So many voices to flame you and none to acknowledge. You just demonstrated an act of higher conciousness reasoning that most find so intimidating and perplexing they can find no comment to make, they need you to remain the archetypal badguy. You re-examined your words and chose to see them through another perspective,…

I'm not. I'm just a reader of Gizmodo who made a very poorly worded and regrettable comment.

Admittedly, I realize how very poorly worded my original post is. It does convey a very ignorant view. My view is selfish, I can see that part of the argument. I'd rather my post had been written more like this:

Actually, yeah, I realize now that my original post is terribly worded. It doesn't convey the opinion I had intended. It should have been more like this:

Unfortunately you guys force me to defend the guy who doesn't care about the artifacts. I agree with him that most of you have severely misinterpreted his stance, and are trying to "fill in" a certain worldview into his stated opinions so that your attacks against his character make sense. The irony is strong when you…

I'm not backpedaling. Are they not drawings in the sand? Didn't I say in my first post that what Greenpeace did was wrong? Please explain to me why you feel I have to care. Is that going to repair the damage caused by the protest? If I had said that I don't care and people SHOULD destroy them, I could see your point.…

No. I am getting angry replies because people like YOU are choosing to ignore the words I'm saying and replacing them with their own assumptions.

I'm not a lover of fine art, either, but that doesn't mean someone should destroy them. You are assuming I think these things should be damaged, simply because I don't particularly care about them. My philosophy is to respect the things that others care about and wish to protect. I do not, however, have to actually…

All human history is important. I was referring to the physical artifacts that are used to attract tourists, not history.

I've already stated, for the record, that I don't care about any artifacts. However, I have also stated that, as there are people who do care, it is wrong to damage such things.

You can fully appreciate and view the Nazca lines from the surrounding hilltops, they do not require flight. Crop circles are also complex geometric shapes created in one night by only a few people. The both inspire awe in people, and both are enigmatic.

You are entitled to have that opinion.

OP

"What (if) Green Peace just altered that info?"

What is wrong with me? I have an 80 IQ because I think Greenpeace was wrong to damage something others care about and protect?

I am not ignorant to the importance of any artifacts. I don't care about artifacts from my culture, your culture, or their culture. Please refrain from doing what everyone else is and putting words in my mouth.

I am astounded by your inability to recognize what I'm saying.

That is the analogy YOU are making. I said people should protect the things they care about and Greenpeace was in the wrong.

I am only the arbiter of significance to myself. I have repeated said that people should protect the things they care about. I have also stated repeatedly that Greenpeace was in the wrong.

No. that is not my stance. My stance is people should respect the things that others protect and care about. Hence, I said that Greenpeace was wrong. I'm sorry you lack reading comprehension.