Mustard
|
Re: surprise
Sep 06, 2012, 12:56
|
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: 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.
Succinctly put.
|
nigelswift
|
Edited Sep 06, 2012, 13:09
Re: surprise
Sep 06, 2012, 13:00
|
then I give up
I think you should, if you're determined to try to say what I did at Priddy is in any way remotely equivalent to grubby self-justified entrance fee dodging late at night!
In fact Ill give up too.
|
Mustard
|
Re: suy entrance-fee dodging, rulerprise
Sep 06, 2012, 13:07
|
|
nigelswift wrote: then I give up
I think you should, if you're determined to try to say what I did at Priddy is in any way remotely equivalent to grubby self-justified entrance fee dodging late at night!
In fact Ill give up too.
You're at it again, Nige - slandering people with loaded language and misrepresented behaviours. "Grubby" is an abusive word in this context. You might disagree with the opinions of some of us, but using a word which means "Contemptible; despicable" is entirely rude and unnecessary. Also, while I can't speak for anyone else, I certainly don't seek to avoid paying entrance fees, and have contributed quite substantially to the coffers of our heritage organisations.
Why can't you just play nice and discuss these points without the need for mean-spirited and unpleasant language, like the lovely chap I'm sure you are in person?
|
nigelswift
|
Re: surprise
Sep 06, 2012, 13:12
|
|
So you WOULD pay if you went in when it was closed?
|
Mustard
|
Re: surprise
Sep 06, 2012, 13:15
|
|
nigelswift wrote: So you WOULD pay if you went in when it was closed?
In principle, absolutely. The only times I can think of though when I've accessed a site out of hours, it's been a free site. The only sites I can think of that I'd have any interest in visiting out of hours that are actually paid sites... well, they're all EH, and I'm an EH member anyway.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: surprise
Sep 06, 2012, 13:21
|
|
If you want to say the circumstances are equivalent and therefore no-one who has stepped off a path anywhere has a right to criticise the Skara Brae behaviour then so be it. No-one can criticise. Certainly not me. Or Rhiannon. Job done then.
|
Mustard
|
Re: surprise
Sep 06, 2012, 13:25
|
|
nigelswift wrote: If you want to say the circumstances are equivalent and therefore no-one who has stepped off a path anywhere has a right to criticise the Skara Brae behaviour then so be it. No-one can criticise. Certainly not me. Or Rhiannon. Job done then.
I believe I've said all along that I'm absolutely fine with discussing different opinions. The point in this particular instance however is that you can't say it's wrong to access a site because it's "showing contempt for the rules", when you're willing to break rules in other situations when you see fit. It's hypocritical and logically inconsistent.
|
bladup
|
Edited Sep 06, 2012, 13:32
Re: rules
Sep 06, 2012, 13:29
|
|
moss wrote: 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 ;)....
I'm very proud to be in the 2% club, it's a lot more interesting, and if 98% is the norm than surely the 2% are out of the "ordinary" and may in these terms be "specical", my name on here is a play on bladud [my names Blades] the last king of the druid's who used to fly from stamford [near lincoln were i'm from] to bath, i'm from lincoln and have flown in my out of bodies, do i believe i'm a relative- yes, pompous- yes,know stuff inside-yes, i must think a lot of myself- yes, what the fuck is wrong with that? if you don't think much of yourself, no one else is going to are they?
|
Littlestone
|
Re: rules
Sep 06, 2012, 13:33
|
Hahahahaha!!!
(She keeps telling me that as well :-) :-) :-)
|
bladup
|
Edited Sep 06, 2012, 13:50
Re: surprise
Sep 06, 2012, 13:37
|
|
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.
The experience i had wasn't wrong and tatty it was a great experience,1 in the morning at midsummer and still half light- magicical, paying and not been allowed in, now that would be wrong and tatty to me!
|
