The Off Topic Topic

[Jacob]

$30 to see an ancient monument in an open field that is constructed exclusively of rough-hewn stone?  Where the hell is all that money going?  It's certainly not going to site maintenance, or the non-existent archaeological dig at the site.  Sounds like a British agency using a famous monument as a cash cow.

1. The National Trust is in charge of a number of sites and elements, many of which I imagine do require expensive maintenance. I don't see why fees collected and maintenance costs ought to be balanced on a per site basis rather than for the National Trust as a whole (assuming that is the case, of course).

2. Limiting direct access somewhat is a good way to control wear and tear, which are a thing even for rough-hewn stone.

... though I'm sure mongers can shed some light on the details, since it's his neighbourhood and all.

[Caliga]

I'm in Switzerland.
So many cute girls.
I don't know what it is about continentals that makes then so much hotter than the girls back home (well, except not being fat). It's just.... They seem....fresh. But not in a pervy 1000 virgins sort of way. Fresh just seems the word.... Wholesome?

I like it when chicks look slutty.  The sluttier the better.

[Ideologue]

There are two kinds of men in the world.  The kind that the mere sight of a beautiful makes happy, and the kind whom it makes sad.

[Sheilbh]

1. The National Trust is in charge of a number of sites and elements, many of which I imagine do require expensive maintenance. I don't see why fees collected and maintenance costs ought to be balanced on a per site basis rather than for the National Trust as a whole (assuming that is the case, of course).

2. Limiting direct access somewhat is a good way to control wear and tear, which are a thing even for rough-hewn stone.

... though I'm sure mongers can shed some light on the details, since it's his neighbourhood and all.

And it's free for members and there's a big (very expensive) visitor centre that's just opened so there's other stuff to do in the English Heritage complex.

I don't mind them using Stonehenge, Dover Castle or the big country houses as a cash cow. Because as you say they've got a lot of properties, many of them which don't attract a lot of visitors, which they've got to maintain.

My understanding is they've stopped limiting direct access. You can now walk right up to the stones though I could be wrong on that.

[mongers]

1. The National Trust is in charge of a number of sites and elements, many of which I imagine do require expensive maintenance. I don't see why fees collected and maintenance costs ought to be balanced on a per site basis rather than for the National Trust as a whole (assuming that is the case, of course).

2. Limiting direct access somewhat is a good way to control wear and tear, which are a thing even for rough-hewn stone.

... though I'm sure mongers can shed some light on the details, since it's his neighbourhood and all.

And it's free for members and there's a big (very expensive) visitor centre that's just opened so there's other stuff to do in the English Heritage complex.

I don't mind them using Stonehenge, Dover Castle or the big country houses as a cash cow. Because as you say they've got a lot of properties, many of them which don't attract a lot of visitors, which they've got to maintain.

My understanding is they've stopped limiting direct access. You can now walk right up to the stones though I could be wrong on that.

Thanks, just to pick up some details in yours and Jacob's post, the National Trust own the couple of square miles of ritual landscape around the stones, over which people are free to roam. English heritage operate the stones, access road and new visitor centre, but that's quite a small area, only a few acres, hence people being able to approach fairly closely to the stones for free.

As far as I'm aware direct access doesn't exist at the stones other than significant 'ritual'/'religious' dates, I was there in July checking out the new visitors centre and you can only walk around the outside of the circle, taking the same paths that people have being using for the last 25 odd years. Direct access is available, but I think that has to be out of hours and you have to negotiate special group rates, be that for filming or special events etc.

Shelf, I agree with you about not being too bothered regarding cross subsidization, after all lots of English heritage sites are ruins/ancient sites open at all times for free, but those places still require maintenance of one sort or another.

My only concern with that, is I've heard from more than one person within English Heritage, that the big ticket/bucket-list venues or at the very least Stonehenge, will eventually be spun off/privatised and the vast bulk of unprofitable sites will be warehoused into a largely volunteer orientated charity.  I don't know how much truth there is to that. 

[Josquius]

Just how and why are the fake religos allowed to dance around the stones anyway?
Everyone knows they're not real Celtic pagans.
If the stones even were anything to do with the Celtic region (probably not, they predate the celts arriving)

[mongers]

Just how and why are the fake religos allowed to dance around the stones anyway?
Everyone knows they're not real Celtic pagans.
If the stones even were anything to do with the Celtic region (probably not, they predate the celts arriving)

Search me, personally I'd not allow any groups to access/touch/stand on the stones. And that would include during the solstices, which anyway have largely been overtaken by tens of thousands of hipsters, who have nothing to do with self appointed Druids or the travelers (for whom I have the some sympathy, as some of their practices might echo the pilgrimage aspect of early Stonehenge gatherings, Perhaps. )

I think things have moved on and it's important to preserve as much of the stones surfaces for current and future developments in archaeological technology/techniques. 

[Jacob]

Just how and why are the fake religos allowed to dance around the stones anyway?
Everyone knows they're not real Celtic pagans.
If the stones even were anything to do with the Celtic region (probably not, they predate the celts arriving)

Because, I suppose, the threshold for whether you should accommodate a religious practice has little to do with whether it's "real"?

[MadImmortalMan]

Sounds awful.  I want a world where every woman is thin and moderately attractive.

There's no such thing as redistribution of hott. 

[Eddie Teach]

If people looked more alike, we'd just get pickier about small details.

[Ideologue]

Sounds awful.  I want a world where every woman is thin and moderately attractive.

There's no such thing as redistribution of hott. 

There would be if people would stop getting morbidly obese, elevating women with no really special beauty to the upper echelons by virtue of having nice bodies, and cute women to the lower reaches by vice of being gross.  And I do mean morbid--I've really come to Jesus on chubby chicks, and no longer consider it a particular problem, especially since if I want to have sex, I realize that it will almost certainly be with a woman I'd have previously called fat.  It's what you'd call growing as a person, if you were of a charitable bent.

But at a certain age (perhaps as early 25, certainly around 30) my hypothesis is that you see two distinct humps on the bell curve.  Take my office, there are like six very attractive women, including one that for her age group (40+) is the hottest woman I've ever seen in real life, and three a little younger than me, who are what you'd call 10s.  Plus there's one whom others probably think is attractive, though I think she has a ruinous nose and a body that looks and moves like a sexist cartoon.

Meanwhile, there is a larger number of rather unattractive women.  There is only one medium-attractive woman.  I like medium-attractive women.  (All things being equal, I'd prefer very attractive women, but we all know things aren't equal.)

[Ideologue]

If people looked more alike, we'd just get pickier about small details.

Wrong.  Everybody got laid in the 50s-70s, when everyone was thin.

[Sheilbh]

And I do mean morbid--I've really come to Jesus on chubby chicks, and no longer consider it a particular problem, especially since if I want to have sex, I realize that it will almost certainly be with a woman I'd have previously called fat.  It's what you'd call growing as a person, if you were of a charitable bent.

*Unfriends*

[Ideologue]

I don't get it.

[Sheilbh]

I'm still a fat shamer