Re: OT: Why the net Sucks: Stonehenge
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:51:10PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:54:13PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
>
> Piles of stuff, right there, including two complete categories, about
> anything you could possibly want to know about Stonehenge.
Piles? Did you follow those links? There are three categories:
fansites (not authoritative nor deep), travel brochures and tour
packages (not interested and all), and interesting sites.
Let's consider the interesting sites. True, they are interesting, but
compare their content and the amount of it to what I can find in the
Library:
Ancient Britain : the cradle of civilization, 343 pages
The Druid bible, 189 pages
The enigma of Stonehenge, 126 pages
>From Stonehenge To Modern Cosmology., 96 pages
Great Stone Circles, 199 pages
Der Handel In Der Vorzeit, 340 pages
The Making Of Stonehenge, 305 pages
Megalithic Science, 256 pages
[and so on, 27 books]
So I posit that the interesting content in the library is much deeper
and richer than what's on the internet. Plus, 27 hits, and *all* are
spot on what I want, no fluff or crap.
Obviously, for tech stuff, the internet is authoritative. And there
should be travel brochures and fan sites on the internet. But I would
much rather "googling for Stonehenge" returned 27 hits comprising
thousands of printed pages of meaty, well-established and respected
literature, than the way the internet *currently* is.
Right now all the travel brochures, fan sites, TV entertainment, and
(meagre) scholarly research is all mixed together.
Reply to: