[at-l] Hiking Poles - ARGUABLY.

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Weary wrote:
>One for instance reported, "Raindrops can be a major problem for farmers 
>when
>they strike (disturbed) soil. With an impact of up to 30 mph, rain washes 
>out
>seed and splashes soil into the air. If the fields are on a slope the soil 
>is
>splashed downhill which causes deterioration of soil structure."

Just for fun - you're comparing rain effects on a trail that largely runs 
through the trees to the rain effects on an open field?  And telling me that 
the rain effects are the same for the two of them?     I don't think so.

There are ceratinly places where the Trail runs through open areas - I can 
even point you to a couple dozen of them.  More than that, some of them are 
areas that are just as steep and get more use - and more hiking pole usage 
than anyplace in Maine.  And for some of them, the Trail is no more eroded 
than it was ten years ago.  To what would you attribute that, Oh Great 
Wizard?


>Another paper reports, "Regular conventional tillage provides a smooth, 
>unridged
>soil surface that can encourage serious runoff and erosion problems on 
>sloping
>crop land."

Care to point out to me where "conventional tillage" of that sort is 
practiced these days?  That went out of style 30 or more years ago.  That's 
not even practiced in many Third World countries anymore.  What kind of 
stuff are you reading?  And why do you think it applies to your argument?


>Yes. This research involved soil tilled by machines for crops, not soil 
>tilled
>by sharp-pointed hiking sticks to ease passage by hikers.
>
>But I think the science is the same in both instances. Does anyone truly 
>think that rain cares what caused the soil disturbance?

No - but I think you're REALLY reaching - first because what you're calling 
"science" - isn't.  You have no evidence of trail damage, yet you insist 
it's there based on an invalid analogy - and your own bias toward damage 
(and possibly against Lekis?).  This is a form of "Voodoo science"  -- as 
follows:

>Scientists, no less than others, are inclined to see what they expect to 
>see, and an erroneous conclusion by a respected colleague often carries 
>other scientists along on the road to ignominy.  This is pathological 
>science, in which scientists manage to fool themselves.
>
>If scientists can fool themselves, how much easier is it to craft arguments 
>deliberately intended to befuddle jurists or lawmakers with little or no 
>scientific background?  This is junk science.  It consists of tortured 
>theories of what “could” be so, with little supporting evidence to prove 
>that it “is” so.
>
>Sometimes there is no evidence at all.  Ancient beliefs in demons and magic 
>still sweep across the modern landscape, but now they are dressed in the 
>language and symbols of modern science.  This is pseudoscience.  It’s 
>practitioners may believe it to be science, just as witches and faith 
>healers may truly believe they can call forth supernatural powers.
>
>What may begin as honest error, however, has a way of evolving through 
>almost imperceptible steps from self-delusion to fraud.  The line between 
>foolishness and fraud is thin.  Because it is not easy to tell when that 
>line has been crossed, I use the term “voodoo” science to cover them all: 
>pathological science, junk science, pseudoscience and fraudulent science.
     ----- From: Voodoo Science by Robert Park

It's called Voodoo Science in this particular case because you're using what 
you seem to see as a universal process, but ignoring the details of how that 
process is applied.  And those details make large differences in the 
results.  Do you remember what I told you about boundary conditions?  There 
are differences between a hardened trail - even one that's had holes poked 
in it - and an open field.  There are differences between a Trail that's 
under tree cover - as most of the AT is - and an open field.  And 
differences in the effect rain has on each.  There are also differences in 
the Trail itself that you fail to account for. Your central argument has 
only very limited validity - if any at all.  You really should pay more 
attention to detail.

Nor do you have evidence of the damage you claim.   I've asked you to 
provide that evidence more than once over the last several years - and 
you've consistently failed to do so.  Instead, you've simply repeated the 
same mantra time after time after time after -----   Repeating it ten 
thousand times doesn't make it any more true - or any less false.  But it 
does make you a bully.  You've beaten up this list for 4 days about this in 
spite of your own (false) protestations about wanting to avoid further 
"discussion."

I told you privately that leaders don't disrespect their audience.  Why do 
you fail to realize that the constant repetition of your message (or any 
message), regardless of it's truth or lack therof, is a form of disrespect 
and bullying?  How do you think RnR got himself in bad odor?  You say:
>Thanks to a few persistent messengers, sooner or later people get the 
>message.
>and the trail environment wins.

Really?  Do you really think you classify as an effective messenger?  
Frankly, I think you just descended to the level of RnR - as he was 2  years 
ago (and he's much better today, thank you).  Do you really think any more 
than 10 % of the list members are even reading this drivel?  If they are, 
they're more foolish than I'd give them credit for.  It's been too boring 
for words for at least the last 2 days.

If you can't make your point in two or three posts, then either your point 
isn't worth making or you're not making your point - or nobody's listening 
and you're wasting everybody's time.

Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $26.95.  
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)