|"You are not very nice, so there!"|
John is right, Barford shows very anti-detecting views and his blog posts and comments on other blogs let everyone see this [...] Basically if you are not an archaeologist you are not worthy of saving history and even if you are an archaeologist you can still find yourself the victim of his foul, acid tongue attacks. Not a very nice chap.We are not going to play with him, so there ! The relevance of that remark to the topic under discussion is known only to its author. The comment of mine to which that was ostensibly a reply is that not very many of the finds artefact hunters are hoiking out of the historical record are actually 'saved history' because PAS figures indicate they simply disappear without record. As I said, that does not seem to concern those "responsible detectorists" that "support the PAS".
The people of Cyprus, any of them that are reading that thread, must be getting really confused by now. They can see that the person who is accused of being the 'nasty' one has been responding to the original points made by Dr.Vassos Karageorghis and John Barbour perfectly civilly and presenting supporting facts and figures to back up what he says. Those who want to be seen as the real cuddly friendly history savers are behaving in a needlessly aggressive and childish fashion, engaging in irrelevant mud-slinging. At times it seems talking to a group of special needs children would probably be easier than explaining simple facts to some UK metal detectorists. Real UK Ambassadors of the Hobby they are.
QED. I wonder if Mr Baines ever thinks about the sagacity of that old adage about not opening one's mouth in case all doubt disappears. In his little moan ('Paul Barford, the archaeological world's biggest let down' [sic] Andy's UK metal detecting blog Wednesday, 4 February 2015) he reckons I am engaging in what he calls "foul mouthed outbursts" and a "disgusting rant". Basically it seems he is knee-jerk annoyed that I said that explaining issues about preserving that past "to a group of special needs children would probably be easier than explaining simple facts to some UK metal detectorists". If I had said "explaining things to my cat [or my left boot] would probably be easier than explaining simple facts to some UK metal detectorists" would he take that as being in some way offensive to all cats and footware?