|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian General Discussion Forum | Start a topic | Search |
 Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? 225 messages | Select a forum: |
slumpystones wrote: Unfortunately you seem to be picking the whole argument apart into how people view or interpret various words Not at all. Since I essentially agree with you, what would be the point of that? I'm picking at the argument to encourage you to understand how other people can see the issue differently. Understanding the views of others usually facilitates healthy debate and resolution of any conflicts. slumpystones wrote: We all know what we mean by the word 'litter', or 'rubbish' regardless of dictionary explanations Well since some people leave offerings that they don't consider to be 'litter' or 'rubbish', we obviously don't all agree on the meaning of the words. Using them in this context is insulting and counterproductive. Far better to reach out to people and explain your position without the use of inflammatory language that immediately sets them on the defensive. slumpystones wrote: the posting of which comes across as condescending. Hang about! I was asked to provide a definition! slumpystones wrote: I myself DO find it uncomfortable to turn up to a site and find floral tributes to nothing-in-particular, corn-dollies, swastikas of long grass, which is all no more than graffiti in vegetable form. This in turn encourages plastic wrapped flowers, and other non-perishable items, and then you need a council bin to dump it all in. ... and the existence of TMA encourages people to find these sites, so let's ban TMA as well, while we're at it. Reply | with quote | Posted by Mustard 27th June 2007ce 11:16 In reply to: Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (slumpystones) |
Messages in this topic: |
|