"Ancient Coins" Blog Rejects my Comment

.
A blogger who purports to be writing about "Ancient Coins" wrote a(nother) text about me (I am not an ancient coin, nor an ancient coin collector). In reply sent him a comment:

why not give your readers a LINK to where on my blog I say this "misleading" thing? Or are you afraid that they will read what I actually say and check it out? http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/10/accg-international-affairs-chair-on.html There are some questions to you there now, too, just what kind of section 2606 "MOU" does what Nevine El-Aref who you cite here as an authority says?

Well, it of course did not get posted (can't have links to my blog over on a coiney blog can we?). This is the reason given:

Paul, This is in my view mere propaganda as presently written, and I won't accept anything in that vein for appearance in my blog. If you rewrite it to focus on specific issues, such as I believe you have with what Nevine El-Aref said in her article, I will reconsider this decision.

Well, it is not "propaganda" at all to suggest when talking about my blog, he gives a link to it so people can see what was actually written. Note that when somebody refers to the El-Aref article as "proof" that I am wrong about the nature of the announced document, but then finding himself unable to answer the question about whether what El-Aref says can be squared in any way with what he claims, he refuses to post the comment. What a surprise. Typical coiney intellectual shallowness.

Anyway that is a laugh, he won't accept anything of "that nature" (alleged "propaganda") on his "ancient coins" blog, when it is full of anti-archaeologist, or anti-Barford, or anti-State Department, and anti-gubn'mint-bureaucracy propaganda, (together with "string them up on the lampost along Constitution Avenue" calls to arms). In fact everything BUT the titular ancient coins.

UPDATE 26th Oct 2011: The State Department has clarified the nature of the proposed document, as I pointed out the information that was being received was clear that it is not the "type of MOU made under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention for import restrictions on certain categories of cultural materials". The DoS clarifies that "if the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt requests an agreement pursuant to Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the Department of State would announce receipt of such a request in the Federal Register. This procedure is the only means currently available to a country wishing U.S. import restrictions on its cultural property".