4th May 2015, 10:41 AM
Is it anything to do standards or rather trying to turn it into a standards issue is trying to make out that the ifa is anything to do with field archaeology. What I think should be remembered is that archaeology occurs in effect on private land and is in private ownership. If at the end of the day the owner wants to trash it they are fully entitled to do so, that includes road schemes in council or central government control. The closest that there is to any political control is through the town and countries acts and the system appears to have evolved to be based on the so called discharge of conditions. All this means is that permissions can be sort to trash it in public.
Who the hell wants to belong to an institute based on somebody making a complaint about somebody else's field standards when that institute is stuffed with either public servants or people who have no control over their copyrights. Once I haven't won the contract I couldn't careless what anybody does with their site (I do care why I haven't won the contract though which is where the scams are). Croc appears to want to get the complain about your neighbour system sorted out to the anonymous level.
I gladly look perplexed in the face of any standard that you care to mention. What is a standard that anybody would want anonymity over?
Who the hell wants to belong to an institute based on somebody making a complaint about somebody else's field standards when that institute is stuffed with either public servants or people who have no control over their copyrights. Once I haven't won the contract I couldn't careless what anybody does with their site (I do care why I haven't won the contract though which is where the scams are). Croc appears to want to get the complain about your neighbour system sorted out to the anonymous level.
I gladly look perplexed in the face of any standard that you care to mention. What is a standard that anybody would want anonymity over?
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist