28 replies to this topic

[Diego]

In the light of the recent discussions about the spreading of alternative theories on many threads of this forum, we believe it's time to make a serious re-thinking of its purpose. We would appreciate your opinion about it!

[shiny]

I've no objection to people posting alternative or wacky viewpoints, as long as they're kept to a dedicated section.
Some of the discussions can be quite entertaining, and lift the mood sometimes.

[stonecarver]

I think Stonepages is the Best site there is about megaliths, it's really well-designed, really informative and well-operated. Lots of archaeology students and professionals come here because it IS such a well-run site where you can find some good information and read interesting posts, and yet it's presented in such a way that anybody can appreciate it.

There are other sites which are much more 'alternative' yet cover the same subject - so why try to copy them? Let them run the way they are, and stay unique (that's my thought).

There is a Big difference between alternative archaeological interpretations/ideas, and some of the so-called 'alternative' stuff which gets posted (recent idiotic posts an example).

I think some of the stuff IS interesting and leads to really good debate - the 'Bosnian pyramids' are a good recent example. But I think the 'Alternative' section should be redefined as the term is too broad-ranging, and allows people to post anything... it should clearly be stated somewhere that alternative means alternative theories based on archaeological/ethnographic information - NOT untestable hypotheses... otherwise people can simply post threads which are Totally suitable for a conspiracy theory website, but not a site that prides itself on disseminating information about megaliths...

'Stonehenge was UFO landing base' or 'I dowsed the Energy Grid at Silbury Hill', 'Carvings at Stonehenge are toadstools' are unproveable, entirely fringe (some would say lunatic) ideas which really belong on the many other websites out there which already cater to this stuff...

Otherwise, the site is brilliant...

[Desmond Johnston]

Today's "alternative" theory could be tomorrow's "official" viewpoint. So long as persons with their own axe to grind do not monopolise the site and thereby deprive others of freedom of expression and there is suficient monitoring of posts to prevent this happening, I see no reason to change things.
Desmond.

[Jimit]

Difficult one to call, this one. Various people have been hogging the forums over on TMA and Megalithic Portal over the last few months and have either been very insulting (they were barred) or tedious/ repetitive/utterly implausible. However, in amongst the dross, occasionally there are ideas or links to give pause for thought.

I tend to agree with Desmond on this subject, monitoring by the administrators is important. Gentle but strict warnings should be made (perhaps privately) to those who overstep the mark. 1000+ posts over on the Portal from one contributor on the same subject should have been nipped in the bud earlier.

IMHO, Diego, I think that anyone who posts or tries to hijack other sections of the forum with alternative theories should be reminded firmly that their contributions may/ will be deleted.

Having said all that, this site is still great! I drop in here regularly to catch up with the news and chat.


Jim.

[John Germain]

shiny, on 1 April 2007, 13:05, said:

I've no objection to people posting alternative or wacky viewpoints, as long as they're kept to a dedicated section.
Some of the discussions can be quite entertaining, and lift the mood sometimes.

Agree.

John Germain

[Pete G]

anymore voters?
with nearly 1,500 members we should be getting a few more people voting on this...
PeteG

[Bettina]

I agree with Stonecarver. There are sites which cover alternative theories. Probably more, then those which are just dedicated to facts of early history.
It has nothing to do with excluding minds or restricting opinions. There is nothing left what is not catered for on the internet. But no one can do it all. And moderating a site is a full job.

To all, a very nice Easter.
From an unexpected sunny Ireland
Bettina

[Nigel]

If the issue is to be decided by popular vote (and it doesn't have to be at all, Diego is perfectly entitled to have the forum in whatever form he wishes) my guess is that there would be a majority vote for having a clear separation, i.e. having a separate Alternative section.

Personally, I feel either Stonecarver or Jimit are closest to my feelings. Separation brought about by very firm moderation. Friction arises here and elsewhere not because of the occasional post but because some people post them too often in too many threads and don't stick to the forums set up for them.

On the other hand, as Stonecarver says "some of the stuff IS interesting and leads to really good debate" so the trick is to better define what Alternative means. I'd suggest if it involves scientifically unknown and unprovable phenomena its Alternative. If its just archaeology but not mainstream thought then its not Alternative and worth having in the main forum. The Bosnian pyramid for instance. And (contrary to Stonecarvers opinion), mushroom carvings. They may be against mainstream opinion but if a case can be made for speculating mainstream opinion is wrong or that an alternative is viable, then people ought to be entitled to make it. Otherwise, a while back, anyone saying there was no second Avenue at Avebury would have been consigned to the dungeon thread!

I think what I'm saying is that there's a fringe and then there's a lunatic fringe. And the fringe certainly isn't lunatic!

[CapnDad]

Hello, friends:

I vote for keeping Stone Pages on the track it has been taking. Diego, you have done a wonderful job in promoting intelligent discussion and I would hate to see Stone Pages lose the firm foundation you have laid down.

[Exjai]

Diego, I mostly read.  Very little if any posting.  What I want is for things to be organized so that it is a safe site for you to operate and keep open.  If there are people who habitually cause problems, perhaps the material that keeps attracting them needs to be removed or set up in some way so that you won't continually be hurt.

[Katherine]

I think that the answer should depend on what the forum what intended for by its creators...it is theirs. ultimately.

As a college instructor whose primary education was in the art of the Italian Renaissance, StonePages been a scholarly resource that I've learned much from (and been able to refer to in class).

So I think it's alright for alternative theories to be discussed, although I want those to be clearly marked. Exploring alternative theories is not what I am here for, not do I send students here for that purpose.

[Rikard]

Hello all.

This is my first visit here, despite having received weekly emails for a some time. I have to say that it's an excellent site- well laid out, fresh, and with great care and attention paid to it by those that organise it.

Its a shame some dolts go to such lengths to upset it but I hope it doesn't go far to destroy or way-lay the service and value it provides.

[Anew]

I believe all views should be aired and considered, so long as it's in the context of archaeology . It does not really matter what forum this is on .  If this is to be 'Alternative theories', I have displayed cooperation by crossing to it - setting up threads on those issues I find interesting . It is instructive, therefore, to see the debate has followed - and left the 'Megalithic Forum' slow

I'm not offended by words . But I see that the people who seem to advocate the silence of certain voices, or opinions - are those same who offer the loudest toasts


Diego+Paola

You take beautiful photographs of quiet, derelict temples .. It was not always so

[RealityTest]

In spare moments I am slowly reading old posts here and finding them quite educational -- there are numerous references to outside sources and the often knowledgeable comments are quite useful to anyone new to this area and perhaps lacking the time or inclination for formal study.

I'm a generalist and have long been prone to a wide range of reading, much of it dealing with history; many of the best historians point out how some of today's accepted historical theories were "alternative" or "fringe" at one time and how much depends on the beliefs of historians and is subject to great change over time. Even archeology itself and many of its early theories were "alternative" in nature, once upon a time; an example is how the first people to successfully translate ancient Mesopotamian languages were considered by many learned scholars of the day to be "making it up." From my reading I gather, too, that "archeoastronomy" was definitely a topic of derision in official quarters not so very long ago.

I read both mainstream and alternative or speculative books; I take the content of the latter with many grains of salt yet some of it can be quite provocative and more interesting than any exceedingly dry and rigid chronologies written by specialists who have invested lots of energy in attaining their credentials and maintaining their positions within academic hierarchies (in order to do so I assume they are required to absorb and promote whatever is officially accepted at the time).

Thus I find a mixture of that which is currently officially accepted and that from which future "truths" may arise most interesting -- so long as a clear demarcation between the two is maintained here (with some slight overlap -- that is almost unavoidable today, with so many theories so swiftly changing based on new evidence and/or new interpretation; a review of cave and rock art and a history of its theories or even the maps of human distribution based on DNA testing illuminates this situation) we may find ourselves both educated and stirred to ponder.

It may not always be easy to do this but the result is edifying, interesting, and at times even entertaining.

Ancient artifacts are things that can be measured, weighed, mapped, and so on; understanding what was in the minds of their creators is another matter.

Bill I.

http://www.realitytest.com