Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Climbing on Standing Stones
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 128 29 30 31 32 33 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
juamei
juamei
2008 posts

Re: Climbing on Standing Stones
Mar 03, 2012, 00:14
thesweetcheat wrote:

I'd love to agree that the viewpoints here are virtually indistinguishable, but to be honest I don't think they are. I think we have a shared interest, and that we both want to do (what we perceive to be) the right thing. But our view of what that is, is not the same.


Do you not think that is because you have focussed on the differences?

I hold one thing close to my heart whenever I do something to protect what is left of our scant heritage, the prehistory comes first. Everything else I do logically falls from that imo. It seems to win me no new friends, but well, thats not why I do it...
thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat
6130 posts

Re: Climbing on Standing Stones
Mar 03, 2012, 00:17
juamei wrote:
The obvious is I simply cannot understand how people think climbing on the stones can be right. Nothing more nothing less.

I can't be bothered with a point by point reply, and tbh really should have stuck by my promise to myself to just keep out of these pointless discussions. Especially ones with descend into the same old tired battle lines.

I am also sick and tired of being condemned. The lies and mistruths spoken about some on "my side" of this argument have become gospel to some on this forum. Its all a bunch of complete and utter bollocks and poisons the very waters from which we drink.


I'm not talking about "sides". I don't perceive you to be on a "side" in this discussion, any more than I am on a "side". I speak for myself and myself only. My own response to what Resonox meant is just that. An opinion I have about what I understood by his post. I'm not suggesting you're on the same "side", or that there are battle lines being drawn. But both of you have criticised me, and others, who visit prehistoric sites and actually step onto them. I have been trying to respond to those criticisms, obviously not successfully.
thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat
6130 posts

Re: FAO Juamei
Mar 03, 2012, 00:25
juamei wrote:
Do you not think that is because you have focussed on the differences?

I hold one thing close to my heart whenever I do something to protect what is left of our scant heritage, the prehistory comes first. Everything else I do logically falls from that imo. It seems to win me no new friends, but well, thats not why I do it...


Actually, it's probably because I have focussed on the criticism (perhaps too much so, I'll admit). I said some time back that we all have a bias and because I spend a lot of my time out at sites, my view is obviously going to be that to do so is not "wrong".

I agree that the prehistory comes first, I agreed with you when you said that before. But if the prehistory does come first, surely we have to know what there is? If we don't know that there even is a well-preserved barrow and that no-one has caved the top of it in, how are we going to notice when overnight a metal-detectorist has done just that?

I know we're going round in circles Juamei and like you know I should just stop. I have no desire to argue or fall out with people, but I'm afraid I have felt the need to defend myself on this thread for so many days now that it is very difficult to "let it go".
GLADMAN
929 posts

Re: FAO Juamei
Mar 03, 2012, 02:38
I think it's pretty clear from all of these couple of hundred-odd posts that there are quite a few people fighting in the corner of our ancient heritage. Differing views? Good. No cosy complacency, then.

I started posting on TMA because I felt guilty I was taking and not passing on knowledge. I state here and now that is the be all and end all. Any fool can click a camera shutter, but you have got to want to be there. Hell, you have got to be there. Not too difficult at Castlerigg, perhaps, but some other places require a lot of effort. I'm actually quite a nervous bloke. I have a stammer. I don't like confrontation. But I trespass - where the landowner makes that necessary - because I want people to know what is there.

I - and I'm positve other active members like the SC, Postman, Drew, Lionous, Mr Cane etc, etc, - would never, ever harm a site.... call me weird, but I believe I can tell through the way their images are taken. Trust in us, Juamei. We really are on the same side.
nigelswift
8101 posts

Edited Mar 03, 2012, 11:06
Deliberately conciliatory remarks
Mar 03, 2012, 07:10
I personally don't think what has been happening here is a load of moral puritans telling passionate activists not to touch stones and if that's how it is seen then both lots are to blame, the former for not expressing themselves adequately and the latter for assuming the worst of several possible meanings.

Anyhow, for the record, I totally accept this:

"I - and I'm positive other active members like the SC, Postman, Drew, Lionous, Mr Cane etc, etc, - would never, ever harm a site.... call me weird, but I believe I can tell through the way their images are taken. Trust in us, Juamei. We really are on the same side."

On the other hand, I think I'm entitled to recognition that just because I can't climb up mountains that doesn't make me (and others who think like me) a puritan, or a holier than thou keyboard-bound type who is unaware of the need to interact-to-preserve and to search-to-discover or who doesn't recognise the Cope message.

We can all keep finding short quotes in this thread to reinforce erroneous assumptions about what the other side is like or means or we can simply accept that it is utterly inconceivable that either of the assumptions is correct, and talk without such prejudices. How ludicrous that anyone here would think anyone here would think anyone here would ever harm a site and how ludicrous that anyone here would think anyone here was so out of it that they thought stones must never be touched!

In fact though, I'm not sure anyone thinks either of those things. To do so would be to deliver the most outrageous insult towards fellow stoneheads. Fancy thinking any of us would deliberately harm sites! Fancy thinking any of us thinks amateur enthusiasts should be followed by a symbolic man with a clip board and a list of rules! It's cock in both cases. Which doesn't matter because none of us believes either.

I suspect what has exacerbated and confused this conflict is a brief clash of two worlds - the pioneering and independent spirit of the Yorkshire moors or the Peaks on a day trip to the much more controlled environment of a world heritage site in Wiltshire. On the Moors and Mountains independent action rules, and much benefit is delivered thereby. In Wilts, you just don't climb standing stones. (And it's notable that of 4 people only the 2 non-locals climbed, and at least one of the locals was shocked). You just don't, not because it damages them but because with a million people coming every year you have to keep to a standard of behaviour that ensures they don't think climbing monuments is OK - particularly in situations elsewhere where it may actually cause damage. So you just don't, and people get shocked if you do or if it transpires on TMA of all places that stoneheads of all people have been doing it . And resentful as well if the whole thing is dressed up as an exploration and diagnosis exercise that rule-bound illiterate southern softies are incapable of doing. And haven't. But what's the betting they have though. Thoroughly. And expertly. This is a major monument in the Avebury WHS, not a newly discovered bit of moorland rock art. That misjudgement - arrogance actually - is the worst bit of cock in all this. The foremost Rock art experts in their respective locations says one of them. So they might be if that's what they want to say, congrats to them, but in Wessex? More like show-off puppies on a daytrip if you ask me, which you haven't, completely misjudging the (modern) cultural landscape that forms the backdrop of the Devil's Den - which is a bit of an embarrassing bummer for self-proclaimed rock art experts.

Anyhow, that's me done on TMA for a while. I hate the way banned people and others turn up with changed names over and over and i just know I'll be targeted if I continue. They've arrived early this year but they'll be deprived of the annual megameet thread-wrecking fun this time as we won't be advertising it on TMA. (Yes I know that's inconsistent with "conciliatory remarks" but sod it, five times bitten over something as innocent as a megameet makes you bitter). Please be assured though I'm not anti "Moorland and Mountain Megalithomania" and all the good stuff it implies but equally I'm all in favour of developing a Code. One that says, Visitors, please respect and stay off the stones. Objecting to that on the grounds that it doesn't fit with MMM is doing a disservice to the cause IMO. Call it a Visitors' Code. That exempts MMM semi-pro exponents from it, and simply asks them to keep to it in very public places and everyone's happy.
juamei
juamei
2008 posts

GROUP HUG
Mar 03, 2012, 07:50
Warms the cockles of me heart to find agreement on TMA. Now the middle east...

No time for sensible replies sorry!
Resonox
604 posts

Re: Climbing on Standing Stones
Mar 03, 2012, 08:03
tjj wrote:
thesweetcheat wrote:
The Eternal wrote:
Whilst I haven't read most of the posts, those I have read have confirmed one thing: TMA members seem to be in agreement for once, which has to be good.


Hello TE, I think perhaps you need to read more of the posts. :-)


I was thinking this too tsc and dropped out of the discussion after the remark about 'old biddies taking photographs being just as much desecrators as louts ...'. Speaking as a mature female person this stung momentarily but it certainly won't stop me pursuing an activity which gives me a great deal of stimulation and enjoyment; and of course, out of respect, I won't be climbing/sitting on any ancient stones. Here's to fresh air, the walk, the buzzard overhead and the occasional sighting of deer or a fox - as we make our way to some of the more out of the way ancient sites. Keep on keeping on!!

Edit: Just in case someone says I've misquoted - this is a copy and paste of what was written ...

Not much of a rumble if everyone wants to get on to old biddies taking pictures but not the louts taking a piss.....treat 'em all as the desecrators they are!


There was no need to copy and paste you could have "quoted" the post....You are DELIBERATELY trying to fan flames...for whatever reason..I do not know...I just wish you had taken on board the sentiment of the remark rather than tried to dissemble the semantics...and as for trying to turn this whole thing into some kind of personal attack on you...it is nothing short of deplorable. I know (from past experience) there will be a crowd of people jumping to "defend you" as they do even when you don't need defending because you need constant attention...and as for playing the age card for sympathy....once again deplorable....I promised the Eds I wouldn't react to your flaming but despite my best intentions and constantly giving you the benefit of the doubt...I can only assume that you are a really sad person who needs and craves reassurances. if the Eds decide I have crossed a line I fully accept that but for someone who "feels threatened in the company of strangers and peers" to the extent of being shocked by their actions when they climb on stones..but not shocked enough to say so to them on the day....you are brave enough to ATTACK strangers on these boards behind the comfort of you keyboard...once again..DEPLORABLE!!!!
This thread is not and never was about you...but you so want it to be and for the record...I am also "of a certain age"...and I come from a background where the term "biddy" is unisex...just because you checked the OD meaning and saw it as a personal insult is no excuse to keep ranting on about it.
Once again I apologise to the Eds for not ignoring a personal attack and doubtless fanning this silly(no apology) woman's attempts at flaming...there will, as I said be countless..."let's defend poor little June" posts which will subvert the whole discussion...if I lose posting rights for DEFENDING myself against an unwarranted attack...so be it!
Resonox
604 posts

Re: Deliberately conciliatory remarks
Mar 03, 2012, 08:16
Well Nigel I feel that there are people who know they are defending a wrong stance and are trying to subvert the topic by either getting the Eds to close it to further discussion or ultimately getting it deleted...I can find no other explanation in my experience for the personal attacks.
tjj
tjj
3604 posts

Re: Climbing on Standing Stones
Mar 03, 2012, 10:25
Resonox wrote:
tjj wrote:
thesweetcheat wrote:
The Eternal wrote:
Whilst I haven't read most of the posts, those I have read have confirmed one thing: TMA members seem to be in agreement for once, which has to be good.


Hello TE, I think perhaps you need to read more of the posts. :-)


I was thinking this too tsc and dropped out of the discussion after the remark about 'old biddies taking photographs being just as much desecrators as louts ...'. Speaking as a mature female person this stung momentarily but it certainly won't stop me pursuing an activity which gives me a great deal of stimulation and enjoyment; and of course, out of respect, I won't be climbing/sitting on any ancient stones. Here's to fresh air, the walk, the buzzard overhead and the occasional sighting of deer or a fox - as we make our way to some of the more out of the way ancient sites. Keep on keeping on!!

Edit: Just in case someone says I've misquoted - this is a copy and paste of what was written ...

Not much of a rumble if everyone wants to get on to old biddies taking pictures but not the louts taking a piss.....treat 'em all as the desecrators they are!


There was no need to copy and paste you could have "quoted" the post....You are DELIBERATELY trying to fan flames...for whatever reason..I do not know...I just wish you had taken on board the sentiment of the remark rather than tried to dissemble the semantics...and as for trying to turn this whole thing into some kind of personal attack on you...it is nothing short of deplorable. I know (from past experience) there will be a crowd of people jumping to "defend you" as they do even when you don't need defending because you need constant attention...and as for playing the age card for sympathy....once again deplorable....I promised the Eds I wouldn't react to your flaming but despite my best intentions and constantly giving you the benefit of the doubt...I can only assume that you are a really sad person who needs and craves reassurances. if the Eds decide I have crossed a line I fully accept that but for someone who "feels threatened in the company of strangers and peers" to the extent of being shocked by their actions when they climb on stones..but not shocked enough to say so to them on the day....you are brave enough to ATTACK strangers on these boards behind the comfort of you keyboard...once again..DEPLORABLE!!!!
This thread is not and never was about you...but you so want it to be and for the record...I am also "of a certain age"...and I come from a background where the term "biddy" is unisex...just because you checked the OD meaning and saw it as a personal insult is no excuse to keep ranting on about it.
Once again I apologise to the Eds for not ignoring a personal attack and doubtless fanning this silly(no apology) woman's attempts at flaming...there will, as I said be countless..."let's defend poor little June" posts which will subvert the whole discussion...if I lose posting rights for DEFENDING myself against an unwarranted attack...so be it!


I make absolutely no attempt to respond to this except to say for the record at no point anywhere on this thread did I say I felt "threatened by the company of strangers or peers". Its unlikely that anyone will jump to my defence (nor would I want them too) because they have all been banned - as I'm sure you know. Am going out into the fresh air now.
drewbhoy
drewbhoy
2516 posts

Re: Climbing on Standing Stones
Mar 03, 2012, 11:38
tjj wrote:
Resonox wrote:
tjj wrote:
thesweetcheat wrote:
The Eternal wrote:
Whilst I haven't read most of the posts, those I have read have confirmed one thing: TMA members seem to be in agreement for once, which has to be good.


Hello TE, I think perhaps you need to read more of the posts. :-)


I was thinking this too tsc and dropped out of the discussion after the remark about 'old biddies taking photographs being just as much desecrators as louts ...'. Speaking as a mature female person this stung momentarily but it certainly won't stop me pursuing an activity which gives me a great deal of stimulation and enjoyment; and of course, out of respect, I won't be climbing/sitting on any ancient stones. Here's to fresh air, the walk, the buzzard overhead and the occasional sighting of deer or a fox - as we make our way to some of the more out of the way ancient sites. Keep on keeping on!!

Edit: Just in case someone says I've misquoted - this is a copy and paste of what was written ...

Not much of a rumble if everyone wants to get on to old biddies taking pictures but not the louts taking a piss.....treat 'em all as the desecrators they are!


There was no need to copy and paste you could have "quoted" the post....You are DELIBERATELY trying to fan flames...for whatever reason..I do not know...I just wish you had taken on board the sentiment of the remark rather than tried to dissemble the semantics...and as for trying to turn this whole thing into some kind of personal attack on you...it is nothing short of deplorable. I know (from past experience) there will be a crowd of people jumping to "defend you" as they do even when you don't need defending because you need constant attention...and as for playing the age card for sympathy....once again deplorable....I promised the Eds I wouldn't react to your flaming but despite my best intentions and constantly giving you the benefit of the doubt...I can only assume that you are a really sad person who needs and craves reassurances. if the Eds decide I have crossed a line I fully accept that but for someone who "feels threatened in the company of strangers and peers" to the extent of being shocked by their actions when they climb on stones..but not shocked enough to say so to them on the day....you are brave enough to ATTACK strangers on these boards behind the comfort of you keyboard...once again..DEPLORABLE!!!!
This thread is not and never was about you...but you so want it to be and for the record...I am also "of a certain age"...and I come from a background where the term "biddy" is unisex...just because you checked the OD meaning and saw it as a personal insult is no excuse to keep ranting on about it.
Once again I apologise to the Eds for not ignoring a personal attack and doubtless fanning this silly(no apology) woman's attempts at flaming...there will, as I said be countless..."let's defend poor little June" posts which will subvert the whole discussion...if I lose posting rights for DEFENDING myself against an unwarranted attack...so be it!


I make absolutely no attempt to respond to this except to say for the record at no point anywhere on this thread did I say I felt "threatened by the company of strangers or peers". Its unlikely that anyone will jump to my defence (nor would I want them too) because they have all been banned - as I'm sure you know. Am going out into the fresh air now.


Eh Tjj, I hinna been banned yet!
Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 128 29 30 31 32 33 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index