"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."

Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:54:00 GMT, Michael Halliwell
wrote:



Funny,

Their backgrounds seem a lot more related to the topic area at hand than
your math and psychology degrees.



Exactly: they are experts in exploiting natural resources -- NOT
conservation.



And you have proof of their "exploiting" activities or are you pulling
facts out of the air?

Michael Halliwell

Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:56:56 GMT, Michael Halliwell
wrote:



No, totally honest, so much so that my paper has been accepted for
presentation at 8 international environmental conferences:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7





Actually, Mike, the mere acceptance of a paper for presentation does not
validate the results.



It does when not a single scientist has any objection to it.


If that is your basis for validation, then I've seen undergrads who are
your "peers" because their work has been accepted too.

Michael Halliwell

Mike Vandeman wrote:


1. Mountain bikers claim to be there to look at nature. They claim
that they are "just hikers on wheels". There's nothing to stop the
mountain bikers from getting off their bikes and approaching the
sheep.
2. It is the height of dishonesty to manipulate the experimental
conditions to "prove" what you want, instead of testing under real
conditions, with REAL hikers and REAL mountain bikers. This study,
like most of the studies comparing mountain biking with hiking, is
junk science.


Mike,

With regards to point 1, you have always stated that you feel it is
impossible for the mountain bikers to look at nature while they ride.
Under your assumptions, the that aspect of the test was valid. Are you
saying that, just perhaps, another mountain biker has stated the truth,
or are you just conveniently using it to justify your response to this
particular paper and experimental methodology?

For point 2: At what point is it manipulation of the conditions to
manufacture proof vs. reflecting actual conditions? Where is your
proof that such a manipulation has occurred. As these papers are peer
reviewed (vs. yours which are not), I would hope that the review process
would have caught such a flaw and rejected the experimental
methodology. As no such rejection has occurred, what makes you think
that your opinion is worth more than the peer review? Watch your
comments here, Mike, as it reflects directly on your "literature review"
/ opinion paper you constantly cite as your "proof".

Michael Halliwell

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 06:51:02 GMT, Michael Halliwell
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:


1. Mountain bikers claim to be there to look at nature. They claim
that they are "just hikers on wheels". There's nothing to stop the
mountain bikers from getting off their bikes and approaching the
sheep.
2. It is the height of dishonesty to manipulate the experimental
conditions to "prove" what you want, instead of testing under real
conditions, with REAL hikers and REAL mountain bikers. This study,
like most of the studies comparing mountain biking with hiking, is
junk science.


Mike,

With regards to point 1, you have always stated that you feel it is
impossible for the mountain bikers to look at nature while they ride.

True. But they CAN stop! This paper offered ZERO evidence that
mountain bikers never stop.

Under your assumptions, the that aspect of the test was valid. Are you
saying that, just perhaps, another mountain biker has stated the truth,
or are you just conveniently using it to justify your response to this
particular paper and experimental methodology?

For point 2: At what point is it manipulation of the conditions to
manufacture proof vs. reflecting actual conditions?

This paper offered ZERO evidence that hikers approach sheep (and that
mountain bikers DON'T). They created those conditions deliberately. If
you are going to measure hikers, then measure hikers -- don't
manipulate them by telling them what to do!

Where is your
proof that such a manipulation has occurred.

I can see that you never actually READ the paper, invalidating 100% of
your comments. They admitted it in the paper! DUH!

As these papers are peer
reviewed

I see no evidence that it was peer-reviewed. Not all articles are
peer-reviewed. If it was peer-reviewed, that process is not
infallible. People are very busy and could easily have missed that
important point, especially if they aren't aware how contentious this
issue is and how strong, therefore, is the motivation to cheat, as
they have done.
(vs. yours which are not), I would hope that the review process
would have caught such a flaw and rejected the experimental
methodology. As no such rejection has occurred, what makes you think
that your opinion is worth more than the peer review? Watch your
comments here, Mike, as it reflects directly on your "literature review"
/ opinion paper you constantly cite as your "proof".

Michael Halliwell
===
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 Sun, 27 Aug 2006 06:38:09 GMT, Michael Halliwell
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:54:00 GMT, Michael Halliwell
wrote:



Funny,

Their backgrounds seem a lot more related to the topic area at hand than
your math and psychology degrees.



Exactly: they are experts in exploiting natural resources -- NOT
conservation.



And you have proof of their "exploiting" activities or are you pulling
facts out of the air?

Why do you think they are called "Resources"? You aren't really THAT
stupid, are you?

Michael Halliwell
===
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:

Mike,

With regards to point 1, you have always stated that you feel it is
impossible for the mountain bikers to look at nature while they ride.



True. But they CAN stop! This paper offered ZERO evidence that
mountain bikers never stop.



But that has been your assertation...that mountain bikers have to be so
focused on their ride that they wouldn't see the sheep and therefore
wouldn't stop...your historic arguement makes your disagreement with
this part of the paper invalid...or are you changing your point of view?

For point 2: At what point is it manipulation of the conditions to
manufacture proof vs. reflecting actual conditions?



This paper offered ZERO evidence that hikers approach sheep (and that
mountain bikers DON'T). They created those conditions deliberately. If
you are going to measure hikers, then measure hikers -- don't
manipulate them by telling them what to do!


Yet, from my personal observation, this reflects actual conditions where
I live...hikers, who generally don't get out into nature much, are so
enthralled by seeing wildlife that they approach to get a better look
and photos to show off at work or send to family. Those who bike see
the sheep and keep on going.

Where is your


proof that such a manipulation has occurred.



I can see that you never actually READ the paper, invalidating 100% of
your comments. They admitted it in the paper! DUH!



Once again, at which point is it a manipulation to unrealistic
conditions vs. a reflection of actual happenings? Not having the
assistants approach (like I've seen hikers do on a regular basis) could
also be viewed as a manipulation of the experimental conditions....shy
of hiding in the bushes and hoping you have a representative popluations
and adequate sample size, some experimental design will be required.

As these papers are peer


reviewed



I see no evidence that it was peer-reviewed. Not all articles are
peer-reviewed. If it was peer-reviewed, that process is not
infallible. People are very busy and could easily have missed that
important point, especially if they aren't aware how contentious this
issue is and how strong, therefore, is the motivation to cheat, as
they have done.


And so, how then would you defend your work against the same accusation?
Can you prove that you don't have a motivation to cheat as this is a
contentious issue? (Especially with your stated goals and views on your
website leading to a strong potential bias.) Where are the independent
peer reviews (though not infallable) on your work that are intended to
provide a third-party check and (hopefully) help weed out the errors,
bias and misleading statements that can interfere with the truth?

Mike, as passionate as I understand you are on this subject, you are
going to have continued resistance.

Those of use who have so much as a basic understanding of the scientific
methodology see bias in what you have presented and no direct research
on your part...we basically see you as someone not willing to test their
hypotheses but will claim those that are attempting to gather actual
data are doing it wrong, incorrectly interpreting it or just outright
manipulating the data to provide a false conclusion. I would suggest
that you obtain funding and do your own research to disprove their
results (and possibly prove your hypotheses) and have the final report
peer reviewed and published in an appropriate journal for the subject.

For those who don't understand scientific methodology, your
presentations come across poorly (I have veiwed some of them almost as
tantrums...plus there is the avoidance of some replies, ignorant
comments to others, and name calling in yet more) and will generate
negative emotions towards you and your subject matter (or don't you
understand that with your psych degree?).

Not to get personal, but when you grow up in your posts or you step up
and actually do research (not just what you call "literature reviews")
you may have a chance at gaining back some credibility. Until such takes
place, you are wasting your efforts as your audience has discounted your
message.

Michael Halliwell

Michael Halliwell wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:

Mike,

With regards to point 1, you have always stated that you feel it is
impossible for the mountain bikers to look at nature while they
ride.


True. But they CAN stop! This paper offered ZERO evidence that
mountain bikers never stop.



But that has been your assertation...that mountain bikers have to be so
focused on their ride that they wouldn't see the sheep and therefore
wouldn't stop...your historic arguement makes your disagreement with
this part of the paper invalid...or are you changing your point of view?

For point 2: At what point is it manipulation of the conditions to
manufacture proof vs. reflecting actual conditions?


This paper offered ZERO evidence that hikers approach sheep (and that
mountain bikers DON'T). They created those conditions deliberately. If
you are going to measure hikers, then measure hikers -- don't
manipulate them by telling them what to do!


Yet, from my personal observation, this reflects actual conditions where
I live...hikers, who generally don't get out into nature much, are so
enthralled by seeing wildlife that they approach to get a better look
and photos to show off at work or send to family. Those who bike see
the sheep and keep on going.

Where is your

proof that such a manipulation has occurred.



I can see that you never actually READ the paper, invalidating 100% of
your comments. They admitted it in the paper! DUH!



Once again, at which point is it a manipulation to unrealistic
conditions vs. a reflection of actual happenings? Not having the
assistants approach (like I've seen hikers do on a regular basis) could
also be viewed as a manipulation of the experimental conditions....shy
of hiding in the bushes and hoping you have a representative popluations
and adequate sample size, some experimental design will be required.

As these papers are peer

reviewed



I see no evidence that it was peer-reviewed. Not all articles are
peer-reviewed. If it was peer-reviewed, that process is not
infallible. People are very busy and could easily have missed that
important point, especially if they aren't aware how contentious this
issue is and how strong, therefore, is the motivation to cheat, as
they have done.


And so, how then would you defend your work against the same accusation?
Can you prove that you don't have a motivation to cheat as this is a
contentious issue? (Especially with your stated goals and views on your
website leading to a strong potential bias.) Where are the independent
peer reviews (though not infallable) on your work that are intended to
provide a third-party check and (hopefully) help weed out the errors,
bias and misleading statements that can interfere with the truth?

Mike, as passionate as I understand you are on this subject, you are
going to have continued resistance.
Those of use who have so much as a basic understanding of the scientific
methodology see bias in what you have presented and no direct research
on your part...we basically see you as someone not willing to test their
hypotheses but will claim those that are attempting to gather actual
data are doing it wrong, incorrectly interpreting it or just outright
manipulating the data to provide a false conclusion. I would suggest
that you obtain funding and do your own research to disprove their
results (and possibly prove your hypotheses) and have the final report
peer reviewed and published in an appropriate journal for the subject.

For those who don't understand scientific methodology, your
presentations come across poorly (I have veiwed some of them almost as
tantrums...plus there is the avoidance of some replies, ignorant
comments to others, and name calling in yet more) and will generate
negative emotions towards you and your subject matter (or don't you
understand that with your psych degree?).
Not to get personal, but when you grow up in your posts or you step up
and actually do research (not just what you call "literature reviews")
you may have a chance at gaining back some credibility. Until such takes
place, you are wasting your efforts as your audience has discounted your
message.


DUH!

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:03:08 -0400, pmhilton wrote:

wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:

"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006)


snip

http://www.imba.com/resources/scienc...t_summary.html

R


He'll find some sleazy & intellectually dishonest way to discount this
report.

No, totally honest, so much so that my paper has been accepted for
presentation at 8 international environmental conferences:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7


Yes, it will be available from a self serve dispenser witin an arms reach
of every toilet.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:39:41 GMT, Michael Halliwell
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:

Mike,

With regards to point 1, you have always stated that you feel it is
impossible for the mountain bikers to look at nature while they ride.



True. But they CAN stop! This paper offered ZERO evidence that
mountain bikers never stop.



But that has been your assertation...that mountain bikers have to be so
focused on their ride that they wouldn't see the sheep and therefore
wouldn't stop...your historic arguement makes your disagreement with
this part of the paper invalid...or are you changing your point of view?

You are (deliberately?) misisng the point: the authors have to do
science, not just try to make the conclusion come out the way they
want it to.

For point 2: At what point is it manipulation of the conditions to
manufacture proof vs. reflecting actual conditions?



This paper offered ZERO evidence that hikers approach sheep (and that
mountain bikers DON'T). They created those conditions deliberately. If
you are going to measure hikers, then measure hikers -- don't
manipulate them by telling them what to do!


Yet, from my personal observation, this reflects actual conditions where
I live...hikers, who generally don't get out into nature much, are so
enthralled by seeing wildlife that they approach to get a better look
and photos to show off at work or send to family. Those who bike see
the sheep and keep on going.

Your personal observation is not science, and is quitely probably
biased. If you saw hikers ignore sheep, ot a biker approach them, I
doubt that you would notice or remember it.

Where is your


proof that such a manipulation has occurred.



I can see that you never actually READ the paper, invalidating 100% of
your comments. They admitted it in the paper! DUH!



Once again, at which point is it a manipulation to unrealistic
conditions vs. a reflection of actual happenings?

Only science will tell, not your opinion.

Not having the
assistants approach (like I've seen hikers do on a regular basis) could
also be viewed as a manipulation of the experimental conditions....shy
of hiding in the bushes and hoping you have a representative popluations
and adequate sample size, some experimental design will be required.

It must be normal conditions. No one has ever TOLD me on a hike to
approach wildlife, so that's not normal.

As these papers are peer


reviewed



I see no evidence that it was peer-reviewed. Not all articles are
peer-reviewed. If it was peer-reviewed, that process is not
infallible. People are very busy and could easily have missed that
important point, especially if they aren't aware how contentious this
issue is and how strong, therefore, is the motivation to cheat, as
they have done.


And so, how then would you defend your work against the same accusation?
Can you prove that you don't have a motivation to cheat as this is a
contentious issue? (Especially with your stated goals and views on your
website leading to a strong potential bias.) Where are the independent
peer reviews (though not infallable) on your work that are intended to
provide a third-party check and (hopefully) help weed out the errors,
bias and misleading statements that can interfere with the truth?

I don't need to prove anything, because anyone reading the articles I
reviewed can see the same things I saw. And, if they are honest (which
you are NOT), report them.

Mike, as passionate as I understand you are on this subject, you are
going to have continued resistance.

Those of use who have so much as a basic understanding of the scientific
methodology see bias in what you have presented

Show me where that is. You are just mouthing the words.

and no direct research
on your part...we basically see you as someone not willing to test their
hypotheses but will claim those that are attempting to gather actual
data are doing it wrong, incorrectly interpreting it or just outright
manipulating the data to provide a false conclusion. I would suggest
that you obtain funding and do your own research to disprove their
results

All you have to do is read their stuff, to see that what I say is
true. But you also have to be HONEST, which you are NOT.

(and possibly prove your hypotheses) and have the final report
peer reviewed and published in an appropriate journal for the subject.

For those who don't understand scientific methodology, your
presentations come across poorly (I have veiwed some of them almost as
tantrums...plus there is the avoidance of some replies, ignorant
comments to others, and name calling in yet more) and will generate
negative emotions towards you and your subject matter (or don't you
understand that with your psych degree?).

Not to get personal, but when you grow up in your posts or you step up
and actually do research (not just what you call "literature reviews")
you may have a chance at gaining back some credibility. Until such takes
place, you are wasting your efforts as your audience has discounted your
message.

Only mountain bikers. Others agree with me, because they aren't
biased.

Michael Halliwell


===
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" wrote in message
...

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:03:08 -0400, pmhilton wrote:

wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:

"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006)


snip

http://www.imba.com/resources/scienc...t_summary.html

R


He'll find some sleazy & intellectually dishonest way to discount this
report.

No, totally honest, so much so that my paper has been accepted for
presentation at 8 international environmental conferences:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7


Yes, it will be available from a self serve dispenser witin an arms reach
of every toilet.

:O)