On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:54:19 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
<Siskuwihane1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Aug 12, 11:23 pm, 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 am, 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.
>>
>> >> and use it to formulate an argument against a re****t, yet you
>>
>> >> >still consider it a good argument? Your "lit review" claims the
Wilson
>> >> >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
know
>> >> >the one. It's where you conveniently snip out the fact that the
evening
>> >> >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
speed
>> >> >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
mph
>> >> >average speeds (dragsters), but a hiker will go a lot further in
typical
>> >> >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
Liar.
--
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
|
