22nd January 2007, 02:09 PM
When the IFA was first set up the code of conduct attempted to imagine such as thing as a field archaeologist and made some choices for this individual to follow(a lot that I dont agree with but). PeepeeG seems to imagine such a beast. Then the members found that they were not really field archaeologists any more but required to retain the âstatusâ in their new professions and in the codes the word archaeologist was replaced with RAO. Immortal organisations are now the archaeologists. Unfortunately they did not rewrite this clearly in the code of conduct. (now the problems with peepeeG-strange hay)
I happen to feel that those organisations are civil servant led and that the IFA was heavily populated with them from the beginning. They subsequently have got their business by ensuring that an archaeologist as an individual does not exist. I dont think that this has been appreciated particularly by those who progress through the âwhole professionâ from âdiggingâ and particularly when diggers cite the IFA codes in grievances as if they were hard done by âarchaeologistsâ.
As it stands there might be â28% contractorsâ on the IFA committees from which they might be selected for investigations into secret allegations that then produce a chaotic citation of codes that have been broken without a description of the offences but I doubt that if you were a field archaeologist who was disciplined that you would be likely to met these enforcers of dubious law in a trench somewhere. Thats 72% and most of the 28% of IFA are irrelevant to people that like to imagine that they are archaeologists (even though its never written on the pay slip.....)
That they did this peefor for meefor responsibilities is indicative that it is likely that it is only at the peefor level that you can find somebody who can have an interaction of all the issues cited in this case. Is it also indicative that you have to break a lot of the code before anything happens...and that the code of conduct is irrelevant to what members do in an RAO well apart from the ..... clause. (joke). Any appeal is frivolous.
I happen to feel that those organisations are civil servant led and that the IFA was heavily populated with them from the beginning. They subsequently have got their business by ensuring that an archaeologist as an individual does not exist. I dont think that this has been appreciated particularly by those who progress through the âwhole professionâ from âdiggingâ and particularly when diggers cite the IFA codes in grievances as if they were hard done by âarchaeologistsâ.
As it stands there might be â28% contractorsâ on the IFA committees from which they might be selected for investigations into secret allegations that then produce a chaotic citation of codes that have been broken without a description of the offences but I doubt that if you were a field archaeologist who was disciplined that you would be likely to met these enforcers of dubious law in a trench somewhere. Thats 72% and most of the 28% of IFA are irrelevant to people that like to imagine that they are archaeologists (even though its never written on the pay slip.....)
That they did this peefor for meefor responsibilities is indicative that it is likely that it is only at the peefor level that you can find somebody who can have an interaction of all the issues cited in this case. Is it also indicative that you have to break a lot of the code before anything happens...and that the code of conduct is irrelevant to what members do in an RAO well apart from the ..... clause. (joke). Any appeal is frivolous.