It seems to me that Peter Tompa has revealed his total inability to argue his case. One wonders why he decided to become a lawyer.
"Okay, you've had your comment on this blog. Sorry, but you are back to being banned".Previously, Bailey and Ehrenberg's cultural property lawyer admits that for him:
what is licit or not seems to be fairly uncleara statement with which anyone following the debates will agree with me is not the case. As I said in my last comment before he banned me for saying it on a blog that is supposed to be about "cultural property" issues:
what is licit in terms of the international convention(s) is perfectly clear - Art 3 of the 1970 Convention for example, despite what some US dealers assert for the reasons I give on my blog the term illicit is being used correctly here. If antiquities from Syria and Iraq are leaving any of the conflict zone, it is immaterial if Mr Welsh calls them "illicit" or "illegal", I hope we can agree (can't we?) that this should not be happening in any sector of the ancient coins market. That is what Neil Brodie was writing about [...]. The satellite photos do indeed show the "mass destruction" of your title - the point about the deception is the failure to address the question seriously why this is happening and what it means for the action of individuals.
:
No comments:
Post a Comment