Earlier you asked how we could possibly know that people are bothered, now you presume to know they aren't, can we not agree that in the abscence of emperical evidence (but an acknowledgement that in society in general that littering is not tolerated and is in fact frowned on) that it's wise to err with caution and bring tat brought to a site home.
;)
I could've put it as well as that if I'd been cleverer.
A shortened version of your plan might be a litterbin at each site marked "Offerings".
Reply | with quote | Posted by nigelswift 27th June 2007ce 14:21 |
Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mirla, Jun 25, 2007, 15:18)- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (tiompan, Jun 25, 2007, 16:30)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Hob, Jun 25, 2007, 17:18)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mirla, Jun 26, 2007, 11:26)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (goffik, Jun 26, 2007, 14:45)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Paulus, Jun 26, 2007, 23:14)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (tomwatts, Jun 27, 2007, 14:57)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Paulus, Jun 27, 2007, 21:24)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (FourWinds, Jun 28, 2007, 05:51)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (goffik, Jun 28, 2007, 06:07)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (ocifant, Jun 28, 2007, 06:30)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (tuesday, Jun 28, 2007, 08:41)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mustard, Jun 29, 2007, 18:04)
- New Code (nigelswift, Jun 28, 2007, 11:52)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mirla, Jun 29, 2007, 15:27)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Vybik Jon, Sep 17, 2012, 14:26)
|
|