The Banning of Climbing Uluru (Ayers Rock) - thoughts on this article?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Specifically which statement is not factual? So far you've only offered your opinions.

---

As have you.
Disco, I'm not going to enter specifics, this matter has been done to death on a previous forum discussion....if you want to know my views, they are there for you to see, as are yours.
As someone has said, we can all have differing views in this great country of ours, it's how we handle those differences which is important, in terms of which which, whilst I disagree with your views, I do respect them, I hope you can say the same.
I'll leave it at that.
Regards, Pickles.

Many years ago, whilst in W.A., I was looking forward to seeing some very well preserved dinosaur footprints.
Now, these footprints were regarded as sacred by the local people and believed to be something altogether different i.e. the marks from the tears of two giant woman.

Herein lies the quandary.
Do I, as a person interested in the geology/palaeontology of Australia, have the right to inspect and take photos of the tracks or, do I respect the wishes of the "Owners" and steer clear of the place.

Having nice stories to explain about how things came to be because, at the time, the actual causes were unknown, is a common theme across mankind but, should these myths take precedence over the facts?

Footnote: I acquiesced to the wishes of the locals, more out of diplomacy than respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saitch

Herein lies the quandary.
.

---

Not a quandary if land is not public. You do not have the right to go onto property and take photos. You ask for permission first.

And to quote Pickles above in regards to factual supremacy:

Quote:

---

Definitely NOPE. Might be true in your mind, & indeed others, but many have different opinions, which they are entitled to, and with respect to all the "myth & hearsay" about, means that your version of the truth, or indeed anyone elses, is not necessarily, "The Truth",....it's simply your opinion, what you choose to believe, based on what you've been told/read,.....as is mine.

---

Respect!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pickles2

As have you.
Disco, I'm not going to enter specifics, this matter has been done to death on a previous forum discussion....if you want to know my views, they are there for you to see, as are yours.
As someone has said, we can all have differing views in this great country of ours, it's how we handle those differences which is important, in terms of which which, whilst I disagree with your views, I do respect them, I hope you can say the same.
I'll leave it at that.
Regards, Pickles.

---

Differing views are fine.
I thought my posts were factual and I posted a link to support what I said. So, I thought I posted facts about the land ownership and the rights of the owners, as well as the well-known fact that people pee and poop on the rock, which seems disrespectful to me. If someone peed or pooped in Sydney Cathedral it would certainly be offensive.
So, I'd still like to know which thing I posted you consider was an incorrect fact.
My opinion, not presented as a fact, just an opinion, is that some people in society (not referring to anyone in particular) simply refuse to accept that Aboriginal land ownership is valid and go out of their way to disrespect it, in ways they wouldn't consider doing towards other land owners. Walking on Uluru is an example. My opinion.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manic

Not a quandary if land is not public. You do not have the right to go onto property and take photos. You ask for permission first.

And to quote Pickles above in regards to factual supremacy:



Respect!

---

So, "Fact" and "Fiction" don't come into consideration. If I refer to the "Conspiracy" thread on this forum then what you're stating is that the "Flat Earth Society" is correct?
Is the moon really green cheese? No, we scoff at that but we have to "Believe" that the minerals that make up Rainbow Beach are really the remains of a shattered, rainbow coloured snake? Once again, a nice story but not true!
In my occupation I was privileged to come across or have access to several Aborigine sites and artifacts and never once disrespected any. Quite the contrary. Before modern day requirements in such matters, we contacted the relevant authorities when, in one area of a mining lease, we came across a bora ring, a large fish constructed from rocks and a women's food preparation area, the existence of which was unknown to the locals at the time. These are the things that truly deserve respect.

By the way, the land on which the prints I mentioned is public and access is now available. It was an analogy only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saitch

So, "Fact" and "Fiction" don't come into consideration. If I refer to the "Conspiracy" thread on this forum then what you're stating is that the "Flat Earth Society" is correct?
Is the moon really green cheese? No, we scoff at that but we have to "Believe" that the minerals that make up Rainbow Beach are really the remains of a shattered, rainbow coloured snake? Once again, a nice story but not true!
In my occupation I was privileged to come across or have access to several Aborigine sites and artifacts and never once disrespected any. Quite the contrary. Before modern day requirements in such matters, we contacted the relevant authorities when, in one area of a mining lease, we came across a bora ring, a large fish constructed from rocks and a women's food preparation area, the existence of which was unknown to the locals at the time. These are the things that truly deserve respect.

By the way, the land on which the prints I mentioned is public and access is now available. It was an analogy only.

---

Of course not - everyone knows it's cheddar...

What? Not Venezuelan beaver?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grey_ghost

Hi Baz,

I am not sure that I agree with your argument there. To me it’s 2 different types of “ownership”

A farmer buys the land, pays taxes, rates, land tax, etc.

---

That wasn't the point I was trying to get across, more so the owner sets the rules.

Personally I don't see the big deal really, there's a lot of things you can see and not touch, just gotta walk into any museum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redback

That wasn't the point I was trying to get across, more so the owner sets the rules.

Personally I don't see the big deal really, there's a lot of things you can see and not touch, just gotta walk into any museum.

---

Or just ask some wives! [wink11]

Art galleries are paranoid about people touching.