nigelswift
|
Re: Stonehenge experts
Jan 14, 2017, 12:45
|
Ah well....
"The narrativization of past events in history books and the self-consciously fictive historical representation have deconstructed the Grand Narrative of history by questioning the unitary, closed and evolutionary narratives of the historiography and by de-totalizing the totality of history . How do you view the future discursive narrative of history?"
- A. Knob
|
tiompan
|
Re: Stonehenge experts
Jan 14, 2017, 13:56
|
|
And here's me thinking the Dada Engine was defunct .
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Stonehenge experts
Jan 14, 2017, 14:13
|
|
It's actually very easy to generate random bollocks. Many years ago I remember programming a BBC B to give my kids bedtime stories.
|
tiompan
|
Re: Stonehenge experts
Jan 14, 2017, 15:07
|
|
Hard to believe the postmodern style of bollocks is still with us , as opposed to post truth lying /errorful bollocks , but there are PhD's flying about full of it (it was ever thus , I know , but the content was different ) .The problem is that it takes longer to realise when you give them the benefit of the doubt . If it's wrong , that's easy , but when you have to tease out what they are getting at before realising that it doesn't add up it's a hell of a waste of time .
|
tjj
|
Re: Stonehenge experts
Jan 14, 2017, 16:36
|
|
tiompan wrote: I found the "forager and his dog " story about as convincing as the "purple haze " i.e. colourful stones at Blick Mead .
Sure! Both could only be conjecture although the pink stones were fascinating. But are you dismissing all the other work DJ and his hard working team of volunteers have done at Blick Mead? If you are, I find it disappointing.
A propos your other post in answer to Nigel's:
"Hard to believe the postmodern style of bollocks is still with us , as opposed to post truth lying /errorful bollocks , but there are PhD's flying about full of it ... etc" I'm not even going to try and decipher what your meaning is because I don't think the professional credibility of any one individual is what should be being discussed here.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Stonehenge experts
Jan 14, 2017, 17:00
|
I think George was probably responding to the stuff I posted (the author of which I didn't quote) and the general point that the abstracts of many dissertations comprise obscure and pretentious stuff, which they do for sure.***
So I'd say it's a fair enough subject for discussion here.
*** Use of "fictive","historiography and "de-totalizing the totality" are pointers! ;)
|
tiompan
|
Re: Stonehenge experts
Jan 14, 2017, 17:09
|
|
tjj wrote: [quote="tiompan"]I found the "forager and his dog " story about as convincing as the "purple haze " i.e. colourful stones at Blick Mead .
"Sure! Both could only be conjecture although the pink stones were fascinating. But are you dismissing all the other work DJ and his hard working team of volunteers have done at Blick Mead? If you are, I find it disappointing. "
I only mentioned the dog tooth and the purple stone .
"A propos your other post in answer to Nigel's:
"Hard to believe the postmodern style of bollocks is still with us , as opposed to post truth lying /errorful bollocks , but there are PhD's flying about full of it ... etc" I'm not even going to try and decipher what your meaning is because I don't think the professional credibility of any one individual is what should be being discussed here."
Nigel has explained about that June .
Totally unrelated .
|
tjj
|
Re: Stonehenge experts
Jan 14, 2017, 21:17
|
|
tiompan wrote:
Nigel has explained about that June .
Totally unrelated .
Yes he has. I'm afraid its all a bit obscure (abstract) for me as I don't usually bother reading dissertations. There are lots of discussions/protests going on elsewhere about SH and the short tunnel/A303. I have been following them enough to form my own opinion - but not necessarily participating. So until I can do or say something useful on the subject I won't say anymore - for now :)
|
