What blogs can I read?
Mountain Biker Hits (Gasp!) TREE ROOT, Falls Down 60 Feet
Hello Guest
  
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog
  • Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels
  • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests
  • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search
  • Search
• Games
• Tests
• GYXU
  • Ñîîáùåñòâà
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online
 
Register!

GYXU > Cycling > Mountain Biker Hits (Gasp!) TREE ROOT, Falls Down 60 Feet 25 May 2005 00:57:11

  Recent blog posts: 
  Forums:   
  Discuss: 
  Recent forum topics: 
  Recent forum comments:
  Ìîäåðàòîð:

Mountain Biker Hits (Gasp!) TREE ROOT, Falls Down 60 Feet

Mike Vandeman 8 May 2005 04:56:44
 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?!

Mike


-------------------­--------------------­--------------------­--------------------­-

http://news.tbo.com­/news/MGB0JFTG08E.ht­ml

"BRANDON - Alafia River State Park boasts some of the more popular mountain
biking trails in Florida.


Some of the state's most treacherous, too.

Adam Smeaton, 34, found out how treacherous Tuesday morning when he somersaulted
down a 60-foot ravine after his bike struck a tree root. Smeaton, visiting from
Long Beach, Calif., was airlifted to Tampa General Hospital, where he remained
Tuesday afternoon.

His condition was described as ``stable'' by authorities at the scene.

The incident occurred shortly after 10 a.m., authorities said, when Smeaton and
three friends were mountain biking on the Gatorback River Loop, one of the
park's toughest trails. Hundreds of cyclists use the park's trails because of
its challenging terrain, park officials said."
__________________
GT XCR 5000: XT/LX, Avid SD 7, Rock Shox '01 Judy XC
Trek Equinox 7: 105, all stock, all fast
-------------------­--------------------­---------------
Life is short, ride hard. BONZAI!!!!
===
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
Add comment
Just zis Guy 8 May 2005 11:14:46 permanent link ]
 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.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 9 May 2005 18:41:58 permanent link ]
 On Sun, 08 May 2005 08:14:46 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov>
wrote:

.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.

Show me the statement that constitutes "glorying", liar.

.Guy

===
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
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 9 May 2005 18:42:41 permanent link ]
 On 8 May 2005 06:52:33 -0700, bicycle@charter.net­ wrote:

.
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.< >
.
.<http://www.nps.go­v/yose/news/1Â998/hi­ker810.htm>
.
.
.<http://www.sarinf­o.bc.ca/LibraÂry/Res­cues/Eldo.res>
.
.
.<http://www.tradit­ionalmountainÂeering­.org/News_Hood_Hiker­DrowÂned.htm>
.
.
.
.<http://www.lvmpds­ar.com/1999rpÂrts.ht­ml>
.
.
.<http://www.grandc­anyonhiker.coÂm/GCne­ws/index.shtml>
.
.
.<http://www.nps.go­v/yose/news/1Â997/hi­ker813.htm>
.
.
.<http://www.nynjtc­.org/news/200Â2/styr­anovski.html>
.
.
.<http://64.233.179­.104/search?qÂ=cache­:vVaiM6By0B4J:www.sb­cfirÂe.org/doc...>
.
.
.
.<http://www.death-­valley.us/artÂicle65­6.html>
.
.
.<http://www.networ­k54.com/ForumÂ/messa­ge?forumid=3897&mess­ageiÂd=1091303287>
.
.
.
.<http://www.nevada­geocaching.coÂm/modu­les.php?name=News&fi­le=aÂrticle&si...>
.
.
.
.<http://www.theoly­mpian.com/homÂe/news­/20050214/southsound­/879Â98.shtml>
.
.
.
.<http://forums.alp­inezone.com/pÂost-10­568.html&highlight=>­
.
.
.And on and on...

Is there a point here?
===
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
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 9 May 2005 18:42:57 permanent link ]
 On 9 May 2005 04:49:50 -0700, "Coyoteboy" <coyoteboyuk@hotmai­l.com> wrote:

.Yet another pointless post by MV.

But funny!
===
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
Add comment
Jeff Strickland 9 May 2005 21:31:14 permanent link ]
 
"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.


Add comment
Just zis Guy 9 May 2005 22:41:56 permanent link ]
 On Mon, 09 May 2005 14:41:58 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
wrote in message <jltu71973t2a005ds3­o4as4ff20p8pu10s@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.>Show me the statement that constitutes "glorying", liar.

See thread title. You lose.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
Just zis Guy 9 May 2005 22:42:44 permanent link ]
 On Mon, 09 May 2005 14:42:57 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
wrote in message <3otu715f02sh5cnf5j­goer918m57g336u9@4ax­.com>:
But funny!

Not that you'd dream of glorying in it. Oh, wait...

Liar.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 10 May 2005 05:46:52 permanent link ]
 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!)
===
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
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 10 May 2005 05:47:50 permanent link ]
 On Mon, 09 May 2005 19:41:56 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov>
wrote:

.On Mon, 09 May 2005 14:41:58 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
.wrote in message <jltu71973t2a005ds3­o4as4ff20p8pu10s@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.
.>Show me the statement that constitutes "glorying", liar.
.
.See thread title. You lose.

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

.Guy

===
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
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 10 May 2005 05:48:44 permanent link ]
 On 09 May 2005 18:30:06 EDT, "DaveG" <easyrhino@hotmail.­com> wrote:

.
."Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t> wrote in message
.news: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?!
.>
.> Mike
.>
.
.
.Everyone should just take this opportunity to killfile MV right now- I did a
.looong time ago and still see his posts because everyone has to reply to his
.group polluting trollness. Ignore him- we all have to deal with whining
.losers on a day to day basis as it is, why do it over the internet as well?
.
.DaveG
.Denver, CO

Good advice. But a lot of mountain bikers aren't smart enough to take it.
===
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
Add comment
Sremmus 10 May 2005 09:27:10 permanent link ]
 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.

===> 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.)>
Add comment
Just zis Guy 10 May 2005 14:15:52 permanent link ]
 On Tue, 10 May 2005 01:47:50 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
wrote:
.>.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. For further
evidence of your glee at this man's misfortune we need look no further
than posting-ref 3otu715f02sh5cnf5jg­oer918m57g336u9@4ax.­com

As so often you are condemned out of your own mouth.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 10 May 2005 19:23:43 permanent link ]
 On Tue, 10 May 2005 00:27:10 -0500, sremmus <sremmus@comcast.al­lyourbase.net>
wrote:

.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.
===
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
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 10 May 2005 19:24:58 permanent link ]
 On Tue, 10 May 2005 11:15:52 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<norfolk.inspam@dev­.null> wrote:

.On Tue, 10 May 2005 01:47:50 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
.wrote:
.
.>.>.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.

For further
.evidence of your glee at this man's misfortune we need look no further
.than posting-ref 3otu715f02sh5cnf5jg­oer918m57g336u9@4ax.­com
.
.As so often you are condemned out of your own mouth.
.
.Guy

===
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
Add comment
Just zis Guy 10 May 2005 19:31:57 permanent link ]
 On Tue, 10 May 2005 15:24:58 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
wrote:
.>.>.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.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
Just zis Guy 10 May 2005 19:36:33 permanent link ]
 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 - where is your evidence
that they are all being called "the least appealing of every single
Nancyboy that has ever existed"?

More to the point, where is your evidence that this behaviour is in
any way uniquely correlated with mountain biking? It is at least as
possible that insults are the normal response of any newsgroup to
bigots, kooks and trolls. Once again you fail to show relevant
difference.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
1oki 10 May 2005 19:48:44 permanent link ]
 
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t> wrote in message
news:9hk181d8agd0ms­4kgg2haok4lh60g0op5g­@4ax.com...
Liar.

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t> wrote in message
news:p­dk181lns1ohtf­sadq4ao4dk767i6u3ig6­@4ax.com...

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


Oh goody! It's a nice day and thanks to Mike I can go for an off-road ride.

Thankee thankee.

+Gold Level
+
+ For every 2 posts where he calls a mountain biker a 'liar' take one off
+ road ride . [Minimum distance 30 km]





Add comment
Jeff Strickland 10 May 2005 22:57:02 permanent link ]
 
.Mike isn't a bigot, he's an idiot.>
Can't you guys agree on ANYTHING? Which is it? (with PROOF!)

Idiot.

You provide all of the proof I need.


Add comment
Jeff Strickland 10 May 2005 22:58:00 permanent link ]
 
"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:>
.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.



Add comment
Just zis Guy 11 May 2005 00:16:53 permanent link ]
 On Tue, 10 May 2005 11:58:00 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message <MOqdnQKJ_L-lmRzfRV­n-pw@ez2.net>:
How would you know, you seldom (if ever) tell the truth about mountain >biking.

Now, Jeff, that's just not the case. Mike does tell the truth, at
least some of the time - but a carefully selected subset of the truth
and ignoring identical truths about other activities.

In other words, he tells the truth about mountain biking the same way
the Klan tells the truth about black people.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment


GaryG 11 May 2005 02:30:45 permanent link ]
 "John" <hjletendreattownis­pdotnospamcom> wrote in message
news:11827qb30732e8­b@corp.supernews.com­...> After I go Mountainbiking... I always like to end the day by taking my
200hp> bass boat out on the lake to rip around and catch some bass! :)­> oops... I just might have given Mikey another group to go after.

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.

GG
"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:> >
.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.> > ===> > 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.)> >


Add comment
Pmhilton 11 May 2005 03:40:05 permanent link ]
 GaryG wrote:
"John">
bass boat out on the lake to rip around and catch some bass! :)­>>oops... I just might have given Mikey another group to go after.>>
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.>
Recall a short while ago Mikey tried the "brain damage from wireless
phone" gambit but seems after just a thread or mayby two to have lapsed
into his previous monomaniacle obsession.

Pete H

--
Freedom is participation in power.
Cicero


Add comment


Pmhilton 11 May 2005 04:39:43 permanent link ]
 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." Never mind your
megamoniacle misanthropy. A definition. With verifiable references. With
testable data. I am going WAAAYYYYY out on a limb here in assuming you
understand "references," "data," "testable," etc. I realize that
"verifiable" (being somewhat more subject to the arbitrary) stretches
things a good deal but if you're the world-class expert you claim to be
- ((But soft! Methinks MV claims somewhere above to be The Number One
World Expert In Such Matters. But, Alas, MV offers not one (1) shred of
suporting authority! Woe be unto us! Be patient, Oh Worshipful Master;
we thirst and hunger for your wisdom & benificence. OOOPS! MV has no
benificence, only vitriolic hatred, sarcasm & sweepingly general
condemnation.)) - then these should be everyday concepts which are
everyday tools of your intellectual pursuits. I want to see more than
invective and juvenile nose-thumbing. I want to see intellectual rigor
and forthrightness. You do understand "rigor"? And "forthrightness"?
These are just a bit abstract and therefore tougher than, say, "data" or
"references."

Since I have come upon these threads - say, 5-6 years ago - you have
never once (1 time) offered a scintilla of verifiable data, only
anecdotal examples. You have offered zillions of pages of the same
ill-conceived boilerplate - and gotten untold miles from same. You have
not once offered statistically verifiable interpretations of events. In
fact, aside from your flagrantly obvious hatred of all mankind - your
exalted self excepted, of course - you have offered the world NOTHING
but a radomly chosen opportunity to FEED THE TROLL or be slightly
bemused by the feedings of others. The pun in that previouos phrase,
although unintended, applies.

And I'se gotta piece'a College Parchment, to! So there!

Pete H

--
Freedom is participation in power.
Cicero


Add comment
Mike Vandeman 12 May 2005 07:32:42 permanent link ]
 On Tue, 10 May 2005 16:31:57 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<norfolk.inspam@dev­.null> wrote:

.On Tue, 10 May 2005 15:24:58 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
.wrote:
.
.>.>.>.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.
.
.Guy

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


Mike Vandeman 12 May 2005 07:34:39 permanent link ]
 On Tue, 10 May 2005 16:36:33 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<norfolk.inspam@dev­.null> wrote:

.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.

- where is your evidence
.that they are all being called "the least appealing of every single
.Nancyboy that has ever existed"?
.
.More to the point, where is your evidence that this behaviour is in
.any way uniquely correlated with mountain biking? It is at least as
.possible that insults are the normal response of any newsgroup to
.bigots, kooks and trolls. Once again you fail to show relevant
.difference.
.
.Guy

===
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
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 12 May 2005 07:37:36 permanent link ]
 On Tue, 10 May 2005 20:39:43 -0400, pmhilton <pmhilton@mfx.net> wrote:

.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?
===
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
Add comment
Jason 12 May 2005 13:24:21 permanent link ]
 * Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>:> On Tue, 10 May 2005 16:36:33 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"> <norfolk.inspam@dev­.null> wrote:>
.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.>

You mean like how you've been lieing about the impact all these years?
Doesn't that make you a typical mountain biker then?

Jason
Add comment
Pmhilton 12 May 2005 13:46:41 permanent link ]
 Mike Vandeman wrote:
Habitat off-limits to humans, making it purely WILDLIFE habitat. Too difficult>for you?>
No, not difficult at all. Just so completely unrealistic and unnatural
as to be beyond belief hat you should for so long mantain so avidly
somethinhg that is totally outside nature. And I don't mean the "nature"
of those who have seen too many Disney films, I mean the real world.

Pete H

--
Freedom is participation in power.
Cicero


Add comment
Mike Vandeman 12 May 2005 19:02:57 permanent link ]
 On Thu, 12 May 2005 05:46:41 -0400, pmhilton <pmhilton@mfx.net> wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.
.>
.>Habitat off-limits to humans, making it purely WILDLIFE habitat. Too difficult
.>for you?
.>
.>
.>
.No, not difficult at all. Just so completely unrealistic and unnatural
.as to be beyond belief hat you should for so long mantain so avidly
.somethinhg that is totally outside nature. And I don't mean the "nature"
.of those who have seen too many Disney films, I mean the real world.

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

.Pete H

===
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
Add comment
BarryNL 13 May 2005 00:55:36 permanent link ]
 Mike Vandeman wrote:> On Tue, 10 May 2005 20:39:43 -0400, pmhilton <pmhilton@mfx.net> wrote:>
.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?

So a wildlife habitat is one from which a certain species is artifically
excluded - or do you not consider humans to be a natural species. More
evidence of your lack of Ph.D in psychology?
Add comment
Pmhilton 13 May 2005 01:40:35 permanent link ]
 Mike Vandeman wrote:
BS. Human-free habitat was what existed for billions of years, prior to humans>arriving here. QUITE natural and normal.>
Organism-free habitat was what existed for better than 3 billion years
prior to living things arriving here. QUITE natural and normal.

Here's fuel for another thread: arrival from WHERE?

Pete H

--
Freedom is participation in power.
Cicero


Add comment
Pmhilton 13 May 2005 01:42:46 permanent link ]
 BarryNL wrote:
More evidence of your lack of Ph.D in psychology?

Oh, he's got the fancy piece of paper all right; it's been verified by a
number of individuals acting independently of one another - a technique
thoroughly shunned by Mikey. It's just a total lack of brains that's the
real issue.

Pete H

--
Freedom is participation in power.
Cicero


Add comment
Just zis Guy 13 May 2005 13:16:52 permanent link ]
 On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:32:42 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
wrote:
.>.>.>.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.

Q: Why is Mike Vandeman like a drowning Egyptian?
A: He's terminally in denial!

posting-ref 3otu715f02sh5cnf5jg­oer918m57g336u9@4ax.­com reveals the
truth.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
Just zis Guy 13 May 2005 14:06:07 permanent link ]
 On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:34:39 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.

First, that is not what you claimed. Your statement lacked an
evidential basis, and was bigoted.

Second, while some may deny the impact, some acknowledge it but point
out it is small (which is the truth), some never bike in wilderness so
it's not an issue, and many agree entirely that mountain biking in
wilderness has an impact and actively work to minimise it (e.g. by
keeping to established trails). Your statement that *all* mountain
bikers lie about the environmental impacts is demonstrably false:
<url:http://bbtc.or­g/php/show_page.php?­page_id=32>.

But the crucial thing here is: where is the relevant difference?

Let us consider another group whose choice of vehicle has
environmental impacts: drivers. Some (many) deny the impact exists,
some claim it is small, others try to minimise the impact by
car-sharing, driving smaller cars etc. Is there a relevant difference
between car drivers and mountain bikers in this respect? I would say
not.

Where is your evidence that mountain bikers are more likely to deny
the environmental impact of their choices than any other group?
Citations from reputable third-party sources only, your own
credibility in this matter is rather undermined by your obvious bias.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 13 May 2005 18:46:47 permanent link ]
 On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:55:36 +0200, BarryNL <notall@coffeeshops­.nl> wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> On Tue, 10 May 2005 20:39:43 -0400, pmhilton <pmhilton@mfx.net> wrote:
.>
.> .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?
.
.So a wildlife habitat is one from which a certain species is artifically
.excluded - or do you not consider humans to be a natural species. More
.evidence of your lack of Ph.D in psychology?

Look up "wildlife" in the dictionary, if you don't know what it means.
===
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
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 13 May 2005 18:52:33 permanent link ]
 On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:06:07 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<norfolk.inspam@dev­.null> wrote:

.On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:34:39 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.
.
.First, that is not what you claimed. Your statement lacked an
.evidential basis, and was bigoted.
.
.Second, while some may deny the impact, some acknowledge it but point
.out it is small (which is the truth),

BS. It's relative.

some never bike in wilderness so
.it's not an issue,

Animals and plants aren't important, unless in a "wilderness"? Thanks for
demonstrating your complete ignorance of basic biology.

and many agree entirely that mountain biking in
.wilderness has an impact and actively work to minimise it (e.g. by
.keeping to established trails).

BS. They all try to build new trails, and if they can't, just ride off-trail.

Your statement that *all* mountain
.bikers lie about the environmental impacts is demonstrably false:
.<url:http://bbtc.o­rg/php/show_page.php­?page_id=32>.

That's a good example of a mountain biker lying.

.But the crucial thing here is: where is the relevant difference?
.
.Let us consider another group whose choice of vehicle has
.environmental impacts: drivers. Some (many) deny the impact exists,
.some claim it is small, others try to minimise the impact by
.car-sharing, driving smaller cars etc. Is there a relevant difference
.between car drivers and mountain bikers in this respect? I would say
.not.
.
.Where is your evidence that mountain bikers are more likely to deny
.the environmental impact of their choices than any other group?

Who cares about comparison? You admit that they are dishonest. We are simply
trying to agree on HOW dishonest!

.Citations from reputable third-party sources only, your own
.credibility in this matter is rather undermined by your obvious bias.
.
.Guy

===
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
Add comment
Just zis Guy 14 May 2005 12:55:25 permanent link ]
 On Sat, 14 May 2005 02:04:35 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
wrote in message <46na81tk6sgo3nam6p­ct4bvhavsh2i86df@4ax­.com>:
Yawn.

Translation: "Tra la la la la, I'm not listening".

But thanks for confirming that you cannot answer my points.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
Just zis Guy 14 May 2005 13:02:03 permanent link ]
 On Sat, 14 May 2005 02:06:57 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
wrote in message <q7na81tceued63fkbb­th2m51ct23pjp0cg@4ax­.com>:
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. You are a bigot.

Since you are the one pushing an idea, it is up to you to make the
case. It is not necessary to be a published author to require you to
prove your case; you are reversing the burden of proof without
justification. The fact that your "papers" may or may not contain
true statements is irrelevant. I could post a list of court reports
of crimes committed by black people, it would be just as "true" and
just as bigoted.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 14 May 2005 20:54:31 permanent link ]
 On Sat, 14 May 2005 10:02:03 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov>
wrote:

.On Sat, 14 May 2005 02:06:57 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
.wrote in message <q7na81tceued63fkbb­th2m51ct23pjp0cg@4ax­.com>:
.
.>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 are a bigot.
.
.Since you are the one pushing an idea, it is up to you to make the
.case. It is not necessary to be a published author to require you to
.prove your case; you are reversing the burden of proof without
.justification. The fact that your "papers" may or may not contain
.true statements is irrelevant. I could post a list of court reports
.of crimes committed by black people, it would be just as "true" and
.just as bigoted.
.
.Guy

===
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
Add comment
Just zis Guy 15 May 2005 00:45:39 permanent link ]
 On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:54:31 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
wrote in message <u5bc81p90hh0vnk99f­sonqgaf29rfbr20k@4ax­.com>:
.>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.

So you say, but the "evidence" you refer to is your own worthless
"literature review" which includes work by yourself (not peer
reviewed) and contains no inclusion criteria by which we could judge
whether your known bias has skewed the selection of documents.

My own brief literature review showed that there were *more* citations
for hiking damage than for mountain biking damage, that no papers
discussing mountain biking damage did so in isolation from hiking
damage, and that neither issue came close to the number of citations
for damage from commercial exploitation.

The irony of you accusing someone else of not listening is, I think,
one of the high points of this thread!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 15 May 2005 05:16:55 permanent link ]
 On Sat, 14 May 2005 21:45:39 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov>
wrote:

.On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:54:31 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
.wrote in message <u5bc81p90hh0vnk99f­sonqgaf29rfbr20k@4ax­.com>:
.
.>.>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.
.
.So you say, but the "evidence" you refer to is your own worthless
."literature review" which includes work by yourself (not peer
.reviewed)

No, it doesn't. You obviously haven't read it. Typical.

and contains no inclusion criteria by which we could judge
.whether your known bias has skewed the selection of documents.
.
.My own brief literature review showed that there were *more* citations
.for hiking damage than for mountain biking damage, that no papers
.discussing mountain biking damage did so in isolation from hiking
.damage, and that neither issue came close to the number of citations
.for damage from commercial exploitation.

Number of citations means NOTHING. You would know that, if you knew anything
about science.

.The irony of you accusing someone else of not listening is, I think,
.one of the high points of this thread!

Nope. I always listen, which is why I know you are always LYING.

.Guy

===
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
Add comment
Just zis Guy 16 May 2005 14:10:09 permanent link ]
 On Sun, 15 May 2005 22:15:54 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
wrote:
.>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.

Feel free to cite the posting reference where I said that. It may
take you a while, as I didn't actually say any such thing.

What I said was, your authority for claiming that mountain biking is
uniquely damaging appears to be your own "literature review", a
worthless piece of op-ed with no stated selection criteria and which
cites your own unpublished work. Given that you are a known bigot,
this is insufficient basis for your continued trolling.

You lose. Again.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 17 May 2005 06:52:11 permanent link ]
 On Mon, 16 May 2005 11:10:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<norfolk.inspam@dev­.null> wrote:

.On Sun, 15 May 2005 22:15:54 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
.wrote:
.
.>.>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.
.
.Feel free to cite the posting reference where I said that. It may
.take you a while, as I didn't actually say any such thing.
.
.What I said was, your authority for claiming that mountain biking is
.uniquely damaging appears to be your own "literature review", a
.worthless piece of op-ed

Three different international scientific conferences don't agree with you, and
asked me to present that paper. You are outvoted. By people who COUNT.

with no stated selection criteria and which
.cites your own unpublished work. Given that you are a known bigot,
.this is insufficient basis for your continued trolling.

I don't "troll", whatever that is. I just tell the truth about mountain biking.

.You lose. Again.
.
.Guy

===
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
Add comment
Just zis Guy 17 May 2005 20:19:43 permanent link ]
 On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:48:19 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
wrote:
.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.

Did you not notice that every time that paper mentions mountain
biking, it does so in conjunction with horse riding and/or hiking?
That's exactly what I mean.

Of course deer run away from mountain bikers - they have a programmed
flight response. You should see how horses react to my recumbent!

But when you look at the major wilderness protection agencies, they do
not mention mountain biking as a specific concern over and above any
other recreational use. Your obsession does not seem to be shared by
the professionals in the field.
.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.

Straw man. I did not say you promoted them. But you admit you hike,
and you took common cause with horse riders, so your inability to
demonstrate relevant difference without reference to your own biased
work is very telling.
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 "afraid to admit" it for the same reason I am "afraid to admit"
that the moon is made of green cheese.

Nobody else seems to share your monomania, except maybe a few others
who share your desire to keep the wilderness for themselves.
.I am pleased you know some people that can count, though - maybe they>.could teach you.
How?

Yes, on reflection you are right. How could anybody teach you
anything at all? You either claim you know it already or deny it can
possibly be the case. I withdraw the suggestion.
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.

You know more about the environmental harm from mountain biking in the
same way Don Black knows more about the American Jewish conspiracy
than anyone else in the world.

Here is the result of my study and observation: despite repeated
challenges you are unable to cite authority for your claims that
certain behaviours are particularly characteristic of mountain bikers,
unable to provide testable inclusion criteria for the literature
review on which you apparently pin your entire case, unable to justify
why we should accept your arbitrary judgment of the level of
acceptable harm to the environment rather than our own, unable to show
a single credible agency which shares your conviction that mountain
biking is a pressing concern over and above any other recreational
use.

My conclusion is: you are a bigot.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 18 May 2005 08:41:16 permanent link ]
 On Tue, 17 May 2005 17:19:43 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<norfolk.inspam@dev­.null> wrote:

.On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:48:19 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
.wrote:
.
.>.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.
.
.Did you not notice that every time that paper mentions mountain
.biking, it does so in conjunction with horse riding and/or hiking?
.That's exactly what I mean.

You forgot that they are mentioned because they are being COMPARED, and mountain
biking is specifically mentioned because it had greater impacts than either
hiking OR horseback riding.

.Of course deer run away from mountain bikers - they have a programmed
.flight response. You should see how horses react to my recumbent!
.
.But when you look at the major wilderness protection agencies, they do
.not mention mountain biking as a specific concern over and above any
.other recreational use.

Obviously because they aren't up on the latest research.

Your obsession does not seem to be shared by
.the professionals in the field.

Because they don't know as much about it as I do. Wilson et al, however, DO
share my concern, which is why they did that research.

.>.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.
.
.Straw man. I did not say you promoted them.

Yes, you just did: "your arbitrary criteria which permit hiking and horse riding
but not mountain biking".

But you admit you hike,
.and you took common cause with horse riders, so your inability to
.demonstrate relevant difference without reference to your own biased
.work is very telling.

Another lie. The rs=esearch I just quoted demonstrated the difference.

.>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 "afraid to admit" it for the same reason I am "afraid to admit"
.that the moon is made of green cheese.
.
.Nobody else seems to share your monomania, except maybe a few others
.who share your desire to keep the wilderness for themselves.
.
.>.I am pleased you know some people that can count, though - maybe they
.>.could teach you.
.
.>How?
.
.Yes, on reflection you are right. How could anybody teach you
.anything at all? You either claim you know it already or deny it can
.possibly be the case. I withdraw the suggestion.
.
.>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.
.
.You know more about the environmental harm from mountain biking in the
.same way Don Black knows more about the American Jewish conspiracy
.than anyone else in the world.
.
.Here is the result of my study and observation: despite repeated
.challenges you are unable to cite authority for your claims that
.certain behaviours are particularly characteristic of mountain bikers,
.unable to provide testable inclusion criteria for the literature
.review on which you apparently pin your entire case, unable to justify
.why we should accept your arbitrary judgment of the level of
.acceptable harm to the environment rather than our own, unable to show
.a single credible agency which shares your conviction that mountain
.biking is a pressing concern over and above any other recreational
.use.

I just listed one above. You are LYING again. Typically, you totally ignored the
article, because it proves you are WRONG.

.My conclusion is: you are a bigot.

That wasn't a conclusion, but your PREMISE.

.Guy

===
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
Add comment
Just zis Guy 18 May 2005 15:30:10 permanent link ]
 On Wed, 18 May 2005 04:44:48 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
wrote:
BS. It wasn't studying how far MTBers normally ride. The study REQUIRED them to>ride a certain trail. DUH!

what you are saying here is that the researchers actively set out to
encourage something they had already decided was going to be damaging,
just to prove a point.

Typical environmentalists!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 18 May 2005 17:52:04 permanent link ]
 On Wed, 18 May 2005 12:30:10 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<norfolk.inspam@dev­.null> wrote:

.On Wed, 18 May 2005 04:44:48 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
.wrote:
.
.>BS. It wasn't studying how far MTBers normally ride. The study REQUIRED them to
.>ride a certain trail. DUH!
.
.what you are saying here is that the researchers actively set out to
.encourage something they had already decided was going to be damaging,
.just to prove a point.

It's called "science" -- the experimental method. It's really the only way to do
good science, which they did. That's why we know that mountain biking has
greater impacts than hiking & horseback riding. I know, you are still in denial,
poor thing.

.Typical environmentalists!
.
.Guy

===
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
Add comment
Just zis Guy 19 May 2005 20:27:58 permanent link ]
 On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:11:31 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
wrote:
.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.

Ah, so it's only relevant if it supports your prejudices. Thanks for
clearing that up. Oh, wait, that was never in doubt, was it?
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.

No, they used the word habituated. They are synonyms. You really are
having trouble with the English language these days, aren't you?
.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.

The references list in your mis-titled "literature review" contains 19
references. But hey, if you're reduced to playing semantics to try
and score points I think we are pretty close to the endgame.

In particular you're apparently agreeing here that over 50% of the
cites in your literature review are not actually relevant sources.
Seems we're getting somewhere.
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.

Logical fallacy: proof by assertion. The proposed impact is
speculative, and you provide no systematic evaluation of the overall
balance of impact between mountain biking and other activities (as
even the authors of the study you cite suggest is good practice).

I saw this and thought of you:
http://www.intrepid­software.com/fallacy­/insig.php

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 22 May 2005 10:08:32 permanent link ]
 On Sat, 21 May 2005 17:59:04 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov>
wrote:

.On Sat, 21 May 2005 14:55:47 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
.wrote in message <vqiu81daisbo630qc7­bcmskl9clga1mr0t@4ax­.com>:
.
.>.I am pointing out one of the things which is clear in the paper:
.>.that the impact is not proven to be negative. Any supposed negative
.>.impact depends on the elk being driven permanently from their forage.
.
.>BS. Forcing them away from the resources they need, for however long, is
.>negative, not positive. You are just LYING.
.
.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.

.But let's get this straight: the paper says that there *might* be an
.adverse impact if they are scared away from their food source. We
.find that they did not return for some time, even when no further
.disturbance was evident. What does this suggest to you? One obvious
.possibility is that they found food wherever they fetched up. The
.authors admit they have no real facts here, and call for further
.research. Needless to say you prejudge that research, but you are a
.bigot so we expect nothing less.

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.

.That's a lot of hypotheses piled up there.
.
.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.

.If this is the best evidence you have from a review of "all the
.science" over a nine-year period, it is abundantly clear that no
.significant problem exists.
.
.Guy

===
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
Add comment
Bill Sornson 22 May 2005 10:21:14 permanent link ]
 Mike Vandeman wrote:> On Sat, 21 May 2005 17:59:04 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"> <uce@ftc.gov> wrote:
.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.

Well, Mike, the solution is OBVIOUS! DUH!

{pause}

GIVE THE ELK MOUNTAIN BIKES!!!

Always glad to help, BS

(PS: Notice how I trimmed the stuff to which I *wasn't* replying? TRY IT
SOME TIME.)


Add comment
Just zis Guy 22 May 2005 16:32:11 permanent link ]
 On Sun, 22 May 2005 06:08:32 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
wrote in message <728091pvmbdb9n6b83­m81lishck58g5mp2@4ax­.com>:
.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.

I don't know, let's have a truck run over you and see if that
represents a net benefit to the planet - according to your own
criteria, it would. As is abundantly clear, you are unwilling to
address the fact that this study is too narrow-based to form any
realistic judgment.
.and even if it>.were, there is certainly nothing to show that it is significant.
The statistics prove that.

No, the statistics prove that they ran away, nothing more. The paper
acknowledges that this is not evidence of any significant or long-term
effect on the elk.
.>.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.

Actually yes I did read the paper, in a way you evidently did not,
namely reading what it says not what you wanted it to say.
Until further research, we have to sssume that getting run over by a truck is>harmful. Idiot.

No, that is called proof by assumption, and is logically invalid.
.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.

Let's see if we can put this in terms you can understand.

You are waiting to be served in your favourite restaurant. A
hysterical zealot turns up, shouting bigotry. You leave the
restaurant.

At this point, one of two things might happen: you find another
restaurant, or you discover that the other restaurants are all closed
so you go back.

(You see? The paper does not show that the elk were deprived of food
for 24 hours, only that they were not observed to return to that
location; there is no suggestion that a hungry elk would stay away
from a perceived threat for a day after the threat has disappeared if
they had not found an alternative source of food).

So you return a while later and the zealot is still there. You notice
that a third of your fellow diners have not moved; they have worked
out that while the man will happily laugh when one of them is killed,
he lacks the courage to actually kill any of them himself. His
presence is a mere irritant.

At this point, one of two things might happen: you can rejoin your
fellow diners, secure in the knowledge that the man, deranged though
he might be, presents no particular threat, or you can go away again.

(see how we include the observed fact of habituation, and its possible
effect on the cohort under study? This hypothesis is not tested
because the elk did not try to return, which indicates pretty strongly
that either they found an alternative food source, or their need for
food was not especially pressing at that time - if elk were so very
scared of mountain bikers that they would stay away even after they
had gone, and even though they were in pressing need of food, and even
though this was the only food source in the area, it is highly
unlikely that the observed effect of a significant number having
become habituated and not taking flight would have been found).

So, you've gone away a couple of times and are peeking round the
corner. You are hungry. You observe that the lunatic has left the
restaurant. What do you do? Either you stay where you are and
starve, watching your fellow diners eating unmolested, or you go back
to the restaurant.

So, the total impact on the diner (you) in the worst-case scenario is
limited to a couple of hours of hunger. Actually the paper fails to
show any such impact, noting merely that a proportion of the elk were
not observed in the area for 24 hours. There is no evidence that this
was the sole local food source, no evidence that the elk had been
deprived of food.

In other words, the paper offers no proof that the impact on the elk
was significant. I doesn't even show that it was negative - running
has positive as well as negative effects. Maybe they found better
food, or a cute female elk. Who knows? The paper does not say.
.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.

Exactly. So the best you can come up with is a *hypothetical*
disbenefit which *may* affect *some* members of a *single* species,
*provided* they don't become habituated (which it appears likely they
do). What of the authors' own exhortation to a holistic approach?
You are having none of it, preferring to focus on a single aspect
(which the authors suggest is a bad approach).

This paper not only fails to support your assertion of any significant
differential impact, it also denounces your entire approach!
There is no other honest scientific study on this topic, except my paper.

For some values of honest, clearly. Having repeatedly refused to give
your selection criteria, the word "honest" is contentious in context.
Others might point out that a total of seven peer-reviewed papers in
nine years does not amount to evidence of a significant problem.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 22 May 2005 19:11:28 permanent link ]
 On Sun, 22 May 2005 13:32:11 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov>
wrote:

.On Sun, 22 May 2005 06:08:32 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
.wrote in message <728091pvmbdb9n6b83­m81lishck58g5mp2@4ax­.com>:
.
.>.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.
.
.I don't know, let's have a truck run over you and see if that
.represents a net benefit to the planet - according to your own
.criteria, it would. As is abundantly clear, you are unwilling to
.address the fact that this study is too narrow-based to form any
.realistic judgment.
.
.>.and even if it
.>.were, there is certainly nothing to show that it is significant.
.
.>The statistics prove that.
.
.No, the statistics prove that they ran away, nothing more. The paper
.acknowledges that this is not evidence of any significant or long-term
.effect on the elk.

It doesn't matter if YOU think it's "significant". What matters is that it is
obviously negative.

.>.>.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.
.
.Actually yes I did read the paper, in a way you evidently did not,
.namely reading what it says not what you wanted it to say.

No, you skipped over all of its conclusions -- something you yourself is
evidence of "BIAS" and "BIGOTRY". There you are, hiosted by your own petard....


.>Until further research, we have to sssume that getting run over by a truck is
.>harmful. Idiot.
.
.No, that is called proof by assumption, and is logically invalid.
.
.>.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.
.
.Let's see if we can put this in terms you can understand.
.
.You are waiting to be served in your favourite restaurant. A
.hysterical zealot turns up, shouting bigotry. You leave the
.restaurant.
.
.At this point, one of two things might happen: you find another
.restaurant, or you discover that the other restaurants are all closed
.so you go back.
.
.(You see? The paper does not show that the elk were deprived of food
.for 24 hours, only that they were not observed to return to that
.location;

But eventually they did return, PROVING that they preferred that area, and
PROVING that itey were harmed by being forved to move away from it.

there is no suggestion that a hungry elk would stay away
.from a perceived threat for a day after the threat has disappeared if
.they had not found an alternative source of food).

.So you return a while later and the zealot is still there. You notice
.that a third of your fellow diners have not moved; they have worked
.out that while the man will happily laugh when one of them is killed,
.he lacks the courage to actually kill any of them himself. His
.presence is a mere irritant.
.
.At this point, one of two things might happen: you can rejoin your
.fellow diners, secure in the knowledge that the man, deranged though
.he might be, presents no particular threat, or you can go away again.
.
.(see how we include the observed fact of habituation, and its possible
.effect on the cohort under study? This hypothesis is not tested
.because the elk did not try to return, which indicates pretty strongly
.that either they found an alternative food source, or their need for
.food was not especially pressing at that time - if elk were so very
.scared of mountain bikers that they would stay away even after they
.had gone, and even though they were in pressing need of food, and even
.though this was the only food source in the area, it is highly
.unlikely that the observed effect of a significant number having
.become habituated and not taking flight would have been found).
.
.So, you've gone away a couple of times and are peeking round the
.corner. You are hungry. You observe that the lunatic has left the
.restaurant. What do you do? Either you stay where you are and
.starve, watching your fellow diners eating unmolested, or you go back
.to the restaurant.
.
.So, the total impact on the diner (you) in the worst-case scenario is
.limited to a couple of hours of hunger. Actually the paper fails to
.show any such impact, noting merely that a proportion of the elk were
.not observed in the area for 24 hours. There is no evidence that this
.was the sole local food source, no evidence that the elk had been
.deprived of food.
.
.In other words, the paper offers no proof that the impact on the elk
.was significant. I doesn't even show that it was negative - running
.has positive as well as negative effects. Maybe they found better
.food, or a cute female elk. Who knows? The paper does not say.
.
.>.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.
.
.Exactly. So the best you can come up with is a *hypothetical*
.disbenefit which *may* affect *some* members of a *single* species,
.*provided* they don't become habituated (which it appears likely they
.do). What of the authors' own exhortation to a holistic approach?
.You are having none of it, preferring to focus on a single aspect
.(which the authors suggest is a bad approach).
.
.This paper not only fails to support your assertion of any significant
.differential impact, it also denounces your entire approach!
.
.>There is no other honest scientific study on this topic, except my paper.
.
.For some values of honest, clearly. Having repeatedly refused to give
.your selection criteria, the word "honest" is contentious in context.
.Others might point out that a total of seven peer-reviewed papers in
.nine years does not amount to evidence of a significant problem.
.
.Guy

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.)

http://home.pacbell­.net/mjvande
Add comment
Just zis Guy 23 May 2005 16:26:20 permanent link ]
 On Mon, 23 May 2005 05:02:38 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
wrote in message <20p2919prlgd0pr5gg­id8trkgbi3bh5qp7@4ax­.com>:
Yawn.

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

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
Mike Vandeman 24 May 2005 15:11:51 permanent link ]
 On Mon, 23 May 2005 13:26:20 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov>
wrote:

.On Mon, 23 May 2005 05:02:38 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
.wrote in message <20p2919prlgd0pr5gg­id8trkgbi3bh5qp7@4ax­.com>:
.
.>Yawn.
.
.Thank you for confirming that you have no rejoinder to the valid
.points I made.

That was it. DUH!

.Guy

===
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
Add comment
Just zis Guy 25 May 2005 00:57:11 permanent link ]
 On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:11:51 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.ne­t>
wrote in message <603691l78ahjhf2lj1­d177mlak8bubarr4@4ax­.com>:
.>Yawn.
.Thank you for confirming that you have no rejoinder to the valid>.points I made.
That was it. DUH!

Just that? Pathetic. Not even a decent troll. I wonder why you
bothered at all.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmanc­entral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..


GYXU > Cycling > Mountain Biker Hits (Gasp!) TREE ROOT, Falls Down 60 Feet 25 May 2005 00:57:11

see also:
tonystewart02_05champ@yahoo.com?
pass tests:
see also:
Fs:,Iphone 8Gb,Nokia N95(8Gb),LX Brown…
Aloha from Maui
Blog Feed

  Copyright © 2001—2009 GYXU
Idea: Miñhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.gyxu.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.gyxu.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.gyxu.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .