01-06-2007, 05:45 PM
|
#66 (permalink)
|
| | Re: Mountain Bikers' New Year's Resolution: Start Telling the Truth!
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:edsrp2dfb2tds9n9541a1gsaec0idrul9k@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:41:57 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>news:62vop2d5vcubdvt3i8tmgqkev297so1kuu@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:42:57 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I said, 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.
>>> ===
>>Apparently - You can't read.
>>
>>Beyond the points shown in the reply you which you did NOT address, your
>>entire premise is innacurate:
>>
>>"...convince people that mountain biking is no more harmful than hiking.
>>But
>>there are two problems with this approach: (1) it's not true and (2) it's
>>irrelevant."
>>
>>Your statement "It's not true" is innacurate. You have failed to show
>>anything to support that assumtion.
>
> Are you kidding? I show that several times over in that paper. But you
> have to be able to read. And think.
Merely staing your OPINION is not proof! Merely stating the original
research and authors are wrong is not proof!
When these authors give you a "review" for re-interpreting their findings,
let us know. Until then, we (and the NFS, NPS and other REAL organizations
and REAL scientists) will take the word of the original authors and their
interpretation of the findings from THEIR own work. You have nothing but an
usubstantiated opinion with a foundation on transparent context.
As stated below, btw, which you ignored because you can't refute a word of
it! You split context of response to draw attention away from your own lack
of credibility.
>
> You state your OPINION - That is all.
>>Your "review" of research is merely an application of your OPINION on
>>others' findings. When one of these researchers gives you a positive nod
>>for
>>re-interpreting their findings, let us know.
>>Your other statement "It's irrelevant" is a non-issue. The FACT that
>>off-road cycling has been recognized by the agencies in charge and shown
>>to
>>be no more impactful than hiking is certainly relevant. It is your OPINION
>>that is irrelevant. That has been proven as the organizations that
>>determine
>>the rules (by way of examining the available research) have come to the
>>conclusion that off-road cycling be allowed. They do not need your
>>interpretation of the research as they have the actual findings to
>>examine.
>>You can talk about "honesty" all you want but you have yet to apply it in
>>your own comments. You have attempted to FAKE credibility and honesty and
>>have so obviously failed.
>>
> ===
> 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
|
|
|  |