Uffington White Horse forum 29 room
Image by nigelswift
close
more_vert

tjj wrote:
I regret posting this link on the Home page - was expecting it to be mostly ignored as is usually the case. It it wasn't for the fact it has 46 comments under it I may well have deleted it.

Anyway, here it is as a forum topic with over 60 comments mostly by the same two people with just thesweetcheat bravely trying to offer an alternative view. Reading some of the posts, the word dogmatic comes to mind.
So I've written a few words to say what Uffington White Horse means to me - and oddly enough it has nothing to do with the sun and far more to do with the wind.
An ancient symbol carved just below the brow of Uffington Hill, quite close to the hill-fort, it is a place deeply embedded in my psyche, almost an extension of Avebury, linked to it by the Ridgeway. When seen from the London train, it tells me I am nearly home. In fact, optical illusion though it may be, it appears to be galloping in the same direction. But of course it is the speed of the train which causes this effect.
It’s a place I go whenever the opportunity arises to refresh and recharge. A place to take the heartaches of life and loss, leaving them there to be blown away on the wind. A place to see the red kite and kestrel hover below so you almost feel you are flying with them. A place of wild orchids and blue butterflies. A wonderful, enigmatic place of mystery and the elements.

Can I have it back now please.

Rather than get quietly frustrated by this but say nothing, i'm going to be honest, this has really pissed me off.

It's a forum debate about a theory that somebody has included in a paper.
It's nothing to do with you or what Uffington means to you.
You simply posted a news item which prompted comment.
But it seems you now you think you are entitled to start posting sly insulting comment -

"Sweetcheat 'bravely' trying to offer an alternative view"

"The word 'dogmatic' comes to mind"

'Can I have it back now please"

What is that?

Would you like me to start telling you what words come to my mind when I read your posts?

If it makes you feel comfortable to think of me or my comments as 'dogmatic', then that is your issue, not mine. I find the intimation that I, and others, because we are able to apply logic to a problem, are somehow unable or unwilling to consider, or hold, a 'spiritual' view or an 'alternative' view, extremely ignorant.

I really don't understand what has happened here. As I said earlier, I bloody love this stuff. Why was the monument just there and in that form? Were there reasons or none? What's to fall out about?

Come on, you can't say things like "you think you are entitled to start posting sly insulting comments"

and then say"Would you like me to start telling you what words come to my mind when I read your posts?"

That is the pot calling the kettle black. Can you not try and be nice for goodness sake. You wouldn't be so rude to June's face I'm quite sure. And if you actually would...

Evergreen Dazed wrote:
Rather than get quietly frustrated by this but say nothing, i'm going to be honest, this has really pissed me off.

It's a forum debate about a theory that somebody has included in a paper.
It's nothing to do with you or what Uffington means to you.
You simply posted a news item which prompted comment.
But it seems you now you think you are entitled to start posting sly insulting comment -

"Sweetcheat 'bravely' trying to offer an alternative view"

"The word 'dogmatic' comes to mind"

'Can I have it back now please"

What is that?

Would you like me to start telling you what words come to my mind when I read your posts?

If it makes you feel comfortable to think of me or my comments as 'dogmatic', then that is your issue, not mine. I find the intimation that I, and others, because we are able to apply logic to a problem, are somehow unable or unwilling to consider, or hold, a 'spiritual' view or an 'alternative' view, extremely ignorant.

Hmm! I didn't aim the word dogmatic at you specifically - or Tiompan either (for whom I have the greatest respect). I used the word to describe the whole tone of the thread. It hasn't really been a discussion but a dismissive dismantling of a piece of work done by an archaeologist who is otherwise respected. I don't agree or disagree with the theory as don't have the astronomical software at my disposal (or the understanding) to do so. Generally speaking I'm a fan of logic but there are other elements to which logic cannot always be applied. We have often talked on this forum about how certain sites induce a feeling of well being and/or inexplicable euphoria - perhaps just the effort and sense of achievement of getting there, or a particularly blue sky, or the appearance of a rare bird. Just something not always easily put into words.

I misread your word 'intimation' as intimidation - please think about it Evergreen. You are the only person to start throwing personal remarks around which apart from me referring elsewhere to your sometimes sarcastic wit (which could be taken as a compliment) I don't think I've done.

This is a forum, anyone with an interest in a topic is entitled to comment - even if that comment doesn't seem particularly informed or relevant. Part of me thinks I can't really be arsed anymore but another part says I won't be intimidated or belittled.
You can ignore me if you wish - which you mostly do anyway. Believe me it's been done before.