Mountain Bikers Enjoy Destroying Wildlife Habitat! (was BCT Trail Work Day)

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...

I am a troll and it sucks to be me.


Couldn't agree more :)

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:25:55 -0800, cc wrote:


You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science").

And what "science" are you referring to? YOU have not conducted actual field
research. You only take what others have done and either ignore what you do
not like to take only what is favorable to your opinion or you ridicule the
findings because they do not fall in line with your opinion.
The REAL research done by REAL researchers has been gathered by experts in
charge (without the benefit of your "reviews") and have come to the
conclusion that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking in regards to trail
and habitat impact. The REAL information has lead to rules and regulations
nationwide recognizing the validity of off-road cycling in multi-use
designated areas. These rulings have driven the trail user cooperation and
expansion of cycling access.
YOUR opinion of what REAL science is has no measure in the matter.

On Feb 24, 7:45 pm, "S Curtiss" wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

... On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:25:55 -0800, cc wrote:

You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science").

And what "science" are you referring to?

In addition to sloppy/home-brew "science," he doesn't seem capable of
correct grammar.

PH

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:45:13 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:25:55 -0800, cc wrote:


You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science").

And what "science" are you referring to? YOU have not conducted actual field
research. You only take what others have done and either ignore what you do
not like to take only what is favorable to your opinion or you ridicule the
findings because they do not fall in line with your opinion.
The REAL research done by REAL researchers has been gathered by experts in
charge (without the benefit of your "reviews") and have come to the
conclusion that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking in regards to trail
and habitat impact. The REAL information has lead to rules and regulations
nationwide recognizing the validity of off-road cycling in multi-use
designated areas. These rulings have driven the trail user cooperation and
expansion of cycling access.
YOUR opinion of what REAL science is has no measure in the matter.

Obviously you aren't capable of distinguishing real science from
fraud. I am, and I did. So far, I haven't found anyone who disagrees
with my conclusions except mountain bikers. Mountain bikers LIKE
fraud. It's their middle name.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On 24 Feb 2007 17:26:56 -0800, "pmh" wrote:

On Feb 24, 7:45 pm, "S Curtiss" wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

... On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:25:55 -0800, cc wrote:

You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science").

And what "science" are you referring to?

In addition to sloppy/home-brew "science," he doesn't seem capable of
correct grammar.

What are you talking about?

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

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news
What are you talking about? I am so a troll. Boy does it ever suck to be
me.


Agreed

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...

I just can't get enough trolling done in a day. It surely sucks to be me.

You can say that again.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:45:13 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:25:55 -0800, cc wrote:


You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science").

And what "science" are you referring to? YOU have not conducted actual
field
research. You only take what others have done and either ignore what you
do
not like to take only what is favorable to your opinion or you ridicule
the
findings because they do not fall in line with your opinion.
The REAL research done by REAL researchers has been gathered by experts in
charge (without the benefit of your "reviews") and have come to the
conclusion that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking in regards to
trail
and habitat impact. The REAL information has lead to rules and regulations
nationwide recognizing the validity of off-road cycling in multi-use
designated areas. These rulings have driven the trail user cooperation and
expansion of cycling access.
YOUR opinion of what REAL science is has no measure in the matter.

Obviously you aren't capable of distinguishing real science from
fraud. I am, and I did. So far, I haven't found anyone who disagrees
with my conclusions except mountain bikers. Mountain bikers LIKE
fraud. It's their middle name.
===
Obviously, you ignore the REAL scientists, environmentalists and researchers
who conduct and compile the research that has allowed off-road cycling to be
recognized by the NFS, NPS and land managers nationwide.
You say you have not "found anyone who disagrees...". Names? Locations? Who
are these "mystery people"? Where are the direct quotes from actual and real
scientists and environmental researchers who have said directlty that they
agree with the views of Mike Vandeman concerning off-road cycling?
What actual field research have you done? What are the opinions of those
whose actual work and research you butcher in order to claim a foundation
for your opinions? Your "reviews" have been put out to pasture as nobody
needs the services of a self-appointed "middle-man" to INTERPRET and SPIN
the results when the actual research and those conducting it are readily
available by the internet.
You have been requested for years to supply names that can be verified. You
only respond with "because I say so". Hardly scientific and definately not
the response from someone who has conviction in their statements.
If you have not found anyone with credentials who disagrees with your
opinions, you have been living in a bubble and purposefully looking away
from the truth.

On Feb 25, 1:24 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
So far, I haven't found anyone who disagrees
with my conclusions except mountain bikers.

Since it's a slow day, I'll take time to post: I have repeatedly
stated, since day one of finding your psychotic blatherings, I fully
DO NOT agree with your points, I am NOT a mountain biker, and I do not
even know any mountain bikers.

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
This is as clear as possible evidence of your having been taken in by
junk science; cell phones represent ZERO physical hazard.

PH

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:24:47 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:45:13 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:25:55 -0800, cc wrote:


You jackass. Try interpreting the statement as the statistician you
think you are. Any categorical differences between biking and hiking
trails are so small compared to the difference between trails within
each category, that they are statistically irrelevant.

Not according to the REAL science (as opposed to "mountain biker
science").

And what "science" are you referring to? YOU have not conducted actual
field
research. You only take what others have done and either ignore what you
do
not like to take only what is favorable to your opinion or you ridicule
the
findings because they do not fall in line with your opinion.
The REAL research done by REAL researchers has been gathered by experts in
charge (without the benefit of your "reviews") and have come to the
conclusion that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking in regards to
trail
and habitat impact. The REAL information has lead to rules and regulations
nationwide recognizing the validity of off-road cycling in multi-use
designated areas. These rulings have driven the trail user cooperation and
expansion of cycling access.
YOUR opinion of what REAL science is has no measure in the matter.

Obviously you aren't capable of distinguishing real science from
fraud. I am, and I did. So far, I haven't found anyone who disagrees
with my conclusions except mountain bikers. Mountain bikers LIKE
fraud. It's their middle name.
===
Obviously, you ignore the REAL scientists, environmentalists and researchers
who conduct and compile the research that has allowed off-road cycling to be
recognized by the NFS, NPS and land managers nationwide.
You say you have not "found anyone who disagrees...". Names? Locations? Who
are these "mystery people"? Where are the direct quotes from actual and real
scientists and environmental researchers who have said directlty that they
agree with the views of Mike Vandeman concerning off-road cycling?
What actual field research have you done? What are the opinions of those
whose actual work and research you butcher in order to claim a foundation
for your opinions? Your "reviews" have been put out to pasture as nobody
needs the services of a self-appointed "middle-man" to INTERPRET and SPIN
the results when the actual research and those conducting it are readily
available by the internet.
You have been requested for years to supply names that can be verified. You
only respond with "because I say so". Hardly scientific and definately not
the response from someone who has conviction in their statements.
If you have not found anyone with credentials who disagrees with your
opinions, you have been living in a bubble and purposefully looking away
from the truth.


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

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande