Sunday 10 November 2013

Focus on UK Metal Detecting: Allegations of "Twisting"


It seems not all metal detectorists can learn difficult manual and mental tasks such as how to use a search engine. One such individual ("fiddiwebb"10/10/13 at 10:51 am) who stresses that he's not an NCMD member (as if anyone cared) has just been wittering away uncritically and vacantly spreading the received (tekkie) wisdom that over on "Mr Barefords (sic) updated blog": 
Like you say he will twist and manipulate his stories to suit his ends maybe that is why he removed his recent reference to one WilliamG1971 on his blog concerning the Roman lead coffin affair. WilliamG1971 commented on the Leicester Mercury  but it was found that addy had been stolen from a twitter users account who lives in Peru to post his comments without the original users permission, just shows how certain people will use "dirty tricks".
"It was found"? Dirty tricks? Well, it is true that over on the Leicester Mercury one "UncleTom1" aka "Pedro" (on October 27 2013, 12:54PM) wrote accusingly:
"Well I hope the "real" WilliamG1971 from Peru whose twitter addy has been stolen and used to post here knows!!! Shame on you H A !!!".
Whatever a shallow metal detectorist, eager to jump to conclusions without doing any research thinks, that does not make it true. Certainly Fiddiwebb had not made the effort to check whether my post really had disappeared. It has in fact been here all along: "Focus on Metal Detecting: Allegations and Complaints" Friday, 25 October 2013 (duh). Nobody hid it, nobody paid any attention to what "UncleTom1" ("Pedro") had said. 

A few moments clicking finds a number of instances when individuals write under the screen name of "WilliamG1971" (one guesses they all have the fairly common first name William, a second name beginning in 'G' and were born in 1971) - but this does not mean they are the same "addy"s, still less that one has been "stolen" from the other, or that one person is using their screen name without the "permission" of the other. Like these two:
William Galvis: https://twitter.com/williamG1971 (I presume that's "Pedro's" Peruvian one)
William Graves: http://www.tamworthherald.co.uk/people/WilliamG1971/profile.htmlThis would seem to be the WilliamG1971 writing elsewhere about the Tamworth coffin - as he does in the Tamworth Herald. He's also writing here and his surname appears here, in the Leicester Herald.
So it is not Heritage Action, and "Uncle Tom1" (One-Post-and-Run-"Pedro") owes them an apology. As does Fiddiwebb (who by virtue of what he unthinkingly wrote above additionally owes me one too). It is not really inordinately difficult for a person of normal intelligence to check a few facts before making facile accusations - you do not need a university degree to do that. The literary and cognitive skills required are really rather basic. So why do metal detectorists like Fiddiwebb find it so difficult to employ them? Can we really believe anything these people tell us when they report even simple things?

TAKE A GOOD LOOK at this behaviour, for these are precisely the sort of people the PAS wants to grab more and more millions of public quid to make into the "partners" of the British Museum, archaeological heritage professionals and to whom they want us all to entrust the exploitation of the archaeological record. Take a good look and decide what you think about that as a "policy".  


UPDATE 10/10/13
I really do wonder why debating the heritage means we continually get bogged down in pointless discussion with persistently obsessive and uncomprehending inadequates. The metal detectorist with a silly invented screen name and who is unable to get mine right now insists:
If you check Mr Bareford there are two instances of the screen name WilliamG1971, one whose twitter account it belongs too and is resident in Peru and one who used that screen name without the original owners consent and created new accounts and commented on the Leicester Mercury and Tamworth Herald........ Now I wonder who the "real" WilliamG1971 is Mr Bareford,
I would say they both are, one is William Gavin, the other William Graves. There is a third: williamg1971: Straight forward, honest guy aus Virginia Beach Virginia who I am sure fiddiwebb is now going also to accuse of identity theft. As no doubt he is going to do in the case of the one from Norte de Santander, Colombia. But then are all the Fiddiwebbs on the Internet one and the same person? There seem a lot of them, like the one with all the 'private' sales on eBay, the one that has problems with his computer, the one looking for Hot UK Deals and a screwfix, the one who likes Norwegian folk music, the one who had an altercation with Jeb (who hasn't?) the one that likes ghost stories and psychic stuff, and also including the one that signs himself "Pedro" on the Piriform.com forum, and here on a camping forum, and here. Pedro, now wasn't that what UncleTom1 called himself?

But then does that mean that "fiddiwebb" has an alter ego "UncleTom1" - in which case, using the same argument as he adopts here, has he stolen that name from this "UncleTom1" in the States?  Or this one in Bavaria, or this one in Switzerland? You know, this is just getting ridiculous.  But that is exactly what trying to discuss anything sensibly with UK metal detectorists is, a ridiculous idea.

And you knew this was coming...


TAKE A GOOD LOOK at this behaviour, for these are precisely the sort of people the PAS wants to grab more and more millions of public quid to make into the "partners" of the British Museum, archaeological heritage professionals and to whom they want us all to entrust the exploitation of the archaeological record. Take a good look and decide what you think about that as a "policy".  


6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone would bother stealing an email address to discredit them when just giving a link to their forum does it so well.

Anonymous said...

Having made the false accusation they've now hidden the thread. Elegant and witty.

Paul Barford said...

Totally typical. They say I am the one "twisting" what they say - but then if that is the case, why are they hiding the "evidence" that would show the enquiring reader that this is so? Where is the logic in that?

Of course the alternative is that the logic is that it's the only way they can see to maintain the facade.

"TAKE A GOOD LOOK at this behaviour, for these are precisely the sort of people the PAS wants to grab more and more millions of public quid to make into the "partners" of the British Museum, archaeological heritage professionals and to whom they want us all to entrust the exploitation of the archaeological record. Take a good look and decide what you think about that as a "policy"....".

Paul Barford said...

http://www.detectorist.co.uk/phpBB2/login.php?redirect=viewtopic.php&p=867896#867896

Detectorist.co.uk "SETTING THE STANDARD" - ha ha. yes, that is just about the "standard" of discussion we can all expect from UK metal detectorists all right. Zero.

And "Fiddiwebb" and "UncleTom1" both owe us both an apology still.

P2Pinvested said...

Paul, you turned your back on Britain and now you think you have the right to preach from your chair in Poland, how is this so ?

Paul Barford said...

Mr Baines,
I assume you are "passionately interested in the past", did you catch the posts here made over the weekend on:
Peru exhibition in Seatle (USA)
North Carolina Forests
Iraq Jewish archive
Perge sarcophagus in Geneva
Gospel of Judas going back to Egypt
Chinese collector's death
and the smuggled Syrian artefacts in Lebanon?

Do you think somebody "passionately interested in saving the past" from Poland has no right blogging news and their thoughts on those topics too?

I certainly consider I have a far greater "right" to express opinions on these topics than you lot for the things you say about me on metal detecting blogs and forums for my pains.

Try taking a look at the OTHER stuff on this blog. Are you all against that too?

 
Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.