.
Somebody writes:My name [...] is Candice Elisabeth Jarman. I am 24 and I am not a metal detectorist.
So, the name is just like that lady in Tennessee? I don't want to be unkind, but if the photo Candice has used is of a 24 year old, she'd better give up the fags and start using a different moisturiser. As for whether Mr Jarman is a metal detectorist, let the content of his words speak for themselves. For somebody who is pressurising others who write about heritage issues to submit a full CV with "qualifications" and "credentials" to public scrutiny, Candice Jarman's online details seem rather scanty. In fact if you Google the name, the only things you'll find on the internet about "her" comes from two of Paul Barford's blogs.I think before this individual continues to attack real people's real lives, in order to establish "her" credentials and qualifications, Candice Jarman should at least publish something which allows their identity as a real person to be established. Since he demands it of others, the name of blogger Candice Jarman's employer would do. After all, we all fully understand that this solicitor is in no way implicated in what Candice Jarman writes in his own free time outside work (see also here).
.
6 comments:
Last week, someone called Jee told 'Candice' off on his/her blog for raking up the stuff about Damien Huffer. He/she also said that as Candice was obviously a false name, "she" was not the sort to be trusted. "Candice" responded by saying that she was who she says she is - 24 years-old Candice Elisabeth (sic) Jarman.
I posted a comment that such a person has never been born in the UK or US in 1986 or early 1987 (searches on on-line Birth registers). She did not respond, did not post my comment - but did delete the mention of her full tria nomina in the comment that responded to Jee. Funny that.
(note - "Candice" had earlier claimed to be a lesbian so Jarman woudl be her maiden name, unless changed by deed poll for some reason - I expect 'Candice" to use this argument sometime soon).
Just thought you would like to know. I am still awaiting some sort of debate from "Candice', refuting some of your comments. I do so because, Paul, I want to learn more about all this but simply am worried that some of your approach might be a bit too extreme - your opinion towards the PAS, for example. I cannot judge - I want to read more in dispute to your comments by "Candice" and her ilk in a measured way. All we get are "her" rather puerile attacks on character. Form a strategic point of view, "she" has lost the argument - but I would still like to know more about other people's views of the PAS and not just your own. As you so often point out, not even the PAS defends itself - which, considering it has the might of the Treasury behind it, you might think they were confident in putting forward at least a smattering of an argument for their existence. All very strange and worrying.
"but did delete the mention of her full tria nomina in the comment that responded to Jee. Funny that." oh yes. I see it has, he's not prepared to let that lie stand obviously. I am interested to hear about him not posting your comment.
It is indeed an assumed identity, he has not the guts to write as himself under his own name. The truth (or should that be "ruth"?) will be out very soon now I feel.
"I am still awaiting some sort of debate from "Candice', refuting some of your comments. I do so because, Paul, I want to learn more about all this but simply am worried that some of your approach might be a bit too extreme - your opinion towards the PAS, for example."
Moi, "extreme"? Ha! :>)
Maybe the conclusions sound extreme, but is what I say illogical? Is there no logic in what I say about current policies on artefact collecting? Are the questions I ask, the issues I raise, the "wrong" questions and issues in some way (and from what point of view)?
I tell you what I worry about, I worry that I might be right. So yes, I too would welcome some proper debate and critique of the views I express.
But Macrinus, fer goodness sake, why wait for others to say what they think? A non-metal-detecting Bournemouth secretary at that ! The PAS is no less productive of stuff in black on white than me, they've put words and words upon words on how wonderful everything is and how well they are doing and wotta-nice-lotta-blokes the metal detectorists all are. Read it and make your own mind up if they are telling you all you need to know to decide whether you believe them. What else would you need to know?
"you might think they were confident in putting forward at least a smattering of an argument for their existence. All very strange and worrying." well, a "smattering" is what you get. I think they think that is all that should be required. That is just as arrogant as my questioning of them. But I do mine for free, you are paying for theirs.
Macrinus,
You want to hear the opinion of others on PAS.
Mine (as someone that has studied the issue for many hours a day for nearly a decade) is pretty much identical to Paul's in both detail and sense of outrage. To the extent that I am known in some quarters as Barford's Puppet.
In truth though I have got to the same place quite independently and in fact there is probably a slight difference between us - I think I probably feel even more outraged than him.
My complaint about PAS is desperately simple. It is that they are painting a picture for the public, the taxpayer, the stakeholders and the government that is far rosier than it really is and I don't see what gives them the right to do that (and to thereby ensure the damage continues - they are after all publicly funded and charged with conservation not with supporting destruction by providing it with an official cloak of fiction - you can read what was said at it's foundation, it's role is perfectly clear).
We are about to post up our Artefact Erosion Counter once more, following a redesign of our site. We have added some more specific details of the evidence it is based upon. I hope a lot of people will read it and compare it with what PAS says and decide for themselves which of the two accounts is the most likely to be true.
"... [PAS] are painting a picture ... that is far rosier than it really is ..."
That is what infuriates me. The PAS may be a pragmatic solution to an inevitable problem - but why promote this insane free-for-all treasure-hunting image, the impression that people are helping archaeology no end by digging up all the goodies as fast as they can? I presume they feel it secures popular support. But future generations will not thank them for it (or the present generation for tolerating it).
Sorry for posting a comment months after the original post but Nigel's comment hit a chord I totally agree with.
I do not think the PAS is a "solution".
No problems with the later comment. Its good that people are flipping through old posts too and thinking about them. There's more food for thought over on the main blog though.
Post a Comment