|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Grrr... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 11:52
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Can't speak for anyone else, but I've already said that I don't think people should be climbing Silbury. However, it's the general attitude and approach that I assume is being referred to as "over the top". We're all ultimately on the same side though, eh? Oh good, then we're agreed that people shouldn't be defying the notices and climbing Silbury. Are we also agreed that people shouldn't be defying the law and climbing on the Stonehenge stones?
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 12:01
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Mustard wrote: Can't speak for anyone else, but I've already said that I don't think people should be climbing Silbury. However, it's the general attitude and approach that I assume is being referred to as "over the top". We're all ultimately on the same side though, eh? Oh good, then we're agreed that people shouldn't be defying the notices and climbing Silbury. Are we also agreed that people shouldn't be defying the law and climbing on the Stonehenge stones? Can we please have a conversation like intelligent adults who share the same concerns and interests, without resorting to the sarcasm and generally shitty attitude? Is that really so much to ask? Everyone here has a sincere concern for our heritage and its preservation, so how about trying to respect the integrity of the views of others - even when you don't see eye-to-eye? It can't be that hard, can it? If you want to discuss Stonehenge, there's already a thread going. I was under the impression we were talking about Silbury Hill here.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 12:04
|
||
We'll take that as a yes then. Cheers.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 12:06
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: We'll take that as a yes then. Cheers. I give up. I've tried to engage with you reasonably as an intelligent adult, respecting your views even where we differ, and you insist on behaving childishly. You're consistently alienating people who are essentially on the same side as you, and it's tragic that you can't see that. If you want to advocate the cause of conservation, you'll not achieve very much if you end up with an audience of one person.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 12:21
|
||
|
Can we please have a conversation like intelligent adults who share the same concerns and interests, without resorting to the sarcasm and generally shitty attitude? I thought that is exactly what we were doing but, re: the ed's comment above, "Please think carefully about the words you use, especially when disagreeing with someone. And at the same time, try not to see offence or a personal attack where none is meant." might be worth reiterating. As for this thread being exclusively about climbing Silbury. No, it's about any inappropriate behavior at any heritage site, and a call for people to observe basic conservation rules and not try to make personal excuses for flouting those rules.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 12:35
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Can we please have a conversation like intelligent adults who share the same concerns and interests, without resorting to the sarcasm and generally shitty attitude? I thought that is exactly what we were doing I wish it were. Nigel's posts have descended into the childish, I'm afraid. Littlestone wrote: but, re: the ed's comment above, "Please think carefully about the words you use, especially when disagreeing with someone. And at the same time, try not to see offence or a personal attack where none is meant." might be worth reiterating. I'd consider this the more salient extract: "Any personal attacks, name-calling, unnecessarily aggressive comments, unfounded or unreasonable accusations, or general unnecessary vitriol will result in the poster's account being suspended." Littlestone wrote: As for this thread being exclusively about climbing Silbury. No, it's about any inappropriate behavior at any heritage site, and a call for people to observe basic conservation rules and not try to make personal excuses for flouting those rules. Whatever you like. Personally, I'm not getting drawn back into the same discussion about Stonehenge that's already taking place in another thread. If Nigel wants to discuss it there, then I'll be happy to do so.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 13:26
|
||
|
Nigel's posts have descended into the childish, I'm afraid. I've always been the same. Completely unable to agree with the "gently, gently, let's explain it nicely to them" approach that the archaeological establishment advocates towards metal detectorists and you have advocate towards dozens of ignorant littering drunken idiotic lawbreakers at Stonehenge. For your information, it has taken ten years of daily personal attacks on me such as yours but the establishment's attitude on metal detecting is now turning decisively in the right direction (PAS is about to write to every landowner in the country saying: “Most archaeologists view metal-detecting rallies as extremely damaging to archaeology” - how about that? Sticking up for what's right DOESN'T necessarily mean you end up isolated, it means you end up right. Detectorists have been "told nicely" how damaging rallies are and have done not a thing about it. Now landowners are to be told "not nicely" and they WILL do something about it. All of which is why I don't give a fig for your attacks on me or your attempts to smooth over the nonsense that goes on at Stonehenge.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 13:36
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: I've always been the same. Completely unable to agree with the "gently, gently, let's explain it nicely to them" approach that the archaeological establishment advocates towards metal detectorists and you have advocate towards dozens of ignorant littering drunken idiotic lawbreakers at Stonehenge. I can understand your frustration. But demonising people doesn't help. And whatever you think of the ignorant minority at Stonehenge, I'm not one of them! We're on the same side here, Nigel. Your probably couldn't fit a rizzla between our fundamental views on most issues. So please... don't take it personally when I criticise your approach. I respect the principle of your position.... just not the way you go about expressing it sometimes. nigelswift wrote: For your information, it has taken ten years of daily personal attacks on me such as yours Nige old bean, I'm not personally attacking you. On the contrary - I'm asking you to play nice so we can discuss this like grown-ups. nigelswift wrote: All of which is why I don't give a fig for your attacks on me or your attempts to smooth over the nonsense that goes on at Stonehenge. I have asked you at least three times to discuss this reasonably, and you're repeatedly stamping your feet and throwing the toys out of the pram. What the hell more do you WANT me to do, apart from throw the towel in and say "yes Nigel, you're right about absolutely everything, and I agree with you 100%"? I disagree with your approach and I disagree with your manner of communication. That's not a personal attack - that's an opinion. Unlike you, I do "give a fig" about your attempts to justify your position, because although I disagree with it, I think it deserves consideration and respect. All I'm asking is that you show me the same courtesy.
|
|||
|
faerygirl 412 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 13:57
|
||
|
Hey how am I going to sing Peter Gabriel whilst doing something he is singing about if they make it illegal??? ;)
|
|||
juamei 2013 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 14:08
|
||
|
Go 40 miles west and climb Solsbury Hill as he intended :-) (as far as I know, I am not a Peter Gabriel fan!)
|
| Pages: 20 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
