|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Climbing on Standing Stones |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 27, 2012, 17:54
|
||
|
jonnyj wrote: nigelswift wrote: [quote="jonnyj"]I think I'd back EH to have access to more genuine expertise on the subject than anyone else so.... I'd love to agree with you Nigel, but then we'd both be wrong. :) Don't you think that sounds just a tad unlikely? You're claiming these are world renowned experts are you?
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6216 posts |
Feb 27, 2012, 17:56
|
||
|
goffik wrote: ....I have since learned not to clamber around on or near stones that have rockart on them. But I'm still not sure that any damage would be caused, using your pic as an example. I'm afraid I don't see what's so reprehensible about doing what you did there. You didn't stand on the cupmark, or kick it, or chisel your name into it. I know Resonox has used the "monkey see, monkey do" argument before, but if someone was to see this picture and do exactly what you did, what harm would be caused? I know it sounds like I'm labouring the point (I probably am), but really this is at the heart of this whole thread. What is it exactly that we are supposed to be "against" and what are we supposed to be "for"? Because it seems to me we're heading for a preserve- in-aspic approach that would mean no-one goes near anything. No more walking around Avebury (erosion alert), nothing. Which strikes me as the precise opposite of what JC was encouraging when he wrote TMA. Weren't we supposed to get out there and reclaim our prehistoric past? Look everyone, there used to be a stone circle here, but no-one was allowed to see it and it fell into disrepair. Then after a hundred years, an enterprising builder went to Westminster and said, look, here's all this waste ground that no-one goes near, I can build 20,000 houses on it and reduce the housing shortage. And then there's all these hills around, with overgrown banks and ditches, no-one goes there either, prime building land that, nowhere near a floodplain.
|
|||
|
jonnyj 28 posts |
Feb 27, 2012, 18:19
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: jonnyj wrote: nigelswift wrote: [quote="jonnyj"]I think I'd back EH to have access to more genuine expertise on the subject than anyone else so.... I'd love to agree with you Nigel, but then we'd both be wrong. :) Don't you think that sounds just a tad unlikely? You're claiming these are world renowned experts are you? "World renowned" no, very experienced in all things RA yes, and their opinions as valid as any so called "expert", imo. Nigel, trying to get an EH "expert" to visit a newly found cup and ring for example is almost impossible, same goes for official local "authorities", there's nothing in it for them, plus the discoverer, not having any official capacity in the field often has his opinion ignored, simply because he has no official credentials. Tiompan has god only knows how many discoveries to his name, to a lesser extent so do the TNA people along with Geoff who runs the Pecsaetan site, are you suggesting these people give up and leave it all to EH. ?
|
|||
|
hedgedruid 87 posts |
Feb 27, 2012, 20:59
|
||
|
Remember the definition of an expert : " a drip under pressure " so lets not leave it to the experts .
|
|||
|
jonnyj 28 posts |
Feb 27, 2012, 21:07
|
||
|
hedgedruid wrote: Remember the definition of an expert : " a drip under pressure " so lets not leave it to the experts . Hear hear. Imagine deleting all the "amateur" finds from the records. :O Just take Silbaby for an example. !
|
|||
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Feb 28, 2012, 07:19
|
||
|
hedgedruid wrote: Remember the definition of an expert : Isn't that the definition of a flood?
" a drip under pressure " .
|
|||
|
tomwatts 376 posts |
Feb 28, 2012, 12:58
|
||
|
"a drip under pressure" = david cameron...
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6216 posts |
Feb 28, 2012, 20:08
|
||
|
jonnyj wrote: nigelswift wrote: I think I'd back EH to have access to more genuine expertise on the subject than anyone else so.... Yes, let's leave it all to EH. ! ..... I'm sure EH would gladly send along a representative to accompany Tiompan on each and everyone of his many RA forays, to validate anything he may find, with him only being a lowly amateur in the field. :) One of the interesting things about this discussion is the apparent contradictions it throws up. For instance, on the subject of who should be responsible for recording sites (including the means of doing so), the argument seems to be that EH and other professional bodies know best and no-one else (i.e amateurs) needs to get involved and indeed should stay at a safe distance away where they can do no damage to anything. But then EH are being castigated for not sending out the "right" message about climbing on stones and we (i.e. TMA's amateur community) are being entrusted with sending out a "better" message . So, if EH are the acknowledged experts, and have decided using their expertise that allowing people to climb on Stonehenge at certain times of the year is not causing any damage, we should bow down before this expertise and accept that they must be right.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6216 posts |
Feb 28, 2012, 20:12
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: goffik wrote: ....I have since learned not to clamber around on or near stones that have rockart on them. But I'm still not sure that any damage would be caused, using your pic as an example. I'm afraid I don't see what's so reprehensible about doing what you did there. You didn't stand on the cupmark, or kick it, or chisel your name into it. I know Resonox has used the "monkey see, monkey do" argument before, but if someone was to see this picture and do exactly what you did, what harm would be caused? I know it sounds like I'm labouring the point (I probably am), but really this is at the heart of this whole thread. What is it exactly that we are supposed to be "against" and what are we supposed to be "for"? The silence is deafening. I'm happy to accept that this is because my post has been dismissed as the usual ramblings, but I don't see how we can, collectively, send out any kind of message unless we understand precisely where we stand on this point. Does anyone have any problem with Goff's picture or the way it was obtained? I don't.
|
|||
|
jonnyj 28 posts |
Feb 28, 2012, 20:20
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: Does anyone have any problem with Goff's picture or the way it was obtained? I don't. Could you please link to it, i haven't viewed it.
|
| Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 18 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
