> rather than a subscription to Britarch-debates to perhaps get something
No, the idea of the Britarch debating dungeon seems to be to keep any
further attempts at discussion with the detecting trolls OFF Mainstream
Britarch. This is to stop it annoying those who do not see any connection
between the issues surrounding current policies on detecting and "real"
archaeology (and weighty comments on Captain James T. Kirk and Telegraph
crosswords). And good riddance, let them misbehave themselves over there
instead of here to their heart's content without any risk of censure.
I am not planning on taking part in any isolated "debate on the detecting of
archaeologcal artefacts" (quote) over there because it seems to me that this
is NOT at all what these discussions were about. I am more interested in the
archaeological and long-term conservation implications of this phenomenon. I
was under the impression that THIS was what we (some of us) were trying to
address here - address against all the odds it seems. Given past
experiences, the notion of entering such an isolated forum where there is
not even the nominal moderation there is here does not appeal to me either.
There are other fora for discussing "detecting archaeological artefacts"
(like UKDN and UKRally and indeed PASForum).
I think it is a pity that precisely at this moment when the whole issue is
taking on an entirely new perspective with the leaking (?) of information
from DEFRA about the new schemes that the CBA has decided to make this an
issue that should no longer be discussed on Mainline Britarch as part of the
overall scheme of British archaeology. But far be it for me to suggest this
is an issue that might conceivably interest more than ten members of