|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Silbury updates |
This topic is locked
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
goffik 3926 posts |
Edited Jul 31, 2007, 22:51
Jul 31, 2007, 22:24
|
||
|
Oh noes! If it's not on Google, it can't exist! G x
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 01, 2007, 06:02
|
||
|
"Your suggestion that Heritage Action should go and play on their own web site is sound. They shoud have their own forum where they can rant" Mr Carr, a couple of points for the record, not for prolonging this argument, which I'm not going to do, so this will have to do so far as my involvement is concerned - 1.) Yes, you're right, there is probably too much HA related stuff here, especially lately, but consider some of the reasons. a.) A long string of "defeats" on high profile heritage-related matters - defeats for all of us, not just HA. Why wouldn't HA make a fuss here? Please bear in mind HA, for any faults it has, has the virtue of being one of the only organised groups focussed on these matters. You can search for mention of the Rotherwas Ribbon and Silbury et al by the 1,500 archaeologists subscribed to Britarch in vain. That alone suggests something is wrong in this country, surely? b.) A number of "out of the blue" attacks on HA and its individual members. Since they have been demonstrably out of the blue they can't be HA's fault. Since they have not been upon HA policies but upon its personalities they can't be "fair debate" but are much more akin to trolling. And they have an even worse element to them - in some cases they seem to have discernable causes, whether personal and historic or agenda based by people who are opposed to some HA stances but lack the means to win an open argument on certain issues. Yet worse still, we've lately had people who are EH employees or close allies here in disguise, not arguing the case but attacking HA. How disgraceful is that? A couple more points since you seem not to be fully aware of HA's nature and history - 1. It was born, designed and nurtured here, entirely by TMA members in open debate. I reckon at least 20 regular TMA posters are also HA members so there is a natural air of interchange. You and others sense it as cliqueyness. Maybe it is. In view of the shared concerns of the clique I don't feel in the least apologetic about it. 2. I have met Littlestone and find him sensible, friendly, stable and very dedicated to conservation. Ditto the many other HA members I've met over the years, entirely without exception. In fact. we have often been struck, and specifically mentioned after meetings, what extraordinarily nice people seem to be attracted to the cause. I expect this opinion will lead you to claim I'm part of a self-satisfied, self-congratulatory group, as bad as him. So be it. It's how I see it, But don't for a moment think he is unique in being annoyed by unprovoked attacks on HA and therefore suffering some sort of psychological defects. If he is, so are we all. 3.) In fact, the truth is MUCH more simple. Being personally attacked for trying to do something by those who aren't is pretty irritating. 4.) HA has had a flourishing private forum for years. It also had a public one for a while but had to close it due to disruption and ad hominem attacks, mainly from MDers. Much the sort of stuff that has appeared on this thread. Get it? 5.) A personal note: I cannot possibly express to you how little of a damn I give for any attacks on me personally so you and others can say what you f*cking well like about me, and obviously have felt free to do so. What I do give a damn about is where any such attacks on me or other HA members damage HA's capacity to do what it tries to do. Insofar as that happens, and the tiny differences we may make to the various causes is reduced, I have great contempt for the people that indulge themselves in that manner. Littlestone has said he isn't going to respond further, good. Maybe, if you have further issues with him or me you could email us and if you feel you have any issues with anything at all relating to HA you could express them via [email protected] from where you will get a considered and polite reply.
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Aug 01, 2007, 19:26
|
||
|
Robert Carr wrote: slumpystones wrote: And it's Troll-free too, which can only be a good thing. Not if you're on it slumpy one. Really? Some examples would be terribly nice, but I doubt you'll bother to respond.
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Aug 01, 2007, 19:27
|
||
|
Robert Carr wrote: [quote="goffik"] Yeah - we have, cheers. G x Sorry... computer (Google) says no... Cheers
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Aug 01, 2007, 19:30
|
||
|
Robert Carr's main objective seems to be to discredit HA. Subverts a thread, then claims it's all about HA. Classic oldschool trolling. But of course, that's me, apparently.
|
|||
|
Robert Carr 84 posts |
Aug 01, 2007, 19:50
|
||
|
slumpystones wrote: Robert Carr's main objective seems to be to discredit HA. Subverts a thread, then claims it's all about HA. Classic oldschool trolling. But of course, that's me, apparently. Take a jump Mr Weird. Go and do your hate on the Heritage Action forum.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Aug 02, 2007, 10:28
|
||
|
slumpystones wrote: Robert Carr's main objective seems to be to discredit HA. Subverts a thread, then claims it's all about HA. Classic oldschool trolling. You might be right for all I know, but having been called a "troll" simply for arguing a sincerely held point of view, I do feel that the term is bandied around rather loosely on this forum.
|
|||
Paulus 769 posts |
Aug 02, 2007, 17:12
|
||
|
Hi Moss! moss wrote: I threw Paul Devereux's "The Long Trip" book at my hens last week for making too much noise - it did the trick perfectly Paul ;). I'm sure Paul would be pleased to hear that his book has multifunctional purposes! moss wrote: Stirring with spoons is normally a female attribute, it seems that everyone is making judgements about people they have never met, ...though I'm not "stirring it" in anyway Moss. Honestly. (cheers for the 'female attribution' remark though - most of my old lesbian mates tell me I have such attributes a-bundle). I think if I wanted to do that, I could, with considerable efficiency - but to no end other than to irritate and offend other people. I recall Mr Mustard (I think) being accused of the same thing a few weeks back when he was striving to get across a slightly different perspective on things; but it was obvious (to me and a few others anyway) that he was simply trying to apply a widening of particular parameters. But this 'perspective-widening' attribute didn't appear to have been perceivable to other forum chaps, who took much of what he said as purely some antagonistic response. What surprised me more than anything was the fact that his simple querying was imperceptible to those who were shouting him down. If I give the opinion that I'm merely stirring trouble/mischief/whatever, I'm sorry. But I have to ask: what on earth is is that others think they are doing when they start making personal insults and attacks on people? If some dood wants to give out an arrogant attitude, they've gotta expect to gerrit back sometime. Me, personally, I'd rather such an arsehole-attitude, whether it's from me, LittleOne, or whoever, was kept in check. ...Anyway, I hope all is well in the land of Moss. Tis my favourite plant by the way... Cheers - Paul
|
|||
|
Paulus 769 posts |
Aug 02, 2007, 17:18
|
||
|
Hi Robert - Robert Carr wrote: I myself have been accused of being a English Heritage 'spy', a paedophile and given a deathwish of cancer by this nutcase and his pathetic cronies just for the crime of saying 'hang on a minute'. That - if true - is utterly abominable. Could you respond to this and put a link to where it's been said, Rob? I'd like to read exactly what was written. Cheers - Paul
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Aug 02, 2007, 19:28
|
||
|
I have been reading the downward spiral of this thread with great dismay. I do not recall anyone wishing cancer on anyone else. Slumpystone said in response to a British Archeology link about the state of Silbury (posted by Littlestone): "How sad. it is like reading an old friend has cancer, eating away at their insides and no amount of finger crossing will do any good" Best wishes to all tjj
|
| Pages: 67 – [ Previous | 1 … 62 63 64 65 66 67 | Next ] | This topic is locked |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
