Mustard wrote: Rhiannon wrote: Ok then, this is what I've inferred you mean. If you don't want to clarify then how can anyone know what you're really thinking?
who? = anyone who feels like it, including me. Except that I rely on everyone else not doing it, so that I can do it.
Why? = because I can go on these places without damaging them. And I'm really interested in them, unlike most of the visitors.
If everyone visiting applied those two answers to themselves there'd be a lot of people sitting in skara brae and climbing silbury, surely you can see that?
So why aren't there? Because people love rules? No! It's because people respect the monuments themselves and they don't want them ruined.
You depend on those people that "keep the rules" so you don't feel guilty, because their care for the monuments and ability to act in an unselfish, future-considering way enables you to be one of the few people who can do it so then claim you're not damaging it (much).
That is totally hypocritical, surely. You hate the rules (man) but you rely on them at the same time.
Rhiannon, I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me. That's absolutely fine. We all have different philosophies. But would you please refrain from misrepresenting my views and putting words into my mouth? I don't recall, for example, saying anything about "hating rules" (man).
"who? = anyone who feels like it, including me. Except that I rely on everyone else not doing it, so that I can do it.
Why? = because I can go on these places without damaging them. And I'm really interested in them, unlike most of the visitors.
If everyone visiting applied those two answers to themselves there'd be a lot of people sitting in skara brae and climbing silbury, surely you can see that?"
But back in the real world, not everyone visiting Skara Brae is going to do that, are they? Or they'd already be doing it. As I said earlier, I think the nature of Silbury Hill is such that people climbing it attract the attention of others and encourages others to climb it. Nobody's advocating climbing Silbury Hill.
I can think of a number of places where people are gaining surreptitious access out of hours, not causing any damage and not being noticed. Your argument seems to be that they should stop, despite the fact that their behaviour is having absolutely zero detrimental affect.
It is a matter of reality vs. theory. What keeps Assycombe hill safe, just as an exmaple? The ignorant don't want to visit and the people that do don't dig it up and make off with the stones.
That is broadly the entire situation being discussed here.
Reply | with quote | Posted by Evergreen Dazed 5th September 2012ce 13:31 |
Trespass on SSSI sites (tjj, Sep 01, 2012, 21:53)- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (Sanctuary, Sep 01, 2012, 22:04)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (The Eternal, Sep 02, 2012, 00:13)
- Locking and Climbing (nigelswift, Sep 02, 2012, 05:54)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (scubi63, Sep 02, 2012, 11:48)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (thesweetcheat, Sep 03, 2012, 18:21)
- Slightly OT: The Gop (thesweetcheat, Sep 03, 2012, 21:31)
- Re: Slightly OT: The Gop (bladup, Sep 03, 2012, 21:50)
- Re: Slightly OT: The Gop (bladup, Sep 03, 2012, 22:02)
- Re: Slightly OT: The Gop (thesweetcheat, Sep 03, 2012, 22:26)
- Re: Slightly OT: The Gop (bladup, Sep 03, 2012, 23:20)
- Re: Slightly OT: The Gop (thesweetcheat, Sep 03, 2012, 23:42)
- Re: Slightly OT: The Gop (bladup, Sep 04, 2012, 03:12)
- feelings vs facts (Rhiannon, Sep 04, 2012, 07:30)
- Re: feelings vs facts (VBB, Sep 04, 2012, 08:16)
- Re: feelings vs facts (nigelswift, Sep 04, 2012, 08:31)
- Re: feelings vs facts (nigelswift, Sep 04, 2012, 08:43)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Littlestone, Sep 04, 2012, 08:48)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 04, 2012, 09:10)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Rhiannon, Sep 04, 2012, 09:46)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Rhiannon, Sep 04, 2012, 09:50)
- Re: feelings vs facts (tjj, Sep 04, 2012, 10:06)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 04, 2012, 11:11)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Rhiannon, Sep 04, 2012, 11:13)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 04, 2012, 11:16)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Rhiannon, Sep 04, 2012, 11:36)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 04, 2012, 11:54)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Rhiannon, Sep 04, 2012, 12:12)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 04, 2012, 12:48)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 04, 2012, 12:57)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Rhiannon, Sep 04, 2012, 13:05)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 04, 2012, 13:26)
- Re: feelings vs facts (thesweetcheat, Sep 04, 2012, 19:04)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Littlestone, Sep 04, 2012, 19:13)
- Re: feelings vs facts (bladup, Sep 04, 2012, 19:19)
- Re: feelings vs facts (nigelswift, Sep 04, 2012, 20:36)
- Re: feelings vs facts (tomwatts, Sep 04, 2012, 20:55)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Mustard, Sep 05, 2012, 09:31)
- Re: feelings vs facts (nigelswift, Sep 05, 2012, 09:59)
- piffle (Rhiannon, Sep 05, 2012, 10:08)
- Re: piffle (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 05, 2012, 10:14)
- Re: piffle (Mustard, Sep 05, 2012, 10:20)
- Re: piffle (nigelswift, Sep 05, 2012, 10:38)
- Re: piffle (Mustard, Sep 05, 2012, 10:48)
- Re: piffle (nigelswift, Sep 05, 2012, 10:59)
- Re: piffle (Mustard, Sep 05, 2012, 11:07)
- Re: piffle (nigelswift, Sep 05, 2012, 11:32)
- Re: piffle (Rhiannon, Sep 05, 2012, 12:40)
- Re: piffle (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 05, 2012, 12:49)
- Re: piffle (Mustard, Sep 05, 2012, 12:52)
- Re: piffle (nigelswift, Sep 05, 2012, 13:07)
- Re: rules (Rhiannon, Sep 05, 2012, 13:15)
- Re: rules (Mustard, Sep 05, 2012, 13:25)
- Re: rules (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 05, 2012, 13:31)
- Re: rules (Rhiannon, Sep 05, 2012, 13:34)
- Re: rules (Mustard, Sep 05, 2012, 13:38)
- Re: rules (Rhiannon, Sep 05, 2012, 13:49)
- Re: rules (Mustard, Sep 05, 2012, 13:53)
- Re: rules (nigelswift, Sep 05, 2012, 14:18)
- Re: rules (Mustard, Sep 05, 2012, 14:20)
- Re: rules (nigelswift, Sep 05, 2012, 14:38)
- Re: rules (Mustard, Sep 05, 2012, 14:43)
- Re: rules (goffik, Sep 05, 2012, 15:49)
- Re: rules (Mustard, Sep 05, 2012, 15:54)
- Re: rules (goffik, Sep 05, 2012, 16:00)
- Re: rules (Mustard, Sep 05, 2012, 16:01)
- Re: rules (goffik, Sep 05, 2012, 16:04)
- Re: rules (Mustard, Sep 05, 2012, 16:07)
- Re: rules (goffik, Sep 05, 2012, 16:10)
- Re: rules (Mustard, Sep 05, 2012, 16:17)
- Re: rules (goffik, Sep 05, 2012, 16:24)
- Re: rules (Mustard, Sep 05, 2012, 16:37)
- Re: rules (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 05, 2012, 16:58)
- Re: rules (thesweetcheat, Sep 05, 2012, 20:50)
- Re: rules (tjj, Sep 05, 2012, 21:33)
- Re: rules (thesweetcheat, Sep 05, 2012, 21:35)
- Re: rules (thesweetcheat, Sep 05, 2012, 21:38)
- Re: rules (harestonesdown, Sep 05, 2012, 21:59)
- Re: rules (moss, Sep 06, 2012, 06:59)
- surprise (Rhiannon, Sep 06, 2012, 07:52)
- Re: surprise (nigelswift, Sep 06, 2012, 08:19)
- Re: surprise (moss, Sep 06, 2012, 09:04)
- Re: surprise (Mustard, Sep 06, 2012, 09:11)
- Re: surprise (nigelswift, Sep 06, 2012, 10:22)
- Re: surprise (Mustard, Sep 06, 2012, 10:31)
- Re: surprise (nigelswift, Sep 06, 2012, 11:25)
- Re: surprise (Mustard, Sep 06, 2012, 11:31)
- Re: surprise (nigelswift, Sep 06, 2012, 11:40)
- Re: surprise (Mustard, Sep 06, 2012, 11:48)
- Re: surprise (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 06, 2012, 11:55)
- Re: surprise (nigelswift, Sep 06, 2012, 12:06)
- Re: surprise (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 06, 2012, 12:14)
- Re: surprise (nigelswift, Sep 06, 2012, 12:18)
- Re: surprise (bladup, Sep 06, 2012, 14:02)
- Re: surprise (nigelswift, Sep 06, 2012, 14:09)
- Re: surprise (Mustard, Sep 06, 2012, 14:16)
- Re: surprise (nigelswift, Sep 06, 2012, 14:36)
- Re: surprise (Mustard, Sep 06, 2012, 14:51)
- Re: surprise (bladup, Sep 06, 2012, 14:52)
- Re: surprise (Mustard, Sep 06, 2012, 14:57)
- Re: surprise (bladup, Sep 06, 2012, 15:06)
- Re: surprise (Littlestone, Sep 06, 2012, 15:19)
- Re: surprise (Rhiannon, Sep 06, 2012, 15:28)
- Re: surprise (goffik, Sep 06, 2012, 15:30)
- Re: surprise (Mustard, Sep 06, 2012, 15:34)
- Re: surprise (bladup, Sep 06, 2012, 16:02)
- Re: surprise (bladup, Sep 06, 2012, 16:04)
- Re: surprise (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 06, 2012, 16:05)
- Re: surprise (Mustard, Sep 06, 2012, 12:17)
- Re: surprise (stagman, Sep 15, 2012, 01:58)
- Re: surprise (stagman, Sep 15, 2012, 01:41)
- Re: rules (harestonesdown, Sep 06, 2012, 08:33)
- Re: rules (bladup, Sep 06, 2012, 13:29)
- Re: rules (Littlestone, Sep 05, 2012, 17:14)
- Re: feelings vs facts (bladup, Sep 04, 2012, 14:01)
- Re: feelings vs facts (Moth, Sep 06, 2012, 19:11)
- Re: feelings vs facts (bladup, Sep 04, 2012, 13:57)
- Re: feelings vs facts (moss, Sep 04, 2012, 13:09)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (tomwatts, Sep 06, 2012, 11:18)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (Sanctuary, Sep 07, 2012, 10:59)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 07, 2012, 11:31)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (Sanctuary, Sep 07, 2012, 11:36)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 07, 2012, 11:38)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (Sanctuary, Sep 07, 2012, 12:59)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (goffik, Sep 07, 2012, 13:54)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (Mustard, Sep 07, 2012, 13:55)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 07, 2012, 14:26)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (Sanctuary, Sep 07, 2012, 15:51)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (Mustard, Sep 07, 2012, 16:01)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (goffik, Sep 07, 2012, 16:32)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (Evergreen Dazed, Sep 07, 2012, 16:37)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (Mustard, Sep 07, 2012, 16:40)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (Littlestone, Sep 07, 2012, 17:00)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (thesweetcheat, Sep 07, 2012, 20:34)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (texlahoma, Sep 10, 2012, 13:45)
- Re: Trespass on SSSI sites (The Eternal, Sep 08, 2012, 23:47)
|
|