I am
> 100% correct.

If you're correct, then it shouldn't be a problem to quote a legal
precedent. You won't, because you can't. Strike three.

What you fail to understand, Mike, is that you're trying to refute
science with faith-based arguments and unsubstantiated opinions. A
real scientist would understand that it doesn't work that way. That's
why you'll have to observe from the sidelines and whine while good
scientists like Pickering et al. keep getting published.

How many years have you been railing against mountain biking, Mike?
15? 20? And how many empirical studies, conference proceedings,
journal articles and book chapters have you produced in those lost
decades? Probably less than the average graduate student.

You might want to hold off and do something worth mentioning before
calling yourself an "authority" on anything.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 10, 8:16*pm, Shraga > wrote:
> On May 10, 8:06*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 9, 9:14*pm, Shraga > wrote:
> > > > Either get specific (reply to my points individually), or shut up.
>
> > > How about I answer however I want instead?
>
> > > Given your extensive history of dodging questions, changing the
> > > subject and providing non-answers to specific questions, you are the
> > > LAST person who should be demanding specifics from anybody.
>
> > > In any case, I was plenty specific with the issues I raised (i.e., you
> > > aren't qualified to review a scientific article). You're just trying
> > > to change the subject again to help yourself feel relevant, I guess.
>
> > > Still, I'm feeling charitable, so here are some specifics for you:
>
> > > You are misrepresenting (i.e., lying) their use of the word,
> > > "similar," as a "result." The authors provide extensive quantitative
> > > data describing their results (which you conveniently withheld);
> > > following that, they use the word "similar" to summarize a portion of
> > > those results, which is completely reasonable and not uncommon in a
> > > scientific paper. So, Mike, if you have a problem with the results and
> > > you read beyond the introduction as you claim, you should have no
> > > problem explaining to me why you disagree that the SPECIFIC NUMERICAL
> > > RESULTS they provide should not be described using the word,
> > > "similar."
>
> > > When you're done with that, post a link citing the journal's specific
> > > "ethical standard" that was violated, provide the evidence that one or
> > > more of the authors is a mountain biker, and provide the evidence that
> > > one or more of the blind reviewers is a mountain biker. If it's
> > > "obvious" you should have no problem providing that evidence, right?
>
> > > Finally, cite the Australian laws/statutes/precedents that show riding
> > > "beyond formed trails" and "social trails" are illegal in the location
> > > where the research was being conducted.
>
> > > There, that specific enough for you, jackass?
>
> > No, of course not. You have said NOTHING specific about their paper
> > that one might know if you had actually READ it. You continue to
> > bluff. Address each of my complaints, and why, GIVEN YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF
> > THE PAPER (you might actually have to READ it), you disagree with my
> > assessment. As I clearly stated before, "similar" is not a scientific
> > word, since it's not quantifiable.
>
> Asked and answered. If you didn't understand my response that's your
> problem, not mine. It's a perfectly reasonable word to use when
> summarizing a quantitative result.

BS. It's totally meaningless in a statistical context. I know, you
don't have the faintest idea what that means.

As I wrote before, if you had any
> experience reading scientific papers you would know that. Your
> preposterous objection to it highlights your ignorance.
>
> The fact that you don't understand the results section is noted.
> Strike one.
>
> > Unless they will admit to being mountain bikers, there's no way to
> > know (they refuse to answer -- a dead giveaway of dishonesty), but in
> > my experience, ONLY MOUNTAIN BIKERS write slanted, unscientific papers
> > like that, that purport to be science. We know, of course, from my
> > survey paper (http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm) that that is a
> > common practice. .
>
> What would I have to gain from reading an unpublished "paper"

Because it's the only place you will find the truth. You won't read it
simply because you don't care about the truth.

written
> by an amateur letter-writer? Can you recommend anything written by a
> scientist instead?

I AM a scientist. That's what a Ph.D. is, dumdum.

> I asked for proof, not your biased opinion. Do you need an adult to
> explain the difference to you? Strike two.
>
> > In every jurisdiction in the world, off-trail riding is illegal. Why
> > would Australia be different? You are just afraid to admit that I am
> > 100% correct.
>
> If you're correct, then it shouldn't be a problem to quote a legal
> precedent. You won't, because you can't. Strike three.

Prove that it's legal. You can't, because it isn't.

> What you fail to understand, Mike, is that you're trying to refute
> science with faith-based arguments and unsubstantiated opinions. A
> real scientist would understand that it doesn't work that way. That's
> why you'll have to observe from the sidelines and whine while good
> scientists like Pickering et al. keep getting published.

How would YOU know what a "good scientist" is??? What are your
qualifications? NONE, I suspect, or you wouldn't STILL be sticking to
vague generalities.

> How many years have you been railing against mountain biking, Mike?
> 15? 20? And how many empirical studies, conference proceedings,
> journal articles and book chapters have you produced in those lost
> decades? Probably less than the average graduate student.

One is enough to know the truth. One honest article beats any number
of examples of biased propaganda.

> You might want to hold off and do something worth mentioning before
> calling yourself an "authority" on anything.

As I suspected, you can't say anythng SPECIFIC about the article,
because you haven't read i! That's why you keep changing the subject
to irrelevancies.

As to getting published in peer-reviewed publications, you seemt to
have overlooked 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.

Ready to throw in the towel? You have proved that you can't even use a
library! You aren't honest enough to admit that you are making
assertions about an article that you haven't even read! Typical
dishonest mountain biker. QED

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 10, 8:16*pm, Shraga > wrote:
> On May 10, 8:06*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 9, 9:14*pm, Shraga > wrote:
> > > > Either get specific (reply to my points individually), or shut up.
>
> > > How about I answer however I want instead?
>
> > > Given your extensive history of dodging questions, changing the
> > > subject and providing non-answers to specific questions, you are the
> > > LAST person who should be demanding specifics from anybody.
>
> > > In any case, I was plenty specific with the issues I raised (i.e., you
> > > aren't qualified to review a scientific article). You're just trying
> > > to change the subject again to help yourself feel relevant, I guess.
>
> > > Still, I'm feeling charitable, so here are some specifics for you:
>
> > > You are misrepresenting (i.e., lying) their use of the word,
> > > "similar," as a "result." The authors provide extensive quantitative
> > > data describing their results (which you conveniently withheld);
> > > following that, they use the word "similar" to summarize a portion of
> > > those results, which is completely reasonable and not uncommon in a
> > > scientific paper. So, Mike, if you have a problem with the results and
> > > you read beyond the introduction as you claim, you should have no
> > > problem explaining to me why you disagree that the SPECIFIC NUMERICAL
> > > RESULTS they provide should not be described using the word,
> > > "similar."
>
> > > When you're done with that, post a link citing the journal's specific
> > > "ethical standard" that was violated, provide the evidence that one or
> > > more of the authors is a mountain biker, and provide the evidence that
> > > one or more of the blind reviewers is a mountain biker. If it's
> > > "obvious" you should have no problem providing that evidence, right?
>
> > > Finally, cite the Australian laws/statutes/precedents that show riding
> > > "beyond formed trails" and "social trails" are illegal in the location
> > > where the research was being conducted.
>
> > > There, that specific enough for you, jackass?
>
> > No, of course not. You have said NOTHING specific about their paper
> > that one might know if you had actually READ it. You continue to
> > bluff. Address each of my complaints, and why, GIVEN YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF
> > THE PAPER (you might actually have to READ it), you disagree with my
> > assessment. As I clearly stated before, "similar" is not a scientific
> > word, since it's not quantifiable.
>
> Asked and answered. If you didn't understand my response that's your
> problem, not mine. It's a perfectly reasonable word to use when
> summarizing a quantitative result. As I wrote before, if you had any
> experience reading scientific papers you would know that. Your
> preposterous objection to it highlights your ignorance.
>
> The fact that you don't understand the results section is noted.
> Strike one.
>
> > Unless they will admit to being mountain bikers, there's no way to
> > know (they refuse to answer -- a dead giveaway of dishonesty), but in
> > my experience, ONLY MOUNTAIN BIKERS write slanted, unscientific papers
> > like that, that purport to be science. We know, of course, from my
> > survey paper (http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm) that that is a
> > common practice. .
>
> What would I have to gain from reading an unpublished "paper" written
> by an amateur letter-writer? Can you recommend anything written by a
> scientist instead?
>
> I asked for proof, not your biased opinion. Do you need an adult to
> explain the difference to you? Strike two.
>
> > In every jurisdiction in the world, off-trail riding is illegal. Why
> > would Australia be different? You are just afraid to admit that I am
> > 100% correct.
>
> If you're correct, then it shouldn't be a problem to quote a legal
> precedent. You won't, because you can't. Strike three.
>
> What you fail to understand, Mike, is that you're trying to refute
> science with faith-based arguments and unsubstantiated opinions. A
> real scientist would understand that it doesn't work that way. That's
> why you'll have to observe from the sidelines and whine while good
> scientists like Pickering et al. keep getting published.
>
> How many years have you been railing against mountain biking, Mike?
> 15? 20? And how many empirical studies, conference proceedings,
> journal articles and book chapters have you produced in those lost
> decades? Probably less than the average graduate student.
>
> You might want to hold off and do something worth mentioning before
> calling yourself an "authority" on anything.

And you are an authority on WHAT, exactly? Bluffing? Lying? You can't
even tell us your real name! What an idiot.

[Shraga]

On May 11, 12:02*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> On May 10, 8:16*pm, Shraga > wrote:

> > Asked and answered. If you didn't understand my response that's your
> > problem, not mine. It's a perfectly reasonable word to use when
> > summarizing a quantitative result.
>
> BS. It's totally meaningless in a statistical context. I know, you
> don't have the faintest idea what that means.

Idiot: It wasn't used in a statistical context in the paper.

I've explained that to you twice, asked twice for you to back your
claim up and you keep coming back with the same incorrect response,
proving you haven't read the article. The fact that I can respond to
you coherently and you can't provide the specific evidence I requested
proves I'm talking way over your head, as usual.

(Later in your response, where you whine that I'm not being specific,
you are LYING again because this is very specific to the article and
your layman's opinion of it.)

> *As I wrote before, if you had any
>
> > experience reading scientific papers you would know that. Your
> > preposterous objection to it highlights your ignorance.
>
> > The fact that you don't understand the results section is noted.
> > Strike one.
>
> > > Unless they will admit to being mountain bikers, there's no way to
> > > know (they refuse to answer -- a dead giveaway of dishonesty), but in
> > > my experience, ONLY MOUNTAIN BIKERS write slanted, unscientific papers
> > > like that, that purport to be science. We know, of course, from my
> > > survey paper (http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm) that that is a
> > > common practice. .
>
> > What would I have to gain from reading an unpublished "paper"
>
> Because it's the only place you will find the truth. You won't read it
> simply because you don't care about the truth.

Not "truth." It's your subjective, faith-based, layman's opinion of
the science. I already told you that.

Get it published in a peer-reviewed journal, then I might take you
seriously. Until then, you're just another Internet kook.

Plus, this is another example of YOU changing the subject. I asked for
proof about the authors and you responded with another of your
Internet opinion pieces. Your dishonest opinion is not proof.

> *written
>
> > by an amateur letter-writer? Can you recommend anything written by a
> > scientist instead?
>
> I AM a scientist. That's what a Ph.D. is, dumdum.

You are are the poster boy for why there should be a statute of
limitations on having a PhD. Your degree in Psychometrics and research
experience in ethnic food preferences was about 40 years ago and has
NOTHING to do with the field in which you now claim expertise.

If we were discussing an article on Psychometrics, then I would give
you full credit for your ancient degree. However, we're not, so you
should try to be honest about your lack of qualifications.

So no. In this context, you are not a scientist.

> > I asked for proof, not your biased opinion. Do you need an adult to
> > explain the difference to you? Strike two.
>
> > > In every jurisdiction in the world, off-trail riding is illegal. Why
> > > would Australia be different? You are just afraid to admit that I am
> > > 100% correct.
>
> > If you're correct, then it shouldn't be a problem to quote a legal
> > precedent. You won't, because you can't. Strike three.
>
> Prove that it's legal. You can't, because it isn't.

Quit being a weasel. I asked you a simple question. Answer it, idiot,
and don't change the subject.

I will quote YOU here, from a response you gave just two days ago in
this same thread: "You didn't cite any reaesrch [sic], because you
CAN'T."

YOU made the claim it was illegal, now back it up.

> > What you fail to understand, Mike, is that you're trying to refute
> > science with faith-based arguments and unsubstantiated opinions. A
> > real scientist would understand that it doesn't work that way. That's
> > why you'll have to observe from the sidelines and whine while good
> > scientists like Pickering et al. keep getting published.
>
> How would YOU know what a "good scientist" is??? What are your
> qualifications? NONE, I suspect, or you wouldn't STILL be sticking to
> vague generalities.

I think it's fair to say her publication record and academic position
speak for themselves.

My qualifications are irrelevant, but that's not what we're
discussing, now is it? Again, quit trying to change the subject.

> > How many years have you been railing against mountain biking, Mike?
> > 15? 20? And how many empirical studies, conference proceedings,
> > journal articles and book chapters have you produced in those lost
> > decades? Probably less than the average graduate student.
>
> One is enough to know the truth. One honest article beats any number
> of examples of biased propaganda.

Maybe you should try writing one, then. It might help your case.

> > You might want to hold off and do something worth mentioning before
> > calling yourself an "authority" on anything.
>
> As I suspected, you can't say anythng SPECIFIC about the article,
> because you haven't read i! That's why you keep changing the subject
> to irrelevancies.

I was quite specific. Unfortunately, my responses seem to be too
complicated for you.

> As to getting published in peer-reviewed publications, you seemt to
> have overlooked 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.
>
> Ready to throw in the towel? You have proved that you can't even use a
> library! You aren't honest enough to admit that you are making
> assertions about an article that you haven't even read! Typical
> dishonest mountain biker. QED

Show me where I wrote you weren't published, idiot.

[Len McGoogle]

On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine

Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
longer to pick up if dropped?

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 11, 2:57*pm, Len McGoogle > wrote:
> On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
>
> Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
> longer to pick up if dropped?

Thanks for demonstrating, for the umpteenth time, exactly where
mountain bikers' minds are located (not that we didn't know
already...).

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 11, 8:10*am, Shraga > wrote:
> On May 11, 12:02*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 8:16*pm, Shraga > wrote:
> > > Asked and answered. If you didn't understand my response that's your
> > > problem, not mine. It's a perfectly reasonable word to use when
> > > summarizing a quantitative result.
>
> > BS. It's totally meaningless in a statistical context. I know, you
> > don't have the faintest idea what that means.
>
> Idiot: It wasn't used in a statistical context in the paper.
>
> I've explained that to you twice, asked twice for you to back your
> claim up and you keep coming back with the same incorrect response,
> proving you haven't read the article. The fact that I can respond to
> you coherently and you can't provide the specific evidence I requested
> proves I'm talking way over your head, as usual.
>
> (Later in your response, where you whine that I'm not being specific,
> you are LYING again because this is very specific to the article and
> your layman's opinion of it.)
>
>
>
>
>
> > *As I wrote before, if you had any
>
> > > experience reading scientific papers you would know that. Your
> > > preposterous objection to it highlights your ignorance.
>
> > > The fact that you don't understand the results section is noted.
> > > Strike one.
>
> > > > Unless they will admit to being mountain bikers, there's no way to
> > > > know (they refuse to answer -- a dead giveaway of dishonesty), but in
> > > > my experience, ONLY MOUNTAIN BIKERS write slanted, unscientific papers
> > > > like that, that purport to be science. We know, of course, from my
> > > > survey paper (http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm) that that is a
> > > > common practice. .
>
> > > What would I have to gain from reading an unpublished "paper"
>
> > Because it's the only place you will find the truth. You won't read it
> > simply because you don't care about the truth.
>
> Not "truth." It's your subjective, faith-based, layman's opinion of
> the science. I already told you that.
>
> Get it published in a peer-reviewed journal, then I might take you
> seriously. Until then, you're just another Internet kook.
>
> Plus, this is another example of YOU changing the subject. I asked for
> proof about the authors and you responded with another of your
> Internet opinion pieces. Your dishonest opinion is not proof.
>
> > *written
>
> > > by an amateur letter-writer? Can you recommend anything written by a
> > > scientist instead?
>
> > I AM a scientist. That's what a Ph.D. is, dumdum.
>
> You are are the poster boy for why there should be a statute of
> limitations on having a PhD. Your degree in Psychometrics and research
> experience in ethnic food preferences was about 40 years ago and has
> NOTHING to do with the field in which you now claim expertise.
>
> If we were discussing an article on Psychometrics, then I would give
> you full credit for your ancient degree. However, we're not, so you
> should try to be honest about your lack of qualifications.
>
> So no. In this context, you are not a scientist.
>
> > > I asked for proof, not your biased opinion. Do you need an adult to
> > > explain the difference to you? Strike two.
>
> > > > In every jurisdiction in the world, off-trail riding is illegal. Why
> > > > would Australia be different? You are just afraid to admit that I am
> > > > 100% correct.
>
> > > If you're correct, then it shouldn't be a problem to quote a legal
> > > precedent. You won't, because you can't. Strike three.
>
> > Prove that it's legal. You can't, because it isn't.
>
> Quit being a weasel. I asked you a simple question. Answer it, idiot,
> and don't change the subject.
>
> I will quote YOU here, from a response you gave just two days ago in
> this same thread: "You didn't cite any reaesrch [sic], because you
> CAN'T."
>
> YOU made the claim it was illegal, now back it up.
>
> > > What you fail to understand, Mike, is that you're trying to refute
> > > science with faith-based arguments and unsubstantiated opinions. A
> > > real scientist would understand that it doesn't work that way. That's
> > > why you'll have to observe from the sidelines and whine while good
> > > scientists like Pickering et al. keep getting published.
>
> > How would YOU know what a "good scientist" is??? What are your
> > qualifications? NONE, I suspect, or you wouldn't STILL be sticking to
> > vague generalities.
>
> I think it's fair to say her publication record and academic position
> speak for themselves.
>
> My qualifications are irrelevant, but that's not what we're
> discussing, now is it? Again, quit trying to change the subject.
>
> > > How many years have you been railing against mountain biking, Mike?
> > > 15? 20? And how many empirical studies, conference proceedings,
> > > journal articles and book chapters have you produced in those lost
> > > decades? Probably less than the average graduate student.
>
> > One is enough to know the truth. One honest article beats any number
> > of examples of biased propaganda.
>
> Maybe you should try writing one, then. It might help your case.
>
> > > You might want to hold off and do something worth mentioning before
> > > calling yourself an "authority" on anything.
>
> > As I suspected, you can't say anythng SPECIFIC about the article,
> > because you haven't read i! That's why you keep changing the subject
> > to irrelevancies.
>
> I was quite specific. Unfortunately, my responses seem to be too
> complicated for you.
>
> > As to getting published in peer-reviewed publications, you seemt to
> > have overlooked 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.
>
> > Ready to throw in the towel? You have proved that you can't even use a
> > library! You aren't honest enough to admit that you are making
> > assertions about an article that you haven't even read! Typical
> > dishonest mountain biker. QED
>
> Show me where I wrote you weren't published, idiot.

You are fooling NO ONE, except yourself. Your repeated failure to
mention even ONE specific detail of the article proved that you never
read it. But someone who is afraid to use his/her real name obviously
has nothing worthwhile to say, anyway. You are nothing but hot air,
like ALL mountain bikers.Thanks for demonstrating, for the umpteenth
time, exactly what mountain bikers are like: DISHONEST TO THE CORE.

[Len McGoogle]

On May 11, 11:01*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> On May 11, 2:57*pm, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
>
> > Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
> > longer to pick up if dropped?
>
> Thanks for demonstrating, for the umpteenth time, exactly where
> mountain bikers' minds are located (not that we didn't know
> already...).

Maybe it was liquid soap.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 11, 2:57*pm, Len McGoogle > wrote:
> On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
>
> Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
> longer to pick up if dropped?

Keep it up! You are giving a very accurate picture of how mountain
bikers think! As always, THANKS FOR THE HELP! No wonder you are afraid
to use your real name....

[Shraga]

On May 11, 11:06*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> On May 11, 8:10*am, Shraga > wrote:
>
> > Show me where I wrote you weren't published, idiot.
>
> You are fooling NO ONE, except yourself. Your repeated failure to
> mention even ONE specific detail of the article proved that you never
> read it. But someone who is afraid to use his/her real name obviously
> has nothing worthwhile to say, anyway. You are nothing but hot air,
> like ALL mountain bikers.Thanks for demonstrating, for the umpteenth
> time, exactly what mountain bikers are like: DISHONEST TO THE CORE.

You're welcome. And thank YOU, for demonstrating, for the umpteenth
time, your lack of scientific credentials by not being able to respond
to even my most basic questions about validating your biased opinion
piece.

Incidentally, why are you afraid to use your real name? Or did your
parents name you "Mike?"

[charley]

On May 11, 4:57*pm, Len McGoogle > wrote:
> On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
>
> Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
> longer to pick up if dropped?

what i dont get is why he does it. he has no support other than a
brain dead couch potato in the midwest. all he does is rant and rave
and with all his spent energy doest sway one soul from mountain
biking, and his cross posts to rec.backpacking just muck up the group
so very few real backpackers hang out there to exchange information.
mike - by arguing with mountain bikers you do nothing good. any trail
you "may" be lucky enough to ever close will not be due to any efforts
on rec.mountainbiking or rec.backpacking. so why not at least leave
rec.backpaking out of it? my guess is you crosspost in hopes of
getting hikers all upset at the horrors of MTBing and join your side,
but i see it isnt working.

this is so tiring, all you have done is **** off backpackers because
we cant have our group to our sport and we have to wade through all
your sewage. you really are deranged and obsessed with an alternative
reality. i truly wish you the worst. one asshole ruining what could
be a pleasurable group of backpackers. one asshole screaming all by
himself with nobody listening to what he says, just screaming back at
him to shut up. but you revel in that, and that is the sign of a
mental disorder.

about as successful as your fight to end auto dependency, isnt it?
go to hell MV, and godspeed doing it.

[Edward Dolan]

"charley" wrote in message
...

On May 11, 4:57 pm, Len McGoogle > wrote:
> On May 6, 12:12 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
>
> Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
> longer to pick up if dropped?

The above was posted by an idiot who wants nothing better up his dumb ass
than a broom stick. Does he think you have to go to jail for that?

>> what i dont get is why he does it. he has no support other than a
brain dead couch potato in the midwest. all he does is rant and rave
and with all his spent energy doest sway one soul from mountain
biking, and his cross posts to rec.backpacking just muck up the group
so very few real backpackers hang out there to exchange information.
mike - by arguing with mountain bikers you do nothing good. any trail
you "may" be lucky enough to ever close will not be due to any efforts
on rec.mountainbiking or rec.backpacking. so why not at least leave
rec.backpaking out of it? my guess is you crosspost in hopes of
getting hikers all upset at the horrors of MTBing and join your side,
but i see it isnt working.

What you don’t get is just about everything. Any group which doesn't condemn
mountain biking deserves to get ****ed up. That goes for you too - you dumb
asshole!

>> this is so tiring, all you have done is **** off backpackers because
we cant have our group to our sport and we have to wade through all
your sewage. you really are deranged and obsessed with an alternative
reality. i truly wish you the worst. one asshole ruining what could
be a pleasurable group of backpackers. one asshole screaming all by
himself with nobody listening to what he says, just screaming back at
him to shut up. but you revel in that, and that is the sign of a
mental disorder.

The only one here with a mental disorder is yourself. Get with the program
or get lost - you dumb asshole!

>> about as successful as your fight to end auto dependency, isnt it?
go to hell MV, and godspeed doing it.

Anyone who thinks mountain biking on hiking trails is OK is a god damn
****ing idiot - you dumb asshole!

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 16, 6:32*am, charley > wrote:
> On May 11, 4:57*pm, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
>
> > Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
> > longer to pick up if dropped?
>
> what i dont get is why he does it. he has no support other than a
> brain dead couch potato in the midwest. *all he does is rant and rave
> and with all his spent energy doest sway one soul from mountain
> biking, and his cross posts to rec.backpacking just muck up the group
> so very few real backpackers hang out there to exchange information.
> mike - by arguing with mountain bikers you do nothing good. *any trail
> you "may" be lucky enough to ever close will not be due to any efforts
> on rec.mountainbiking or rec.backpacking. so *why not at least leave
> rec.backpaking out of it? *my guess is you crosspost in hopes of
> getting hikers all upset at the horrors of MTBing and join your side,
> but i see it isnt working.
>
> this is so tiring, all you have done is **** off backpackers because
> we cant have our group to our sport and we have to wade through all
> your sewage. *you really are deranged and obsessed with an alternative
> reality. *i truly wish you the worst. *one asshole ruining what could
> be a pleasurable group of backpackers. *one asshole screaming all by
> himself with nobody listening to what he says, just screaming back at
> him to shut up. *but you revel in that, and that is the sign of a
> mental disorder.
>
> about as successful as your fight to end auto dependency, isnt it?
> go to hell MV, and godspeed doing it.

If you don't understand the issues, why not read my posts and LEARN
something? Too difficult for you? Most of my posts aren't written by
me, but by professional reporters. Why don't you complain to THEM?
Don't like hearing the truth? I can suggest some countries which don't
have freedom of speech, where you might be more comfortable, like
North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 5/16/2012 4:17 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]

Hey Ed, Fred Markham (of Easy Racers) asked me to say hello to you for him.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 5/16/2012 8:32 AM, charley wrote:
> [...]
> about as successful as your fight to end auto dependency, isnt it?
> go to hell MV, and godspeed doing it.

Hey, what have the poor people of Hell, Michigan done to deserve Michael
"Handsaw" Vandeman in their midst?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 5/9/2012 10:30 AM, Shraga wrote:
>
> [...]
> My statement stands. Catherine Pickering is the world authority on the
> impacts of mountain biking, as demonstrated by her command of the
> related literature and her ability to conduct research not just on the
> topic directly, but also on related domains. You, in contrast, are a
> local loon with a penchant for writing letters.
^^^^^^^^^^

In other breaking news, "Shraga" beaten by local loons who were offended
by being compared to Michael J. Vandeman, Piled Higher and Deeper.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 5/10/2012 10:16 PM, Shraga wrote:
> [...]
> You might want to hold off and do something worth mentioning before
> calling yourself an "authority" on anything.

Mikey V. is an authority in being a Usenet troll.

I also understand he is pretty handy in combat with a HANDSAW. ;)

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Len McGoogle]

On May 17, 12:08*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> On May 16, 6:32*am, charley > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 4:57*pm, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>
> > > On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > > "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
>
> > > Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
> > > longer to pick up if dropped?
>
> > what i dont get is why he does it. he has no support other than a
> > brain dead couch potato in the midwest. *all he does is rant and rave
> > and with all his spent energy doest sway one soul from mountain
> > biking, and his cross posts to rec.backpacking just muck up the group
> > so very few real backpackers hang out there to exchange information.
> > mike - by arguing with mountain bikers you do nothing good. *any trail
> > you "may" be lucky enough to ever close will not be due to any efforts
> > on rec.mountainbiking or rec.backpacking. so *why not at least leave
> > rec.backpaking out of it? *my guess is you crosspost in hopes of
> > getting hikers all upset at the horrors of MTBing and join your side,
> > but i see it isnt working.
>
> > this is so tiring, all you have done is **** off backpackers because
> > we cant have our group to our sport and we have to wade through all
> > your sewage. *you really are deranged and obsessed with an alternative
> > reality. *i truly wish you the worst. *one asshole ruining what could
> > be a pleasurable group of backpackers. *one asshole screaming all by
> > himself with nobody listening to what he says, just screaming back at
> > him to shut up. *but you revel in that, and that is the sign of a
> > mental disorder.
>
> > about as successful as your fight to end auto dependency, isnt it?
> > go to hell MV, and godspeed doing it.
>
> If you don't understand the issues, why not read my posts and LEARN
> something? Too difficult for you? Most of my posts aren't written by
> me, but by professional reporters. Why don't you complain to THEM?
> Don't like hearing the truth? I can suggest some countries which don't
> have freedom of speech, where you might be more comfortable, like
> North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc.

All he needs to know is Michael J. Vandeman has a criminal record and
did jail time recently.

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom $herman (-_-)" wrote in message ...

On 5/16/2012 4:17 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]

>> Hey Ed, Fred Markham (of Easy Racers) asked me to say hello to you for
>> him.

I must have said something to **** him off about his racing activities once
long ago. Cyclists who want to go fast are from a different planet than me.
It is all foolishness of course. I guess some people just never grow up.

Instead of posting asshole comments about MV, why not tell us something
about your velomobile? Even that idiot TM might be interested although I
think he only likes to talk to himself.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 5/19/2012 9:57 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom $herman (-_-)" wrote in message ...
>
> On 5/16/2012 4:17 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
>> [...]
>
>>> Hey Ed, Fred Markham (of Easy Racers) asked me to say hello to you
>>> for him.
>
> I must have said something to **** him off about his racing activities
> once long ago. Cyclists who want to go fast are from a different planet
> than me. It is all foolishness of course. I guess some people just never
> grow up.
>
> Instead of posting asshole comments about MV, why not tell us something
> about your velomobile? Even that idiot TM might be interested although I
> think he only likes to talk to himself.

Well, I bought a Mini [1] for running around town. Great low speed
handling, and a seat that does *not* try to wedge itself up one's arse.
Stout enough to take on curbs and potholes.

[1] A RANS Mini, that is.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/spincyclz/6051689140/in/faves-19704682@N08/>

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 5/19/2012 8:40 PM, Len McGoogle wrote:
> On May 17, 12:08�am, Mike > wrote:
>> On May 16, 6:32�am, > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 11, 4:57�pm, Len > wrote:
>>
>>>> On May 6, 12:12�am, Mike > wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
>>
>>>> Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
>>>> longer to pick up if dropped?
>>
>>> what i dont get is why he does it. he has no support other than a
>>> brain dead couch potato in the midwest. �all he does is rant and rave
>>> and with all his spent energy doest sway one soul from mountain
>>> biking, and his cross posts to rec.backpacking just muck up the group
>>> so very few real backpackers hang out there to exchange information.
>>> mike - by arguing with mountain bikers you do nothing good. �any trail
>>> you "may" be lucky enough to ever close will not be due to any efforts
>>> on rec.mountainbiking or rec.backpacking. so �why not at least leave
>>> rec.backpaking out of it? �my guess is you crosspost in hopes of
>>> getting hikers all upset at the horrors of MTBing and join your side,
>>> but i see it isnt working.
>>
>>> this is so tiring, all you have done is **** off backpackers because
>>> we cant have our group to our sport and we have to wade through all
>>> your sewage. �you really are deranged and obsessed with an alternative
>>> reality. �i truly wish you the worst. �one asshole ruining what could
>>> be a pleasurable group of backpackers. �one asshole screaming all by
>>> himself with nobody listening to what he says, just screaming back at
>>> him to shut up. �but you revel in that, and that is the sign of a
>>> mental disorder.
>>
>>> about as successful as your fight to end auto dependency, isnt it?
>>> go to hell MV, and godspeed doing it.
>>
>> If you don't understand the issues, why not read my posts and LEARN
>> something? Too difficult for you? Most of my posts aren't written by
>> me, but by professional reporters. Why don't you complain to THEM?
>> Don't like hearing the truth? I can suggest some countries which don't
>> have freedom of speech, where you might be more comfortable, like
>> North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc.
>
> All he needs to know is Michael J. Vandeman has a criminal record and
> did jail time recently.

And once cut down trees to make a tree fort.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 19, 11:08*pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 5/19/2012 8:40 PM, Len McGoogle wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 12:08 am, Mike > *wrote:
> >> On May 16, 6:32 am, > *wrote:
>
> >>> On May 11, 4:57 pm, Len > *wrote:
>
> >>>> On May 6, 12:12 am, Mike > *wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
>
> >>>> Mike, did you use powdered soap in the shower in jail because it takes
> >>>> longer to pick up if dropped?
>
> >>> what i dont get is why he does it. he has no support other than a
> >>> brain dead couch potato in the midwest. all he does is rant and rave
> >>> and with all his spent energy doest sway one soul from mountain
> >>> biking, and his cross posts to rec.backpacking just muck up the group
> >>> so very few real backpackers hang out there to exchange information.
> >>> mike - by arguing with mountain bikers you do nothing good. any trail
> >>> you "may" be lucky enough to ever close will not be due to any efforts
> >>> on rec.mountainbiking or rec.backpacking. so why not at least leave
> >>> rec.backpaking out of it? my guess is you crosspost in hopes of
> >>> getting hikers all upset at the horrors of MTBing and join your side,
> >>> but i see it isnt working.
>
> >>> this is so tiring, all you have done is **** off backpackers because
> >>> we cant have our group to our sport and we have to wade through all
> >>> your sewage. you really are deranged and obsessed with an alternative
> >>> reality. i truly wish you the worst. one asshole ruining what could
> >>> be a pleasurable group of backpackers. one asshole screaming all by
> >>> himself with nobody listening to what he says, just screaming back at
> >>> him to shut up. but you revel in that, and that is the sign of a
> >>> mental disorder.
>
> >>> about as successful as your fight to end auto dependency, isnt it?
> >>> go to hell MV, and godspeed doing it.
>
> >> If you don't understand the issues, why not read my posts and LEARN
> >> something? Too difficult for you? Most of my posts aren't written by
> >> me, but by professional reporters. Why don't you complain to THEM?
> >> Don't like hearing the truth? I can suggest some countries which don't
> >> have freedom of speech, where you might be more comfortable, like
> >> North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc.
>
> > All he needs to know is Michael J. Vandeman has a criminal record and
> > did jail time recently.
>
> And once cut down trees to make a tree fort.

Liar. Why do mountain bikers ALWAYS lie???

> Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
> Post Free or Die!

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom $herman (-_-)" wrote in message ...

On 5/19/2012 9:57 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
> Instead of posting asshole comments about MV, why not tell us something
> about your velomobile? Even that idiot TM might be interested although I
> think he only likes to talk to himself.

>>>> Well, I bought a Mini [1] for running around town. Great low speed
handling, and a seat that does *not* try to wedge itself up one's arse.
Stout enough to take on curbs and potholes.

>>>> [1] A RANS Mini, that is.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/spincyclz/6051689140/in/faves-19704682@N08/>

If this is your bike now, it means you have given up on cycling. Well, it
happens to all of us sooner or later. Apparently your velomobile proved to
be a mistake.

But speaking of RANS, I bought a RANS V-Rex last summer from Calhoun Cycles
and have been riding it ever since. This is the bike I should have gotten 20
years ago instead of the Vision. However, the minute I start to fall on any
of my many two wheelers, I will switch to my three wheelers. When you get to
be my age, broken bones from falls are out of the question.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

[charley]

ed dolan:

What you don’t get is just about everything. Any group which doesn't
condemn
> mountain biking deserves to get ****ed up. That goes for you too - you dumb
> asshole!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

such grown up language! your mother would be so proud, if she sobered
up long enough to read your posts. too bad they didnt know how bad
alcohol affected the brain of fetuses like your's when you were in the
womb.

but in reponse to your quote above - really? "any group"? i am a
woodworker and sal****er angler too, do those groups have to condemn
mountain biking? too funny - its just you two! i guess your efforts
aren't too convincing, about as successful as Mike's fighting auto
dependency. yawn.

in my past 10 yrs of backpacking i have passed exactly one mountain
biker. its very easy to avoid the areas they frequent. no problem for
me, and when i do hike in areas where it is permitted i still see the
same wildlife. hardly apocalyptic.

all i know is that 22 of the last 25 posts in rec.backpacker are MV's
rambling tirades that exactly nobody other than you support.
therefore, you are wasting your time arguing with "the enemy", with
not one single convert, you would think you would focus your efforts
on some other area, like maybe you should try convincing 3rd graders
that MTBing is horrible and divert them at an early stage. that way,
you keep the fresh meat from entering the sport and eventually it will
die out, and as an added bonus you would be conversing with people on
your same mental level. all you have proven here is that your puny
cranial capacity cant match the ones you try to convert.

Einstein had it right, doing the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. you two
are proof!

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 23, 6:12*am, charley > wrote:
> ed dolan:
>
> What you don’t get is just about everything. Any group which doesn't
> condemn
>
> > mountain biking deserves to get ****ed up. That goes for you too - you dumb
> > asshole!
>
> such grown up language!

It's the only kind you understand.

*your mother would be so proud, if she sobered
> up long enough to read your posts. *too bad they didnt know how bad
> alcohol affected the brain of fetuses like your's when you were in the
> womb.
>
> but *in reponse to your quote above - really? *"any group"? *i am a
> woodworker and sal****er angler too, do those groups have to condemn
> mountain biking? *too funny - its just you two! *i guess your efforts
> aren't too convincing, about as successful as Mike's fighting auto
> dependency. * yawn.
>
> in my past 10 yrs of backpacking i have passed exactly one mountain
> biker. *its very easy to avoid the areas they frequent. no problem for
> me,

Obviously, you only care about yourself. Intelligent people don't
restrict their caring to their own skin.

and when i do hike in areas where it is permitted i still see the
> same wildlife. *hardly apocalyptic.

That's not what the science says.

> all i know is that 22 of the last 25 posts in rec.backpacker are MV's
> rambling tirades that exactly nobody other than you support.
> therefore, you are wasting your time arguing with "the enemy", with
> not one single convert, you would think you would focus your efforts
> on some other area, like maybe you should try convincing 3rd graders
> that MTBing is horrible and divert them at an early stage. *that way,
> you keep the fresh meat from entering the sport and eventually it will
> die out, and as an added bonus you would be conversing with people on
> your same mental level. all you have proven here is that your puny
> cranial capacity cant match the ones you try to convert.
>
> Einstein had it right, doing the same thing over and over and
> expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. you two
> are proof!

We are more charitable. We never give up hope that you are teachable,
even though your teachers obviously gave up long ago.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 5/23/2012 8:12 AM, charley wrote:
> ed dolan:
>
> What you don�t get is just about everything. Any group which doesn't
> condemn
>> mountain biking deserves to get ****ed up. That goes for you too - you dumb
>> asshole!
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> such grown up language! your mother would be so proud, if she sobered
> up long enough to read your posts. too bad they didnt know how bad
> alcohol affected the brain of fetuses like your's when you were in the
> womb.
>
> but in reponse to your quote above - really? "any group"? i am a
> woodworker and sal****er angler too, do those groups have to condemn
> mountain biking? too funny - its just you two! i guess your efforts
> aren't too convincing, about as successful as Mike's fighting auto
> dependency. yawn.[...]

Ed Dolan just likes to stir the pot. :)

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 24, 8:54*pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 5/23/2012 8:12 AM, charley wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ed dolan:
>
> > What you don t get is just about everything. Any group which doesn't
> > condemn
> >> mountain biking deserves to get ****ed up. That goes for you too - you dumb
> >> asshole!
>
> > such grown up language! *your mother would be so proud, if she sobered
> > up long enough to read your posts. *too bad they didnt know how bad
> > alcohol affected the brain of fetuses like your's when you were in the
> > womb.
>
> > but *in reponse to your quote above - really? *"any group"? *i am a
> > woodworker and sal****er angler too, do those groups have to condemn
> > mountain biking? *too funny - its just you two! *i guess your efforts
> > aren't too convincing, about as successful as Mike's fighting auto
> > dependency. * yawn.[...]
>
> Ed Dolan just likes to stir the pot. :)
>
> --
> Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
> Post Free or Die!

Tom Sherman just likes to LIE. Like ALL mountain bikers.

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom $herman (-_-)" wrote in message ...

On 5/23/2012 8:12 AM, charley wrote:
> ed dolan:
>
> What you don�t get is just about everything. Any group which doesn't
> condemn
>> mountain biking deserves to get ****ed up. That goes for you too - you
>> dumb
>> asshole!
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> such grown up language! your mother would be so proud, if she sobered
> up long enough to read your posts. too bad they didnt know how bad
> alcohol affected the brain of fetuses like your's when you were in the
> womb.
>
> but in reponse to your quote above - really? "any group"? i am a
> woodworker and sal****er angler too, do those groups have to condemn
> mountain biking? too funny - its just you two! i guess your efforts
> aren't too convincing, about as successful as Mike's fighting auto
> dependency. yawn.[...]

>>> Ed Dolan just likes to stir the pot. :)

I have to laugh. I think I must have some kind of 6th sense since I can spot
an asshole like Charley from the get-go. I am never wrong as his subsequent
post proves.

I think he identified himself a belonging to a backpacking group. That is
the precisely the sort of group that should be condemning mountain biking.
If he is not doing that, then he is indeed a dumb asshole. That is not
stirring the pot, that is calling it like it is!

Ed Dolan the Great

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 25, 3:33*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> "Tom $herman (-_-)" *wrote in ...
>
> On 5/23/2012 8:12 AM, charley wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ed dolan:
>
> > What you don t get is just about everything. Any group which doesn't
> > condemn
> >> mountain biking deserves to get ****ed up. That goes for you too - you
> >> dumb
> >> asshole!
>
> > such grown up language! *your mother would be so proud, if she sobered
> > up long enough to read your posts. *too bad they didnt know how bad
> > alcohol affected the brain of fetuses like your's when you were in the
> > womb.
>
> > but *in reponse to your quote above - really? *"any group"? *i am a
> > woodworker and sal****er angler too, do those groups have to condemn
> > mountain biking? *too funny - its just you two! *i guess your efforts
> > aren't too convincing, about as successful as Mike's fighting auto
> > dependency. * yawn.[...]
> >>> Ed Dolan just likes to stir the pot. :)
>
> I have to laugh. I think I must have some kind of 6th sense since I can spot
> an asshole like Charley from the get-go. I am never wrong as his subsequent
> post proves.
>
> I think he identified himself a belonging to a backpacking group. That is
> the precisely the sort of group that should be condemning mountain biking..
> If he is not doing that, then he is indeed a dumb asshole. That is not
> stirring the pot, that is calling it like it is!
>
> Ed Dolan the Great

AMEN. DUH! (They don't understand words with more than one syl-la-ble.)

[charley]

On May 25, 5:33*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> "Tom $herman (-_-)" *wrote in ...
>
> On 5/23/2012 8:12 AM, charley wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ed dolan:
>
> > What you don t get is just about everything. Any group which doesn't
> > condemn
> >> mountain biking deserves to get ****ed up. That goes for you too - you
> >> dumb
> >> asshole!
>
> > such grown up language! *your mother would be so proud, if she sobered
> > up long enough to read your posts. *too bad they didnt know how bad
> > alcohol affected the brain of fetuses like your's when you were in the
> > womb.
>
> > but *in reponse to your quote above - really? *"any group"? *i am a
> > woodworker and sal****er angler too, do those groups have to condemn
> > mountain biking? *too funny - its just you two! *i guess your efforts
> > aren't too convincing, about as successful as Mike's fighting auto
> > dependency. * yawn.[...]
> >>> Ed Dolan just likes to stir the pot. :)
>
> I have to laugh. I think I must have some kind of 6th sense since I can spot
> an asshole like Charley from the get-go. I am never wrong as his subsequent
> post proves.
>
> I think he identified himself a belonging to a backpacking group. That is
> the precisely the sort of group that should be condemning mountain biking..
> If he is not doing that, then he is indeed a dumb asshole. That is not
> stirring the pot, that is calling it like it is!
>
> Ed Dolan the Great

nice try couch potato - let me know when you guys get mountain biking
banned. again mike - how is that auto dependency thing working out?
FAIL funny thing is, you do absolutely nothing to fight MTBing other
than cross post on the internet, hohum. not too effective for ya,
eh? and all mike does is the same thing but then take a hand saw into
the woods near his home and threaten people once in a while. cant get
anything done sitting on your ass in front of a computer all day, can
you? but we all know you two are wholly incapable of doing one iota to
actually stop mountain biking other than talk big on the internet.
gotta go boys - planning my next grizzly bear country adventure - one
in montana and another in alaska. expect to see many bears and no
bikes. you just sit back in your recliner and read a Nat Geo, thats
the closest you will ever get to real wilderness.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 26, 6:37*am, charley > wrote:
> On May 25, 5:33*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Tom $herman (-_-)" *wrote in ....
>
> > On 5/23/2012 8:12 AM, charley wrote:
>
> > > ed dolan:
>
> > > What you don t get is just about everything. Any group which doesn't
> > > condemn
> > >> mountain biking deserves to get ****ed up. That goes for you too - you
> > >> dumb
> > >> asshole!
>
> > > such grown up language! *your mother would be so proud, if she sobered
> > > up long enough to read your posts. *too bad they didnt know how bad
> > > alcohol affected the brain of fetuses like your's when you were in the
> > > womb.
>
> > > but *in reponse to your quote above - really? *"any group"? *i am a
> > > woodworker and sal****er angler too, do those groups have to condemn
> > > mountain biking? *too funny - its just you two! *i guess your efforts
> > > aren't too convincing, about as successful as Mike's fighting auto
> > > dependency. * yawn.[...]
> > >>> Ed Dolan just likes to stir the pot. :)
>
> > I have to laugh. I think I must have some kind of 6th sense since I can spot
> > an asshole like Charley from the get-go. I am never wrong as his subsequent
> > post proves.
>
> > I think he identified himself a belonging to a backpacking group. That is
> > the precisely the sort of group that should be condemning mountain biking.
> > If he is not doing that, then he is indeed a dumb asshole. That is not
> > stirring the pot, that is calling it like it is!
>
> > Ed Dolan the Great
>
> nice try couch potato

You obviously know nothing about me. Just like a mountain biker:
pretend that what you think or wish is reality. There's a term for
that: psychosis.

- let me know when you guys get mountain biking
> banned.

We already have. It is excluded from most of the world's trails, even
in Marin County where mountain biking was born.

*again mike - how is that auto dependency thing working out?
> FAIL *funny thing is, you do absolutely nothing to fight MTBing other
> than cross post on the internet,

You obviously know nothing about me, and don't bother to check your
facts.But what can we expect from someone afraid to even use his real
name? You are advertizing yourself as someone who should be ignored.

*hohum. not too effective for ya,
> eh? *and all mike does is the same thing but then take a hand saw into
> the woods near his home and threaten people once in a while.

Never happened, of course. It's very sad and funny, that you get your
"facts" from mountain bikers! No one who knows anything about mountain
bikers would believe a single thing they say! It is IMPOSSIBLE to
mountain bike and also tell the truth. They are incompatible.

*cant get
> anything done sitting on your ass in front of a computer all day, can
> you? but we all know you two are wholly incapable of doing one iota to
> actually stop mountain biking other than talk big on the internet.
> gotta go boys - planning my next grizzly bear country adventure - one
> in montana and another in alaska.

And no doubt travelling by motor vehicle, eh, hypocrite?

*expect to see many bears and no
> bikes. *you just sit back in your recliner and read a Nat Geo, thats
> the closest you will ever get to real wilderness.

You obviously know nothing about me. Just like a mountain biker:
pretend that what you think or wish is reality. There's a term for
that: psychosis. I've never owned nor used a "recliner", nor
subscribed to National Geographic. I only read real science, something
you obviously know nothing about.

Keep making yourself look like the fool that you are. You are only
helping my cause.

[Edward Dolan]

"charley" wrote in message
...

Edward Dolan wrote:

> I have to laugh. I think I must have some kind of 6th sense since I can
> spot
> an asshole like Charley from the get-go. I am never wrong as his
> subsequent
> post proves.
>
> I think he identified himself as belonging to a backpacking group. That is
> precisely the sort of group that should be condemning mountain biking.
> If he is not doing that, then he is indeed a dumb asshole. That is not
> stirring the pot, that is calling it like it is!
[...]

>> gotta go boys - planning my next grizzly bear country adventure - one
in montana and another in alaska. expect to see many bears and no
bikes. you just sit back in your recliner and read a Nat Geo, thats
the closest you will ever get to real wilderness.

I am fed up with the wilderness because of fools like you. You leave nothing
but ruin and wreck wherever you go. The whole world is going to hell because
of your greed and lack of regard for the natural environment. I hope a
grizzly bear takes you out. The world will be an infinitely better place
without you.

Ed Dolan the Great

[charley]

On May 26, 11:49*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> "charley" *wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > I have to laugh. I think I must have some kind of 6th sense since I can
> > spot
> > an asshole like Charley from the get-go. I am never wrong as his
> > subsequent
> > post proves.
>
> > I think he identified himself as belonging to a backpacking group. That is
> > precisely the sort of group that should be condemning mountain biking.
> > If he is not doing that, then he is indeed a dumb asshole. That is not
> > stirring the pot, that is calling it like it is!
>
> [...]
>
> >> gotta go boys - planning my next grizzly bear country adventure - one
>
> in montana and another in alaska. *expect to see many bears and no
> bikes. *you just sit back in your recliner and read a Nat Geo, thats
> the closest you will ever get to real wilderness.
>
> I am fed up with the wilderness because of fools like you. You leave nothing
> but ruin and wreck wherever you go. The whole world is going to hell because
> of your greed and lack of regard for the natural environment. I hope a
> grizzly bear takes you out. The world will be an infinitely better place
> without you.
>
> Ed Dolan the Great

oh you are such a fool, and a useless one at that. i have practiced no
trace hiking and surfing my whole life, whereas all you do is leave
your fat assprint in your couch. on oh yes - i hunt and fish too! i
am sure you just love the fact that i also sustainably harvest the
earths fauna. so the whole worls is going to hell because of people
like me??? LOL!

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On May 28, 7:24*am, charley > wrote:
> On May 26, 11:49*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "charley" *wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> > > I have to laugh. I think I must have some kind of 6th sense since I can
> > > spot
> > > an asshole like Charley from the get-go. I am never wrong as his
> > > subsequent
> > > post proves.
>
> > > I think he identified himself as belonging to a backpacking group. That is
> > > precisely the sort of group that should be condemning mountain biking..
> > > If he is not doing that, then he is indeed a dumb asshole. That is not
> > > stirring the pot, that is calling it like it is!
>
> > [...]
>
> > >> gotta go boys - planning my next grizzly bear country adventure - one
>
> > in montana and another in alaska. *expect to see many bears and no
> > bikes. *you just sit back in your recliner and read a Nat Geo, thats
> > the closest you will ever get to real wilderness.
>
> > I am fed up with the wilderness because of fools like you. You leave nothing
> > but ruin and wreck wherever you go. The whole world is going to hell because
> > of your greed and lack of regard for the natural environment. I hope a
> > grizzly bear takes you out. The world will be an infinitely better place
> > without you.
>
> > Ed Dolan the Great
>
> oh you are such a fool, and a useless one at that. i have practiced no
> trace hiking and surfing my whole life, whereas all you do is leave
> your fat assprint in your couch. on oh yes - i hunt and fish too! *i
> am sure you just love the fact that i also sustainably harvest the
> earths fauna. so the whole worls is going to hell because of people
> like me??? *LOL!

Yes, it IS, actually. Human selfishness is the root cause of the
extinction crisis we are experiencing. You are typical of humans who
criticize others, but excuse whatever they choose to do, just because
they choose to do it. Nature culls the weak. It's called "evolution".
Humans, by hunting & fishing, seek out the strongest & healthiest
specimens, thereby weakening the gene pool. Your ignorance of basic
biology is stunning. The arrogance you exhibit is a sure sign of
terminal stupidity.

[charley]

On May 28, 11:49*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> On May 28, 7:24*am, charley > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 11:49*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
>
> > > "charley" *wrote in message
>
> > ....
>
> > > Edward Dolan wrote:
> > > > I have to laugh. I think I must have some kind of 6th sense since I can
> > > > spot
> > > > an asshole like Charley from the get-go. I am never wrong as his
> > > > subsequent
> > > > post proves.
>
> > > > I think he identified himself as belonging to a backpacking group. That is
> > > > precisely the sort of group that should be condemning mountain biking.
> > > > If he is not doing that, then he is indeed a dumb asshole. That is not
> > > > stirring the pot, that is calling it like it is!
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > >> gotta go boys - planning my next grizzly bear country adventure - one
>
> > > in montana and another in alaska. *expect to see many bears and no
> > > bikes. *you just sit back in your recliner and read a Nat Geo, thats
> > > the closest you will ever get to real wilderness.
>
> > > I am fed up with the wilderness because of fools like you. You leave nothing
> > > but ruin and wreck wherever you go. The whole world is going to hell because
> > > of your greed and lack of regard for the natural environment. I hope a
> > > grizzly bear takes you out. The world will be an infinitely better place
> > > without you.
>
> > > Ed Dolan the Great
>
> > oh you are such a fool, and a useless one at that. i have practiced no
> > trace hiking and surfing my whole life, whereas all you do is leave
> > your fat assprint in your couch. on oh yes - i hunt and fish too! *i
> > am sure you just love the fact that i also sustainably harvest the
> > earths fauna. so the whole worls is going to hell because of people
> > like me??? *LOL!
>
> Yes, it IS, actually. Human selfishness is the root cause of the
> extinction crisis we are experiencing. You are typical of humans who
> criticize others, but excuse whatever they choose to do, just because
> they choose to do it. Nature culls the weak. It's called "evolution".
> Humans, by hunting & fishing, seek out the strongest & healthiest
> specimens, thereby weakening the gene pool. Your ignorance of basic
> biology is stunning. The arrogance you exhibit is a sure sign of
> terminal stupidity.

nice try, but as usual you fall far short.

i dont need a lesson in evolution from you, i have read "voyage of the
beagle" twice, am a big fan stephen j gould, and have an education and
career in earth sciences - as opposed to a degree in some random
liberal arts. ho hum. so much for your generalization and
theory. if there was ever a weakening of a gene pool its the one you
are swimming in.

you see i am not a trophy hunter like the stereotype you hopelessly
try to group me with. i pass on the big strong buck and instead take
the genetically inferior spike for meat. this culls the gene pool
even faster than natural selection can, and anyway i have no use at
all for a mounted head on my wall. dont want it, dont need it, i have
plenty of photos of bears and wild horses and moose and mountains and
glacial valleys that look far better than a dead animal that i respect
and wish to let live so he can propagate his superior genes.. just
like our ancestors, i feed off the weak, again - natural selection as
it is meant to be. same with fish - dont need the big one on the wall,
just a couple in the frying pan with the added bonus of being able to
bathe in the wonder of the great outdoors. maybe i am wrong, but thats
a wee bit better than eating cheese puffs in minnesota while watching
"Ellen".

as far as mountain biking, i would think you would encourage it in
bear country. the bears and cougars can pick off the slow ones in the
back easily - natural selection, right? good thing in my day of
racing i was able to stay in the middle of the pack! strength in
numbers baby, two old farts - a couch potato and one with a hand saw
will never make it.....LOL!


keep dancing! your replies are so entertaining - its like watching a
drunken blindfolded idiot trying to hit a swinging pinata.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:20:43 PM UTC-7, charley wrote:
> On May 28, 11:49*am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> > On May 28, 7:24*am, charley > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 26, 11:49*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> >
> > > > "charley" *wrote in message
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > > > Edward Dolan wrote:
> > > > > I have to laugh. I think I must have some kind of 6th sense since I can
> > > > > spot
> > > > > an asshole like Charley from the get-go. I am never wrong as his
> > > > > subsequent
> > > > > post proves.
> >
> > > > > I think he identified himself as belonging to a backpacking group.. That is
> > > > > precisely the sort of group that should be condemning mountain biking.
> > > > > If he is not doing that, then he is indeed a dumb asshole. That is not
> > > > > stirring the pot, that is calling it like it is!
> >
> > > > [...]
> >
> > > > >> gotta go boys - planning my next grizzly bear country adventure - one
> >
> > > > in montana and another in alaska. *expect to see many bears and no
> > > > bikes. *you just sit back in your recliner and read a Nat Geo, thats
> > > > the closest you will ever get to real wilderness.
> >
> > > > I am fed up with the wilderness because of fools like you. You leave nothing
> > > > but ruin and wreck wherever you go. The whole world is going to hell because
> > > > of your greed and lack of regard for the natural environment. I hope a
> > > > grizzly bear takes you out. The world will be an infinitely better place
> > > > without you.
> >
> > > > Ed Dolan the Great
> >
> > > oh you are such a fool, and a useless one at that. i have practiced no
> > > trace hiking and surfing my whole life, whereas all you do is leave
> > > your fat assprint in your couch. on oh yes - i hunt and fish too! *i
> > > am sure you just love the fact that i also sustainably harvest the
> > > earths fauna. so the whole worls is going to hell because of people
> > > like me??? *LOL!
> >
> > Yes, it IS, actually. Human selfishness is the root cause of the
> > extinction crisis we are experiencing. You are typical of humans who
> > criticize others, but excuse whatever they choose to do, just because
> > they choose to do it. Nature culls the weak. It's called "evolution".
> > Humans, by hunting & fishing, seek out the strongest & healthiest
> > specimens, thereby weakening the gene pool. Your ignorance of basic
> > biology is stunning. The arrogance you exhibit is a sure sign of
> > terminal stupidity.
>
> nice try, but as usual you fall far short.
>
> i dont need a lesson in evolution from you, i have read "voyage of the
> beagle" twice, am a big fan stephen j gould, and have an education and
> career in earth sciences - as opposed to a degree in some random
> liberal arts. ho hum. so much for your generalization and
> theory. if there was ever a weakening of a gene pool its the one you
> are swimming in.

Like ALL people who are afraid to use their real name, your comments make no sense. Being anonymous, you have ZERO motivation to adhere to the truth.

> you see i am not a trophy hunter like the stereotype you hopelessly
> try to group me with. i pass on the big strong buck and instead take
> the genetically inferior spike for meat. this culls the gene pool
> even faster than natural selection can, and anyway i have no use at
> all for a mounted head on my wall. dont want it, dont need it, i have
> plenty of photos of bears and wild horses and moose and mountains and
> glacial valleys that look far better than a dead animal that i respect
> and wish to let live so he can propagate his superior genes.. just
> like our ancestors, i feed off the weak, again - natural selection as
> it is meant to be. same with fish - dont need the big one on the wall,
> just a couple in the frying pan with the added bonus of being able to
> bathe in the wonder of the great outdoors. maybe i am wrong, but thats
> a wee bit better than eating cheese puffs in minnesota while watching
> "Ellen".

That's nice.

> as far as mountain biking, i would think you would encourage it in
> bear country. the bears and cougars can pick off the slow ones in the
> back easily - natural selection, right? good thing in my day of
> racing i was able to stay in the middle of the pack!

I wouldn't want to poison the bears & cougars. Or, more likely, subject them to retaliation, which is all that humans understand.

Mountain bikers are their own worst enemies. I just would like them to do their suicides somewhere where they won't wildlife or other people: on paved roads.

[Edward Dolan]

"charley" wrote in message
...
[...]

> oh my geology degree is serving me quite well, thank you. no need to
be a millionaire.

Geologists know how to exploit earth resources better than most other
exploiters. Only civil engineers like Tom Sherman do more damage to the
natural environment.

> i must admit, however, i am quite disappointing with your reply.
apparently you got nothing. but then thats no surprise, i just didnt
think you would run out so quickly.

Yes, it is the old, old case of casting pearls before swine.

> the only decent barb you had was comparing earth sciences (goephysics
in my case) with liberal arts.

The sciences need to be put back in the box. The Medieval Ages had the right
idea when monks and priests ruled the roost. At least there was some
morality back then. Riding mountain bikes on hiking trails would have been
considered a mortal sin deserving of everlasting hellfire.

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota