Thursday, 15 June 2017

The Naked Truth


The Naked Truth (St Louis)
 has a nice pair of torches
I am blocked from commenting on the misleadingly-named Cultual Property Observer blog, run by a US-based lobbyist for the international dug-up antiquities trade. So under one post about the five-year extension of US-Peru bilateral cultural property agreement under the CCPIA we read there are 'no comments', this is the seventh I have sent to the discussion and which has been rejected/ignored:
  US-Peru encourages information sharing to identify sources of jeopardy to Peru's Cultural Heritage. Have you or your collector and dealer friends shared any information which would help identify these threats, Mr Tompa? Or are you just concerned to attempt to redirect attention to other issues because you want to have any restrictions removed from free-for-all commerce which would include the fruits of plunder and smuggling?
Your refusal to engage in any discussion of this and any other related matters here is clearly indicative to everybody of your (plural) TRUE aims. Shame on the lot of you - you claim altruism, but the rest of us can see that the sole motor here is greed. 
There will be no answer because deep in his black soul, the lobbyist knows this is the naked truth.

at

2 comments:

  1. John16 June 2017 at 07:51

    Could it be because you are a shit-stirrer and blocked from most forums?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Paul Barford16 June 2017 at 09:09

    The problem is "John" that the lobbyists, dealers, collectors and artefact hunters consider that filling the public domain with a smoke screen of steaming stinky piles of hypocritical and self-obsessed verbal excrement is enough to drive off the thin-skinned among their critics. On the other hand there are those who think their verbal crap-piles are worth prodding to see (and demonstrate to others) what empty logic lies underneath. Because that invariably is the case, isn't it? I guess those who defend themselves and what they do by piling it on might not like that. But let them not call self-serving debate-dodging censorship anything else than what it is.

    The question is whether people who claim to be 'interested in the past' and 'preserving it' actually have been sharing information with the US and Peruvian authorities about threats to it (the whole purpose of the CCPIA MOU public consultation). I think that is a perfectly innocuous question with only two answers. Of course it would not be an innocuous question for people that say one thing but in fact do another (or want one thing while publicly affirming that they want the opposite). These people would be just liars but asking a question could only be considered 's***-stirring' if it was asked by someone who KNOWS them to be liars of somebody who knows they are telling LIES. In that case, one could understand why any liars would prefer to avoid getting into a detailed discussion about any aspect of what they do.

    If you consider me a S**-stirrer "John", I must ask what does that make you?


    ReplyDelete