New name for the IFA...

[BAJR Host]

quote: I have to admit that your questions made me think a bit about the IFA and why I am supportive of it

I thanks you and hope the same is true about BAJR.. which itself is not perfect.. makes mistakes, fluffs it.. etc... I hope that when I am pulled up, questioned and challenged, I look at the issue and try and deal with it quickly... and try to be accountable (I know I don't have to be... be feel that I should be)

I also agree with the statement:

quote:rchaeology would have been in a far worse position by now without the IFA

It would be.. no doubt about that... it seems however, that at the moment.. there is talk .. and action (for there is action) is hidden.

Perhaps I should start listing the BAJR benefits



"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[oldgirl]

Neither I or most other people posting here would be doing so if we didn't think there were benefits!

Historic Building, thanks. You posted whilst I was replying. I was pretty sure that RIBA was chartered. Therefore, there is clearly a good reason to be in RIBA if you're an architect, you can't call yourself one if you're not! (as you say!)

[oldgirl]

PS I think that is another reason why I don't like the alternative 'historic environment'. I am pretty much persuaded that archaeology should be a chartered profession. I think having a different term for the same job possibly muddys the water and once again allows others in through the back door.

[Oxbeast]

I dislike the term 'historic environment' because it obscures what the real aim of archaeology should be: to try to understand the people, not their environment. The term seems to try to move the focus away from human beings and towards some kind of dry data gathering excercise.

Besides, as andy bicket has said, what about the prehistoric environment? It would be silly of the IFA to blunder into the 'Historic Scotland' trap.

[oldgirl]

quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast

I dislike the term 'historic environment' because it obscures what the real aim of archaeology should be: to try to understand the people, not their environment. The term seems to try to move the focus away from human beings and towards some kind of dry data gathering excercise.

Besides, as andy bicket has said, what about the prehistoric environment? It would be silly of the IFA to blunder into the 'Historic Scotland' trap.

All true! [8D]

[1man1desk]

Posted by BAJR Host:

quote:that said... even you have to add elements such as... *They are not perfect* ... * if used properly.* etc

But then, what is perfect?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[the invisible man]

quote:Originally posted by oldgirl
You posted whilst I was replying. I was pretty sure that RIBA was chartered. Therefore, there is clearly a good reason to be in RIBA if you're an architect, you can't call yourself one if you're not! (as you say!)

This is not actually the case. The RIBA is indeed a chartered institute but you do not have to be a member to use the title Architect. There is a separate registration body, ARC.

However, the huge majority of architects are members: almost all moan about the Institute.

[BAJR Host]

Perhap we need a separate registration body .... hmmmmm ...

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[oldgirl]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Perhap we need a separate registration body .... hmmmmm ...

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

We don't need a separate or non-separate one until its a chartered title. But whatever, you need standards and procedures and criteria in order to run a register, which takes us back to the 'what have the <s>romans</s> sorry, IFA ever done for us' question.

[BAJR Host]

A full register that subscribes to a set of criteria.. that is self regulating... and has teeth .. now that might just work.

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers