 |
| Cockroach |
In a comment on another blog you write: "I find it interesting how purveyors of BS always somehow shoot themselves in the foot at the onset" Your concern with "depth" however belies your own shallow approach - you failed to check what was the sentence following the fragment that in his blog piece your tekkie mate took OUT OF CONTEXT in the text to which you respond. I think it is rather you that shot yourself in the foot writing without actually checking what it is that is being discussed (and how).This is typical tekkkies seem to think that a belief repeated often enough becomes the truth. There are texts that raise uncomfortable questions about current policies on artefact hunting and collecting, so instead of examining the underlying premises of them (often set out in a form allowing that to be done), tekkies and collectors label them 'lies' and those raising the questions 'liars' and imagine the issue is resolved. I would say that such an approach in itself reveals that the criticism to which they have no substantive answers has merit.
I would contest your hasty assessment that Dr Samuel Hardy is merely a 'purveyor of BS', the paper referred to carefully sets out the methods used and references the sources utilised for critical review. All the tekkies can do is write with insulting 'Daily Mail adjectivisation' - but without citing a SHRED of evidence that Hardy is in error. I think that is rather telling, even if you do not.
UPDATE 18th Jan 2016
No substantive arguments, so ad hominems are used as a substitute - in further comments the metal detectorists compare Dr Sam Hardy to 'cockroaches that come out at night'. Yes, as the blog's title has it, metal detecting is based on several attitudes, and one of them is disrespect, disrespect for the remains of the past that are merely pocketed and disrespect for people like Sam Hardy, Nigel Swift, myself and others who question the effects of these practices. Metal detectorists are in general a disrespectful bunch of loud-mouthed, self-centred knowledge-thieves with a misplaced sense of entitlement.
.jpg)
3 comments:
Why don't you add my blog as a link.
[I presume that is a poorly-punctuated direct question]
The main reason is that the rambling texts on your rather odd little blog tend to be more illustrative of your own losing-it, Donald-Trump-like character than anything else, and the blog is very clearly phrased in a manner calculated to provoke a reaction. So Nigel and I have decided neither to link to it, or react to the Daily-Mail adjectivisation and talk of 'traitors' and all the other alt-reality hate speech there.
Let's note what you wrote:
John Howland on January 17, 2018 at 7:05 pm said:
Of course, the genie is out of the bottle and we all know what these people are up to. That said, I’ve offered [Mr] Barford a link to my blog, provided of course he conducts himself in an educated, civil, and well-mannered way. Any of his usual histrionics, insults, or failing to raise his debate above that of an uncultured Russian peasant trying hard to be an academic, and he gets the Bum’s Rush. He lacks manners and self-control. I hope he will control his demons and act accordingly.
Well, on my own blog, I do not have to worry about not conforming to the Howland-household standards of 'well-mannered' in the face of your ad personam nonsense about me. And really with people of the calibre of Dick Stout, James Fielding and Peter Tompa advertising your blog, surely you have no need of an 'uncultured Russian [um, I live in Warsaw] peasant trying hard to be an academic' to spread the word further. I mean it is not as if you have ever actually come up with any form of substantive arguments that would interest the average reader of this blog. Should you achieve that - which I sincerely doubt you can - I will link to them and discuss them.
I'm reminded of a well known testimonial - "This man is looking for a job. Let him."
Post a Comment