>> ... and there will be no need to even mention research dividends at the meeting since to do so would
>> clearly involve influencing opinion by reference to secondary issues that have zero bearing on
>> Silbury's structural welfare.
Well, there's no point in mentioning it unless you want to see it happen. If someone believes it is a cause as equally as important to stabalising the hill (I don't, but some might) then of course they should mention it and argue their case. Although I have no direct ideas at all about how this can/should be done for the best I can see that some will be able to argue that this (hopefully) will be the last time the hill is interfered with and that it is therefore of paramount importance to learn as much as we can with today's techniques.