|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Silbury updates |
This topic is locked
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Aug 03, 2007, 16:43
|
||
|
Paulus wrote: Hi Robert - Robert Carr wrote: I myself have been accused of being a English Heritage 'spy', a paedophile and given a deathwish of cancer by this nutcase and his pathetic cronies just for the crime of saying 'hang on a minute'. That - if true - is utterly abominable. Could you respond to this and put a link to where it's been said, Rob? I'd like to read exactly what was written. Cheers - Paul We'd all like to see where that was said. But of course, don't hold your breath.
|
|||
|
Mustard 388 posts |
Aug 03, 2007, 17:02
|
||
|
slumpystones wrote: I disagree, as you'd expect. Firstly I object to being called 'you lot' as if I speak for anyone else. I speak purely for myself. It's an off-hand comment. I don't assume that you're speaking for anyone else, but there's a common tone to the posting style of a few members that merits a reference to those members as a group. I appreciate that it's not an exclusive club or an organised gang, but the share attitude has the effect of encouraging each other in your posting style and behaviour, giving the loose impression of a group. slumpystones wrote: I don't think there is anything nasty or vitriolic in any of my posts - sarcastic maybe, disagreeable certainly, but that's about all. I have no interest in taking sides in this. So please trust me when I tell you that to an impartial observer, that's the impression it gives. Mr Carr doesn't exactly come out of this smelling of roses, but it's the regular posters who should be setting a better example and raising the tone a bit. slumpystones wrote: You have created this 'clique' idea by putting people into imaginary groups, instead of accepting that maybe, just maybe, they actually agree with other. Why is it so impossible to believe that individuals cannot share a belief in something, or indeed a distaste for something else, without being accused of being organised? Cliques aren't organised. They're ad-hoc. What you've described IS a clique. I'm not suggesting that there's anything sinister or organised about it - I'm suggesting that the agreement, shared interests and defensiveness is entrenching attitudes that will make this forum unwelcoming - especially to dissenting voices. It's only a short while since I was accused of being a troll simply for expressing a different opinion in what I genuinely felt was a polite and friendly fashion. If a poster can be excluded and alienated for such behaviour, then I don't think "clique" is an inappropriate term to apply. And really... I say this with the best of intentions. I don't think anyone here is deliberately behaving in that fashion, but these situations arise spontaneously and require people to take a step back and observe how their posting style appears to an outsider. All I'm suggesting is that people rise above the name-calling - is that too much to ask? slumpystones wrote: "English Heritage's handling of the whole Silbury issue from day one has been nothing more than shoddy" is the main complaint by many - is that so impossible to understand? Not at all. I entirely agree with you. It's not the substance of your argument that I'm taking issue with. slumpystones wrote: The question you should be asking is why someone who is educated, erudite and intelligent, should seek to subvert discussions about English Heritage and Silbury, not once actually contributing anything, rather attacking the methods used by others, making fun of their attempts to change the way things are done and generally subverting the thread? But I honestly couldn't care. If you think he's a troll, either ignore him or engage politely with him. You have the facts on your side with which to back up your case, so if he becomes rude, you'll only make your case more convincing by rising above it. slumpystones wrote: Why should he bother? He has indicated no real interest in the actual subject of this forum, let alone this thread, and has chosen to harrass those who have legitimate concerns, with good reason, for a fragile and threatened ancient monument. Look, I really don't care. You can't prove whether he's a troll or not. You may have reasonable grounds for suspicion, but that's not the issue. The issue is how you respond to the guy. Abusing someone on a public forum undermines the legitimacy of your position and discourages other people from posting. He can be the biggest troll in under the bridge, but your case is still not served by being rude to him. Keep it polite, keep it civilised, rise above any abuse, and you've got a no-lose situation. I don't see the problem.
|
|||
Littlestone 4380 posts |
Aug 03, 2007, 17:38
|
||
|
Thanks for that moss. She talked of archaeological 'monoliths' not stone this time, but squares of chalk taken for future research and frozen in time, of course in cold storage, bit like heritage seed collections, they would be kept I suppose for sediment and pollen analysis... If a few 'monoliths' mean very small samples for future analysis I can't see too much to object to there - compared to the vast quantities of the structure that were extracted and dumped who-knows-where by Atkinson and his team for the 1960's BBC pogramme such samples pale into insignificance. There's a strange bit of logic at work here though. Extract samples now and freeze them for future research while leaving a time capsule in Silbury for future retrieval? Mmmm... a bit of lateral thinking suggests that a really worthwhile time capsule would be the sample monothiths out of the structure, not a 21st century glass jar inside it :-)
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Aug 03, 2007, 18:26
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Abusing someone on a public forum undermines the legitimacy of your position and discourages other people from posting. He can be the biggest troll in under the bridge, but your case is still not served by being rude to him. Keep it polite, keep it civilised, rise above any abuse, and you've got a no-lose situation. I don't see the problem. But there hasn't been any abuse that I am aware of. A trumped-up "he said he wishes I had cancer" accusation [out of malice, I may add] but nothing more, unless I missed one big chunk of this thread [which is highly likely].
|
|||
|
Mustard 388 posts |
Aug 03, 2007, 19:22
|
||
|
slumpystones wrote: Mustard wrote: Abusing someone on a public forum undermines the legitimacy of your position and discourages other people from posting. He can be the biggest troll in under the bridge, but your case is still not served by being rude to him. Keep it polite, keep it civilised, rise above any abuse, and you've got a no-lose situation. I don't see the problem. But there hasn't been any abuse that I am aware of. A trumped-up "he said he wishes I had cancer" accusation [out of malice, I may add] but nothing more, unless I missed one big chunk of this thread [which is highly likely]. I'm not going to highlight every inappropriate post. I'm simply pointing out the impression that's being created by them. This is the effect that people's posts are having, whatever the intention behind them. Take it or leave it. It's sincerely meant constructive criticism with no ill-will intended.
|
|||
|
Robert Carr 84 posts |
Aug 04, 2007, 07:21
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Mr Carr, there are few of us who are not closely touched by cancer, you should not presume otherwise as it would be a spectacular mistake. As one of them, I consider Littlestone's remark cannot be validly painted as inappropriate in the least. Your earlier statements about what had been said about you have already been shown to be entirely inaccurate. There is no more to be said, its on the record for anyone that cares to look. Excuse me Mr Swift, are you Littlestone? My question was directed at him. Can't he answer for himself? nigelswift wrote: Heritage Action has already resolved not to respond to further goading about itself so I can only repeat, please contact us on info@heritageaction.org as that is the only way you will elicit further responses. Heritage Action? What has Heritage (In)Action got to do with it. Unless it is your policy to cause offence.
|
|||
jimit 1033 posts |
Aug 04, 2007, 08:30
|
||
|
This has got far too tedious :( Get back on topic! Jim. (Post number 666.... Hummm)
|
|||
|
Robert Carr 84 posts |
Aug 04, 2007, 09:04
|
||
|
jimit wrote: This has got far too tedious :( Get back on topic! Jim. (Post number 666.... Hummm) Hi Jim. Get back on topic? We are on topic. Have you noticed the title of this subthread?
|
|||
|
TMA Ed 503 posts |
Aug 04, 2007, 09:46
|
||
|
We understand that the situation at Silbury is likely to raise temperatures, but this thread has gone too far off topic and in a non-megalithic direction that touches people too deeply. The mention of cancer in the context of Silbury was unfortunate. We're sure it wasn't meant to move into a discussion about how cancer affects peoples' lives. But the TMA forum is not the place for this. If people wish to continue to discuss Silbury, please start a new thread. And if discussion does continue, please keep it on topic and EVERYONE should think very carefully about what they say. Keep it as a discussion of issues affecting Silbury, not a chance to score points and goad people who hold a different view. We are watching. TMA Eds
|
| Pages: 67 – [ Previous | 1 … 62 63 64 65 66 67 ] | This topic is locked |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
- ©2012ce Head Heritage Ltd. Contact us Top of page