|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Grrr... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 14:19
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: 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. To everyone. It's good to know when to stop.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 14:20
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Nigel's posts have descended into the childish, I'm afraid. Mustard wrote: Nige old bean, I'm not personally attacking you.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 14:56
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Mustard wrote: Nigel's posts have descended into the childish, I'm afraid. Mustard wrote: Nige old bean, I'm not personally attacking you. That's not an attack, Nigel. That's a statement of fact. A statement made after repeatedly requesting that we debate in a respectful and adult fashion. And that request is still open, if you'd care to take me up on it.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 15:03
|
||
|
"That's not an attack, Nigel. That's a statement of fact." !!
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 15:26
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "That's not an attack, Nigel. That's a statement of fact." !! Your replies have now reduced to punctuation marks, and your questioning whether it's a statement of fact when I refer to them as childish? I've lost count of the number of times that I've asked if we can discuss this like adults... I think it was somewhere around five. You don't seem to be interested. I'm not sure what else any reasonable person could do to encourage you to engage in constructive dialogue.
|
|||
|
megadread 1202 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 18:00
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: goffik wrote: Not really. I don't understand the mentality of the desire to climb things. Is it because you're not supposed to? Is it like sticking 2 fingers up at the guardians of the site that request that you don't do it? A sort of "Hey, man - these things belong to *all* of us, therefore I'm going to help myself!"? G x I guess for a lot of people it's to get a view from the top of Silbury Goff, myself included. When you research and wonder why something was built, like Silbury for instance, you feel it may help that research by climbing to the top to see what it was that may have encouraged the builders to build it in that location. Nobody seems to say anything when archo's climb to the top or when camera crews scale it with all their equipment to make TV documentaries so why not interested people? I think we all take your point exactly about mass invasion of the hill but it's unlikely to happen unless they decide one day to open up a Tesco on the top and take over the car park...now there's a thought!! That's why i climbed it, and who's to say it wasn't meant to be climbed anyway. ? Yeah i understand that if everyone who visited it climbed it there would be damage done so i don't personally encourage people to climb it but i wont "go on one" with people who chosse to do so. Climbing on stones is another matter, i doubt stonehenge was meant to be climbed.
|
|||
|
megadread 1202 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 18:16
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Littlestone wrote: Think you should post a link to that notice on their website Mr M. They still haven't withdrawn their comment that, "You can climb it for a view around the country side." "Still"? Weren't those comments on the article only posted today? Give 'em a bloody chance! I see they have removed my link to the pic of the sign. !
|
|||
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 19:32
|
||
|
Resonox wrote: Littlestone wrote: Resonox wrote: megadread wrote: 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. ? Has a link been posted?...I'd like to browse as well. Isle of Albion was listed on the Blogs and websites of possible interest thread in January this year (and an excellent website it is too). TY
|
|||
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 19:35
|
||
|
Resonox wrote: Resonox wrote: Littlestone wrote: Resonox wrote: megadread wrote: 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. ? Has a link been posted?...I'd like to browse as well. Isle of Albion was listed on the Blogs and websites of possible interest thread in January this year (and an excellent website it is too). TY If the mood of the site is anything like the "reasoned" arguments on this post in particular...I'll give it a miss if it's all the same!
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 20:45
|
||
|
megadread wrote: Mustard wrote: Littlestone wrote: Think you should post a link to that notice on their website Mr M. They still haven't withdrawn their comment that, "You can climb it for a view around the country side." "Still"? Weren't those comments on the article only posted today? Give 'em a bloody chance! I see they have removed my link to the pic of the sign. ! I can see only Nigel and AlanS' comments on their website - did they publish your comment and then delete it? Well, a day and a half after AlanS first commented on their website, the offending line ("You can climb it for a view around the country side.") is still there. One wonders how much time they need to pull it (with an appropriate apology perhaps?).
|
| Pages: 20 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
