Earthstepper
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 12:54
|
Heritage Alliance does sound respectable which might be useful. However, it suggests an unholy alliance of EH, NT, Scottish Heritage and Cadw (sp?).. That's not what's wanted is it?
Now that all the funny acronyms have been aired (hopefully) I would suggest that you forget about the best name until you know what you want to be and want to achieve. Suspend a concise mission statement too and just brainstorm ideas - the words will come later and can be polished to perfection
Who are we? Are we passive, or militant? Do we seek to affect change through gentle persuasion or by taking confrontational action when necessary? Are we limited by geography or period ie is prehistoric Britain and Ireland our chief/only concern?
Once this fundamental stuff is discussed and agreed the rest should follow without having to go back and waste time and energy by argueing with ourselves. Above all - please be aware of the continuing commitment in time and energy that will be required. It is serious or it is nothing. Brigantes has shown us that real passion and hard work is the key to a succesful, sustained campaign. Worse than useless if we start and then falter.
Coming up for my 'bus pass, but I'm game for it still.
E.S.
|
Moth
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 13:08
|
I agree ES! But I think we WERE just 'brainstorming' - well I was! Trouble is because my skill is (supposed to be!) with words, that tends to be the angle I approach from.
And actually, SOMETIMES (in my experience anyway) the careful targeting of activites can come FROM a snappy title or slogan.
love
Moth
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 13:33
|
I agree ES, these are the questions..
"Who are we? Are we passive, or militant? Do we seek to affect change through gentle persuasion or by taking confrontational action when necessary? Are we limited by geography or period."
But we'll never quite agree initially, nor indeed will we fully understand the implications or how it will develop. For that reason I favour a broad brush "catch-all" vehicle from which we can conduct any campaign or interest that arises or that happens to interest us. We can't sustain something that covers everything, and why should we try? Let's have no bureaucracy or rules, they can come later, if they must, and as they're needed. Just a respectable "platform" to speak from. "I'm from TMA and we think that..." just doesn't work, but this might.
So. let's just set up an online heritage preservation voice, and see how it develops. Organic growth is bound to be the best way to go.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 14:03
|
|
So come on Moth, come up with an all-inclusive working title and strapline, I'll support your next suggestion whatever it is.
|
Moth
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 14:06
|
"Nigelswifts Prehistoric Warriors - you mess with our stones, we'll mss with your face"
love
Moth
|
Moth
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 14:06
|
MESS MESS MESS
love
Moth
|
Moth
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 14:08
|
Insert an ' if you like too. Sorry, got over-excited.
love
Moth
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 14:59
|
|
It's all good, except Warriors. Jane doesn't like warriors for some reason.
|
Moth
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 15:02
|
'Nigelswift's Prehistoric Asskickers - you mess with our stones we'll mess with your rocks'
Be honest!
love
Moth
PS Still can't get a real one nailed - keep having to do some work!!!
|
grrr
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 15:05
|
Heritage Action
- Preserving our Past
toyed with Heritage Action Trust for the sake of the acronym, or World Heritage Action Trust (could be a bit over ambitious)
|
