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

353 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
6135 posts

Re: Climbing on Standing Stones
Feb 29, 2012, 10:12
nigelswift wrote:
"I am feeling distinctly that access for the public is being viewed as generally bad, as it might lead us all into temptation unless the access is under supervision of a trained professional. Which goes agaisnt what I believe this website is all about. Can someone point out what specific damage is being caused to sites by people like me and Postie, Drew, Gladman, Tiompan and the countless others who post contributions to this site are doing by our actions? Then we'll ask the Eds to set about decommissioning the website."

Once again that seems to be a misrepresentation, I can't see where anyone has said or implied anything like that.

I pointed out the relevant posts in the first part of my previous post. If I've misinterpreted the writer's meaning, then fair enough. But I've explained why I've read those posts in that way. There are a number of posts in which our actions in visiting sites and taking photographs, for example while standing on an upland cairn, or "near" to a cupmark, have been stated to be sending out the wrong signals to "the public" (whoever they might be).

Gladman has already articulated the need for sites to be interacted with, enthused about and celebrated, and that a good way forward is to educate people to understand better what they're looking at, then they're less likely to damage or destroy through ignorance at least.

There has still been no reply that has demononstrated why or how the actions of taking a picture like Goff's or photgraphing an upland cairn from atop its mound are wrong. No one has explained the harm or damage that they perceive such actions to be causing. Instead we have had some comments about "sending out bad signals", and the awfulness of "the public" visiting sites with their kids because all they want is a backdrop for their pictures. I have asked for clarification of what the problem is that is being envisaged here, but so far all I have is an assertion that I have misinterpreted these posts.
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index