Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

I wish I was him, I'd know more. He wishes he was me as he wouldn't be getting all this abuse from you!

"opinions DO NOT HAVE to be backed up or proved right to be valid"
I agree if by "to be valid" you mean "to be an entitlement".
However if you mean "to be accepted as true" or even "to be accepted as likely to be true" I don't - unless of course some convincing evidence is offered. Then the listener is entitled to weigh it and decide.

" i did back it up though"
I disagree. A collection of artefacts don't indicate you were led to them by intuition.

BTW if they came from scheduled sites you shouldn't really take them and if they didn't you ought to report them. (Who knows, they might end up in a dreaded book and people may learn from them!)

I wish I was him, I'd know more. He wishes he was me as he wouldn't be getting all this abuse from you!

"opinions DO NOT HAVE to be backed up or proved right to be valid"
I agree if by "to be valid" you mean "to be an entitlement".
However if you mean "to be accepted as true" or even "to be accepted as likely to be true" I don't - unless of course some convincing evidence is offered. Then the listener is entitled to weigh it and decide.

" i did back it up though"
I disagree. A collection of artefacts don't indicate you were led to them by intuition.

BTW if they came from scheduled sites you shouldn't really take them and if they didn't you ought to report them. (Who knows, they might end up in a dreaded book and people may learn from them!)

I know one thing that is 100% correct.....that Texlahoma never expected his original thread to gain 199 replies (and still counting!!) :-)

i rollocked somebody for been rude and saying my opinion wasn't as important as his and because i was told i was wrong because a collection of books told him i was wrong, if it was from his own experience i wouldn't have said a thing, it was like having a load of books rammed down your neck, i speak from experience not books, and even when i did speak from burls and barnetts [as i have read these] books i had that rammed back down my throat as well,

No they don't, in that world they do [prove it, prove it again- oh i can't so therefore it can't be true], just because someone can't prove something is true doesn't make it a lie.... [i know it doesn't make it true either]

If you are talking about my comments your wrong again , you seem incapable of reading and understanding even when it gets pointed out a second time . The comment was "You might like to think your opinion might be as valid as anyone else's , but if your opinion is wrong , in this case the continually unaddressed "Stone circles have nothing left in them " it is not ." For the second time , note the use of valid not important and the qualifier .
For countless posts you avoided facing up to that error now you are laying the blame on Burl and Barnatt , why didn't you own up to that from the start .

Although sometimes testing a theory may disprove it (or bits of it), or it may take it somewhere else instead.

If there is evidence that can be put up against the theory, the evidence may support the theory (without necessarily disproving it), in which case the theory can then be tested against other evidence that comes to light.

If the evidence doesn't fit the theory, then this can be an indication that the theory was completely wrong, or it might just need to be modified to accomodate the evidence. But the evidence itself must also be sound.

For example, if I have a theory that water boils at 50 degrees, I can test this by boiling water and using a thermometer to check the boiling point. If the thermometer shows the water has actually boiled at 100 degrees, this would appear to be evidence that doesn't support my theory.

But what if my thermometer is faulty? What if instead of 100 degrees, it shows that the water is boiling at 50 degrees? Would this prove that my theory was right? Not necessarily.

I could use a second thermometer as a control. If this one shows that water boils at 100 degrees, I have a problem, as the two thermometers show two different boiling points. So it would be necessary to check again with a third thermometer. If I test the temperature with enough thermometers, and they all show the boiling point to be 100 degrees, I can be fairly sure that my original theory "water boils at 50 degrees" is disproven. And then I have to bow to the weight of evidence and accept that my theory was wrong.

I'm a thick person that "knows"[i don't know how] stuff but this makes my head spin,but yes this is right!!!! hope you have a nice cup of tea with that boiling water, it's what i need....

Opinion is wrong-----who says? it could be right!!

Actually, I am doing! But then you already knew that :O)