Wednesday, 3 February 2021

Negative Emotions about a Counter [Updated]

In reply to something I wrote about in a thread on estimates of the numbers of finds being taken by artefact hunters from the archaeological record and not being recorded on the PAS database, a fellow archaeologist decided to share his thoughts on the idea:
David Connolly @BAJRjobs 21h
Replying to @MattockInHand @HeneryIggins and 3 others
Tell me about it. Was there and have fought tooth and nail with this nasty brutish thug. We have got somewhere. They have not. Bitter, twisted and deluded. These attacks have got to stop. If you want a chat. Or need support . We will be there.
But since he's blocked me, I have to rely on colleagues to let me know what, somewhat unexpectedly, archaeologist David Connolly is posting on a public forum behind my back.  Personally, I would not say that calling a colleague a "thug" and categorising attempts to discuss the treatment of the archaeological record by artefact hunters and their supporters as "attacks" is very professional behaviour. I guess British archaeologists have codes of practice that say one thing, while they do another. It's a shame Mr Connolly seems not to have the balls to unblock me and say it to my face. 

As for the ad hominem, “getting somewhere” is a relative notion. Especially here. Mr Connolly should reflect that “fighting tooth and nail” is not a place to be when you are wrong – and wrong to do so.  I suggest that fighting tooth and nail to avoid doing something about the erosion of the archaeological record by artefact hunters is not going to assure Connolly a place of merit in the history of European archaeology when it is written a generation or two from now.  But for now he's offering cuddles and support to those that still want to believe that artefact hunting is a benign activity with no significant consequences for the archaeological record. 

Another individual who also joined the same discussion is unknown to me, but has some opinions that seem worth discussing:
Joshua James @JoshuaJ28746227 1 lut
W odpowiedzi do @HeneryIggins @PortantIssues i 3 innych użytkowników
Paul Barfords guessing of his own finds record has caused more damage than anything in previous years. He has been called out on it in the past . He could offer no viable answer and blocked the one person who followed him , countering his many untruths
I have no idea who Joshua James is the only information he gives about himself is he is "the hidden truths behind the facade" (sic).*  It's not clear what "guessing of his own finds record" is meant to mean. I helped create the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter when asked, but it is not mine. According to Mr James, estimating the damage done by non-recorded artefact hunting is "causing more damage" than the activity itself. Strange logic. 

As for being "called out on it in the past", no. People have denied it is true, but never have they (a) shown where the alleged error lies nor (b) provided a verifiable alternative number. That's probably the reason why I have offered "no viable answer" to the challenge that has not yet been made. "Blocked the one person who followed him countering many untruths". Mr James sounds like Donald Trump. He'll have to remind us who that "one person" was, and how they actually "countered" what I was saying.     

I really cannot see why the concept of an Artefact Erosion Counter creates so many negative emotions. Can somebody explain to me why that is? 

*the account was begun just a few months ago, has three posts and he's following me and 18 other people (mostly politicians but including FLOs) and nobody is following him. The profile is suggestive of a typical troll-bot.

Update 6th Feb 2021
Heritage Action have followed up on the David Connolly text. They to have in the past borne the brunt of Mr Connolly's unprofessional attacks on behalf of the artefact hunting community. 

1 comment:

Brian Mattick said...

"I really cannot see why the concept of an Artefact Erosion Counter creates so many negative emotions. Can somebody explain to me why that is?"

Think "torch".

Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.