Earthstepper
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 20:41
|
|
I can sign up to that. Can't see anyone disagreeing (famous last words)
|
Earthstepper
|
Re: rockulous idea sirrah...
Nov 05, 2003, 20:43
|
|
Yup!
|
FourWinds
|
How about ...
Nov 05, 2003, 20:52
|
... The Ancient Monument Protection Lobby
AMPLe
or
The Non-apathetic Ancient Monument Protection Lobby
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 21:01
|
You've done this sort of thing before haven't you :-)
That's a very good point indeed. You need to set up a charter etc and be focused.
nigelswift said: "OK, sometimes some of the campaigns we hosted would be defective, but that wouldn't discredit the whole platform, hopefully."
Oh yes it could and very quickly. One duff campaign and folks will be saying, "but do you remember the "Save The Sainsbury's Car Park Bollard Fiasco!"
|
nigelswift
|
Re: How about ...
Nov 05, 2003, 21:02
|
|
Don't like Non-apathetic, prefer Proactive...
|
wysefool
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 21:08
|
|
The modern antiquarian society?
|
FourWinds
|
Re: How about ...
Nov 05, 2003, 21:10
|
|
:-)~
|
Earthstepper
|
Re: Here's my best shot...
Nov 05, 2003, 21:12
|
|
TimeWatch
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 21:14
|
I understand what you're saying, but the "tight ship" format might quickly need someone on the case virtually full time, not to mention endless debate about the precise lines we should take, so it may be an impracticable ideal unless anyone fancies the job. So I thought maybe we should go the other way with broad brush editorial control. Provide a sounding board but not necessarily an endorsement.
It's a crucial issue to be decided.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 21:43
|
Perhaps a (dread the thought) committee of folks who decide if a group/person can use the 'Name' would be a better idea than a more corporate type arrangement then. A simple system of put your case to us and we'll let you know. If approval follows then the campaign gets to use the group's name.
However, when someone uses the name they will be asked "What do you stand for then?" or some such question and you have to be able to give a solid answer to that one - hence a (broad if necessary) charter to point them at.
As you say (and BN knows) it takes a hell of a lot of time just to organise and fight one battle, but to take on many is a mad task. Would it be more prudent to locate one cause and fight that out and move on to others after that? Hopefully, riding on the back of a success!
|
