Page 5 of 17
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:44 pm
by marduk
Surely we can come up with a better system than that.
there is a better system than that
its called revolution
now grab yourself a torch and a pitchfork and meet me at the palace
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:55 pm
by Digit
Ah! But what follows the revolution brother?
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:31 pm
by marduk
well my coronation of course
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:48 pm
by Digit
King Marduk the first. Do you intend starting a dynasty?
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:59 pm
by marduk
nope
I want to control the worlds resources and sciences so they can find a way that I can live forever in true ming the merciless fashion
you can be Klytus if you like Digit
http://www.guntner.com/FlashGordon/Bored.wav
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:01 pm
by Digit
As long as you're not looking for a queen ducky.
Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 11:35 am
by stan
Hi, Digit.
This is the earlier thread on the Stonehenge art.
You were on it, but several pages after the bulk of the art discussion.
Cheers,
Stan
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:05 pm
by Beagle
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... enge27.xml
Stonehenge was the Lourdes of its day, to which diseased and injured ancient Britons flocked seeking cures for their ailments, according to a new theory.
For most of the 20th century archaeologists have debated what motivated primitive humans to go to the immense effort of transporting giant stones 240 miles from south Wales to erect Britain's most significant prehistoric monument.
Hmm... could be for all I know.
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:33 pm
by marduk
Stonehenge was the Lourdes of its day, to which diseased and injured ancient Britons flocked seeking cures for their ailments, according to a new theory
its not a new theory its a rehashed old pile of shit theory that has no supporting evidence at all
For most of the 20th century archaeologists have debated what motivated primitive humans to go to the immense effort of transporting giant stones 240 miles from south Wales to erect Britain's most significant prehistoric monument.
not really thats just the tourists that have been wondering that
the rest of us have been wondering why they transported the giant stones (sarsens) from wiltshire about 25 miles away and the bluestones which way a maximum of 4 tonnes 240 miles from wales
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:24 pm
by Digit
Only just found this, it's a bit late, but BBC news page for june 06 states that geologists have found evidence that the blue stones weren't taken from Wales by human hands but were in fact transported by glaciers. old argument I know, but they claim to have the evidence.
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:27 pm
by Beagle
No way. I'll go look for a link Digit. ( we've got to tell you how to post a link)
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:31 pm
by Digit
Please. None of my idiot guides tell me how. It was BBC Wales by the way.
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:37 pm
by Beagle
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wale ... 123764.stm
Here is an old article refuting the one you were talking about. I seem to remember that now. Since that time I believe that this quarry article has been proven by a thermoluminescence technique.
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:47 pm
by Digit
My post is from one later than yours and refers to yours Beag, and before anyone we know drops on me I'm not supporting either, just mentioning the page.
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:14 pm
by Beagle
My post is from one later than yours and refers to yours Beag,
Ok Digit, I'll see if I can find the proof of what I'm saying - but later, it's football time in America.
I'll be by the computer though.