A slight aside, but this thread's getting tangly...

Is your root gripe that it was reburied so quickly then? Do you have concerns that it should have been left a bit longer for study?

I too would like to see the thing, but am uncomfortable with the idea of it being plonked in a museum. I'm not up enough on the quality of laser scanning to be able to pass comment on the quality of information that could be derived from a scan, but surely any desire to see it 'in the flesh' comes from wanting to make that trans-temporal connection with the ancients. A connection better made by getting up there on the moors.

"You tell me how you would decide who should know? Using what criteria?"

exactly as Mr Swift says. If you show enough genuine interest, then you'll be 'in the loop'. How else can it be done? It's like any other decision you make to tell or not tell someone some sensitive information. You have to go on an individual case. Maybe it takes a while to assure people of your genuine intentions, and that you're not just some fwit who wants to rip it out of the ground when they're not looking. It's in the middle of a moor. It's going to take anyone some effort to find - therefore anyone determined to run off with it will have to be particularly dedicated - so it needs a similar amount of 'screening' to determine if you're that sort of person.
If the location is broadcasted to everyone just so you can know where it is 'just in case' you might like to go and see it, then you're exposing the stone to danger.
Anyway whatever.

So everyarchaeological site needs to have all of its artefacts removed post haste?