Mountain Biking Carnage

[Mike Vandeman]

Evolution in action!

Mike


For some unexplained reason, mountain bikers regale in these kinds of carnage videos...they post them with regularity, but this one takes the prize.
Mountain biking is a "fun and healthy" sport....yeah, right... (inside and outside of the forest
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/2012-54-Fails-Friday-Mind-Spark.html
(watch to the end -- shots of a mountain bike structure falling apart in a forest, a guy smacking into a tree, lots eating dirt, a groin "owie", and the usual insanity performed by mountain bikers. All these shots are of guys on mountain bikes. I don't understand how women can be attracted to this sport)

[Blackblade]

So, Mike, how does this tie-in with your usual rant that Mountain bikers never talk about the dangers ? You belong in Orwell's 1984 for your ability in doublethink. Either that, or you really are going senile and you can't remember the arguments you were advancing a mere two weeks ago.

[Mike Vandeman]

They are saying that it's not really dangerous, and that all these accidents are really okay. They never, as far as I know, talk seriously about the danger, as I do. Certainly not publicly.

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:07:26 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Friday, December 14, 2012 2:48:07 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
>
> They are saying that it's not really dangerous, and that all these accidents are really okay. They never, as far as I know, talk seriously about the danger, as I do. Certainly not publicly.

Quote where "they" said that "all these accidents are really okay," liar.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:06:57 AM UTC-8, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:07:26 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Friday, December 14, 2012 2:48:07 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote: > > They are saying that it's not really dangerous, and that all these accidents are really okay. They never, as far as I know, talk seriously about the danger, as I do. Certainly not publicly. Quote where "they" said that "all these accidents are really okay," liar.

It's implicit. Ask your mommie to explain it to you.

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

Mom explained it to me. As an example, she showed me how you implicitly celebrate the deaths of strangers in a pathetic attempt to validate your warped point of view.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:14:34 AM UTC-8, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:57:32 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:06:57 AM UTC-8, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:07:26 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Friday, December 14, 2012 2:48:07 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote: > > They are saying that it's not really dangerous, and that all these accidents are really okay. They never, as far as I know, talk seriously about the danger, as I do. Certainly not publicly. Quote where "they" said that "all these accidents are really okay," liar. > > > > It's implicit. Ask your mommie to explain it to you. Mom explained it to me. As an example, she showed me how you implicitly celebrate the deaths of strangers in a pathetic attempt to validate your warped point of view.

What IS my warped point of view? Are you now mind-reading?

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

It's the sort that would lead you to question someone understanding your point of view instead of an accusation, leveled in the same sentence, that you celebrate death.

Implicitly, that's warped. No mind-reading required.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:05:00 AM UTC-8, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 11:32:00 AM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:14:34 AM UTC-8, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:57:32 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:06:57 AM UTC-8, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:07:26 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Friday, December 14, 2012 2:48:07 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote: > > They are saying that it's not really dangerous, and that all these accidents are really okay. They never, as far as I know, talk seriously about the danger, as I do. Certainly not publicly. Quote where "they" said that "all these accidents are really okay," liar. > > > > It's implicit. Ask your mommie to explain it to you. Mom explained it to me. As an example, she showed me how you implicitly celebrate the deaths of strangers in a pathetic attempt to validate your warped point of view. > > > > What IS my warped point of view? Are you now mind-reading? It's the sort that would lead you to question someone understanding your point of view instead of an accusation, leveled in the same sentence, that you celebrate death. Implicitly, that's warped. No mind-reading required.

Thanks for demonstrating for the umpteenth time that you don't have a clue. But what can one expect from someone afraid to use his real name?

Mountain bikers are afraid to admit that mountain biking often results in DEATH. All I do is tell the truth -- something that mountain bikers all HATE! I'm the antidote to the mountain biking disease.

[Blackblade]

> Mountain bikers are afraid to admit that mountain biking often results in DEATH. All I do is tell the truth -- something that mountain bikers all HATE! I'm the antidote to the mountain biking disease.

I love this. You start a thread with the accusation that "For some unexplained reason, mountain bikers regale in these kinds of carnage videos...they post them with regularity" and then, a short while later, you're back to accusing us of being afraid to admit that sometimes people die !!!!

Are you going to start debating yourself ?

It is obvious to anyone that activities resulting in the kind of accidents shown in the video can result in serious injury and death. We DON'T show accidents resulting in death because, for most civilised people, that's wrong. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it just means that, when it does, we don't glory in it and we have some empathy for the bereaved.

As to your 'truth' ... well, I very much doubt you meet the criteria ... "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality". You ditched fact and reality a long, long time ago. You don't tell the truth, you spew ad hominem, claptrap, venom and schadenfreude.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:37:06 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> > Mountain bikers are afraid to admit that mountain biking often results in DEATH. All I do is tell the truth -- something that mountain bikers all HATE! I'm the antidote to the mountain biking disease. I love this. You start a thread with the accusation that "For some unexplained reason, mountain bikers regale in these kinds of carnage videos...they post them with regularity" and then, a short while later, you're back to accusing us of being afraid to admit that sometimes people die !!!! Are you going to start debating yourself ? It is obvious to anyone that activities resulting in the kind of accidents shown in the video can result in serious injury and death. We DON'T show accidents resulting in death because, for most civilised people, that's wrong. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it just means that, when it does, we don't glory in it and we have some empathy for the bereaved. As to your 'truth' ... well, I very much doubt you meet the criteria ... "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality". You ditched fact and reality a long, long time ago. You don't tell the truth, you spew ad hominem, claptrap, venom and schadenfreude.

You pretended to disagree with me, then said just what I said!: Mountain bikers don't like to admit that they often end up DEAD. You CLAIM that it's due to "respect". If so, why do newspapers report deaths, but mountain bikers don't? Are all newspapers motivated by schadenfreude? The only possible conclusion is that mountain bikers aren't honest! And can't stand me telling the truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport.

[Blackblade]

> You pretended to disagree with me, then said just what I said!: Mountain bikers don't like to admit that they often end up DEAD. You CLAIM that it's due to "respect". If so, why do newspapers report deaths, but mountain bikers don't? Are all newspapers motivated by schadenfreude? The only possible conclusion is that mountain bikers aren't honest! And can't stand me telling the truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport.

Do you actually bother to read what anyone else says ? It doesn't look like it.

I said we don't SHOW ... as in we don't publish videos where the accident results in death.

Mountain bikers readily admit, as I have in this thread, that in some cases people will get seriously injured or killed ... and they frequently publish obituaries too (see latest issue of Mountain Bike Rider). So, yet again, your claims have zero merit.

So, yet again, you have no 'truth' to tell. Only your biased, out-dated and fact-free bile to vent.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:24:16 PM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> > You pretended to disagree with me, then said just what I said!: Mountain bikers don't like to admit that they often end up DEAD. You CLAIM that it's due to "respect". If so, why do newspapers report deaths, but mountain bikers don't? Are all newspapers motivated by schadenfreude? The only possible conclusion is that mountain bikers aren't honest! And can't stand me telling the truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport. Do you actually bother to read what anyone else says ? It doesn't look like it. I said we don't SHOW ... as in we don't publish videos where the accident results in death. Mountain bikers readily admit, as I have in this thread, that in some cases people will get seriously injured or killed ... and they frequently publish obituaries too (see latest issue of Mountain Bike Rider). So, yet again, your claims have zero merit. So, yet again, you have no 'truth' to tell. Only your biased, out-dated and fact-free bile to vent.

BS. Except for an EXTREMELY RARE obit, they never mention that mountain bikers frequently end up DEAD. TOT. SHINDE SHIMATTA. WORM FOOD (The Revenge of the Worms!).

[Blackblade]

> BS. Except for an EXTREMELY RARE obit, they never mention that mountain bikers frequently end up DEAD. TOT. SHINDE SHIMATTA. WORM FOOD (The Revenge of the Worms!).

More statements with no back-up facts. As stated above, and backed up with statistics, hardly anyone ends up dead from Mountainbiking. It is extremely rare. That's why there are very rarely any obituaries in MTB magazines ... it hardly ever happens !

[Mike Vandeman]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:46:20 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> > BS. Except for an EXTREMELY RARE obit, they never mention that mountain bikers frequently end up DEAD. TOT. SHINDE SHIMATTA. WORM FOOD (The Revenge of the Worms!).
>
>
>
> More statements with no back-up facts. As stated above, and backed up with statistics, hardly anyone ends up dead from Mountainbiking. It is extremely rare. That's why there are very rarely any obituaries in MTB magazines ... it hardly ever happens !

BS. The following file is FULL of reports of mountain biker deaths and serious accidents: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous.htm. Only the news media report them; mountain bikers ignore them.

[Blackblade]

> BS. The following file is FULL of reports of mountain biker deaths and serious accidents: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous.htm. Only the news media report them; mountain bikers ignore them.

For a guy who has a PHd in statistics you sure seem foolish ! If millions of people ride every day and all you can find is a tiny handful of fatalities then what does that tell you about the likelihood of a fatality ???

More hikers die, more road cyclists die and an order of magnitude more people die, every day, of heart disease.

Troll.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 9:58:32 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> > BS. The following file is FULL of reports of mountain biker deaths and serious accidents: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous.htm. Only the news media report them; mountain bikers ignore them. For a guy who has a PHd in statistics you sure seem foolish ! If millions of people ride every day and all you can find is a tiny handful of fatalities then what does that tell you about the likelihood of a fatality ??? More hikers die, more road cyclists die and an order of magnitude more people die, every day, of heart disease. Troll.

Idiot. I have a Ph.D. in Psychology, not statistics. Also an M.A. in math. Both trump your puny "education". You are using the wrong measure. It isn't the total NUMBER of deaths that is important, but the deaths PER HOUR of exercise. By that measure, it is obvious that mountain biking is more dangerous than any of the other things you measure, including hiking. Trying to ride a BICYCLE on a trail not designed for it (i.e., not smooth, wide, & straight) is inherently dangerous, and nothing you say will ever change that. For example, if you had actually read the file I listed, you would know that a 12-year-old girl DIED during her very first mountain biking lesson. How many hikers die on their very first hike??? How many drivers die the first day they drive a car??? The answer is obvious: ZERO. You should have given up long ago. All you are doing is digging yourself in deeper into your mountain of lies.

[Blackblade]

> Idiot. I have a Ph.D. in Psychology, not statistics. Also an M.A. in math. Both trump your puny "education". You are using the wrong measure. It isn't the total NUMBER of deaths that is important, but the deaths PER HOUR of exercise. By that measure, it is obvious that mountain biking is more dangerous than any of the other things you measure, including hiking. Trying to ride a BICYCLE on a trail not designed for it (i.e., not smooth, wide, & straight) is inherently dangerous, and nothing you say will ever change that. For example, if you had actually read the file I listed, you would know that a 12-year-old girl DIED during her very first mountain biking lesson. How many hikers die on their very first hike??? How many drivers die the first day they drive a car??? The answer is obvious: ZERO. You should have given up long ago. All you are doing is digging yourself in deeper into your mountain of lies.

I seem to recall that your PhD in psychology was actually a statistical exercise in taste preferences and other psychometrics ? You also state that you have a masters in statistics on your own page ! As to my education, about which you know nothing, I am a postgraduate from a better university than yours ! You are mighty quick to make assumptions.

You have provided zero method for your assessment; simply a bald assertion. I've looked for the detailed statistics and, probably because there are so few occurrences, I can't find them. Go ahead and be my guest ... find some real statistics, not your own creations. Your statement is therefore without the slightest merit … bereft some real data. Hardly anyone dies from Mountainbiking – and I provided statistics to back up that statement. If you want to assert something else then prove it … provide the data.

Nobody ever died on their first day driving a car, nobody ever died on their first hike ???? How do you know that ? You don’t. Given the statistical likelihood I will bet you that both of those occurrences have occurred.

Road traffic accident figures are orders of magnitude higher than mountainbiking. But, you know what, if you aren’t completely dishonest regarding your qualifications you know all this. You know that the statistics don’t back you up … which is why you cite single examples which, in isolation, prove precisely nothing. A single case, amongst tens of millions (in the US alone) is not statistically significant. Your arguments are those of the mathematically inept not a PhD.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Friday, January 11, 2013 4:51:51 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> > Idiot. I have a Ph.D. in Psychology, not statistics. Also an M.A. in math. Both trump your puny "education". You are using the wrong measure. It isn't the total NUMBER of deaths that is important, but the deaths PER HOUR of exercise. By that measure, it is obvious that mountain biking is more dangerous than any of the other things you measure, including hiking. Trying to ride a BICYCLE on a trail not designed for it (i.e., not smooth, wide, & straight) is inherently dangerous, and nothing you say will ever change that. For example, if you had actually read the file I listed, you would know that a 12-year-old girl DIED during her very first mountain biking lesson. How many hikers die on their very first hike??? How many drivers die the first day they drive a car??? The answer is obvious: ZERO. You should have given up long ago. All you are doing is digging yourself in deeper into your mountain of lies. I seem to recall that your PhD in psychology was actually a statistical exercise in taste preferences and other psychometrics ?

No, it wasn't. But I wouldn't expect a dunce line you to distinguish between psychometrics and statistics, since both words have more than one syl-la-ble.

> You also state that you have a masters in statistics on your own page !

No, I don't. I have a masters in MATHEMATICS. But, again, I know you can't handle words with more than one syl-la-ble.

As to my education, about which you know nothing, I am a postgraduate from a better university than yours !

BS. If it were true, you would have NAMED it. Besides, there's no better university than Berkelery & Harvard.

>You are mighty quick to make assumptions. You have provided zero method for your assessment; simply a bald assertion. I've looked for the detailed statistics and, probably because there are so few occurrences, I can't find them. Go ahead and be my guest ... find some real statistics, not your own creations. Your statement is therefore without the slightest merit … bereft some real data. Hardly anyone dies from Mountainbiking –

That'sa lie, as you well know. I already listed many deaths from mountain biking: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous.htm.

>and I provided statistics to back up that statement.

Not relevant ones.

If you want to assert something else then prove it … provide the data. Nobody ever died on their first day driving a car, nobody ever died on their first hike ???? How do you know that ? You don’t. Given the statistical likelihood I will bet you that both of those occurrences have occurred. Road traffic accident figures are orders of magnitude higher than mountainbiking.

BS. The correct measure isn't the total # of accidents, but accidents per hour of driving/biking. Mountain biking is obviously the more dangerous activity.

>But, you know what, if you aren’t completely dishonest regarding your qualifications you know all this. You know that the statistics don’t back you up … which is why you cite single examples which, in isolation, prove precisely nothing. A single case, amongst tens of millions (in the US alone) is not statistically significant. Your arguments are those of the mathematically inept not a PhD.

If you had any sense, which you obviously don't, you would admit that I'm right. If you think you are right tell me again about my masters in statistics! IDIOT.

[Tom $herman]

On 1/11/2013 10:36 PM, Convicted Criminal Mike Vandeman wrote:
> BS. If it were true, you would have NAMED it. Besides, there's no better university than Berkelery & Harvard.

I can find no "University of Berkelery & Harvard". :)

P.S. The correct spelling is Berkeley*.

*<http://www.berkeley.edu/index.html>

--
Tom $herman

[Blackblade]

> If you had any sense, which you obviously don't, you would admit that I'm right. If you think you are right tell me again about my masters in statistics! IDIOT.

You really are getting desperate aren't you ? Either that, or you have forgotten what you have previously written. I suppose that much ordure must affect the brain !

From your own website "I have an M.A. in Mathematics (including study in Statistics) from Harvard University."

So, stop equivocating and address the fundamental issue; you, who claim to know statistics, are observing a very rare occurrence of death for an activity which is daily engaged in by tens of millions. You can try and obfuscate all you like but you know that this means that the likelihood of such an events is incredibly low. Of course, it's not zero so there will be some deaths ... but, critically, far less than die from many many other factors.

And, PS, Harvard is only ranked fourth in the world ...http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/03/world-top-100-universities-2012#data

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 1:55:50 PM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> > If you had any sense, which you obviously don't, you would admit that I'm right. If you think you are right tell me again about my masters in statistics! IDIOT. You really are getting desperate aren't you ? Either that, or you have forgotten what you have previously written. I suppose that much ordure must affect the brain ! From your own website "I have an M.A. in Mathematics (including study in Statistics) from Harvard University."

So where do you see "Masters in Statistics"? Can't you even READ?????

So, stop equivocating and address the fundamental issue; you, who claim to know statistics, are observing a very rare occurrence of death for an activity which is daily engaged in by tens of millions.

Another lie.

> You can try and obfuscate all you like but you know that this means that the likelihood of such an events is incredibly low. Of course, it's not zero so there will be some deaths ... but, critically, far less than die from many many other factors.

That's not the point. The point is that moubntain biking is far more dangerous than anything you mentioned. Danger isn't measured by total deaths, but by deaths per hour of the relevant activity. You are only demonstrating your utter ignorance of statistics.

> And, PS, Harvard is only ranked fourth in the world ...http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/03/world-top-100-universities-2012#data

So what degree did you get, and where? I know you are bluffing, or you would have told us already!

[Blackblade]

> That's not the point. The point is that moubntain biking is far more dangerous than anything you mentioned. Danger isn't measured by total deaths, but by deaths per hour of the relevant activity. You are only demonstrating your utter ignorance of statistics.

Mike, you don't get to suddenly decide how statistics are applied. I simply took the published figures.

Also, just to put you straight, the usual measure when applied to transport is Death per Mile Travelled (or x miles travelled) ... no need to thank me by the way !

I already invited you, if you want to come up with something more, to provide data. I don't have deaths per hour ... I highly doubt you do either.

However, to play the game, let's do a strawman ...

Let's say that the US's 50 million mountainbikers ride, on average, once every two weeks for 15 miles. You postulate that the distance is higher on your website but, hey, let's give you a chance on this.

That means that the total distance covered in a year is 19.5 billion miles.

You have about 12-15 deaths on your list ... but that's for the whole world ... not just the US. However, let's give you an even bigger chance and say that it's 24 fatalities per annum in the US alone.

That means that there are 0.00123 fatalities per million MTB miles travelled.

However, the figure for driving in the US is 1.5 per million miles travelled.

So, they are not even close ... as I said ... even if you make the MTB figures ridiculous (say 2,400 deaths per annum in the US ... which is certainly not the case) you still only come up with 0.123 deaths per million miles.

Quad Erat Demonstrandum ...

> So what degree did you get, and where? I know you are bluffing, or you would have told us already!

Appeal to authority = Logical Fallacy.

I am not playing your stupid games.

However, given that I am British (as you know) and that there is only one British university on the list above Harvard I thought you might have figured it out. Ho hum !

[Mike Vandeman]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 6:59:35 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> Mike, you don't get to suddenly decide how statistics are applied. I simply took the published figures.

They aren't relevant, as I already explained. I guess you are too dumb to understand statistics.

> Also, just to put you straight, the usual measure when applied to transport is Death per Mile Travelled (or x miles travelled) ... no need to thank me by the way !

That would be fine, but you don't provide that.

> I already invited you, if you want to come up with something more, to provide data. I don't have deaths per hour ... I highly doubt you do either.

It's obvious.

> However, to play the game, let's do a strawman ...
>
>
>
> Let's say that the US's 50 million mountainbikers

There aren't 50 million mountain bikers in the U.S., liar.

ride, on average, once every two weeks for 15 miles. You postulate that the distance is higher on your website but, hey, let's give you a chance on this.
>
>
>
> That means that the total distance covered in a year is 19.5 billion miles.
>
>
>
> You have about 12-15 deaths on your list ... but that's for the whole world ... not just the US. However, let's give you an even bigger chance and say that it's 24 fatalities per annum in the US alone.
>
>
>
> That means that there are 0.00123 fatalities per million MTB miles travelled.
>
>
>
> However, the figure for driving in the US is 1.5 per million miles travelled.
>
>
>
> So, they are not even close ... as I said ... even if you make the MTB figures ridiculous (say 2,400 deaths per annum in the US ... which is certainly not the case) you still only come up with 0.123 deaths per million miles.
>
>
>
> Quad Erat Demonstrandum ...
>
>
>
> > So what degree did you get, and where? I know you are bluffing, or you would have told us already!
>
>
>
> Appeal to authority = Logical Fallacy.
>
>
>
> I am not playing your stupid games.
>
>
>
> However, given that I am British (as you know)

No, I don't.

> and that there is only one British university on the list above Harvard I thought you might have figured it out. Ho hum !

That only indicates your stupidity. You have to look at how they were rated when I graduated from Berkeley & Harvard, when your university probably wasn't on the map. I can't believe you ever went to a university, to make such a simple blunder.

So tell me again about my "masters in statistics"! LIAR!

[Blackblade]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:40:30 AM UTC, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Monday, January 14, 2013 6:59:35 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
>
> > Mike, you don't get to suddenly decide how statistics are applied. I simply took the published figures.
>
>
>
> They aren't relevant, as I already explained. I guess you are too dumb to understand statistics.
>
>
>
> > Also, just to put you straight, the usual measure when applied to transport is Death per Mile Travelled (or x miles travelled) ... no need to thank me by the way !
>
>
>
> That would be fine, but you don't provide that.

I think you will find, if you can be bothered to read the entire post, that I estimate exactly that !

> > I already invited you, if you want to come up with something more, to provide data. I don't have deaths per hour ... I highly doubt you do either.
>
> It's obvious.

No, it's not. And as some sort of, albeit very poor, scientist you should know that. The data suggests that the death rate from MTB is orders of magnitude lower than driving ... so your 'obvious' is complete crap.

> There aren't 50 million mountain bikers in the U.S., liar.

The Journal of Park and Recreation Administration estimated that there were 45.2 million back in 2006. IMBA states that there are 50 million. Where do you get your data ? Oh, sorry, I forgot ... you magically make numbers up and they are axiomatically true !

No other comments on the logic/proof ????? Instead, you go back to my university education which, like yours, is completely irrelevant to the point. Neither of us have degrees in Mountain Biking !

So, no refutation that driving is orders of magnitude more dangerous than mountainbiking ? Thought not ...

> That only indicates your stupidity. You have to look at how they were rated when I graduated from Berkeley & Harvard, when your university probably wasn't on the map. I can't believe you ever went to a university, to make such a simple blunder.

"As the oldest university in the English-speaking world, Oxford is a unique and historic institution."

Ha ha. I think you'll find that my university existed long before even the USA :-)

You really are lazy aren't you ? Can't be bothered to do a five second check to determine the veracity of anything ? That's why no-one believes you anymore ... you spout opinion as if it were fact and then change the subject when you're called on it.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:04:04 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:40:30 AM UTC, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Monday, January 14, 2013 6:59:35 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote: > > > Mike, you don't get to suddenly decide how statistics are applied. I simply took the published figures. > > > > They aren't relevant, as I already explained. I guess you are too dumb to understand statistics. > > > > > Also, just to put you straight, the usual measure when applied to transport is Death per Mile Travelled (or x miles travelled) ... no need to thank me by the way ! > > > > That would be fine, but you don't provide that. I think you will find, if you can be bothered to read the entire post, that I estimate exactly that ! > > I already invited you, if you want to come up with something more, to provide data. I don't have deaths per hour ... I highly doubt you do either. > > It's obvious. No, it's not. And as some sort of, albeit very poor, scientist you should know that. The data suggests that the death rate from MTB is orders of magnitude lower than driving ... so your 'obvious' is complete crap. > There aren't 50 million mountain bikers in the U.S., liar. The Journal of Park and Recreation Administration estimated that there were 45.2 million back in 2006. IMBA states that there are 50 million. Where do you get your data ? Oh, sorry, I forgot ... you magically make numbers up and they are axiomatically true ! No other comments on the logic/proof ????? Instead, you go back to my university education which, like yours, is completely irrelevant to the point. Neither of us have degrees in Mountain Biking ! So, no refutation that driving is orders of magnitude more dangerous than mountainbiking ? Thought not ... > That only indicates your stupidity. You have to look at how they were rated when I graduated from Berkeley & Harvard, when your university probably wasn't on the map. I can't believe you ever went to a university, to make such a simple blunder. "As the oldest university in the English-speaking world, Oxford is a unique and historic institution." Ha ha. I think you'll find that my university existed long before even the USA :-) You really are lazy aren't you ? Can't be bothered to do a five second check to determine the veracity of anything ? That's why no-one believes you anymore ... you spout opinion as if it were fact and then change the subject when you're called on it.

Tell me again about my "masters in statistics", Oh Great Oxford Scholar. What WAS your major? Football? Ping Pong? Please enlighten us, Oh Great One.

[Blackblade]

> Tell me again about my "masters in statistics", Oh Great Oxford Scholar. What WAS your major? Football? Ping Pong? Please enlighten us, Oh Great One.

So you concede the major point then I assume. Mountain Biking is far less dangerous than driving a car. I assume this because, as usual when you lose, you then flail around on ancillary points as here.

I hereby rescind any comment about any ability of yours in statistics ... you clearly have none.

If "I have an M.A. in Mathematics (including study in Statistics) from Harvard University." as quoted on your website means you have no mastery of statistics then the great institution of Harvard must be very disappointed in you.

And, as I said, my undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications have zero to do with the argument. I am not claiming any authority by dint of my educational background ... simply letting the facts speak for themselves. I just thought it very funny that, yet again, your presumptions were provably wrong.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:53:02 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> > Tell me again about my "masters in statistics", Oh Great Oxford Scholar. What WAS your major? Football? Ping Pong? Please enlighten us, Oh Great One.
>
>
>
> So you concede the major point then I assume. Mountain Biking is far less dangerous than driving a car. I assume this because, as usual when you lose, you then flail around on ancillary points as here.
>
>
>
> I hereby rescind any comment about any ability of yours in statistics ... you clearly have none.
>
>
>
> If "I have an M.A. in Mathematics (including study in Statistics) from Harvard University." as quoted on your website means you have no mastery of statistics then the great institution of Harvard must be very disappointed in you.
>
>
>
> And, as I said, my undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications have zero to do with the argument.

But the fact that you refuse to answer a simple question proves that you are ashamed of your education and have something to hide, and are thoroughly dishonest.

> I am not claiming any authority by dint of my educational background ... simply letting the facts speak for themselves. I just thought it very funny that, yet again, your presumptions were provably wrong.

I'm not going to waste any more time responding to dishonest mountain bikers. You don't answer questions, proving that you have something to hide and aren't being honest, you lie frequently, you can't reason logically. and you keep repeating assertions that I have already refuted.

[Tom $herman]

On 1/15/2013 7:04 AM, Blackblade wrote:
> No other comments on the logic/proof ????? Instead, you go back to my university education which, like yours, is completely irrelevant to the point. Neither of us have degrees in Mountain Biking !

Mikey V. has honorary doctorates in "Usenet Trolling", "Tree-Fort
Building" and "HANDSAW Combat". ;)

--
Tom $herman

[Blackblade]

> I'm not going to waste any more time responding to dishonest mountain bikers. You don't answer questions, proving that you have something to hide and aren't being honest, you lie frequently, you can't reason logically. and you keep repeating assertions that I have already refuted.

Good, then go away ! This is alt.mountain-bike ...

Aside from anything else, I don't know why you bother when you keep getting bettered by mountainbikers using logic and facts instead of the ad-hominem, circular logic, false dichotomies and baseless assertions you employ. You don't refute anything ... you state that it's the case and then call everyone liars when they point out the lack of backup in facts and logic.