Shame on that state park, for allowing a TREE ROOT to cross a trail! Don't they>know TREE ROOTS are dangerous to mountain bikers?!

And shame on you for glorying in someone else's misfortune. Bigot.>

.>Shame on that state park, for allowing a TREE ROOT to cross a trail! Don't they>.>know TREE ROOTS are dangerous to mountain bikers?!>.And shame on you for glorying in someone else's misfortune. Bigot.>Show me the statement that constitutes "glorying", liar.

But funny!

.> ."Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote in message> .news:i2fr7199nov14­vhqd84fuq484oqda1prt­r@4ax.com...> .> On Sun, 08 May 2005 00:56:44 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>> .> wrote in message <jqoq71dsln4gocee84­s6sn8t7l2bl36699@4ax­.com>:> .>> .> >Shame on that state park, for allowing a TREE ROOT to cross a trail!> .Don't they> .> >know TREE ROOTS are dangerous to mountain bikers?!> .>> .> And shame on you for glorying in someone else's misfortune. Bigot.> .>> .> .Mike isn't a bigot, he's an idiot.>

Can't you guys agree on ANYTHING? Which is it? (with PROOF!)

===> 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.)>

http://home.pacbell­.net/mjvande

.>.shame on you for glorying in someone else's misfortune. Bigot.>.>Show me the statement that constitutes "glorying", liar.

.See thread title. You lose.

It's a statement of fact. Show me the "glorying" part.

.>.>.shame on you for glorying in someone else's misfortune. Bigot.>.>.>Show me the statement that constitutes "glorying", liar.>.>.See thread title. You lose.>.>It's a statement of fact. Show me the "glorying" part.>.No, it's a statement of fact with a sarcastic addendum.

Where's the "sarcastic addendum"? Why are you totally incapable of showing it?

Liar.

.Regardless of what these other guys call you, you are, without question, >.the least appealing of every single Nancyboy that has ever existed.

That's what mountain bikers say about ANYONE who tells the truth about mountain>biking.

Liar.

Your inability to quote any lies prove you are LYING. DUH!

.Mike isn't a bigot, he's an idiot.>

Can't you guys agree on ANYTHING? Which is it? (with PROOF!)

.Mike Vandeman wrote:> .> On Mon, 9 May 2005 10:31:14 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" > <spamcatcher@yahoo.­net>> .> wrote:> .>> .> .> .> ."Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote in message> .> .news:i2fr7199nov14­vhqd84fuq484oqda1prt­r@4ax.com...> .> .> On Sun, 08 May 2005 00:56:44 GMT, Mike Vandeman > <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>> .> .> wrote in message <jqoq71dsln4gocee84­s6sn8t7l2bl36699@4ax­.com>:> .> .>> .> .> >Shame on that state park, for allowing a TREE ROOT to cross a > trail!> .> .Don't they> .> .> >know TREE ROOTS are dangerous to mountain bikers?!> .> .>> .> .> And shame on you for glorying in someone else's misfortune. Bigot.> .> .>> .> .> .> .Mike isn't a bigot, he's an idiot.> .>> .> Can't you guys agree on ANYTHING? Which is it? (with PROOF!)> .> .Regardless of what these other guys call you, you are, without question,> .the least appealing of every single Nancyboy that has ever existed.>

That's what mountain bikers say about ANYONE who tells the truth about > mountain> biking.

How would you know, you seldom (if ever) tell the truth about mountain >biking.

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t> wrote in message> news:qfk181tqble229­ejhfti0rvkunhqen6peu­@4ax.com...> > On Tue, 10 May 2005 00:27:10 -0500, sremmus> > <sremmus@comcast.al­lyourbase.net>> > wrote:> >

"John">

Unlikely...OCD Mikey has had a hard-on for mountain bikes for years.>Without psychiatric intervention, it's unlikely he'll change the focus of>his obsessions.>

I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to>humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help?>

.On Tue, 10 May 2005 15:23:43 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>> .wrote:> .> .>.Regardless of what these other guys call you, you are, without question, > .>.the least appealing of every single Nancyboy that has ever existed.> .> .>That's what mountain bikers say about ANYONE who tells the truth about mountain> .>biking.> .> .You say? So where's your evidence for that? This group is full of> .people telling the truth about mountain biking, truth about brands> .which are good, truth about health benefits, truth about riding> .techniques, truth about rides they've done>

But they all LIE about the environmental impacts.>

Habitat off-limits to humans, making it purely WILDLIFE habitat. Too difficult>for you?>

.Mike Vandeman wrote:> .> .>I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to> .>humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help?> .>> .> .NO!> .> .I just want (and have many times heretofore requested) you to provide a > .testable, verifiable definition of "pure habitat.">

Habitat off-limits to humans, making it purely WILDLIFE habitat. Too difficult> for you?

BS. Human-free habitat was what existed for billions of years, prior to humans>arriving here. QUITE natural and normal.>

More evidence of your lack of Ph.D in psychology?

.>.>.>.shame on you for glorying in someone else's misfortune. Bigot.>.>.>.>Show me the statement that constitutes "glorying", liar.>.>.>.See thread title. You lose.>.>.>It's a statement of fact. Show me the "glorying" part.>.>.No, it's a statement of fact with a sarcastic addendum.>.>Where's­ the "sarcastic addendum"? Why are you totally incapable of showing it?

.Mountain Biker Hits (Gasp!) TREE ROOT, Falls Down 60 Feet>.^^^^^^^^^^^^^­^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>­.Vandeman hate group sarcasm fact>. (e.g. note caps)

.>Liar.>.Apparentl­y not, as detailed above.>.See also posting-ref 3otu715f02sh5cnf5jg­oer918m57g336u9@4ax.­com>.You lose again, bigot.

I'm still waiting for you to show me the "glorying" part, liar.

.>.Regardless of what these other guys call you, you are, without question, >.>.the least appealing of every single Nancyboy that has ever existed.

.>That's what mountain bikers say about ANYONE who tells the truth about mountain>.>biking.

.You say? So where's your evidence for that? This group is full of>.people telling the truth about mountain biking, truth about brands>.which are good, truth about health benefits, truth about riding>.techniques,­ truth about rides they've done

But they all LIE about the environmental impacts.

Yawn.

That's beside the point. I am RIGHT. More to the point would be to quote a>statement from my papers that you think isn't true. (Hint: you CAN'T.) Unless>you have published such papers, you are just being a hypocrite.

.>That's beside the point. I am RIGHT. More to the point would be to quote a>.>statement from my papers that you think isn't true. (Hint: you CAN'T.) Unless>.>you have published such papers, you are just being a hypocrite.

.Well, you say you are right, but Don Black says he is RIGHT too.>.Despite repeated challenges you have yet to demonstrate anybody other>.than you who thinks that mountain biking amounts to a significantly>.grea­ter threat than a number of other recreational activities, or that>.the attributes you ascribe to mountain bikers are anything other than>.typical of the general population.

I've already provided that information several times, as you well know, liar.>Talking with you is a TOTAL waste of time, because you aren't listening, only>LYING.

.>You said I don't cite anyone else as evidence that mountain biking has>.>significantly­ greater impacts than hiking.

.No I didn't,

Yes, I remember it distinctly. You said that I didn't cite anyone but myself, a>blatant lie. But you don't care about the facts, only about "winning" an>argument. And you can't even do THAT.

.So you say, but I have not yet turned up anything on the web which>.shows that mountain biking is considered any more damaging than any>.other recreational activity.

Then you are being very selective, and IGNORING the evidence, such as:>http://home.pac­bell.net/mjvande/mtb­137. See below.

.The fact that mountain biking, like every other form of human>.activity, has an impact is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your>.arbitrary criteria which permit hiking and horse riding but not>.mountain biking.

You are lying again. I have never promoted either.

But the SCIENCE shows that>mountain biking is more harmful than either of those. That's exactly what you>are afraid to admit. WHY?

.I am pleased you know some people that can count, though - maybe they>.could teach you.

How?

I know more about the environmental harm from mountain biking than anyone>else in the world -- through study and observation, neither of which you seem>capable.

BS. It wasn't studying how far MTBers normally ride. The study REQUIRED them to>ride a certain trail. DUH!

.Proper experimental science also involves making a concerted attempt>.to disprove your hypothesis. And if you'd read the paper critically>.you'd see that much of your so-called proof amounts to conjecture ->.plus it turns out that one of the animals didn't give a toss about>.mountain bikers,

Or anything else, making that irrelevant.

and the other one showed evidence of acclimatisation,>.m­aking the entire thesis moot anyway.

You fabricated that. That word wasn't used in the article.

.But let's review the facts: you claim you have reviewed the entire>.corpus of applicable published data (although by what criteria you>.refuse to say). As a result you cite 19 studies.

No, 8. You can't count.

All of this is, of course, IRRELEVANT. The fact remains that mountain biking has>been amply proven to have greater impacts than hiking -- something that is of>course OBVIOUS to anyone over the age of 5.

.What the paper actually says is that *some* examples of *one* species> .ran away. Just that. It hypothesises that *if* this results in them> .being deprived of food and *if* it happens at a crucial time of the> .year (when, coincidentally, MTBers are unlikely to be much in> .evidence) and *if* the animals don't become habituated (which around> a .third of them apparently already had), then there *might* be an> .adverse effect.>

BS. Being forced to waste energy running away & being stressed is> ALWAYS negative.

.Ah, the Vandeman definition of lying again, namely disagreeing with>.you. In this case I have good grounds for disagreeing: there is no>.proof in the paper that the impact is negative at all,

Because it's OBVIOUS. Now you will probably tell me that there's no proof that>betting run over by a truck is negative.... Idiot.

.and even if it>.were, there is certainly nothing to show that it is significant.

The statistics prove that.

.>.If they run away but return a few minutes later, the actual impact is>.>.likely to be unmeasurably small.>.>They didn't "return a few minutes later", LIAR. In fact, they left until the>.>next day, even when no one returned.>.Not encountered the word "if" before? No wonder you have such trouble>.distinguis­hing the absolute from the ambiguous.

So you didn't read the paper, or you would know that nothing like that happened.

Until further research, we have to sssume that getting run over by a truck is>harmful. Idiot.

.What the paper actually says is that *some* examples of *one* species>.ran away. Just that. It hypothesises that *if* this results in them>.being deprived of food and *if* it happens at a crucial time of the>.year (when, coincidentally, MTBers are unlikely to be much in>.evidence) and *if* the animals don't become habituated (which around a>.third of them apparently already had), then there *might* be an>.adverse effect.

BS. Being forced to waste energy running away & being stressed is ALWAYS>negative.

.And do you know what? Even if you could prove all these hypotheses>.and demonstrate an actual tangible impact on those animals, you'd>.still have to deal with the fact that the effect was still present (if>.less) for hiking, and the fact that a study based on two species, one>.of which shows no evidence of caring at all, is far, far too narrow a>.basis on which to make any rational judgment anyway.

But more significant than any other such study.

There is no other honest scientific study on this topic, except my paper.

Yawn.

.>Yawn.

.Thank you for confirming that you have no rejoinder to the valid>.points I made.

That was it. DUH!