local tv: metal detectorists vs archaeologists lock

close
more_vert
Paul Barford P
Paul Barford Jun 2, 2007 15:56:24
Replying to kevmar

kevmar wrote:
it could be seen as a kind of lessening of my stance
no actually it would undoubtedly be seen as you providing the information asked for and in the spirit in which it was entrusted to you by the detectorists that actually did the WORK. Too bad, your refusal to do so can ONLY be taken at this stage as meaning that the results are as unfavourable to detecting as we say they are. Prove us wrong.

kevmar wrote:
Take this any way you like, if you publish any of my work in part or full, or refer to me in any recognisable way, I'll not only sue you,
but your publisher too. No further comment
Oooo, we're really scared by that - about as scared as we were the last two times you've issued a similar threat... you're getting a bit repetetive Kev.

Truth is, you personally do not figure in this book at all, not a mention. In the past couple of years, I am sorry to say, you have not produced a single quotable quote of relevance to anything we are writing. All along, all you have been capable of is the same type of trollish aggro and puerile jibes about "buttons" and the suchlike as we see here. That's hardly the way to literary immortality in our book. There are far more articulate advocates of artefact collecting to quote.

But the UKDN survey, oh yes, we have mentioned that, in Chapter six. Right between the English Heritage report, information from the PAS Annual Reports and other documents about rallies, and some useful information we found published in "the Searcher".

C cymap
cymap Jun 2, 2007 16:24:29
Replying to Paul Barford

You and your little minions accuse people of being forum trolls and yet your vain attempt at intellectual insults equal just the same.

N nigelswift
nigelswift Jun 2, 2007 17:00:00
Replying to Paul Barford

kevmar wrote:
"None wasn't it?"

That's exactly right Kevmar, your survey shows they found nothing recordable.
Which is why you don't want to reveal it. Really convincing job you're doing here.
So I guess on that basis, if anybody puts anything different they won't be in breach of copyright will they? Should be OK then.

Paul wrote:
"we have mentioned that...."

"We" Paul? Are there two of you? Oh, you mean ME!
Yes Kevmar, you always said I was Barford's Puppet (inter alia) so I thought I'd get in character. I hold the pen and he writes. (At least, he thinks he does).

So if you're booking a brief, please mention me. And tell him I said anyone that thinks I'm daft enough to leave even a scintilla of an opening for a successful action against me is sadly mistaken. (Not that I'd mind anyone trying. I can't think of anything that would be more effective for resource conservation. But I think you know that really).

Are we all done now? Our two heritage heroes don't want licensing but won't say why and they both have figures to prove the counter is wrong but they won't reveal them and will have the law on anyone who does. I guess people will just have to draw their own conclusions for now.

P Paul Barford
Paul Barford Jun 2, 2007 18:40:11
Replying to Paul Barford

nigelswift wrote:
I hold the pen and he writes. (At least, he thinks he does).
OK, our little "secret" is out, I could not do it without Nigel to come up with incisive thoughts and texts, cut out all the wordy bits of my drafts, critique the arguments and put the rest into polished prose. I was not sure he'd want me revealing it here.

So there you are Kev, you'll have to take both of us to court as well as our publisher. As Nigel says, it could be jolly good publicity.