28th November 2005, 08:03 PM
For what its worth, I think the Digger letter was a bit student-like and probably lacked any kind of impact that the author might have intended. I agree that this sort of thing can make The Digger seem a bit immature and 'champagne socialist'. BUT, and this is a big BUT, in contrast to Beer Beast, I dont think this typifies the general pitch in the Digger. If anything I thought the Digger was going a bit wishy-washy since it changed editor (look at all the qualifications in some of the articles these days such as when a 'certain unit' was struck off the IFA rao list, and Arch Sols was only mentioned in the next paragraph: that was carefully edited stuff). The Letters pages are surely different: they are individual opinions.
People are pointing out historical aspects of things at the moment, so lets consider the Digger newsletter itself: It was at its outset intended to be irreverant, and punk in its attitude. It has always been well informed and always on the side of the exploited. If anything, this has been diluted as it has become more established. If people dont like the picture of US that the Digger portrays they should stop moaning and f*** off and write another newsletter, you might want to call it Current Archaeology or something rosy like that.
Gumbo
People are pointing out historical aspects of things at the moment, so lets consider the Digger newsletter itself: It was at its outset intended to be irreverant, and punk in its attitude. It has always been well informed and always on the side of the exploited. If anything, this has been diluted as it has become more established. If people dont like the picture of US that the Digger portrays they should stop moaning and f*** off and write another newsletter, you might want to call it Current Archaeology or something rosy like that.
Gumbo