The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian
Home Latest Posts Forums Maps Help
Browse Sites News Blog Contributors The Books
Head To Head   The Modern Antiquarian   Silbury Hill Forum Start a topic | Search
Silbury Hill
Re: piffle
380 messages
Select a forum:
Rhiannon wrote:
But what's wrong with having different opinions? We don't have to call a halt to the discussion at all.

I think you want to stop the discussion because you don't want to elaborate on the who and why.

If you don't think it's black and white, then why not explain your more nuanced greyish view?

You might educate a few other people even if you can't change poor Nigel's mind.

And by provocatively speculating about reasons why I may not wish to continue debating, you're demonstrating exactly why I don't see much point in continuing - if a discussion's not productive, then there's no point, is there?

For the record, the very question of "who and why" is a leading, straw-man argument. It suggests the need for further definition and rules, which is entirely contrary to the point I was making - as Nigel well knows. I'm sure, for example, that there are people already visiting Skara Brae without permission. The world hasn't come to an end. Thousands of visitors haven't started flocking there after dark. The monument hasn't been damaged. By all means, debate amongst yourselves "who and why". Personally, I'm quite happy with the status quo, where rules aren't rigidly and blindly adhered to.


Reply | with quote		Posted by Mustard
5th September 2012ce
12:52

In reply to:

Re: piffle (Rhiannon)

2 replies:

Re: piffle (nigelswift)
Re: rules (Rhiannon)

Messages in this topic:

Terms & Conditions  |  Home  |  Julian Cope presents Head Heritage Top of page