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

11-24-2006, 09:51 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:q3cfm2le7ijnll0p4dcsjdvlpauov13cfb@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:23:14 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
> wrote:
>>>>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).
>>>
>>> I just did, and you erased it. The truth hurts, doesn't it?
>>
>>You said NOTHING but the same opinion you have stated before. You did what
>>you always do when confronted with information counter to your OPINION.
>>You
>>simply proclaim it invalid and attempt to discredit it with your OPINION.
>>You have not performed a single field study yourself and rely on others to
>>do so. If it matches your opinion, you proclaim it is "proof". If it does
>>not support your opinion, you discount it.
>>I erased NOTHING because there was NOTHING to erase because you said
>>NOTHING
>>of relevance.
>
> How would you know, since you obviously didn't READ it?

I've read it. But it was so infused with your unfounded opinions that it was
a joke to even refer to it as anything but a parody. You even referenced
yourself as a resource! Pathetic.
>
>>> 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.
No comment on the full context...? No comment on the direct reference to
your methods...? I, and anyone else with a valid interest in the issue,
would read that as confirmation of your lack of integrity in review of
others' work.

11-24-2006, 09:51 PM	#20 (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:q3cfm2le7ijnll0p4dcsjdvlpauov13cfb@4ax.com... > On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:23:14 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net> > wrote: >>>>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). >>> >>> I just did, and you erased it. The truth hurts, doesn't it? >> >>You said NOTHING but the same opinion you have stated before. You did what >>you always do when confronted with information counter to your OPINION. >>You >>simply proclaim it invalid and attempt to discredit it with your OPINION. >>You have not performed a single field study yourself and rely on others to >>do so. If it matches your opinion, you proclaim it is "proof". If it does >>not support your opinion, you discount it. >>I erased NOTHING because there was NOTHING to erase because you said >>NOTHING >>of relevance. > > How would you know, since you obviously didn't READ it? I've read it. But it was so infused with your unfounded opinions that it was a joke to even refer to it as anything but a parody. You even referenced yourself as a resource! Pathetic. > >>> 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. No comment on the full context...? No comment on the direct reference to your methods...? I, and anyone else with a valid interest in the issue, would read that as confirmation of your lack of integrity in review of others' work.