Pete G
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jul 01, 2007, 12:49
|
|
well said!
|
slumpystones
|
Re: (OT) Antlers, and the pieces thereof......
Jul 01, 2007, 13:22
|
|
rammie wrote: Yeah, just being facetious this time, damn, there goes another England wicket!
England are a three-man team lately - Peterson, Collingwood and whoever decides to be in form on the day...
|
Mustard
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jul 01, 2007, 13:29
|
|
nigelswift wrote: ...it might be more appropriate to work on the assumption that they say what they do because they have a sincere belief in what they say.
A laudable opinion!
|
slumpystones
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jul 01, 2007, 13:32
|
|
Mustard wrote: nigelswift wrote: ...it might be more appropriate to work on the assumption that they say what they do because they have a sincere belief in what they say.
A laudable opinion!
With the odd exception of those who just want to muddy the waters of course ;)
|
nigelswift
|
Re: (OT) Antlers, and the pieces thereof......
Jul 01, 2007, 13:33
|
"I'm fairly sure I'm not in favour of the TC but when I wonder why I discover its just an emotional response, lol! I guess in the scheme of things its not a terribly destructive thing to do."
I agree, in the scheme of things its a small matter. But - and maybe its my age, I don't know - I can't help but be a bit shocked to see the body that is the top guardian of all this heritage just (as I see it) flouting the rules - for no explained or fathomable reason. In itself not a good role model for the Avebury kids and certainly a very unwise thing to do in view of the fact that for everyone else in the country burying crystals and such like at scheduled monuments is not only frowned on but illegal. So it blows some of their moral authority - and that of everyone else - to disapprove of "self-determination of the resource" as my little metal detecting friends term it.
There's also a valid reason for an emotional response. Isn't this the organisation that has earned itself quite a reputation for being just a tad high handed, secretive and arrogant here and there over a large number of years amongst a large number of people in a large number of places? 90% undeserved, let us say, but since they must be aware of the fact then you might think someone in the organisation might have the sense to ensure the reputation is NEVER validly earned. Seems not. Which is a bit scary.
|
Robert Carr
|
Re: Time Capsules?
Jul 01, 2007, 13:37
|
|
slumpystones wrote: Robert Carr wrote: slumpystones wrote: Anyone can create a search phrase and get thousands of response pages. I bet paedophilia gets a good few, but I doubt that you support that too?
uh...?
support...? paedophilia...?
sorry I'm lost...
Maybe you should stick to sarcastic remarks then.
You quoted a search term in Google to support your argument, and I proved how worthless it all is.
Try to keep up lad...
Just trying to keep up with why you brought up the subject of 'paedophilia'? That along with the extensive discussion by you and your chums about the activities of school children leaves me a little boggled!
|
slumpystones
|
Re: Time Capsules?
Jul 01, 2007, 13:57
|
|
Robert Carr wrote: slumpystones wrote: Robert Carr wrote: slumpystones wrote: Anyone can create a search phrase and get thousands of response pages. I bet paedophilia gets a good few, but I doubt that you support that too?
uh...?
support...? paedophilia...?
sorry I'm lost...
Maybe you should stick to sarcastic remarks then.
You quoted a search term in Google to support your argument, and I proved how worthless it all is.
Try to keep up lad...
Just trying to keep up with why you brought up the subject of 'paedophilia'? That along with the extensive discussion by you and your chums about the activities of school children leaves me a little boggled!
Subsitute it for another term that is equally unwanted - how about terrorism? Just because you'll get in excess of a million hits for it doesn't make it right, or the accepted way to behave. According to your criteria, getting 24,000 results for antlers deliberately placed in ancient monuments is proof that they all were. I'm trying to show that Google search results prove nothing.
|
rammie
|
Re: (OT) Antlers, and the pieces thereof......
Jul 01, 2007, 14:02
|
Yeah you're right, and it would be nice to see EH (the organisation) humbled a bit.
But that doesn't mean its not your age! Lol!
|
Lubin
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jul 01, 2007, 14:52
|
|
scousemaiden wrote: Who are we to say that the artifacts we are finding/have found were not purposely left by our Neolithic ancestors as their own time capsule. As i said perhaps Silbury was meant to contain treasures to be found in the future; so who are any of us to say a time capsule is wrong?
Scousemaiden xxx
Quite right , we cannot say whether the artifacts found inside the hill were left by the ancients as a form of time capsule. However they were left at the time of building not at a later date. I think your reasoning states that the time capsule should be left under or near to the school as that would seem more appropriate.
Peace , Lubin
|
Toxic Delerium
|
Edited Jul 01, 2007, 15:04
Re: Ask the Experts
Jul 01, 2007, 14:59
|
Or maybe you're just looking for an argument?[/quote]
methinks this is the real attitude.
How many of you ' good ' people would turn down the chance to have a look inside Silbury hill. I would have LOVED to have been there, and i think most of the complainers would too.
So dont give us this better than you bullshit attitude. Green does'nt always suit as a colour.
|
