26th May 2011, 09:02 PM
GnomeKing Wrote:The piont that was missed in this long disscusion is that is entirley possible for 'report witters' to completley re-invent the primary record when parts of dont fit thier narrative, budget, or level of knowledge.
I know for a fact that records ARE selectively discarded or re-written on this basis - sometimes with clear personal motivations, and never with open acknowledgement.
Yet AGAIN the value and technical expertise of Excavation Specialists/Fieldworkers is abused....
I feel just as agrevied as any unpaid musician or plagerised author, if my technical work is simply a plaything for so called 'managers', especially when they supuriously claim to conform to Standards.
Unitof1 is right...there is a systemic problem with the authenticity of Client reports, when there is no acceptance that technical documentation and field investigation are inviolable products of individual/collaborative Creative enterprise.
A call for a change in paradigm is a lonely howl in the wind - at least it is here in the Kingdom of the Deaf....
i have seen colluvium being used for a deposit on top of a hill; also the same feature recorded absolutely differently - responsibility for some of which devolves absolutely on the employer (that is agent in the field) but some of which devolves on the individuals. and in the latter instance, when one is told that it is X comparable with X in an adjacent trench a description bearing little relationship with that which the rest of site is using is of little use. that happens - believe me. too often. i believe in training, but also in learning.
Your Courage Your Cheerfulness Your Resolution
Will Bring US Victory
Will Bring US Victory