Cursuswalker
|
Re: STATEMENT FROM THE SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIE
Jul 16, 2007, 18:38
|
|
Cursuswalker wrote:
Thank you Moth :-)
Though it must be said that HA gave a considerable amount of shit as well.
Now for ITV:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/?itemid=286480
Wait for it...
|
Cursuswalker
|
Re: STATEMENT FROM THE SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY:
Jul 16, 2007, 18:38
|
|
Robert Carr wrote:
Excellent news!
Any progress with ITV and Trin and Sus?
That is the Eastern Front in this war. We live in hope.
|
Cursuswalker
|
sooo many signatories...
Jul 16, 2007, 18:49
|
To quote from the petition page:
"Because there are so many signatories, only the most recent 500 are shown on this page."
:D
|
Cursuswalker
|
NOW FOR ITV:
Jul 16, 2007, 21:19
|
London Weekend Television are the company.
http://www.itv.com/page.asp?partid=5
"Trinny and Susannah Undress" is the programme.
http://www.itv.com/page.asp?partid=6605
Littlewoods Direct are the sponsors:
http://www.littlewoodsdirect.com/rf/lxd/navigation/entersite.do?redirectTo=home
And this is the Trinny and Susannah forum:
http://community.itv.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2
I merely mention these facts in passing...
|
Mustard
|
Re: STATEMENT FROM THE SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIE
Jul 16, 2007, 21:24
|
|
Moth wrote: Any damage/risk of etc is deffo the most important issue. On this occasion I have no probs with pagans being singled-out in this way, as from what I can see, the pagans are the main peeps who could be bothered to give a shit....
I agree. I just wish that they'd focused on the issue of damage rather than the issue of religious offence, which I think is a major distraction since no religion has a claim to these sites.
|
Cursuswalker
|
Re: STATEMENT FROM THE SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIE
Jul 16, 2007, 21:42
|
|
Mustard wrote:
I agree. I just wish that they'd focused on the issue of damage rather than the issue of religious offence, which I think is a major distraction since no religion has a claim to these sites.
We have focussed very much on both, especially in the local press.
|
Cursuswalker
|
Sussex Archaeological Society are okay by me...
Jul 16, 2007, 21:50
|
Before I leave off cyber-bothering for this evening, can I just say that, in my view, Sussex Archaeological Society are no longer the problem.
In fact I'm willing to praise them for their willingness to learn from all this and move on. I am now a member and proud to be a part of the organisation who own the Long Man.
|
Mustard
|
Re: STATEMENT FROM THE SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIE
Jul 17, 2007, 13:11
|
|
Cursuswalker wrote: Mustard wrote:
I agree. I just wish that they'd focused on the issue of damage rather than the issue of religious offence, which I think is a major distraction since no religion has a claim to these sites.
We have focussed very much on both, especially in the local press.
But the issue that appears to have been (perdictably) seized upon is the issue of "offence". Out of curiosity, would you still object to this TV stunt if zero damage had been done?
|
Cursuswalker
|
Re: STATEMENT FROM THE SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIE
Jul 17, 2007, 13:32
|
|
Mustard wrote: Cursuswalker wrote: Mustard wrote:
I agree. I just wish that they'd focused on the issue of damage rather than the issue of religious offence, which I think is a major distraction since no religion has a claim to these sites.
We have focussed very much on both, especially in the local press.
But the issue that appears to have been (perdictably) seized upon is the issue of "offence". Out of curiosity, would you still object to this TV stunt if zero damage had been done?
Yes, but not as much. It would then be at the level of the Uffington debacle for me.
But, then, I'm a recently de-converted atheist.
|
postman
|
Re: STATEMENT FROM THE SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIE
Jul 17, 2007, 18:29
|
|
Cursuswalker wrote:
But, then, I'm a recently de-converted atheist.
A what?
Why do people feel the need to be a "something"
|
