Econut's avoidance of the truth
- From: "M. Halliwell" <templetagteam@shawdotca>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:34:40 GMT
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 and use it to formulate an argument against a report, 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.)
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?
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?).
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.
Michael Halliwell
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Hardtail vs. Full-Suspension
- Next by Date: Re: 29-inch/700c vs 26" Fat vs Skinney?
- Previous by thread: Re: The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The Only Honest Review of the Literature
- Next by thread: Open letter, recumbent trycicle
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading