23rd September 2005, 10:52 AM
Peter
You must know very well that the themes discussed on this site recur frequently and often cross over from thread to thread. I am respecting David's wishes not to be defamatory. However, I have a natural dislike when threads are locked (I spoke against such some months ago with the issue of the term 'pikey'). Re the locked thread - I do agree that it was getting a bit out of hand and personal. I think that David's wishes and your sage advice would have been heeded. No need to grab the football and say I'm not playing.
I was very glad that Simon responded. That was great. He made some very good points and rightly sent a shot across the bows. However, I didn't much like his naming people and agree with Mtgorry147 above. I also didn't like his swipes in the final paragraph - it diluted the good points and probably p*ssed off many of the contributors here that have proudly stated their ambition to remain at the coal face.
So, why am I posting? The model site that was quoted was successful in many ways, especially coming to publication, but having a cursory read of said report I found it highly ironic that it brought up some of our recurrent themes: the balance of professional, volunteer and student archaeologists, issues of sample size and the treatment of human remains. No dig at PCA, just observation and comment.
back on my head
You must know very well that the themes discussed on this site recur frequently and often cross over from thread to thread. I am respecting David's wishes not to be defamatory. However, I have a natural dislike when threads are locked (I spoke against such some months ago with the issue of the term 'pikey'). Re the locked thread - I do agree that it was getting a bit out of hand and personal. I think that David's wishes and your sage advice would have been heeded. No need to grab the football and say I'm not playing.
I was very glad that Simon responded. That was great. He made some very good points and rightly sent a shot across the bows. However, I didn't much like his naming people and agree with Mtgorry147 above. I also didn't like his swipes in the final paragraph - it diluted the good points and probably p*ssed off many of the contributors here that have proudly stated their ambition to remain at the coal face.
So, why am I posting? The model site that was quoted was successful in many ways, especially coming to publication, but having a cursory read of said report I found it highly ironic that it brought up some of our recurrent themes: the balance of professional, volunteer and student archaeologists, issues of sample size and the treatment of human remains. No dig at PCA, just observation and comment.
back on my head