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

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 28 May 2006 22:03:49 GMT, "Jules Augley"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I will restate this again, in the hope that MV will realise why I cant
>>post
>>the report (or maybe he just doesnt read things?). The report HAS NOT BEEN
>>MARKED, therefore it would be illegal, not to mention completely
>>inappropriate to post any of the actual report he has written until AFTER
>>the student has received his grades. Please read that until it sinks in
>>MV.
>
> I said "evidence", not their paper. You could tell us the research
> design. That would immediately indicate how faulty it is.

Again, you are trying to discredit information that you haven't seen. Look,
Nostra-dumbass, the paper is not published or available yet in any form.
Your attempt to slander it by referring to the method of study, merely
because you assume the findings to differ from your OPINIONS, is not only
unscientific, it is unethical.
>
>>As for my objectivity, you are hardly an expert on that topic so no one
>>can
>>take your comment seriously there. I originally posted a reply in this
>>thread, as it was cross-posted to sci.environment. That three letter
>>abbreviation stands for Science. Science, as I have been taught by ALL of
>>my
>>teachers, professors and peers, depends on an acknowledgment that
>>objectivity is the ideal and is to be strived for.
>
> Exactly, which is why you should be interested in improving your
> students' research design, instead of defending it and trying to keep
> it secret.
Your word as a reference that there may be an issue with any part of this
possible report is laughable.
>
> There are thousands of
>>reports, papers and other published works with scientists openly
>>criticising
>>their own work and pointing out where that ideal may be compromised. That
>>is
>>what HONEST scientists do. They do not start with an opinion and then
>>denounce work that may not agree with that opinion, that, MV is called
>>SUBJECTIVITY. Popperian scientific method, which I may add is influenced
>>by
>>David Humes', who has a memorial in our hometown (thats Hume and me, big
>>hint there Dolan and MV) philosphy, depends on striving for objectivity.
>>If
>>you claim to be an expert in the scientific method, then pass off your
>>opinions with no objective or empirical basis as scientific evidence, then
>>you are a scientific fraud. You could do everyone a huge favour and read
>>up
>>on Poppers, his influences and the people he influenceds' work, maybe then
>>you can approach your topic more scientifically.
>
> The essence of the scientific method is honesty and openness. You are
> trying to cover up bad science. You are also confusing STYLE with
> science. I simply put my conclusion first, because (as in a newspaper
> article) I wasn't sure how far I would get in my talk before I ran out
> of time. That has nothing to do with the soundness of my conclusions,
> which have been questioned by NOT ONE PERSON except mountain bikers.
You developed your conclusion first, then sought only reference and context
you could use as an attempt to develop a foundation. We are not confusing
anything. We have years of usenet history (google group search "vandeman")
to show how you misuse honesty and integrity in your OPINIONS. Your claim of
soundness to your conclusions is MEANINGLESS as you refuse to show
references, reviews or comments from any public presentation of these
OPINIONS.
> ===

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 01 Jun 2006 14:01:36 GMT, Chris Foster
>>>>Perfect! Again the attempt at misdirection is obviously, classicly
>>>>Vandeman. If diagnosing cancer is your measure of intelligence, I am
>>>>the smart one as I have diagnosed you as a cancer on the cause of
>>>>conservation and cooperation between everyone to make it happen.
>>>
>>> Congratulations! You have arrived at the "Did you say something?"
>>> stage.
>>
>>Congratulations! You have achieved Full Idiot status.
>>
>>You make claims without any proof what so ever. You post your OPINIONS
>>on your web site as fact, the OPINIONS are NOT peer reviewed.
>
> "Pearls before swine" is the phrase that naturally comes to mind....
> ===
Yes... about time you claimed the title of "swine". After all, (google
group search "vandeman"), you have earned it.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 01:32:45 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Your posts deserve a place of honor in the Smithsonian. Maybe I'll
> work on that next....
>
Please - by all means do so. That will insure the both of you get lost in
obscurity.

 

[S Curtiss]

>>>
>>> Mikey's reply translated in to Vandlespin...
>>>
>>> Correct. Vandelman lies, ESPECIALLY Vandelman's "research" site. It's
>>> obvious from what Vandelmans says that his "research" is fatally
>>> flawed. The only reason that Vandelman does research is to try to
>>> justify what is unjustifiable: his selfish, destructive sport.
>>
>>You made a mistake here. MV does not do research. He disparages others'.
>
> Only when it deserves it.
> ===
Your OPINION is hardly a filter to validate any work, information or
research.

 

[S Curtiss]

Ed Dolan is a stooge for the New World Order. He will probably vote for the
real Mr. Clinton in the next election.

Top posting is fun, low in fat and can save you hundreds on car insurance.

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:A1Ffg.15543$B42.1026@dukeread05...
>
> ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!
>
>> No need to. Either you really believe the borders of a country dictate
>> intelligence or (and more likely) you are merely engaging in word games
>> for the sake of enjoyment or challenge - Like a chess game to see if the
>> opponent will take the fast bait or stick to strategy. You've by far
>> explained your motives of usenet so anything you say can be taken with a
>> grain of salt.
>
> I am FOR America and if that means kicking some ass around the world, then
> I am all for it. Thank God we have a professional military now and we do
> not need to depend on the average American slob to defend the nation.
> America - the Land of the Free BECAUSE of the Brave!
>
> By the way, everyone in the world hates Americans (because of our
> prosperity) and there is nothing to be done about it other than to make
> damn sure they respect and fear us. Even the Soviets, as dumb as they
> were, had that much figured out.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
> PS. Anyone who takes Usenet seriously is a fool. Try to have some fun.
> That is the only reason for the existence of Usenet.
>

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 02:37:32 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>Let's see, who else can I insult before I sign off? How about the Chinese
>>and the Indians. They have so overdeveloped their nations that they have
>>nothing left but surplus people. Now that we have opened our borders to
>>the
>>Mexicans, maybe we could be brilliant enough to open our borders to the
>>teeming Chinese and Indians. They could come here in their billions and
>>add
>>to our glory as a nation. The liberal Democrats would no doubt like that -
>>more voters for them don't you know?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>aka
>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
> You have really hit your stride! I think that this is my all-time
> favorite post (except for mine, of course)! (smiley = fun)

....not that there is anything wrong with that
> ===

 

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8Rogg.16626$B42.633@dukeread05...
>
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 02:37:32 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>Let's see, who else can I insult before I sign off? How about the Chinese
>>>and the Indians. They have so overdeveloped their nations that they have
>>>nothing left but surplus people. Now that we have opened our borders to
>>>the
>>>Mexicans, maybe we could be brilliant enough to open our borders to the
>>>teeming Chinese and Indians. They could come here in their billions and
>>>add
>>>to our glory as a nation. The liberal Democrats would no doubt like
>>>that -
>>>more voters for them don't you know?
>>
>> You have really hit your stride! I think that this is my all-time
>> favorite post (except for mine, of course)! (smiley = fun)
>
> ...not that there is anything wrong with that

When it comes to politics, I do not know who I favor more, Atilla the Hun or
Genghis Kahn. Tamerlane was good too. They seemed to know that the best way
of dealing with an enemy was to kill him dead. And kill his wife and
children too. That way you solve a multitude of difficulties for all time.

Regards,

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

 

[Edward Dolan]

"jason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:51:04 GMT, Jason
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> > Being the world expert on mountain biking impacts, my opinion and the
>>>
>>>>truth are one and the same.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh my god mikey. That has to be the funniest thing I've read in a long
>>>time on USENET. The ego, it's incredible. As usual totally false but wow
>>>what an ego.
>>
>>
>> No ego, just the truth -- something moiuuntain bikers aren't used to
>> -- either hearing or stating.
>
> Wrong again mikey we all like the truth, both telling it and
> hearing/reading it. I wish we saw it more here in a.m-b.
>
> The problem is you and that other crack pot eddie wouldn't know the truth
> if it walked up behind you and kicked you in the ****.

Jason mentions my name but does not post his miserable message to ARBR where
he knows that is where I am at. I mean, just how cowardly can you get. But
an asshole will be an asshole no matter what.

Regards,

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

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Michael Halliwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:KG4gg.222989$7a.157670@pd7tw1no...
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>>
>> I sense your fear of the truth leaking out. That's why I and Ed and
>> others who tell the truth about mountain biking are attacked so
>> viciously. We are a threat to your chosen way of life (such as it is).
>
> Hardly! I'd welcome an honest, emotionally neutral, minimally biased
> discussion...but when someone tries to start one, you call them a mountain
> biking liar and point to your webpage and the articles that you have
> posted there...unfortunately, I have read your articles and found them far
> more full of opinion, generalization and emotionally charged rhetoric than
> actual science, logic or reasoning.

Then you need to take on the articles. Vandeman is right not to waste a lot
of time refuting those who do not reference the articles. Why argue with
total idiots?

> From my observation, your reply to anyone who disagrees with you is to
> call them a liar, personally attack them and re-post your opinionated,
> generalization filled and emotionally charged work. If they ask for
> supporting documents, you hide behind statements such as "do your own
> homework." If you want us to read your evidence, provide it...you present
> the appearance of an individual who does not wish to show validation for
> his claims and it severely undermines your credibility.

"Then you need to take on the articles. Vandeman is right not to waste a lot
of time refuting those who do not reference the articles. Why argue with
total idiots?" - Ed Dolan

> As for your webpage: those of us who mountain bike and have a vested
> interest in this field could reply in kind by citing the IMBA webpage to
> you all the time. I think I'm quite correct in thinking that you'd regard
> it the same way most of us regard your personal webspace...as "junk
> science."

"Then you need to take on the articles. Vandeman is right not to waste a lot
of time refuting those who do not reference the articles. Why argue with
total idiots?" - Ed Dolan

> Also, indicating that you want all bikes on road is rather counter
> productive to your claims. If you increase road traffic, more roads
> and/or lanes need to be developed to handle the additional traffic which
> means that additional habitat is lost. Is that truly what you want? You
> have stated that you are trying to avoid habitat loss.

To quote Vandeman ... DUH!

Regards,

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

 

[Michael Halliwell]

Edward Dolan wrote:

>
> "Then you need to take on the articles. Vandeman is right not to waste a lot
> of time refuting those who do not reference the articles. Why argue with
> total idiots?" - Ed Dolan

We have (oh, but that's right, you have no clue as you won't look at
what we've done in the past, ie. running a google search).

As for idiots....you're right...you and Vandeman are not worth the effort.

Michael Halliwell

 

[jason]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> Jason mentions my name but does not post his miserable message to
ARBR where
> he knows that is where I am at. I mean, just how cowardly can you get. But
> an asshole will be an asshole no matter what.

look ed the simpleminded I don't post to the other groups out of
something called courtesy to others. Just because you two idiots like to
cross post doesn't mean the rest of us have to be that dense.

I know that is yet another thing in a long long list that you and mikey
have no knowledge about.

 

[pmhilton]

Michael Halliwell wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>>
>> "Then you need to take on the articles. Vandeman is right not to waste
>> a lot of time refuting those who do not reference the articles. Why
>> argue with total idiots?" - Ed Dolan
>
>
> We have (oh, but that's right, you have no clue as you won't look at
> what we've done in the past, ie. running a google search).
>
> As for idiots....you're right...you and Vandeman are not worth the effort.
>
> Michael Halliwell

What Halliwell is saying here is:

MV has been a proven hyper-repetitive and hyper-redundant idiot for at
least 10 years. Any Google search will demonstrate that beyond any question.

You are a newcomer here and exhibit precisely the same characteristics
as MV. Any Google search will demonstrate that beyond any question.

Pete H

 

[Specialized]

YEH, YEH, what a big mouth for a so litle amarican boy! DO YOU KNOW HOW WE
THINK ABOUT YOU AMERICAN ....mike vandeman...?
At first, the name vandeman is a Dutch name. Its means litterally `of the
man`. But you don´t know that ofcourse. Probable you descend from criminal
ancestors who where sent to america because we dit not like them!
PS... You have to do something about your grammar. It is frome a very low
level
greatings to probely amotherchild.




> Mike Vandeman Wrote:
>>
>> He's Canadian -- i.e., someone who can't decide whether to be British,
>> French, American, or Inuit. A sort of missing link. Not good enough to
>> be an American, but too damaged for England or France to take them
>> back -- kind of like an Australian (i.e., descended from criminals).
>>
>>
>
> Edward Dolan Wrote:
>>
>> I swear to God that there is no asshole in the world like an English
>> asshole.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
> Where are you two going to stop? Not only do you insist on cross
> posting, refute anything based on good science and promote your own bad
> science with the zealousness of international terror organisations, you
> also appear to be racist to the bone as well.
>
> As for your comments regarding English people, you might like to know
> that I am English and I find that comment quite offensive, as I do with
> your comments regarding Canadians and Australians. However I am fully
> aware that there are lots of good people in YOUR country, so I am not
> going to stoop to your level and tarnish everybody in your country with
> the same brush.
>
> I strongly advise that you never come to England with your views, or if
> you do you keep them to yourself in a very quiet and subdued manner,
> otherwise it is highly likely that some "English Asshole" will take
> offfence to your comments and make it known to you in ways that even
> you could not possibly misunderstand. Of course, it is more than likely
> that you just sit at home typing away on your keyboard within the saftey
> of the internet. You clearly don't have the bollocks, the bottle or the
> support needed to win your "war" in the real world so you settle for
> the losers prize of trolling internet messageboards. Everyone else
> lives in the real world and merely laughs at you as a complete *****
> with no chance whatsoever of achieving anything other than getting on
> Wikipedia, and even they have axed you! Your star must be fading MV. As
> for Dolan I don't know who you are, where you are from or anything else
> about you other than what I know based what I have read from what you
> have written. If I were to meet you purely based on what I have read I
> would be tempted to greet you with a traditional Glasgow kiss.
>
>
> --
> davebee
>
>

 

[Blueyedraggin]

Dear Mike Vandeman AKA "Ecoterroist"

> 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.)


I certainly hope that no federal of public money has been used for your
"project". If so I will be demanding in court if I have to for rights to
use this "project" however I see fit. If not than maybe you will stay nice
and secluded in your "project" and stop bothering us with you doctor of
******** ideas about who mountain bikers are and what they are doing to the
environment. Don't go away mad...JUST GO AWAY.

Dave C

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 00:26:18 GMT, Michael Halliwell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>>
>> I sense your fear of the truth leaking out. That's why I and Ed and
>> others who tell the truth about mountain biking are attacked so
>> viciously. We are a threat to your chosen way of life (such as it is).
>
>Hardly! I'd welcome an honest, emotionally neutral, minimally biased
>discussion...but when someone tries to start one, you call them a
>mountain biking liar

Only because they LIE. DUH!

and point to your webpage and the articles that you
>have posted there...unfortunately, I have read your articles and found
>them far more full of opinion, generalization and emotionally charged
>rhetoric than actual science, logic or reasoning.

How would you know what real science is?

> From my observation, your reply to anyone who disagrees with you is to
>call them a liar, personally attack them and re-post your opinionated,
>generalization filled and emotionally charged work. If they ask for
>supporting documents, you hide behind statements such as "do your own
>homework." If you want us to read your evidence, provide it...you
>present the appearance of an individual who does not wish to show
>validation for his claims and it severely undermines your credibility.
>
>As for your webpage: those of us who mountain bike and have a vested
>interest in this field could reply in kind by citing the IMBA webpage to
>you all the time. I think I'm quite correct in thinking that you'd
>regard it the same way most of us regard your personal webspace...as
>"junk science."
>
>Also, indicating that you want all bikes on road is rather counter
>productive to your claims. If you increase road traffic, more roads
>and/or lanes need to be developed to handle the additional traffic

BS. Just get rid of the cars. If you cared about the environment,
that's what you would be doing.

which
>means that additional habitat is lost. Is that truly what you want?
>You have stated that you are trying to avoid habitat loss.
>
>Regards,
>
>Michael Halliwell
===
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

 

[pmhilton]

Bill Baka wrote:
> pmhilton wrote:
I responded to the question as
>> asked, not the question as implied.
>>
>> PH
>>
> OK,
> I see 'Dolan' is in this so he probably started it.
> Bill Baka

Yep.

 

[S Curtiss]

"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.
----------------------------

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!

 

[pmhilton]

Edward Dolan wrote:

> I do not have the foggiest notion who Paris Hilton is, whether man or woman
> or beast.

YOU opened this matter YOURSELF! From this we can readily assume you
have not the foggiest notion what you are about.

QED

 

[Mike Vandeman]

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.

>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!
>
>
>
===
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

 

[Edward Dolan]

"pmhilton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> I do not have the foggiest notion who Paris Hilton is, whether man or
>> woman or beast.
>
> YOU opened this matter YOURSELF! From this we can readily assume you have
> not the foggiest notion what you are about.
>
> QED

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

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.

Regards,

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