Discrediting Tactics Instead of Open Discussion

.
Now there are people who ignore the issues I raise in my Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues blog, there are those who enter into the spirit of the debate and try to refute my arguments and opinions. Then there are the metal detectorists. How do they react? A glance through the comments section reveals none of them uses their real name, they send abusive posts full of aggressive phrasing and threats or just generally set out to be abusive and disruptive. I think I am right in saying that there is no more than a handful of comments written by UK metal detectorists ("passionately care about the past") that does not fall into that category.

Outside we see the same thing. The infamous photoshopped faux gay-porn photo send by metal detectorist "Belzoni" to the public access Portable Antiquities Scheme Forum which was one of the last of a series of disruptive events in response to broader discussion of the Scheme and its activities which led to it being closed down. Then we had the "Barfordisation" blog by "Steve Welton", author of a libellous "Wikipedia" page about me - mercifully gone. Now we have "Candice Jarman". Then within the last weeks the promise we'd soon see "hundreds" of metal detectorists opening blogs intending to "swamp" my blog and get it closed down "one way or another". So far the only new arrival on the cultural property blogosphere is by the sender of those words.

Now to give the bloke his due, this is the first one to actually use his real name, the rest have been hiding behind pseudonyms ("Candice" has even changed his gender to further throw people off the track). Steve Taylor is a real metal detectorist, well-known and not only in Gloucestershire, it seems. So anyway after finding that threats don't really work, he has set out on a one-man mission to save the reputation of English metal detectorists by swamping out what one bloke in Poland is saying about them in the wider context of collecting issues. So what arguments is he offering? Well, obviously, he wants people to think he is me, got himself a blogger URL similar to mine to maybe capture some of the traffic which might otherwise go to my main blog:
His: http://paulbarford.blogspot.com/
Mine: http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/
Spot the difference. Here's the profile of the "author" of this blog:


Now apart from the scatological "humour" that betrays this person's general educational level ("educated to 11+ standard but has fallen back ever since") he also accuses me of involvement in an illegal activity - "Interests: nighthawking". Passing on to the "content", the first post and the picture accompanying it sets the tone of the whole endeavour:

"Belzoni" all over again, and why not, they are old metaldetecting partners together. Please note the author managed to get all the way through a British school without lernink the diffrense between "there" and "their". Nor the difference between good and bad taste, or why normal people don't go around accusing somebody of an act which is illegal in the country where they live. "Strike two", Mr Taylor. "Antiquities" is spelt with an "i". A post made last night manages to insult my father, my wife and again accuse me (and her) of an act illegal in the country where it is alleged to have taken place (here stated as a 'fact' and not an allegation). "Strike Three" Mr Taylor. You are out.



So far, just four posts:
http://paulbarford.blogspot.com/2011/08/paul-barfords-new-book.html
http://paulbarford.blogspot.com/2011/08/paul-barfords-academic-history.html
http://paulbarford.blogspot.com/2011/08/paul-barford-early-years.html
http://paulbarford.blogspot.com/2011/08/paul-barford-caught-in-public-toilet.html

I commend a reflection on the contents of this new blog to any supporters of the Portable Antiquities Society, and any supporters of the Portable Antiquities Scheme as an excellent example typical of the mentality and lack of intellectual and emotional maturity of many a metal detectorist in the UK. These are the people current policy rewards for digging up the fragile remains of the archaeological record for entertainment and profit. These people are not, as ex-Culture-Minister Lammy once implied "alienated" and disinherited from society, here we see the process of alienation and the expression of self-centred entitlement operating in the other direction. Take a good look at this crudity, and then turn back to my blog and consider whether there is anything inherently unreasonable in what I say there about the need to reassess current policies on artefact hunting in the UK. And if there is, whether the metal detectorists' way of dealing with the problem as seen in Mr Taylor's blog is the most publicly acceptable one.


This rather looks like the way an English inner city hoodie would talk about somebody who gets in the way of doing what he wants to do, rather than an expression of views by a member of the community of people "caring about the heritage".

Treasure Hunter Turns "Detective"

.
For the past couple of days another metal detectorist has been spamming my email inbox to join the other utter jerks who've been doing the same. It seems some people do not want anyone discussing artefact hunting. Steven Taylor a metal detectorist well-known in the Gloucestershire region first decided he was going to set Polish metal detectorists on me, not really recognising the somewhat different (not to say precarious) position of artefact hunting in Poland from that in England. Now he has been sending posts indicating he knows my address and is coming to see me "in two weeks". After, it seems he had worked out the costs and likely consequences (oh, DO bring your metal detector Mr Taylor), he has decided on another form of harassment:

The Poulton Hoard has left a new comment on your post "Collector Buys Exported Hoard but Gives it Back": You seem to have just 2 friends Paul one lives in Canada and another in Germany, I have all there (sic) details as they linked to my site and left a lovely trail, which a blind man could follow. I will post up my new anti barford blog shortly identifying where you and your friends live. With X marks the spot See you soon.

So, if Mr Taylor is not "all mouth and no trousers" as somebody said of him to me three days ago, the blogosphere is reportedly about to be blessed with another anti-Barford blog - this one apparently intends to attack people who even read my texts. That's the third blog opposed to my writing what I write (not counting the libellous Wikipedia article).

Four Blokes in One Shed?

.

In reply to my post 'Closing in on "Candice" ...' and obviously with the intent of creating a smokescreen, the person posing as Candice Jarman now claims to be four people, and owes the whole idea to Dorothy King (PhDiva):

Dr King suggested that from the language a group of radical collectors were behind my blog (how I like being called radical!). Exactly right! I like to think of my blog as my blog, but as I am often reminded, it is our blog. You see Mr Barford, although I front the blog, it is a group effort - there are four of us and behind us is an increasing number of correspondents which include metal detectorists, dealers, lawyers, collectors, and yes, Mr Barford, even one or two professional archaeologists - all people fed up with the strident, uncompromising and intolerant agenda of the radical archaeologists!!!!!

This I am pretty sure will turn out to be a lie too. Stylistically, there is a single person behind this, though some of the people sending the "comments" and at least some of the "followers" to the Candice Jarman hate-blog seem to be sock-puppets.

But yes, it is clear that there are "metal detectorists", dealer[s] (we know who), lawyer[s] (we know who), collectors, and "one or two" professional archaeologists (easy to guess who) joining in with the happy slapping. In the typically cowardly manner of the whole pro-collecting milieu, they prefer to see an anonymous guy pretending to be a girl who is now pretending to be four guys doing the dirty work than actually dealing with the arguments themselves. Pathetic.

.

WATCH OUT, Candice is Out to Get Ya!

.[category: metal detectorist lobby nonsense]

As Candice Jarman announces on his hate-blog:

Damien Huffer, aka Mr Barford Jnr, who also has an anti-collecting blog, which has run for three times as long as this one, has just 3 followers! Oh dear Damien - but maybe more on this gentleman later!

We see here the usual tekkie/collector technique of dealing with criticism, label it "anti-collecting" and attack the person of the author to the general applause of other oafish collectors who apparently see no alternative to such behaviour.

Candice's First Conquest...

One "Dusty" on the Rally.UK forum has noticed there is a blog by Candice Jarman about Paul Barford and decides to draw other artefact hunters' attention to it with all the high-school eloquence he can muster:

this Candy person really don't like this Barford and after reading some of barford papers I can see why hes a compulsive weirdo and liar he makes thing up as he gos along - good luck Candy you need it with that pratt.

"Dusty" can apparently read, while "Swarfy" is quite taken with the photograph:

Candy certainly dont like im does she! mind you I would report everything to her if she was Essex based wouldnt you !!

Mr Swarfy is so excited that Candice might be an FLO that he forgot his punctuation. "Rod1" (who "does it for the buzzzz") agrees in a thoughtful contribution exhibiting equal command of the English language:

get her out every day if pos that what i call happy hunting makes detecting and finds a lot beter to show her what you have? good find dusty didnt see that paul barford will have a look again when candys not on there he he ha ha!

Now, really folks I am by no means "making up these quotes as I go along"; there really are such people out there and they have metal detectors and artefact collections and current British policies mean that the fate of a large part of the archaeological heritage is in their hands.

The Tale of Brave Sir Dave

.

It seems to me that there is basically something rather cowardly in Dave Welsh's actions posting his attack on the Ancient Artefacts discussion list with 2500 members and moneta-l with another few thousand from which I am excluded from answering. It seems to me that there is something very cowardly in Tim Haines' moderation of what he fondly imagines to be a forum about "responsible collecting", allowing such attacks on a non-member without allowing the victim the right of reply. Moneta-L long ago gave up the pretence of being interested in any open discussion of the issues.

Brave, Brave Sir Dave. Hiding behind his mates and discussion group exclusive moderation. You would not like to say the same to my face here or on my other blog would you? Thought not.

You Tube Clip from Monty Python's "Ye Pretencie of Responsible Coin Collecting for ye Weake of Response".

.

Anti-Barford Again

.
I feel discriminated against. At least when the Americans wanted to do a smear campaign against the elusive figurehead of Wikileaks, it appears he got a couple of free screws with two ugly slutty sex-on-first-date girls (one a "Christian") out of it. All I get is a decidedly unsexy balding obese coin dealing Jesuit-trained engineer from California attempting to misrepresent my professional biography in a post called " [Unidroit-L] Anti-Barford Blog [was RE: [Moneta-L] Arrests of 40 Spanish Coin & Antiquity dealers]" which has been cross-posted to an interesting selection of people: Tim Haines' Yahoo Ancientartifacts group, 'Moneta-L' (of course), Yahoo's CoinForgeryDiscussionList (eh?), dug-up scrap metal coin collector Scott Uhrick, and antiquity dealer 'Edgar Owen' . The text is extraordinary:

From what is reported in this blog, it seems that Mr. Barford left university with a “bac” after being enrolled in a graduate program that would normally lead to a doctorate. He has never publicly explained how that happened, nor has he published a CV detailing his education and subsequent contributions to archaeology.

Mr. Barford next was employed (rather briefly) in junior positions in archaeology in the UK before relocating to Poland in 1987, where he apparently has lived ever since. He was employed there in a junior academic position (assistant lecturer) and as an inspector of monuments. So far as I know, the above is all that is publicly recorded regarding his work as an archaeologist. If anyone can add to this, or correct any errors, I would be grateful for the information. Mr. Barford has a number of professional publications to his credit, including one book [The Early Slavs] with another in the process of publication.

To the best of my knowledge he is not presently employed in any sort of archaeological work, nor has he been so employed for a long time, although he did make a trip to Egypt not long ago where he had a chance to do some field work (it wasn’t clear whether this was as a volunteer). I have heard that he presently supports himself as a translator.

If the above is a fair appraisal of Mr. Barford’s actual professional credentials, one might question whether such a foundation is really in proportion to the critical edifice he has built upon it. Mr. Barford has been very free with criticism directed at those whom he sneeringly terms “coineys,” especially “coineys” who are also dealers.

In none of his remarks has he said anything about the professional qualifications of those whom he so freely criticizes. I think it’s fair to observe that many of his “targets” have resumes far more impressive than his own, and that Mr. Barford appears to know (or care) very little about numismatics.

Not a sex scandal in sight. Damn! I am not sure what a "bac" is, but I don't think I've got one - but if somebody explains maybe I have without knowing it...

Is it my imagination or has Mr Welsh 'accidentally' forgotten a couple of degrees that Candy mentioned, and it seems he's got the sequence of "events" wrong. Supposedly I was "employed (rather briefly) in junior positions in archaeology in the UK". He also does not know when I "relocated". Neither is the position of "Inspector of monuments" in the Ministry of Culture a particularly "junior" position. Mr. Welsh claims to know my current archaeological employment history. Sadly he obviously knows less about all this than he thinks.

It seems to me that the internet-scholars of the Candy-Tompa-Welsh ilk are not particularly adept at using the resources available, Google Scholar gives more than just a handful of items published by me and from what I can see, that's about one third of what it says on my CV (which does not list translations).

Frankly I do not think explaining how whatever-it-is "happened" or publishing a full CV is one of the qualifications for being a blogger (even an "archaeoblogger").

So far as I know, the above is all that is publicly recorded regarding his work as an archaeologist. If anyone can add to this, or correct any errors,
I would be grateful for the information.

You know, archaeology is a pretty small world, I think various people all over the place have come across me, worked with me, quarrelled with me about methodology in a conference beer bar, or got really angered off by things I write and say - not just about metal detectorists etc. (Got a long screed out of the blue this morning about a chapter in a multi-authored publication, which is odd because its still in press). Whether or not these people really want to make contact with dirt-digging coiney people like Mr Welsh of course is a different matter. What's in it for them?

If the above is a fair appraisal of Mr. Barford’s actual professional
credentials, one might question whether such a foundation is really in
proportion to the critical edifice he has built upon it.

One might I suppose. If it were a FAIR appraisal and one was interested in personal issues.

Frankly I think the words of the coin dealers speak for themselves about what lies behind them, and I imagine mine do too. Mr Welsh's various writings about how ancient coins are found have as much weight whether or not we have ever seen a recent full length photo of him cuddling his rabbits on the internet, or a date-marked photo of him as a young man getting his engineering degree certificate from the Jesuit University of wherever-it-was. What he says about sites and hoards and all the rest is just as much nonsense for the reasons I have set out on my main blog, points he has never actually answered. No amount of look-at-me self advertising will change that.

I do not think I build any "edifice" on any imagined "personal authority" (neither does Wikileaks, whether or not Julian Assange is in jail or not does not change the contents of the leaked documents themselves one iota). I base my comments on the antiquities market on observing and interpreting what is going on, and invite every one of my readers to do the same. You do not need an archaeology degree to see that what is happening out there is highly questionable.

I'd say lets start asking the questions of the no-questions-asked collectors and dealers and ignore the slings and arrows and false arguments they spew out to stop those questions being asked. Let us see them actually address the issues raised instead of saying that this or that member of Joe Public is not qualified to be asking these questions. These are clearly questions that ALL the stakeholders in the past should be asking.

There's Fieldwork and there's Fieldwork: What does Candy Know about it?

.
"Candice Jarman" says 'she' is a secretary who has "metal detectorist" friends and is aided by the members of the Yahoo so-called "responsible collecting" forum run by Tim Haines. Both are apparently aiding and encouraging her to write a "Paul Barford - Heritage - The Truth" blog. The author calls me “the Embarrassment of antiquities conservation” and adds: "don’t his supporters realise that he convinces no-one and just damages their cause by his strident, crass, dismissive posts rubbishing all those who dare to voice an alternative view". So she has set out to try and "rubbish" what she says are "misrepresentations of the truth", "distortions of the facts" to further an "anti-detecting, anti-collecting, anti-PAS agenda". She has not got very far however with that task, dithering about trying to find photographs of "what Paul Barford looks like" - as if it mattered to my ability to write about no-questions-asked collecting.

One might wonder about a secretary's ability to be able to address any of the archaeological issues I raise, given her all-too-apparent total lack of any knowledge about the discipline. This is clearly revealed by 'her' comment to one of the photos that she has obviously been told shows me [I suspect I know by whom, and that person has never met me either]:

Here is another picture of Mr Barford doing archaeology it seems. The public kept at a respectful distance.....

Regardless of who is visible in the photo, what is actually shown is an exhumation to obtain a DNA sample carried out in 1998 in central Poland by an experienced forensic anthropological team from the United States. It was carried out under and in full compliance with a licence issued by the Polish Church and all relevant local legislation, the archaeologists are there as support to the anthropologists. The aim was not the full archaeological excavation of a grave of 1864, and neither was I in charge of this project. If I had been, there would have been more than a police-tape barrier, but screens as is usual in such exhumations, out of respect for the deceased. In this case however the public could only see the outside of the vault not what was hidden deep in its dark interior. Forensic exhumations of human remains - and especially not those in the state these were - are not places for gawkers. I think if she knew anything about it at all, Ms Jarman would be aware that a nineteenth century burial ground clearance or murder scene investigation in even in Great Britain is not a ghoulish spectacle they sell tickets for gawkers and bystanders to go and watch.

So yes, in any exhumation of this nature, the public would be kept at a truly respectful distance.*

Not like the metal detecting page I was reading on Thursday written by somebody 'Candice' may even know (as it was from near where 'she' says she lives), where the writer is laughing about the fragments of a human skull shown - that his detecting mate had dug roughly through a human skeleton "thinking it was a dog". Now that is what I call really "disturbing the dead" and grave robbing - they even took the skull home. What "fun", eh Candy? What a wonderful advertisement for "responsible" artefact hunting in the UK.

[*] Note: the photo she uses was taken with a long focal length lens and (among other things) in order to give the team room to work, the distance between the barrier and open vault was in fact greater than it appears.
.

SO? Barford Drinks Beer, is that a Sin Candice? Don't metal Detectorists Drink Beer then?

.
Well Candice Jarman really takes the biscuit. In her latest effort to avoid addressing the various cultural property issues raised in my blog ("This is Mr Barford - Part 1" ), the solicitor's secretary now shows some 1998 photos of me, probably with the intention of making it easier for the criminal element to identify me next time I am involved in an antiquities 'sting'. As for the snide comment:

"Here’s a pic of Mr Barford enjoying a well-earned beer (it must be thirsty work disturbing the dead) [...] we suspect he is plumper and greyer (even baldier) now.

There are of course no "dead" to disturb in a flying school which is where her photo was taken.

What is it with you people? When are we going to see you discussing issues of merit instead of the superficial peripheral ones?

A li'l bitta Persn'l Divelopment Needed

Over on my other blog I got an odd comment to a very old post ("Looking Over Artefact Hunters' Shoulders: Blaydon ..."). It was from a couple calling themselves "Norman and Linda Kennedy" and it read:

When i hear some of you so called archaeological diggers comment,it shows me how ignorant you guys are.
I would love one of you so called archeolgists to say to me" bad comments then i would have a chance bury you for one of your future arseholes" to dig you up.
What you have to realise is you are getting my tax payment towards your job" so shut your mouth,
the quicker the goverment gets rid of you archies the better,save us all millions,N

Then I received a second in like vein, this time to the post "UK "Metal Detectorists" and the (Continued) Unhol...":

About 24 years ago or there about that time a Archioligist was cought stealing artifacts and selling them,
Over many years these guys have pludered treasure and sold it.
Its time to get rid of archaeologist’s and replace them with a none profit making society, as you can see on Time team BBC what a joke" we dont need these scruffy thick people who talk like peasants,arr arr come on you got to laugh at that thick guy with hat on,and the scruffy guy with the pink jumper,and dirty hair,

Well it is perhaps better to talk like peasants (that's a regional accent of course) than write like one I suppose. "Mr and Ms Kennedy" were not finished however, back on the Blaydon post again:

Highley skilled archaeologist’s,your having a laugh after many years of going on digs i realised that the worst people i have ever seen destroying historic artifacs are you guys the so called expert archaeologist’s,
Most archaeologist’s are university dropouts hippies like Barfoot scrating around in Poland'
Most the people that come on the digs are learners not highley skilled archaeologist’s,
Metal detector people have turned up more valuble artifacs and are highley skilled people,N

I do not "scrate", never scrated in my life. I can use apostrophes and commas though.

Now what is curious about all this is that the comments are posted from a profile which (atypically) is not hidden and it has links to a website and a blog of Norman and Linda Kennedy who run some kind of a personal coaching service, motivational speaking and all that. In Australia. Take a look at the texts there and say if they look as if they are written by the same people as the semi-literate foul-mouthing above. There is quite a clear mismatch.

Anyhow these somewhat coarse-speaking detectorists are apparently using computers in two places in the UK, and claim off-list to be the same people as on the Ozzie website and blog, so obviously despite their obvious linguistic shortcomings they claim the ability to be in two different places at the same time.

Customers of this rather shadowy firm 'Personal Development Top Earner' might like to take a critical look at the Kennedys' comments on my blog posts before deciding to ask for their help in their own personal development.

Photo: Apparently Norman and Linda Kennedy from the 'Personal Development Top Earner' website.

The Technique of Deflecting Criticism from Antiquity Collecting

Like a ten year old boy little Dave Welsh tries to shift the blame for the outbreak of controversy on an artefact-collecting discussion list onto me. He writes:

I am sorry Kerry Drew finds this tiresome - I do too. It's unpleasant to realize that many don't understand how such acrimony began and who is responsible. If Mr. Drew went back to the beginning of the thread he would find that it originated in a nasty attack by Barford upon the integrity of coin collectors and the numismatic trade. Mr. Barford is very provocative in what he says, especially the insulting manner in which he says it. I try to ignore his provocations, but at times they must be answered. I do my best to stick to facts and respond civilly.
There is a price for a list allowing Barford to participate - constant acrimony. If Kerry Drew does not like that, let him complain to the listowner. Meanwhile it's unfair to say "a plague on both your houses" without knowing where the acrimony originated. That's what Mr. Barford wants - and his real reason for doing this. Dave Welsh

The guy has a nerve. Since few onlookers will by now remember where the fracas began, let us look at the history of this as this. This is not just an exercise in putting the record straight. This thread is quite typical of the techniques used by metal detectorists to inflame discussion on archaeological and responsible collectors' lists. They do this so that list members cease to pay attention to any mention of "treasure hunting", "metal detecting", "artefact collecting" etc. in the fear that another 'flame' war will break out. As we can see, another aim is to provoke list owners into taking action against the person whose stand against irresponsible artefact hunting and collecting.

What happened:
1) I published two texts on my blog. MY blog. (There are about 800 texts there on various aspects of portable antiquities collecting and the justifications offered by collectors for what they do - most of which on closer examination can be found wanting)
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/02/so-much-for-old-ancient-collections.html
I made a second post on the same topic just a bit later:
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/02/half-ancient-coins-on-us-market-are.html (Note the "new study shows").

2) Dave Welsh (not me) pulled the entire text over to an external artefact discussion list. He does not give the URL allowing readers to see it in its context of the blog.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53557

In his commentary he provocatively calls me a "liar" (though in fact the figures are perfectly verifiable if you follow back the links - to prevent which he deleted them from the original before posting it)


3) He did the same thing on Museum Security List. This one has an open archive and appears in Google searches.
http://groups.google.com/group/museum_security_network/browse_thread/thread/aff687097df2394a

4) back on Ancient Artifacts, I replied, giving the link he had omitted
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53558
(see also here http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/02/barford-liar.html )

5) Many people looked on and said nothing (as usual). Things like this lead me to conclude that the notion of fair play is very rare in artefact collecting circles. Nobody will stand up to bullies like Welsh. A couple of people (including at least one dealer) however gleefully joined in the happy slapping.

6) One list member stands up to Welsh (only one)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53560

7) That person is then put down. This is why people do not want to stand up to bullies like Welsh on lists where they feel intimidated to step out of line. In the process Welsh attacks a third person (common tactic among detectorists too - to widen the conflict)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53587

8) Not wanting to prolongue the thread on the discussion list (by this time a parallel discussion is going on with the moderator of Museum Security network too), I reply to that, again on my blog.
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-character-assassination-from.html
The person attacked also replies: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53593

9) Welsh then "puts the record straight", once again attacking Elkins.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53698

10) Kerry Drew, a collector from San Francisco says "enough"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53706

11) Welsh replies as above.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53719

List member Adrian White sums up Mr Welsh's tactics perfectly:

Once again radical anti archaeology lobbyist Dave is attempting to smear a respected archaeologist on this site. Scurrilous attacks by him and his fellow travellers are typical of the extreme controversial political lobby group he heads. He and his sycophantic apologists always use the same tactic: putting up a straw man (in this case the archaeological, scientific and curatorial community) and then hammer away at him with mendacious and mean spirited attacks, while at the same time spewing out long, pompous and extremely tedious posts attempting to justify the unjustifiable:- the continued looting of the world's ancient history for monetary gain. As to the amount of coins in tons which are shipped to greedy and uncaring collectors in the USA and elsewhere it doesn't matter whether the amount is 350k or 700k in looted coins, either figure is a scandal and a tragedy for the scientific study of ancient history.

This follows other such pearls of wisdom as for example "More Barfordian Bile" (15th Feb 2010) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53352

His contribution under the name "Any support for a Barford-free group?" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53418 and so on.

Let us note that he initially wheedles "Mr. Barford is very provocative in what he says, especially the insulting manner in which he says it. I try to ignore his provocations, but at times they must be answered". The place for answering a post on my blog is a comment posted to the blog, not copying my post wholesale to a totally diffferent forum. Mr Welsh's motives for doing this are as clear as can be. Of course it would have sufficed to answer it in the format: "this message is an answer to Paul Barford's post at http://blogpost... Note though that he did not post any of this to HIS OWN Unidroit-L forum to "answer" it. That would not have the potential of creating the same amount of fuss, anyway its the Ancient Artifacts forum he wants me chucked off as he cannot control my posts there like he can on his own forum.

In reality, I think the problem is that Welsh realises that in the face of the sort of analysis of the pro-collecting arguments which the preservationists present, the arguments for the maintenance of the no-questions-asked nineteenth century model of artefact collecting are simply untenable and bankrupt. So instead of trying to further justify what Adrian White correctly identifiers as the "unjustifiable", Welsh simply attempts to silence the critics. Since he has elected not to attempt this by fair means, he feels justified in utilising the option of foul means.

But it's "not my fault Miss: Barford started it.... wahhhh!!!"