Sites​…but no info

close
Mr Hamhead M
Mr Hamhead Sep 28, 2006 17:21:50

I have just noticed that the Cornwall section has become infested with postings for "Holy" wells. These have been put on by Swastickergirl, who may have done it in good faith..but what annoys me is she has put no info with them at all..just added the site.

I am not getting uptight because they are wells (but I am sure some will) It is just why post something with out details. I have put a new site on this afternoon...Catshole Long Cairn..now I could have posted info on it months ago..but I wanted to visit and photograph first.

There are still some sites in Cornwall posted by "phil" years ago which still only have a site...no info to go with it..

Is it me?

Mr H

F FourWinds
FourWinds Sep 28, 2006 17:36:43
Replying to Mr Hamhead

Mr Hamhead wrote:
Is it me?
No. But ... It can be useful to know what's out there*. For instance, should unvisitable barrows on Salsibury Plane be added?

There are several empty Irish sites that I set up when TMA first included Ireland. Many of them have since removed, but a few remain. I do remove them when I come across them, though.

It does seem a little pointless to add bucket loads of sites (especially Holy Wells**) and not put anything down about them at all.

*Sometimes and within reason
**Let the fun commence :-) There is a place for some wells but every single one (IMO)

T TMA Ed
TMA Ed Sep 28, 2006 19:29:54
Replying to Mr Hamhead

Mr Hamhead wrote:
I am not getting uptight because they are wells (but I am sure some will)
So come on and let us know

Should they stay or should they go?


Thanks

Lyrical TMA Ed

G goffik
goffik Sep 28, 2006 22:57:59
Replying to Mr Hamhead

I'll give me full opinion tomorrow, but for now will just say:

Wasn't Sw*stika Girl an incarnation of the idiot Cr*ley?

In which case... DELETE!!! IMHO. ;o)

G x

C Chris
Chris Sep 29, 2006 10:21:04
Replying to Mr Hamhead

Related to this subject, my trawls through RCAHMS are bringing up numerous circles that have been completely destroyed in the last 200 years, with no trace left on the ground.

Should I add these (with an appropriate note) for completeness, or should they be left off altogether? Do we need another classification of

Stone Circle (Destroyed)?

P phil
phil Sep 29, 2006 20:54:37
Replying to Mr Hamhead

Hi Mr Hamhead,

I must admit in the past I did get carried away a bit- by adding sites with no info. But I have now repented and purged them..(except those which have been added to since).

Keep up the good work!

'phil'

M mookymick
mookymick Oct 3, 2006 15:56:02
Replying to Mr Hamhead

Hi, good people how are you all doing? My goodness ,what the heck is going on? This thread that no one wants to talk about…..after all the site is about stones, not politics , religion or philosophy.As for those of you that do not want to be embroiled by such trivia…..well you’re the worst culprits, drifting in ,off to other cliques, starting new threads , about this thread. To say your not interested , this thread has far more posts than the others exclusively about megaliths !
The concern for trolls and other mythic beings ( and if you did not have them you would make them up) seems to take up so so much of your time and emotion.
I know lets pretend we are above it all, by writing a poem about it.
Regards Mooky