On Aug 12, 11:23=A0pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:25:01 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
>
>
>
>
>
> <Siskuwiha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On Aug 12, 9:23=A0am, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:34:40 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
>
> >> <templetagteam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >Mike Vandeman wrote:
> >> >(Snip of Mike going off on a tangent again)
>
> >> >> Nonsense. What I left out was IRRELEVANT to the basic question of
> >> >> which form of recreation causes more erosion..
>
> >> >Irrelevant? Hmmm... So let me get this right. If you take a quote
out=
of
> >> >context
>
> >> No, I didn't. I quoted the relevant part. And it wasn't my major
> >> point, anyway, which was that they didn't measure erosion.
>
> >> =A0and use it to formulate an argument against a re****t, yet you
>
> >> >still consider it a good argument? Your "lit review" claims the
Wilso=
n
> >> >and Seney quote you gave as a reason to question the results...but
if
> >> >you include the full quote, your argument isn't justified. ("E" for
> >> >effort in trying to redirect the discussion away from your
deception.=
)
>
> >> Yes, it is. The fact that you refuse to include any details is proof
> >> that you are LYING.
>
> >> >Geee...sounds like your quote from Wisdom about flight speeds...you
k=
now
> >> >the one. It's where you conveniently snip out the fact that the
eveni=
ng
> >> >mean movement rate of elk for mountain bike events was the same as
> >> >hiking events. The dot-dot-dot thing is a convenient way of glossing
> >> >over that text you don't want others to see, ain't it?
>
> >> You are cherry-picking irrelevancies.
>
> >> >Oh...and don't forget that Wisdom et al suggest things contrary to
> >> >you...like the fact that participant populations needs to be
included
> >> >and addressed (Does recreationist equivalent ring a bell?).
>
> >> Irrelevant.
>
> >> >And one more thing....have you figured out the difference between
spe=
ed
> >> >and distance yet? You keep posting your "lit review" where you talk
> >> >about speed as proof about relative distances traveled. (You
> >> >know...number of teams to cover a set distance over a set
time...it's=
in
> >> >you comments about Wisdom et al). I know certain vehicles with 100
mp=
h
> >> >average speeds (dragsters), but a hiker will go a lot further in
typi=
cal
> >> >distance covered.
>
> >> You are just trying to avoid admitting that I'm right: a mountain
> >> biker has a much greater impact on wildlife & the environment than a
> >> hiker.
>
> >Wrong. More opinion, not fact from Michael J. Vandeman.
>
> >Hikers are more likely to spend the night in wildlife habitat, cook
> >meals in wildlife habitat, go off-trail in wildlife habitat, litter in
> >wildlife habitat, defecate in wildlife habitat, light fires in
> >wildlife habitat.
>
> You fabricated all of that misinformation. E.g. most mountain biking
> is in parks near cities, where camping isn't allowed.
Wrong. Michael J. Vandeman is once again defeated by the FACTS.
> >An animal may be bothered for a few seconds by a mountain-biker
> >passing through, but it will be disrupted for hours, even days when
> >someone sets up camp, starts cooking meals, urinates/defecates, builds
> >a fire, sleeps and more in an animals living space.
>
> Ditto. Liar.
Accept your defeat like the neutered man that you are, Michael J.
Vandeman
|
