Mountain Bikers' New Year's Resolution: Start Telling the Truth! - Page 2

12-30-2006, 11:02 PM

Michael Halliwell wrote:
> pete ***erlin wrote:
>
> > Michael Halliwell wrote:
> >
> >> Gee Mike....
> >
> >
> > It's too bad that you're just another ****ing idiot.
> >
> > Message-Create filter from message-delete messages from
> > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> >
> > Bye!
>
>
> Gee Pete....
>
> Lovely response...are you always so well mannered?
>
> Too bad you don't seem to want to have a little more ammo for when
> Vandeman comes after your trails.Your loss.
>
> Michael Halliwell

If you think arguing with an ineffective psycho like vandamnan is
something that will save access for mountain bikers anywhere, you are
even more of a dumbass than any of us thought to begin with.

JD

12-31-2006, 06:07 AM

>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. ..
>>> 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.

>
> and REAL people with a REAL
>>concept of reality and information are able to see beyond your nonsense
>>and
>>proceed with REAL solutions.
>>
> ===

12-31-2006, 08:27 AM

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:07:53 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] ...
>>>> 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

>> and REAL people with a REAL
>>>concept of reality and information are able to see beyond your nonsense
>>>and
>>>proceed with REAL solutions.
>>>
>> ===
>
===
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!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

12-31-2006, 09:14 AM

JD wrote:

Michael Halliwell wrote:

pete ***erlin wrote:

Michael Halliwell wrote:

Gee Mike....

It's too bad that you're just another ****ing idiot. Message-Create filter from message-delete messages from [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] Bye!

Gee Pete.... Lovely response...are you always so well mannered? Too bad you don't seem to want to have a little more ammo for when Vandeman comes after your trails.Your loss. Michael Halliwell

If you think arguing with an ineffective psycho like vandamnan is something that will save access for mountain bikers anywhere, you are even more of a dumbass than any of us thought to begin with. JD

No....I know I will never change Vandeman's mind and that he is an "ineffective psycho" like you say....but for when he turns up at a land managers meeting, I thought I would at least float a little bit of info out there. A couple counter arguements to his claims on a scientific basis (not just "he's an 'ineffective psycho'") might be useful.

At least I'm posting information to this newsgroup, not flames (a la Liberator), claiming to be some saint of the wilderness (Dolan) or claiming that I am the be all and end all of environmental knowledge on mountain biking (Vandeman)....

Michael Halliwell

12-31-2006, 10:54 AM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> 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
>

Specifics have been pointed out to you in the past.
But you "yawn."
Your opinionated psuedo-science is a poorly disguised rant.
When will you tell the TRUTH????

Probably never. LIARs never do.

12-31-2006, 11:40 AM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:07:53 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] m...
>>>>> 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.

12-31-2006, 01:37 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:58:21 GMT, Michael Halliwell
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>Gee Mike....
>>
>>You didn't answer my question the last time you tried posting this
>>opinion paper.....here, let me paraphrase where we left off (and this is
>>just on Wilson and Seney):
>>
>>In early December 2006 on alt.mountain-bike I posted...
>>
>>>Don't YOU read the reports you claim are "junk science"? Or maybe you are
>>>intentionally leaving out the full quote of Wilson and Seney:
>>
>>>"The initial regression results were not very encouraging in that none of
>>>the
>>>relationships between water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent
>>>soil
>>>moisture, trail roughness, and soil resistance was statistically
>>>significant.
>>>
>>>The switch to multiple regression and the inclusion of soil texture as a
>>>series
>>>of indicator variables improved the model performance."
>
> But not enough to make the measure of erosion VALID: " Water run-off
> (9%) was one of three variables that made smaller contributions." 9%
> is too small to validate the measure.
>
>>>and later when discussing the multiple regression model:
>>>
>>>".ten independent variables and cross-products combined to explain 70% of
>>>the
>>>variability in sediment yield. Treating the cumulative contributions of
>>>the
>>>different variables to the final result as a rough guide to their
>>>contributions
>>>confirmed that soil texture (37%), slope (35%) and user treatment (35%)
>>>had the
>>>most impact. Water run-off (9%) was one of three variables that made
>>>smaller
>>>contributions."
>>>
>>>
>>>Or did the fact that it was the initial model that had the poor fit and
>>>didn't
>>>account for slope, etc. which was corrected by using a different model
>>>escape you?
>
> Nope. The measure of erosion is STILL not valid. It wasn't
> "corrected". It was only "improved". 9% is still a very poor
> performance.
>
>>
>>Michael J. Vandeman replied:
>>
>>>If water run-off had only a 9% correlation with the measure of
>>>erosion, it was obviously NOT a valid measure of erosion. QED
>>
>>To which I replied:
>>
>> >You have no research (including of your own) to prove this
>>assertation.
>
> My Ph.D., you forgot, is in PSYCHOMETRICS.

Psycho. That explains alot.

Your "research" is anacdotal at best. Pure mathematics says your theories
are full of ****. If one applied mathematics to the trail system as a ratio
of the total environment through which the trails pass, then multiplied the
result IN YOUR FAVOR by a factor of 100, the result says that if you were
100% accurate in EVERYTHING you say, the maximum impact to the environment
would be about 0.04% of trails would have an adverse impact on plant and
animal species, and that number would include the entire trail, not just the
tiny fraction of which is actually damaged to the point of causing adverse
affect. Surely, of the 0.04% of impact, a considerable amount of that impact
would result from multiple use, NOT just mountain biking activities. Take
out the impacts of multiple use and consider solely mountain bikes, and you
have an environmental impact that should it be mitigated fully and
completely, would not present habitat preservation in any significant
amount. In an entire state park or forest, you _might_ save a space that is
equivelent to the size of my residential property (about 7500 sq. ft.). When
the park or forest is measured in hundreds, thousands, of square acres,
saving 7500 sq. ft. is not statistically significant.

Psycho. That's you ...

12-31-2006, 01:39 PM

"S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:lnQlh.21342$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] ...
>>>> 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.

I'll take one name. One.

Mike, why doesn't the Sierra Club endorse your agenda anymore?

12-31-2006, 03:30 PM

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:54:56 GMT, "JP" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].. .
>> 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
>>
>
>Specifics have been pointed out to you in the past.
>But you "yawn."
>Your opinionated psuedo-science is a poorly disguised rant.
>When will you tell the TRUTH????
>
>Probably never. LIARs never do.

Many mountain bikers rank right their with their lat-assed fellow
abusers of the outdoors; ATV's dorks,snowmobilers,etc. Hats off to
those that stick to designated trails; piano wire for those that
don't.

Max
>

12-31-2006, 05:49 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

> Many mountain bikers rank right their with their lat-assed fellow
> abusers of the outdoors; ATV's dorks,snowmobilers,etc. Hats off to
> those that stick to designated trails; piano wire for those that
> don't.

Did this incoherent, illiterate asswipe just make a terrorist threat?