Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 00:49:49 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:10:38 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

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

Hey Edie-boy, I was over to the alt.rec.hiking site and you were
conspicuous by your absence. Apparently you prefer to be here
bad-mouthing the cyclists rather than there holding a reasonable
conversation with a fellow hiker. One has to wonder why an intrepid
hiker is absent from a site dedicated to your pastime.

The main thing one has to wonder is why the hell you are here?

Two things come to mind. Firstly that you aren't really a hiker but
just a troll and it isn't the trails that are meaningful to you but
rather the argument as if someone reply's to you, even to curse you,
it is still more recognizance that you get anywhere else.
or Very possible, you are outed over there with the hikers. They have
sussed you out as a phony and won't talk to you.

Why would I want to be on a hiking site? I have no argument with them. And I also have no argument with cyclists ... as long as they restrict their cycling to roads and streets. I oppose cycling on hiking trails for all the reasons I have hitherto given in this thread. Learn to post content if you want to be relevant.

But in any event you are a filthy mouthed fool.

And you are a foul-minded Asshole. So what else is new?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

"I oppose cycling on hiking trails for all the reasons I have hitherto
given in this thread"?

Oh I see, you meant your mentioning:

"hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful, cowardly,
deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable, belligerent,
opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal, fascistic, bigoted,
racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic, brain-damaged,
imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame,
self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent,
libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless,
illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking,
devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic,
fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased,
suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim,
crazy, weird, dystopic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim,
unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive,"

Yes Sir! I get your meaning.

One really must applaud such great logic.

Post content or get lost. What an Asshole!

(by the way, you misspelled a number of your friendly terms)

All my invective genre of posts were pre-manufactured by trolls. You surely don’t think I would waste any time or effort writing an original insult to the likes of you ... do you?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

It is very unlikely that you would. After all, you have yet to write a
logical argument for your position that all bicycles should be barred
from the publicly owned hiking paths. Why would one think that you are
capable of a decent insult.

Inarticulate Edward.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 00:54:50 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:14:58 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

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

Why should I post content? You are here for the reorganization - "Look
Ma, LOOK! He spoke to me, he called be a stupid fool, But he was
talking to ME". "Oh Ma, I am so thrilled!"

You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful, cowardly,
deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable, belligerent,
opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal, fascistic, bigoted,
racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic, brain-damaged, imbecilic,
insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame, self-righteous, byzantine,
conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, libelous, bilious, splenetic,
spastic, ignorant, clueless, illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb,
evasive, double-talking, devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative,
paternalistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic,
diseased, suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive,
dim, crazy, weird, dystopic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim,
unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive,
mind-numbing, abrasive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive, abusive,
socially-retarded, and puerile.

By God! I do respect an individual that sets forth a logical, well
defined and coherent argument.

You have to post content if you want a logical, well defined and coherent argument. As it is, we are both just braying jackasses!

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

Well, as you say. But when can we expect to see a defined and coherent
argument from your side of the room? To date we've seen name calling,
filthy language, and a pre-teen attitude that when one doesn't get
one's way one lays down, kicks one's heels and screams.

Eddie the immature.
--
Cheers,

John B.

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 00:49:49 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
[...]

All my invective genre of posts were pre-manufactured by trolls. You surely don’t think I would waste any time or effort writing an original insult to the likes of you ... do you?

It is very unlikely that you would. After all, you have yet to write a
logical argument for your position that all bicycles should be barred
from the publicly owned hiking paths. Why would one think that you are
capable of a decent insult.

Review this thread from the beginning and you will find all the answers there ... somewhere. As for me, I never review anything. If I can‘t remember, it was worth forgetting.

Inarticulate Edward.

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

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 00:54:50 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
[...]

You have to post content if you want a logical, well defined and coherent argument. As it is, we are both just braying jackasses!

Well, as you say. But when can we expect to see a defined and coherent
argument from your side of the room? To date we've seen name calling,
filthy language, and a pre-teen attitude that when one doesn't get
one's way one lays down, kicks one's heels and screams.

Everything you want to know is already in this thread ... somewhere. The invective only began when you resorted to sexual innuendos and other stratagems having nothing to do with content. Why not take a clue from your buddy Blackblade? He at least forces me to think, something you never do.

The one thing you should know is that no matter how low you get, I will make it my business to get lower. The days when mountain bikers could bully others on Usenet by being dirty rotten scoundrels (even though that is their true nature) are long gone. I will be dirtier, more rotten and a bigger scoundrel than YOU (even though it is my true nature to be a Great Saint).

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

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 07:31:49 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 00:54:50 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
[...]

You have to post content if you want a logical, well defined and coherent argument. As it is, we are both just braying jackasses!

Well, as you say. But when can we expect to see a defined and coherent
argument from your side of the room? To date we've seen name calling,
filthy language, and a pre-teen attitude that when one doesn't get
one's way one lays down, kicks one's heels and screams.

Everything you want to know is already in this thread ... somewhere. The invective only began when you resorted to sexual innuendos and other stratagems having nothing to do with content. Why not take a clue from your buddy Blackblade? He at least forces me to think, something you never do.

The one thing you should know is that no matter how low you get, I will make it my business to get lower. The days when mountain bikers could bully others on Usenet by being dirty rotten scoundrels (even though that is their true nature) are long gone. I will be dirtier, more rotten and a bigger scoundrel than YOU (even though it is my true nature to be a Great Saint).

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

Your assertion that "Everything you want to know is already in this
thread" is false if we are talking about a rational and logical reason
as apposed to an emotional outburst with no evidence whatsoever to
support it.

Blackblade gave you argument after argument backed up by references to
support them. You response was, in short, "Trails are for walking.
What’s the matter? Can’t walk?" as though you had carried it down from
the mountain carved on a rock.

Except of course "trail" isn't a specific description of a
walking/hiking pathway, it has many meanings. The Wiki, for example
lists seven types of trails only two of which are meant specifically
for walking or hiking. The State of California, Bureau of Land
Management lists four types of trails and a total of 42 "trails" in
California of which 32 are multi use, i.e., walking and either
cycling, horse, Off the Road Vehicle, or a combination. Or in other
words, some 25% of the trails are restricted to walking and 75% are
multi use. So one might conclude that you simply do not know of what
you speak.

To date you have not provided a single qualified argument against
cycling, rather your arguments are reminiscent of little Johnny in the
school yard, arguing "I'm right! I'm right!" and his supporting
evidence is "I'm right! I'm right!" and like Johnny, if anyone points
out that you haven't yet produced a single shred of evidence to
support of your argument you turn to profanity and bad language.

Your strongest argument seems to be that you are a saint and that a
convicted criminal told you so.

Despicable Dolan, a loud mouth, bad breath, and no facts.
--
Cheers,

John B.

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 07:31:49 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 00:54:50 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
[...]

You have to post content if you want a logical, well defined and coherent argument. As it is, we are both just braying jackasses!

Well, as you say. But when can we expect to see a defined and coherent
argument from your side of the room? To date we've seen name calling,
filthy language, and a pre-teen attitude that when one doesn't get
one's way one lays down, kicks one's heels and screams.

Everything you want to know is already in this thread ... somewhere. The invective only began when you resorted to sexual innuendos and other stratagems having nothing to do with content. Why not take a clue from your buddy Blackblade? He at least forces me to think, something you never do.

The one thing you should know is that no matter how low you get, I will make it my business to get lower. The days when mountain bikers could bully others on Usenet by being dirty rotten scoundrels (even though that is their true nature) are long gone. I will be dirtier, more rotten and a bigger scoundrel than YOU (even though it is my true nature to be a Great Saint).

Post content or get lost. What an Asshole!

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

Your assertion that "Everything you want to know is already in this
thread" is false if we are talking about a rational and logical reason
as apposed to an emotional outburst with no evidence whatsoever to
support it.

Emotional outbursts come from all sides. I am not aware that there was anything here out of the ordinary kind of crap that is commonly encountered on all newsgroups. As for evidence, a good argument is in itself evidence, most especially if it can’t be refuted by an equally good argument.

Blackblade gave you argument after argument backed up by references to
support them. You response was, in short, "Trails are for walking.
What’s the matter? Can’t walk?" as though you had carried it down from
the mountain carved on a rock.

His arguments were refuted by issues that I considered important and not by what he considered important. It is a matter of perspective.

Except of course "trail" isn't a specific description of a
walking/hiking pathway, it has many meanings. The Wiki, for example
lists seven types of trails only two of which are meant specifically
for walking or hiking. The State of California, Bureau of Land
Management lists four types of trails and a total of 42 "trails" in
California of which 32 are multi use, i.e., walking and either
cycling, horse, Off the Road Vehicle, or a combination. Or in other
words, some 25% of the trails are restricted to walking and 75% are
multi use. So one might conclude that you simply do not know of what
you speak.

We all know what is meant by “trails� in the context of this thread. I have even specified trails as those used exclusively by hikers and equestrians. These are single track trails which have been reserved for such from time immemorial. Pretending to be stupid on this issue will get you nowhere.

To date you have not provided a single qualified argument against
cycling, rather your arguments are reminiscent of little Johnny in the
school yard, arguing "I'm right! I'm right!" and his supporting
evidence is "I'm right! I'm right!" and like Johnny, if anyone points
out that you haven't yet produced a single shred of evidence to
support of your argument you turn to profanity and bad language.

All your blather about “evidence� does not get you by any of my arguments. You badly need to review this thread as well as the previous posts of Mr. Vandeman on various newsgroups in order to get a clue.

I resort to calumny whenever you resort to sexual innuendo, and I will gladly do so again if and when the situation warrants. It is part of My being a Great Saint ... and of you being a low down dirty rotten scoundrel.

Your strongest argument seems to be that you are a saint and that a
convicted criminal told you so.

The only “convict� here is you. I have already told you multiple times that I am a Great Saint. That allows me to call you out for what you are – a low down dirty rotten scoundrel. Mere sainthood, which does not permit any name calling, is for my inferiors.

Despicable Dolan, a loud mouth, bad breath, and no facts.

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

On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 01:39:54 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 07:31:49 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 00:54:50 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
[...]

You have to post content if you want a logical, well defined and coherent argument. As it is, we are both just braying jackasses!

Well, as you say. But when can we expect to see a defined and coherent
argument from your side of the room? To date we've seen name calling,
filthy language, and a pre-teen attitude that when one doesn't get
one's way one lays down, kicks one's heels and screams.

Everything you want to know is already in this thread ... somewhere. The invective only began when you resorted to sexual innuendos and other stratagems having nothing to do with content. Why not take a clue from your buddy Blackblade? He at least forces me to think, something you never do.

The one thing you should know is that no matter how low you get, I will make it my business to get lower. The days when mountain bikers could bully others on Usenet by being dirty rotten scoundrels (even though that is their true nature) are long gone. I will be dirtier, more rotten and a bigger scoundrel than YOU (even though it is my true nature to be a Great Saint).

Post content or get lost. What an Asshole!

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

Your assertion that "Everything you want to know is already in this
thread" is false if we are talking about a rational and logical reason
as apposed to an emotional outburst with no evidence whatsoever to
support it.

Emotional outbursts come from all sides. I am not aware that there was anything here out of the ordinary kind of crap that is commonly encountered on all newsgroups. As for evidence, a good argument is in itself evidence, most especially if it can’t be refuted by an equally good argument.

Blackblade gave you argument after argument backed up by references to
support them. You response was, in short, "Trails are for walking.
What’s the matter? Can’t walk?" as though you had carried it down from
the mountain carved on a rock.

His arguments were refuted by issues that I considered important and not by what he considered important. It is a matter of perspective.

Except of course "trail" isn't a specific description of a
walking/hiking pathway, it has many meanings. The Wiki, for example
lists seven types of trails only two of which are meant specifically
for walking or hiking. The State of California, Bureau of Land
Management lists four types of trails and a total of 42 "trails" in
California of which 32 are multi use, i.e., walking and either
cycling, horse, Off the Road Vehicle, or a combination. Or in other
words, some 25% of the trails are restricted to walking and 75% are
multi use. So one might conclude that you simply do not know of what
you speak.

We all know what is meant by “trails” in the context of this thread. I have even specified trails as those used exclusively by hikers and equestrians. These are single track trails which have been reserved for such from time immemorial. Pretending to be stupid on this issue will get you nowhere.

To date you have not provided a single qualified argument against
cycling, rather your arguments are reminiscent of little Johnny in the
school yard, arguing "I'm right! I'm right!" and his supporting
evidence is "I'm right! I'm right!" and like Johnny, if anyone points
out that you haven't yet produced a single shred of evidence to
support of your argument you turn to profanity and bad language.

All your blather about “evidence” does not get you by any of my arguments. You badly need to review this thread as well as the previous posts of Mr. Vandeman on various newsgroups in order to get a clue.

I resort to calumny whenever you resort to sexual innuendo, and I will gladly do so again if and when the situation warrants. It is part of My being a Great Saint ... and of you being a low down dirty rotten scoundrel.

Your strongest argument seems to be that you are a saint and that a
convicted criminal told you so.

The only “convict” here is you. I have already told you multiple times that I am a Great Saint. That allows me to call you out for what you are – a low down dirty rotten scoundrel. Mere sainthood, which does not permit any name calling, is for my inferiors.

Despicable Dolan, a loud mouth, bad breath, and no facts.

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

Ah yes, more rhetoric.

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

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.

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

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".

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

John B.

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.

Well, it was done by an impartial social researcher in the first place and secondly, you refused to read it, so how would you know ?

I got the gist of it just fine from your description of it. All the conclusions were wrong.

And you know that how ? Unless you can tackle the facts, premises and logic you cannot possibly make such an assertion. You don’t like the conclusions, which is all I highlighted, so you refuse to delve deeper.

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.

Oh, she is is she ? She's not just another Vandeman wannabee who links to his site and spouts pretty much the same rubbish ?

Nope, she is indeed an expert on the subject just as is Mr. Vandeman . And she is a better writer than me and Mr. Vandeman put together!

She is an expert, in exactly the same way as Vandeman, in polemic and lobbying. Like Vandeman, she wants bikes out of the forest and is uninterested in rational discussion, accommodation or research.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 !

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.

Mountain bikers need their own trails. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Some individuals need to recognise that they don’t own the trails and, as such, might find themselves disenfranchised if they are unwilling to share..

By the way, thanks for asking, yes I am perfectly capable of walking … and riding :-).

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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 ...

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