harestonesdown
|
Re: rules
Sep 05, 2012, 17:39
|
|
marmite wrote: Littlestone wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: Mustard, i've really enjoyed reading your posts on this thread.
An absolute pleasure.
Ditto.
Ditto x 2
Ditto x 3 :)
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: rules
Sep 05, 2012, 20:50
|
That's an excellent post Mustard.
As an aside, I reckon this thread has generally steered a pretty good course between a bland "everyone says yes" discussion and the major fallings-out we sometimes get on here. I'm enjoying the debate myself and I reckon there is scope for (some) movement of opinions, which is what makes this all worthwhile.
|
tjj
|
Re: rules
Sep 05, 2012, 21:33
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote: That's an excellent post Mustard.
As an aside, I reckon this thread has generally steered a pretty good course between a bland "everyone says yes" discussion and the major fallings-out we sometimes get on here. I'm enjoying the debate myself and I reckon there is scope for (some) movement of opinions, which is what makes this all worthwhile.
The Skara Brae debate has been a red herring really ... good luck to anyone who wants to make a clandestine but careful visit after all the 'tourists' have gone and under the cover of diminishing daylight. It was bitterly cold when I went and that was mid-day at midsummer, would much rather wander around the Ring of Brodgar or the Stones of Stenness.
I don't think the fact that people were agreeing about Silbury was bland - for the first time since I joined this forum something that weirdly felt like harmony broke out ... fleetingly.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: rules
Sep 05, 2012, 21:35
|
|
Agreed. I'm very glad you started the thread tjj.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: rules
Sep 05, 2012, 21:38
|
|
Sorry, just to clarify, I don't think the agreement aspect was bland either (I meant the thread has managed to avoid becoming a bland "everyone agrees", but has also avoided handbags at dawn, mostly).
|
harestonesdown
|
Re: rules
Sep 05, 2012, 21:59
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote: Sorry, just to clarify, I don't think the agreement aspect was bland either (I meant the thread has managed to avoid becoming a bland "everyone agrees", but has also avoided handbags at dawn, mostly).
And with that, A musical interlude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVzExaqODQc
:)
|
moss
|
Edited Sep 06, 2012, 07:01
Re: rules
Sep 06, 2012, 06:59
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote: Sorry, just to clarify, I don't think the agreement aspect was bland either (I meant the thread has managed to avoid becoming a bland "everyone agrees", but has also avoided handbags at dawn, mostly).
White sheep versus black sheep;
I thought it was an excellent debate on both sides, the analogy that came to mind (must be those 'black sheep' elsewhere on the site,) was the fact that driving through the countryside one sees, great flocks of white sheep with one or two black sheep. It is not a particuarlarly good analogy, after all it is probably down to genetic dysfunction as far as the black sheep are concerned, but it is a bit like us humans. There we are expected to follow the rules 100%, (we get to look very boring doing this by the way) then up pops the individual, who says no I want to do something different. To impose the 'rule' on our black sheep won't make he/she act like the rest of the white sheep so why bother? Wanting to destroy the free expression of the individual is bad practice, wanting to make him like the white sheep is also wrong. Luckily we live in a tolerant society which adapts along the way, 98% won't go up Silbury nor sit in Skara Brae, so we have to live with the 2% who think differently and be glad they exist to make us argue ;)....
|
Rhiannon
|
surprise
Sep 06, 2012, 07:52
|
"98% won't go up Silbury nor sit in Skara Brae, so we have to live with the 2% who think differently and be glad they exist to make us argue ;)"
Well I'm not glad about it Moss, I can't really understand why so many people (and strangely sudden upstarts like love-it-or-hate-it "marmite") are saying it's all great and we should all live and let live, yeah let people climb Silbury, what the hell, there's only a few of them, it won't make any difference, hey they're just expressing their individuality, good luck to them, etc.
To be picky 2% of 70,000 is (erm) 1400, so that's 4 people a night sitting in skara brae, I don't think so. I think we're talking a much much smaller percentage of visitors that consider they can disregard the wishes of the site's guardians (they've carefully considered it, mind). And I reckon there's an appropriate word that nobody's used yet for fear of upsetting this minority, well I think it's actually Selfish. As in wilfully determined to pursue your own advantage to the detriment of everybody else.
I'm really surprised that so many people on this website would be agreeing it's ok to walk on silbury or wander through Skara Brae. Bloody hell if people on this geeky forum don't really mind damaging these places, then what hope the general public. Oh no - actually virtually all the general public play by the rules and respectfully go along with what they've been requested to do. So it turns out, people on this website are actually MORE likely to damage ancient monuments. And those that don't do it, some of them actually think it's ok if the others do. What a disappointing surprise.
It's not just "us" that read this forum you know. This information's sitting out there for anyone to read. People may read this and think "well the geeks on the modern antiquarian think it's ok" encouraging them to do it as well.
Whatever.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: surprise
Sep 06, 2012, 08:19
|
Perfectly put. It's the message thats going out from here that's so unfortunate. It stinks. Standing up for rules has been labelled hateful dogmatism and the sneakers-in have even been wished luck in what they do!
Well, good luck to the millions who keep quiet, pay the entrance fees, keep to the rules, and think sneaking in at night is just wrong and tatty.
|
harestonesdown
|
Re: rules
Sep 06, 2012, 08:33
|
|
moss wrote: so we have to live with the 2% who think differently and be glad they exist to make us argue ;)....
Quite.
Where would we be without the Benny Rothmans of this world. :)
|
