| Re: Mountain Bikers' New Year's Resolution: Start Telling the Truth!
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:dkjip252v5gf3771ad6a32skrnno2lnhae@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:40:22 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>>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.
> ===
All you have done is taken others' research and claim them to be wrong in
thier conclusions then substitute your OPINIONS as proof. You have done no
research yourself beyond read what others have done. When you come across a
piece of information you can claim as support for your OPINIONS, you pull it
away from the context of the whole and cite it as proof with no regard for
the actual conclusions of the original author.
Concerning "Wilson / Seney", you wrote:
"But it has a number of defects that call its conclusions into question. The
authors used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made available" by
the various treatments. They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment yield
produced by the simulated rainstorms at the downslope end of each plot",
which they claim correlates with erosion" (they don't say what the
correlation coefficient is). This doesn't seem like a good measure of
erosion."
You deride their process and findings with NO contrary research of YOUR OWN
to support your supposition. You merely attack the findings through your
OPINION.
You also throw in your own variable (distance) as well as deride the
findings because variables you claim exist were not accounted for (sideways
displaced soil, for instance).:
"The authors also ignored the relative distances that various trail users
typically travel (for example, bikers generally travel several times as far
as hikers, multiplying their impacts accordingly) and the additional impacts
due to the mountain bike bringing new people to the trails that otherwise
would not have been there (the same omission is true of all other studies,
except Wisdom et al (2004)). They do say "Trail use in the last ten years
has seen a dramatic increase in off-road bicycles" (p.86), but they don't
incorporate this fact into their comparison. In addition, there is no
recognition of different styles of riding and their effect on erosion.
We don't know if the mountain bikers rode in representative fashion, or,
more likely, rode more gently, with less skidding, acceleration, braking,
and turning. There was also no recognition that soil displaced sideways
(rather than downhill) also constitutes erosion damage. It seems likely that
they underestimated the true impacts of mountain biking. I don't think that
these results are reliable."
You include "distance" as a "holy grail" while excluding "time". Cyclists
may cover more distance, but are also less likely to linger and trample in a
finite area. Cyclists cover the distance in less time and are out of the
area while hikers remain longer. Since it is you that claim human presence
itself is a danger, you exclude the additional time hikers remain as
unimportant.
You also attack them for "no recognition of different styles of riding and
their effect on erosion" which is hysterical itself as YOU make NO
distinction between careful riding and wreckless riding. You claim all
riding is wreckless despite the mass of information to the contrary!
You the close that paragraph with "It seems likely that they underestimated
the true impacts of mountain biking. I don't think that these results are
reliable."
"It seems likely..." and "I don't think..." are nothing but suppositions
fabricated from your opinions. You haven't disproved anything. You merely
say their results are wrong because they do not fall in line with your view.
Again you cite "distance" while ignoring "time" by attacking the findings in
the "Chiu / Kriwoken" information:
It is apparent he and the authors misstated the implications of the study.
If we assume, as they claim, that bikers and hikers have the same impact per
mile (which is what they measured), then it follows that mountain bikers
have several times the impact of hikers, since they generally travel several
times as far. (I haven't found any published statistics, but I have
informally collected 72 mountain bikers' ride announcements, which advertise
rides of a minimum of 8 miles, an average of 27 miles,
and a maximum of 112 miles.)
You "haven't found any published statistics..."? yet you make your claim? 8
miles, 27 miles, 112 miles.... And how many hikes are published with
similar distances? You don't say. Why is that? If you are going to claim
harm by distance, then you should compare the two activities. But you do not
do research yourself. That would imply accountability! You merely pull from
others and select what you like and attack as "junk" what you don't. How
long (time) would a hiker take to cover these distances? How much more
damage is done by the hiker's presence by being in the vicinity for that
much longer? Why do you ignore this variable but insist on cyclists'
distance?
You also make the supposition "Besides ignoring distance travelled, there
were a number of other defects in the study. The biking that was compared
with hiking
was apparently not typical mountain biking. It was apparently slower than
normal and included no skidding. Bikers who skidded (a normal occurrence)
were not compared with hikers."
"Apparently not typical..."? "Apparently slower than normal..." These are
statements from your OPINIONS. You have no basis to create information and
overlay it through their findings. Your OPINION of cyclists' riding is not a
scientific variable in which to measure "typical". You insert (a normal
occurence) concerning "skidding" as a statement of fact but have nothing
beyond your OPINION that all cyclists ride in this way to offer to support
the insertion.
That is enough. Your fabrications only take existing studies and either
support what follows your opinion and discard or deride what doesn't. You
have done no actual research beyond reading what others have done and
utilize what you like to support your view.
You ignore or label as "junk" recent studies (2006) that support the FACT
that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking. You ignore or label as
"scandal" the FACT that the National Forests, National Parks, Land Managers
and others have reviewed the same research (which you have picked apart with
your opinions) to come to the conclusion that cycling is a viable (and
acceptable) activity with similar comparisons to other allowed activities.
The time has come and gone for your type of misinformation and
fear-mongering to rule the process of land management. The internet and
availability of actual information (not your interpretation of it) has taken
the place of a handful of self-proclaimed "know-it-alls" controlling how
things are done. Your OPINION of the research (which is all you present in
your writings) does not supercede the actual findings. You OPINION of
off-road cycling is no measure of the activity or those who engage in it.
Your voice has nothing but a hollow ring of "because I say so".
That is no longer good enough for those who make decisions when they can
read and interpret the actual findings from the actual authors and
researchers.
Your PhD is no longer a measure of accountability as the authors and
researchers you quote are also often accredited. Since they did the
research, compiled the findings and formed their conclusions based on their
ACTUAL experience, it is only OBVIOUS to take their findings over your
interpretation of them.
When one these actual researchers gives you a nod of approval for
re-interpreting their findings, let us know. When you have verifiable names
of environmental researchers or conference attendees that give your opinions
a review, let us know. When one of these conferences you attend releases an
action plan involving your recommendations, let us know.
Otherwise... You have nothing.
|