goffik wrote:
Aye - but at least it informs people of what they're not SUPPOSED to do - if they see some pile of old candles and stuff on a monument, they'll not see anything wrong with it and possibly add more cack. But if they KNOW it's wrong, they're more likely to think "tsk!" and not add their own cack, or even clear the existing cack. Possibly.
Well, it's not a bad thing to educate people in these things, regardless, is it?
Agreed.
Reply | with quote | Posted by Mustard 29th June 2007ce 18:01 |
Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mirla, Jun 25, 2007, 15:18)- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (tiompan, Jun 25, 2007, 16:30)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Hob, Jun 25, 2007, 17:18)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mirla, Jun 26, 2007, 11:26)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (goffik, Jun 26, 2007, 14:45)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Paulus, Jun 26, 2007, 23:14)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (tomwatts, Jun 27, 2007, 14:57)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Paulus, Jun 27, 2007, 21:24)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (FourWinds, Jun 28, 2007, 05:51)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (goffik, Jun 28, 2007, 06:07)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (ocifant, Jun 28, 2007, 06:30)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (tuesday, Jun 28, 2007, 08:41)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mustard, Jun 29, 2007, 18:04)
- New Code (nigelswift, Jun 28, 2007, 11:52)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mirla, Jun 29, 2007, 15:27)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Vybik Jon, Sep 17, 2012, 14:26)
|
|