|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Avebury » Alexander Keiller's Avebury |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 21:53
|
||
|
Sadly, rationality takes a back seat in issues such as this. It would be rational to reunite the right-end panel of the Anglo-Saxon Franks Casket (now in the Bargello Museum, Florence) with the rest of the Casket in the British Museum. Crazy isn’t it, and yet the world of antiquities is littered with such examples. The difference here (at Avebury) is that the stones are not on foreign soil but, for the most part, are in or on the soil where they originally stood. Those who oppose their re-erection are actually doing so for very narrow-minded reasons - not for the greater good of the monument itself, its better understanding and appreciation on the world stage and, ultimately, its marker in history and its place in human endeavour.
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 21:54
|
||
|
No. I don't have any rational reason for digging up any more stones. I think it works as it is. I don't want to rebuild Avebury, Stonehenge, Corfe Castle or any of the other 'ruins'. They are fine as they are. I see nothing unreasonable about that. If people wish the opposite then thats fine. But I don't. I'm happy with the status quo. I think that it actually come down to that. Some will wish it rebuild, and some wont. some will fight to make it happen and some wont. I doubt very much that this conversation has any great effect on that result at all. It's a Yes or No situation as far as I can, see and I say no.
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 22:01
|
||
|
Tut tut, narrow minded? Insulting people because they don't agree with your judgment of the situation. Below the belt, me thinks..
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 22:09
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: The difference here (at Avebury) is that the stones are not on foreign soil but, for the most part, are in or on the soil where they originally stood. Those who oppose their re-erection are actually doing so for very narrow-minded reasons - not for the greater good of the monument itself, its better understanding and appreciation on the world stage and, ultimately, its marker in history and its place in human endeavour. Here we go again ... where do you get off calling people 'narrow minded' because they have a different view to you. There are lots of valid reasons for leaving the status quo at Avebury as it is ... for now anyway. As well you know (or should anyway).
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 22:13
|
||
|
tjj wrote: Littlestone wrote: The difference here (at Avebury) is that the stones are not on foreign soil but, for the most part, are in or on the soil where they originally stood. Those who oppose their re-erection are actually doing so for very narrow-minded reasons - not for the greater good of the monument itself, its better understanding and appreciation on the world stage and, ultimately, its marker in history and its place in human endeavour. Here we go again ... where do you get off calling people 'narrow minded' because they have a different view to you. There are lots of valid reasons for leaving the status quo at Avebury as it is ... for now anyway. As well you know (or should anyway). To be fair, June, Harry hasn't offered one rational argument to support his opinion. That's his right, but it certainly gives the APPEARANCE of narrow-mindedness. And that's not a criticism, because we can ALL be narrow-minded at times, surely? :)
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 22:17
|
||
|
This is the way failure of ability to discus on an equal basis often end up. Accept my word as truth or you narrow minded, a simpleton, etc.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 22:22
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Harry hasn't offered one rational argument to support his opinion. Quite.
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 22:23
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: tjj wrote: Littlestone wrote: The difference here (at Avebury) is that the stones are not on foreign soil but, for the most part, are in or on the soil where they originally stood. Those who oppose their re-erection are actually doing so for very narrow-minded reasons - not for the greater good of the monument itself, its better understanding and appreciation on the world stage and, ultimately, its marker in history and its place in human endeavour. Here we go again ... where do you get off calling people 'narrow minded' because they have a different view to you. There are lots of valid reasons for leaving the status quo at Avebury as it is ... for now anyway. As well you know (or should anyway). To be fair, June, Harry hasn't offered one rational argument to support his opinion. That's his right, but it certainly gives the APPEARANCE of narrow-mindedness. And that's not a criticism, because we can ALL be narrow-minded at times, surely? :) Perhaps Harry is not quite as articulate on forum as you and others. I refer you to Rhiannon's posts for reasons 'why not' - at this point in time anyway. Makes sense to me. If you want to call me narrow-minded too then go ahead, you know nothing about me except possibly hearsay. I am disappointed to see you condoning such forum strategies.
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 22:28
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: tjj wrote: Littlestone wrote: The difference here (at Avebury) is that the stones are not on foreign soil but, for the most part, are in or on the soil where they originally stood. Those who oppose their re-erection are actually doing so for very narrow-minded reasons - not for the greater good of the monument itself, its better understanding and appreciation on the world stage and, ultimately, its marker in history and its place in human endeavour. Here we go again ... where do you get off calling people 'narrow minded' because they have a different view to you. There are lots of valid reasons for leaving the status quo at Avebury as it is ... for now anyway. As well you know (or should anyway). To be fair, June, Harry hasn't offered one rational argument to support his opinion. That's his right, but it certainly gives the APPEARANCE of narrow-mindedness. And that's not a criticism, because we can ALL be narrow-minded at times, surely? :) What, you were only a few posts away saying you didn't see how adding stones would help. Nobody, but nobody has given me a reason why I should believe digging up more stones would benefit Avebury. Yes they gave reasons, but I don't agree. Disagreeing appears to be unacceptable for some reason.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 22:31
|
||
|
Harryshill wrote: Mustard wrote: tjj wrote: Littlestone wrote: The difference here (at Avebury) is that the stones are not on foreign soil but, for the most part, are in or on the soil where they originally stood. Those who oppose their re-erection are actually doing so for very narrow-minded reasons - not for the greater good of the monument itself, its better understanding and appreciation on the world stage and, ultimately, its marker in history and its place in human endeavour. Here we go again ... where do you get off calling people 'narrow minded' because they have a different view to you. There are lots of valid reasons for leaving the status quo at Avebury as it is ... for now anyway. As well you know (or should anyway). To be fair, June, Harry hasn't offered one rational argument to support his opinion. That's his right, but it certainly gives the APPEARANCE of narrow-mindedness. And that's not a criticism, because we can ALL be narrow-minded at times, surely? :) What, you were only a few posts away saying you didn't see how adding stones would help. Nobody, but nobody has given me a reason why I should believe digging up more stones would benefit Avebury. Yes they gave reasons, but I don't agree. Disagreeing appears to be unacceptable for some reason. I don't believe you should believe digging up more stones would help Avebury. But if you DON'T believe that, then I DO expect you to explain WHY..... IF you want me to accept that your position is rational. Just curious here, not arguing, so please don't take offence :)
|
| Pages: 77 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
