|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Ancient sites: Protect or Use? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jun 28, 2007, 11:52
|
||
|
Since the only bit of agreement in this highly peculiar thread seems to be that everyone thinks non biological offerings are a Bad Thing, perhaps I could offer this, not as a full solution but at least one that everyone would think would do a bit of good: _________________________ Code for Responsible Subsequent Visitors to Megalithic Sites CLAUSE 1: Remove all non biological offerings from the site. CLAUSE 2: Thank you. _________________________
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jun 28, 2007, 16:16
|
||
Sounds like a good job to me!
|
|||
|
Mirla 10 posts |
Jun 29, 2007, 15:27
|
||
|
Jeez! i didnt mean to start a chaos battle here! everyone should argue their points nicely please. anyway...thanks for your contributions and ideas, it will take me about 4 days to read them all though!! some great arguments for or against. just to clarify.....i have no problem with groups such as CASPN who look after and keep sites nice...they do a wicked job!! Just stupid petty rules!! Cheers..... keep those...[nice] comments, suggestions and arguments comming!! Mirla!
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 29, 2007, 17:59
|
||
|
ryaner wrote: I didn't call you a troll, or any other name, I merely suggested that you may be engaging in troll-like behaviour. That's an impression I got from your long and sometimes sophistic contributions. While a lot of the stuff you write is interesting, I couldn't help but get the impression you were on a wind-up. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to clear that up politely. It's appreciated. The observation of a troll-like impression is much more reasonable, although I do feel that it's unwarranted. I actually enjoy thinking about issues like this and discussing them in great depth with intelligent people who have an interest in the same subject and a different angle to bring to the table. I'm a bit depressed that such discussion could be mistaken for trolling, and I'm not sure how else I could have approached the subject to avoid such suspicion. ryaner wrote: Your dig at people not having the 'sense' to check your website seemed to reveal a certain hmmmm… intolerance? Maybe you'd got fed up with the circularity of the argument at that stage. No. I'd got fed up with being accused of trolling when all I was trying to do was have an involved discussion. Speaking of circular arguments though.... I was challenged to prove that I wasn't a troll, and then after gently nudging people towards my website as evidence of that fact, I was then accused of only being here to promote my website! That's a no-win situation by anyone's definition. And quite what I'd gain from promoting a non-commercial website is another deep mystery to me. If had some obscure motivation for promoting it, I’m perfectly capable of making a post saying “Hi guys, would you mind checking out my website please?”. ryaner wrote: Your main gripe with others here seems to be the impression of intolerance offering leavers might get due to the members' strongly held beliefs. Actually, it's not a gripe at all. I can well understand how an interest in this area can lead to a jaded approach, cynicism and intolerance. I've suggested that a step back from that position may be productive, but I have no grip with anyone who chooses to do otherwise. ryaner wrote: It's hard for me to see how you can ever get a meeting of minds on that. I find the whole debate incredibly emotive. Some of the neglect and wanton destruction at sites here in Ireland is disgraceful. It sometimes causes me to behave in an intolerant manner. That's not said to excuse my own contribution – I was wrong when I insulted you and apologise for that. Thank you. That's very much appreciated and I’m not one to hold a grudge. Tempers get frayed very easily in internet discussions, and it becomes easy to see the worst in people rather than the best. It is indeed an emotive issue, and I find it utterly depressing seeing the neglect suffered by many of our ancient sites. I also abhor the thoughtless attitude that seems to prevail amongst many visitors, but I still hold out hope that such attitudes are held in ignorance rather than malice, and given the right approach, they can be addressed. Much of what seems obvious to you or I may not be so to the less well-informed, and it seems to me that it's therefore productive to try and educate them before we attack them. Which was my whole point in this thread, really!
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 29, 2007, 18:01
|
||
|
goffik wrote: Aye - but at least it informs people of what they're not SUPPOSED to do - if they see some pile of old candles and stuff on a monument, they'll not see anything wrong with it and possibly add more cack. But if they KNOW it's wrong, they're more likely to think "tsk!" and not add their own cack, or even clear the existing cack. Possibly. Well, it's not a bad thing to educate people in these things, regardless, is it? Agreed.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 29, 2007, 18:03
|
||
|
goffik wrote: Aye - true enough. But dialogue doesn't always work. Especially when there's not somebody at these sites 24 hours a day! Signs are there 24 hours a day and do have some impact - look at the ones in Cornwall. Yup. Totally agree. No problem with sign - just suggesting that they're not going to resolve the problem by themselves.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 29, 2007, 18:04
|
||
|
FourWinds wrote: The odd daisy chain is fine - unless daisies are foreign to the area - it shows that people have spent time there. What I do object to is bouquets of flowers in plastic wrappings and ribbons. I don't like tealights being left for animals to hurt themselves on. I don't like finding wax dripping down the stones. Agreed.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 29, 2007, 18:05
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Since the only bit of agreement in this highly peculiar thread seems to be that everyone thinks non biological offerings are a Bad Thing, perhaps I could offer this, not as a full solution but at least one that everyone would think would do a bit of good: _________________________ Code for Responsible Subsequent Visitors to Megalithic Sites CLAUSE 1: Remove all non biological offerings from the site. CLAUSE 2: Thank you. _________________________ No argument from me. Seems perfectly reasonable.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jun 29, 2007, 19:24
|
||
|
How about the berries of foreign plants? I often see strange bouquets with weird berry-bearing plants. How about if someone's left a hazel twig with nuts on it in an area as yet unblighted by them? Remove the lot, I say, and leave it clear!
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 29, 2007, 19:27
|
||
|
FourWinds wrote: How about the berries of foreign plants? I often see strange bouquets with weird berry-bearing plants. But then would you also cut down non-native trees? Horse chestnuts, for example?
|
| Pages: 23 – [ Previous | 1 … 17 18 19 20 21 22 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
