Oh, you've persuaded me - I'll not bother going if it's just wasting money & time.... ;^)
Seriously, I think I kind of know what you mean. But one of the biggest troubles has been that all the time & money on reports etc hasn't been properly 'open' to the public (whose money it is). Most of the meaningful stuff has only been made available as a result of tenacious 'badgering' (and even then, only since EH changed their freedom of information policy).
I think I also kind of understand what Tuesday means. The majority of times, I'd probably trust archaeos etc to make decisions on stuff. But the Silbury problem is an ENGINEERING problem and from the little they've published and the extra info Nigel etc have managed to weedle out of them, I'm far from convinced they're addressing it as primarily an engineering problem.
I genuinely feel that those of us (esp those like Nigel & VBB) who have taken a big interest in Silbury over the years have a right to know why this seems to be the case and why they're choosing a method of repair that from their own reports (once you get to look at them) seem to be unnecessarily invasive and unnecessarily expensive.
And you never know, something that's said at the meeting MIGHT just make a 'difference'. Admittedly my hopes aren't high, but if people don't go, they certainly won't make a difference.
But that's why, for example, some of us formed Heritage Action (who are starting to 'make a difference' here & there) and some people just talk.
love
Moth
