A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

[OT] habitat



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old July 22nd 11, 03:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default habitat

On Jul 21, 8:34*am, "Ronsonic" wrote:

Shall we release some wolves
into England and tell the locals it's okay, they belong there.


Of course we should. It could be pretty entertaining. Quite how
gruesomely entertaining, you can read in my short story "The
Survivor". Don't get it from Amazon; you have to pay on Amazon. Get it
from Smashwords free of charge
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/72627

Come to think of it, another free short, in "Two Shorts"
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/73667
has a hi-fi connection...

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLING.html
Ads
  #112  
Old July 22nd 11, 08:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Mike Vandeman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,755
Default habitat

On Jul 21, 7:42*am, SMS wrote:
On 7/21/2011 12:17 AM, RobertH wrote:

On Jul 20, 11:20 am, *wrote:


meh. Both natural flora and fauna kill humans too:


Yes but not often enough to make any real positve difference.


In all seriousness, the mountains can be deadly in many unexpected
ways. A few weeks ago a father and daughter, both experienced hikers,
were killed when a blast of wind blew them off of a trail above
timberline. The same weekend, on a different mountain in the vicinity,
someone was crushed by a boulder they were hiding under during a
storm.


There are tragic accidents for both hikers and cyclists, as well as
non-accidents caused by doing something stupid. Look what happened at
Yosemite a couple of days ago to two hikers. Tragic, but it should not
reflect on all hikers.

If you're just looking at the impact of various activities upon habitat,
all the studies and evidence have proven that there is basically no
difference between cyclists and hikers, but that horses have a far
greater negative impact. For disturbing wildlife, cyclists have the
least impact of the three activities.

It's immaterial as to a) when horses came to North America, or b) when
mountain bikes were invented. This is not a debate on who was here
first, it's a debate on who is creating the most negative impact on
habitat and who is damaging trails the most. In that respect, our
favorite troll has absolutely no scientific evidence to back his position..


Repeating those lies won't make them true. Anyone (with a brain and
some honesty, which excludes you) can read the research and will see
that I am absolutely right and you are dead wrong.
  #113  
Old July 22nd 11, 08:43 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Mike Vandeman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,755
Default habitat

On Jul 21, 9:43*am, SMS wrote:
On Jul 19, 11:54*pm, RobertH wrote:





On Jul 18, 9:00 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:


BS. I wrote the ONLY scientific paper on the subject. Every allegedly
"scientific" paper written by a mountain biker was fatally biased and
dishonest.


I read these and they didn't seem all that fatally biased or
dishonest:


IMPACTS OF EXPERIMENTALLY APPLIED MOUNTAIN BIKING AND HIKING ON
VEGETATION AND SOIL 2001 article by Thurston and Reader, Environmental
Management. Study showed potentially severe impacts from both
activities, and similar recovery times.


EROSIONAL IMPACT OF HIKERS, HORSES, MOTORCYCLES, AND OFF-ROAD BICYCLES
ON MOUNTAIN TRAILS IN MONTANA Wilson and Seney, Mountain Research and
Development, 1994.


Yes, these are all peer-reviewed and published papers so you have at
least some assurance that they are based on fact.

It speaks volumes that there are zero papers that have ever concluded
that mountain bikes cause any more damage to trails or wildlife
habitat than hikers. After all this time you can be sure that if there
were any evidence that mountain bikes caused more damage than hikers
that a reputable and qualified person would have written a peer-
reviewed and published paper on the subject, but no one has.


1. You are wrong. See http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm.
2. Absence of research doesn't imply absence of impact. DUH!
  #114  
Old July 22nd 11, 09:33 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Chalo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,093
Default habitat

Mike Vandeman wrote:

Repeating those lies won't make them true. Anyone (with a brain and
some honesty, which excludes you) can read the research and will see
that I am absolutely right and you are dead wrong.


For the above statement to be true, [anyone] must be equal to [Mike
Vandeman]. That's some kind of inflexible technical definition of
insanity, I think.

For your own benefit, I urge you to

1) seek help and treatment for your illness, and

2) stop pestering sane people.

Chalo
  #115  
Old July 22nd 11, 04:37 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default habitat

On 7/22/2011 1:33 AM, Chalo wrote:

snip

2) stop pestering sane people.


Most people here have had him filtered out for years.

Usenet is an emotional outlet for him. It's better that our favorite
troll spend his time posting this nonsense than committing more crimes
against trail users. He may be banned from the trails where the previous
crimes occurred, but there are lots of other trails around where he
could re-offend.

Another positive is that by posting so much fact-free nonsense he is
actually helping to promote mountain biking, which not only aids in
creating a bigger constituency for habitat protection, but helps the
economy in terms of equipment sales. Perhaps that's been his goal all
along, to publicize the positive aspects of mountain biking.

This has been a good thread since it included many links to definitive
research that proves that mountain biking is no more destructive on
habitat than hiking. It's always good to discredit trolls with
irrefutable facts. A lot of people that have done no research
instinctively consider mountain biking to be higher impact to habitat
than hiking or horseback riding, when in fact all the research ever
performed shows the opposite to be the case.
  #116  
Old July 23rd 11, 07:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Mike Vandeman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,755
Default habitat

On Jul 22, 1:33*am, Chalo wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:

Repeating those lies won't make them true. Anyone (with a brain and
some honesty, which excludes you) can read the research and will see
that I am absolutely right and you are dead wrong.


For the above statement to be true, [anyone] must be equal to [Mike
Vandeman]. *That's some kind of inflexible technical definition of
insanity, I think.

For your own benefit, I urge you to

1) seek help and treatment for your illness, and


Your libel is duly noted. Attacking others is how mountain bikers TRY
(and fail) to get the attention off their selfish, destrictive,
disgusting sport.

2) stop pestering sane people.


Liars like you and Tom Sherman are the REAL sickos. All you are doing
is reinforcing mountain bikers' rotten (and accurate) image.

Chalo


  #117  
Old July 23rd 11, 08:01 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Mike Vandeman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,755
Default habitat

On Jul 22, 8:37*am, SMS wrote:
On 7/22/2011 1:33 AM, Chalo wrote:

snip

2) stop pestering sane people.


Most people here have had him filtered out for years.

Usenet is an emotional outlet for him. It's better that our favorite
troll spend his time posting this nonsense than committing more crimes
against trail users. He may be banned from the trails where the previous
crimes occurred, but there are lots of other trails around where he
could re-offend.

Another positive is that by posting so much fact-free nonsense he is
actually helping to promote mountain biking, which not only aids in
creating a bigger constituency for habitat protection, but helps the
economy in terms of equipment sales. Perhaps that's been his goal all
along, to publicize the positive aspects of mountain biking.

This has been a good thread since it included many links to definitive
research that proves that mountain biking is no more destructive on
habitat than hiking. It's always good to discredit trolls with
irrefutable facts. A lot of people that have done no research
instinctively consider mountain biking to be higher impact to habitat
than hiking or horseback riding, when in fact all the research ever
performed shows the opposite to be the case.


At the dozens of SCIENTIFIC conferences where I have presented my
papers on mountain biking, only ONE mountain biker has ever tried to
give a pro-mountain biking talk. He left with his tail between his
legs, after I pointed out that the "research" he was talking about is
BS. There isn't one shred of real science that supports mountain
biking. OF COURSE. The only people who believe otherwise are mountain
bikers like you, who are AMAZINGLY ignorant and dishonest.
  #118  
Old July 24th 11, 11:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
T°m Sherm@n
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 813
Default habitat

On 7/23/2011 2:01 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:

At the dozens of SCIENTIFIC conferences where I have presented my
papers on mountain biking, only ONE mountain biker has ever tried to
give a pro-mountain biking talk. He left with his tail between his
legs, after I pointed out that the "research" he was talking about is
BS. There isn't one shred of real science that supports mountain
biking. OF COURSE. The only people who believe otherwise are mountain
bikers like you, who are AMAZINGLY ignorant and dishonest.


Does your probation status allow you to leave the State of California to
attend conferences?

Would you use fossil-fuel powered transportation to get to the
conference, if you were allowed to travel?

Would you take your HANDSAW with you, in case you met up with someone
riding a mountain bike?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #119  
Old July 24th 11, 06:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
T°m Sherm@n
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 813
Default habitat

On 7/24/2011 9:37 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
"T°m " considered
Sun, 24 Jul 2011 05:41:48 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 7/23/2011 2:01 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:

At the dozens of SCIENTIFIC conferences where I have presented my
papers on mountain biking, only ONE mountain biker has ever tried to
give a pro-mountain biking talk. He left with his tail between his
legs, after I pointed out that the "research" he was talking about is
BS. There isn't one shred of real science that supports mountain
biking. OF COURSE. The only people who believe otherwise are mountain
bikers like you, who are AMAZINGLY ignorant and dishonest.


Does your probation status allow you to leave the State of California to
attend conferences?

Would you use fossil-fuel powered transportation to get to the
conference, if you were allowed to travel?

Would you take your HANDSAW with you, in case you met up with someone
riding a mountain bike?


I can't imagine any airline allowing someone to carry a handsaw,
particularly someone with a criminal conviction for using it on
people.

In fact, any airline captain I know about wouldn't carry anyone with
that kind of record, with or without their favourite weapon.


Mikey V. is retired from Pacific Bell, so he would have plenty of time
to ride his bike and/or take a sailboat to a conference.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #120  
Old July 25th 11, 01:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Mike Vandeman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,755
Default habitat

On Jul 24, 7:37*am, Phil W Lee wrote:
"T°m Sherm@n" " considered
Sun, 24 Jul 2011 05:41:48 -0500 the perfect time to write:





On 7/23/2011 2:01 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:


At the dozens of SCIENTIFIC conferences where I have presented my
papers on mountain biking, only ONE mountain biker has ever tried to
give a pro-mountain biking talk. He left with his tail between his
legs, after I pointed out that the "research" he was talking about is
BS. There isn't one shred of real science that supports mountain
biking. OF COURSE. The only people who believe otherwise are mountain
bikers like you, who are AMAZINGLY ignorant and dishonest.


Does your probation status allow you to leave the State of California to
attend conferences?


Would you use fossil-fuel powered transportation to get to the
conference, if you were allowed to travel?


Would you take your HANDSAW with you, in case you met up with someone
riding a mountain bike?


I can't imagine any airline allowing someone to carry a handsaw,
particularly someone with a criminal conviction for using it on
people.


Who might that be? Idiot.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BIKE HABITAT kolldata Techniques 2 March 7th 11 12:52 AM
Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! Mike Vandeman Social Issues 7 August 31st 08 05:15 AM
Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 17 July 31st 08 02:15 AM
Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! Mike Vandeman Social Issues 17 July 31st 08 02:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.