A Challenge to Apologists of Metal Detectorist Collection-Driven Exploitation of the UK Archaeological Record

Eric Moron and his metal detecting
mates think it is enough to repeat the
same words time after time and 
people will believe them

British metal detectorist John Winter (re) publishes an article  'carefully put together by a great detectorist' (Rod Blunt) which sets out his thoughts on 'Metal Detecting – The Hobby and its Detractors'. Underneath it is a comment where on John Stokes reckons

Yes, things have changed, to some degree, opinions sadly have not, as far as some are concerned, including one very large thorn in the side. He will never admit to being wrong, nor will he change the opinions of those who actually know the truth.

I do not know how a metal detectorist goes about constructing his or her version of the truth and their opnions, there are those of us (not all of us have degrees) who base them on rational argumentation and analsis of various pieces of information.

Mr Blunt presented his views in 2007, Mr Winter republished them verbatim on his own blog in 2011 and reckons that 'in 10 years little has changed … time for a reprise, I think!'.

Possibly Mr Blunt's views on what the 'detractors' of Collection-Driven Exploitation of the Archaeological Record have failed to make any headway outside the hobby because his arguments are palpably false. If a metal detectorist wants to convince us that there is validity to what he says, then they have to address the comments made by those who have read his text and thought the points he makes through. There are a number of issues with the construction and contents of his narrative, why, therefore, does he not follow up the initial effort to address these concerns? It is not enough for unthinking dullards to dismiss attempts to put another side of an argument and properly debate the issues as a 'thorn in our side'. Here are some comments made on the original text which metal detectorists pretend not to see.

John Winter on the "Detractors of Metal Detecting"
PACHI Sunday, 13 November 2011

This is why Mr Blunt is wrong. Merely repeating unsupportable arguments verbatim, time after time, does not make them any the more acceptable. Mr Winter and Mr Blunt are perfectly welcome to engage in discussion of the points I raised (as they were as long as six years ago) in the comments under this post - or on their own websites. Let us see what they come up with ten years later... or has 'nothing changed' in their own understanding of the situation in that time?