Cycling Forums - View Single Post - Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

11-23-2006, 10:59 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:hasbm2tn4js7id2ke517qfd2r9mse2o5b9@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:23:42 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>"A study published in the summer 2006 Journal of Park and Recreation
>>>>Administration (Volume 24, Number 12) takes a close look at the
>>>>environmental impacts of mountain biking. Researchers measured trail
>>>>erosion
>>>>and other impacts on 31 trails used for mountain biking in the
>>>>southwestern
>>>>U.S. The study concludes that, "certain impacts to mountain bike trails,
>>>>especially width, are comparable or less than hiking or multiple-use
>>>>trails,
>>>>and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle
>>>>trails."
>>>>Recreational ecologists Dave White from Arizona State University and Pam
>>>>Foti from Northern Arizona University led the three-year research
>>>>project
>>>>titled "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
>>>>Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." The researchers used
>>>>"Common Ecological Regions" (CERs) to provide consistency in comparing
>>>>the
>>>>ecological effects of mountain biking with those of other recreational
>>>>activities."
>>>>
>>>>Even the most recent research shows your opinions constitute the bulk of
>>>>the lies being presented.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Re: "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
>>> Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006)
>>>
>>> 1. Are the authors mountain bikers? They seem to be promoting mountain
>>> biking -- trying to make it seem environmentally acceptable.
>>
>>Yawn.... Did you say something?
>>Your credibility has been rendered suspect (by your own actions) to the
>>point that your questions of this paper and your opinions of the research
>>contained are unimportant. You do nothing to counter the information but
>>ridicule the findings.
>
> And I give specific scientific REASONS why they are WORTHLESS.

You haven't presented one good reason to accept your opinions are more valid
than the findings presented by the actual researchers who performed the
actual study (or studies). You have not created a single bit of information.
You have simply pointed to research you agree with and proclaim it "valid"
and pointed to research counter to your opinion and proclaimed it "junk".
"Because you say so" is not good enough. That is proven as your opinions
have been presented time and again and discounted by the people whose job it
is to assess information in the creation of rules of access and trail
useage.
You are merely a child making a huff for not getting his way. It is sad. It
is pathetic. It is hysterical.

11-23-2006, 10:59 PM	#16 (permalink)
S Curtiss Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:hasbm2tn4js7id2ke517qfd2r9mse2o5b9@4ax.com... > On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:23:42 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net> > wrote: > >> >>>> >>>>"A study published in the summer 2006 Journal of Park and Recreation >>>>Administration (Volume 24, Number 12) takes a close look at the >>>>environmental impacts of mountain biking. Researchers measured trail >>>>erosion >>>>and other impacts on 31 trails used for mountain biking in the >>>>southwestern >>>>U.S. The study concludes that, "certain impacts to mountain bike trails, >>>>especially width, are comparable or less than hiking or multiple-use >>>>trails, >>>>and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle >>>>trails." >>>>Recreational ecologists Dave White from Arizona State University and Pam >>>>Foti from Northern Arizona University led the three-year research >>>>project >>>>titled "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five >>>>Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." The researchers used >>>>"Common Ecological Regions" (CERs) to provide consistency in comparing >>>>the >>>>ecological effects of mountain biking with those of other recreational >>>>activities." >>>> >>>>Even the most recent research shows your opinions constitute the bulk of >>>>the lies being presented. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Re: "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five >>> Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006) >>> >>> 1. Are the authors mountain bikers? They seem to be promoting mountain >>> biking -- trying to make it seem environmentally acceptable. >> >>Yawn.... Did you say something? >>Your credibility has been rendered suspect (by your own actions) to the >>point that your questions of this paper and your opinions of the research >>contained are unimportant. You do nothing to counter the information but >>ridicule the findings. > > And I give specific scientific REASONS why they are WORTHLESS. You haven't presented one good reason to accept your opinions are more valid than the findings presented by the actual researchers who performed the actual study (or studies). You have not created a single bit of information. You have simply pointed to research you agree with and proclaim it "valid" and pointed to research counter to your opinion and proclaimed it "junk". "Because you say so" is not good enough. That is proven as your opinions have been presented time and again and discounted by the people whose job it is to assess information in the creation of rules of access and trail useage. You are merely a child making a huff for not getting his way. It is sad. It is pathetic. It is hysterical.