Andrew Richardson complains:
> there is a stony silence about some of
> the points I have raised is starting to irritate me.
Please feel free to identify the ones you want to talk more about, I'd be
perfectly happy to react to them on or off-list. But I dont expect that will
reduce your irritation.
> The relentless hostility of some on Britarch to the
> detecting hobby actually impede progress on
> this journey, rather than help it.
Now you are beginning to sound like one of the artefact hunters. The one
person (KJL) who seems from what they have written to be against the hobby
as a whole has not written on the topic here for a very long time.
There are others - like myself - who are against the current worrying status
quo and (understanding the notion of "liaison" and working together to be
more than merely lasissez-faire pandering) raise questions the pro-detecting
lobby obviously dont want to address seriously. And that is a far different
matter. But there are real archaeological and ARM issues, and ones of
heritage policy, raised by this whole situation, so I hope you will
understand that some of your colleagues take a keen interest, even if you
would prefer them not to.
If the pro-artefact-hunting lobby would treat these concerns as real issues
which will have to be addressed (and not just dismiss them glibly as
"prejudice against the hobby" as the summary of the 2006 PAS user survey put
it), this would be a basis for moving forward together. Merely turning your
back on unanswered questions and pretending you dont hear or dont understand
them is not.