Is Mountain Biking Healthful Exercise?

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

By studying the positive effects and ignoring the negative effects, mountain bikers and corrupt scientists have promoted the idea that mountain biking is good for your health and for the environment. We know better. How much cardiovascular benefit is required, in order to "balance" one premature death??? Personally, I don't think that any amount of "health benefit" is equal to the value of a human or animal or plant life. Life is priceless! It's not considered polite to criticize someone who has died, but this guy was in fact just plain irresponsible.

Mike


http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/10110876.Tributes_paid_to_popular_mountain_biker_d ad/

Tributes paid to Stephen Major, 55

6:52am Saturday 15th December 2012 in News By Richard Catton,
Stephen Major with his wife Jackie and daughters Nicole, left, and Olivia, right

WARM tributes have been paid to a father-of-two who died suddenly while mountain biking on one of his favourite routes through Dalby Forest.

Stephen Major, 55, who was well- known in Malton for his love of the outdoors and extreme sports, died last Saturday despite the best efforts of fellow bikers and paramedics to save his life.

His sister, Linda Waddington, 58, said: “He was an avid mountain biker who spent every weekend out in Dalby Forest. Last weekend he wasn’t out with his usual partners. He went out on his own, but met some guys he knew. He sped off and they found him ten minutes after they set off.”

Mr Major is survived by his wife of 16 years, Jackie, and daughters Nicole, 18, and Olivia, 14.

Mrs Major said: “He was very fit. In fact in the last couple of weeks he said he felt the fittest he had ever been. He was keen on hang-gliding and paragliding. He just loved being outdoors.

“He was a very successful businessman. He was such a popular and well-liked guy.”

His sister described him as an “adrenaline junkie” and said he loved to do things which “got him buzzing.”

“It’s such a tragic loss,” she said.

“It never should have been.”

Nephew Dale Waddington, 27, said: “This is a devastating time for the family. We lost our granddad last year and Steve sort of took on the role of head of the family. Something like this shouldn’t have happened because he was such an athlete.”

Mr Major, a former pupil of Malton Secondary Modern, started his working life as an apprentice electrician before going on to start up his own successful business, Major Electrical, and he was well known to many in Malton.

Mrs Waddington said: “He was the most genuine man you could ever want to meet. He said it the way it was.

“He was a big family man. He loved his wife and his girls and his nieces and nephews.”

Mr Major’s funeral will take place on Monday, at 3pm, at the East Riding Crematorium in Octon.

His family would like to thank the bikers, paramedics and members of the mountain rescue team who tried to save his life. They have also asked for those attending the funeral to make donations to the British Heart Foundation, instead of sending flowers.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:03:23 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> It's not considered polite to criticize someone who has died, but this guy was in fact just plain irresponsible.
>
>
>
> Mike


In June 2010, Michael J. Vandeman was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon against a mountain biker.

http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/10-052810-37NC.htm

He was subsequently found guilty of exhibiting a deadly weapon and battery.

[Blackblade]

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 5:03:23 PM UTC, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> By studying the positive effects and ignoring the negative effects, mountain bikers and corrupt scientists have promoted the idea that mountain biking is good for your health and for the environment. We know better. How much cardiovascular benefit is required, in order to "balance" one premature death??? Personally, I don't think that any amount of "health benefit" is equal to the value of a human or animal or plant life. Life is priceless! It's not considered polite to criticize someone who has died, but this guy was in fact just plain irresponsible.

What utter nonsense. The developed world's number one killer is Ischaemic Heart Disease with 15.6% of all deaths. Hypertensive Heart Disease also appears lower in the list with 2.3%. (Figures from World Health Organisation)

Therefore, statistically (I believe you claim to know some maths), you are massively improving your chances of a long and healthy life by taking strenuous activity such as Mountainbiking. It is not risk free ... nothing is .... but the risks of inactivity are an order of magnitude higher.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:31:33 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> On Sunday, December 16, 2012 5:03:23 PM UTC, Mike Vandeman wrote: > By studying the positive effects and ignoring the negative effects, mountain bikers and corrupt scientists have promoted the idea that mountain biking is good for your health and for the environment. We know better. How much cardiovascular benefit is required, in order to "balance" one premature death??? Personally, I don't think that any amount of "health benefit" is equal to the value of a human or animal or plant life. Life is priceless! It's not considered polite to criticize someone who has died, but this guy was in fact just plain irresponsible. What utter nonsense. The developed world's number one killer is Ischaemic Heart Disease with 15.6% of all deaths. Hypertensive Heart Disease also appears lower in the list with 2.3%. (Figures from World Health Organisation) Therefore, statistically (I believe you claim to know some maths), you are massively improving your chances of a long and healthy life by taking strenuous activity such as Mountainbiking. It is not risk free ... nothing is ... but the risks of inactivity are an order of magnitude higher.

Not if you end up DEAD! Are you really THAT dense??? You are ASSUMING that you don't have an accident while mountain biking. That's why your math is totally wrong. Get your head out of the sand. Better yet, leave it there, and end up dead. Sheesh.

[Blackblade]

>> It is not risk free ... nothing is ... but the risks of inactivity are an order of magnitude higher.
>
> Not if you end up DEAD! Are you really THAT dense??? You are ASSUMING that you don't have an accident while mountain biking. That's why your math is totally wrong. Get your head out of the sand. Better yet, leave it there, and end up dead. Sheesh.

I'm assuming nothing of the kind. I am simply pointing out that the risks of ending up dead prematurely are IMPROVED by taking strenuous exercise DESPITE the inherent risk of such activity. The risk of ending up dead from heart disease is orders of magnitude higher than the risk of mountain biking..

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 5:15:21 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> >> It is not risk free ... nothing is ... but the risks of inactivity are an order of magnitude higher. > > Not if you end up DEAD! Are you really THAT dense??? You are ASSUMING that you don't have an accident while mountain biking. That's why your math is totally wrong. Get your head out of the sand. Better yet, leave it there, and end up dead. Sheesh. I'm assuming nothing of the kind. I am simply pointing out that the risks of ending up dead prematurely are IMPROVED by taking strenuous exercise DESPITE the inherent risk of such activity. The risk of ending up dead from heart disease is orders of magnitude higher than the risk of mountain biking.

PROOF? You just FABRICATED that idea from thin air. "LIAR" is all mountain bikers' middle name.

[Blackblade]

> PROOF? You just FABRICATED that idea from thin air. "LIAR" is all mountain bikers' middle name.

You are really hard of understanding these days - perhaps this thinking lark is getting beyond you ! I posted the proof in this thread you idiot. Remember "Ischaemic heart disease ..." ???? I thought, as an educated man, I wouldn't have to walk you through the logical steps one by one but, clearly, you are reverting to kindergarten so here goes ...

Ischaemic Heart Disease is the NUMBER ONE killer in the developed world. You are more likely to die of that than anything else ... therefore, axiomatically, all other risks (including that of dying from a strenuous activity) are lesser. Therefore, any action you take to avoid dying of Ischaemic Heart Disease improves your chances. However, cardiovascular oriented sports such as running, mountainbiking, swimming (vigorous) etc are particularly beneficial.

Road traffic accidents don't even make it into the top 10 for developed countries ... and only at No. 10 for world averaged ... at 2.1%. And road traffic accidents are far far far higher than deaths from mountainbiking which are a blip on a blip on a blip.

So, taking up mountainbiking, as opposed to sitting and doing nothing, drastically IMPROVES your survival rate. It also, and happily, will tend to mean that you enjoy your life rather more ... seeing as you will be taking exercise in beautiful scenery, with good friends and finding you have much more energy to enjoy your other activities.

Quad Erat Demonstrandum

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:25:32 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> > PROOF? You just FABRICATED that idea from thin air. "LIAR" is all mountain bikers' middle name. You are really hard of understanding these days - perhaps this thinking lark is getting beyond you ! I posted the proof in this thread you idiot. Remember "Ischaemic heart disease ..." ???? I thought, as an educated man, I wouldn't have to walk you through the logical steps one by one but, clearly, you are reverting to kindergarten so here goes ... Ischaemic Heart Disease is the NUMBER ONE killer in the developed world. You are more likely to die of that than anything else ... therefore, axiomatically, all other risks (including that of dying from a strenuous activity) are lesser. Therefore, any action you take to avoid dying of Ischaemic Heart Disease improves your chances. However, cardiovascular oriented sports such as running, mountainbiking, swimming (vigorous) etc are particularly beneficial. Road traffic accidents don't even make it into the top 10 for developed countries ... and only at No. 10 for world averaged ... at 2.1%. And road traffic accidents are far far far higher than deaths from mountainbiking which are a blip on a blip on a blip. So, taking up mountainbiking, as opposed to sitting and doing nothing, drastically IMPROVES your survival rate. It also, and happily, will tend to mean that you enjoy your life rather more ... seeing as you will be taking exercise in beautiful scenery, with good friends and finding you have much more energy to enjoy your other activities. Quad Erat Demonstrandum

You couldn't reason your way out of a paper bag. The only question is whether mountain biking provides a NET benefit. We all know exercise is beneficial, provided there are no other factors. But in the case of mountain biking, there ARE other factors: serious injuries and DEATHS. When you subtract the HARMS from the BENEFITS, you get only HARM. Without statistics, you are just fabricating.

As to the beautiful scenery, only hikers & equestrians are able to enjoy it.. Mountain bikers are doing nothing but looking at the trail directly in front of them, & have no time to "enjoy scenery". Every once in a while, a mountain biker accidentally tells the truth & admits that. You aren't that honest.

[Blackblade]

> You couldn't reason your way out of a paper bag. The only question is whether mountain biking provides a NET benefit. We all know exercise is beneficial, provided there are no other factors. But in the case of mountain biking, there ARE other factors: serious injuries and DEATHS. When you subtract the HARMS from the BENEFITS, you get only HARM. Without statistics, you are just fabricating.

I have already quoted the statistics, and their source ... and you just don't understand them.

Because the number one risk is mitigated any lesser risk is still just that ... lesser.

Hence, you are on the right track but you have it the wrong way around; the HARM is much, much less than the BENEFIT ... therefore you have a massive net BENEFIT.

Are you really this dense or just trolling again ????

[Blackblade]

> As to the beautiful scenery, only hikers & equestrians are able to enjoy it. Mountain bikers are doing nothing but looking at the trail directly in front of them, & have no time to "enjoy scenery". Every once in a while, a mountain biker accidentally tells the truth & admits that. You aren't that honest.

You've never heard of peripheral vision ?????

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:30:40 PM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> > As to the beautiful scenery, only hikers & equestrians are able to enjoy it. Mountain bikers are doing nothing but looking at the trail directly in front of them, & have no time to "enjoy scenery". Every once in a while, a mountain biker accidentally tells the truth & admits that. You aren't that honest. You've never heard of peripheral vision ?????

bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it.

[Blackblade]

> bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it.

You can concentrate on the trail AND appreciate the environment.

Or do you contend that it is the same to cycle down a motorway as a country lane ?

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:48:34 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> > bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it. You can concentrate on the trail AND appreciate the environment. Or do you contend that it is the same to cycle down a motorway as a country lane ?

You forgot, I guess, that you are talking to a Ph.D. in Psychology. It it physically impossible to pay attention to two things at the same time. Only an idiot would pay attention to the scenery, because they would most likely immediately crash! Even on a smooth paved street, it is risky. Trails are generally random, which is why mountain bikers so often crash, EVEN WHEN THEY GIVE THE TRAIL THEIR FULL ATTENTION! Idiot.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:13:22 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:48:34 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
>
> > > bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it. You can concentrate on the trail AND appreciate the environment. Or do you contend that it is the same to cycle down a motorway as a country lane ?
>
>
>
> You forgot, I guess, that you are talking to a Ph.D. in Psychology. It it physically impossible to pay attention to two things at the same time. Only an idiot would pay attention to the scenery, because they would most likely immediately crash! Even on a smooth paved street, it is risky. Trails are generally random, which is why mountain bikers so often crash, EVEN WHEN THEY GIVE THE TRAIL THEIR FULL ATTENTION! Idiot.


When you wrote your dissertation, did you use a lot of references from 1933 and earlier? Because that's pretty much the same thing as you trying to apply your 40 year-old degree in 2013.

Blackblade is absolutely correct, and you are wrong. The task of mountain biking requires processing a combination of central and peripheral cues. Go look up Egeth and Yantis' (1997) and Muller and Rabbit's (1989) work on peripheral cues for some background on the topic.

You should brush up a bit. There have been a lot of interesting advances in Psychology since Nixon left office.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:01:43 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:13:22 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> > On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:48:34 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it. You can concentrate on the trail AND appreciate the environment. Or do you contend that it is the same to cycle down a motorway as a country lane ?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You forgot, I guess, that you are talking to a Ph.D. in Psychology. It it physically impossible to pay attention to two things at the same time. Only an idiot would pay attention to the scenery, because they would most likely immediately crash! Even on a smooth paved street, it is risky. Trails are generally random, which is why mountain bikers so often crash, EVEN WHEN THEY GIVE THE TRAIL THEIR FULL ATTENTION! Idiot.
>
>
>
>
>
> When you wrote your dissertation, did you use a lot of references from 1933 and earlier? Because that's pretty much the same thing as you trying to apply your 40 year-old degree in 2013.
>
>
>
> Blackblade is absolutely correct, and you are wrong. The task of mountain biking requires processing a combination of central and peripheral cues. Go look up Egeth and Yantis' (1997) and Muller and Rabbit's (1989) work on peripheral cues for some background on the topic.
>
>
>
> You should brush up a bit. There have been a lot of interesting advances in Psychology since Nixon left office.

BS. Humans haven't evolved the ability to multi-process since 1973. Mountain bikers don't need "peripheral cues"; they need to focus on the trail in front of their front tire, period. Any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash. The mountain biker that an antelope ran into proved that. His peripheral vision wasn't active.

You guys are sure gluttons for punishment. You are doomed to lose, every time. Because you simply refuse to tell the truth! The truth to a mountain biker is like salt on a vampire.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 11:54:02 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:01:43 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:13:22 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:48:34 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it. You can concentrate on the trail AND appreciate the environment. Or do you contend that it is the same to cycle down a motorway as a country lane ?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > You forgot, I guess, that you are talking to a Ph.D. in Psychology. It it physically impossible to pay attention to two things at the same time. Only an idiot would pay attention to the scenery, because they would most likely immediately crash! Even on a smooth paved street, it is risky. Trails are generally random, which is why mountain bikers so often crash, EVEN WHEN THEY GIVE THE TRAIL THEIR FULL ATTENTION! Idiot.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > When you wrote your dissertation, did you use a lot of references from 1933 and earlier? Because that's pretty much the same thing as you trying to apply your 40 year-old degree in 2013.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Blackblade is absolutely correct, and you are wrong. The task of mountain biking requires processing a combination of central and peripheral cues. Go look up Egeth and Yantis' (1997) and Muller and Rabbit's (1989) work on peripheral cues for some background on the topic.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You should brush up a bit. There have been a lot of interesting advances in Psychology since Nixon left office.
>
>
>
> BS. Humans haven't evolved the ability to multi-process since 1973. Mountain bikers don't need "peripheral cues"; they need to focus on the trail in front of their front tire, period. Any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash. The mountain biker that an antelope ran into proved that. His peripheral vision wasn't active.
>
>
> You guys are sure gluttons for punishment. You are doomed to lose, every time. Because you simply refuse to tell the truth! The truth to a mountain biker is like salt on a vampire.


Wow, Mike. It's amazing how someone can write so little and get so much wrong.

First, nobody said humans can "multi-process;" so stop adding it back into the conversation. There's a huge distinction between what I wrote and multitasking.

Second, a bike rider would no more "focus on the trail in front of their front tire" than a hiker would stare at his feet while walking. There are numerous important cues other than what is on the trail in front of the front tire. The fact that you don't see that shows how little you understand biking and how the task aligns with human perception.

Third, your statement, "any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash," is totally ridiculous. Seriously, how can you possibly defend such an idiotic statement? How do drivers check their mirrors or read road signs in the alternate reality you seem to live in?

Fourth, again, your understanding of the task and research in psychology over the past 40 years is lacking. Perception of peripheral cues is an essential part of the task, as demonstrated by decades of research. Your ignorance of the field and lack of education doesn't change that. I encourage you to review the articles I recommended and stop insulting qualified psychologists by claiming to be one.

Fifth, the rider points to the antelope a few seconds before impact and watches it approach before it hits him at a 90-degree angle. Again, if you understood anything about bike riding, you would see that he clearly braces for the impact. The video demonstrates my point, not yours.

And finally... Refresh my memory: what, exactly, is putting salt on a vampire supposed to accomplish?

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 7:54:37 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 11:54:02 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:01:43 PM UTC-8, wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:13:22 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:48:34 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it. You can concentrate on the trail AND appreciate the environment. Or do you contend that it is the same to cycle down a motorway as a country lane ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You forgot, I guess, that you are talking to a Ph.D. in Psychology. It it physically impossible to pay attention to two things at the same time. Only an idiot would pay attention to the scenery, because they would most likely immediately crash! Even on a smooth paved street, it is risky. Trails are generally random, which is why mountain bikers so often crash, EVEN WHEN THEY GIVE THE TRAIL THEIR FULL ATTENTION! Idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you wrote your dissertation, did you use a lot of references from 1933 and earlier? Because that's pretty much the same thing as you trying to apply your 40 year-old degree in 2013. > > > > > > > > > > > > Blackblade is absolutely correct, and you are wrong. The task of mountain biking requires processing a combination of central and peripheral cues. Go look up Egeth and Yantis' (1997) and Muller and Rabbit's (1989) work on peripheral cues for some background on the topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > You should brush up a bit. There have been a lot of interesting advances in Psychology since Nixon left office. > > > > BS. Humans haven't evolved the ability to multi-process since 1973. Mountain bikers don't need "peripheral cues"; they need to focus on the trail in front of their front tire, period. Any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash. The mountain biker that an antelope ran into proved that. His peripheral vision wasn't active. > > > You guys are sure gluttons for punishment. You are doomed to lose, every time. Because you simply refuse to tell the truth! The truth to a mountain biker is like salt on a vampire. Wow, Mike. It's amazing how someone can write so little and get so much wrong. First, nobody said humans can "multi-process;" so stop adding it back into the conversation. There's a huge distinction between what I wrote and multitasking. Second, a bike rider would no more "focus on the trail in front of their front tire" than a hiker would stare at his feet while walking. There are numerous important cues other than what is on the trail in front of the front tire. The fact that you don't see that shows how little you understand biking and how the task aligns with human perception. Third, your statement, "any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash," is totally ridiculous.. Seriously, how can you possibly defend such an idiotic statement? How do drivers check their mirrors or read road signs in the alternate reality you seem to live in? Fourth, again, your understanding of the task and research in psychology over the past 40 years is lacking. Perception of peripheral cues is an essential part of the task, as demonstrated by decades of research. Your ignorance of the field and lack of education doesn't change that. I encourage you to review the articles I recommended and stop insulting qualified psychologists by claiming to be one. Fifth, the rider points to the antelope a few seconds before impact and watches it approach before it hits him at a 90-degree angle. Again, if you understood anything about bike riding, you would see that he clearly braces for the impact. The video demonstrates my point, not yours. And finally... Refresh my memory: what, exactly, is putting salt on a vampire supposed to accomplish?

I didn't get anything wrong. Perpiheral vision is subconscious, and doesn't constitute "enjoying nature" -- the topic of this conversation. OF COURSE a driver can turn his attention to his rear view or side view mirrors, since roads are smooth and straight -- absolutely the opposite of a trail. It's interesting that you'd use a totally irrelevant example. It shows your utter dishonesty. If a mountain biker tried that, he would likely crash in a couple of seconds. Even a driver doesn't spend much time looking in his mirrors. He has to pay attention to the road ahead. You guys sure are gluttons for punishment! You keep losing, no matter how often you try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. No one is fooled, of course. It is well known that mountain bikers lie continually (i.e., as long ad their lips are moving).

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:50:30 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 7:54:37 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 11:54:02 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:01:43 PM UTC-8, wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:13:22 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:48:34 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it. You can concentrate on the trail AND appreciate the environment. Or do you contend that it is the same to cycle down a motorway as a country lane ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You forgot, I guess, that you are talking to a Ph.D. in Psychology. It it physically impossible to pay attention to two things at the same time. Only an idiot would pay attention to the scenery, because they would most likely immediately crash! Even on a smooth paved street, it is risky. Trails are generally random, which is why mountain bikers so often crash, EVEN WHEN THEY GIVE THE TRAIL THEIR FULL ATTENTION! Idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you wrote your dissertation, did you use a lot of references from 1933 and earlier? Because that's pretty much the same thing as you trying to apply your 40 year-old degree in 2013. > > > > > > > > > > > > Blackblade is absolutely correct, and you are wrong. The task of mountain biking requires processing a combination of central and peripheral cues. Go look up Egeth and Yantis' (1997) and Muller and Rabbit's (1989) work on peripheral cues for some background on the topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > You should brush up a bit. There have been a lot of interesting advances in Psychology since Nixon left office. > > > > BS. Humans haven't evolved the ability to multi-process since 1973. Mountain bikers don't need "peripheral cues"; they need to focus on the trail in front of their front tire, period. Any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash. The mountain biker that an antelope ran into proved that. His peripheral vision wasn't active. > > > You guys are sure gluttons for punishment. You are doomed to lose, every time. Because you simply refuse to tell the truth! The truth to a mountain biker is like salt on a vampire. Wow, Mike. It's amazing how someone can write so little and get so much wrong. First, nobody said humans can "multi-process;" so stop adding it back into the conversation. There's a huge distinction between what I wrote and multitasking. Second, a bike rider would no more "focus on the trail in front of their front tire" than a hiker would stare at his feet while walking. There are numerous important cues other than what is on the trail in front of the front tire. The fact that you don't see that shows how little you understand biking and how the task aligns with human perception. Third, your statement, "any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash," is totally ridiculous. Seriously, how can you possibly defend such an idiotic statement? How do drivers check their mirrors or read road signs in the alternate reality you seem to live in? Fourth, again, your understanding of the task and research in psychology over the past 40 years is lacking. Perception of peripheral cues is an essential part of the task, as demonstrated by decades of research. Your ignorance of the field and lack of education doesn't change that. I encourage you to review the articles I recommended and stop insulting qualified psychologists by claiming to be one. Fifth, the rider points to the antelope a few seconds before impact and watches it approach before it hits him at a 90-degree angle. Again, if you understood anything about bike riding, you would see that he clearly braces for the impact. The video demonstrates my point, not yours. And finally... Refresh my memory: what, exactly, is putting salt on a vampire supposed to accomplish?
>
>
>
> I didn't get anything wrong. Perpiheral vision is subconscious, and doesn't constitute "enjoying nature" -- the topic of this conversation. OF COURSE a driver can turn his attention to his rear view or side view mirrors, since roads are smooth and straight -- absolutely the opposite of a trail. It's interesting that you'd use a totally irrelevant example. It shows your utter dishonesty. If a mountain biker tried that, he would likely crash in a couple of seconds. Even a driver doesn't spend much time looking in his mirrors. He has to pay attention to the road ahead. You guys sure are gluttons for punishment! You keep losing, no matter how often you try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. No one is fooled, of course. It is well known that mountain bikers lie continually (i.e., as long ad their lips are moving)..

Using your psychophysics background, how about you tell me the speed ceiling at which one can no longer "enjoy nature." Since hikers can enjoy it and mountain bikers can't, and you claim the difference is speed, tell me the speed I have to stay below. I want to make sure I do it right.

Silly man, you don't get to define "enjoying nature" for anyone but yourself. It's subjective. Or do you think you can quantify "enjoyment" for me? And no, idiot, peripheral vision isn't "subconscious." Ask any astronomer how he looks at the stars.

Your responses are an ever-increasing testament of your complete ignorance of mountain biking. Maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking. Again, that is a fact you clearly can't grasp because you don't understand mountain biking (not to mention human perception of motion). That's amazingly irresponsible for someone attempting to make objective observations about mountain biking, but it explains why you can't get a publication on the topic in a refereed journal.

My driving example was just fine. It's your experience that's limited. Roads aren't always smooth and straight, and they include numerous external hazards, like other cars. Glancing at a mirror requires maintaining awareness of the changing conditions of the road ahead. Likewise, analogous scanning patterns constantly occur while riding a bike.

You've also now moved from the biker crashing "immediately" to "a couple of seconds" after turning attention from the trail ahead. What's the time frame going to be in your next response?

Are you going to answer my question about vampires?

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:03:13 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:50:30 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 7:54:37 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 11:54:02 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:01:43 PM UTC-8, wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:13:22 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:48:34 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it. You can concentrate on the trail AND appreciate the environment. Or do you contend that it is the same to cycle down a motorway as a country lane ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You forgot, I guess, that you are talking to a Ph.D. in Psychology. It it physically impossible to pay attention to two things at the same time. Only an idiot would pay attention to the scenery, because they would most likely immediately crash! Even on a smooth paved street, it is risky. Trails are generally random, which is why mountain bikers so often crash, EVEN WHEN THEY GIVE THE TRAIL THEIR FULL ATTENTION! Idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you wrote your dissertation, did you use a lot of references from 1933 and earlier? Because that's pretty much the same thing as you trying to apply your 40 year-old degree in 2013. > > > > > > > > > > > > Blackblade is absolutely correct, and you are wrong. The task of mountain biking requires processing a combination of central and peripheral cues. Go look up Egeth and Yantis' (1997) and Muller and Rabbit's (1989) work on peripheral cues for some background on the topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > You should brush up a bit. There have been a lot of interesting advances in Psychology since Nixon left office. > > > > BS. Humans haven't evolved the ability to multi-process since 1973. Mountain bikers don't need "peripheral cues"; they need to focus on the trail in front of their front tire, period. Any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash. The mountain biker that an antelope ran into proved that. His peripheral vision wasn't active. > > > You guys are sure gluttons for punishment. You are doomed to lose, every time. Because you simply refuse to tell the truth! The truth to a mountain biker is like salt on a vampire. Wow, Mike. It's amazing how someone can write so little and get so much wrong. First, nobody said humans can "multi-process;" so stop adding it back into the conversation. There's a huge distinction between what I wrote and multitasking. Second, a bike rider would no more "focus on the trail in front of their front tire" than a hiker would stare at his feet while walking. There are numerous important cues other than what is on the trail in front of the front tire. The fact that you don't see that shows how little you understand biking and how the task aligns with human perception. Third, your statement, "any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash," is totally ridiculous. Seriously, how can you possibly defend such an idiotic statement? How do drivers check their mirrors or read road signs in the alternate reality you seem to live in? Fourth, again, your understanding of the task and research in psychology over the past 40 years is lacking. Perception of peripheral cues is an essential part of the task, as demonstrated by decades of research. Your ignorance of the field and lack of education doesn't change that. I encourage you to review the articles I recommended and stop insulting qualified psychologists by claiming to be one. Fifth, the rider points to the antelope a few seconds before impact and watches it approach before it hits him at a 90-degree angle. Again, if you understood anything about bike riding, you would see that he clearly braces for the impact. The video demonstrates my point, not yours. And finally... Refresh my memory: what, exactly, is putting salt on a vampire supposed to accomplish?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I didn't get anything wrong. Perpiheral vision is subconscious, and doesn't constitute "enjoying nature" -- the topic of this conversation. OF COURSE a driver can turn his attention to his rear view or side view mirrors, since roads are smooth and straight -- absolutely the opposite of a trail. It's interesting that you'd use a totally irrelevant example. It shows your utter dishonesty. If a mountain biker tried that, he would likely crash in a couple of seconds. Even a driver doesn't spend much time looking in his mirrors. He has to pay attention to the road ahead. You guys sure are gluttons for punishment! You keep losing, no matter how often you try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. No one is fooled, of course. It is well known that mountain bikers lie continually (i.e., as long ad their lips are moving).
>
>
>
> Using your psychophysics background, how about you tell me the speed ceiling at which one can no longer "enjoy nature." Since hikers can enjoy it and mountain bikers can't, and you claim the difference is speed, tell me the speed I have to stay below. I want to make sure I do it right.

I never said the difference is speed, idiot. It's speed, being on top of a bike, being on unpredictable trails, etc.

> Silly man, you don't get to define "enjoying nature" for anyone but yourself. It's subjective. Or do you think you can quantify "enjoyment" for me? And no, idiot, peripheral vision isn't "subconscious." Ask any astronomer how he looks at the stars.

Through a telescope. If he were on a mountain bike, his peripheral vision would be useless.

> Your responses are an ever-increasing testament of your complete ignorance of mountain biking. Maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking.

Prove it. That's just your asserton, with no basis in fact.

> Again, that is a fact you clearly can't grasp because you don't understand mountain biking (not to mention human perception of motion). That's amazingly irresponsible for someone attempting to make objective observations about mountain biking, but it explains why you can't get a publication on the topic in a refereed journal.

You keep changing the subject, because you can't bear to admit that you are just WRONG.

> My driving example was just fine. It's your experience that's limited. Roads aren't always smooth and straight, and they include numerous external hazards, like other cars. Glancing at a mirror requires maintaining awareness of the changing conditions of the road ahead. Likewise, analogous scanning patterns constantly occur while riding a bike.

BS. Mountain bikes don't have rear view mirrors, or any other mirrors. Since roads are guaranteed to be as straight and smooth as possible, it's safe to glance away for a second. That's not true for mountain biking, because trails aren't straight or smooth. They are very hazardous for anyone ON A BIKE, because of that. That's why serious accidents and even deaths are commonplace for mountain bikers.

> You've also now moved from the biker crashing "immediately" to "a couple of seconds" after turning attention from the trail ahead. What's the time frame going to be in your next response?

There's no difference.

> Are you going to answer my question about vampires?

As soon as you start telling the truth -- which I know is never going to happen.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:35:32 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:03:13 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> > Using your psychophysics background, how about you tell me the speed ceiling at which one can no longer "enjoy nature." Since hikers can enjoy it and mountain bikers can't, and you claim the difference is speed, tell me the speed I have to stay below. I want to make sure I do it right.
>
> I never said the difference is speed, idiot. It's speed, being on top of a bike, being on unpredictable trails, etc.

"As to the beautiful scenery, only hikers & equestrians are able to enjoy it. Mountain bikers are DOING NOTHING but looking at the trail directly in front of them, & HAVE NO TIME to "enjoy scenery"." (emphasis mine)

So it was about time (affected by speed, obviously). Now it's about a few other things as well. Why don't you take some time to collect your "thoughts" and get back to me on this one.

> > Silly man, you don't get to define "enjoying nature" for anyone but yourself. It's subjective. Or do you think you can quantify "enjoyment" for me? And no, idiot, peripheral vision isn't "subconscious." Ask any astronomer how he looks at the stars.
>
> Through a telescope. If he were on a mountain bike, his peripheral vision would be useless.

Really, Mike? Using peripheral vision to look at the stars is a basic example of conscious use of peripheral vision taught in just about every undergraduate perception class and well known by every amateur stargazer. Clearly, I was giving your education WAY too much credit.

http://dailyuw.com/archive/2008/04/04/imported/seeing-stars#.UPAimuS_J8E

Again, hardly "subconscious." Did you buy your Ph.D from an ad in the back of Rolling Stone?

> > Your responses are an ever-increasing testament of your complete ignorance of mountain biking. Maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking.
>

> Prove it. That's just your asserton, with no basis in fact.

Are you suggesting a mountain biker would be equally effective riding while looking through a toilet paper tube as without? This would still easily allow him to see the trail in front of his front tire, after all.

I shouldn't have to explain the difference between foveal and peripheral vision to someone who claims to have a Ph.D in psychology. Go read a chapter on visual perception in an undergraduate textbook and get back to me.

The burden of proof is on you. Prove to me that mountain biking ONLY requires foveal vision. Feel free to consult one of your archaic textbooks.

> > Again, that is a fact you clearly can't grasp because you don't understand mountain biking (not to mention human perception of motion). That's amazingly irresponsible for someone attempting to make objective observations about mountain biking, but it explains why you can't get a publication on the topic in a refereed journal.
>
> You keep changing the subject, because you can't bear to admit that you are just WRONG.

You don't understand mountain biking (not to mention human perception of motion). Therefore, you are ignorant of the fact that maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking.

> > My driving example was just fine. It's your experience that's limited. Roads aren't always smooth and straight, and they include numerous external hazards, like other cars. Glancing at a mirror requires maintaining awareness of the changing conditions of the road ahead. Likewise, analogous scanning patterns constantly occur while riding a bike.

> BS. Mountain bikes don't have rear view mirrors, or any other mirrors. Since roads are guaranteed to be as straight and smooth as possible, it's safe to glance away for a second. That's not true for mountain biking, because trails aren't straight or smooth. They are very hazardous for anyone ON A BIKE, because of that. That's why serious accidents and even deaths are commonplace for mountain bikers.

So now we're down to one second. Fascinating.

Based on what you are saying, I could put on a clown costume and stand next to the trail, and I would be completely invisible to a mountain biker because he'd be focusing on the trail in front of his tire. I would, however, exist in his "subconscious" in my clown disguise, according to you.

Trail conditions vary. Some sections are quite straight and smooth. Some smooth sections even go for many miles uphill, limiting speed and allowing well over two seconds to enjoy the scenery.

> > You've also now moved from the biker crashing "immediately" to "a couple of seconds" after turning attention from the trail ahead. What's the time frame going to be in your next response?
>
> There's no difference.

Only to someone dumber than a bag of rocks. Or a liar. Which are you?

im·me·di·ate·ly (Adverb)
1. At once; instantly.
2. Without any intervening time or space.

That's not "a couple of seconds," dolt.

> > Are you going to answer my question about vampires?

> As soon as you start telling the truth -- which I know is never going to happen.

As I've demonstrated, you are the one lying in this thread, Mike.

So what does putting salt on a vampire do? And why are you afraid to answer the question?

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Friday, January 11, 2013 7:35:25 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:35:32 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:03:13 AM UTC-8, wrote: > > > Using your psychophysics background, how about you tell me the speed ceiling at which one can no longer "enjoy nature." Since hikers can enjoy it and mountain bikers can't, and you claim the difference is speed, tell me the speed I have to stay below. I want to make sure I do it right. > > I never said the difference is speed, idiot. It's speed, being on top of a bike, being on unpredictable trails, etc. "As to the beautiful scenery, only hikers & equestrians are able to enjoy it. Mountain bikers are DOING NOTHING but looking at the trail directly in front of them, & HAVE NO TIME to "enjoy scenery"." (emphasis mine) So it was about time (affected by speed, obviously).

BS. You lose again.

Now it's about a few other things as well. Why don't you take some time to collect your "thoughts" and get back to me on this one. > > Silly man, you don't get to define "enjoying nature" for anyone but yourself. It's subjective. Or do you think you can quantify "enjoyment" for me? And no, idiot, peripheral vision isn't "subconscious." Ask any astronomer how he looks at the stars.

That may be the ONLY time it's conscious. Certainly not while mountain biking. Any attention given to peripheral vision would detract from attention to the trail, and result in a CRASH. So there's absolutely no reason to use one's peripheral vision while mountain biking. DUH!

> > Through a telescope. If he were on a mountain bike, his peripheral vision would be useless. Really, Mike? Using peripheral vision to look at the stars is a basic example of conscious use of peripheral vision taught in just about every undergraduate perception class and well known by every amateur stargazer. Clearly, I was giving your education WAY too much credit. http://dailyuw.com/archive/2008/04/04/imported/seeing-stars#.UPAimuS_J8E Again, hardly "subconscious." Did you buy your Ph.D from an ad in the back of Rolling Stone? > > Your responses are an ever-increasing testament of your complete ignorance of mountain biking. Maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking. > > Prove it.

It's obvious. You are just pretending to disagree. You KNOW I'm right. You just don't have the guts to admit it, COWARD.

That's just your asserton, with no basis in fact. Are you suggesting a mountain biker would be equally effective riding while looking through a toilet paper tube as without? This would still easily allow him to see the trail in front of his front tire, after all. I shouldn't have to explain the difference between foveal and peripheral vision to someone who claims to have a Ph.D in psychology. Go read a chapter on visual perception in an undergraduate textbook and get back to me. The burden of proof is on you. Prove to me that mountain biking ONLY requires foveal vision. Feel free to consult one of your archaic textbooks. > > Again, that is a fact you clearly can't grasp because you don't understand mountain biking (not to mention human perception of motion). That's amazingly irresponsible for someone attempting to make objective observations about mountain biking, but it explains why you can't get a publication on the topic in a refereed journal. > > You keep changing the subject, because you can't bear to admit that you are just WRONG. You don't understand mountain biking (not to mention human perception of motion). Therefore, you are ignorant of the fact that maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking. > > My driving example was just fine. It's your experience that's limited. Roads aren't always smooth and straight, and they include numerous external hazards, like other cars. Glancing at a mirror requires maintaining awareness of the changing conditions of the road ahead. Likewise, analogous scanning patterns constantly occur while riding a bike. > BS. Mountain bikes don't have rear view mirrors, or any other mirrors. Since roads are guaranteed to be as straight and smooth as possible, it's safe to glance away for a second. That's not true for mountain biking, because trails aren't straight or smooth. They are very hazardous for anyone ON A BIKE, because of that. That's why serious accidents and even deaths are commonplace for mountain bikers. So now we're down to one second. Fascinating. Based on what you are saying, I could put on a clown costume and stand next to the trail, and I would be completely invisible to a mountain biker because he'd be focusing on the trail in front of his tire. I would, however, exist in his "subconscious" in my clown disguise, according to you. Trail conditions vary. Some sections are quite straight and smooth. Some smooth sections even go for many miles uphill, limiting speed and allowing well over two seconds to enjoy the scenery. > > You've also now moved from the biker crashing "immediately" to "a couple of seconds" after turning attention from the trail ahead. What's the time frame going to be in your next response? > > There's no difference. Only to someone dumber than a bag of rocks. Or a liar. Which are you? im·me·di·ate·ly (Adverb) 1. At once; instantly. 2. Without any intervening time or space. That's not "a couple of seconds," dolt. > > Are you going to answer my question about vampires? > As soon as you start telling the truth -- which I know is never going to happen. As I've demonstrated, you are the one lying in this thread, Mike. So what does putting salt on a vampire do? And why are you afraid to answer the question?

Tell the truth, for once in your totally worthless life. Heck, you can't even tell the truth about your own NAME! It's silly to expect such a person to tell the truth about anything else....

[Tom $herman]

On 1/11/2013 9:35 AM, wrote:
> Only to someone dumber than a bag of rocks. Or a liar. Which are you?

A jury of his peers found Vandeman to be a liar, and convicted him of
crimes.

--
Tom $herman

[Blackblade]

The thing I just don't get is why you knowingly spout such drivel Mr Vandeman.

Unless you are a 100% fraud, you should know the truth of what Shraga is saying about foveal and peripheral vision. Either that, or you are lying about your academic record.

So, why do you bother ? If you engaged sensibly instead of just metaphorically laying about you with such inept abandon you might actually change people's minds. As it is, you convince no-one so, against your own stated objectives on your site, you fail.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 2:04:54 PM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> The thing I just don't get is why you knowingly spout such drivel Mr Vandeman. Unless you are a 100% fraud, you should know the truth of what Shraga is saying about foveal and peripheral vision.

It's irrelevant, because seeing something in one's peripheral vision, without paying any attention to it, doesn't constitute "enjoying nature". That's like saying that you "saw Los Angeles", when all you did was drive through on the freeway.

> Either that, or you are lying about your academic record. So, why do you bother ? If you engaged sensibly instead of just metaphorically laying about you with such inept abandon you might actually change people's minds. As it is, you convince no-one so, against your own stated objectives on your site, you fail.

I don't expect to convince any mountain biker, because they are too dishonest. You will continue lying FOREVER, when you know I'm right. You are the only one who loses. You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the head, which it DOES, every time you read what I wrote.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, January 11, 2013 11:46:24 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Friday, January 11, 2013 7:35:25 AM UTC-8, wrote:

>> Ask any astronomer how he looks at the stars.
>
> That may be the ONLY time it's conscious. Certainly not while mountain biking. Any attention given to peripheral vision would detract from attention to the trail, and result in a CRASH. So there's absolutely no reason to use one's peripheral vision while mountain biking. DUH!
>

Peripheral vision is an essential part of motion detection, you complete idiot, and therefore an essential part of mountain biking. If you can't grasp that fundamental characteristic of human visual perception, then I don't think I'm going to be able to find words small enough for your feeble mind to understand.

You are an insult to everyone with a Ph.D.

> > Your responses are an ever-increasing testament of your complete ignorance of mountain biking. Maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking. > > Prove it.
>
> It's obvious. You are just pretending to disagree. You KNOW I'm right. You just don't have the guts to admit it, COWARD.

This is the best, and most explanatory, of your responses; because here, you just responded to your own request to "prove it."

You can't even follow a basic conversation. How sad for you.

> Tell the truth, for once in your totally worthless life. Heck, you can't even tell the truth about your own NAME! It's silly to expect such a person to tell the truth about anything else....

Wow, Mike. Way to shy away from my response. What's the matter? Did I hurt your feelings?

But seriously... What happens when you put salt on a vampire?

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 5:49:51 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sunday, January 13, 2013 2:04:54 PM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
>
> > The thing I just don't get is why you knowingly spout such drivel Mr Vandeman. Unless you are a 100% fraud, you should know the truth of what Shraga is saying about foveal and peripheral vision.
>
>
>
> It's irrelevant, because seeing something in one's peripheral vision, without paying any attention to it, doesn't constitute "enjoying nature". That's like saying that you "saw Los Angeles", when all you did was drive through on the freeway.

Wrong. Because you don't get to define anyone's enjoyment but your own.

> I don't expect to convince any mountain biker, because they are too dishonest. You will continue lying FOREVER, when you know I'm right. You are the only one who loses. You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the head, which it DOES, every time you read what I wrote.

Of course we do, because the truth is that you are a fruitcake.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 6:09:53 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Friday, January 11, 2013 11:46:24 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Friday, January 11, 2013 7:35:25 AM UTC-8, wrote: >> Ask any astronomer how he looks at the stars. > > That may be the ONLY time it's conscious. Certainly not while mountain biking. Any attention given to peripheral vision would detract from attention to the trail, and result in a CRASH. So there's absolutely no reason to use one's peripheral vision while mountain biking. DUH! > Peripheral vision is an essential part of motion detection, you complete idiot, and therefore an essential part of mountain biking.

BS. There is no motion to detect, except your own. The only thing a mountain biker needs to pay attention to is the trail in front of them, which is exactly what they do. All else is a distraction. So your claim to be "enjoying nature" is, of course, pure hogwash. Everybody else knows it, except mountain bikers. They alone can't tell the truth, or their little game will be over.

If you can't grasp that fundamental characteristic of human visual perception, then I don't think I'm going to be able to find words small enough for your feeble mind to understand. You are an insult to everyone with a Ph.D. > > Your responses are an ever-increasing testament of your complete ignorance of mountain biking. Maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking.

Explain WHY. (Hint: you CAN'T, because it isn't true.)

> > Prove it. > > It's obvious. You are just pretending to disagree. You KNOW I'm right. You just don't have the guts to admit it, COWARD. This is the best, and most explanatory, of your responses; because here, you just responded to your own request to "prove it." You can't even follow a basic conversation. How sad for you. > Tell the truth, for once in your totally worthless life. Heck, you can't even tell the truth about your own NAME! It's silly to expect such a person to tell the truth about anything else.... Wow, Mike. Way to shy away from my response. What's the matter?

Cat got your tongue? Tell the world exactly WHY you are afraid to use your real name! (HINT: you are too much of a COWARD to do so. Go ahead, change the subject again.)

Did I hurt your feelings? But seriously... What happens when you put salt on a vampire?

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 6:16:22 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Sunday, January 13, 2013 5:49:51 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Sunday, January 13, 2013 2:04:54 PM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote: > > > The thing I just don't get is why you knowingly spout such drivel Mr Vandeman. Unless you are a 100% fraud, you should know the truth of what Shraga is saying about foveal and peripheral vision. > > > > It's irrelevant, because seeing something in one's peripheral vision, without paying any attention to it, doesn't constitute "enjoying nature". That's like saying that you "saw Los Angeles", when all you did was drive through on the freeway. Wrong. Because you don't get to define anyone's enjoyment but your own.

Yes, I do, when their claim is absolute BS. "Enjoying bature" is physically impossible while mountain biking. Peripheral vision doesn't constitute "enjoyment of nature", because 99% of the time it's UNCONSCIOUS. But you already knew that, and chose to LIE about it.

Besides, any message from you that doesn't start with your REAL NAME is BS.

> I don't expect to convince any mountain biker, because they are too dishonest. You will continue lying FOREVER, when you know I'm right. You are the only one who loses. You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the head, which it DOES, every time you read what I wrote. Of course we do, because the truth is that you are a fruitcake.

Your only "skill" is name-calling. You apparently can't tell the truth about ANYTHING, even your own name!!! What a sad excuse for a human being you are.

[Blackblade]

Blackblade wrote: > > > The thing I just don't get is why you knowingly spout such drivel Mr Vandeman. Unless you are a 100% fraud, you should know the truth of what Shraga is saying about foveal and peripheral vision.

> > > > It's irrelevant, because seeing something in one's peripheral vision, without paying any attention to it, doesn't constitute "enjoying nature".. That's like saying that you "saw Los Angeles", when all you did was drive through on the freeway. Wrong. Because you don't get to define anyone's enjoyment but your own.
>
> Yes, I do, when their claim is absolute BS. "Enjoying bature" is physically impossible while mountain biking. Peripheral vision doesn't constitute "enjoyment of nature", because 99% of the time it's UNCONSCIOUS. But you already knew that, and chose to LIE about it.

You really are full of it. So the millions, and growing, who ride mountainbikes for fun, exercise and to get into a natural environment are all wrong and you, solely, are right. We are all closet masochists and we don't enjoy it at all ?????? !!!!!

I enjoy the sights, sounds, smells and all the sensations of being in a natural environment on my bike.

You clearly can't empathise with this any more than you can empathise with the families and friends of the bereaved. So, if you really are a Psychology PhD, I suggest you self-diagnose. To me, you look like a classic case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

> > I don't expect to convince any mountain biker, because they are too dishonest. You will continue lying FOREVER, when you know I'm right. You are the only one who loses. You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the head, which it DOES, every time you read what I wrote.

So, if what you write is the truth, how come you never have any verification for what you state ? Instead, you simply make more bald assertions without a shred of supporting evidence. What hits me in the head, every time I see you've updated a thread, is "I wonder what nonsense he's going to come back with ...".

> Your only "skill" is name-calling. You apparently can't tell the truth about ANYTHING, even your own name!!! What a sad excuse for a human being you are.

Appeal to authority is a classic logical error. It doesn't matter who he is, simply that he provides evidence to support his position. Since he does and you don't, I think he wins.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:42:13 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:

> Yes, I do, when their claim is absolute BS. "Enjoying bature" is physically impossible while mountain biking. Peripheral vision doesn't constitute "enjoyment of nature", because 99% of the time it's UNCONSCIOUS. But you already knew that, and chose to LIE about it.
>

What's "bature?" Is it something they teach at "Berkelery?"

Cite the source that establishes that 99% of peripheral vision is "unconscious." It should be easy, unless you're lying.

> Besides, any message from you that doesn't start with your REAL NAME is BS.

Really? Did your parents name you "Mike?" Does it say, "Mike" on your birth certificate?

Why are you afraid to use your real name, "Mike?"

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:36:51 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sunday, January 13, 2013 6:09:53 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> Your responses are an ever-increasing testament of your complete ignorance of mountain biking. Maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking.
>
>
> Explain WHY. (Hint: you CAN'T, because it isn't true.)

I have explained why. I gave three good practical examples. You shied away from two of them, made a feeble attempt at responding to the other and then, again, ran away from my replies. I showed you two sources from refereed journals. I made a recommendation to review a textbook, suggested you consult materials you used when acquiring your degree, and now I have invited you to provide a counter reference.

If you still need an explanation, then go back through our conversation and respond to the explanations and examples you ignored. If you can provide *evidence* of why I'm wrong, then I'll give you an explanation. Until then, I'm not willing to reward your chronic laziness and short attention span.

At this point, I have contributed FAR more than you have to this conversation, and it's your turn.


> Cat got your tongue? Tell the world exactly WHY you are afraid to use your real name! (HINT: you are too much of a COWARD to do so. Go ahead, change the subject again.)

Change the subject? When did the "subject" become my name?

The subject, obviously, is vampires. We've been talking about vampires since you brought them up on Tuesday. I think you were about to explain to me what happens when you put salt on one.

[Blackblade]

> The subject, obviously, is vampires. We've been talking about vampires since you brought them up on Tuesday. I think you were about to explain to me what happens when you put salt on one.

I'd like to know the answer to this one too ... a new one on me !

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:18:39 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> Your responses are an ever-increasing testament of your complete ignorance of mountain biking. Maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking.

Explain WHY. (Hint: you CAN'T, because it isn't true.) You haven't explained it.

> Change the subject? When did the "subject" become my name?

When I asked you what your name is, long ago. What are you afraid of? Anyone who won't give his real name is an obvious liar.

[Tom $herman]

On 1/13/2013 10:42 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> Your only "skill" is name-calling. You apparently can't tell the truth about ANYTHING, even your own name!!! What a sad excuse for a human being you are.

I am looking to use a HANDSAW as a weapon, as well as to cut down trees
to make a tree fort. What model do you recommend?

--
Tom $herman

[Tom $herman]

On 1/14/2013 8:42 AM, wrote:
> On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:42:13 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>> >Yes, I do, when their claim is absolute BS. "Enjoying bature" is physically impossible while mountain biking. Peripheral vision doesn't constitute "enjoyment of nature", because 99% of the time it's UNCONSCIOUS. But you already knew that, and chose to LIE about it.
>> >
> What's "bature?" Is it something they teach at "Berkelery?"

<rimshot>

--
Tom $herman

[Blackblade]

> > Your responses are an ever-increasing testament of your complete ignorance of mountain biking. Maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking.
>
> Explain WHY. (Hint: you CAN'T, because it isn't true.) You haven't explained it.

Because, if you focus only on the trail in front of your front tyre you will not see obstacles ahead and then, yes, you will crash. You need to look at where you will be ... not where you are. This is also true of driving.

> > Change the subject? When did the "subject" become my name?
>
> When I asked you what your name is, long ago. What are you afraid of? Anyone who won't give his real name is an obvious liar.

Explain WHY. There are many reasons someone may quite validly wish to maintain their anonymity.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 9:33:37 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:18:39 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> > Your responses are an ever-increasing testament of your complete ignorance of mountain biking. Maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking.
>
>
>
> Explain WHY. (Hint: you CAN'T, because it isn't true.) You haven't explained it.
>

The fact that your substandard Berkeley education didn't provide you with the mental capacity to grasp the basic physiology of the human optic system isn't my problem. Read the documents I suggested, or quit pouting about it.

If you still need an explanation, then go back through our conversation and respond to the explanations and examples you ignored. If you can provide *evidence* of why I'm wrong, then I'll give you an explanation. Until then, I'm not willing to reward your chronic laziness and short attention span.

> > Change the subject? When did the "subject" become my name?
>
> When I asked you what your name is, long ago. What are you afraid of? Anyone who won't give his real name is an obvious liar.

Why did you snip off the question about vampires? I'd LOVE to hear someone with a world-class education from Harvard and Berkeley explain what happens when you put salt on one.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:33:41 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Monday, January 14, 2013 9:33:37 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:18:39 AM UTC-8, wrote: > > > Your responses are an ever-increasing testament of your complete ignorance of mountain biking. Maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking. > > > > Explain WHY. (Hint: you CAN'T, because it isn't true.) You haven't explained it. > The fact that your substandard Berkeley education didn't provide you with the mental capacity to grasp the basic physiology of the human optic system isn't my problem.

It isn't the optic system that manages attention, dum dum. DUH! Mountain bikers are incapable of paying attention to anything in their peripheral vision -- as you well know but are too COWARDLY and DISHONEST to admit.

> Read the documents I suggested, or quit pouting about it. If you still need an explanation, then go back through our conversation and respond to the explanations and examples you ignored. If you can provide *evidence* of why I'm wrong, then I'll give you an explanation. Until then, I'm not willing to reward your chronic laziness and short attention span. > > Change the subject? When did the "subject" become my name? > > When I asked you what your name is, long ago. What are you afraid of? Anyone who won't give his real name is an obvious liar. Why did you snip off the question about vampires? I'd LOVE to hear someone with a world-class education from Harvard and Berkeley explain what happens when you put salt on one.

Your unwillingness to answer any questions is duly noted -- by the whole world.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:13:36 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:33:41 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> It isn't the optic system that manages attention, dum dum. DUH! Mountain bikers are incapable of paying attention to anything in their peripheral vision -- as you well know but are too COWARDLY and DISHONEST to admit.

Tomato, tomato. I'm talking physiology; you're still wrestling with semantics.

Peripheral vision is an essential part of perception of self-motion. Doesn't matter how many times you deny it, you're still wrong, "Berkelery" Ph.D. and all.

> > Read the documents I suggested, or quit pouting about it. If you still need an explanation, then go back through our conversation and respond to the explanations and examples you ignored. If you can provide *evidence* of why I'm wrong, then I'll give you an explanation. Until then, I'm not willing to reward your chronic laziness and short attention span. > > Change the subject? When did the "subject" become my name? > > When I asked you what your name is, long ago. What are you afraid of? Anyone who won't give his real name is an obvious liar. Why did you snip off the question about vampires? I'd LOVE to hear someone with a world-class education from Harvard and Berkeley explain what happens when you put salt on one.
>
>
>
> Your unwillingness to answer any questions is duly noted -- by the whole world.

Your unwillingness to answer any questions about vampires is duly noted as well.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:05:59 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:13:36 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:33:41 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > It isn't the optic system that manages attention, dum dum. DUH! Mountain bikers are incapable of paying attention to anything in their peripheral vision -- as you well know but are too COWARDLY and DISHONEST to admit.
>
>
>
> Tomato, tomato. I'm talking physiology; you're still wrestling with semantics.

BS. The topic is whether mountain bikers are "enjoying nature". They aren't.. It's physically impossible.

> Peripheral vision is an essential part of perception of self-motion. Doesn't matter how many times you deny it, you're still wrong, "Berkelery" Ph.D.. and all.

We aren't talking about "perception of self-motion". We're taling about enjoyment of nature.

> > > Read the documents I suggested, or quit pouting about it. If you still need an explanation, then go back through our conversation and respond to the explanations and examples you ignored. If you can provide *evidence* of why I'm wrong, then I'll give you an explanation. Until then, I'm not willing to reward your chronic laziness and short attention span. > > Change the subject? When did the "subject" become my name? > > When I asked you what your name is, long ago. What are you afraid of? Anyone who won't give his real name is an obvious liar. Why did you snip off the question about vampires? I'd LOVE to hear someone with a world-class education from Harvard and Berkeley explain what happens when you put salt on one.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Your unwillingness to answer any questions is duly noted -- by the whole world.
>
>
>
> Your unwillingness to answer any questions about vampires is duly noted as well.

I don't claim to know anything about them, only blood-sucking mountain bikers.

[Blackblade]

> > Peripheral vision is an essential part of perception of self-motion. Doesn't matter how many times you deny it, you're still wrong, "Berkelery" Ph..D. and all.
>
>
>
> We aren't talking about "perception of self-motion". We're taling about enjoyment of nature.

Well, yes, we were until you derailed the conversation ... but then, quite correctly, Shraga pointed out the errors in your assertions regarding peripheral vision. When he did so, suddenly, you want to come back on topic having lost the argument.

So, let's cut to the core. I am a Mountainbiker as of relatively recently and since I, and my fellow riders, enjoy the sights, sounds, smells and all the sensations of being in a natural environment on our bikes your core assertion is provably wrong. It is far more enjoyable than being on a road or other paved and developed area. We are therefore enjoying the nature.

You seem to have the view that the nature can only be enjoyed in certain, prescribed ways ... when, clearly, each individual can make a judgement on what they do or don't enjoy. You can have your view as to the impact of such enjoyment but you can't question the enjoyment itself because it is axiomatically determined by simple assertion on the part of those participating.

Why else do you think that more and more parks and other wild recreation areas are promoting mountainbiking ? Why else would anyone bother to mountainbike ? I sincerely doubt that there are 50 million masochists in the US who are hating every moment yet still spending time, effort and cash going mountainbiking.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:04:56 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:05:59 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> BS. The topic is whether mountain bikers are "enjoying nature". They aren't. It's physically impossible.
>

As Blackblade correctly stated, I was primarily responding to your false statements about peripheral vision. I guess the lesson here is that if you don't like supposedly off topic side discussions, you shouldn't change the subject to something you don't know anything about.

Regarding the topic of whether mountain bikers, "enjoy nature," I'll just repeat what I wrote before.

(1) You don't get to define someone else's enjoyment. Your exclusionary, elitist point of view on this is ridiculous.

(2) The varied terrain inherent to mountain biking, in particular the common lengthy uphill climbs that force reductions in speed make it quite safe for someone on a bicycle to turn his or her attention from the trail in front of the tire, even for several seconds (just like an equestrian could). This would allow someone with even basic bike riding skills to enjoy nature.


> We aren't talking about "perception of self-motion". We're taling about enjoyment of nature.

Yes we were. That conversation started when you wrote that, "Mountain bikers don't need 'peripheral cues'..."

But we seem to be done now. Thank you for the lively conversation.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:52:46 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:04:56 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:05:59 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > BS. The topic is whether mountain bikers are "enjoying nature". They aren't. It's physically impossible.
>
> >
>
>
>
> As Blackblade correctly stated, I was primarily responding to your false statements about peripheral vision. I guess the lesson here is that if you don't like supposedly off topic side discussions, you shouldn't change the subject to something you don't know anything about.
>
>
>
> Regarding the topic of whether mountain bikers, "enjoy nature," I'll just repeat what I wrote before.
>
>
>
> (1) You don't get to define someone else's enjoyment. Your exclusionary, elitist point of view on this is ridiculous.
>
>
>
> (2) The varied terrain inherent to mountain biking, in particular the common lengthy uphill climbs that force reductions in speed make it quite safe for someone on a bicycle to turn his or her attention from the trail in front of the tire, even for several seconds (just like an equestrian could). This would allow someone with even basic bike riding skills to enjoy nature..
>
>
>
>
>
> > We aren't talking about "perception of self-motion". We're taling about enjoyment of nature.
>
>
>
> Yes we were. That conversation started when you wrote that, "Mountain bikers don't need 'peripheral cues'..."
>
>
>
> But we seem to be done now. Thank you for the lively conversation.

I'm not going to waste any more time responding to dishonest mountain bikers. You don't answer questions, proving that you have something to hide and aren't being honest, you lie frequently, you can't reason logically. and you keep repeating assertions that I have already refuted.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:52:46 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:04:56 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:05:59 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > BS. The topic is whether mountain bikers are "enjoying nature". They aren't. It's physically impossible.
>
> >
>
>
>
> As Blackblade correctly stated, I was primarily responding to your false statements about peripheral vision. I guess the lesson here is that if you don't like supposedly off topic side discussions, you shouldn't change the subject to something you don't know anything about.
>
>
>
> Regarding the topic of whether mountain bikers, "enjoy nature," I'll just repeat what I wrote before.
>
>
>
> (1) You don't get to define someone else's enjoyment. Your exclusionary, elitist point of view on this is ridiculous.
>
>
>
> (2) The varied terrain inherent to mountain biking, in particular the common lengthy uphill climbs that force reductions in speed make it quite safe for someone on a bicycle to turn his or her attention from the trail in front of the tire, even for several seconds (just like an equestrian could). This would allow someone with even basic bike riding skills to enjoy nature..
>
>
>
>
>
> > We aren't talking about "perception of self-motion". We're taling about enjoyment of nature.
>
>
>
> Yes we were. That conversation started when you wrote that, "Mountain bikers don't need 'peripheral cues'..."
>
>
>
> But we seem to be done now. Thank you for the lively conversation.

I'm not going to waste any more time responding to dishonest mountain bikers. You don't answer questions, proving that you have something to hide and aren't being honest, you lie frequently, you can't reason logically. and you keep repeating assertions that I have already refuted.

[Tom $herman]

On 1/14/2013 11:50 PM, Blackblade wrote:
>
>>> Your responses are an ever-increasing testament of your complete ignorance of mountain biking. Maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking.
>>
>> Explain WHY. (Hint: you CAN'T, because it isn't true.) You haven't explained it.
>
> Because, if you focus only on the trail in front of your front tyre you will not see obstacles ahead and then, yes, you will crash. You need to look at where you will be ... not where you are. This is also true of driving.
>
>>> Change the subject? When did the "subject" become my name?
>>
>> When I asked you what your name is, long ago. What are you afraid of? Anyone who won't give his real name is an obvious liar.
>
> Explain WHY. There are many reasons someone may quite validly wish to maintain their anonymity.
>
On the other hand, Mikey V. has had to give up messing with people he
argues with on Usenet in real life, or he will end up in the state pen. :)

--
Tom $herman

[Tom $herman]

On 1/15/2013 7:33 AM, wrote:
> Why did you snip off the question about vampires? I'd LOVE to hear someone with a world-class education from Harvard and Berkeley explain what happens when you put salt on one.

Mikey V. fights off vampires with a HANDSAW. ;)

--
Tom $herman

[Blackblade]

> I'm not going to waste any more time responding to dishonest mountain bikers. You don't answer questions, proving that you have something to hide and aren't being honest, you lie frequently, you can't reason logically. and you keep repeating assertions that I have already refuted.

The only one lying here is you.

You said, in this thread ...

"As to the beautiful scenery, only hikers & equestrians are able to enjoy it. Mountain bikers are doing nothing but looking at the trail directly in front of them, & have no time to "enjoy scenery""

But in another thread you said ...

"It sounds logical that they would be satisfied, building their own
mountain biking "park". But it's not true, for two reasons: (1) most
of them enjoy being in nature. It's a MAJOR component of the sport.
Especially, exploring NEW territory." (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.bicycles.soc/nWmSWXCGgg8/OY4WC2elZ0AJ)

LIAR !