|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Avebury » Developments at Avebury |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Feb 16, 2011, 12:53
|
||
|
I do. We have 20 MPH speed limits with 'speed bumps' and no HGV's are allowed. Good suggestion (though I think it has been made before). Along with speed bumps and no HGVs, perhaps even a 15MPH speed limit from the entrance to the main car park to past the Diamond Stone is called for (it’s presently 30MPH). Perhaps also pedestrian crossings (without lights of course) from the north-west quadrant to the north-east quadrant, from the north-west to the south-east (the one in front of the Red Lion which is particularly dangerous) and from the south-west to the south-east quadrant (at present pedestrians have no right of way when crossing the road at those places). Because of the number of overseas visitors to Avebury it might also be useful to have, as they have in London, signs on the road saying Look Right!
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Feb 16, 2011, 12:56
Feb 16, 2011, 12:55
|
||
That belongs on t'other thread as well :-)
|
|||
|
jackyboy 145 posts |
Feb 16, 2011, 13:01
|
||
|
Resonox wrote: With apologies to Blake....... And did those wheels in modern time, Drive upon england's mountains green? And was there 4x4s and HGVs On england's pleasant pastures seen? And was the speed limit sign, Ignored to rattle our clouded bones? And was a greasy spoon builded here Among these dark and ancient stones? Bring me my car of burnished gold! Bring me speed beyond desire! Bring me lorries: of goods unsold! Bring me traffic jams of ire! Will we not cease monumental fight; Til megaliths no longer stand and no longer will there stand a stone In england's green and pleasant land. Steps quietly up to the line, straightens back and holds my head in the air. Would I ever support the idea of a 'ring road' to bypass Avebury. "No, never" Would I oppose such a action. 'Yes'
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Feb 16, 2011, 13:10
|
||
|
Resonox wrote: tjj wrote: Resonox wrote: A Stukeley quote is quite appropriate here..(sorry if it's been done to death in this topic already) "And this stupendous fabric, which for some thousands of years, had brav'd the continual assaults of weather, and by the nature of it, when left to itself, like the pyramids of Egypt, would have lasted as long as the globe, hath fallen a sacrifice to the wretched ignorance and avarice of a little village unluckily plac'd within it." William Stukeley (1687-1765) I agree with you that the above quote has been done to death, I've read it many times but I disagree about its appropriateness to this topic. William Stukeley was part of the 'upper class' whilst the villagers of Avebury were mainly poor land workers who basically did as they were told. That isn't the case now of course but to some extent their views need to be at least considered. Anyway, as I said before ... I'll leave the politics of Avebury to people with much louder voices than mine. Sorry...you disagree..yet agree?...I can't find any reason for you to disagree with me using a quote in the way I have, other than some kind of inverted snobbery... ie..poor people are by dint of being poor absolved of all blame as they are victims of circumstance, what utter tommyrot. Stukeley(wealthy upper class know-it-all as you paint him)..does point out in this very quote...that the village is "unluckily placed".....and before anyone gets all high and mighty about "poor land workers" it was the LAND OWNERS who put the accommodation there for the workers(the reasons for churches being sited in proximity HAS been done to death). Please just don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing....it is rather ill becoming....just because one individual has read a quote several times doesn't mean everyone else has....or is this some kind of subtle censoring of opinions at variance with yours? Yes, I agree it WAS the landowners who placed the village there for their farm labourers to live in. For the record, I was not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing - or operating 'some kind of subtle censorship of opinions at variance with my own'. This is a forum ie a place for debate ... my voice may not be as loud and articulate as your good self but it still has a right to be heard.
|
|||
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Feb 16, 2011, 13:15
|
||
|
tjj wrote: Resonox wrote: tjj wrote: Resonox wrote: A Stukeley quote is quite appropriate here..(sorry if it's been done to death in this topic already) "And this stupendous fabric, which for some thousands of years, had brav'd the continual assaults of weather, and by the nature of it, when left to itself, like the pyramids of Egypt, would have lasted as long as the globe, hath fallen a sacrifice to the wretched ignorance and avarice of a little village unluckily plac'd within it." William Stukeley (1687-1765) I agree with you that the above quote has been done to death, I've read it many times but I disagree about its appropriateness to this topic. William Stukeley was part of the 'upper class' whilst the villagers of Avebury were mainly poor land workers who basically did as they were told. That isn't the case now of course but to some extent their views need to be at least considered. Anyway, as I said before ... I'll leave the politics of Avebury to people with much louder voices than mine. Sorry...you disagree..yet agree?...I can't find any reason for you to disagree with me using a quote in the way I have, other than some kind of inverted snobbery... ie..poor people are by dint of being poor absolved of all blame as they are victims of circumstance, what utter tommyrot. Stukeley(wealthy upper class know-it-all as you paint him)..does point out in this very quote...that the village is "unluckily placed".....and before anyone gets all high and mighty about "poor land workers" it was the LAND OWNERS who put the accommodation there for the workers(the reasons for churches being sited in proximity HAS been done to death). Please just don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing....it is rather ill becoming....just because one individual has read a quote several times doesn't mean everyone else has....or is this some kind of subtle censoring of opinions at variance with yours? Yes, I agree it WAS the landowners who placed the village there for their farm labourers to live in. For the record, I was not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing - or operating 'some kind of subtle censorship of opinions at variance with my own'. This is a forum ie a place for debate ... my voice may not be as loud and articulate as your good self but it still has a right to be heard. I've just checked this thread and I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with you tjj. I am vehemently opposed to a ring road, and of course, all our voices are of equal worth and merit, pro or against. We can and should debate and discuss freely and civilly.
|
|||
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Feb 16, 2011, 14:03
|
||
|
tjj wrote: Resonox wrote: tjj wrote: Resonox wrote: A Stukeley quote is quite appropriate here..(sorry if it's been done to death in this topic already) "And this stupendous fabric, which for some thousands of years, had brav'd the continual assaults of weather, and by the nature of it, when left to itself, like the pyramids of Egypt, would have lasted as long as the globe, hath fallen a sacrifice to the wretched ignorance and avarice of a little village unluckily plac'd within it." William Stukeley (1687-1765) I agree with you that the above quote has been done to death, I've read it many times but I disagree about its appropriateness to this topic. William Stukeley was part of the 'upper class' whilst the villagers of Avebury were mainly poor land workers who basically did as they were told. That isn't the case now of course but to some extent their views need to be at least considered. Anyway, as I said before ... I'll leave the politics of Avebury to people with much louder voices than mine. Sorry...you disagree..yet agree?...I can't find any reason for you to disagree with me using a quote in the way I have, other than some kind of inverted snobbery... ie..poor people are by dint of being poor absolved of all blame as they are victims of circumstance, what utter tommyrot. Stukeley(wealthy upper class know-it-all as you paint him)..does point out in this very quote...that the village is "unluckily placed".....and before anyone gets all high and mighty about "poor land workers" it was the LAND OWNERS who put the accommodation there for the workers(the reasons for churches being sited in proximity HAS been done to death). Please just don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing....it is rather ill becoming....just because one individual has read a quote several times doesn't mean everyone else has....or is this some kind of subtle censoring of opinions at variance with yours? Yes, I agree it WAS the landowners who placed the village there for their farm labourers to live in. For the record, I was not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing - or operating 'some kind of subtle censorship of opinions at variance with my own'. This is a forum ie a place for debate ... my voice may not be as loud and articulate as your good self but it still has a right to be heard. Debate....is NOT disagreeing with EVERYTHING I say......yes you are entitled to your say...but ..so is everyone else...or perhaps you disagree?
|
|||
|
jackyboy 145 posts |
Feb 16, 2011, 14:10
|
||
|
Resonox wrote: tjj wrote: Resonox wrote: tjj wrote: Resonox wrote: A Stukeley quote is quite appropriate here..(sorry if it's been done to death in this topic already) "And this stupendous fabric, which for some thousands of years, had brav'd the continual assaults of weather, and by the nature of it, when left to itself, like the pyramids of Egypt, would have lasted as long as the globe, hath fallen a sacrifice to the wretched ignorance and avarice of a little village unluckily plac'd within it." William Stukeley (1687-1765) I agree with you that the above quote has been done to death, I've read it many times but I disagree about its appropriateness to this topic. William Stukeley was part of the 'upper class' whilst the villagers of Avebury were mainly poor land workers who basically did as they were told. That isn't the case now of course but to some extent their views need to be at least considered. Anyway, as I said before ... I'll leave the politics of Avebury to people with much louder voices than mine. Sorry...you disagree..yet agree?...I can't find any reason for you to disagree with me using a quote in the way I have, other than some kind of inverted snobbery... ie..poor people are by dint of being poor absolved of all blame as they are victims of circumstance, what utter tommyrot. Stukeley(wealthy upper class know-it-all as you paint him)..does point out in this very quote...that the village is "unluckily placed".....and before anyone gets all high and mighty about "poor land workers" it was the LAND OWNERS who put the accommodation there for the workers(the reasons for churches being sited in proximity HAS been done to death). Please just don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing....it is rather ill becoming....just because one individual has read a quote several times doesn't mean everyone else has....or is this some kind of subtle censoring of opinions at variance with yours? Yes, I agree it WAS the landowners who placed the village there for their farm labourers to live in. For the record, I was not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing - or operating 'some kind of subtle censorship of opinions at variance with my own'. This is a forum ie a place for debate ... my voice may not be as loud and articulate as your good self but it still has a right to be heard. Debate....is NOT disagreeing with EVERYTHING I say......yes you are entitled to your say...but ..so is everyone else...or perhaps you disagree? Nope, I don't get this anymore.
|
|||
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Feb 16, 2011, 14:15
|
||
|
The Sea Cat wrote: I've just checked this thread and I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with you tjj. I am vehemently opposed to a ring road, and of course, all our voices are of equal worth and merit, pro or against. We can and should debate and discuss freely and civilly. I never suggested a ring-road as a definitive solution it was an alternative suggestion....but you wholeheartedly agree with tjj after checking the thread.......which in turn means that you agree with her my quoting of Stukeley was inappropriate..which is what she pulled me up about....you'll know this as you checked...yes? I can't understand it...not long after the warning from the Ed's is taken down..the "I say what I want and nobody had better disagree with it or I'll play the martyr and rally my sycophants around me" brigade leaps into full throttle and woe-betide anyone crossing the party-line, their rights to post anything freely and civily are forgotten....debating is not berating. It's little wonder new posters are afraid to come on here!
|
|||
|
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Edited Feb 16, 2011, 14:24
Feb 16, 2011, 14:21
|
||
|
I honestly don't know what you're getting in such a blather about. I meant that agree wholeheartedly with tjj re. 'no ring road'. If I wanted to get talking abolut Stukeley, I would have. As for putting people off, I think your attitude is rather unnecessary and could possibly have exactly that effect on a browser/potential contributor. :-)
|
|||
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Feb 16, 2011, 14:21
|
||
|
jackyboy wrote: Nope, I don't get this anymore. The answer is quite aptly summed up by Rhett Butler's famous line from Gone With The Wind.(Don't worry I wn't quote it as it's content might be deemed inappropriate) If anyone feels intimidated by language(read back)...why in the name of all on earth claim to want to debate?????
|
| Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
