Metal Detectorists Getting Nowhere with Misrepresentation

Over on the Stout Standards (sic) blog the dynamic duo of transatlantic detecting ambassadorship are really letting their hair down and laying into conservation group Heritage Action. In the course of which they decide to refer to something I said:

Golly! Gosh! Many Anglo-Saxon and Bronze Age features, eh? Hmmm. The deluge continued, but the gobby, self-styled expert, Paul Barford, seems to have put a damper on things if his recent comment that, “digging up “such stuff is not what archaeology is primarily about,” is to be believed.

No link is given, so the reader is left in the dark about the context of that  remark (since when has context interested an antiquity collector?). I was referring there to the issue of hoiking out hoards and losing their context as opposed to preserving them within the archaeological record. The quotation comes from ' Focus on UK Metal Detecting: Bedale Logic Fail' PACHI Monday, 15 December 2014, though I see logic is still failing to make any headway in detecting circles.

As one can see in the case of the discussion of rescue excavations carried out in advance of housing development. Mr Howland deduces

If as he claims that, “an archaeology dig is by its nature destructive” then there is a strong case some might feel, for not doing the excavation in the first place.

Ummmm....