|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Ancient sites: Protect or Use? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 20:03
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: You mean like a bunch of rocks ripped from the earth and then dumped in the middle of a location of outstanding natural beauty? ;) Perhaps you are referring to the collection of stones that form Stonehenge. Or the four and a half thousand year-old mound we call Silbury. Or Perhaps you are even referring to the Pyramids or to the Uffington White Horse? With respect, those things, and others like them, are examples of mankind's harmony with the earth - not something 'dumped' in the middle of a location of outstanding natural beauty. To equate the tat of plastic dolls, rotting bananas, crystals and tea candles left at our ancient and sacred places with the beauty of the earth and some of the finest statements that man has made upon it is... well, a little tatty to say the least. I'm exaggerating in order to emphasise the point. "Litter" is a subjective term.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 20:13
|
||
|
An admission that the guy they uphold as a shining figure, Mr Atkinson, brought the conservation about because he screwed the job badly the first time would be welcome too. The earlier tunnellers share some responsibility, but they were not in possession of the equipment and 20th century knowhow, and there was no evidence of any subsidence before 1969. Aye, and I think I said elsewhere that the BBC should be made to cough up something to support (financially) the present 'conservation' project. It was the BBC's screwed up idea (or at least its support) for the Atkinson tunnel that has led to the present mess (and as it was the licence-fee payer's money that was used to fund the 1968 programme in the first place there's no reason why that same source of revenue should not now be use to fund Silbury's conservation). A typical and predictable silence of course has fallen upon the Beeb - perhaps they don't want to get involved, perhaps too much coverage of the present 'Silbury Conservation Project' would show them in an unfavourable light. Then again, perhaps this is a perfect opportunity for one of the Davids (David Attenborough or David Dimbleby) to do a one off 'Save Silbury' prog - entitled perhaps, Oops, we buggered that one up. Nice idea, but don't hold ya breath.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 20:23
|
||
|
"Litter" is a subjective term. Subjective? As I said above, in my book litter is something that shouldn't be where it is. Perhaps you have a different definition of what litter is - in which case I for one would be interested to know what that definition is.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 20:35
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: "Litter" is a subjective term. Subjective? As I said above, in my book.... "In your book"? Isn't that the very definition of subjective? Littlestone wrote: litter is something that shouldn't be where it is. And the definition of "shouldn't" is clearly subjective. Some people clearly feel that offerings "should" be at stone circles, thus negating your definition of litter.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 20:43
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Littlestone wrote: "Litter" is a subjective term. Subjective? As I said above, in my book.... "In your book"? Isn't that the very definition of subjective? Littlestone wrote: litter is something that shouldn't be where it is. And the definition of "shouldn't" is clearly subjective. Some people clearly feel that offerings "should" be at stone circles, thus negating your definition of litter.Yawn... and all that is very subjective. Just answer one little question - what in your book is litter?
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 20:47
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Yawn... and all that is very subjective. No need to be rude. I'm discussing this politely... not attacking your opinion. Littlestone wrote: Just answer one little question - what in your book is litter? lit·ter /ˈlɪtər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lit-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. objects strewn or scattered about; scattered rubbish. Now we'll have to discuss how we define rubbish. ;) Hell, I'll pre-empt that.... rub·bish /ˈrʌbɪʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ruhb-ish] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. worthless, unwanted material that is rejected or thrown out Now seeing as offerings clearly have worth to someone, they can't be absolutely defined as rubbish. Ergo, they're not litter. ;)
|
|||
CianMcLiam 1067 posts |
Edited Jun 26, 2007, 20:49
Jun 26, 2007, 20:48
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Littlestone wrote: litter is something that shouldn't be where it is. And the definition of "shouldn't" is clearly subjective. Some people clearly feel that offerings "should" be at stone circles, thus negating your definition of litter.Some people thought Salman Rushdie should have died for writing a book, others thought that because Saddam was a ruthless murdering son-of-a-bitch that that was all you had to consider when deciding whether to invade and kill thousands of people who most certainly were not ruthless murdering sons-of-bitches, absolutely no concept of price for the payoff entered their little heads. These sites are so old and have survived through so much that the most persuasive argument for people actually interested in ancient sites is that what 'should' and 'should not' be done at these sites is no business of any individual or group in their own self interest. The best respect you can pay to a site is to leave it as if you'd never even been there. There's nothing subjective about the idea of 'preservation', just leave as little trace of our interference as humanly possible.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 20:51
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Littlestone wrote: Yawn... and all that is very subjective. No need to be rude. I'm discussing this politely... not attacking your opinion. Littlestone wrote: Just answer one little question - what in your book is litter? lit·ter /ˈlɪtər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lit-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. objects strewn or scattered about; scattered rubbish. Now we'll have to discuss how we define rubbish. ;) Hell, I'll pre-empt that.... rub·bish /ˈrʌbɪʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ruhb-ish] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. worthless, unwanted material that is rejected or thrown out Now seeing as offerings clearly have worth to someone, they can't be absolutely defined as rubbish. Ergo, they're not litter. ;) Your real name wouldn't be Tony Blare would it ;-)
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 21:01
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Your real name wouldn't be Tony Blare would it ;-) Nah. I don't think I'm always right. Just like to try and see all sides of a thing. :D
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 21:04
|
||
|
The best respect you can pay to a site is to leave it as if you'd never even been there. There's nothing subjective about the idea of 'preservation', just leave as little trace of our interference as humanly possible. Aye, leave nothing, take only memories. Said it before so apologies. The Japanese have the expression, Kimochi dake itadakemasu (I will take only the spirit). It is said on declining a material gift for example, but it is said with gratitude and in acknowledgement that the spirit if not the substance of the gift is accepted. Rice cakes and sake are often placed on the family gravestone for a few minutes and then taken away (only the spirit of those things is left there).
|
| Pages: 23 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
