Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: Oregon Trail Wreckers Find This Blog: "Archie crap gone awry... with a little logic and perspective, they fall apart"

Saturday, 28 October 2017

Oregon Trail Wreckers Find This Blog: "Archie crap gone awry... with a little logic and perspective, they fall apart"

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'

On a Treasure Hunters' forum near you:

Wrecka (Oct 17, 2017, 09:56 PM)

Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: More Metal Detecting Along the Oregon Trail

treasuresalvor (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?
There are tons of stuff in museums around the world where the way the artifacts were obtained could be questionable.

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:

Tom_in_CA ('Metal detecting is my one worldy [sic] vice!') Oct 22, 2017, 09:30 PM)

[...] Wrecka , please don't tell me that you posted this link, because you fear anything said in it ? Please tell me your [sic] posting it as an example of archie crap gone awry. Stop and think who made that link : A PURIST ARCHIE . Well duh, go figure: They HATE md'rs. So what did you THINK the tone of any of their writings would be ? It will always be dire sounding stuff. [...] I put very little stock into what some purist archies say about md'ing. Oh sure: Avoid off-limits sensitive monuments where perhaps true law or rule exists. But notice that this archie failed to address that the trail does indeed go through various types of land where no specific law would prohibit md'ing. Eg.: private farmers land, various lesser level public lands (ie.: not federal, let's say) where some of the trail stops are not something sensitive and obvious like Ft. Hall or whatever. To even post links like that is poison on md'ing forums. Newbie skittish folks read that, and recoil in fear thinking "everyone hates us". But with a little logic and perspective, they fall apart. Sorry for the rant.

I missed out the bit about 'animal rights wackoes' - another issue 'Tom' apparently does not grasp. Trump's America has filled itself with paranoid haters, and it is therefore not surprising that the subject of Tom's text is not conservation issues, but 'hate'. Later he refers (Oct 23, 2017, 12:00 AM) to 'bored archie pencil pushers'.

Wrecka (Oct 23, 2017, 03:22 PM #37) explains:

I posted it for no other reason than i thought some of you may be interested to read the total crud being blogged about MD'ers by the author

Three days later, Tom_in_CA (Metal detecting is my one worldy [sic] vice!) Oct 26, 2017, 03:05 PM) counting on a short retentive memory span of fellow members announces:

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

Jim in Idaho and RustyGold liked this. That's nice. No hating there then.

What I see when I look at what this collector wrote is that far from 'a little logic and perspective' (which is intended to make me 'fall apart') he fails to see anything like the perspective from which that post - and this whole blog - is written. As for logic, if he's not understood the argument that he is opposing, then he is severely hindered in finding a logical response.

3 comments:

Unknown said...: 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.

You 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 ? :); 30 October 2017 at 06:43
Paul Barford said...: "I offered a challenge to you. To specify a defined stance of yours"
Well, 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.; 30 October 2017 at 13:00
Unknown said...: You say: ".... In fact, as I pointed out in the comments to the four-year odd post, I did indeed put forward my position. ..."

Sure 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.; 30 October 2017 at 15:55