 |
| For a US metal detectorist it is 'obvious' that it's those on the other side in the conservation debate who just 'don't get it' |
Wrecka (Oct 17, 2017, 09:56 PM)
Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: More Metal Detecting Along the Oregon Trailtreasuresalvor (Oct 19, 2017, 08:50 PM)
WTF is this? Some troll steals treasurenet thread to write his article? The enemy is among us.It is a discussion in the public domain Mr 'Salvor'.... One guy thinks he's sussed-out what the concern is:
RustyGold (Oct 20, 2017, 01:30 PM)
So is it theft when one takes artifacts to a museum so it can be on display for generations to see and understand the hardships these people went through?Did you read the text I wrote Mr 'Gold' or is that a kneejerk reaction just because you see others have? This was not about 'ownership'. Meanwhile the fact that the link appeared at all on a treasure hunting forum evokes dismay and derision:
There are tons of stuff in museums around the world where the way the artifacts were obtained could be questionable.
Hey gang, Recall that Jim (Idaho) and I found ourselves quoted on the archie's blog. We were examples of how md'rs are horrible, etc....Well, I couldn't help myself. I submitted a comment on that page (even though several years old). And got a reply ! The archie has been fair enough to dialog back and forth . Check it out. Scroll to the bottom comments portion, and see the back and forth. A fascinating look at purist archie's mindsets.
Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: More Metal Detecting Along the Oregon Trail
Paul, I offered a challenge to you. To specify a defined stance of yours . To avoid rabbit trails. And scrutinize "JUST THAT" vs hobbyist metal detecting. It seems you have chosen not to post that challenge on your blog.
ReplyDeleteYou say: " ... As for logic, if he's [Tom] not understood the argument that he is opposing, then he is severely hindered in finding a logical response...."
When you put your views outside of any critique, and don't give the dissenter space to show he has indeed "understood" THEN SURE: You win. Because you have the microphone, so-to-speak. Quite convenient.
I say this with utmost respect. Because up till now, you had allowed a dissenting voice. I had hoped to cut away all the fluff. And just examine a defined statement such as : "Hobbyist type metal detecting is always harmful. They should never seek & collect old things, unless done under strict archaeological method.".
No takers, eh ? :)
"I offered a challenge to you. To specify a defined stance of yours"
ReplyDeleteWell, that is about as 'coherent' as any utterance of his president, Donald female- groper Trump. In fact, as I pointed out in the comments to the four-year odd post, I did indeed put forward my position.
But this post is not about why what many detectorists do to the contexts they exploit for collectables, but the way a group of them discuss among themselves the fact that others raise concerns.
I think Mr Tanner has had more than ample space in the comments section of this blog to show that he has not the slightest inkling of an idea what on earth the issues are here. He therefore is unable to provide any kind of a logical response (relating to the logic of the argument he is attempting to oppose) but is simply raising straw man arguments unrelated to what was actually said ("Hobbyist type metal detecting...", compare that with what I actually wrote: http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2013/08/more-metal-detecting-along-oregon-trail.html?showComment=1509020566876#c7728421352842976550). Mr Tanner is just wasting everybody's time with his simplistic attempts to twist a nuanced argument into a generalised phrase.
You say: ".... In fact, as I pointed out in the comments to the four-year odd post, I did indeed put forward my position. ..."
ReplyDeleteSure you have put forward your position. But you are not willing to allow it to be scrutinized by an opposing view. And I "did indeed" put forward some scant rebuttal comments . Which, as admitted, is of course NOT conclusive. In the space of few posts/paragraphs I've had. Compared to years of blog work on your part. But as I said : I was willing to enter into a concise pro/con . Provided the ground rules are agreed upon : A concise question being addressed.
You say: "I think Mr Tanner has had more than ample space in the comments section of this blog to show that he has not the slightest inkling of an idea ..... "
No. A handful of posts/paragraphs on the md'r behalf is NOT enough for Tanner to have shown you or the readers. That A) Tanner understands your stance, and B) that there is good food for thought to the contrary. Do you see your fallacy here ? In your mind's eyes: Anyone who disagrees with you "doesn't understand you". Perhaps they understand. But simply disagree. Perhaps you have something to learn .
You say: "... simplistic attempts to twist a nuanced argument into a generalised phrase. ..."
Your nuanced arguments DO LEAD to the generalized phrase. Namely that: "Hobbyist md'ing, as it done now anywhere, for old objects, without archaeological rigor, is inherently harmful and damaging". So without any other rabbit trails , THAT is the statement I want to challenge.
PS: I used to metal detect with an archaeologist from time to time. He has a nice button and reale collection.