[quote="cerrig"]"Same old stuff George, isn't it. Anything that strays from nice safe "history" is fantasy to you."

Same old stuff Cerrig , when the fantasies get inverstigated they prove wanting.That's why they are fantasies .

"Nothing new there. The problem with that is it doesn't answer the question "what was going on", and it never will. "

Why accept fantasies simply because you don't have an answer ? We have a better idea of "what was going on " today than we did a century ago and we will know more in the next century , when the new age nonsense will be long forgotten .

"It can't, and you can't either. Too much reliance on the accepted model of history to allow for the likes of John Michell. "
The ley line , alignment and other new age stuff has been shown to be wrong on many levels ,a long toime ago why are you still buying it ?

" The current models of history and mathematics don't account for Johns insights, but that's because they are limited and incomplete. "

You have no conception of how ridiculous that comment is .

" That's where your stance breaks down, and Johns continues. He had the vision to see past those limitations and share his observations. He never pretended to be perfect, just willing to be a bit different."

My stance is simpe ,if a particular theory is shown to be wrong , move on .
Different can be fine , wrong is not so good .

"John added something to that incomplete picture, and thanks to his groundbreaking work another piece of the puzzle is much clearer than it would have been otherwise. This is something that would never have been achieved by the kind of attitudes seen on this thread, but then again when did ridicule and ignorance ever achieve anything."

The ignorance belongs to those who fail to read and understand the problems with thenonsense . Pointing out errors is not ridiculing or denigrating or bilious although many of the new age beliefs are ridculous .

Instead of whining all the time why not come with something tangible ,( like the ley lines nonsense that has been refuted for decades ) that can acrtually be discussed
I see that you didn't respond to the clarification of your misunderstanding about "his canon ,or the problems that a real mathematicain had with his "visionary " take on it .