|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Silbury updates |
This topic is locked
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jul 29, 2007, 07:34
|
||
|
Mr Carr, you have posted a couple of dozen comments on this thread, and perhaps another dozen comments elsewhere on TMA (including your somewhat irrelevant thread of Stonehenge at Live Earth, where you merely wittered to yourself). In all, your comments seem to comprise of taking issue with what others post and little else. Nigel Swift (and others at Heritage Action and on TMA) have campaigned tirelessly over many years for the right course of action to be taken with regard to the conservation of Silbury while minor irritants such as yourself do little other than try to subvert threads, and the incompetents at English Heritage continue to flap from one disastrous course of inaction to another. If I may ask you a question Mr Carr: do you actually have something of megalithic interest to contribute to TMA or are you just here to irritate those of us who do? If the answer to that question is yes (you do have something of megalithic interest to contribute) I am sure we will all look forward to further exchanges with you. If the answer is no there seems little point in engaging with you further.
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Jul 29, 2007, 14:43
|
||
|
Robert Carr wrote: Littlestone wrote: - a deluge you could have prevented had there been a single competent 'expert' on your parole! Cor blimey! English Heritage are responsible for the weather too! You really couldn't see what was really being said? Littlestone wrote: Tell you what I heard English Heritage, I heard the sounds of Jericho. Robert Carr wrote: The Prophet of Dooom speaks. Why are you addressing English Heritage? I doubt whether they are listening to your irrational diatribe. Your presence says otherwise, Mr Carr.
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Jul 29, 2007, 14:51
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: ...have campaigned tirelessly over many years for the right course of action to be taken with regard to the conservation of Silbury while minor irritants such as yourself do little other than try to subvert threads... I suspect you said it all just about there. Some will criticise the content, others the context. Rather than actually contribute in a constructive way, some would rather criticise the way the argument is portrayed, the methods used, the angle taken. With little in the way of a positive contribution either for or against the argument itself, it must be assumed that they have no opinion on [or even interest in] the subject being discussed.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jul 29, 2007, 15:56
|
||
|
With little in the way of a positive contribution either for or against the argument itself, it must be assumed that they have no opinion on [or even interest in] the subject being discussed. Aye, slumpy me hearty, let's now see what Mr Charismatic is able to contribute to our general pool of knowledge and information on this and other things megalithic. Meanwhile, I dug this out earlier http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba80/feat1.shtml It's not too long an article and may be of interest to folks who's heads are hurting after trying to unravel 600+ posts to this thread.
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Jul 29, 2007, 17:02
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: With little in the way of a positive contribution either for or against the argument itself, it must be assumed that they have no opinion on [or even interest in] the subject being discussed. Aye, slumpy me hearty, let's now see what Mr Charismatic is able to contribute to our general pool of knowledge and information on this and other things megalithic. Meanwhile, I dug this out earlier http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba80/feat1.shtml It's not too long an article and may be of interest to folks who's heads are hurting after trying to unravel 600+ posts to this thread. How sad. It's like reading that an old friend has cancer, eating away at their insides, and no amount of finger-crossing will do much good.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jul 29, 2007, 17:26
|
||
|
How sad. It's like reading that an old friend has cancer, eating away at their insides, and no amount of finger-crossing will do much good. Well, Mr Carr isn't (I hope) in quite such a terminal state slumpy ;-) but Silbury certainly is. And at the risk of raising Mr Carr's blood pressure even further one is tempted to ask why?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 30, 2007, 11:42
|
||
|
FOTH, thanks for what you have imparted so far. Since you seem to be close to the action might I request that you post more, as much as you feel able? There are a lot of people out here who have a lot of emotional attachment to the Hill and are in a position not unlike having a critically ill relative in hospital but being up against a virtual wall of silence from the doctors, picking up tiny hints and fearing the worst. This has how EH has conducted the project for seven years so its hardly a surprise but their conception of public outreach has been to say as little as possible and spin what they do say to make it sound like they are perfect in every respect. That attitude is particularly unsustainable just now as things are obviously very serious and pinning it on God for delivering an exceptional period of rainfall, like he does periodically as we all know, isn't going to be enough to explain it all is it? I think, if you can give some details where you know them of the perceived cause and source of the saturation, the anticipated mechanical and chemical changes it is likely to have resulted in, the scale and position of the collapses and an idea of the sort of risks that may be being faced it would do a favour to the public. And indeed to EH - better the plain truth should be out, however serious, they'll get more understanding and sympathy in the horrifically difficult task they now face than if they persist with mumbling and hints. Yes, I know they don't know a lot and simply can't give definitive answers, but they sure as hell know a lot more than they're sharing. There is no respectable reason why what the public knows shouldn't equate with what they know but I have long given up thinking they will ever act in an open and transparent way. If people like you can get us to the position we would be in if they did then it would be beneficial all round. Thanks.
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Jul 30, 2007, 18:25
|
||
|
Pilgrim wrote: I'm sorry; I'm feeling angry and short-changed right now. We're paying for this in so many ways. I must confess to being a tad angry myself. Seemingly obvious problems and precautions overlooked, and now a media nightmare for EH as they close ranks and carry out a damage limitation exercise. On themselves first, then the Hill. Priorities...
|
|||
|
whipangel 137 posts |
Jul 30, 2007, 18:28
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: FOTH, thanks for what you have imparted so far... ...There are a lot of people out here who have a lot of emotional attachment to the Hill... As someone living miles away who slept very uneasily on the 26th/27th, woke at 5 to listen to the region's radio and in desperation made my own enquiries to EH and pointed the Regional Beeb at this site for them to make it news, I concur. Thanks FOTH from a distant reader, I know you can't post your pics but your words are most welcome.
|
|||
|
Robert Carr 84 posts |
Jul 31, 2007, 09:43
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: slumps wrote: How sad. It's like reading that an old friend has cancer, eating away at their insides, and no amount of finger-crossing will do much good. Well, Mr Carr isn't (I hope) in quite such a terminal state slumpy ;-) but Silbury certainly is. And at the risk of raising Mr Carr's blood pressure even further one is tempted to ask why? chuckle chuckle Shame about Silbury Hill. If it does collapse though the one consolation will be the fun of watching the top of your head explode!
|
| Pages: 67 – [ Previous | 1 … 59 60 61 62 63 64 | Next ] | This topic is locked |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
