Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 04:09:58 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message ...
[...]

"These are single track trails which have been reserved for such from
time immemorial." [Ed Dolan] utter bull****.

You either have a very warped sense of time or you don't know what you
are talking about (one suspects the latter). Work was started on the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail in 1923. Time immemorial seems like
a pretty short time.

My bull**** is true bull****. Your bull**** is false bull****. Most trails in the West go back to before pioneer days and were used by animals and human walkers ... and certainly not by cyclists.

You refer to your Mr. Vandeman, the convicted criminal, who's writing
are on a parallel with your own. Much rhetoric and no facts at all, no
references, nothing. Except a loud noise, that is.

Very hard to refute a good argument and common sense of course at which Mr. Vandeman and I excel. All your blather about providing evidence is ever the last refuge of a scoundrel. As if there is a good argument and any common sense for the mountain biker position.

But where's the proof, the research, the testimonials, anything.

Yes, I woud like to hear that too for the mountain biker position. So far all I have heard is that we want to do what we want to do regardless of how it impacts anyone else.

As I [previously your arguments smack of the 4th grade school yard -
"I want it, I want it! Its mine", followed by proof of ownership, "I
want it, I want it! Its mine".

You are describing your argument perfectly – but with absolutely no justification. The burden of proof is on you. After all, mountain biking is new to trails, not equestrians and hikers which go back to time immemorial.

But keep it up, there is an old saying; "Bull**** baffles brains" and
perhaps you can prove the thesis.

There is a certain amount of bull**** to what anyone says about anything. Those of us with brains can always separate the seed from the chaff. Only the brainless like you are baffled.


You are correct but when it is Dolan doing it, it is it is the pure
unadulterated product. Good for spreading on the garden but for little
else.

Certainly one wouldn't want to treat it as anything but what it is.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

So you say, but to date I've seen nothing but your assertion that it
is true and having reviewed the veracity and breadth of judgment you
have displayed it seems the most logical path is a blanket disbelief
of your statements.

I know, I know, the law of average would indicate that at least some
of your statements may be correct a blanket condemnation of your
pronouncements would seem to be the most logical solution as it will
produce the largest number of correct acts.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 04:33:19 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...

John B. considered Mon, 09 Dec 2013 18:14:40
+0700 the perfect time to write:
[...]

"These are single track trails which have been reserved for such from
time immemorial." utter bull****.

Particularly since there is no such time in American history, which
moved directly from pre-history to known history, with no historical
time being "immemorial".
At the time our rebellious colony was abandoned to it's own fate, the
legal definition of "time immemorial was pre-1189 (the first statute
of Westminster) while in heraldry it is regarded as pre-1066 - so both
prior to the discover, much less settlement, of the aforementioned
colonies.
It was not redefined until 1832, by which time it's relevance to the
colonies did not include any of those of which the driveling idiot has
any knowledge or experience.

Have you ever hiked a trail in the American West? They follow the streams and creeks and head for the passes. They have been used by whatever animals were residing in the area ... including the human animal. Cyclists, so far as I know, are comparatively latecomers. Only the past generation or so. Definitely NOT from time immemorial.

Instead of wanting to discuss an English definition of “time immemorial” why not tell us about how Great Britain went from an empire to a small kingdom by the sea. We Americans pay no attention to such a small and insignificant nation as Britain (no longer Great), most especially when it comes to how to use the English language. The English are like all island people residing off a continent, weird and peculiar.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


Well Dolittle Dolan you seem to throwing up a very large smokescreen
to avoid answering the question regarding your understanding of "time
immemorial". It even had, and perhaps has, a legal meaning. All,
apparently, a mystery to you and rather than admit that you don't know
what you are talking about you start blathering on about England.

So, I can only conclude that you are finally admitting, even though by
act rather than word, that you are the type of individual that does
not know what he is talking about and does not consider it a reason
not to post.

--
Cheers,

John B.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

Your only justifiable complaint is that I pontificate better than you!

No, whilst I certainly admit a degree of pontification I don’t expect you to believe it just because I say something. My complaint is that you don’t backup your pontifications with any facts.

I do not have to provide anything to anybody other than a well reasoned argument. It is up to you to provide the contrary. After all who is the interloper here? Certainly not equestrians and hikers who have been using the trails from the beginning.
[...]

It is why facts by themselves don’t solve anything. Sooner or later you have got to put your brain into gear and judge the facts. Try it sometime. You might like it!

No, facts don’t solve anything but they are the place to start, rather than baseless assertions. Then you put your brain in gear and judge them. You’re starting at the conclusion you want and then working backwards. However, as with your assertion about the number of collisions occurring, the facts demolished your conclusion.

Your desire for some data strikes me as very funny. What you want is not even a place to start let alone finish. Such worship of data is for simpletons.

A near collision is as bad as an actual collision. I have presented solid argument is to why this is likely to occur. The only one here not facing reality is yourself.
[...]

I am not as concerned with environmental damage as Mr. Vandeman. I am more in the Monica Craver camp who deplores the sacrilegious antics of mountain bikers on trails. With me it has to do with purpose. That is the number one major conflict between hikers and bikers on trails together, not environmental damage. That in fact for your information is the “big picture”.

It is the ‘big picture’ in your mind and, probably, in a few other individuals. It’s not the big picture for the majority.

You simply don’t know what you are blathering about. That is because you have a small mind suitable for only small thoughts.You do not have a clue about the big picture.

Let’s get real; low use trails can easily be shared without conflict. High use trails can be shared if they are large enough but, if narrow or steep, there is probably a risk of conflict which needs to be managed. I’m not messianic about sharing every trail.

However, your blanket assertions simply don’t fit. As John B said, there are lots of different types of trails and they are markedly different in their attributes; which means that they can support different types and volumes of traffic. Stop thinking in quasi-religious absolutes and start thinking about reasonable accommodation.

The kind of trails that you can cycle on are not the kind of trails that I am interested in. The kinds of trails that hikers love are not the kind of trails where you ever want to see a cyclist. It doesn’t reduce to different types and volumes of traffic. It is about what a trail is for. If it is for fun and games, then it is for cyclists. If it is for a serious encounter with nature, then it is for hikers. There is just no getting around the fact that cyclists need their own trails entirely separated from hiking trails. It is more an esthetic value than a religious value. Purpose is everything!

Picking a fight is not a constructive way to get what you want. You cited Monica Craver; she’s recently written that she’s giving up the fight. I don’t entirely believe it but let’s take her at her word. She has fought NSMBA for aeons with no success because the majority don’t agree with her. In taking an unreasonable stance she has probably weakened her position significantly; if she had been constructive and positive then it would probably have been possible to reach an accommodation. Give something to get something. Or fight for everything and, if you lose, you lose it all.

Ms. Craver is not being in the least unreasonable. Why the hell should we have to give up anything? We already had all the right in the world to what we had. Mountain bikers are ruining the trails for everyone, even themselves if truth be told. You are as blind as a bat not to be able to see that.

I have simply recognized that horses were there first and have grandfathered them in.

That makes no sense if you think about it. The horses have no desire to walk the trails, it’s the people riding them who wish to do so. It is all about people and their access to the natural world for their activities.

It is about HOW a trail is accessed by humans that matters. Too bad you are not conversing with a fellow idiot mountain biker. He would probably be dumb enough to fall for such a stupid argument as you present here.

I would prefer that trails be for hikers only, but horses are rare on trails whereas mountain bikers are ubiquitous and ruin it for everyone else.

In some locations, there are lots of bikes, in others they are rare … again with the absolutes !

Whether rare or lots, I do not want to see bikers on any trail I am walking! We hikers are funny that way.

If all you are so concerned about is damage to the trails, then why not permit motorcycles on trails – or does not PURPOSE have something to do with it after all?

Why are we going around in circles ? You asked this previously and I answered it. I’m not wasting my and everyone else’s time doing it again. My answer is exactly what it was last time.

You have NOT answered it at all. I want to know why motorcyclists should not be permitted on trails since their purpose for being on a trail is exactly the same as yours on a bike (fun and games). I don’t give a damn about anything else All I care about is PURPOSE ... and how it conflicts with the purpose of equestrians and hikers. We will continue going around in eternal circles until you permit motorcycles on the same trails that permit bikes. Then at least there will be some consistency to your argument. I respect consistency even if it is an idiocy.
[...]

My hiking days are pretty much over. It is about all I can do now to just walk around Wal-Mart.

If that’s really true then why the hell do you care ? Why pick a fight and waste your time ?

I want others to enjoy what I had for most of my life. It is part of My Greatness and Sainthood.

But it doesn't take any smarts to see lots of potential conflicts since hikers are using trails for one purpose and cyclists are using trails for another purpose.

As John B said, it depends on the trail. Low traffic trails far from cities and towns are very different from local semi-urban recreational areas.

It does NOT depend on the trail if PURPOSE is what matters. Get on my wave length or get lost! You can ride your bike in an abandoned city dump. That is more than good enough for your purpose (fun and games).

The most serious conflicts in life are always about purpose. Mr. Vandeman is the expert on environmental damage to trails and wildlife. I am the expert on WHY anyone should be on a trail in the first place.

No, the most serious conflicts are when those purposes conflict. Your purpose, of going for a hike, is not impacted in most instances by others choosing to use the same trail to ride a bike. That, mentally, you don’t like it is not purpose, it’s an emotional response which you need to control.

I am telling you that my purpose (enjoyment of nature) and your purpose (fun and games) is a direct conflict. It impacts my enjoyment, which is the only reason I am hiking a trail in the first place. Get your own god damn ****ing trails. I assure you that I will never impact your enjoyment that way.

As a younger man, I found it uncomfortable to see two men kissing … and, at first, I thought that they should not do so in public. It was only after a while that I realised that the problem was …. ME. They were perfectly entitled to show their affection for each other, to the same degree as heterosexuals, and the issue was my reaction to it.

Sir, you are truly an idiot! I do not like to see heteros doing anything in public either. After all there may be children and horses about and they will be frightened. By the way, I can’t think of a better way to spread germs than kissing, whether in public or in private. Sex is for the sole purpose of procreation. If you want to make a baby, then do the necessary fornication in private, but leave the public out of it. You need to think STANDARDS and PURPOSES ... and try to get some why don’t you?

I think you really need to understand that others reasons for being there are their reasons; and they are not axiomatically inferior nor superior to yours. Hiking and biking are both recreations; one is not therefore more laudable than the other.

There is a hierarchy to all things under the sun. When there is conflict, something has to go. Mountain bikers need to go to Hell and they can take their god damn bikes with them. Saint Edward the Great has instructed Mephistopheles to give them a rough time there, the same way they have given hikers a rough time here on hiking trails.

Trails are for walking. What's the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 06:07:40 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

Reduction in bandwidth

There is a hierarchy to all things under the sun. When there is conflict, something has to go. Mountain bikers need to go to Hell and they can take their god damn bikes with them. Saint Edward the Great has instructed Mephistopheles to give them a rough time there, the same way they have given hikers a rough time here on hiking trails.

Trails are for walking. What's the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

And there we have the crux of the matter, Delusions of Grandeur.

Dolan belives that because he is Dolan his arguments are correct and
of course weighty enough that they should be followed by the citizenry
of the world.

The rest of us believe that he is some sort of whacko who is either
mentally deranged or smoking some "good ****" as the jargon would have
it.

--
Cheers,

John B.

I do not have to provide anything to anybody other than a well
reasoned argument. It is up to you to provide the contrary.

But, if your argument rests on statements that the data subsequently proves to be wrong then all your conclusions are refuted.

You stated that there were lots of collisions. I refuted that by reference to data. I have, therefore, proved the contrary quite satisfactorily.

Your desire for some data strikes me as very funny. What you
want is not even a place to start let alone finish. Such worship of data is for
simpletons.

Science and logic works this way. Come up with hypothesis, test hypothesis.. If data found to support hypothesis then, for the moment, accept hypothesis as accurate.

Your version appears to be; come up with hypothesis, never test hypothesis, find people who would like your hypothesis to be right, conclude that your hypothesis is right, fight tooth and nail and denigrate any data that does not support your hypothesis.

I don't worship data, the hypothesis comes first usually in the scientific method, but if the data totally demolishes your position, as it has in your case, then you had better then change your hypothesis.

A near collision is as bad as an actual collision. I have
presented solid argument is to why this is likely to occur. The only one here
not facing reality is yourself.

What you have actually done is try and row away from a statement you made which I disproved. You stated that there were lots of collisions. When I pointed out that there was no data to support that then, suddenly, near collisions became the concern.

It is the ‘big picture’ in your mind and, probably, in a few other
individuals.* It’s not the big picture for the majority.

You simply don’t know what you are blathering about. That is
because you have a small mind suitable for only small thoughts.You do not have a
clue about the big picture.

Well, if by "the big picture" you mean what's in your head then, no, I don't know and don't wish to know too much thank you.

What I mean is the overall picture derived from all of the trail users (hikers, bikers, equestrians, etc etc).

Your mind seems unable to grasp that your perception of the world does not necessarily tally with others; who's failing to see a bigger picture here ?

The kind of trails that you can cycle on are not the kind of
trails that I am interested in. The kinds of trails that hikers love are not the
kind of trails where you ever want to see a cyclist. It doesn’t reduce to
different types and volumes of traffic. It is about what a trail is for. If it
is for fun and games, then it is for cyclists. If it is for a serious encounter
with nature, then it is for hikers. There is just no getting around the fact
that cyclists need their own trails entirely separated from hiking trails.. It is
more an esthetic value than a religious value. Purpose is
everything!

This would make sense if all cyclists were the same. However, just as some walk to appreciate nature and others to get fit and compete so it is with cyclists. If purpose is everything then, presumably, you would be happy to welcome cyclists who were there to appreciate nature rather than ride fast and technical trails ?

Ms. Craver is not being in the least unreasonable. Why the
hell should we have to give up anything? We already had all the right in the
world to what we had. Mountain bikers are ruining the trails for everyone, even
themselves if truth be told. You are as blind as a bat not to be able to see
that.

You don't have to give up anything because you never owned it in the first place. You really don't get that do you ?

Whether rare or lots, I do not want to see bikers on any trail
I am walking! We hikers are funny that way.

Tough. The world is not organised solely for your benefit. Learn to play nicely with others.

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:39:14 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sat, 14 Dec 2013 18:10:00
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 04:33:19 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...

John B. considered Mon, 09 Dec 2013 18:14:40
+0700 the perfect time to write:
[...]

"These are single track trails which have been reserved for such from
time immemorial." utter bull****.

Particularly since there is no such time in American history, which
moved directly from pre-history to known history, with no historical
time being "immemorial".
At the time our rebellious colony was abandoned to it's own fate, the
legal definition of "time immemorial was pre-1189 (the first statute
of Westminster) while in heraldry it is regarded as pre-1066 - so both
prior to the discover, much less settlement, of the aforementioned
colonies.
It was not redefined until 1832, by which time it's relevance to the
colonies did not include any of those of which the driveling idiot has
any knowledge or experience.

Have you ever hiked a trail in the American West? They follow the streams and creeks and head for the passes. They have been used by whatever animals were residing in the area ... including the human animal. Cyclists, so far as I know, are comparatively latecomers. Only the past generation or so. Definitely NOT from time
immemorial.

Instead of wanting to discuss an English definition of “time immemorial” why not tell us about how Great Britain went from an empire to a small kingdom by the sea.

The sun still does not set on the Union Flag.
Heck, you even include it on the flag of one of your states!
And at least most of us here in Great Britain are actually aware of
there being a world beyond our borders, unlike a very large proportion
of USians.

I'm not too sure how accurate that last little bit is. I've seen
some "Brits" who were a bit astonished at discovering that beer isn't
served at urine temperatures everywhere :-)


We Americans pay no attention to such a small and insignificant nation as Britain (no longer Great), most especially when it comes to how to use the English language.

Then start calling your (per)version of it American (or, better still
USian, as Canada does at least attempt to stick to proper spelling,
and is just as much America as the US).

Given the English language, as spoken in England, I don't believe that
the language, as spoken in the U.S., is a great perversion. And when
we get to something like the "English" spoken in parts of Scotland (a
part of Great Britain since 1707)...


The English are like all island people residing off a continent, weird and peculiar.

Don't forget the Scots, Welsh, and Ulstermen - they are also part of
the UK.
And our Monarch is also head of state of many other countries,
including an entire continent.

Well, the Scots, Welsh and Irishmen are not English :-) But Dolan's
description does fit the state of California perfectly (sometimes
referred to as the land of the fruits and nuts).


I'm surprised he can type through his verbal diarrhea.

It is called "muck racking"
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:47:17 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sun, 15 Dec 2013 11:36:53
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 06:07:40 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

Reduction in bandwidth

There is a hierarchy to all things under the sun. When there is conflict, something has to go. Mountain bikers need to go to Hell and they can take their god damn bikes with them. Saint Edward the Great has instructed Mephistopheles to give them a rough time there, the same way they have given hikers a rough time here on hiking
trails.

Trails are for walking. What's the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

And there we have the crux of the matter, Delusions of Grandeur.

I think delusions of adequacy is a more accurate description.

My guess would be that due to an ingrained sense of inadequacy he has
developed an imaginary cloak of grandeur as a compensation.


Dolan belives that because he is Dolan his arguments are correct and
of course weighty enough that they should be followed by the citizenry
of the world.

I've yet to see any evidence that he's ever hiked or cycled anywhere.
Maybe he's an inmate of an institution for the insane?

The rest of us believe that he is some sort of whacko who is either
mentally deranged or smoking some "good ****" as the jargon would have
it.

I don't believe anything that leaves him in the mentally enfeebled
state he currently enjoys(?) can be even remotely described as "good
****".
I suspect the more recent jargon of "wicked" or "real bad" is actually
more accurate in this case.
--
Cheers,

John B.

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 04:33:19 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...

John B. considered Mon, 09 Dec 2013 18:14:40
+0700 the perfect time to write:
[...]

"These are single track trails which have been reserved for such from
time immemorial." utter bull****.

Particularly since there is no such time in American history, which
moved directly from pre-history to known history, with no historical
time being "immemorial".
At the time our rebellious colony was abandoned to it's own fate, the
legal definition of "time immemorial was pre-1189 (the first statute
of Westminster) while in heraldry it is regarded as pre-1066 - so both
prior to the discover, much less settlement, of the aforementioned
colonies.
It was not redefined until 1832, by which time it's relevance to the
colonies did not include any of those of which the driveling idiot has
any knowledge or experience.

Have you ever hiked a trail in the American West? They follow the streams and creeks and head for the passes. They have been used by whatever animals were residing in the area ... including the human animal. Cyclists, so far as I know, are comparatively latecomers. Only the past generation or so. Definitely NOT from time immemorial.

Instead of wanting to discuss an English definition of “time immemorial� why not tell us about how Great Britain went from an empire to a small kingdom by the sea. We Americans pay no attention to such a small and insignificant nation as Britain (no longer Great), most especially when it comes to how to use the English language. The English are like all island people residing off a continent, weird and peculiar.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

Well Dolittle Dolan you seem to throwing up a very large smokescreen
to avoid answering the question regarding your understanding of "time
immemorial". It even had, and perhaps has, a legal meaning. All,
apparently, a mystery to you and rather than admit that you don't know
what you are talking about you start blathering on about England.

Hells Bells, if I were an idiot like you I would not know what is meant by common words or expressions either.

So, I can only conclude that you are finally admitting, even though by
act rather than word, that you are the type of individual that does
not know what he is talking about and does not consider it a reason
not to post.

The main conclusion you should come to is that you are too stupid to be posting to this noble newsgroup.

Post content or get lost. What an Asshole!

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

Instead of wanting to discuss an English definition of “time immemorial� why not tell us about how Great Britain went from an empire to a small kingdom by the sea.

The sun still does not set on the Union Flag.
Heck, you even include it on the flag of one of your states!
And at least most of us here in Great Britain are actually aware of
there being a world beyond our borders, unlike a very large proportion
of USians.

The Brits had better pay attention to the rest of the world since they are so dependent on it for their very survival.

We Americans pay no attention to such a small and insignificant nation as Britain (no longer Great), most especially when it comes to how to use the English language.

Then start calling your (per)version of it American (or, better still
USian, as Canada does at least attempt to stick to proper spelling,
and is just as much America as the US).

Nope, our language is the correct English that is universally understood around the world. Hells Bells, it is impossible to even understand what Brits are saying half the time their dialects are so atrocious.

The English are like all island people residing off a continent, weird and peculiar.

Don't forget the Scots, Welsh, and Ulstermen - they are also part of
the UK.
And our Monarch is also head of state of many other countries,
including an entire continent.

I was thinking of the Japanese who are another really weird people. Like Britain it is an island nation off a continent.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Too thick to remember?
I've already told you I can't walk anymore.
But then that was in plain English - maybe I should translate that
into USian for you? Or you could use a dictionary.

Everything I write in these posts to RBS is to a universe of readers, never to just anyone in particular – unless I am calling you out personally for being incredibly blockheaded.

I used to walk extensively, over all of the various types of public
right-of-way, and not just in this country.
I come from a family of long distance hikers - my grandfather hiked
(self-supported 3 week hikes carrying all his gear and leading groups
of far younger hikers) into his 80s. We bought him a new hiking tent
for his 80th birthday, as he'd outlived his old one.
He celebrated his 86th birthday on the Pennine way, which he'd walked
every year from it's opening.
He was a founder and life member of the Ramblers Association.

And also a keen cyclist - he never owned a car, or even learned to
drive one.
And neither of us has ever had any problem with cyclists on any
right-of-way which is legal for them to use, and even tolerant of them
on those few which they should not be using, as long as they do so
with courtesy and common sense.

Your grandfather and I were kindred spirits – and I know he would object to how cyclists are treating natural areas.
[...]

I'm surprised he can type through his verbal diarrhea.

The only one here with a diarrhea is yourself. You should attempt to emulate your grandfather. He never rode a bicycle on a walking path I am willing to wager.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 04:09:58 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message ...
[...]

"These are single track trails which have been reserved for such from
time immemorial." [Ed Dolan] utter bull****.

You either have a very warped sense of time or you don't know what you
are talking about (one suspects the latter). Work was started on the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail in 1923. Time immemorial seems like
a pretty short time.

My bull**** is true bull****. Your bull**** is false bull****. Most trails in the West go back to before pioneer days and were used by animals and human walkers ... and certainly not by cyclists.

You refer to your Mr. Vandeman, the convicted criminal, who's writing
are on a parallel with your own. Much rhetoric and no facts at all, no
references, nothing. Except a loud noise, that is.

Very hard to refute a good argument and common sense of course at which Mr. Vandeman and I excel. All your blather about providing evidence is ever the last refuge of a scoundrel. As if there is a good argument and any common sense for the mountain biker position.

But where's the proof, the research, the testimonials, anything.

Yes, I woud like to hear that too for the mountain biker position. So far all I have heard is that we want to do what we want to do regardless of how it impacts anyone else.

As I [previously your arguments smack of the 4th grade school yard -
"I want it, I want it! Its mine", followed by proof of ownership, "I
want it, I want it! Its mine".

You are describing your argument perfectly – but with absolutely no justification. The burden of proof is on you. After all, mountain biking is new to trails, not equestrians and hikers which go back to time immemorial.

But keep it up, there is an old saying; "Bull**** baffles brains" and
perhaps you can prove the thesis.

There is a certain amount of bull**** to what anyone says about anything. Those of us with brains can always separate the seed from the chaff. Only the brainless like you are baffled.


You are correct but when it is Dolan doing it, it is it is the pure
unadulterated product. Good for spreading on the garden but for little
else.

Certainly one wouldn't want to treat it as anything but what it is.

See short paragraph directly below.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

So you say, but to date I've seen nothing but your assertion that it
is true and having reviewed the veracity and breadth of judgment you
have displayed it seems the most logical path is a blanket disbelief
of your statements.

Never rely on logic alone to give you any understanding of an issue.

I know, I know, the law of average would indicate that at least some
of your statements may be correct a blanket condemnation of your
pronouncements would seem to be the most logical solution as it will
produce the largest number of correct acts.

Yes, it is hard to get on point when all you have to offer is a lot of senseless blather. Do you even read what you write I wonder?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great