|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Silbury Round One |
This topic is locked
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Ishmael 683 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 14:25
|
||
|
Sorry Goff we are working on Astronomical time not Druid time. I will arrange another inner access meet up for next March when we can watch the sunset from inside. I should have around 25 places available for that.
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 14:33
|
||
|
Here is your report on Silbury from Heritage Actions website Heritage Action's report By Nigel Swift (Site Inspector), [email protected] Recently, a <b>horribly incomplete account of possible repair options has been released.</b> This has added huge concern over the form of repairs that might be chosen to our existing concern over the delay. Surely the clear priority is to fix the hill in the most effective and efficient way possible. There is a strong lobby, though, in favour of repairs that also allow research. Simpler and cheaper engineering solutions to the repairs appear to be available, but the little information made public seems to 'play down' these options in favour of the option that allows simultaneous research. <b>A new and larger tunnel would be bored into the heart of the mound from the side, involving much disruption to Silbury itself, risk of additional collapse, huge expense and years of further delay.</b>. I'll be interested to see what the new webpage says.
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 14:36
|
||
Look you've had your rant - try considering some of the replies to posts that I have made previously (now and in the past) and then think of the way your cosy little messageboard clique flows.
|
|||
texlahoma 891 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 14:44
|
||
hard to tell how much they really take notice of the public but great that the pressure HA applied led to the meeting going ahead. it seemed that from what was said english heritage are interested in the publics point of view(s) and are prepared to listen and hopefully take into account usefull suggestions. they did say that future public meetings wouldn't be ruled out, so i guess it's a maybe.
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 14:56
|
||
|
"English Heritage's unilateral decision needs clarification Before this unilateral decision is accepted we think the owners – the public – are entitled to ask some vital questions." A small quote from HAs website - has anyone told Lord Avebury that he doesn't own the monument?
|
|||
Jane 3024 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 15:15
|
||
|
I've heard this said before and I had to challenge it then. Clique means 'small exclusive group' according to the OED. Clearly as this is a public messageboard, it is not 'exclusive'. Quite the reverse in fact. Highly inclusive! It's also quite large. Lots of people come and go, yes, and there are a few of us who have been regulars on this board for many years now. So long in fact, that we have had many opportunities to get to know each other in person, out at the stones, at gigs, shows and picnics. It's nice! It feels like a community. If that's what you mean by 'cosy little messageboard clique', then I say 'hurrah!' I probably have at least 50 friends I have met and have regular contact with on this board. It's a bit like life, really: good manners, reason, open-mindedness and just plain old-fashioned Being Nice goes down rather well. Cliques don't let in new people. This messageboard has a long history of welcoming new people (FFS, I found my husband here!) providing they play by the rules, set out in the submission guidelines. I cannot and will not apologise for the behaviour of anyone else on this board if they have been rude to you. I don't believe I ever have and I'm not about to start now. What I am sorry about is that you get a hard time here, sbp. But its not for me to ask why that is. That is for you to figure out. However, I do hope you won't think I'm being rude when I disagree with you and say: I challenge your 'cosy little messageboard clique', sbp, and raise you to 'welcoming online community'. J x
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 15:20
|
||
Thank you, but I've already had the 'welcome' from Goffik.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 15:37
|
||
|
Peter, my reference to trolling was not addressed to you or to people who disagree with my opinion but to nasty behaviour over time on a range of unrelated subjects. "There does appear to have been misunderstanding, stance defending and now position adjusting" I don't know how much clearer I can be that there has been no misunderstanding on our part. http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=28466&message=345118 and http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=28466&message=345123 but I hope you'll appreciate Peter that saying more here is a waste of time as I just become troll food. We'll put something together and hope you will give it fair consideration in due course, and I'm sure you will. That's the difference.
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 15:37
|
||
Okay that was a bit churlish from me, I think its too late for 'lines' to be redrawn, but thanks for your thoughts anyway.
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 15:43
|
||
|
I have reread your posts (and even posted part of one) on Heritage Action's website - you have clearly misunderstood the technical reports and then blatently misinterpreted parts of them too. But I particularly like your opinion on the archaeological community 'if tunnelling is proven by engineers to be the best way to tackle the problem then it would accept this solution, however they expressed their concerns about this approach. <b>"If career-boosting research is the 'treasure' to be won by selecting the most damaging solution, then our generation would be no better than the treasure-seeking vandals of old whose tunnels caused the problem,"</b> it said.
|
| Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 | Next ] | This topic is locked |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
