|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian General Discussion Forum | Start a topic | Search |
 Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? 225 messages | Select a forum: |
| You might equally argue that an assertion that one knows what's best for a site contains an implicit statement of ownership. No, you misread my reasons for saying what I do. Its not because I know best but because I recognise there are two conflicting views and one of them may transgress the other, ergo the only rational answer is "if in doubt do nowt" i.e leave the site in the default position which, self evidently, is the one supported by most people. (If this was not the majority view MOST people would leave offerings, and clearly they don't. Offerings-leavers are simply outvoted on this matter aren't they? Doesn't that count for anything? Or must a minority claim a right to defy the majority, like detectorists? "Even your presence imposes a physical statement upon a place. Allowing your children to run around imposes a physical statement upon a place. Holding a picnic at a site imposes a physical statement on a place..." Yep, then I go home and leave the place as I found it, handing it on to the next visitor as a blank canvas, unaffected by my own visit. If I left a tape recorder blaring out the noise of my kids to him he'd have cause to complain wouldn't he? But I wouldn't. I've had my turn, now its his. (I must keep stressing, I don't mind the odd bunch of flowers, I just don't think there's a right to leave them any more than to leave litter in the park Its a public open space and sacrosanct..) "I'm suggesting that it's always advantageous to try and understand alternate ways of looking at a situation." True, but I'm hamstrung by not being able to see a defect in the above logic! Reply | with quote |  27th June 2007ce 10:31 In reply to: Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mustard) |
Messages in this topic: |
|