|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Mystical, Academic or Aesthetic (again) |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
whatisthat 255 posts |
Sep 07, 2006, 08:51
|
||
Forgive the fanciful thought but I think the first people to rubbish earth energies etc. would be the builders of the monuments themselves. And how would we like it if the folks of the 51st century visited ruined bingo halls and mobile phone masts and started wittering on about lines or energies.
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Sep 07, 2006, 09:54
|
||
Actually I quite enjoy a good discussion about the mystical in the stones, earth energies become boring because only certain people can feel them, the rest of us are not plumbed in so to speak. Now I missed a whole discussion on stone heads at Avebury, which has rather peeved me, and there's a lot of mileage out of a mother goddess in the landscape - though actually I don't believe that one either... so bring on Michael Dames, Terence Meaden, etc, they seem to sell there books pretty well on their theories...
|
|||
Moth 5236 posts |
Sep 07, 2006, 13:16
|
||
|
Ah, but with phone masts, they'd kinda be right.... ;^) love Moth
|
|||
doktoratomik 379 posts |
Sep 07, 2006, 14:01
|
||
|
whatisthat wrote: Forgive the fanciful thought but I think the first people to rubbish earth energies etc. would be the builders of the monuments themselves. That's a helluva bit of speculation, considering how little we know about them. whatisthat wrote: And how would we like it if the folks of the 51st century visited ruined bingo halls and mobile phone masts and started wittering on about lines or energies. "Wittering"? Y'know, it's only yesterday that I mentioned how this forum could seem a little cliquey. Well now it feels more like a concerted effort to disparage anyone whose views don't fit with the forum norm. Yeah, sure, it's not cliquey in here at all.
|
|||
|
Moth 5236 posts |
Edited Sep 07, 2006, 14:58
Sep 07, 2006, 14:56
|
||
|
Hi Dok, you seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about this and it's now spread over 2 or more threads. If you really want to discuss it, how about starting a thread asking people if they think it's cliquey here? Maybe we can have some views from people who have joined within the last year or 2, as well as from you and longstanding users of the site - who are immediately on the defensive coz 'clique' is such a pejorative term.... love Moth
|
|||
jacksprat 284 posts |
Sep 07, 2006, 14:59
|
||
|
doktor I enjoyed your contribution to the threads yesterday. From where I'm reading I don't think the 'wittering' is mean't offensively. Just a term of phrase, I think things can be misconstrued too easily. Keep the skin thick and keep posting! Cheers JS
|
|||
|
doktoratomik 379 posts |
Sep 07, 2006, 15:25
|
||
|
Moth wrote: Hi Dok, you seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about this and it's now spread over 2 or more threads. Ummm... I don't think that's entirely fair, seeing as this thread was specifically started on the topic, straight on the back of the other one. Am I not allowed to express a contrary opinion now? Moth wrote: If you really want to discuss it, how about starting a thread asking people if they think it's cliquey here? I would hypothesise that the general attitude on the forum has probably already put off a lot of people with contrary views to the norm, so you'd kinda be asking the wrong people. Moth wrote: 'clique' is such a pejorative term.... Not really. I'm not suggesting an intentional clique. Cliques generally arise because people form a tight-knit group. They're not generally conspiracies intended to exclude others. To be honest though, you seem to be set on taking offence at whatever I say, and I really can't be arsed to get into an argument about this. It's just an opinion - not an attack.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 07, 2006, 15:46
|
||
|
Y'know, it's only yesterday that I mentioned how this forum could seem a little cliquey. Couldn't that be a wrong impression? After all, not many people in the wider world believe in earth energies so it would hardly be surprising if most people here don't either. Not believing something and being a majority isn't really a clique, only if there's a deliberate attempt to exclude ideas. I don't remember any of that, only resistance to a couple of people pushing their views too hard. Personally I have no belief in earth energies but I've wittered about funny feelings at sites and tried to rationalise it in terms of aesthetics and associations etc. but if someone wants to say it comes from more than that then fine.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Sep 07, 2006, 16:44
|
||
|
Not believing something and being a majority isn't really a clique, only if there's a deliberate attempt to exclude ideas. I don't remember any of that, only resistance to a couple of people pushing their views too hard. Precisely, though perceiving TMA as cliquey is perhaps understandable if you're a newcomer. Personally, I don't think that's the right word to use to describe the Forum - community might be a bit more accurate. People really do get to know each other here, both as internet friends or actually by meeting up and becoming 'real' friends. That's not cliquey, it's just normal group interaction. TMA seems a much friendlier and more eclectic place than it did a couple of years ago. Newcomers are generally welcomed with a greeting and listened to, and unless their posts are downright offensive they're give a lot of slack to air their views. It's only when they bang on about their pet theories ad nauseam, or are abusive, that the 'residents' get fed up and start to object. Forum debates though can sometimes be a bit of a high-wire walk - the line between disagreeing with someone and being perceived as confrontational is a thin one. That's not to say (intellectual) confrontation is a bad thing - the most boring communities are those where there is no intellectual confrontation. Political cartoonists and satirists are confrontational by nature, and it worries me when people/groups try to silence them. Guess it depends what the motive for disagreeing or confronting is; if the motive is just to stir up trouble then it's unacceptable. If the motive is to get things out in the open and discussed then it's acceptable. Perhaps Forum etiquette should be just the same as the etiquette we try to follow when entering any new social group; introduce ourselves, get to know who's who, and the general feel of the place, then start to contribute, debate and, yes, even confront. It's stating the obvious, but the more that members get to know each other the more unlikely misunderstandings will arise. The hilarious leg-pulling over Goff's emergence from Rillaton Barrow is an example of that, and again shows TMA more in the light of a community than of a clique. Personally I like TMA the way it is, there's a nice crossover of ideas without having sub-categories that some of us might not actually bother with (and that would be a pity). There's also a lot of fantastic information and humour on TMA - one minute you can be saying to yourself wow didn't know that, or look at that fantastic photo, and the next thing you can be rolling around on the floor :-)
|
|||
|
Moth 5236 posts |
Sep 07, 2006, 16:54
|
||
|
LOL! I wasn't taking offence. I knew I should kept out of it, as I'm not really interested in the debate. I was just trying to be constructive by separating the 'accusation' of cliquiness (the word IS pejorative, whether you meant it that way or not) from the discussion of the different approaches to ancient sites and their relative merits for this board. love Moth
|
| Pages: 5 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
