On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:35:32 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:03:13 AM UTC-8,
shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Using your psychophysics background, how about you tell me the speed ceiling at which one can no longer "enjoy nature." Since hikers can enjoy it and mountain bikers can't, and you claim the difference is speed, tell me the speed I have to stay below. I want to make sure I do it right.
>
> I never said the difference is speed, idiot. It's speed, being on top of a bike, being on unpredictable trails, etc.
"As to the beautiful scenery, only hikers & equestrians are able to enjoy it. Mountain bikers are DOING NOTHING but looking at the trail directly in front of them, & HAVE NO TIME to "enjoy scenery"." (emphasis mine)
So it was about time (affected by speed, obviously). Now it's about a few other things as well. Why don't you take some time to collect your "thoughts" and get back to me on this one.
> > Silly man, you don't get to define "enjoying nature" for anyone but yourself. It's subjective. Or do you think you can quantify "enjoyment" for me? And no, idiot, peripheral vision isn't "subconscious." Ask any astronomer how he looks at the stars.
>
> Through a telescope. If he were on a mountain bike, his peripheral vision would be useless.
Really, Mike? Using peripheral vision to look at the stars is a basic example of conscious use of peripheral vision taught in just about every undergraduate perception class and well known by every amateur stargazer. Clearly, I was giving your education WAY too much credit.
http://dailyuw.com/archive/2008/04/04/imported/seeing-stars#.UPAimuS_J8E
Again, hardly "subconscious." Did you buy your Ph.D from an ad in the back of Rolling Stone?
> > Your responses are an ever-increasing testament of your complete ignorance of mountain biking. Maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking.
>
> Prove it. That's just your asserton, with no basis in fact.
Are you suggesting a mountain biker would be equally effective riding while looking through a toilet paper tube as without? This would still easily allow him to see the trail in front of his front tire, after all.
I shouldn't have to explain the difference between foveal and peripheral vision to someone who claims to have a Ph.D in psychology. Go read a chapter on visual perception in an undergraduate textbook and get back to me.
The burden of proof is on you. Prove to me that mountain biking ONLY requires foveal vision. Feel free to consult one of your archaic textbooks.
> > Again, that is a fact you clearly can't grasp because you don't understand mountain biking (not to mention human perception of motion). That's amazingly irresponsible for someone attempting to make objective observations about mountain biking, but it explains why you can't get a publication on the topic in a refereed journal.
>
> You keep changing the subject, because you can't bear to admit that you are just WRONG.
You don't understand mountain biking (not to mention human perception of motion). Therefore, you are ignorant of the fact that maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking.
> > My driving example was just fine. It's your experience that's limited. Roads aren't always smooth and straight, and they include numerous external hazards, like other cars. Glancing at a mirror requires maintaining awareness of the changing conditions of the road ahead. Likewise, analogous scanning patterns constantly occur while riding a bike.
> BS. Mountain bikes don't have rear view mirrors, or any other mirrors. Since roads are guaranteed to be as straight and smooth as possible, it's safe to glance away for a second. That's not true for mountain biking, because trails aren't straight or smooth. They are very hazardous for anyone ON A BIKE, because of that. That's why serious accidents and even deaths are commonplace for mountain bikers.
So now we're down to one second. Fascinating.
Based on what you are saying, I could put on a clown costume and stand next to the trail, and I would be completely invisible to a mountain biker because he'd be focusing on the trail in front of his tire. I would, however, exist in his "subconscious" in my clown disguise, according to you.
Trail conditions vary. Some sections are quite straight and smooth. Some smooth sections even go for many miles uphill, limiting speed and allowing well over two seconds to enjoy the scenery.
> > You've also now moved from the biker crashing "immediately" to "a couple of seconds" after turning attention from the trail ahead. What's the time frame going to be in your next response?
>
> There's no difference.
Only to someone dumber than a bag of rocks. Or a liar. Which are you?
im·me·di·ate·ly (Adverb)
1. At once; instantly.
2. Without any intervening time or space.
That's not "a couple of seconds," dolt.
> > Are you going to answer my question about vampires?
> As soon as you start telling the truth -- which I know is never going to happen.
As I've demonstrated, you are the one lying in this thread, Mike.
So what does putting salt on a vampire do? And why are you afraid to answer the question?