Archaeologica.org

Posted: **Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:33 pm**

are you sure you posted that in the right thread Digit ?

Posted: **Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:58 pm**

That was my reply to your post of Dec 4 Marduk when you commented about nuclear power being thought of as a good thing when I was younger.

Posted: **Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:22 pm**

Hospital - just doesn't ring true to me... Is this another attempt to dumb down our ancestors?

Seems self-evident it was a temple (so perhaps a spiritual hospital?)

Interesting to note also that many of the stones are purportedly much older than the "collection" and show many standard Lower Palaeo themes including faces and a gorilla.

Posted: **Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:51 pm**

As to the healing effects of Stonehenge...
Saying that it was a magic place rather than a religious place
reminds me of the Christian tradtion in which
orthodoxy has its own holy miracles, while
any miracles exhibited by anyone else ("pagans")
are labeled black magic or black arts.
In other words, through the power of Satan, though the
results might be the same.
(Except that if Satan cures your cancer, you suffer
eternal damnation.....)

Sorry, I've had to much to drink!

Posted: **Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:09 pm**

if Satan cures your cancer

unlikely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Satan

muhahahah the doctor is in

Posted: **Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:27 pm**

Different guy....

Posted: **Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:31 pm**

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story ... 61,00.html

The head of the Druid Network, Emma Restall Orr (also known as Bobcat), said: "Pagans are not entirely scientific. They are more guided by nature."

A group of pagans showed up a day early for the winter solstice celebration. So the above quote is a bit of an understatement.

Posted: **Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:57 am**

The trouble with nuts Beag is that we love 'em. The world would be a lot duller without them.

Posted: **Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:22 am**

Digit wrote:The trouble with nuts Beag is that we love 'em. The world would be a lot duller without them.

Couldn't agree more. Plenty of nuts right here on this board. But I'd wager that we would check out when the winter solstice was.

However the vast majority did arrive the next day - on the solstice.

Posted: **Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:07 am**

The trouble with nuts Beag is that we love 'em.

Fine but we keep ELECTING them!

Posted: **Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:19 am**

Yes! But we only find out they're nuts after they've got the job. Blair was able to convince people that he was the new Messiah, it was only later that his halo began to slip. Look how he was received in the US. Fortunately I can complain as I didn't vote for him.

Posted: **Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:49 am**

Blair was able to convince people that he was the new Messiah

I didnt vote for him either
you can't complain if you still voted Digit
just because you voted for the other guy doesnt mean you are somehow sleeze free

Posted: **Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:27 am**

To be honest Marduk, I didn't vote for any of them. I will only vote when they introduce a system where my vote counts as much as any one else's. Our system counts vote difference, not votes cast. If I vote Tory and my wife Labour that is two votes wasted as we cancel each other out. Our vote is worth the same as staying at home. I refuse to take part in an empty acedemic gesture.

Posted: **Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:17 pm**

then your trouble lies at home
tell her to vote the same way as you or else

or alternatively if thats not your style
get her to tell you to vote the same way as her or else
that should solve all your problems

but abstaining is as good as voting
voter apathy is something that is taken note of in every election

don't worry though Digit
when I'm Supreme Emperor of the Universe I'll sort it all out

Posted: **Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:31 pm**

Daren't do that mate, she's bigger than me. But my point is that abstaining shouldn't have the same value/effect as voting. Surely we can come up with a better system than that.