Apparently artefact collectors consider "outrageous and irresponsible" my remarks on their attempts to get a hounded New York dealer arrested for selling something which they do not like . So be it. Dealer Dave urges every member of a certain antiquities collecting discussion list to read what I write, tells them to feel suitably outraged and then instructs them what they should then do:
I urge that your feelings upon doing so be expressed by signing the petition and posting the fact that you have done so on this list, including a comment that the blogger in question inspired you to join the petition. I believe that this individual can only be deterred from such reckless posts by evidence that they lead to a public reaction unfavorable to his agenda.Of which the person writing this obviously has not the foggiest. Yes, dear collectors please put your name under this petition, show you go along yet again with what the DEALERs tell you to do. Here are some suitable sound effects to play while you are doing so.
On the other hand, you could start up your own campaign to generally clean up the antiquities market, smuggled items, clandestinely and illegally excavated items, fakes and all. I bet you do not though.
Vignette: Antiquity collectors rarely stick their necks out for better practice.
UPDATE:
Just look at that "petition" now, what a circus. The latest comment addressed to the authorities to get something done about the Hounded NY Antiquities Dealer by a bloke from LA is a real cracker. He communicates the following off-topic comments quite clearly prompted by Dealer Dave's remarks concerning my discussion of what lies behind this petition:
The only time 'wasted' here is trying to explain anything sensibly to folk that get something so simple as "sign a petition" round their neck so utterly. US Federal authorities are really going to sit up and take notice of such a ramble-shamble group aren't they? By the way, it is not "private ownership of antiquities" that is the problem, but where the antiquities getting into private hands are coming from and how they got onto the market that is the concern.# 66 [...] No matter where one stands on the issue of private ownership of antiquities, there is no place for fraud or fakes. [...] One may believe the ancient art market promotes looting but it does not have to, and most who own such objects repute looting and desire objets collected legally and well provenanced. As an archeaologists one may prefer the collection of marked replicas by the public but to defend forgers and those who sell fake is like defending the profoundly dishonest Heinrich Schliemann, father of field archaeology. He and his motives have left centuries of questions. In defending forgers , you defend the moustache on the mask of Agamemnon itself and all the questions and waisted (sic) time caused by dishonesty.
Continuing the roll-call of those libellously accusing the hounded NY dealer of "fraud" without substantiating their claim:
# 67 "Name not displayed", United Kingdom
# 68 Mr. Subramaniam Iyer, VA (really has lost the thread)
.jpg)
4 comments:
I did, so if I can, anyone can (should clarify I meant the clean up campaign, not signing the petition)
Dear Sir:
My name is Tonio Birbiglia. It has come to my attention that on Friday, 8 March 2013 you posted a comment I made on another site without my permission and without contacting me, for what seems only to defame me. A personal attack using my name was not warranted in any way The post was not directed to you or your forum. I therefore request you remove this comment from use on your personal blog. If not, I will be force to contact the webmaster of this blog site and file a complaint.
Mr Birbiglia,
the comment was made in the public domain, not another "site" but in a public petition which it was intended by its authors should be widely seen. In it, the people signing it make and fully publicly certain accusations addressed to a dealer in New York. Really, if you think that what you posted (yourself) in any way brings you discredit, then you should surely think twice before posting it.
So can I take it that you now regret what you wrote about the New York dealer that you banded together to hound? What made you change your mind?
As for your comments, if you look at what I actually wrote, I state that I believe that this comment was indeed addressed both to me and my blog (this is not a "forum") because it seemed to me that you are commenting directly on what Dave Welsh had earlier said specifically about me. If I have got that wrong, then please elucidate to which specific archaeologist(s) that comment was addressed, because at the moment it lacks any other context.
I have never defended the moustache of Agamemmnon nor, father or not, any "profoundly dishonest" archaeologist. I find your comments therefore, sir, to be highly offensive and reserve the right to express my opinion on them on my blog.
I think there are ways of doing things, and hounding the individual concerned is, in my opinion, not the right way to act. How would you like it if someone did that to you? Indeed, it turned out that this massed personal attack on him did not achieve the effects intended.
Perhaps before contacting any "blog webmaster" (which actually is me, isn't it?) you might like to look up the concept of "fair use" (and you might like to consider the meaning of free speech too).
Just a point, if you had said "please" I might have looked at your "request" in a different light.
What do you collect?
Mr Birbiglia it seems would prefer not to explain just what he had in mind in making his comment, nor enlightening us on what he collects.
Post a Comment