I have avoided , unlike you , being abusive or provocative I have stuck to the detail and explained what any archaeoastronmomer will tell you It is a putative archaeaoastronomical aligment using the correct definition . Simply , just because the sun sets or rises over a standing stone at solstice or equinox as seen from a a spot that has no archaeological significance does not make it an alignment ,you might like to think so but you won't convince any archaeo , that might explain why it is unrecognised . Even if the viewing point was a genuine prehistoric monument not everyone would be convinced by that either e.g. see the Burl quote earlier .Most of your argument has been personal ,you suggested that I had motives other than simply explaining why it is not an alignment and I was way out of my depth on this one . Easily said but maybe you can clarify and explain why it is a genuine "alignment " , and convince me that you are not out of your depth on this .