Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Quite. The subtext is that I'm being characterised as a blinkered nitpicker for opposing these two statements by 2 people early in the thread:

“The re-erecting of the stones at Avebury is a no brainer”

and “The argument for leaving the Avebury stones buried or fallen is a spurious one”

Well I oppose them alright and so does every archaeologist no doubt (including Mike Pitts). So just to clarify what I've actually been saying all along (not what others might want to represent me as having said):

The proper approach should be a compromise between the present and the future with the bulk of the cake being bequeathed to the future.

That's not obstructionist, it's not negative and it wouldn't be seen as wrong by archaeologists - or the future.