Sites​…but no info

close
more_vert
goffik G
goffik Sep 29, 2006 14:18:18
Replying to whatisthat

goffik wrote:
A two second glance at Swastika Girl's profile and postings would have divested you of this notion. Please think before you post.
Alright! Don't fan the flames! I've apologised! ;o)

whatisthat wrote:
Looking forward to the answer to this one.
Not sure there is one. Doubt very much there's any sexism going on though. Maybe just need a bit of info to state WHY the sites may fit the TMA remit... I dunno!

Come one now - I made a mistake and I've apologised. Forget it, eh? I truly am sorry for confusing two people. Simple error. He came on with several dozen pseudonyms - and some were female. No hard feelings, eh?

G x

W whatisthat
whatisthat Sep 29, 2006 14:38:45
Replying to goffik

goffik wrote:
Alright! Don't fan the flames! I've apologised! ;o)

Come one now - I made a mistake and I've apologised. Forget it, eh?

And I expressed my opinion on your post. Anything wrong with that? If you don't want replies then don't post I say.

S SwastikaGirl
SwastikaGirl Sep 29, 2006 16:02:16
Replying to goffik

Hello again

Apologies accepted on the name Goffik. However:

< whatisthat wrote:
Looking forward to the answer to this one.

Not sure there is one. >

Utter rubbish. There are obviously reasons why the editor has put Disputed Antiquity signs on them all. The individual concerned took time out to go through each site and labeled each one accordingly. It was meticulous. Hence there is a reason. The person thought it through and labeled them due to a particular bias or loss of logic. It’s quite simple. Exactly that person did such a thing is an anomaly. As whatisthat enquired quite politely:

< Looking forward to the answer to this one >

It would be nice to know, so then I can at least ensure that any cited parameters regarding the placement of holy wells here are maintained.

Many thanks - SG