15th August 2008, 02:06 PM
To engage in the rather thankless task of addressing Mr Unit's comments:
Once again, you have not understood what is in the Contract.
You are correct in one thing - all the other ICE contracts have a role for the Engineer, which does not appear in the Archaeological contract, while the archaeological contract has a Consultant, which does not appear in the other ICE contracts. That is very simple to explain - the term 'Engineer' was changed to 'Consultant' for this particular contract; apart from the terminology, the role is the same.
You appear to be concerned about the lack of anyone called 'the Archaeologist'. That is quite simple too - if the term 'Engineer' had been changed to 'Archaeologist', there might have been confusion with the 'Contractor', who will of course also be an archaeologist.
The main point here is that both the 'Consultant' and the 'Contractor' are archaeologists, and their roles are clearly defined. Notwithstanding all of your comments, the roles in the archaeological contract are identical to those in the engineering contracts.
In all Contracts, the person who provides the service is called the 'Contractor'. A contract for building works, gardening works, plumbing works or flying to the moon would all refer to the 'Contractor', not the 'builder', 'gardener', 'plumber' or 'astronaut'. Why should archaeological works be any different?
As for the rest of your comments - I'm afraid I can't respond, because I couldn't extract enough meaning from them, with one exception:
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Once again, you have not understood what is in the Contract.
You are correct in one thing - all the other ICE contracts have a role for the Engineer, which does not appear in the Archaeological contract, while the archaeological contract has a Consultant, which does not appear in the other ICE contracts. That is very simple to explain - the term 'Engineer' was changed to 'Consultant' for this particular contract; apart from the terminology, the role is the same.
You appear to be concerned about the lack of anyone called 'the Archaeologist'. That is quite simple too - if the term 'Engineer' had been changed to 'Archaeologist', there might have been confusion with the 'Contractor', who will of course also be an archaeologist.
The main point here is that both the 'Consultant' and the 'Contractor' are archaeologists, and their roles are clearly defined. Notwithstanding all of your comments, the roles in the archaeological contract are identical to those in the engineering contracts.
In all Contracts, the person who provides the service is called the 'Contractor'. A contract for building works, gardening works, plumbing works or flying to the moon would all refer to the 'Contractor', not the 'builder', 'gardener', 'plumber' or 'astronaut'. Why should archaeological works be any different?
As for the rest of your comments - I'm afraid I can't respond, because I couldn't extract enough meaning from them, with one exception:
Quote:quote:that uNitof1 is a t**w- I'm not sure that I can guess what a t**w is, but it sounds like it ought to be an accurate description. (Mr Hosty - I hope this is ok on the AUP, I'm only quoting the man himself!
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished