Arguing the Point with Coineys

I think everyone is getting fed up with the nonsense being spouted by the US-based sellers and buyers of dugup antiquities hoiked out of the archaeological record in some other country. Like a scratched record they spend their time (and collectors' money) going on and on about the same thing. Their limp intellects cannot seem to grasp some basic concepts, and they find it easier to repeat what their fellows tell them than think things out for themselves. So it is that these dullards have got it into their heads that  ancient artefacts currently protected by memoranda between the U.S. and certain foreign governments are not legally placed there since the basis of those restrictions is allegedly merely "place of production" rather than where they are found.  This they claim is a violation of the CPIA and the President himself needs to answer for this. This is rich coming from a group that likes to present itself as avocational 'scholars' engaged in enlightening themselves and others.

The latest bout of this nonsense from the coineys is recorded in the comments section of a post on Nathan Elkins' blog a rant that is continued on a lobbyist's own blog. Now Nathan Elkins replies ("Import Restrictions on Ancient Coins", Monday, March 4, 2013). I have been following this discussion for more time than I care to remember, and find the coiney case to be shallow and simplistic (probably why shallow and simplistic coineys prefer it). The case made by the ACCG is based on a selective use of the data and failing to see the actual topic of discussion in the broader context. As Professor Elkins notes:

pretending the other side of the evidence doesn't exist is hardly scholarly. My students know this. One cannot come up with a conclusion and cite only convenient evidence while disregarding everything else. It is through the weighing of all available data that interpretations and conclusions must be made.

Having examined the case Sayles presented to the CPAC and that with which Elkins rebuffed (falsified) it, I am quite sure that the coineys are in the wrong. They are once again trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, and their motives are painfully transparent. Elkins concludes with a few words which past experience has shown time and time again that the coineys simply cannot accept. Perhaps the reader might spend a few moments reflecting why that might be: 

Rather than lawsuits and sniping over the interpretation of CPIA, would not a better approach be to recognize that indiscriminate attitudes in the sourcing of ancient coins promotes looting and destroys historical information?  And recognizing that, would it not be a better approach to engage in a productive dialogue about how ethical collecting can exist without maintaining a damaging status quo? 

What would a truly productive dialogue mean for the trade in dugup ancient coins? Would it be a new beginning, or would it rather be an end to something which in its present form is in any case unsustainable? I think we can all see what the coineys think about the implications of a productive dialogue on the subject of working hard for more ethical collecting.