(Re: my flippant remarks on the "archaeological relevance" of little girl
shut in McDonald's' Refrigerator and the recent changes in the Lampeter
archaeology syllabus)
In reply to Kathy Fewster's comments on the list to my remarks concerning
the recent posting regarding the girl who alleged that she was shut in
McDonald's freezer in Istanbul, I would like to repeat my statement:
>> I was wondering what possible relevant archaeological conclusions one can
draw from this posting<<. In view of her latest comments on my posting, but
which do not enlighten me in this regard, I would very much like to hear
Kathy's opinion on what a second-hand report of this isolated incident is
doing on this list.
I would very much like to hear from Kathy Fewster what this posting actually
does have to offer to advance our understanding of >>the definition of
archaeological theory"<< Only by continuing the discussion, drawing a
conclusion from this incident does it seem that we really stand any chance
of seeing any >>debate "pepped up" a bit<<
I am sure that all on this arch-theory list would be extremely interested to
hear about the >>changes in the way that archaeological theory is now taught
at Lampeter<< which Kathy referred to. I am interested to know in particular
in what way the behaviour of managers of Turkish McDonalds' features in the
new syllabus, and what this means for >> the definition of archaeological
theory<<, prompting Kathy to suggest it >> might be a good time to discuss
possible changes to the list <<. Please enlighten us.
I see nothing wrong with talking about other things that interest, surprise
or shock us. By all means let us discuss all manner of modern social
injustices, yesterday's announcement of the forthcoming Leeds football
fixtures, the Presidential campaign in the USA or Poland, or the colour of
Tim Sebastian's tie on Hard Talk - anything you like which you saw on TV
last night, but might I suggest again that you consider choosing another
list to do it on?
Paul Barford
----- Original Message -----
From: Kathy Fewster <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: Odp: A Little Girl in McDonald's' Deep Freezer!!!!
> Dear all,
>
> I responded to Paul Barford's suggestion that a message like Fahri's
> should not appear on arch-theory for two reasons; firstly I was shocked
> by the information Fahri had put on the list and I was surprised by the
> apparent flippancy of Paul Barford's response. That, I am sure, is a
> matter on which we will continue to disagree.
>
> As far as this list is concerned, what seems to be the issue here is the
> definition of archaeological theory. My second reason for entering this
> debate was that I, like many it seems, would like to see the debate
> "pepped up" a bit. So no, it's not a joke. There have been changes in
> the way that archaeological theory is now taught at Lampeter and it
> might be a good time to discuss possible changes to the list.
>
> Kathy Fewster
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|