On Aug 13, 11:54=A0pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:54:19 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
>
>
>
>
>
> <Siskuwiha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >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
o=
f
> >> >> >> 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
Wi=
lson
> >> >> >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"
fo=
r
> >> >> >effort in trying to redirect the discussion away from your
decepti=
on.)
>
> >> >> Yes, it is. The fact that you refuse to include any details is
proo=
f
> >> >> that you are LYING.
>
> >> >> >Geee...sounds like your quote from Wisdom about flight
speeds...yo=
u know
> >> >> >the one. It's where you conveniently snip out the fact that the
ev=
ening
> >> >> >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
glossi=
ng
> >> >> >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
inclu=
ded
> >> >> >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
tal=
k
> >> >> >about speed as proof about relative distances traveled. (You
> >> >> >know...number of teams to cover a set distance over a set
time...i=
t'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
t=
ypical
> >> >> >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
i=
n
> >> >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,
build=
s
> >> >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 will take that as your acceptance of defeat in this particular
debate.
At least we now agree that hikers are more disruptive to wildlife and
their habitat than mountain bikers.
You're finally learning.
|
