bladup
|
Re: In summary...
Jan 23, 2013, 21:47
|
|
Sanctuary wrote: Harryshill wrote: I told him to keep dreaming..
Because thats what I do. I dream of a future where my children and their children will decide about such things.
You just seem bitter.
Once someone has made out his/her stall I don't really see much point to them keep coming back over and over unless it's in a constructive way. The people who wish to persue this dream are being constructive, the others aren't and have nothing new to add to the discussion!
So so true, very well said indeed.
|
harestonesdown
|
Re: In summary...
Jan 23, 2013, 21:47
|
|
nigelswift wrote: "Yes but you've made your position quite clear HH and we/I respect you for it, so what is the point in keep coming back if you have nothing new to add?"
You can't deny him the right to oppose something just as often and as much as you propose something!
But what's the point ? his stance is clear.
My mate Andy doesn't like coffee, if i make one i'll make him a cup of tea, but we don't tell each other with every sip how nasty each others drinks are.
HH has made his view clear, if the discussion continues and he wishes to make a relevant comment at any further point then he should, but at this point is there any need.?
|
harestonesdown
|
Re: In summary...
Jan 23, 2013, 21:51
|
|
bladup wrote: Mustard wrote: Harryshill wrote: Mustard wrote: Harryshill wrote: Keep dreaming.
Would it hurt you to just be POLITE??? You don't want the stones re-erected - fine. That's your right, to hold that opinion and to argue for it. But there's no need to be so bloody rude to people who hold a different view.
If you wasn't so bloody rude yourself you might understand that others weren't. Pot calling the kettle black !!!
Rubbish. Bladup made a perfectly civil and positive post. You disagree with re-erection - fine. You've already established this. So why did you need to respond with a mean-spirited and dismissive comment that added absolutely nothing to his post?
Thank you Mustard, we know how he feels about it, i respect that, but not the fact he keeeeeeeeeeeeps saying it, this is just negative bollocks.
Can we please keep it civil ?
I know that's a bit "ripe" coming from me but there's really no need for expletives and such, they add nothing. :)
|
Harryshill
|
Re: In summary...
Jan 23, 2013, 21:52
|
LOL.
Gentlemen. If you think that the people that read these posts are stupid then I think your sorely mistaken.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: In summary...
Jan 23, 2013, 21:54
|
|
Well the point for me is that I'm defending my gggg grandkids heritage against marauding 21st Century putter-uppers!
|
harestonesdown
|
Re: In summary...
Jan 23, 2013, 21:58
|
|
Harryshill wrote: LOL.
Gentlemen. If you think that the people that read these posts are stupid then I think your sorely mistaken.
Who said anyone is stupid, or even inferred it. ?
*scratches head smiley*
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Alexander Keiller's Avebury
Jan 23, 2013, 21:58
|
|
Whichever way you look at this the thread has certainly captured the imagination judging by the 350 or so posts!
|
Harryshill
|
Re: In summary...
Jan 23, 2013, 21:58
|
|
Mustard wrote: nigelswift wrote: You can't deny him the right to oppose something just as often and as much as you propose something!
Erm... yes he can. There's a time and a place for opposition. Opposing something doesn't entail shouting "NO!" every time other people are trying to have a civilised discussion about it. If I opposed a mosque being built in my town, I wouldn't expect to walk into every planning discussion with my fingers in my ears shouting "NO!"
Shall we stay with the thruth or shall we take this route.
|
tjj
|
Re: In summary...
Jan 23, 2013, 21:58
|
|
harestonesdown wrote: bladup wrote:
Thank you Mustard, we know how he feels about it, i respect that, but not the fact he keeeeeeeeeeeeps saying it, this is just negative bollocks.
Can we please keep it civil ?
I know that's a bit "ripe" coming from me but there's really no need for expletives and such, they add nothing. :)
Hey! I stand up for the right to say bollocks! Have only sworn once (to my recollection) on forum aimed at that Clarkson bloke! I still managed to offend the lovely Postman though. An occasional expletive feels good.
|
bladup
|
Re: In summary...
Jan 23, 2013, 22:01
|
|
harestonesdown wrote: bladup wrote: Mustard wrote: Harryshill wrote: Mustard wrote: Harryshill wrote: Keep dreaming.
Would it hurt you to just be POLITE??? You don't want the stones re-erected - fine. That's your right, to hold that opinion and to argue for it. But there's no need to be so bloody rude to people who hold a different view.
If you wasn't so bloody rude yourself you might understand that others weren't. Pot calling the kettle black !!!
Rubbish. Bladup made a perfectly civil and positive post. You disagree with re-erection - fine. You've already established this. So why did you need to respond with a mean-spirited and dismissive comment that added absolutely nothing to his post?
Thank you Mustard, we know how he feels about it, i respect that, but not the fact he keeeeeeeeeeeeps saying it, this is just negative bollocks.
Can we please keep it civil ?
I know that's a bit "ripe" coming from me but there's really no need for expletives and such, they add nothing. :)
You do know he's breaking up the discussion on purpose though, we know, understand and respect his opinion, what more can we do, all he's doing is throwing a spanner in the works, and it's on purpose, we are allowed to dream, you know my real name, i know yours, who is he? why hide behind a name when he openly admits to never visiting anywhere anymore, he's never gonna see any of us, he's a troublemaker who just goes against people on everything, it's nothing to do with strongly held beliefs or anything like that, because he's always against everything.
|
