ascorbic
|
Re: I'd take the Fifth....
Jun 19, 2007, 14:20
|
|
rammie wrote: Got any more info on the current Silbury set-up ascorbic?
Current as opposed to what? No, not much beyond what I've said already.
|
rammie
|
Re: I'd take the Fifth....
Jun 19, 2007, 15:23
|
|
'current' as in 'behind the scenes currently'
|
slumpystones
|
Re: Week 5 update
Jun 19, 2007, 20:06
|
|
I think it's old subsidence that they're recording.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: I'd take the Fifth....
Jun 19, 2007, 22:47
|
Thanks once again for your input ascorbic.
At the risk of repeating myself (and others) it really is not much of an excuse, is it, that English Heritage are unable to provide up-to-date progress reports on their work at Silbury. To say that those, "...living either on site or are put up in accommodation nearby..." are, "somewhat "unwired"..." is really not good enough. As Pilgrim has pointed out elsewhere, "Wireless internet anyone?" And if that is not possible, Silbury, Devizes, Marlborough or Swindon are just a short drive away where an internet connection can easily be established.
No, sorry, it just doesn't wash. English Heritage are guilty of appalling mismanagement and disinformation on they're activities at Silbury. They have failed to provide detailed progress reports to the public, via their website (which most people rely on for information) while five or six weeks into their 'conservation' project at Silbury they still haven't posted a single question or answer on their Ask the Experts thread - I think that speaks for itself.
As for English Heritage's idea of a time capsule in Silbury... are we really paying taxes and the salaries of those responsible for this nonsense?
Once again, please don't take this as a criticism of your contribution here (which really is appreciated) but of growing anger and frustration towards those who claim to be the custodians of our heritage and are failing us miserably in that trust.
|
slumpystones
|
Re: I'd take the Fifth....
Jun 20, 2007, 07:51
|
|
Littlestone wrote: Thanks once again for your input ascorbic.
At the risk of repeating myself (and others) it really is not much of an excuse, is it, that English Heritage are unable to provide up-to-date progress reports on their work at Silbury. To say that those, "...living either on site or are put up in accommodation nearby..." are, "somewhat "unwired"..." is really not good enough. As Pilgrim has pointed out elsewhere, "Wireless internet anyone?" And if that is not possible, Silbury, Devizes, Marlborough or Swindon are just a short drive away where an internet connection can easily be established.
No, sorry, it just doesn't wash. English Heritage are guilty of appalling mismanagement and disinformation on they're activities at Silbury. They have failed to provide detailed progress reports to the public, via their website (which most people rely on for information) while five or six weeks into their 'conservation' project at Silbury they still haven't posted a single question or answer on their Ask the Experts thread - I think that speaks for itself.
As for English Heritage's idea of a time capsule in Silbury... are we really paying taxes and the salaries of those responsible for this nonsense?
Once again, please don't take this as a criticism of your contribution here (which really is appreciated) but of growing anger and frustration towards those who claim to be the custodians of our heritage and are failing us miserably in that trust.
The website updates would require no more than a simple connection, no need for blistering broadband with a 1mb pdf and a few pics, but even 1998 technology seems to have bypassed EH. They obviously walked into this unaware of the public interest, a public who, in the absence of TV cameras [even Atkinson managed that!] rely on the internet and expect a little more than a photo each week. The fact that they still haven't cottoned on to the idea yet after all these weeks says it all.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: I'd take the Fifth....
Jun 20, 2007, 07:59
|
|
The website updates would require no more than a simple connection, no need for blistering broadband with a 1mb pdf and a few pics, but even 1998 technology seems to have bypassed EH. They obviously walked into this unaware of the public interest, a public who, in the absence of TV cameras [even Atkinson managed that!] rely on the internet and expect a little more than a photo each week. The fact that they still haven't cottoned on to the idea yet after all these weeks says it all.
Aye, right again slumpy, and we're paying these people's wages. Sigh... heads at English Heritage need banging together big time. And to illustrate your comments above, most of us here could do better with our blogs, and many of us have little or no computer training to speak of.
|
Pilgrim
|
Re: I'd take the Fifth....
Jun 20, 2007, 08:02
|
|
slumpystones wrote: The website updates would require no more than a simple connection, no need for blistering broadband with a 1mb pdf and a few pics, but even 1998 technology seems to have bypassed EH. They obviously walked into this unaware of the public interest, a public who, in the absence of TV cameras [even Atkinson managed that!] rely on the internet and expect a little more than a photo each week. The fact that they still haven't cottoned on to the idea yet after all these weeks says it all.
Call me cynical, slumpystones, but it seems strange that they want us all to register online to vote Stonehenge as one of the New Seven Wonders, but can't get their act together on their own project.
Peace
Pilgrim
X
|
rammie
|
Re: I'd take the Fifth....
Jun 20, 2007, 09:01
|
|
I think you'll find that suddenly EH have more to try and sort out than internet access....
|
ocifant
|
Re: I'd take the Fifth....
Jun 20, 2007, 09:18
|
|
Why "suddenly"?
|
Littlestone
|
Re: I'd take the Fifth....
Jun 20, 2007, 09:31
|
|
ocifant wrote: Why "suddenly"?
Mmm... yes, that is an intriguing use of the word rammie, do tell. Any information that might help to do what is best for Silbury is much valued and appreciated.
|
