|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Trethevy Quoit Forum | Start a topic | Search |
159 messages | Select a forum: |
stonefree wrote: tiompan wrote: stonefree wrote: tiompan wrote: Mr Hamhead wrote: David (Horsedrawn) has the evidence...and I have seen it in practice. But how can we in the 21st century prove, or disprove, what he is telling us? As I have already said, I am not convinced but I am not in a position to say he is wrong. We have not been presented with any evidence . If there is evidence then it is potentially falsifiable , until then it's anecdotal How very sad that your base level for discussion, tiompan, appears to be nothing more than scathing cynicism, distrust and provocation. It's hardly fertile ground for open and frank discussion, let alone the presentation of new ideas, is it now? After more than 50 posts you(se) still have provided nothing , conveniently ignoring anything that proves awkward and when stuck getting personal and patronising , probably the only way you can still get some attenmtion seeing as there is nothing else . Look back at the earlier posts there was ample opportunity to present "new ideas " . Nigel S has responed eloquently enough to your post so I'll not bother any more except . Yer a bam . You quite clearly haven't read the posts by my colleague Dave Kane (horsedrawn) or looked properly at any of the photographs I posted (just a handful of several thousand taken so far) We have more important work to do than pander to your pedantic whims by presenting our research when, and in precisely the way, you'd like. Such things are best presented altogether and in context, otherwise cynics like yourself will just pour scorn and derision on each and every aspect of it without even attempting to see the bigger picture. By the way you have behaved so far, anyone would think that we were trying to belittle, undermine or pull apart some of your own research, which would perhaps be understandable, but that's quite clearly not the case because there doesn't appear to be any! So I'm afraid you're just going to have to wait until we publish, but in the meantime, please feel free to find someone else to be rude and insulting to! Read my posts including the thread http://www.themodernantiquaria[...]/forum/?thread=58935&offset=25 .I have read your pals posts , loads of them which have never produced any evidence of anything . I've seen your pics and commented on them . e.g. Foggy and Compo , no reply to the fact that they do not appear on early OS maps and their orientation being close to Imbolc and Samhain , a good example of an apparent "alignment " that could be found anywhere if you look hard enough . .The only time I have been rude and insulting is after being accused of being provocative meanwhile you maintained a patronising manner e.g. getting a laugh at using Lanyon Quoit as a control ,this was quickly ignored when the concept seemed to be understood .Here are some other examples of points that you have avoided after being pointed out , "the Einstein quote " which was wrong and hardly a reply to the post it was supposed to being replying to . Trethevy being a Portal Tomb which you consider illogical and failing to explain the use of the phrase "John North and *have* already been proven." .There was no need give too much detail but even a request for the number of measurements and those that were salient ws ignored . What has my "research " if it exists , got to do with the efficacy or otherwise of what you do ? Oh and your'e a bam too . Reply | with quote |  1st May 2011ce 19:23 In reply to: Re: Who's going to be there this weekend? (stonefree)3 replies: Re: Who's going to be there this weekend? (stonefree) Re: Who's going to be there this weekend? (stonefree) Re: Who's going to be there this weekend? (Horsedrawn) |
Messages in this topic: |