nigelswift
|
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 11:54
|
"this is a clear case of those idiots [archaeologist's] trying to shift the blame"
Go up if you want but not on the basis of obvious fictions like that. The damage to the North side is blindingly obvious and it's caused by people going up in wet conditions, nothing to do with archaeologists trying to shift the blame.
|
bladup
|
Edited Jan 07, 2013, 12:06
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 12:01
|
|
nigelswift wrote: "this is a clear case of those idiots [archaeologist's] trying to shift the blame"
Go up if you want but not onthe basis of obvious fictions like that. The damage to the North side is blindingly obvious and it's caused by people going up in wet conditions, nothing to do with archaeologists trying to shift the blame.
I'm not arguing with you but you can see it caving in [because of all the holes inside], and like Evergreen said we've all given our opinions before [time and again], i know this site includes various circles but this going round and around is just bloody silly [and maybe even madness].
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 12:08
|
|
Quite. I just wanted to establish for the record that the damage was caused by people climbing in wet weather. There are "differing opinions" but they don't affect the facts.
|
Sanctuary
|
Edited Jan 07, 2013, 12:20
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 12:19
|
|
nigelswift wrote: Quite. I just wanted to establish for the record that the damage was caused by people climbing in wet weather. There are "differing opinions" but they don't affect the facts.
Same old same old.
If it's illegal then they have to do something about it or it will just go on and on and on....and the threats will continue to be meaningless.
|
Harryshill
|
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 12:22
|
Just so I'm clear in my mind.
Is this thread about a link to the news about damaged caused by trespass to one of our most famous prehistoric monuments? Obviously the answer is yes.. It's about damage caused because there are people going up there in bad ground conditions.
Now, given that this is a site about prehistory and the news is about damage to a prehistorical site. I can not for the life of me see why this is not a vadid subject for debate.
Tresspass,with damage to a monument.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 12:24
|
|
Hear hear!
|
Evergreen Dazed
|
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 12:26
|
Of course its a valid topic for debate.
Its just that we've already done it, several times, and it always seems to end in abuse/bullshit.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 12:32
|
|
PS, and it would be a pretty bad situation on a prehistory site if people felt they shouldn't say that people who contribute to the damage shouldn't!
|
Evergreen Dazed
|
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 12:34
|
|
nigelswift wrote: PS, and it would be a pretty bad situation on a prehistory site if people felt they shouldn't say that people who contribute to the damage shouldn't!
But people already have on this particular subject.
Many, many, many times.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 12:41
|
|
Sure, but the morning that "spectacular damage" to Silbury is publicised on the radio by a prominent archaeologist is a very good time to mention it again.
|
