It would be a shame if they didn't raise them.
I think anyone that feels a kinship with the stones would like to see them raised. It seems unfair (and a little eerie) that there are fifteen or more monoliths hidden beneath Avebury.
Look, I've got a spade and a bit of rope . . . anyone interested?
Then afterwards, we'll sort out Arbor Low on the way home.
 Reply | with quote | Posted by suave harv
3rd December 2003ce
15:40 |
new stones found (Rhiannon, Dec 02, 2003, 17:52)- Re: new stones found (Pete G, Dec 02, 2003, 20:23)
- from today's Independent (grrr, Dec 03, 2003, 11:47)
- BBC article (Killer, Dec 03, 2003, 14:07)
- BBC article (Killer, Dec 03, 2003, 14:07)
- Re: new stones found (Kammer, Dec 03, 2003, 14:10)
- Its the Pitts (Pete G, Dec 03, 2003, 18:47)
- Re: new stones found (gm, Dec 03, 2003, 19:47)
- Re: new stones found (Moth, Dec 03, 2003, 20:40)
- Re: new stones found (pebblesfromheaven, Dec 03, 2003, 22:33)
- New 'low profile' Moth (Moth, Dec 04, 2003, 01:47)
- Re: New 'low profile' Moth (nigelswift, Dec 04, 2003, 09:09)
- Re: New 'low profile' Moth (BlueGloves, Dec 04, 2003, 09:24)
- Re: New 'low profile' Moth (FourWinds, Dec 04, 2003, 10:14)
- Re: New 'low profile' Moth (nigelswift, Dec 04, 2003, 10:31)
- Re: New 'low profile' Moth (Rhiannon, Dec 04, 2003, 10:53)
- Re: New 'low profile' Moth (BlueGloves, Dec 04, 2003, 12:40)
- Re: putting them back up (Rhiannon, Dec 04, 2003, 12:50)
- Re: putting them back up (suave harv, Dec 04, 2003, 16:55)
- Re: putting them back up (BlueGloves, Dec 05, 2003, 07:55)
- Re: putting them back up (nigelswift, Dec 05, 2003, 08:36)
- Re: putting them back up (FourWinds, Dec 05, 2003, 08:43)
- Re: putting them back up (nigelswift, Dec 05, 2003, 08:57)
- Also... (nigelswift, Dec 05, 2003, 09:06)
- And (BlueGloves, Dec 06, 2003, 10:17)
- Re: And (nigelswift, Dec 06, 2003, 11:32)
- Re: And (BlueGloves, Dec 06, 2003, 13:33)
- Re: putting them back up (megalith6, Jun 20, 2004, 23:45)
|
|
Head To Head 
Re: from today's Independent (Pete G)