Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ian
Spiral:
Work is keeping me very busy at the moment and I have not been able to spend as much time here as I would like.
Your detailed responses to some of my comments would suggest that you are bothered by them, and I apologize if I have offended you in any way.
I do not have the time to give your detailed replies the necessary attention they deserve right now, so I shall get back to you later this week. BTW, the photo link to which you refer seems to be working OK on my screen, so I'm not sure what the problem is.
Ian.
|
Hi Ian I am not offended.
Quite understand your busy. No problem.No apologies needed & sorry if my step by step approach caused you any concern. Alls fine & its just chatting about bits of stuff on a forum after all.
Its just you drew so many points into your reason to distrust Oldman to enhance you stance & reinforce your statement that no such tool resembling the Burma Dha made by Brades was traditionally used in Burma.
So I thought I would deal with each point as best I could.
That's not an unusual thing for me to do....Ive done it before.
So I was just trying to point out it seems from other evidence on the forum that the Brades style is a "traditional Burma dha"
Although obviously should it be called the Dha-ma. It seems to me , it certainly existed in Burma long ago.
So what with Marks comments & with your past comments re. the Dennee examples from the Pitt rivers collection which at least for the shorter handled "Burma dha handled" ones you accepted as Burmese rather than Thai. I thought that presented a good case? So I presented it..
Sorry if the detailed response to the numerous aside points you had drawn together, came across rude. I would have much rather just discussed the Kachin & Burma style designs , but as you drew others in to add weight to your argument I thought I should reply in full to each of those points.
Re. your pic, it is just a red x for me.
spiral