|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Trespass on SSSI sites |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Sep 06, 2012, 10:46
Sep 06, 2012, 10:42
|
||
|
Where would we be without the Benny Rothmans of this world. :) Quite, or the Chinese student who stood before the tanks in Tiananmen Square more than 20 years ago, or Rosa Parks who, more than 50 years ago, “...refused to obey [a bus driver’s] order that she give up her seat in the colored section to a white passenger...” Ditto those who entered (trespassed?) on land to record recent damage to the The Priddy Circle. They were all ‘breaking the rules’ - although those rules were being broken for the greater good. But don’t misunderstand me, if this thread is about Silbury (I thought it was more generally about Trespass on SSSI sites) I can see no good in climbing it (and I thought we were all in agreement on that here). The issue becomes more blurred elsewhere though. I’ve trespassed in order to gain access to the Winterbourne Bassett circle (and know of at least two others who have done the same to photograph and record it) and to apply the ‘no-never-rule’ to that situation is complete and utter nonsenses. Po! :-) |
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 10:54
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: You're perfectly entitled to whatever opinion you like Moss! and I don't want you to think I'm being rude to you X Contrary to popular impression I feel no personal animosity to anybody in this discussion. It's a discussion innit. It's all the more interesting if it's a bit heated. I don't think I've been rude, ok I have tried to put my point across forcefully but it's not supposed to be personal. It's just supposed to be one opinion against another. In the end, my not-clambering stance doesn't endanger anything. It's those taking the clambering stance that should justify that stance, in case it does (and genuinely, earnestly, passionately believing that it doesn't, doesn't necessarily make that true. The guardians of the sites' considered opinion is that it does.) This thread was actually very animosity free. In fact there's even several posts saying how civilised the conversation is. (It's interesting that the accusations only started getting thrown around after a certain point. People can investigate what that point coincided with and draw their own conclusions) I find it curious that you claim the moral high ground, and then sign off with a snide swipe. I'm sure people can draw their own conclusions about that ;) "In the end, my not-clambering stance doesn't endanger anything. It's those taking the clambering stance that should justify that stance, in case it does (and genuinely, earnestly, passionately believing that it doesn't, doesn't necessarily make that true. The guardians of the sites' considered opinion is that it does.)" The "clambering" (emotive, loaded term again... cheap debating tactic used to misrepresent other people and make them look unreasonable) justification has already been made. You just don't agree with it. Which is fine. But again, I'd suggest you just show some respect for the alternate point of view, since (again) I would point out that it's sincerely held. The guardians of these sites (who strangely enough, many people on these forums seem to have little enough respect for except when it suits their argument) do not necessarily believe as you claim. They believe that rules are necessary. I believe that too. I just don't believe in blind adherence to every single rule, in every single situation. Judging by your earlier admission of an abbey incursion, I assume that you don't believe that either ;)
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 10:57
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: But don’t misunderstand me, if this thread is about Silbury (I thought it was more generally about Trespass on SSSI sites) I can see no good in climbing it (and I thought we were all in agreement on that here). The issue becomes more blurred elsewhere though. I’ve trespassed in order to gain access to the Winterbourne Bassett circle (and know of at least two others who have done the same to photograph and record it) and to apply the ‘no-never-rule’ to that situation is complete and utter nonsenses. Exactly that.
|
|||
|
harestonesdown 1067 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 11:04
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: I’ve trespassed in order to gain access to the Winterbourne Bassett circle (and know of at least two others who have done the same to photograph and record it) and to apply the ‘no-never-rule’ to that situation is complete and utter nonsenses. Personally i'd never trespass anywhere, for any reason. *Sneaks off to change username* ; )
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 11:07
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Where would we be without the Benny Rothmans of this world. :) Quite, or the Chinese student who stood before the tanks in Tiananmen Square more than 20 years ago, or Rosa Parks who, more than 50 years ago, “...refused to obey [a bus driver’s] order that she give up her seat in the colored section to a white passenger...” Ditto those who entered (trespassed?) on land to record recent damage to the The Priddy Circle. They were all ‘breaking the rules’ - although those rules were being broken for the greater good. But don’t misunderstand me, if this thread is about Silbury (I thought it was more generally about Trespass on SSSI sites) I can see no good in climbing it (and I thought we were all in agreement on that here). The issue becomes more blurred elsewhere though. I’ve trespassed in order to gain access to the Winterbourne Bassett circle (and know of at least two others who have done the same to photograph and record it) and to apply the ‘no-never-rule’ to that situation is complete and utter nonsenses. Po! :-) Good post Mr Littlestone but disingenuous coming from you given that you were the person who locked the previous Silbury thread just after I posted something about the laws of trespass. Somehow managing to insist you believe in free speech but it was your 'right' to have the last word. You can have as many 'last words' as you want on this thread because I'm not going to lock it.
|
|||
|
tomwatts 376 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 11:18
|
||
|
...If you really, really feel an uncontrollable urge to walk where you shouldn't then why not take a tip from the Irish who process up Mount Brandon barefoot every year?... http://www.unshod.org/ebbfhike/bfhik101.htm
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 11:25
|
||
|
Of course I have broken rules. So I flouted them. Look it up - flout - To show contempt for; scorn. So please, flout is NOT "emotive and loaded language that misrepresents the views of others" nor is it "a low tactic and quite rude". It is a precise description. (We could carry this on for ages yet if I wasnt going out but it would never allow either of us to escape from the accusation that when we break rules we flout them. In addition, IMO, doing so has an ultimately detrimental effect on others.)
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 11:31
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Of course I have broken rules. So I flouted them. Look it up - flout - To show contempt for; scorn. Well YOU may have contempt and scorn for rules, but I don't. I respect the reasons why they exist. I simply don't believe (getting bored of saying this now!) that they need to be blindly adhered to on every occasion and in every circumstance. So to say that I "flout" rules, and thereby that have I have "scorn and contempt" for them is both rude and inaccurate. Please don't put words into my mouth and misrepresent my position.
So please, flout is NOT "emotive and loaded language that misrepresents the views of others" nor is it "a low tactic and quite rude". It is a precise description.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 11:40
|
||
OK, you respect the reasons why the rules exist but don't adhere to them. Fine.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 11:48
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: OK, you respect the reasons why the rules exist but don't adhere to them. Fine. Nigel, please try and be reasonable. It's really not that radical a concept. Try and see that there are some shades between black and white. It's perfectly possible to respect rules, see the need for them, and still feel that they don't have to be adhered to with religious fervour. How do you feel about people who've walked around the edge of the corn to get closer to the Devil's Arrows?
|
| Pages: 38 – [ Previous | 1 … 20 21 22 23 24 25 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
