In reply to a certain infamous press release, archaeoblogger Doug Rocks MacQueen ('Petty Bull%£%* and Open Access Pitbulls: How to control your message online') observes:
Basically, the ACCG has turned a discussion about Open Access into a smear campaign against AIA’s stances regarding the trade of antiquities.Doug presents to his readership the options available to prevent his group's concerns being misrepresented by the ranting dullards of the ACCG. He decided to move the material to which the ACCG links:
It was decided that instead of talking past the ACCG we would do what anyone does in a conversation when the subject changes, talk about the new subject. Thus we changed the webpage of ours discussing the boycott of AIA, that they linked to, to a page discussing the different views of the antiquities trade, click on the link in their press release and see. Yes, we changed the webpage on them. If the ACCG wants to discuss collecting and trading then we are willing to meet them in the middle. It is actually a very balanced view of the subject that we got from MATRIX. It is not trying to say the ACCG is wrong just a look at the different points that people make about the subject.Good for the Open Access website. At least one group of archaeologist who are not going to let artefact hunters and collectors call the shots. So, will there be discussion fro the ACCG on the varying viewpoints on collecting? Sadly, since material discussed here cannot be reached from the AGGC press release as promised (the link going to the promised open access discussion of the antiquity trade on the Open Access Archaeology page does not work), we'll never know...
Lobboblogger Tompa replies to this here:
'Closed "Open Access" Debate?' THEN the ACCG wasted some more of its sponsors' money by releasing a SECOND press release on the same matter. What buffoons.