Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Uffington White Horse »
uffington horse and the sun
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 11 – [ Previous | 16 7 8 9 10 11 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Evergreen Dazed
1881 posts

Re: uffington horse and the sun
Aug 19, 2017, 21:09
Rhiannon wrote:
yeah cause this is my thread, right.

And anyway - I see you haven't mentioned your thoughts on my Central Tenet, that of the Rhiannon Bird Horse hybrid. You read it here first. Pollard is going to be well jealous.



It didn't even occur to me that it was your thread. I happen to like your posts and don't want to argue with you, thats all.
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: uffington horse and the sun
Aug 19, 2017, 21:19
thesweetcheat wrote:

I have no idea what you're viewing. Some lines carved into the ground that can be measured with a compass or theodolite perhaps.



Along with "alignments and angles " That's prime Thom territory .
To show where he went wrong it became necessary to use the same tools and language .
tjj
tjj
3606 posts

Edited Aug 19, 2017, 23:34
Re: uffington horse and the sun
Aug 19, 2017, 22:47
Evergreen Dazed wrote:

Rather than get quietly frustrated by this but say nothing, i'm going to be honest, this has really pissed me off.

It's a forum debate about a theory that somebody has included in a paper.
It's nothing to do with you or what Uffington means to you.
You simply posted a news item which prompted comment.
But it seems you now you think you are entitled to start posting sly insulting comment -

"Sweetcheat 'bravely' trying to offer an alternative view"

"The word 'dogmatic' comes to mind"

'Can I have it back now please"

What is that?

Would you like me to start telling you what words come to my mind when I read your posts?

If it makes you feel comfortable to think of me or my comments as 'dogmatic', then that is your issue, not mine. I find the intimation that I, and others, because we are able to apply logic to a problem, are somehow unable or unwilling to consider, or hold, a 'spiritual' view or an 'alternative' view, extremely ignorant.


Hmm! I didn't aim the word dogmatic at you specifically - or Tiompan either (for whom I have the greatest respect). I used the word to describe the whole tone of the thread. It hasn't really been a discussion but a dismissive dismantling of a piece of work done by an archaeologist who is otherwise respected. I don't agree or disagree with the theory as don't have the astronomical software at my disposal (or the understanding) to do so. Generally speaking I'm a fan of logic but there are other elements to which logic cannot always be applied. We have often talked on this forum about how certain sites induce a feeling of well being and/or inexplicable euphoria - perhaps just the effort and sense of achievement of getting there, or a particularly blue sky, or the appearance of a rare bird. Just something not always easily put into words.

I misread your word 'intimation' as intimidation - please think about it Evergreen. You are the only person to start throwing personal remarks around which apart from me referring elsewhere to your sometimes sarcastic wit (which could be taken as a compliment) I don't think I've done.

This is a forum, anyone with an interest in a topic is entitled to comment - even if that comment doesn't seem particularly informed or relevant. Part of me thinks I can't really be arsed anymore but another part says I won't be intimidated or belittled.
You can ignore me if you wish - which you mostly do anyway. Believe me it's been done before.
Evergreen Dazed
1881 posts

Re: uffington horse and the sun
Aug 19, 2017, 22:53
tjj wrote:
Evergreen Dazed wrote:

Rather than get quietly frustrated by this but say nothing, i'm going to be honest, this has really pissed me off.

It's a forum debate about a theory that somebody has included in a paper.
It's nothing to do with you or what Uffington means to you.
You simply posted a news item which prompted comment.
But it seems you now you think you are entitled to start posting sly insulting comment -

"Sweetcheat 'bravely' trying to offer an alternative view"

"The word 'dogmatic' comes to mind"

'Can I have it back now please"

What is that?

Would you like me to start telling you what words come to my mind when I read your posts?

If it makes you feel comfortable to think of me or my comments as 'dogmatic', then that is your issue, not mine. I find the intimation that I, and others, because we are able to apply logic to a problem, are somehow unable or unwilling to consider, or hold, a 'spiritual' view or an 'alternative' view, extremely ignorant.


Hmm! I didn't aim the word dogmatic at you specifically - or Tiompan either (for whom I have the greatest respect). I used the word to describe the whole tone of the thread. It hasn't really been a discussion but a dismissive dismantling of a piece of work done by an archaeologist who is otherwise respected. I don't agree or disagree with the theory as don't have the astrological software at my disposal (or the understanding) to do so. Generally speaking I'm a fan of logic but there are other elements to which logic cannot always be applied. We have often talked on this forum about how certain sites induce a feeling of well being and/or inexplicable euphoria - perhaps just the effort and sense of achievement of getting there, or a particularly blue sky, or the appearance of a rare bird. Just something not always easily put into words.

I misread your word 'intimation' as intimidation - please think about it Evergreen. You are the only person to start throwing personal remarks around which apart from me referring elsewhere to your sometimes sarcastic wit (which could be taken as a compliment) I don't think I've done.

This is a forum, anyone with an interest in a topic is entitled to comment - even if that comment doesn't seem particularly informed or relevant. Part of me thinks I can't really be arsed anymore but another part says I won't be intimidated or belittled.
You can ignore me if you wish - which you mostly do anyway. Believe me it's been done before.



Ok, that's about as much as I can stand.
I won't be posting here anymore. No flounce, no drama, I just simply won't be posting here anymore.
thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat
6218 posts

Re: uffington horse and the sun
Aug 19, 2017, 23:15
I haven't fallen out, I've just given up.

I spent too much time yesterday evening offering a differing perception, based in part on what I've seen from the train window. I've never claimed a theory, or argued a link, in fact I've done the exact opposite. But throughout the discussion, I was told that I was wrong. I wasn't told that someone disagreed with me or had a different opinion. I was told flat out that I was wrong, my perception was wrong and what I was suggesting was impossible, based on angles and alignments. I think that's quite rude, and doesn't encourage discussion. By all means disagree with me, or correct me if I'm factually incorrect. But don't tell me my perception is wrong. Perception can't be wrong, it's wholly subjective. You can't measure perception.

You can go on Google Earth and look at satellite photos of the Sahara. You won't see any cities, there aren't any. And yet in certain circumstances, travellers can see them there, through an optical illusion, a trick of perception. They can be photographed. It can be proven that they are visible. But there is no physical form, no reality of a city. Does the lack of physical form or evidence of a city make the perception of one "impossible" or "wrong"?
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: uffington horse and the sun
Aug 19, 2017, 23:30
thesweetcheat wrote:
But throughout the discussion, I was told that I was wrong. I wasn't told that someone disagreed with me or had a different opinion. I was told flat out that I was wrong, my perception was wrong and what I was suggesting was impossible, based on angles and alignments.


You said "And for anyone viewing the horse from a position where its horsiness can actually be seen, the sunset will be to their right. "
Simply the comment was wrong . Why do you continually bring up "angles and alignments " they were never used or needed to prove that the comment was wrong , they are the stuff of equidistance between sites and Thom .
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: uffington horse and the sun
Aug 19, 2017, 23:43
tjj wrote:

I used the word to describe the whole tone of the thread. It hasn't really been a discussion but a dismissive dismantling of a piece of work done by an archaeologist who is otherwise respected.

There was a lot of posts in the thread and what looked like a lot of discussion . I quoted comments to highlight the errors within them , I don't think that is unfair or even dogmatic .

tjj wrote:

I don't agree or disagree with the theory as don't have the astrological software at my disposal (or the understanding) to do so. [/quote]

You don't need any , I certainly didn't use any to be aware of and highlight the problems .

tjj wrote:

Generally speaking I'm a fan of logic but there are other elements to which logic cannot always be applied. We have often talked on this forum about how certain sites induce a feeling of well being and/or inexplicable euphoria - perhaps just the effort and sense of achievement of getting there, or a particularly blue sky, or the appearance of a rare bird. Just something not always easily put
rds. [/quote]
That doesn't apply to the contents of the article or what could be considered a scientific paper , it was in "Nature" which is not usually given to printing the type of stuff you describe .

[quote="
Part of me thinks I can't really be arsed anymore but another part says I won't be intimidated or belittled.
[/quote]

Same here .
tjj
tjj
3606 posts

Edited Aug 19, 2017, 23:58
Re: uffington horse and the sun
Aug 19, 2017, 23:54
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
tjj wrote:
Evergreen Dazed wrote:

Rather than get quietly frustrated by this but say nothing, i'm going to be honest, this has really pissed me off.

It's a forum debate about a theory that somebody has included in a paper.
It's nothing to do with you or what Uffington means to you.
You simply posted a news item which prompted comment.
But it seems you now you think you are entitled to start posting sly insulting comment -

"Sweetcheat 'bravely' trying to offer an alternative view"

"The word 'dogmatic' comes to mind"

'Can I have it back now please"

What is that?

Would you like me to start telling you what words come to my mind when I read your posts?

If it makes you feel comfortable to think of me or my comments as 'dogmatic', then that is your issue, not mine. I find the intimation that I, and others, because we are able to apply logic to a problem, are somehow unable or unwilling to consider, or hold, a 'spiritual' view or an 'alternative' view, extremely ignorant.


Hmm! I didn't aim the word dogmatic at you specifically - or Tiompan either (for whom I have the greatest respect). I used the word to describe the whole tone of the thread. It hasn't really been a discussion but a dismissive dismantling of a piece of work done by an archaeologist who is otherwise respected. I don't agree or disagree with the theory as don't have the astronomical software at my disposal (or the understanding) to do so. Generally speaking I'm a fan of logic but there are other elements to which logic cannot always be applied. We have often talked on this forum about how certain sites induce a feeling of well being and/or inexplicable euphoria - perhaps just the effort and sense of achievement of getting there, or a particularly blue sky, or the appearance of a rare bird. Just something not always easily put into words.

I misread your word 'intimation' as intimidation - please think about it Evergreen. You are the only person to start throwing personal remarks around which apart from me referring elsewhere to your sometimes sarcastic wit (which could be taken as a compliment) I don't think I've done.

This is a forum, anyone with an interest in a topic is entitled to comment - even if that comment doesn't seem particularly informed or relevant. Part of me thinks I can't really be arsed anymore but another part says I won't be intimidated or belittled.
You can ignore me if you wish - which you mostly do anyway. Believe me it's been done before.



Ok, that's about as much as I can stand.
I won't be posting here anymore. No flounce, no drama, I just simply won't be posting here anymore.




Why? Because I answered back. You are apparently still waiting for me to do so on another thread.
tjj
tjj
3606 posts

Edited Aug 20, 2017, 00:26
Re: uffington horse and the sun
Aug 20, 2017, 00:10
tiompan wrote:
tjj wrote:

I used the word to describe the whole tone of the thread. It hasn't really been a discussion but a dismissive dismantling of a piece of work done by an archaeologist who is otherwise respected.

There was a lot of posts in the thread and what looked like a lot of discussion . I quoted comments to highlight the errors within them , I don't think that is unfair or even dogmatic .

tjj wrote:

I don't agree or disagree with the theory as don't have the astronomical software at my disposal (or the understanding) to do so. [/quote]

You don't need any , I certainly didn't use any to be aware of and highlight the problems .

tjj wrote:

Generally speaking I'm a fan of logic but there are other elements to which logic cannot always be applied. We have often talked on this forum about how certain sites induce a feeling of well being and/or inexplicable euphoria - perhaps just the effort and sense of achievement of getting there, or a particularly blue sky, or the appearance of a rare bird. Just something not always easily put
rds. [/quote]
That doesn't apply to the contents of the article or what could be considered a scientific paper , it was in "Nature" which is not usually given to printing the type of stuff you describe .

[quote="
Part of me thinks I can't really be arsed anymore but another part says I won't be intimidated or belittled.
[/quote]

Same here .


Thank you for your courteous reply. I'm not pleased Evergreen has chosen to stop posting. Between you, you present a logical discourse but this one felt as though it went on too long and was too one sided to be helpful. No offence intended to either of you.
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: uffington horse and the sun
Aug 20, 2017, 06:43
Please don't go, that would be a big loss.
Pages: 11 – [ Previous | 16 7 8 9 10 11 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index