Avebury forum 222 room
Image by thesweetcheat
Avebury

Developments at Avebury

close
more_vert
Resonox R
Resonox Feb 28, 2011 09:14:37
Replying to Sanctuary

Sanctuary wrote:
nigelswift wrote:
Hey Mr Sanctuary, good for you for taking the moral high ground about not arguing but could you clarify what is your position on the Silbury moral high ground?

In other words, is it OK to walk straight past the notices asking people not to climb it - and to climb it? Where do you stand on the issue?! ;)

You may wish to stir the pot further Nigel but you're not fooling anyone. I certainly have no wish to take part in any tit for tat vendetta.
Why is asking a question tit-for -tat?(TY Nigel for asking...but now you'll be tarred with the same brush as me..."an argumentative so and so"..something I won't deny about myself because I refuse to just swallow any old guff dished out because it is "our ancestral right"...not and never will be a valid answer to debate.)

I can't understand why there are vendetta claims and refusals to answer because it is a viewpoint at odds with others, when it is only offering another side to the debate....
Are there any neutrals around? What would be their point in posting, "I agree with A because I see his point of view but I also agree with B because I see his point too!"....gets us no nearer a mutually acceptable solution.
My point is...it is wrong to climb a hill where that action is prohibited...just because there is no-one to police the prohibition and it is seen as an ancestral right from the climber's beliefs and that belief is at variance with other peoples' beliefs....as well as IMO being a wanton act of vandalism as the prohibition is there to preserve....not to deny beliefs....but that is only MY belief(others agree as others disagree)...but I'll repeat..if we don't preserve..there will soon be nothing there to preserve for our progeny....what will they think of their ancestors?