Paul Barford <[log in to unmask]> wrote (in <00ef01c34c62$754ea460$200
a63d9@Standard>) about 'Stonehenge Moat Hypothesis', on Thu, 17 Jul
>John Woodgate writes:
>> That is beyond provocative; you are misrepresenting my position,
>I do not think so since you are making a value judgement on the relative
>virtues of four speculations when I suggest that the same premises can be
>applied to them all. I really do suspect you are still missing the point
>about the way we construct and test interpretations.
Mr. Barford, you accused me of 'ruling out the possibility'. These are
your words, and my response.
why are you
>so adamant to rule out the possibility and on what grounds can you do so?
That is beyond provocative; you are misrepresenting my position, which I
think is quite clear. I wrote:
I don't know the probability of the moat hypothesis being true, but it
is obviously much higher than those of LGM or Merlin.
Note 'probability is obviously much higher'. I did not rule out
I will add nothing. Our readers can decide for themselves.
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!