01-01-2007, 09:12 AM
|
#22 (permalink)
|
| | Re: Mountain Bikers' New Year's Resolution: Start Telling the Truth!
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:40:22 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
wrote:
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:6ksfp2p893v4eq40r5r97tdmvf460fjj2i@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:07:53 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:lukap2lhol1feqlnhgc1phf0u3rahpecj6@4ax.c om...
>>>>>> The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
>>>>>> A Review of the Literature
>>>>>> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>>>> July 3, 2004
>>>>>>
>>>>>This...? Again...?
>>>>>All you have is a persistent insistence that your OPINIONS supercede all
>>>>>other information and research. You have yet to provide any other peer
>>>>>comment or review on these opinions. You have yet to provide anything
>>>>>beyond
>>>>>your OPINION of mountain biking to substantiate your claims. Your
>>>>>OPINIONS
>>>>>continue to run counter to established and defined concepts. You use
>>>>>your
>>>>>OPINIONS to measure all data.
>>>>>It is no wonder REAL experts, REAL scientists
>>>>
>>>> You wouldn't know a real scientist if he bit you in the ass. The fact
>>>> is, no real scientist has found any flaw in my paper yet! (Hint:
>>>> because there aren't any.)
>>>Then give the NAMES of those who endorse your OPINIONS and presentations.
>>>Give the names of those who have heard you speak and commented directly on
>>>what YOU have said.
>>>If you can't produce, then you are simply claiming credibility by
>>>association. You are simply stating "because I say so" which is
>>>unnacceptable both on an ethical and scientific platform.
>>>It is OBVIOUS you have not formed your OPINIONS through the process of
>>>actual research. You have fabricated research BECAUSE of your opinions.
>>>You
>>>have taken others' work out of context, ignored their conclusions and
>>>reinterpreted their findings using your OPINIONS as a gauge of any and all
>>>information they have developed. You have done NO actual research beyond
>>>regurgitating what others have done through the filter of your own
>>>viewpoint
>>>in an effort to give foundation to your OPINIONS.
>>>Your PhD does not give you creative license on a scientific level and your
>>>attempts to slander me or any other individual that points out the flaws
>>>of
>>>your OPINIONS by calling us names or eluding to our intelligence is simple
>>>misdirection away from your own lack of credibility.
>>
>> Irrelevant. If you can't find anything specifically wrong with what I
>> said, then you are in the same boat: you have to admit that you can't
>> find anything I said that is actually WRONG! Vague generalities are
>> meaningless and don't cut it. QED
>>
>Your choice to be ignorant of past discussions (Google search "vandeman") is
>yours to make and does nothing but further decay your own statements.
You can't fake honesty. You can't find a single inaccurate statement
in my paper, or you would be able to quote it right now. The fact is,
you CAN'T! QED.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
|
|  |