"Your suggestion that Heritage Action should go and play on their own web site is sound. They shoud have their own forum where they can rant"
Mr Carr, a couple of points for the record, not for prolonging this argument, which I'm not going to do, so this will have to do so far as my involvement is concerned -
1.) Yes, you're right, there is probably too much HA related stuff here, especially lately, but consider some of the reasons.
a.) A long string of "defeats" on high profile heritage-related matters - defeats for all of us, not just HA. Why wouldn't HA make a fuss here? Please bear in mind HA, for any faults it has, has the virtue of being one of the only organised groups focussed on these matters. You can search for mention of the Rotherwas Ribbon and Silbury et al by the 1,500 archaeologists subscribed to Britarch in vain. That alone suggests something is wrong in this country, surely?
b.) A number of "out of the blue" attacks on HA and its individual members. Since they have been demonstrably out of the blue they can't be HA's fault. Since they have not been upon HA policies but upon its personalities they can't be "fair debate" but are much more akin to trolling.
And they have an even worse element to them - in some cases they seem to have discernable causes, whether personal and historic or agenda based by people who are opposed to some HA stances but lack the means to win an open argument on certain issues. Yet worse still, we've lately had people who are EH employees or close allies here in disguise, not arguing the case but attacking HA. How disgraceful is that?
A couple more points since you seem not to be fully aware of HA's nature and history -
1. It was born, designed and nurtured here, entirely by TMA members in open debate. I reckon at least 20 regular TMA posters are also HA members so there is a natural air of interchange. You and others sense it as cliqueyness. Maybe it is. In view of the shared concerns of the clique I don't feel in the least apologetic about it.
2. I have met Littlestone and find him sensible, friendly, stable and very dedicated to conservation. Ditto the many other HA members I've met over the years, entirely without exception. In fact. we have often been struck, and specifically mentioned after meetings, what extraordinarily nice people seem to be attracted to the cause. I expect this opinion will lead you to claim I'm part of a self-satisfied, self-congratulatory group, as bad as him. So be it. It's how I see it, But don't for a moment think he is unique in being annoyed by unprovoked attacks on HA and therefore suffering some sort of psychological defects. If he is, so are we all.
3.) In fact, the truth is MUCH more simple. Being personally attacked for trying to do something by those who aren't is pretty irritating.
4.) HA has had a flourishing private forum for years. It also had a public one for a while but had to close it due to disruption and ad hominem attacks, mainly from MDers. Much the sort of stuff that has appeared on this thread. Get it?
5.) A personal note: I cannot possibly express to you how little of a damn I give for any attacks on me personally so you and others can say what you f*cking well like about me, and obviously have felt free to do so. What I do give a damn about is where any such attacks on me or other HA members damage HA's capacity to do what it tries to do. Insofar as that happens, and the tiny differences we may make to the various causes is reduced, I have great contempt for the people that indulge themselves in that manner. Littlestone has said he isn't going to respond further, good. Maybe, if you have further issues with him or me you could email us and if you feel you have any issues with anything at all relating to HA you could express them via [email protected] from where you will get a considered and polite reply.
This topic is locked | Posted by nigelswift 1st August 2007ce 06:02 |
Silbury updates (Littlestone, May 20, 2007, 16:20)- Re: Silbury updates (Pete G, May 20, 2007, 23:50)
- Re: Silbury updates (moss, May 21, 2007, 07:52)
- Re: Silbury updates (Pilgrim, May 21, 2007, 08:04)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, May 21, 2007, 21:11)
- Sentient Silbury: A lithic laxative? (Pilgrim, May 22, 2007, 01:28)
- Re: Silbury updates (tiompan, May 22, 2007, 07:43)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, May 22, 2007, 19:31)
- Re: Silbury updates (Pete G, May 23, 2007, 15:46)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, May 23, 2007, 22:26)
- Re: Silbury updates: 'Atkinson/BBC Entrance' (Littlestone, May 24, 2007, 17:34)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, May 31, 2007, 20:23)
- Re: Silbury updates (RSleepy, May 28, 2007, 12:54)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, May 22, 2007, 10:28)
- Re: Silbury updates (tomwatts, May 22, 2007, 11:35)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, Jun 01, 2007, 18:01)
- Oh come off it! (nigelswift, Jun 07, 2007, 08:23)
- Update No. 4 (nigelswift, Jun 11, 2007, 13:06)
- Diminishing returns (Littlestone, Jun 13, 2007, 22:52)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, Jun 15, 2007, 07:51)
- I'd take the Fifth.... (Pilgrim, Jun 18, 2007, 07:35)
- Week 5 update (Littlestone, Jun 18, 2007, 15:58)
- Re: Silbury updates (tomwatts, Jun 20, 2007, 17:14)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, Jun 25, 2007, 18:21)
- Re: slumpy's EH comment - England's Heritage (slumpystones, Jun 28, 2007, 17:21)
- English Heritage - Another side (Robert Carr, Jun 29, 2007, 07:15)
- Re: Silbury updates (goffik, Jun 29, 2007, 13:07)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, Jun 29, 2007, 13:16)
- Re: Silbury updates (scousemaiden, Jun 30, 2007, 14:42)
- Re: Silbury updates (moss, Jun 30, 2007, 16:48)
- Re: Silbury updates (slumpystones, Jun 30, 2007, 17:59)
- Re: Silbury updates (scousemaiden, Jun 30, 2007, 20:11)
- Re: Time Capsules? (Pilgrim, Jun 30, 2007, 23:44)
- Re: Silbury updates (nigelswift, Jul 01, 2007, 05:39)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, Jul 01, 2007, 06:39)
- Re: Silbury updates (scousemaiden, Jul 01, 2007, 08:16)
- Re: Silbury updates (slumpystones, Jul 01, 2007, 08:44)
- Hate? (Pilgrim, Jul 01, 2007, 09:01)
- Re: Silbury updates (nigelswift, Jul 01, 2007, 09:19)
- Re: Silbury updates (Mustard, Jul 01, 2007, 13:29)
- Re: Silbury updates (Toxic Delerium, Jul 01, 2007, 15:12)
- Re: Silbury updates (nigelswift, Jul 01, 2007, 15:23)
- Re: Silbury updates (Toxic Delerium, Jul 01, 2007, 15:25)
- Re: Silbury updates (nigelswift, Jul 01, 2007, 15:28)
- Re: Silbury updates (Toxic Delerium, Jul 01, 2007, 15:33)
- Re: Silbury updates (rammie, Jul 01, 2007, 15:36)
- Re: Silbury updates (Pete G, Jul 01, 2007, 15:38)
- Re: Silbury updates (slumpystones, Jul 01, 2007, 15:40)
- Re: Silbury updates (nigelswift, Jul 01, 2007, 15:44)
- Re: Silbury updates (Toxic Delerium, Jul 01, 2007, 15:47)
- Re: Silbury updates (Mustard, Jul 01, 2007, 15:51)
- Re: Silbury updates (slumpystones, Jul 01, 2007, 15:55)
- Re: Silbury updates (Toxic Delerium, Jul 01, 2007, 15:59)
- Re: Silbury updates (Mustard, Jul 01, 2007, 16:00)
- Re: Silbury updates (Toxic Delerium, Jul 01, 2007, 16:08)
- Re: Silbury updates (slumpystones, Jul 01, 2007, 16:24)
- Re: Silbury updates (Toxic Delerium, Jul 02, 2007, 08:36)
- Re: Silbury updates (fitzcoraldo, Jul 02, 2007, 08:38)
- Re: Silbury updates (moss, Jul 02, 2007, 09:24)
- Re: Silbury updates (nigelswift, Jul 02, 2007, 09:50)
- Re: Silbury updates (Rockrich, Jul 02, 2007, 10:49)
- Re: Silbury updates (slumpystones, Jul 02, 2007, 11:35)
- Re: Silbury updates (nigelswift, Jul 01, 2007, 16:03)
- Re: Silbury updates (Mustard, Jul 01, 2007, 15:28)
- Re: Silbury updates (Pete G, Jul 01, 2007, 12:49)
- Re: Silbury updates (Robert Carr, Jul 01, 2007, 08:32)
- Re: Silbury updates (VenerableBottyBurp, Jul 01, 2007, 08:33)
- Re: Silbury updates (slumpystones, Jul 01, 2007, 08:15)
- Re: Silbury updates (Lubin, Jul 01, 2007, 14:52)
- Ask the Experts (Littlestone, Jul 01, 2007, 10:50)
- Re: Silbury updates (Mustard, Jul 01, 2007, 15:08)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, Jul 01, 2007, 16:18)
- Re: time capsule - would this solve the problems? (VenerableBottyBurp, Jul 02, 2007, 15:39)
- Re: time capsule - would this solve the problems? (goffik, Jul 02, 2007, 15:55)
- Re: time capsule - would this solve the problems? (Pete G, Jul 02, 2007, 16:07)
- Re: time capsule - would this solve the problems? (Littlestone, Jul 02, 2007, 16:20)
- Re: time capsule - would this solve the problems? (slumpystones, Jul 02, 2007, 16:28)
- Re: time capsule - would this solve the problems? (CianMcLiam, Jul 02, 2007, 16:36)
- Re: time capsule - would this solve the problems? (nigelswift, Jul 02, 2007, 17:02)
- Re: time capsule - would this solve the problems? (tiompan, Jul 03, 2007, 08:33)
- Re: Silbury updates (Pilgrim, Jul 03, 2007, 06:07)
- Re: Silbury updates (goffik, Jul 03, 2007, 14:48)
- Re: Silbury updates (moss, Jul 09, 2007, 15:15)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, Jul 16, 2007, 16:38)
- Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Littlestone, Jul 19, 2007, 06:51)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (slumpystones, Jul 19, 2007, 09:52)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (nigelswift, Jul 19, 2007, 15:59)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Littlestone, Jul 19, 2007, 17:26)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Robert Carr, Jul 19, 2007, 17:51)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (slumpystones, Jul 19, 2007, 19:13)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Littlestone, Jul 19, 2007, 22:01)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Robert Carr, Jul 20, 2007, 09:54)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (nigelswift, Jul 20, 2007, 10:06)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Robert Carr, Jul 20, 2007, 10:12)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Robert Carr, Jul 20, 2007, 11:02)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (nigelswift, Jul 20, 2007, 11:08)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (goffik, Jul 20, 2007, 11:12)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Robert Carr, Jul 20, 2007, 11:15)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (nigelswift, Jul 20, 2007, 11:32)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Robert Carr, Jul 20, 2007, 11:57)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (nigelswift, Jul 20, 2007, 12:02)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Moth, Jul 20, 2007, 12:14)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (moss, Jul 20, 2007, 12:26)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (slumpystones, Jul 21, 2007, 10:08)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (VenerableBottyBurp, Jul 20, 2007, 00:10)
- Re: Silbury updates (Mr Hamhead, Jul 20, 2007, 08:00)
- And now for the door... (Littlestone, Jul 20, 2007, 18:54)
- English Heritage and Heritage Action meeting? (Robert Carr, Jul 21, 2007, 12:46)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, Jul 23, 2007, 15:38)
- Silbury about to implode? (Littlestone, Jul 26, 2007, 12:51)
- Re: Silbury about to implode? (nigelswift, Jul 26, 2007, 13:05)
- Re: Silbury about to implode? (Rhiannon, Jul 26, 2007, 14:15)
- Re: Silbury about to implode? (VenerableBottyBurp, Jul 26, 2007, 21:48)
- More details re temporary halt (whipangel, Jul 27, 2007, 11:15)
- Re: Silbury about to implode? (Littlestone, Jul 27, 2007, 17:36)
- the view from inside (fool on the hill, Jul 27, 2007, 20:49)
- Re: the view from inside (fitzcoraldo, Jul 28, 2007, 08:26)
- Re: the view from inside (Littlestone, Jul 28, 2007, 11:14)
- Re: the view from inside (moss, Jul 28, 2007, 11:23)
- Re: the view from inside (Robert Carr, Jul 28, 2007, 13:55)
- Re: the view from inside (goffik, Jul 28, 2007, 19:47)
- Re: the view from inside (nigelswift, Jul 28, 2007, 22:09)
- Re: the view from inside (Pilgrim, Jul 28, 2007, 23:53)
- Re: Silbury about to implode? (slumpystones, Jul 27, 2007, 20:27)
- Mr Carr (Littlestone, Jul 29, 2007, 07:34)
- Re: Mr Carr (slumpystones, Jul 29, 2007, 14:51)
- Re: Mr Carr (Paulus, Jul 31, 2007, 11:46)
- Re: Mr Carr (Littlestone, Jul 31, 2007, 13:04)
- Re: Mr Carr (Robert Carr, Jul 31, 2007, 18:35)
- Re: Mr Carr (goffik, Jul 31, 2007, 19:03)
- Re: Mr Carr (nigelswift, Aug 01, 2007, 06:02)
- Re: Mr Carr (Paulus, Aug 02, 2007, 17:18)
- Calling "Fool on the Hill" (nigelswift, Jul 30, 2007, 11:42)
- Re: Silbury updates (goffik, Jul 31, 2007, 17:11)
|
|