8th December 2008, 08:12 PM
Posted by Dirty Dave:
As you may have gathered, I am pro-IFA, and also strongly pro-BAJR. I am entirely neutral on Prospect, as I have no experience of them.
I think there is an important and useful role for BAJR as a provider of services and information and as a discussion forum, all things that it already does very well. It could also form a potentially powerful focus for lobbying, a route that it has already started to go down. I am a great admirer of what Mr Hosty has achieved in creating BAJR and growing it into what it is now.
However, the description given in the opening post on this thread really does sound like an alternative IfA with a bit of Union thrown in, and I think it would be a bad mistake to go down that line. It would completely change the nature and purpose of the organisation, endangering all that has been achieved, while polarising the archaeological community even more than is already the case. I know that isn't what is intended, but I think it would be the consequence.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:We have read posts that are not pro-IFA or pro-PROSPECT, I have yet to see anything negative said about BAJR, is that because people have more trust in BAJR?I agree entirely.
I think there is deffinately a role for BAJR to play which needn't detract from the groups mentioned
As you may have gathered, I am pro-IFA, and also strongly pro-BAJR. I am entirely neutral on Prospect, as I have no experience of them.
I think there is an important and useful role for BAJR as a provider of services and information and as a discussion forum, all things that it already does very well. It could also form a potentially powerful focus for lobbying, a route that it has already started to go down. I am a great admirer of what Mr Hosty has achieved in creating BAJR and growing it into what it is now.
However, the description given in the opening post on this thread really does sound like an alternative IfA with a bit of Union thrown in, and I think it would be a bad mistake to go down that line. It would completely change the nature and purpose of the organisation, endangering all that has been achieved, while polarising the archaeological community even more than is already the case. I know that isn't what is intended, but I think it would be the consequence.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished