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.
"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.
