costaexpress wrote: Looks like we both simply hate being told what we can and cannot do
No-one does, but that's no reason to say their tone was unfair when it wasn't, nor to call them prigs. They gave reasons, and if the reason are valid which they clearly are, then they ought to be heeded.
This is reminiscent of don't climb on stones, don't climb Silbury. There are always those who want to discredit the messenger or the message in order to do what they'd prefer. If even a footprint can damage Blick Mead there's even less of an argument.
Reply | with quote | Posted by nigelswift 4th November 2017ce 08:00 |
Stonehenge & Environs (costaexpress, Nov 02, 2017, 11:14)- Re: Stonehenge & Environs (Smithone, Nov 02, 2017, 14:42)
- Re: Stonehenge & Environs (Monganaut, Nov 02, 2017, 15:15)
- Re: Stonehenge & Environs (Sanctuary, Nov 02, 2017, 15:46)
- Re: Stonehenge & Environs (costaexpress, Nov 02, 2017, 20:34)
- Re: Stonehenge & Environs (Smithone, Nov 03, 2017, 11:16)
- Re: Stonehenge & Environs (carol27, Nov 03, 2017, 18:08)
- Re: Stonehenge & Environs (tjj, Nov 03, 2017, 18:26)
- Re: Stonehenge & Environs (costaexpress, Nov 04, 2017, 07:50)
- Re: Stonehenge & Environs (nigelswift, Nov 04, 2017, 08:00)
- Re: Stonehenge & Environs (Sanctuary, Nov 04, 2017, 09:08)
- Re: Stonehenge & Environs (tjj, Nov 03, 2017, 18:16)
- Re: Stonehenge & Environs (costaexpress, Nov 04, 2017, 07:52)
- Re: Stonehenge & Environs (GLADMAN, Nov 04, 2017, 09:39)
|
|