On 7 Dec 2006 07:17:52 -0800, "Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@xxxxxxxxx>
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On 6 Dec 2006 18:29:29 -0800, "Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >You have signally not
>> >taken on board what we've been saying about that. If you want to
>> >continue beating that spot on the hillside where a horse might once
>> >have pissed, go ahead. But don't imagine that you will get anywhere
>> >other than where you have already been.
>> I can see that. For some reason you want to ignore what appears to be
>> a potentially valid site identified by aerial photography.
>Where's the 'seems'? :-)
You snipped it.
>> Is this
>> typical of your attitude to all potential sites identified by aerial
>> photography? If not, why not?
>Homey don' play dat. :-)
>I am not willing to continue into this tarball any further. If you want
>to have a discussion about how archaeologists do identify potential
>sites, perhaps starting with aerial photography (although there are
>myriad other starting points), I'm game.
If I wanted to have such a discussion I would have started it.
Instead, all I wanted to do was to express my disappointment if
particular part of the Newport Tower site being overlooked in the
current investigation. If this is now a tar ball, it is not one of my