=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Ancient sites: Protect or Use?
Log In to post a reply
225 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Mustard
1043 posts

Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use?
Jun 27, 2007, 14:18
Littlestone wrote:
Quite simply that most ordinary people aren't even remotely bothered by the presence of offerings.


I think you enjoy playing with words Mr Mustard.

Not at all. I can't be arsed farting around with a discussion like this just out of a perverse enjoyment of semantics. I believe it's a very complicated issue. Complicated issues require a little more thoughtfulness than "it's wrong because it is!".

Littlestone wrote:
Tell ya wot, let's get real; we'll pop round to your place with a couple of crates of tinnies, cakes and bananas later.
Well we'll leave that pointless analogy right there, since last time I checked, most ancient sites don't have residents.

Littlestone wrote:
By the way, I seem to have missed which areas of the megalithic subject you're interested in, or have some degree of knowledge about.

Have we reached the part that Paulus was talking about where you accuse me of being a troll? Or perhaps Britain's heritage doesn't belong to all its residents as you previously suggested, but only those of us who provide sufficient credentials to meet your preferred criteria? I thought we were discussing the issue of offerings... not my personal background?
In reply to:
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Littlestone)		 Replies:
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Littlestone)
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (slumpystones)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index