2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?

[Peter Cornwell]

Originally Posted by uckwash

I could not concur, that local Knowledge was of little use ...

I made no such statement. Local knowledge has its place but always needs to be weighed most carefully against all other evidence. Contributors to this thread have already commented on the fallibility of memory. Also, at this distance in time from the actual events, it becomes increasingly unlikely that any local knowledge is even first-hand.

Originally Posted by uckwash

But just because my seniors had to do things the hard way doesn't in my mind mean that one should now unnecessarily endure the same degrees of difficulties in doing so.

Not at all - only if you want to achieve similar results. There is no dispute that the advent of technology has made research infinitely more convenient and abundant information easily accessible. But I'm afraid that this makes my earlier comments to you on sources (Post #13) all the more relevant. There is no material difference in dubious information culled from internet sources and that gathered from unreliable books – which is where we came in, I believe.

[uckwash]

Hi Steve.

You may not have said as much (that I was lazy), but there's an inference, reinforced in your 2nd point:

'that (my) comment smacks of being the refuge of the lazy'

Peter, I was refering to:

'I accept that you will only be as good as your sources but the trick is to identify those you can rely upon and those that are best ignored. In order to make that choice you may well need to access surviving contemporary primary sources to satisfy yourself of the actual facts. It has been my experience that these sterile reports are often infinitely preferable to previously published accounts or even eye-witness accounts'.

The fact that were all now jumping in to shoot me down, reinforces my notion that (I am told is wrong headed) I am facing a bit of a 'closed shop' here.

Hopefully Groucho Marx will have relaxed his new world order sufficiently for me to get some sort of response, by the time I post my next enquiry on here.

Dave

[John Vasco]

uckwash,

You want to read my post properly before replying to it. Then you would not garner the following criticism.
You say: "...I am a little put out by the suggestion that I get off my arse..."
I said: "...It's then that I operated the 'GOYA' principle. GOYA = Get Off Your Arse...",
and: "...if only the authors had bothered to undertake sufficient research to get to it (see GOYA principle, above)..."
So, I reiterate, read what is written first, digest it, THEN make reply. Don't mis-quote me, because I will always come back at you. Pure and simple. I did not say YOU should get off your arse.

As for this: "...Travelling up and down the Country in place of far simply using modern resources like this, frankly seems too old shool to be true..."
Well you sit on your arse and see how much first-hand research information comes to you. You'll get it second-hand in books...

And you finish off with this: "...But just because my seniors had to do things the hard way doesn't in my mind mean that one should now unnecessarily endure the same degrees of difficulties in doing so..."
To me, that comment smacks of being the refuge of the lazy. I have a completely open policy that anyone wishing to see all my research papers lodged in a certain archive can do so, but in the words of Groucho Marx (when commenting that he never forgets a lady's face) 'in your case I'll make an exception'.

[John Vasco]

Hi Arthur,

For fuck's sake, READ what people write. You are not being shot down, you are being corrected in the erroneous things that you post. Read this again, slowly:
You say: "...I am a little put out by the suggestion that I get off my arse..."
I said: "...It's then that I operated the 'GOYA' principle. GOYA = Get Off Your Arse...",
and: "...if only the authors had bothered to undertake sufficient research to get to it (see GOYA principle, above)..."
Now, if you read this, I said in the first quote that I am the one who got off his arse!
I suggested in the second quote that the authors should have got out and about to get everything that was available at the time (as Peter C has pointed out) in order for their published work to be as accurate as possible.

There's no 'closed shop' here. You've got people with decades and decades of research experience trying to point you in the right direction on certain matters, and you do not appear to be interested in taking on board anything they say. All you appear to want to do, in my opinion, is to continue disputing things. Well you carry on thinking that book is wonderful and factually correct.

[uckwash]

John.
I never said 'A/c casualties in Kent' was factually correct.
I was refering to the style of writing applied to the Then & Now series.
I'm with you on the lack of analysis applied in its preparation. Totally.
I was simply trying to determine if it was fair to criticise its authors, on the basis that 'perhaps' they had not got full access to the Archaeologist's research.
It now appears they did, so I am grateful to have been able to reach that conclusion.
So there we are.
Dave

[Ruy Horta]

Thread closed for a number of reasons.

Too much argument, too little respect and not enough patience.

A gentle reminder, please keep in mind that it is still a privilege to be able to discuss and debate with a number of authors and researchers who happen to be a member of this community. They share their time and knowledge with us, in return it doesn't take much effort to show some appreciation.

This is not a strict forum with many rules, just a little respect, being civil and having common sense goes a long way.