|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Silbury updates |
This topic is locked
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Robert Carr 84 posts |
Aug 03, 2007, 08:21
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: slumpystones 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? Thank you Littlestone for your concern about my health, but frankly I don't see the relevance to your conversation with slumpystones and doubt your sincerity. Anyway as you ask, I am well touch wood. Unfortunately my dear wife Lorna who died from breast cancer in 2003 was not so lucky. Littlestone, have you watched someone die from cancer... close up...? I think if you had you would have thought before blurting out your hate.
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Aug 03, 2007, 09:19
|
||
|
Hi Paul, Thanks for all that, to be quite honest I don't conduct arguments on forums, nor strangely enough do I bear grudges, we all have different personalities its exhausting having to reply to people who see things differently from ones own point of view. But returning to the subject in hand once more, I went to Avebury on Wednesday, August 1st - Lammas Day to be exact just to see that Silbury was fairly intact, which it is on the OUTSIDE, no implosion having occurred, not that I thought one had really. Witnessed the druid ceremony, as did Ronald Hutton - scribe of paganism. Watched Terry the Druid move round the top of Silbury invoking lightening (at least that was what I was told) luckily the gods were'nt with him and rain did'nt appear - the area round Silbury drains pretty quickly into the chalk, even though apparently the water had been over a metre deep on Saturday round Silbury. But the Winterbourne is running fairly deep for this time of the year. Moss
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 03, 2007, 09:27
|
||
|
Mr Carr, there are few of us who are not closely touched by cancer, you should not presume otherwise as it would be a spectacular mistake. As one of them, I consider Littlestone's remark cannot be validly painted as inappropriate in the least. Your earlier statements about what had been said about you have already been shown to be entirely inaccurate. There is no more to be said, its on the record for anyone that cares to look. Heritage Action has already resolved not to respond to further goading about itself so I can only repeat, please contact us on [email protected] as that is the only way you will elicit further responses.
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Aug 03, 2007, 14:28
|
||
|
Robert Carr wrote: Littlestone wrote: slumpystones 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? Thank you Littlestone for your concern about my health, but frankly I don't see the relevance to your conversation with slumpystones and doubt your sincerity. Anyway as you ask, I am well touch wood. Unfortunately my dear wife Lorna who died from breast cancer in 2003 was not so lucky. Littlestone, have you watched someone die from cancer... close up...? I think if you had you would have thought before blurting out your hate. There you go, subverting a thread, taking a single word from a single post and making it all about what YOU want. You accuse someone of doing something they patently are not doing, and somehow think that makes you right. Typical, sad and shallow, and trolling to a ridiculously childish aged-10 level.
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Aug 03, 2007, 14:32
|
||
|
Robert Carr wrote: 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. Hate? From me? Have you actually read your shallow little one-man campaign against HA and anyone who appears to support their views? I would suspect not, or you'd not have said something so stupid. But then of course, constantly subverting a thread to attack anyone you don't agree with makes you like kinda dumb anyway.
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Aug 03, 2007, 14:37
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: 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.It indeed has been in the past. But in this case the cap fits, even if [as I suspect] the troll in question is unaware of the headgear he is wearing. Take a look at every post by said chap, and try to find anything constructive, let alone any hint of an interest in the actual subject. The thread could be about anything at all, the price of bread for instance, and he'd still be twisting and turning, gnashing teeth and trying to make the discussion revolve around himself. Of course, that's what I'm supposed to be doing.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Aug 03, 2007, 14:52
|
||
|
slumpystones wrote: Mustard wrote: 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.It indeed has been in the past. But in this case the cap fits, even if [as I suspect] the troll in question is unaware of the headgear he is wearing. Take a look at every post by said chap, and try to find anything constructive, let alone any hint of an interest in the actual subject. The thread could be about anything at all, the price of bread for instance, and he'd still be twisting and turning, gnashing teeth and trying to make the discussion revolve around himself. Of course, that's what I'm supposed to be doing.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Aug 03, 2007, 15:26
|
||
Was the Silbury Visitor Information Point still open moss?
|
|||
|
moss 2897 posts |
Aug 03, 2007, 16:14
|
||
|
Yes it was, and the girl on duty was both interesting and informative on the subject, she was also of course reassuring about the plight of Silbury, but that was only to be expected. She talked of archaeological 'monoliths' not stone this time, but squares of chalk taken for future research and frozen in time ,of course in cold storage, bit like heritage seed collections, they would be kept I suppose for sediment and pollen analysis...... Silbury is as always enigmatic, was the platform on top levelled by Saxons who would have stockaded the hill quite easily, could Silbury sit on a henge, somehow when you come to visit the minds and times of prehistory it makes you realise that over a long time span lots of things were happening round Silbury...A bit like Stonehenge with its mesolithic timbers in the car park, people coming back again and again to the same place ....
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Aug 03, 2007, 16:42
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: slumpystones wrote: Mustard wrote: 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.It indeed has been in the past. But in this case the cap fits, even if [as I suspect] the troll in question is unaware of the headgear he is wearing. Take a look at every post by said chap, and try to find anything constructive, let alone any hint of an interest in the actual subject. The thread could be about anything at all, the price of bread for instance, and he'd still be twisting and turning, gnashing teeth and trying to make the discussion revolve around himself. Of course, that's what I'm supposed to be doing. I disagree, as you'd expect. Firstly I object to being called 'you lot' as if I speak for anyone else. I speak purely for myself. I don't think there is anything nasty or vitriolic in any of my posts - sarcastic maybe, disagreeable certainly, but that's about all. You have created this 'clique' idea by putting people into imaginary groups, instead of accepting that maybe, just maybe, they actually agree with other. Why is it so impossible to believe that individuals cannot share a belief in something, or indeed a distaste for something else, without being accused of being organised? "English Heritage's handling of the whole Silbury issue from day one has been nothing more than shoddy" is the main complaint by many - is that so impossible to understand? The question you should be asking is why someone who is educated, erudite and intelligent, should seek to subvert discussions about English Heritage and Silbury, not once actually contributing anything, rather attacking the methods used by others, making fun of their attempts to change the way things are done and generally subverting the thread? Why should he bother? He has indicated no real interest in the actual subject of this forum, let alone this thread, and has chosen to harrass those who have legitimate concerns, with good reason, for a fragile and threatened ancient monument. Now tell me, why would anyone want to do that?
|
| Pages: 67 – [ Previous | 1 … 62 63 64 65 66 67 | Next ] | This topic is locked |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
