Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Silbury Hill »
Trespass on SSSI sites
Log In to post a reply

380 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Mustard
1041 posts

Re: surprise
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 ;)
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index