Hi all, Extralegal: not regulated or sanctioned by law. (Webster's)Here it can be seen to what extent ACCG members feel the need for a "balanced bibliography" in their discussions of portable antiquity issues. At the time this was written there were (at least) FOUR texts on the topic of this paper, two enthusiastically welcoming it (Fincham and Tompa), one which the author of the forum post attempts to persuade coineys "misses the point". But one text is not mentioned at all, even though its author is specifically mentioned in that post. A day earlier "Barford" had posted a text on this blog which suggests that there is no "pattern" unveiled, no rot at the top has been "unveiled". How typical that the coiney propagandist does not tell the coiney forums that this fourth text is out there proposng a different view of Adler and Urice's production.
or, (if you choose to avoid the main point):
Anyone who has had anything written about them by Barford et al. will be familiar with how everything is twisted to their own ends. It's obvious now that the rot goes close to the top!
Tunnel vision: *2* *:* extreme narrowness of viewpoint*: narrowmindedness*; /also/ *:* single-minded concentration on one objective (Webster)
The connection between what Adler and Urice claim to have "unveiled" and collectors and dealers having "anything written about them by Barford et al." is unclear to me. Let it be noted however that typically n0-questions-asked collectors/dealers accuse "archaeologists" or specific groups of them of something or other, but most frequently without backing that up with any kind of reference where the reader can check the truth of the assertion. I make assertions about no-questions-asked trade and collecting of artefacts based not on fictional generalisations and stereotypes as in their case, but referring to specific cases made available through the wondrous properties of the internet and other media. At the basis of what I write is a reference to where any reader who so cares can check out where I got the information from and, more importantly see it for themselves in its original context. Whether or not "everything is twisted to [my] own ends" can of course be judged by the reader.
As is my prerogative as a blogger, I present my own personal 'take' on what I see, but I am not shy of indicating where I saw it, why should I be when it is what I am writing about? The author of the above-mentioned forum post however apparently does not want HIS readers to be aware that there was a fourth text he did not mention - still less explain where my analysis of what Urice and Adler wrote is wrong, and indeed intellectually dishonest.
When are the no-questions-asked dealers' lobby going to engage in honest and open debate of the issues and not shut their own discussions away on closed-access forums like Moneta-L and AncientArtifacts, and fob the rest of us off with their habitual glib denials, avoiding uncomfortable issues and feelgood propaganda?