What arguement?<quoted text>
Ahhhhhhhhhh, you are correct. I thought I read it in the times, but I was mistaken, I read it in the "Montebello Life" magazine.
I guess I should have referred to the hills as "private property" for the past 100 years with no public access unless you had permission as so many of you have now stated.
So, I was wrong about the publication from where I got the information, but I am still correct regarding that the Hills is private property and no one has a legal right to be on the property unless of course, they get permission, as many of you have stated.
I apologize for stating the wrong publication, but I thank you for re-enforcing my argument.
How can it help your support for Cook-Hill by pointing out one of their many objectively verifiable lies?