On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:31:18 +0100, BAJRWebsite.ORG <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Of course what Nigel failed to mention (and I am sure it was an unfortunate
David, you tell me I should look at the whole picture and then spend 30
lines contextualising it all for me.
But the crucial point is this - we are talking about ten year olds here,
being shown how exciting detecting is and being able to become fully
fledged detectorists after saving three weeks pocket money. What price your
explanations amongst them?
Truth is, it's a stupid move, as Rob said, and will have damaging
consequences. What's more, it's unnecessary, as Paul implied.Why stimulate
an interest in metal detecting? What's so special about it? Wouldn't the
classroom time be better employed in teaching more archaeology, where
mitigation of loss is the natural and majority, not minority attitude, and
requires no 30 lines of explanation? How many archaeologists wish they had
instead been pushed down the route of metal detecting when at school?
Worse, where would we be if they had? Education is about helping people to
make right choices.
Please don't tell me to "remove the blinkers that seem to tunnel your
vision". My sole interest is in conservation and I have no axe to grind and
no reason to have tunnel vision. My judgement is that stimulating loads of
kids to buy detectors is stupid and bad for the resource. It's a point of
view to which I'm entitled, one which I suspect is a majority one, and
which I suspect you're incapable of rationally refuting. Accusing me of
being blinkered is a poor and unconvincing substitute.