Over in the left sidebar, about half-way down is a link to something called 'About posting comments to this blog' and point 6 of the former says I am not interested in publishing anonymous comments. I write my blog under my own name and I see no reason why anyone having something worthwhile to add cannot put their name under his opinions and give some kind of a chance to see who is writing from one sort of background. Otherwise we end up like the situations over on Andy Baines' blog with a whole seies of anonymous posters, including the 'Kinky Pink Volkswagen' character, the one posing as a pro-collecting archaeologist ('Sock Puppet Steve') and several alter egos of the same moron from the southwest. Total chaos, and totally pointless trying to have a sensible discussion with such chimeras.
I make (as is my right) exceptions to my own rules and so it was that a person calling themselves "Mr X" got a comment published here last week. I thought I'd had comments from this account earlier in the year [when the bloke - a coin dealer - had signed his earlier posts and explained the aberrant account name], so I approved and answered this one. There then followed some hair-spliting and time consuming word games about the 1970 UNESCO Convention and US law (and whether either of them require a record of 'provenance ' - which they do not), during which I gained the impression that the commentator was in fact just out to be provocative and annoying. I then realised that this account was not one that had earlier been used on this blog, but was a relatively new one, opened this month, and the writer is using a server near Sydney Australia.
Yesterday the same person spent some time looking through a whole series of posts and then posted a question, similar to the beginning of the last series, on the wording of the Code for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales. It seems to me from the search pattern of his reading that again this individual was seeking to set up a "gottcha" game with me, and I really am in no mood for any of that. Mr"X", I have stopped making an exception for you, you are abusing my goodwill with your provocation, address your question about UK Codes of Practice etc to the PAS. No more of your comments will be posted here from that account name. That goes for anyone else who cannot be bothered to open an account which can be shown to be a real person who is responsible for the words they write here.
1 comment:
"Mr X" (using the same account name) suggests:
"I think we both know why you won't post or answer my question. The fact is, as I have noticed before, that you simply don't like effective criticism".
He may "think" what he likes, I direct him to the title of this post, and suggest that the comment thread to which I refer [http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2014/10/cultural-property-obfuscation-from.html] was not an example of "effective criticism" but simple word-twisting for effect.
In any case, if the aim was to provide readers of my blog with his "effective criticism" of what I write (which I welcome), there is no reason whatsoever to do it anonymously. The fact that he still does not want to be transparent suggests to me that his aims are far from the intellectual altruism he claims.
Goodbye Mr X, go and moan on the collectors' forums about how you are allegedly banned" not because you are trying to be disruptive and waste my time, but "because you are too clever" for me. They are gullible enough to believe you.
BTW the wording of the document you asked me for is freely available online from several sources, you do not need to ask me what it is. In any case, instead of hair splitting about what the definition is of responsible detecting vis a vis unploughed sites, the main point of the post to which you were commenting was another point entirelly, the definition of what it is Responsible Detecting to report and record and how and why.
As I say, the PAS are paid to deal with such requests for information, I am not. I am sure they'll help you if they think your query is a genuine search for information and not time-wasting.
Post a Comment