LOL!
As I'm posting anyway, fwiw I'll give my tuppence worth. I've said before, I usdta be against this sort of stuff, but I think it was on a visit to Gamelands that I kind of changed my mind.
Obviously each case should be taken on its merits, in terms of how much evidence there is of how it 'would' have been. and I guess when it's a 'multi-phase' jobbie you'd have to be really careful.
I have to say tho, that (it ain't going to happen anyway) if it became a 'done' thing, I'd prefer to see it done at places where it's less easy to get an idea of what it was once like than at places like Avebury.
And I'd DEFFO rather see the money spent on saving endangered sites....
love
Moth
Reply | with quote | Posted by Moth 27th October 2005ce 13:06 |
dead and buried? (tuesday, Oct 24, 2005, 22:19)- Re: dead and buried? (Littlestone, Oct 24, 2005, 22:45)
- Re: dead and buried? (VenerableBottyBurp, Oct 24, 2005, 23:17)
- Re: dead and buried? (FourWinds, Oct 25, 2005, 09:27)
- Re: dead and buried? (dee, Oct 25, 2005, 14:14)
- Re: dead and buried? (PeterH, Oct 25, 2005, 14:45)
- Re: dead and buried? (tuesday, Oct 25, 2005, 15:07)
- Re: dead and buried? (Kammer, Oct 25, 2005, 16:37)
- Re: dead and buried? (FourWinds, Oct 26, 2005, 07:44)
- Re: dead and buried? (Rhiannon, Oct 26, 2005, 09:38)
- Re: dead and buried? (Kammer, Oct 26, 2005, 10:21)
- Re: dead and buried? (tuesday, Oct 26, 2005, 11:17)
- Re: dead and buried? (tuesday, Oct 26, 2005, 11:17)
- Re: dead and buried? (Littlestone, Oct 25, 2005, 17:42)
- Re: dead and buried? (VenerableBottyBurp, Oct 26, 2005, 15:43)
- Re: dead and buried? (doktoratomik, Oct 30, 2005, 19:02)
- Re: dead and buried? (nigelswift, Oct 25, 2005, 14:20)
- Re: dead and buried? (smallblueplanet, Oct 25, 2005, 20:01)
- Knackers ... (StoneLifter, Oct 26, 2005, 19:30)
|
|