16th January 2008, 09:54 AM
Gary, first please for goodness' sake pay a bit more attention to whom you are replying. Austin and I have been making very different points.
Second, I did not misquote you, and I certainly didn't seek to misrepresent you. I expect you don't realise that it's rather insulting to suggest that I did. I quoted you as saying:
I accuse all archaeologists in my view of professional negligence.
In full, the paragraph I quoted said:
I accuse all archaeologists in my view of professional negligence. "All" meaning they that donât utilize the skills available to them to get out the maximum of understanding of the given project from a resource of volunteers who offer their services for free. Where many prefer to wear blinkers than face reality.
I accuse many in my view of professional jealousy and using class and degrees as a crutch to justify their motives. I accuse many in my view of stubbornly digging in their heals and not recognising there are others out there who can add to the archaeological knowledge and are stuck in their dinosaur ways. I accuse many in my view all who fail to recognise the work that is being done to promote good practise within the detecting community of being irresponsible. I have also given evidence on certain negligence and bad pratise and have had those people removed from their position.
That is not defamation or misrepresentation. It is a perfectly valid quote. Perhaps you didn't quite mean what you wrote, perhaps you regret writing it (in which a statement to that effect might be constructive), but don't pretend you didn't say what you said by casting aspersions against my name. That [u]is</u> my name, the one I use in my professional life, where honest writing is very important.
Third, please, please for goodness' sake drop the class card. It is an irrelevant, totally inaccurate smokescreen. To answer your question directed to Austin but in my name, a poll on the detectorist forums about what class archaeologists are would only tell you what detectorists assumed about archaeologists. It wouldn't tell you what class archaeologists are unless you consider being an archaeologist automatic qualification to the middle classes.
Finally Gary, any chance you could answer my question about the detectorists on Time Team now?
Oz, drop the campagn to name names. Gary referred to an isolated incident and no-one wouldn't acknowledge that there have been [u]at least</u> a couple of instances of bad practice in the past. In the context of this debate, it's totally irrelevant, an old style defense from the detectorist camp of 'look, look: one of your lot did something bad once too!'. Not helpful.
Second, I did not misquote you, and I certainly didn't seek to misrepresent you. I expect you don't realise that it's rather insulting to suggest that I did. I quoted you as saying:
I accuse all archaeologists in my view of professional negligence.
In full, the paragraph I quoted said:
I accuse all archaeologists in my view of professional negligence. "All" meaning they that donât utilize the skills available to them to get out the maximum of understanding of the given project from a resource of volunteers who offer their services for free. Where many prefer to wear blinkers than face reality.
I accuse many in my view of professional jealousy and using class and degrees as a crutch to justify their motives. I accuse many in my view of stubbornly digging in their heals and not recognising there are others out there who can add to the archaeological knowledge and are stuck in their dinosaur ways. I accuse many in my view all who fail to recognise the work that is being done to promote good practise within the detecting community of being irresponsible. I have also given evidence on certain negligence and bad pratise and have had those people removed from their position.
That is not defamation or misrepresentation. It is a perfectly valid quote. Perhaps you didn't quite mean what you wrote, perhaps you regret writing it (in which a statement to that effect might be constructive), but don't pretend you didn't say what you said by casting aspersions against my name. That [u]is</u> my name, the one I use in my professional life, where honest writing is very important.
Third, please, please for goodness' sake drop the class card. It is an irrelevant, totally inaccurate smokescreen. To answer your question directed to Austin but in my name, a poll on the detectorist forums about what class archaeologists are would only tell you what detectorists assumed about archaeologists. It wouldn't tell you what class archaeologists are unless you consider being an archaeologist automatic qualification to the middle classes.
Finally Gary, any chance you could answer my question about the detectorists on Time Team now?
Oz, drop the campagn to name names. Gary referred to an isolated incident and no-one wouldn't acknowledge that there have been [u]at least</u> a couple of instances of bad practice in the past. In the context of this debate, it's totally irrelevant, an old style defense from the detectorist camp of 'look, look: one of your lot did something bad once too!'. Not helpful.