The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- Why Off-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited



Edward Dolan wrote:

>
> No, you opened the matter by having a very strange name.


You are the only "person" in over 62 years to find my name, which is of
very ovbious and very commonplace British Isles derivaton, "strange."
While you declaim it as "strange," it strangely seems central to your
strange, possibly psychotic, maunderings which ludicrously seek to turn
the messenge in upon itself. Your violations of logic and proper
discourse are not even so challenging as Mikey's; this is possibly
because you have only vommited yourself upon these groups recently and
thereby lack the familiarity with infinite regress which only time can
provide.

>
> I was once in London in another century in Feb. and it was so foggy I could
> not see my hand in front of my face. All was light and bright by the time I
> got to Paris. Of course, I never did stay in any Hilton hotels, whether in
> foggy old London or bright and sunny Paris.


I, too, was in London in another century - this can be documented.
(Actually both London, England and London, Ontario; however, not whilst
on the same journey.) I found there no difficulty in finding my way
about either city nor today can see the minutest relevance between my
quite ordinary name and the captial city of a Continental nation. I most
certainlly was not led so bumblingly astray as to stumble unawares onto
The Continent.

You blather at interminable length of being "high" on Olympus conversing
with anthropomorphic figmentations who are uniformly represented
throughout history as bickering, ill-behaved infants who have little to
do - when not squabbling amongst themsleves - than being tiresomely
meddlesome in human affairs, often in a scurrilous and venal manner. I
can readily see the "high" in your alledged experience. There have been
as yet no documentable delineations of the anthropomorphic beings
rumored to reside there and amongst whom you voiciferously claim to
reside. By the same token there have been centuries of documentation
purporting to describe the infantile, egocentric, anthrophobic and
internecine silliness to be found there. These qualities present
themselves clearly and abundantly in your own comments relating to yourself.

In counter of all this, I can offer a gedcom-format genealogy of my
family which will firmly document my lineage descended from Alfred The
Great and his House as well as the 11th Century Frankish interlopers.
Genealogists term this "a foot in both camps" but such is of minor
consequence. Of greater moment is that these connections are documented
& verifiable whereas yours are not documentable and cannot be documented
outside psychopathic (drug induced?) episodes. You, Timothy Leary and
Lord Byron perhaps have much in common.

Save your disjointed, interneceine blither-blather. In a few hours I
will be on a vacation trip and my filters are such that your items on
these threads will expire far sooner than my anticipated return. I am
and will remain beyond your scatalogical and scurrilous sciolism. Your
mindless, meaningless maunderings may be seen - but much more likely
avoided - by others. I should not be in the lest surprised to learn
that, except for Mad Mikey, I am the final person to filter you from my
cybersphere.

Peter Hilton "of The Strange name"
 
"pmhilton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>>
>> No, you opened the matter by having a very strange name.

>
> You are the only "person" in over 62 years to find my name, which is of
> very ovbious and very commonplace British Isles derivaton, "strange."
> While you declaim it as "strange," it strangely seems central to your
> strange, possibly psychotic, maunderings which ludicrously seek to turn
> the messenge in upon itself. Your violations of logic and proper discourse
> are not even so challenging as Mikey's; this is possibly because you have
> only vommited yourself upon these groups recently and thereby lack the
> familiarity with infinite regress which only time can provide.


PMHilton is a very strange name, not to say an odd name indeed. Maybe if you
had a first and/or middle name it would not be so weird, but PM? I urge you
to get an acceptable first name like Edward. Then you can perhaps be Great
like I am.

I have been on Usenet for over 3 years now and surely that is long enough to
become well acquainted with the essential idiocy of these so-called
newsgroups. Once in a blue moon someone will post a somewhat halfway
intelligent message, but 99% of all posts are obviously being done by
idiots.

The ways of Ed Dolan the Great are mysterious indeed. If you were a genius
like me you would understand what I am about, but since you are not, you
will forever remain dumfounded and at sea. I shall try not to be too cruel
to you as I suspect you are just a good natured but simple-minded fool.

>> I was once in London in another century in Feb. and it was so foggy I
>> could not see my hand in front of my face. All was light and bright by
>> the time I got to Paris. Of course, I never did stay in any Hilton
>> hotels, whether in foggy old London or bright and sunny Paris.

>
> I, too, was in London in another century - this can be documented.
> (Actually both London, England and London, Ontario; however, not whilst on
> the same journey.) I found there no difficulty in finding my way about
> either city nor today can see the minutest relevance between my quite
> ordinary name and the captial city of a Continental nation. I most
> certainlly was not led so bumblingly astray as to stumble unawares onto
> The Continent.


London is a very foggy city, which is why I do not have the foggiest notion
who Paris Hilton is. Why won't you tell me who she is since she has your
freaking last name? I suspect you are related and that you are ashamed of
her. Well, there is no accounting for our relatives.

I do not believe you were ever in London. Otherwise you would know that it
is very, very foggy there in the winter time. Hells Bells, I could not even
see my hand in front of my face. It was like pea soup and I almost choked to
death!

> You blather at interminable length of being "high" on Olympus conversing
> with anthropomorphic figmentations who are uniformly represented
> throughout history as bickering, ill-behaved infants who have little to
> do - when not squabbling amongst themsleves - than being tiresomely
> meddlesome in human affairs, often in a scurrilous and venal manner. I can
> readily see the "high" in your alledged experience. There have been as yet
> no documentable delineations of the anthropomorphic beings rumored to
> reside there and amongst whom you voiciferously claim to reside. By the
> same token there have been centuries of documentation purporting to
> describe the infantile, egocentric, anthrophobic and internecine silliness
> to be found there. These qualities present themselves clearly and
> abundantly in your own comments relating to yourself.


I can see that Hilton doesn't believe in the Gods. He should for after all
they were created in the image of man.

> In counter of all this, I can offer a gedcom-format genealogy of my family
> which will firmly document my lineage descended from Alfred The Great and
> his House as well as the 11th Century Frankish interlopers. Genealogists
> term this "a foot in both camps" but such is of minor consequence. Of
> greater moment is that these connections are documented & verifiable
> whereas yours are not documentable and cannot be documented outside
> psychopathic (drug induced?) episodes. You, Timothy Leary and Lord Byron
> perhaps have much in common.


But you come unto these newsgroups as little old pmhilton. No, there is just
no way you can be Great. Everything about you says that you are a pip-squeak
and most likely come from a long line of pip-squeaks. Well, it is no
disgrace not to be Great like I am. After all, there is only so much room in
the world for us Great Ones.

> Save your disjointed, interneceine blither-blather. In a few hours I will
> be on a vacation trip and my filters are such that your items on these
> threads will expire far sooner than my anticipated return. I am and will
> remain beyond your scatalogical and scurrilous sciolism. Your mindless,
> meaningless maunderings may be seen - but much more likely avoided - by
> others. I should not be in the lest surprised to learn that, except for
> Mad Mikey, I am the final person to filter you from my cybersphere.


Sciolism I do not know, but the rest of your nonsense is almost on a par
with mine. But I am Greater than you are because I do not come unto these
newsgroups as emdolan. God, how revolting could I get! I am not capable of
that kind of humility. No, I am Edward Dolan and I am Ed Dolan the Great and
I am Saint Edward the Great. You are nothing next to all of that.

> Peter Hilton "of The Strange name"


So you do have a first name after all. Then why not use it instead of that
pitiful pm business?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:44:54 -0400, pmhilton <[email protected]> wrote:

>Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>>
>> No, you opened the matter by having a very strange name.

>
>You are the only "person" in over 62 years to find my name, which is of
>very ovbious and very commonplace British Isles derivaton, "strange."
>While you declaim it as "strange," it strangely seems central to your
>strange, possibly psychotic, maunderings which ludicrously seek to turn
>the messenge in upon itself. Your violations of logic and proper
>discourse are not even so challenging as Mikey's; this is possibly
>because you have only vommited yourself upon these groups recently and
>thereby lack the familiarity with infinite regress which only time can
>provide.
>
>>
>> I was once in London in another century in Feb. and it was so foggy I could
>> not see my hand in front of my face. All was light and bright by the time I
>> got to Paris. Of course, I never did stay in any Hilton hotels, whether in
>> foggy old London or bright and sunny Paris.

>
>I, too, was in London in another century - this can be documented.
>(Actually both London, England and London, Ontario; however, not whilst
>on the same journey.) I found there no difficulty in finding my way
>about either city nor today can see the minutest relevance between my
>quite ordinary name and the captial city of a Continental nation. I most
>certainlly was not led so bumblingly astray as to stumble unawares onto
>The Continent.
>
>You blather at interminable length of being "high" on Olympus conversing
>with anthropomorphic figmentations who are uniformly represented
>throughout history as bickering, ill-behaved infants who have little to
>do - when not squabbling amongst themsleves - than being tiresomely
>meddlesome in human affairs, often in a scurrilous and venal manner. I
>can readily see the "high" in your alledged experience. There have been
>as yet no documentable delineations of the anthropomorphic beings
>rumored to reside there and amongst whom you voiciferously claim to
>reside. By the same token there have been centuries of documentation
>purporting to describe the infantile, egocentric, anthrophobic and
>internecine silliness to be found there. These qualities present
>themselves clearly and abundantly in your own comments relating to yourself.
>
>In counter of all this, I can offer a gedcom-format genealogy of my
>family which will firmly document my lineage descended


"Descended" is indeed the operative word.

from Alfred The
>Great and his House as well as the 11th Century Frankish interlopers.
>Genealogists term this "a foot in both camps" but such is of minor
>consequence. Of greater moment is that these connections are documented
>& verifiable whereas yours are not documentable and cannot be documented
>outside psychopathic (drug induced?) episodes. You, Timothy Leary and
>Lord Byron perhaps have much in common.
>
>Save your disjointed, interneceine blither-blather. In a few hours I
>will be on a vacation trip and my filters are such that your items on
>these threads will expire far sooner than my anticipated return. I am
>and will remain beyond your scatalogical and scurrilous sciolism. Your
>mindless, meaningless maunderings may be seen - but much more likely
>avoided - by others. I should not be in the lest surprised to learn
>that, except for Mad Mikey, I am the final person to filter you from my
>cybersphere.
>
>Peter Hilton "of The Strange name"

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:37:00 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 07:31:39 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And where did I ever have a holier than thou attitude? I have never said
>>>>science is the pinnacle of intellectual achievement and I know, better
>>>>than
>>>>you I suspect, that the scientific method IS just a method of inquiry.
>>>>The
>>>>reason it has such popularity is because its so simple to understand and
>>>>yet
>>>>is also a powerful tool. Why not try reading Intellectual Impostures by
>>>>Sokal and Bricmont. They exposed scientific and intellectual frauds at
>>>>the
>>>>highest level.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No2: I have never expected ANYONE to be in awe of my work or degrees
>>>
>>> I beg to differ. You proudly directed me to your "peer-reviewed,
>>> published paper" as the only way to be. I don't have much use for
>>> liars and phoneys. You are obviously prejudiced against mefor not
>>> publishing the same way you do, when that is completely IRRELEVANT.
>>>

>>Actually, the first two messages and replies in this thread from "Augley"
>>show you, Vandeman, as the one person expressing bias against this
>>information without even seeing it first only because it may reflect a
>>different opinion.
>>Quotes below from 5/21-23
>>Augley: "As for calling my bluff, once the project has been marked I can
>>post substantial pieces of the report. But for now, he conducted and
>>experiment in a regional park in Scotland. The experiment consisted of
>>measuring impacts caused by both mountain bikers and walkers on
>>vegetation,
>>in two different habitat types (woodland and grassland) and on three
>>different gradients (downhill, uphill and flat). Guess what, the results
>>of
>>his ANOVA showed NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between mountain biking and
>>walking."
>>
>>
>>MV: "So, in other words, he made the same error in logic that all other
>>"researchers" did: ignoring the grossly different DISTANCES that hikers
>>vs.
>>bikers travel. Since he only measured impact PER FOOT, it follows that
>>mountain bikers have several times the impact of hikers, since they travel
>>several times as far! Idiot.

>
> Thanks for reposting that. It's obvious that I was 100% CORRECT. That
> is junk science.

You mean by calling him an "idiot" before even seeing the report...? Or you
attempting to force your definitions and variable application into their
research...?
You continue to erroneously apply "distance" but exclude "time"...
>
>>I believe calling someone an "idiot" straight away pretty much nails it.
>>Augley merely relays information and you call him an "idiot" simply
>>because
>>your OPINION was challenged! Beyond that, you are famous for calling "junk
>>science" if someome does not "publish" or conduct "research" as you would
>>yet you have no issue calling him on it. The "Vandeman Double Standard" is
>>alive and well!
>>

The "Vandeman Double Standard" even more evident by having no response here.
 
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:16:48 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:37:00 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 07:31:39 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And where did I ever have a holier than thou attitude? I have never said
>>>>>science is the pinnacle of intellectual achievement and I know, better
>>>>>than
>>>>>you I suspect, that the scientific method IS just a method of inquiry.
>>>>>The
>>>>>reason it has such popularity is because its so simple to understand and
>>>>>yet
>>>>>is also a powerful tool. Why not try reading Intellectual Impostures by
>>>>>Sokal and Bricmont. They exposed scientific and intellectual frauds at
>>>>>the
>>>>>highest level.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No2: I have never expected ANYONE to be in awe of my work or degrees
>>>>
>>>> I beg to differ. You proudly directed me to your "peer-reviewed,
>>>> published paper" as the only way to be. I don't have much use for
>>>> liars and phoneys. You are obviously prejudiced against mefor not
>>>> publishing the same way you do, when that is completely IRRELEVANT.
>>>>
>>>Actually, the first two messages and replies in this thread from "Augley"
>>>show you, Vandeman, as the one person expressing bias against this
>>>information without even seeing it first only because it may reflect a
>>>different opinion.
>>>Quotes below from 5/21-23
>>>Augley: "As for calling my bluff, once the project has been marked I can
>>>post substantial pieces of the report. But for now, he conducted and
>>>experiment in a regional park in Scotland. The experiment consisted of
>>>measuring impacts caused by both mountain bikers and walkers on
>>>vegetation,
>>>in two different habitat types (woodland and grassland) and on three
>>>different gradients (downhill, uphill and flat). Guess what, the results
>>>of
>>>his ANOVA showed NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between mountain biking and
>>>walking."
>>>
>>>
>>>MV: "So, in other words, he made the same error in logic that all other
>>>"researchers" did: ignoring the grossly different DISTANCES that hikers
>>>vs.
>>>bikers travel. Since he only measured impact PER FOOT, it follows that
>>>mountain bikers have several times the impact of hikers, since they travel
>>>several times as far! Idiot.

>>
>> Thanks for reposting that. It's obvious that I was 100% CORRECT. That
>> is junk science.

>You mean by calling him an "idiot" before even seeing the report...?


It's the first thing you learn in science: control for all variables.
He ignored distance travelled, one of the MAJOR VARIABLES. Ergo, this
"research" is nothing but junk science.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:16:48 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:37:00 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 07:31:39 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And where did I ever have a holier than thou attitude? I have never
>>>>>>said
>>>>>>science is the pinnacle of intellectual achievement and I know, better
>>>>>>than
>>>>>>you I suspect, that the scientific method IS just a method of inquiry.
>>>>>>The
>>>>>>reason it has such popularity is because its so simple to understand
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>yet
>>>>>>is also a powerful tool. Why not try reading Intellectual Impostures
>>>>>>by
>>>>>>Sokal and Bricmont. They exposed scientific and intellectual frauds at
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>highest level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No2: I have never expected ANYONE to be in awe of my work or degrees
>>>>>
>>>>> I beg to differ. You proudly directed me to your "peer-reviewed,
>>>>> published paper" as the only way to be. I don't have much use for
>>>>> liars and phoneys. You are obviously prejudiced against mefor not
>>>>> publishing the same way you do, when that is completely IRRELEVANT.
>>>>>
>>>>Actually, the first two messages and replies in this thread from
>>>>"Augley"
>>>>show you, Vandeman, as the one person expressing bias against this
>>>>information without even seeing it first only because it may reflect a
>>>>different opinion.
>>>>Quotes below from 5/21-23
>>>>Augley: "As for calling my bluff, once the project has been marked I can
>>>>post substantial pieces of the report. But for now, he conducted and
>>>>experiment in a regional park in Scotland. The experiment consisted of
>>>>measuring impacts caused by both mountain bikers and walkers on
>>>>vegetation,
>>>>in two different habitat types (woodland and grassland) and on three
>>>>different gradients (downhill, uphill and flat). Guess what, the results
>>>>of
>>>>his ANOVA showed NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between mountain biking and
>>>>walking."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>MV: "So, in other words, he made the same error in logic that all other
>>>>"researchers" did: ignoring the grossly different DISTANCES that hikers
>>>>vs.
>>>>bikers travel. Since he only measured impact PER FOOT, it follows that
>>>>mountain bikers have several times the impact of hikers, since they
>>>>travel
>>>>several times as far! Idiot.
>>>
>>> Thanks for reposting that. It's obvious that I was 100% CORRECT. That
>>> is junk science.

>>You mean by calling him an "idiot" before even seeing the report...?

>
> It's the first thing you learn in science: control for all variables.
> He ignored distance travelled, one of the MAJOR VARIABLES. Ergo, this
> "research" is nothing but junk science.

Control for all variables is not the same as controlling which variables are
determined to be relevant. You include "distance" and apply your own
definition as to the application and depth of validity it has. You also
ignore "time". Which, by your own logic, is a factor if human presence
itself is detrimental. You ignore the amount of "time" hikers spend and
focus only on your own weighted variable of "distance".
> ===
>
 
I'm not sure why my Vandeman filter is not working, But to see Vandeman
and Dolan going head to head is a thing of beauty. I guess I'll set up
a Dolan filter too. The storm clouds that were coming have disappears,
so I'm riding.

Edward Dolan wrote:

>"Jules Augley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>>I have. Start with http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7, which refutes
>>>the research you are doing before you have even done it, since you are
>>>falling into the same fallacy as all the other "researchers".
>>>
>>>

>>I have seen your website. I want to know what peer-reviewed work you have
>>had published. Presentations at U.C. Berkeley dont count. All I can see
>>on your website is a very short list of mostly books, although some
>>primary literature with specific relevance to mountain bikes, none of
>>which is yours by the way, that you say support your bizarre 'peeve'. I
>>see no mention of any actual research you have done, no data, nothing. You
>>claim to be an expert, well I want to see some objective evidence. You
>>could make sections of your phd and masters theses available for scrutiny?
>>How about that?. I should also point out, again, it was a student of mine
>>that did the research, and no this isnt me disowning it, its a good piece
>>of work (albeit with a lack of maturity in the writing that only years of
>>practice can remedy) and I would certainly view his work as more
>>scientifically objective and valid than any of the polemic you spew all
>>over your webspace. I do admire your tenacity (or ability to stick your
>>fingers in your ears and shout 'lalalala'), however, you could definitely
>>do with a change of focus and try to do something that would actually make
>>a difference to the world.
>>
>>

>
>Jules, I am the real expert on this matter of hiking vs. biking on trails.
>To my credit, I have not polluted my mind with any research. Yea, I am as
>pure as the driven snow.
>
>My credentials are that I hiked for 10 years almost every day for 8 months
>of the year all over the US. I did this when I was in my 30's during the
>late 60's and early 70's. During that time I never encountered a single bike
>on any of my sacred trails. I mean, it does not get any better than that!
>
>In more recent years I have encountered some bikes on my sacred trails. They
>do not belong on my scared trails. Who gives a good g.d. if they cause any
>trail destruction or not. I do not want them on my scared trails. Let them
>get their own g.d. trails.
>
>Like all scholars, you are blind to the real issues. You do not need any
>higher degrees to know what is appropriate and what is not. All you need is
>some common sense. I suggest you get out of your freaking ivory tower and go
>do some hiking in the wilderness and then tell us if you would like bikers
>along side of you.
>
>I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like bikes on my
>sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your freaking
>research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not like bikers
>polluting my scared trails. That is what you have to wrap your mind around.
>Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>
>
 
"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

[newsgroups trimmed]

> I'm not sure why my Vandeman filter is not working, But to see Vandeman
> and Dolan going head to head is a thing of beauty. I guess I'll set up a
> Dolan filter too. The storm clouds that were coming have disappears, so
> I'm riding.

[...]

I am mostly WITH Vandeman, which is no doubt very bad news for you indeed.
But hey, go ahead and filter away to your heart's content. You will never be
missed on any of these newsgroups. In fact, the newsgroups themselves would
never be missed if they did not exist.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
In fact, the newsgroups themselves would
> never be missed if they did not exist.



Then why in the name of Beelzebub do you show up here? Surely your
munificence not to say sheer foolishness is better spent elswhere. Like
down a black hole.
 
"pmhilton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> In fact, the newsgroups themselves would
>> never be missed if they did not exist.

>
>
> Then why in the name of Beelzebub do you show up here? Surely your
> munificence not to say sheer foolishness is better spent elswhere. Like
> down a black hole.


It all has to do with my karma. The thought of others out there in
cyberspace spewing forth their idiocies is too much for me to bear. My
idiocies are just so much better than their idiocies, so why should they
have pride of place. Nay, that is reserved for me, Ed Dolan the Great.
Unless and until someone can prove himself a more worthy Fool than Ed Dolan
the Great, then I shall continue to rule the roost. It is my karma.

I suspect the environmental groups are Mike Vandeman's doings. I am here for
the cyclists as I do not believe there are any more stupid folks on this
earth than cyclists, especially mountain bikers. They need me so they can
see how they measure up. Otherwise, it is just the blind leading the blind.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
Edward Dolan wrote:

> "My idiocies are just so much better than their idiocies. . . "



'Nuf said.
 

Similar threads