fachtna wrote:
Dear Ed,
Thank-you for your response.
If this is indeed the fifth time that I have made 'exactly the same point' (a correction) on these pages then this will probably be because the same piece of misinformation (in respect of the responsibilities and creditation for the recent work at Silbury Hill by English Heritage) will have appeared on these pages on five occasions.
regards
fachtna
Fachtna, do you have, or did you reach, a different conclusion at the time of your involvement on the build/purpose/reason for Silbury Hill that you feel that you would like to get across which is different to that of Jim Leary and David Field? With respect, this is what I would personally like to hear from you instead of your continual referal to your dismisal and apparent reason for it.
