|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Trespass on SSSI sites |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Sep 06, 2012, 08:55
Sep 06, 2012, 08:37
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: 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. I agree Rhiannon's post is impassioned and persuasive ... I applaud it. Was going to answer her post directly but thought it was better to leave it as the 'last word'. My own post last night saying "good luck to anyone making a clandestine visit ... " was said with a certain amount of irony. The majority of visitors who go to Skara Brae are taken by a guide for a limited period - the relatively few people who are prepared to travel up to Orkney, stay on the island, then go out when no one else is around to make a private visit cannot be that great in number. Silbury is really quite a different site as its in the over populated south, an hour or so from the capital city. This thread was first and foremost about Silbury.
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 09:04
|
||
|
"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." Hey Rhiannon I was just addressing a point, one point, that I feel strongly about, I will not, I repeat not be bulldozed into views or statements because it is the right thing to do according to one side of the discussion! Silbury has the backing of the National Trust, English Heritage and presumably Lord Avebury who owns it. You imply that TMA is the 'spokesman' for one part of heritage, namely prehistory, maybe so maybe not, like the statistics I quoted that is in the field of speculation and subjective to boot. But strangely enough though I may be protective of heritage sites, I realise that complete protection is impossible, I entrust the care of monuments to the bodies that are meant to look after them, I will not 'nag' on principle, though I respect the people who do. Do I believe this discussion has gone any further to enlightening the public sadly no, I think it is mostly 'sad geeks' (sorry everyone) that read TMA the public is in the minority, but I refuse to be brainwashed into having to say things I don't really believe are possible.... ps. I also know that certain points I've made will be pulled apart in an effort to justify some sort of reprisal for my views, let it be known that I am not very good at arguing ;) Moss X
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 09:11
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: 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. This discussion has ceased to be rational. I think I've said at least three times that I don't agree with people climbing Silbury. You're not listening to a word that's being said. You keep coming back with the same emotive accusations, despite those accusations already having been refuted with calmly made, polite, and reasonable points. You say things like "wilfully determined to pursue your own advantage to the detriment of everybody else", despite the point already having been clearly made that I (and I think others) believe no action should be taken if it is ultimately to the detriment of others. It is rude and ignorant to repeatedly and wilfully misrepresent the views of those you're debating with. The point of difference between us is essentially whether we believe an action will ultimately cause detriment to others. It's entirely fare of you to argue your case if you believe such actions will cause detriment, but it is rude of you to misrepresent others by accusing them of not caring, when that is clearly untrue.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 09:18
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Standing up for rules has been labelled hateful dogmatism No it hasn't, Nigel. I'm sure I say enough things that you disagree with without you needing to make stuff up. I certainly haven't labelled anything as "hateful". Please don't misrepresent me.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 09:21
|
||
Not you Mr M.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 09:28
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Not you Mr M. Glad to hear it. It might be an idea to mention who's actually being referred to in the future then, because I'm finding it very confusing - especially since I referred to dogmatism in my posts. Just to reiterate - I do believe an absolute adherence to rules in all circumstances at all times is dogmatic, but I certainly don't find the contrary view "hateful". In the context of this thread, I recognise it as a sincerely held point of view, albeit one that I disagree with.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 10:22
|
||
|
"I (and I think others) believe no action should be taken if it is ultimately to the detriment of others." But of course, flouting of rules IS to the ultimate detriment of others, that's the problem, that's what millions of people understand and apply and the root of this whole argument.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 10:25
|
||
|
"It might be an idea to mention who's actually being referred to in the future then" OK, will do, but no matter as that's me done on this thread.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 10:31
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: But of course, flouting of rules IS to the ultimate detriment of others, that's the problem, that's what millions of people understand and apply and the root of this whole argument. No Nigel, you BELIEVE that every transgression is to the detriment of others. I don't. That's the root of our disagreement, certainly. Again, you use emotive and loaded language that misrepresents the views of others. It's a low tactic and quite rude. I have never, at any point, recommended "flouting" any rules. To be clear, "flouting" is "to show contempt for; scorn". I do not have contempt or scorn for the rules - I simply don't believe in blindly adhering to every single rule, in every single circumstance. And I would be incredibly surprised if you've never knowingly broken any rule in any area of your life, because that would make you remarkably saintly.
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 10:37
|
||
|
You're perfectly entitled to whatever opinion you like Moss! and I don't want you to think I'm being rude to you X Contrary to popular impression I feel no personal animosity to anybody in this discussion. It's a discussion innit. It's all the more interesting if it's a bit heated. I don't think I've been rude, ok I have tried to put my point across forcefully but it's not supposed to be personal. It's just supposed to be one opinion against another. In the end, my not-clambering stance doesn't endanger anything. It's those taking the clambering stance that should justify that stance, in case it does (and genuinely, earnestly, passionately believing that it doesn't, doesn't necessarily make that true. The guardians of the sites' considered opinion is that it does.) This thread was actually very animosity free. In fact there's even several posts saying how civilised the conversation is. (It's interesting that the accusations only started getting thrown around after a certain point. People can investigate what that point coincided with and draw their own conclusions)
|
| Pages: 38 – [ Previous | 1 … 19 20 21 22 23 24 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
