Disturbed Ground

[BAJR Host]

It has been suggested that a commentary about a definition on disturbed ground is created.. well here we are...

If we can discuss this then I can edit it finally into a completed description... but being shy.... who will start!

Another day another WSI?

[Steve-B]

I am prepeared to come out of my shy shell to start this off Hosty.

I have in the past suggested that a time scale as to when the land was last disturbed should be used to qusantify this statement.

I think at the time I suggested 300 years, a time scale in keeping with the PAS requirements of recording finds.

Basically, if the land has been distrubed in the last 300 years then it is ok to detect on, as the PAS arent interested in finds in that time scale anyway.

This would then perhaps go someway to addressing the concerns that Peter Wardle expressed.

[drpeterwardle]

The definition I use in assessments for made ground is as follows:

"Non natural deposits which may have the potential to be archaeological remains. It is noted that the identification of made ground as being modern is the prerogative of archaeologists."

The context of this is the interpretation of borehole logs.

In essence the starting point of such a defintion must be the definition of archaeological remains in the 1979 Act remains includes any sign or trace of the thing in question.

Similarly in terms of date there must be compatability with the 1979 Act so thus given that pillboxes etc can be scheduled it ought to include very recent things. For example a WWII aircraft crash site which may contain crash remains would clearly have to be included in any defintion.

This contradicts however the date requirements for reporting to PAS. Similarly it inferes that "hunting artefacts" is OK on an Ancient Monument provided that only recent deposits are hunted.

There is also the issue of what are and are not stratified archaeological deposits. Stratified mean arranged in layers or just a layer of any deposited substance.

Thus I suggest that we have to define archaeological first. Here is where the problems really start .....

All of these definitions must be obvious to the common person in any event.

Peter Wardle

[Steve-B]

quote:All of these definitions must be obvious to the common person in any event.

No need for that chap....

You asked us earlier not to dish it out and to respect the AUP, I suggest that you do not abuse you position as a moderator and do likewise.

As to it being obvious, no it isnt, not when the new code reminds us that to be responsible detectorist that we should therefor record finds with the PAS, who's stated cut off date of interest is 1650.

I made what I thought, was perfectly reasonable suggestion, bearing in mind that we, as detectorists (not archaeologists) are looking at working to a code developed by the PAS, CBA and various other archaeological bodies.

And no, no one is looking for an excuse to detect on ancient monuments, looking for either recent or ancient finds, all existing legal requirements in respect of ancient monument naturally have to be adhered to.

[troll]

Please don`t tell me that this thread is going to deteriorate into yet another Coronation street-style argument over semantics? Please Steve-cease being so precious and fragile.Extremely important thread this-everyone has an opinion and I`m sure that if Doctor Wardle had any intention of offending you -he would have made much more of an effort.:D

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Steve-B]

I am not sensitive at all Troll, I just dont intend to take any crap...stick to the point under discussion and we should all get along fine... as you say, it is an important subject ;)

[drpeterwardle]

I think I better qualify some of the statements I made because it has obviously caused a little bit of offence.

The point I make about "the common person" or I could have used the phrase "man in the street" is a legal one about the use of English in any legal situation. It is used to distinguish between legal and technical English.

The term Ancient Monument I use as defined in the 1979Act and in planning and does not neccessarily mean a scheduled or protected place. If you use the term archaeological site you have to define archaeological site which is easier said than done.

I accept that the PAS date cut off point ought to be a logical one for this definition but we have to look at the wider definitions of things and how those words are used elsewhere in "common/everyday" usage as well as "legal" archaeological situations such as the planning system. There ought to be a common defintion of what is covered by the numerous Acts, codes of practice, guidance and similar.

In the context of burials archaeological for example a cut of date of about 100 years (I cant remember the exact figure - it is Sunday you know).

Peter Wardle

[Steve-B]

Peter, thank you for expanding on that, I see the problem.

Is an 'ancient monument' already known as a site of exclusion such as a scheduled site would be?

[drpeterwardle]

No.

An Ancient Monument may or may not be protected by the 1979Act but will be protected by the planning system. Not everything in any event in capable of being scheduled. A dwelling house cannot be scheduled. To complicate matters even furthur ....

Arguablely removing artefacts from the curtiledge of a listed building, like a house, could be an offence even though it cannot be scheduled as an Ancient Monument. The point being that the removal of artefacts could constitute damage to the special character of the building.

What has not been discussed so far is how far this code of practice covers "archaeologist" using metal detectors be they professional or amateur within or outside the planning system. The 1979Act was not meant to cover geophysics but it now does.

Thus a technical offence, but with a valid defence, for example occurrs when somebody using a scanning device to detect cables in an Area of Archaeological Importance.

Peter Wardle

[troll]

Thank you gentlemen. I will leave the thread now......have a good weekend.:D

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Steve-B]

OK, I understand where you are coming from, however, I feel we are getting a little off track as we are disgussing disturbed land in particular respect to metal detecting.

From the hobby point of view buildings do not come into the equation, rather it is more a question of arable and pasture land.

The point I made was to use the PAS timescaqle of 300 years in respct of considering pasture land to have been disturbed.... and as you quite rightly stated, scheduled sites etc are obvious exclusions.

On DEFRA agreement land, surely all known scheduled sites and ancient monumenst should already be listed and can therefore be stated to the potential detectorist as areas of exclusion?

[BAJR Host]

yup... lets get back to a definition of 'disturbed ground'

I feel that the words are too vague, and clarification (an appendix of definition) would be useful..

Disturbed ground is land which has been subjected to intrusive agricultural or industrial action within the past 200 years (which would allow verfification in the Historic Land Use register- (which I believe exists somewhere.) and excludes those areas to contain known archaeological sites and/or earthworks where intrusive activity of anykind (ploughing, trenching, development etc ) would be classed as detrimental to the buried archaeology or upstanding remains.

take that as a start... and fiddle....


Another day another WSI…

[drpeterwardle]

How about:

Disturbed ground - land upon which archaeological remains cannot be found due to recent activity which has disturbed the archaeological remains. (adding what ever the definition is for recent)

I would note that gardens are often subjected to metal detector survey - in my experience the first place a metal detector is tried out if it has been given as a present. One of my friends found a greek prehistoric coin in his garden. In historic villages and towns this is important.

Peter Wardle.

[garybrun]

I think Peter if you went that far to include personal gardens you would never get any detectorists to sign up to the CoP and would see it definitely as a controlling move.

Don't get me wrong here... I understand what you are trying to say but I think you will have to sacrifice a few things to gain more.

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[Steve-B]

What do you class as archaeological remains Peter?

[BAJR Host]

hmmmmmm... As a garden is disturbed ground, that would mean it was fair for detecting. - wouldn't it?

Another day another WSI…

[garybrun]

Have i misunderstood??
Peter do you mean to include gardens or not to include.

Thanks

Gary

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[drpeterwardle]

Firstly I am not negotiating or trying to control I am trying to define something. My garden is of archaeological interest - if I extended my house I would have to hire an archaeologist to undertake a watching brief or an evaluation cost £2000. Under David’s definition it would therefore be included as somewhere a metal detector cannot be used. If some parts of the country using a metal detector in your garden is an offence. A garden is not necessarily disturbed I would suggest.

Private gardens can include Roman Roads (mine) flint scatters (mine) medieval priory (a well known pop star), Roman Villa, an anglo saxon palace, a curcus, a moat (my clients). Real gardens real people real archaeology.

This is however an aside.

The point I am making is that the modern land use is not relevant to if an archaeological site/ancient monument is present.

Archaeological Remains are the trace or sign of the thing in question as defined in the 1979 ACT.

The purpose of this clause is to say basically archaeologists say it Ok to use a metal detector on this land because there isn’t anything here. I would have thought this would have made for some very boring metal detecting.

Equally a code of practice has to cover every situation not just the common or typical ones. An alternative approach might be to define where it is undesirable for the “the hunting of artefacts” to happen. David’s definition in part does so. This list would be off putting however because it would include all “designated” sites which would include

World Heritage Site
Scheduled Ancient Monument
Area of Archaeological Importance
Mentioned in Local Plan
Site of Archaeological Interest (mentioned in the Sites and Monuments Record)
Sites and Monuments Record Numbers
Conservation Area
Listed Building
Historic Parks and Gardens
Areas of Archaeological Priority
Churchyards and burial grounds

In addition there are the other designations such as
Site of Special Scientific Interest
Hedgerows
Tree preservation Orders
Areas of Wildlife Interest
Where protected Species are present
Ramscar sites etc

Account would also have to be taken of the undiscovered ancient monuments so as the planning system is currently applied any land where it cannot be demonstrated that the archaeology has been trashed to use a technical term.

I have to say I think the fact that a code of practice has been agreed is a major step forward and perhaps therefore we should not be worrying about the detail or precise meaning.

Peter Wardle

[garybrun]

quote:The purpose of this clause is to say basically archaeologists say it Ok to use a metal detector on this land because there isn’t anything here. I would have thought this would have made for some very boring metal detecting.

I have to agree with that [8D]

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[BAJR Host]

Blimey, youve been busy Peter... that is pretty damn good... I will reconsider the wording...

So... just like a game of poker... gardens are ok... unless they contain the following...etc........ seems fair...

When we have this sortedto a decent level I would be happy for it to go onto Britarch and UKDN for further discussion...

If we work through the CoC methodically, then we should be able to produce a fairly comprehensive document that can be presented to the originators as a draft appendix

Another day another WSI…

[drpeterwardle]

Not been busy - its the list of designations table from my assessment template. Standard stuff!.

Peter

[BAJR Host]

You should have kept that quiet!! I would have thought you a genius! ;)

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B
I feel we are getting a little off track as we are disgussing disturbed land in particular respect to metal detecting. Perhaps though, since this discussion has quietened down without reaching a conclusion, we could now unite it with a consideration of the wording of the untitled UKDN Alternative Code. This in fact omits totally the notion of keeping finds collection to ploughsoil and disturbed surface contexts, but cuts that clause out entirely (and replaces it with a bit about filling in holes which is in part a duplication of its own point 8 and most detectorists' codes of conduct, as well as the last bi of its own clause 6).
In the next clause of the UKDN AntiCode we read:
[Being responsible means:] 6. If you excavate finds from undisturbed land (e.g. undisturbed pasture, or below the ploughsoil), use tools that will minimise the ground disturbance and any potential damage to stratified archaeological deposits. Reinstate excavated material as neatly as possible. This is certainly an entirely different meaning of "being responsible" to the buried archaeological resource than that embodied in the existing Code of Practice. Would any other archaeologist on this Forum like to comment on this? In effect what this text actually says is its OK to hoik stuff out of stratified archaeological deposits as long as you "minmise" "damage" by digging little tiny rather than big holes all over the site. The authors seem not to understand that what they call "damage" to the stratified archaeological deposits they want to exploit for collectables is wanton destruction of archaeological evidence. Absolutely legal if you heed the first two principles of both codes, but is this what we understand by "responsible detecting"? The self-determining detectorist authors of this document see no problem in digging holes wherever and however deep they want (after all if they hit something too diifficult to dig out by themselves from well below plough level they can always call in the archaeologists who will just drop everything to come and help them out - shades of the Chiseldon case in Wiltshire). They want to self-determine the right to treat archaeological layers as quarries for collectables (which the same "code" says they may or may not report to anyone) but at the same time wish to be regarded as "responsible" all the same, why they've written themselves a nice little Code which says so. So the guys who took stuff out of the archaeological deposits of the site in the well-known case of Wanborough were in terms of the UKDN AntiCode only "irresponsible" in that they used spades which were too big.

The text as it stands is very revealing about the real attitudes and intentions of its authors. Surely the UKDN AntiCode neeeds more than just a bit of "tweaking" here? It calls for outright rejection by those concerned about protecting the buried archaeological resource from the attentions of metal-detector equipped AntiCode hunters of "portable antiquities" for collection and sale. In any other country this would just be termed "looting".

And how does the voting on UKDN stand today? What percentage of its members support this wording of a Code as opposed to the existing one?
Paul Barford
.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B
I feel we are getting a little off track as we are disgussing disturbed land in particular respect to metal detecting. Perhaps though, since this discussion has quietened down without reaching a conclusion, we could now unite it with a consideration of the wording of the untitled UKDN Alternative Code. This in fact omits totally the notion of keeping finds collection to ploughsoil and disturbed surface contexts, but cuts that clause out entirely (and replaces it with a bit about filling in holes which is in part a duplication of its own point 8 and most detectorists' codes of conduct, as well as the last bi of its own clause 6).
In the next clause of the UKDN AntiCode we read:
[Being responsible means:] 6. If you excavate finds from undisturbed land (e.g. undisturbed pasture, or below the ploughsoil), use tools that will minimise the ground disturbance and any potential damage to stratified archaeological deposits. Reinstate excavated material as neatly as possible. This is certainly an entirely different meaning of "being responsible" to the buried archaeological resource than that embodied in the existing Code of Practice. Would any other archaeologist on this Forum like to comment on this? In effect what this text actually says is its OK to hoik stuff out of stratified archaeological deposits as long as you "minmise" "damage" by digging little tiny rather than big holes all over the site. The authors seem not to understand that what they call "damage" to the stratified archaeological deposits they want to exploit for collectables is wanton destruction of archaeological evidence. Absolutely legal if you heed the first two principles of both codes, but is this what we understand by "responsible detecting"? The self-determining detectorist authors of this document see no problem in digging holes wherever and however deep they want (after all if they hit something too diifficult to dig out by themselves from well below plough level they can always call in the archaeologists who will just drop everything to come and help them out - shades of the Chiseldon case in Wiltshire). They want to self-determine the right to treat archaeological layers as quarries for collectables (which the same "code" says they may or may not report to anyone) but at the same time wish to be regarded as "responsible" all the same, why they've written themselves a nice little Code which says so. So the guys who took stuff out of the archaeological deposits of the site in the well-known case of Wanborough were in terms of the UKDN AntiCode only "irresponsible" in that they used spades which were too big.

The text as it stands is very revealing about the real attitudes and intentions of its authors. Surely the UKDN AntiCode neeeds more than just a bit of "tweaking" here? It calls for outright rejection by those concerned about protecting the buried archaeological resource from the attentions of metal-detector equipped AntiCode hunters of "portable antiquities" for collection and sale. In any other country this would just be termed "looting".

And how does the voting on UKDN stand today? What percentage of its members support this wording of a Code as opposed to the existing one?
Paul Barford
.

[BAJR Host]

Are you accusing people of looting?

I agree that disturbing known archaeologial deposits or sites is not useful..

but what you missed out was the clause above.. C5

While you are metal-detecting

quote:5. Wherever possible working on ground that has already been disturbed (such as ploughed land or that which has formerly been ploughed), and only within the depth of ploughing. If detecting takes place on undisturbed pasture, be careful to ensure that no damage is done to the archaeological value of the land, including earthworks.

6. Minimising any ground disturbance through the use of suitable tools and by reinstating any excavated material as neatly as possible. Endeavour not to damage stratified archaeological deposits.

so when taken together .. instead of out of context ... they show that A)don't dig on land that has archaeological value... B) even when you dig, ensure that you don't damage any archaeology you may come across..


All I would say is this needs clarifying and rewording slightly..

clever quoting does not work.

I will not have this forum turned into a battle of who can use words the best.

You have interesting points to make Paul, however it becomes difficult to read when there is a bewildering array of quotes, comments referrals and the like (the same applies to everyone !) Then slip in a few un-needed comments which add nothing to the text - about looting, Anti, hoik etc... emotive and designed to enflame, and we have the makings of a public warning. Please read your post first. Again... the same goes for everyone. People may not like it... but hey... you are in the equivalent of my pub.. so be nice - stop provoking each other.. or whining .. or fighting... or its oot the door.


Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Are you accusing people of looting?

I agree that disturbing known archaeologial deposits or sites is not useful..

but what you missed out was the clause above.. C5

While you are metal-detecting

quote:5. Wherever possible working on ground that has already been disturbed (such as ploughed land or that which has formerly been ploughed), and only within the depth of ploughing. If detecting takes place on undisturbed pasture, be careful to ensure that no damage is done to the archaeological value of the land, including earthworks.

6. Minimising any ground disturbance through the use of suitable tools and by reinstating any excavated material as neatly as possible. Endeavour not to damage stratified archaeological deposits.

so when taken together .. instead of out of context ... they show that A)don't dig on land that has archaeological value... B) even when you dig, ensure that you don't damage any archaeology you may come across..


All I would say is this needs clarifying and rewording slightly..

clever quoting does not work.

I will not have this forum turned into a battle of who can use words the best.

You have interesting points to make Paul, however it becomes difficult to read when there is a bewildering array of quotes, comments referrals and the like (the same applies to everyone !) Then slip in a few un-needed comments which add nothing to the text - about looting, Anti, hoik etc... emotive and designed to enflame, and we have the makings of a public warning. Please read your post first. Again... the same goes for everyone. People may not like it... but hey... you are in the equivalent of my pub.. so be nice - stop provoking each other.. or whining .. or fighting... or its oot the door.


Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Are you accusing people of looting? Am I?
No, I made the point with regard to the text of the "UKDN Code". I said that when we talk about this happening in Iraq, Italy, Peru, Egypt, Bulgaria, the Crimea and any other country except the UK, that is what we would call people who dig down into archaeological deposits to get finds out for collection and sale whether they have a legal right to do it or not. But in England and Wales its not because its not only legal, but a group of detectorists has apparently written a code to say its even "responsible" behaviour.


quote: "but what you missed out was the clause above..
David, I missed nothing out, its perfectly clear that I was quoting the text you yourself posted for discussion here http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=682 which now (12.33 my tme) says exactly what I quoted and nothing more nor less. I dont see where that is "clever quoting", its a fact verifiable in black and white. As I pointed out, the "UKDN Code" says nothing about this word "disturbed", its clause five instead tells you to fill in holes, but more disturbingly clause six tells uis that the "responsible" detectorist digging holes in undistrubed layers uses a small spade. (It does not say "don't dig into... even with a small spade") It seems to me from what I wrote entirely clear that it was this I was commenting on and in what context. And if it was not, I hope it is now.


quote:"so when taken together .."
Pardon? My understanding - correct me if I am wrong - is that on UKDN they are voting BETWEEN two documents, whether to promote the existing widely agreed Code of Practice or one which a few detectorists have made up by themselves. We are surely talking about two [u]different</u> documents, one created [u]out of</u> the second by rejecting fundamental elements of it and replacing them by less rigorous self-determined elements. We are not only talking here about two documents, but examining the differences between them. And I pointed out one of the major ones which disturbed me as an archaeologist and gave my honest reaction and you threaten me with "oot the door" for the way I did so.

Paul Barford

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Are you accusing people of looting? Am I?
No, I made the point with regard to the text of the "UKDN Code". I said that when we talk about this happening in Iraq, Italy, Peru, Egypt, Bulgaria, the Crimea and any other country except the UK, that is what we would call people who dig down into archaeological deposits to get finds out for collection and sale whether they have a legal right to do it or not. But in England and Wales its not because its not only legal, but a group of detectorists has apparently written a code to say its even "responsible" behaviour.


quote: "but what you missed out was the clause above..
David, I missed nothing out, its perfectly clear that I was quoting the text you yourself posted for discussion here http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=682 which now (12.33 my tme) says exactly what I quoted and nothing more nor less. I dont see where that is "clever quoting", its a fact verifiable in black and white. As I pointed out, the "UKDN Code" says nothing about this word "disturbed", its clause five instead tells you to fill in holes, but more disturbingly clause six tells uis that the "responsible" detectorist digging holes in undistrubed layers uses a small spade. (It does not say "don't dig into... even with a small spade") It seems to me from what I wrote entirely clear that it was this I was commenting on and in what context. And if it was not, I hope it is now.


quote:"so when taken together .."
Pardon? My understanding - correct me if I am wrong - is that on UKDN they are voting BETWEEN two documents, whether to promote the existing widely agreed Code of Practice or one which a few detectorists have made up by themselves. We are surely talking about two [u]different</u> documents, one created [u]out of</u> the second by rejecting fundamental elements of it and replacing them by less rigorous self-determined elements. We are not only talking here about two documents, but examining the differences between them. And I pointed out one of the major ones which disturbed me as an archaeologist and gave my honest reaction and you threaten me with "oot the door" for the way I did so.

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Paul, you have a tendancy to take a situation and make people somehow unable to talk with you.... you only talk to people.

You have strong views on this subject... great... but your ability to communicate is in a way that your valid points become lost in a morass ... I am giving you a choice.... debate or leave.



Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Paul, you have a tendancy to take a situation and make people somehow unable to talk with you.... you only talk to people.

You have strong views on this subject... great... but your ability to communicate is in a way that your valid points become lost in a morass ... I am giving you a choice.... debate or leave.



Another day another WSI…

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
I am giving you a choice.... debate or leave.

I was under the impression he had offered to, by posting 8 specific points of central relevance. Had you chosen to explain if or why you disagreed with them one by one, as I suggested David, then a debate would have been created. Not sure what more he can do unless you help him.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
I am giving you a choice.... debate or leave.

I was under the impression he had offered to, by posting 8 specific points of central relevance. Had you chosen to explain if or why you disagreed with them one by one, as I suggested David, then a debate would have been created. Not sure what more he can do unless you help him.

[BAJR Host]

I would rather see what you have to say...

I will decide whether or not to answer statements...

So, Nigel what is your point of view?

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

I would rather see what you have to say...

I will decide whether or not to answer statements...

So, Nigel what is your point of view?

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

You have strong views on this subject... great... but your ability to communicate is in a way that your valid points become lost in a morass ... I am giving you a choice.... debate or leave.
Actually I was under the sincere impression that this is what I was trying to do ! Perhaps I may be hindered by my lack of ability to communicate my ideas effectively, but my poor communication skills are due to my educational background, which should not be held against me as its not my fault.

On checking to see what this word "debate" may mean, because i may have got this wrong too, I find that my Webster has: "debate: 1: v. to discuss (a question) thoroughly, esp at a public meeting or in government [...] to hold a formal discussion under rules of procedure, 2. n. discussion, or a discussion, esp. a public one. controversy".

Well, I was sincerly trying to look at the problems involved here thoroughly and not superficially; I am really trying hard to get through the morass of jibes and other stuff to understand just what it is the others involved in what you affirm is not yet a debate are getting at; I am making an effort (really) to set out my reasoning publicly (and as logically as lies in my abilities) for refutation by my peers. When you asked us not to use certain terms I stopped using them. It seems to me that I am making an effort to debate this with those who have different views, the fact that they dont want to refiute my points one by one using real arguments (as Nigel suggested they should) is really not my fault. I really do not know what more I can do to begin to "debate" these issues with you and the detectorists on this Forum. Does this mean you are going to chuck me out? I hope not. I too would like to see some real debate.

Paul Barford
.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

You have strong views on this subject... great... but your ability to communicate is in a way that your valid points become lost in a morass ... I am giving you a choice.... debate or leave.
Actually I was under the sincere impression that this is what I was trying to do ! Perhaps I may be hindered by my lack of ability to communicate my ideas effectively, but my poor communication skills are due to my educational background, which should not be held against me as its not my fault.

On checking to see what this word "debate" may mean, because i may have got this wrong too, I find that my Webster has: "debate: 1: v. to discuss (a question) thoroughly, esp at a public meeting or in government [...] to hold a formal discussion under rules of procedure, 2. n. discussion, or a discussion, esp. a public one. controversy".

Well, I was sincerly trying to look at the problems involved here thoroughly and not superficially; I am really trying hard to get through the morass of jibes and other stuff to understand just what it is the others involved in what you affirm is not yet a debate are getting at; I am making an effort (really) to set out my reasoning publicly (and as logically as lies in my abilities) for refutation by my peers. When you asked us not to use certain terms I stopped using them. It seems to me that I am making an effort to debate this with those who have different views, the fact that they dont want to refiute my points one by one using real arguments (as Nigel suggested they should) is really not my fault. I really do not know what more I can do to begin to "debate" these issues with you and the detectorists on this Forum. Does this mean you are going to chuck me out? I hope not. I too would like to see some real debate.

Paul Barford
.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

I would rather see what you have to say...

I will decide whether or not to answer statements...

So, Nigel what is your point of view?


I have many points to make, over and above Paul's eight.
However, if his eight aren't to be specifically responded to I'm reluctant to take the trouble to make mine, only to be similarly treated - and accused of debate-failure and threatened with expulsion. In any case, my first eight points are his, so the field is entirely clear for your response. Whereupon I'll add the rest.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

I would rather see what you have to say...

I will decide whether or not to answer statements...

So, Nigel what is your point of view?


I have many points to make, over and above Paul's eight.
However, if his eight aren't to be specifically responded to I'm reluctant to take the trouble to make mine, only to be similarly treated - and accused of debate-failure and threatened with expulsion. In any case, my first eight points are his, so the field is entirely clear for your response. Whereupon I'll add the rest.

[BAJR Host]

Obviously your education did not teach you about the use of sarcasm... not somethinging to be recommended when talking to the person who runs this forum..;)

Sadly, although you may feel you are being reasonable and dealing with a world out to jibe and provoke you, it is very much the other way round... Most people would take the warning, and then get on with the thread... not have to return with a smart ass comment.

I have noticed on every forum that you and Nigel Swift appear, it is always followed by chaos... now tell me... why would that be? Nigel seems only here to agree with everything you say... I do agree with much of what you say, but sadly find it impossible to concentrate through the unfortunate inability to stick to the minimum rather than over egg the pudding with un-needed wordiness and carefully placed emotive words... such as hoik, or looter, or anti etc etc...

If you want a clear answer, then this is it... if you debate, you are welcome... if you feel unable to debate without resorting to smart comments and well chosen barbed words, designed to provoke etc... then you are no longer welcome. :(

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Obviously your education did not teach you about the use of sarcasm... not somethinging to be recommended when talking to the person who runs this forum..;)

Sadly, although you may feel you are being reasonable and dealing with a world out to jibe and provoke you, it is very much the other way round... Most people would take the warning, and then get on with the thread... not have to return with a smart ass comment.

I have noticed on every forum that you and Nigel Swift appear, it is always followed by chaos... now tell me... why would that be? Nigel seems only here to agree with everything you say... I do agree with much of what you say, but sadly find it impossible to concentrate through the unfortunate inability to stick to the minimum rather than over egg the pudding with un-needed wordiness and carefully placed emotive words... such as hoik, or looter, or anti etc etc...

If you want a clear answer, then this is it... if you debate, you are welcome... if you feel unable to debate without resorting to smart comments and well chosen barbed words, designed to provoke etc... then you are no longer welcome. :(

Another day another WSI…

[garybrun]

Im sorry but mr Barford is taking the Micky big time and I find his comments very offencive.

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[garybrun]

Im sorry but mr Barford is taking the Micky big time and I find his comments very offencive.

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[BAJR Host]

Thank you Nigel for not answering the question...




Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Thank you Nigel for not answering the question...




Another day another WSI…

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Thank you Nigel for not answering the question...


Au contraire David. I have given eight answers in response to your question whereas you have given no answers in response to my eight.

I guess this classifies me as unwilling to debate?
Perhaps I should be given a warning, for that - and for only being here to agree with that other enemy of resource protection, Paul.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Thank you Nigel for not answering the question...


Au contraire David. I have given eight answers in response to your question whereas you have given no answers in response to my eight.

I guess this classifies me as unwilling to debate?
Perhaps I should be given a warning, for that - and for only being here to agree with that other enemy of resource protection, Paul.

[Steve-B]

Consider yourself warned...

Oops wrong forum...ahh well you can take the man out of the moderator but you cant take the moderator out of the man...:)

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

Consider yourself warned...

Oops wrong forum...ahh well you can take the man out of the moderator but you cant take the moderator out of the man...:)

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[kevmar]

quote:Originally posted by Paul Barford

On checking to see what this word "debate" may mean, because i may have got this wrong too, I find that my Webster has: "debate: 1: v. to discuss (a question) thoroughly, esp at a public meeting or in government [...] to hold a formal discussion under rules of procedure, 2. n. discussion, or a discussion, esp. a public one. controversy".

Paul Barford
.


Sarcasm

''A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

[kevmar]

quote:Originally posted by Paul Barford

On checking to see what this word "debate" may mean, because i may have got this wrong too, I find that my Webster has: "debate: 1: v. to discuss (a question) thoroughly, esp at a public meeting or in government [...] to hold a formal discussion under rules of procedure, 2. n. discussion, or a discussion, esp. a public one. controversy".

Paul Barford
.


Sarcasm

''A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

[BAJR Host]

Thank you Nigel for not answering the question...




Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Thank you Nigel for not answering the question...




Another day another WSI…

[mercenary]

Well it's nice to have a hobby isn't it. Online pedantry, NOT metal detecting.

Is it any wonder that most BAJR-ites abandoned this "debate" shortly after it began?:(

All credit to the few individuals like our host who have tried to move the discussion forward, but it seems the pedants are winning.:(

[mercenary]

Well it's nice to have a hobby isn't it. Online pedantry, NOT metal detecting.

Is it any wonder that most BAJR-ites abandoned this "debate" shortly after it began?:(

All credit to the few individuals like our host who have tried to move the discussion forward, but it seems the pedants are winning.:(

[garybrun]

"The truth always wins in the end"
I also believe your beloved host would not allow any other way.. that's why I am here and have given up with other sites. Is also is why Elgin is loosing his marbles :D

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[garybrun]

"The truth always wins in the end"
I also believe your beloved host would not allow any other way.. that's why I am here and have given up with other sites. Is also is why Elgin is loosing his marbles :D

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[BAJR Host]

Cheers merc....and gary and all others who are willing to talk and listen in equal measures.

The debate moves on... even if I have to get out the pointy stick

So.... back to the actual question ... er what was it again... bggggggggr

right... Disturbed Ground...



Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Cheers merc....and gary and all others who are willing to talk and listen in equal measures.

The debate moves on... even if I have to get out the pointy stick

So.... back to the actual question ... er what was it again... bggggggggr

right... Disturbed Ground...



Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
Obviously your education did not teach you about [...] smart ass comment. I have noticed on every forum that you and Nigel Swift appear[...] unfortunate inability to stick to the minimum rather than over egg the pudding with un-needed wordiness [...] barbed words, designed to provoke etc... then you are no longer welcome David, I did not start any of these threads. I came here to discuss and debate a topic which concerns me and not hear personal comments about myself, my education, my written style or choice of topics or words, neither from you as participant in debate or as moderator or any others... I have made a number of specific points, very few of which were answered or refuted by anything more than the usual pattern of personal comments and jibes. The same is happening to Nigel. I have not made such comments about you, but I do think you did not do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote above in this thread before firing off a series of criticisms (like about me allegedly "missing out" something that was not there [!] and failing to merge something or other in two completely different documents). That is hardly conducive to "debate", especially for somebody who berates me for not "listening". If you think words like "anti" (used in the meaning of someone of something that is against someone or something else) is negative, then so be it. I think words like "morass" and "pedant" equally negative and personal.

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

The debate moves on... even if I have to get out the pointy stick So.... back to the actual question ... er what was it again... bggggggggr right... Disturbed Ground... This has, I believe now moved to here: http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=686

Paul Barford

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
Obviously your education did not teach you about [...] smart ass comment. I have noticed on every forum that you and Nigel Swift appear[...] unfortunate inability to stick to the minimum rather than over egg the pudding with un-needed wordiness [...] barbed words, designed to provoke etc... then you are no longer welcome David, I did not start any of these threads. I came here to discuss and debate a topic which concerns me and not hear personal comments about myself, my education, my written style or choice of topics or words, neither from you as participant in debate or as moderator or any others... I have made a number of specific points, very few of which were answered or refuted by anything more than the usual pattern of personal comments and jibes. The same is happening to Nigel. I have not made such comments about you, but I do think you did not do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote above in this thread before firing off a series of criticisms (like about me allegedly "missing out" something that was not there [!] and failing to merge something or other in two completely different documents). That is hardly conducive to "debate", especially for somebody who berates me for not "listening". If you think words like "anti" (used in the meaning of someone of something that is against someone or something else) is negative, then so be it. I think words like "morass" and "pedant" equally negative and personal.

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

The debate moves on... even if I have to get out the pointy stick So.... back to the actual question ... er what was it again... bggggggggr right... Disturbed Ground... This has, I believe now moved to here: http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=686

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

why use words like looting hoik etc, and resort to sacastic quotes from dictionaries.


As I have repeated, you have much to say, but the fact is, you and Nigel have as a fact been present during the Britarch, PAS, UKDN forum debates that end up in missing the point and descending into chaos. Now I may be putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 6... but the same seems strangely to be happening here... and can I believe it... both Paul and Nigel are here..

perhaps one should look at this track record... and ask why is it?

We both know that we are intelligent people, so we can use that.

Your answer on the Clause 5 thread is a perfect example of such a reply


Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

why use words like looting hoik etc, and resort to sacastic quotes from dictionaries.


As I have repeated, you have much to say, but the fact is, you and Nigel have as a fact been present during the Britarch, PAS, UKDN forum debates that end up in missing the point and descending into chaos. Now I may be putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 6... but the same seems strangely to be happening here... and can I believe it... both Paul and Nigel are here..

perhaps one should look at this track record... and ask why is it?

We both know that we are intelligent people, so we can use that.

Your answer on the Clause 5 thread is a perfect example of such a reply


Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

why use words like looting hoik etc, and resort to sacastic quotes from dictionaries. Why? I posed a question about the terminology, in which the "L-word" appeared; its a question I often ask the pro-detecting lobby because for me it touches an issue of fundamental importance but sadly I have never (as here) received a proper answer. The word "hoik" was used by me once (in its original context) in one post and has now been edited out and replaced with a synonym. I was told yesterday to either "debate" or get out, but could not see that I had not been trying to debate these several issues with my peers. My attempt to justify that opinion was not "sarcasm".


quote: you and Nigel have as a fact been present during the Britarch, PAS, UKDN forum debates that end up in missing the point and descending into chaos. Now I may be putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 6... but the same seems strangely to be happening here... and can I believe it... both Paul and Nigel are here.. perhaps one should look at this track record... and ask why is it? Yes, in fact we are all here aren't we, the same group that always turn out when attempts are made to discuss metal detecting in archaeological terms, Steve, Gary, Kevmar, Sheddy, John, Corinne, yourself. Just Clive, Tony and Rob are missing (so far). But actually I was NOT present in the two earlier BAJR threads on detecting: "Metal Detecting Q&A" http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=432 and - except one post - until May 2nd (so the first ten pages) of "Detecting standards" http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=488 ... and neither, I think, was Nigel Swift. Check it out if you dont believe me.

Take an objective look back and see whether the same pattern of behaviour is not repeated in those two earlier threads. I have in mind such things as knee-jerk reactions, tangents, making personal remarks about other posters who then are thus goaded into retaliation, abusive comments and so on. This is even though neither Nigel or myself were involved in these discussions. Its easy to use Nigel and myself as the scapegoat for the inevitable breakdown of discussions about detecting involving detectorists. Maybe, however, instead of that you should be looking elsewhere for the source of the problem. Maybe you should ascribe the lack of debate and the way BAJRers drifted way from those earlier discussions too to something other than Paul Barford's poor writing technique and personality together with whatever it is you accuse Nigel of.

In the context of the repeated suggestion that it is all our fault, I should add there is a UK Forum where both Nigel and I and quite a few others have quite openly and freely and at length discussed artefact hunting with metal detectors and the issues around its overall effects on the archaeological resource, and there has not been any problem whatsoever... and "despite" our involvement, discussions have been going forward and not diverted off on tangents and thus eternally going round in circles.


quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Your answer on the Clause 5 thread is a perfect example of such a reply I presume you mean "Posted - 11/05/2006 : 21:32:53". How so? I really do not see why. It was just a normal contribution to an ongoing discussion, not intended to be inflamatory. A contributor says he found the wording of the CoP "insulting", I remarked I could not see why, I stated (briefly) why I had trouble seeing why, I stated (briefly) why it seems to me that such a clause is necessary in such a document by referring to my own experience. What is the problem? If "Tom Cobbley" had written it, would you have been remonstrating with him too?

Paul Barford
.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

why use words like looting hoik etc, and resort to sacastic quotes from dictionaries. Why? I posed a question about the terminology, in which the "L-word" appeared; its a question I often ask the pro-detecting lobby because for me it touches an issue of fundamental importance but sadly I have never (as here) received a proper answer. The word "hoik" was used by me once (in its original context) in one post and has now been edited out and replaced with a synonym. I was told yesterday to either "debate" or get out, but could not see that I had not been trying to debate these several issues with my peers. My attempt to justify that opinion was not "sarcasm".


quote: you and Nigel have as a fact been present during the Britarch, PAS, UKDN forum debates that end up in missing the point and descending into chaos. Now I may be putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 6... but the same seems strangely to be happening here... and can I believe it... both Paul and Nigel are here.. perhaps one should look at this track record... and ask why is it? Yes, in fact we are all here aren't we, the same group that always turn out when attempts are made to discuss metal detecting in archaeological terms, Steve, Gary, Kevmar, Sheddy, John, Corinne, yourself. Just Clive, Tony and Rob are missing (so far). But actually I was NOT present in the two earlier BAJR threads on detecting: "Metal Detecting Q&A" http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=432 and - except one post - until May 2nd (so the first ten pages) of "Detecting standards" http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=488 ... and neither, I think, was Nigel Swift. Check it out if you dont believe me.

Take an objective look back and see whether the same pattern of behaviour is not repeated in those two earlier threads. I have in mind such things as knee-jerk reactions, tangents, making personal remarks about other posters who then are thus goaded into retaliation, abusive comments and so on. This is even though neither Nigel or myself were involved in these discussions. Its easy to use Nigel and myself as the scapegoat for the inevitable breakdown of discussions about detecting involving detectorists. Maybe, however, instead of that you should be looking elsewhere for the source of the problem. Maybe you should ascribe the lack of debate and the way BAJRers drifted way from those earlier discussions too to something other than Paul Barford's poor writing technique and personality together with whatever it is you accuse Nigel of.

In the context of the repeated suggestion that it is all our fault, I should add there is a UK Forum where both Nigel and I and quite a few others have quite openly and freely and at length discussed artefact hunting with metal detectors and the issues around its overall effects on the archaeological resource, and there has not been any problem whatsoever... and "despite" our involvement, discussions have been going forward and not diverted off on tangents and thus eternally going round in circles.


quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Your answer on the Clause 5 thread is a perfect example of such a reply I presume you mean "Posted - 11/05/2006 : 21:32:53". How so? I really do not see why. It was just a normal contribution to an ongoing discussion, not intended to be inflamatory. A contributor says he found the wording of the CoP "insulting", I remarked I could not see why, I stated (briefly) why I had trouble seeing why, I stated (briefly) why it seems to me that such a clause is necessary in such a document by referring to my own experience. What is the problem? If "Tom Cobbley" had written it, would you have been remonstrating with him too?

Paul Barford
.

[kevmar]

Hm interesting,
must be a coincidence ,you getting banned
from every forum you preach to then.
ok. [:p]

[kevmar]

Hm interesting,
must be a coincidence ,you getting banned
from every forum you preach to then.
ok. [:p]

[BAJR Host]

just one question....

where is the forum?

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

just one question....

where is the forum?

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

just one question....where is the forum?
I imagine avoiding posting anything of meritorial contexnt in threads where the prevailing mood is of further unsubstantiated and misleading personal attacks on those who do. Or perhaps we have just exhausted the topic of what sort of disturbed ground is meant by the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales in the context of discussions going on in other threads here.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

just one question....where is the forum?
I imagine avoiding posting anything of meritorial contexnt in threads where the prevailing mood is of further unsubstantiated and misleading personal attacks on those who do. Or perhaps we have just exhausted the topic of what sort of disturbed ground is meant by the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales in the context of discussions going on in other threads here.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host


...As I have repeated, you have much to say, but the fact is, you and Nigel have as a fact been present during the Britarch, PAS, UKDN forum debates that end up in missing the point and descending into chaos. Now I may be putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 6... but the same seems strangely to be happening here... and can I believe it... both Paul and Nigel are here..

perhaps one should look at this track record... and ask why is it?


Might I suggest another theory on this.....who else was present on those Forums? I would like to point out that on a number of occasions when the 'discussions deteriorated' Neither Paul nor Nigerl were present. On saying that, there were times when it was only I and Paul or Nigel (or both Paul and Nigel) were present and the discussion got heated, but only due to the passion we feel for our side of the debate.

I would recommend you stand back David and look at some of the discussions that have taken place on here, where the same parties were involved.

[drpeterwardle]

I dont read metal detecting threads on Britarch and I have not looked at the boards on PAS or UKDN forum. I have an "obligation" to read them on BAJR.

I suspect if I was in David's shoes I would be a bit more vitroilic.

Peter Wardle

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle


I suspect if I was in David's shoes I would be a bit more vitroilic.

Peter Wardle


I suspect I would be too...I admire David's patience...