Mustard
|
Re: Grrr...
Jul 18, 2010, 19:47
|
|
Littlestone wrote: "Still"? Weren't those comments on the article only posted today? Give 'em a bloody chance!
Surely if they have time to moderate and approve comments they have time to correct their inaccuracies (or am I missing something?).
Are the guys approving comments the same person who wrote the article? Maybe they want to check with that person first? Do they have/need admin access to edit the article? Best not jump to conclusions, and best to give 'em a bit of a chance to correct their mistake in good faith before getting all evangelical on their collective asses. :)
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Grrr...
Jul 18, 2010, 19:54
|
|
... give 'em a bit of a chance to correct their mistake in good faith before getting all evangelical on their collective asses. :)
If by evangelical you mean zealous - no, not me gov'. If supporting a particular cause (in this case the protection and conservation of our prehistoric heritage) then most certainly (why would anyone contributing to this board be anything but that?).
|
Mustard
|
Re: Grrr...
Jul 18, 2010, 20:01
|
|
Littlestone wrote: ... give 'em a bit of a chance to correct their mistake in good faith before getting all evangelical on their collective asses. :)
If by evangelical you mean zealous - no, not me gov'. If supporting a particular cause (in this case the protection and conservation of our prehistoric heritage) then most certainly (why would anyone contributing to this board be anything but that?).
I mean OVER zealous. Nothing wrong with wanting them to take the comments down - just don't expect it done the same afternoon! From a purely practical point of view, they're more likely to react favourable if approached calmly. No point getting their backs up by harassing them. People start to get unreasonable under such circumstances, making it less likely that you'll get the result you want.
We all want the same thing - it's just a case of how you go about getting it.
|
Littlestone
|
Edited Jul 18, 2010, 21:25
Re: Grrr...
Jul 18, 2010, 20:22
|
Which is it - zealous or over zealous? I don't like either.
No point getting their backs up by harassing them.
Two comments (so far) to their website pointing out that they are in error hardly constitutes 'harassment'. Assuming you'd seen their website and its seeming 'OK' to climb Silbury, "...for a view around the country side" how would you have responded? (assuming that you don't think it's alright to climb protected monuments).
|
megadread
|
Re: Grrr...
Jul 18, 2010, 20:23
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxA4r_sdnaA
There ya go.
Now there's no need for anyone to climb it ever again. ; )
|
megadread
|
Re: Grrr...
Jul 18, 2010, 20:27
|
|
Mosh wrote: ... though i'm no preacher on the rights and wrongs of climbing Silbury, i've been up twice myself.
Tut tut.
Climbed on Stonehenge at night as well.
Now that's a step too far in my opinion but maybe i'm just an hypocrite. ; )
|
Mosh
|
Re: Grrr...
Jul 18, 2010, 20:53
|
|
megadread wrote: Mosh wrote: ... though i'm no preacher on the rights and wrongs of climbing Silbury, i've been up twice myself.
Tut tut.
Climbed on Stonehenge at night as well.
Now that's a step too far in my opinion but maybe i'm just an hypocrite. ; )
I had permission. Had I not, I would have done it anyway.
|
Mustard
|
Re: Grrr...
Jul 18, 2010, 22:21
|
|
Littlestone wrote: Two comments (so far) to their website pointing out that they are in error hardly constitutes 'harassment'.
I don't have a problem with people commenting on the website. I've done so myself (presumably pending approval). I was, as you well know, responding to the comment you made about them "still" not having removed the offending passage.
Littlestone wrote: (assuming that you don't think it's alright to climb protected monuments). This is the second time now that you've implied that I approve of actions that I clearly don't (the first being littering), simply because I've disagreed with some aspect of your approach to these issues. Please stop belligerently misrepresenting my views. It's perfectly obvious from my posting history, my contributions to this website, and my contributions to my own website that I don't believe in littering, damaging monuments, or clambering over fragile structures. I've already clearly stated in this thread that we all want the same thing - the disagreement is over how we achieve that goal. There's no need to make enemies of people who are essentially on the same side.
|
megadread
|
Re: Grrr...
Jul 18, 2010, 22:26
|
|
Mosh wrote: megadread wrote: Mosh wrote: ... though i'm no preacher on the rights and wrongs of climbing Silbury, i've been up twice myself.
Tut tut.
Climbed on Stonehenge at night as well.
Now that's a step too far in my opinion but maybe i'm just an hypocrite. ; )
I had permission. Had I not, I would have done it anyway.
Sorry for being a nosey git but why would you need to climb the stones. ?
|
megadread
|
Re: Grrr...
Jul 19, 2010, 00:40
|
|
Mustard wrote: and my contributions to my own website
What website is that then. ?
Megalithis orientated. ?
Can i have a link to take a butchers. ?
|
