Pete G
|
Re: Avebury stone 78 problem
Jul 04, 2004, 23:38
|
>Put it down to the lateness of the hour.
Er, no sorry Nigel, I am now beginingg to think that Mike's proposal is going to get turned down flat.
After 8 years of carefull planning this could all turn to pixie dust because a few people demand unreasonable things.
I'm taking a sabbatical to watch this years events unfold, photograph the next dig and start work on my Avebury book.
I won't bother making any more announcements here,
PeteG
|
Pete G
|
Re: Avebury stone 78 problem
Jul 04, 2004, 23:39
|
Get yer arse back down here with your lady and bring your own guitar! :-)
PeteG
|
Grendel
|
Re: Avebury stone 78 problem
Jul 05, 2004, 07:22
|
Ignoring the well consdiered two syllable response from the lunatic fringe - Mike Pitts' project is the ony realistic way a stone will be erected at Avebury. If the erection goes well who knows what NT might consider in the future particularly as geophysics seems to be locating more buried megaliths.
What positive encouragement does NT need to nudge them twoards agreeing Mike's project? is there any scope for involvement from other groups to help out?
The project is bound to attract huge media and visitor interest and could/should be used as a vehicle to promote the aims of other groups and campaigns.
On another note Pete - have the County, district and Parish Councils and NT ever discussed a park and ride for Avebury. Would seem ripe for it to me (although I don't know the geography for the 'park' bit).
Don't judge us all by the articulation of one Pete ;-)
G
|
hamish
|
Re: Avebury stone 78 problem
Jul 06, 2004, 21:38
|
Your quite right Pete, Littlestone and his ilk have moved here from the stones list and are behaving in the same irresponsible way they do over there. It's a damned shame, I hope they soon find somewhere else to vent their rather bloated spleens.
If I were you I'ld keep the whole thing close to your chest for the time.
I for one would miss your comments if you withdrew again.
H.
|
doktoratomik
|
Re: Avebury stone 78 problem
Jul 07, 2004, 09:49
|
|
I know! Let's start hurling around insults! That's sure to help the situation!
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Avebury stone 78 problem
Jul 07, 2004, 10:46
|
|
Leaving aside the insult issue, I think if you review a couple of recent threads you'll see evidence of statements that are so outrageous that they seem more likely to have been made to deliberately annoy than to have been sincerely or soberly worked out. I could be wrong, but that's how they strike me. Carelessly similar to trollism, let's say.
|
doktoratomik
|
Re: Avebury stone 78 problem
Jul 07, 2004, 11:45
|
|
Assuming that's the case, then sinking to the same level and responding in kind isn't likely to be productive, is it?
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Avebury stone 78 problem
Jul 07, 2004, 12:18
|
"Assuming that's the case, then sinking to the same level and responding in kind isn't likely to be productive, is it?"
No it's not, but the nature of a troll is that you'll never get anything productive out of him so I'm not sure it matters either way!
Neither Hamish's nor Pete's responses amounted to a one-word response, "bollocks" issued late at night so I guess they have a long way to go before their responses have sunk to an equivalent level!
Maybe if there's any criticism to be dished out it should be directed in the first instance to the author of that, and they should actually be commended for their restraint... ;)
|
doktoratomik
|
Re: Avebury stone 78 problem
Jul 07, 2004, 12:47
|
|
I'm not convinced he's a troll, but conventional wisdom would suggest "do not feed" if he is.
|
doktoratomik
|
Re: Avebury stone 78 problem
Jul 07, 2004, 14:26
|
|
Having now sunk to the same level as some twat on another thread, I hereby label myself a hypocrite and withdraw any earlier criticism :)
|
