|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Trespass on SSSI sites |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 12:21
|
||
|
"We've already established that the term "flout" is being used inaccurately." No, weve established that breaking the rules IS flouting the rules according to the dictionary. Go and tell them theyre wrong, not me. Im off now.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 12:25
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "We've already established that the term "flout" is being used inaccurately." No, weve established that breaking the rules IS flouting the rules according to the dictionary. Go and tell them theyre wrong, not me. Im off now. You are incorrect. The dictionary describes "flouting" as "To show contempt for; scorn". Since I do not feel "contempt" or "scorn" for the rules, your insistence on the use of such language demonstrates a wilful desire to portray my views in a detrimental and inaccurate fashion in order to further your own position. I've repeatedly and politely asked you not to misrepresent me, but you insist on continuing to do so. So I will insist on continuing to correct you every time you do it :)
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 12:30
|
||
O for Gods sake, it wasnt trespass (look it up) and it wasnt breaking a guardian's rules and the circumstances were entirely different to whats been discussed on this thread. If you want to say Ah that proves our attitude towards rules is justified and I'm "as bad as you" then go ahead. I think anyone that doesnt want to pretend otherwise will see there's a massive difference and will know precisely why youre trying to say there isnt.
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 12:36
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: O for Gods sake, it wasnt trespass (look it up) and it wasnt breaking a guardian's rules and the circumstances were entirely different to whats been discussed on this thread. If you want to say Ah that proves our attitude towards rules is justified and I'm "as bad as you" then go ahead. I think anyone that doesnt want to pretend otherwise will see there's a massive difference and will know precisely why youre trying to say there isnt. Nigel, please.. Were you breaking any rules at Priddy? If the answer is 'Yes' (which we all know it is), how can you possibly justify your previous stance on rule breaking? Or are there indeed shades of grey after all?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 12:36
|
||
Please yourself. Breaking rules is showing contempt for rules and thats flouting rules according to the dictionary. I think most people will go with the dictionary, not your corrections
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 12:44
|
||
|
Why are you going on about "rules" as though that's what this discussion is about? It's only been about =one= rule ie not going on prehistoric sites when you[ve specifically been asked not to, to prevent damage to the site. It's irrelevant whether Nigel has trespassed just anywhere, because those places don't have this damage-mitigating rule. Even if he had wandered all over Silbury in the past*, if that's not his stance any more it's pretty irrelevant to whether or not =you= can in a reasoned argument, justify your own trespassing on fragile sites now. *which I can't imagine he has, right.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 12:47
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Please yourself. Breaking rules is showing contempt for rules and thats flouting rules according to the dictionary. I think most people will go with the dictionary, not your corrections "Contempt: 1. the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn." I am the only person who knows whether I feel that rules are "mean, vile or worthless". I am the only person who knows whether I view them with "disdain" or "scorn". I'm telling you that I don't. Your wilful insistence on applying inaccurate and misleading terminology to describe my views is ignorant and rude. You insist on painting those with whom you disagree in the most contemptuous light possible. If you're confident in your opinions, why not debate them reasonably without resorting to attempts to slander and distort the opinions of others? It would make for a much nicer conversation :)
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 12:51
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: Why are you going on about "rules" as though that's what this discussion is about? I believe it was you who said "do I have some special right to bend the rules that apply to everyone else". Well apparently it's OK to bend rules that you feel it's OK to bend, but it's not OK for anyone else to bend rules that you don't think it's OK to bend! If you can't see the inherent logical contradiction in that position, then I give up.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 12:52
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: O for Gods sake, it wasnt trespass (look it up) and it wasnt breaking a guardian's rules and the circumstances were entirely different to whats been discussed on this thread. If you want to say Ah that proves our attitude towards rules is justified and I'm "as bad as you" then go ahead. I think anyone that doesnt want to pretend otherwise will see there's a massive difference and will know precisely why youre trying to say there isnt. Thanks, Nigel. We're now clear that you believe it's OK for you to break rules when you see fit, but other people can't break the rules that you determine are more important than other rules. ;)
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Sep 06, 2012, 12:54
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: Why are you going on about "rules" as though that's what this discussion is about? It's only been about =one= rule ie not going on prehistoric sites when you[ve specifically been asked not to, to prevent damage to the site. I'm "going on" about rules, as rules are central to this discussion. I'm being told I shouldn't break the rule regarding Skara Brae by somebody who breaks rules as and when they see fit.
|
| Pages: 38 – [ Previous | 1 … 22 23 24 25 26 27 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
