Have you used the ICE Conditions of Contract?

[BAJR Host]

I am trying to work out what a t**w actually is.. but you may indeed be right... though the only word I can come up with is thaw... and thew? hmmm... oh... hang on..... I think I get it he's a t##t !


here are all possible 4 letter words that begin with 't' only two end with 'w'

tabs, tabu, tace, tach, tack, taco, tact, tads, tael, tags, tahr, tail, tain, taka, take, tala, talc, tale, tali, talk, tall, tame, tamp, tams, tang, tank, tans, taos, tapa, tape, taps, tare, tarn, taro, tarp, tars, tart, task, tass, tate, tats, taus, taut, tavs, taws, taxa, taxi, teak, teal, team, tear, teas, teat, tech, teds, teed, teel, teem, teen, tees, teff, tegg, tegs, tela, tele, tell, tels, temp, tend, tens, tent, tepa, term, tern, test, teth, tets, tews, text, thae, than, that, thaw, thee, them, then, thew, they, thin, thio, thir, this, thou, thro, thru, thud, thug, thus, tick, tics, tide, tidy, tied, tier, ties, tiff, tike, tiki, tile, till, tils, tilt, time, tine, ting, tins, tint, tiny, tipi, tips, tire, tirl, tiro, titi, tits, tivy, toad, toby, tods, tody, toea, toed, toes, toff, toft, tofu, toga, togs, toil, toit, toke, tola, told, tole, toll, tolu, tomb, tome, toms, tone, tong, tons, tony, took, tool, toom, toon, toot, tope, toph, topi, topo, tops, tora, torc, tore, tori, torn, toro, torr, tors, tort, tory, tosh, toss, tost, tote, tots, tour, tout, town, tows, towy, toyo, toys, trad, tram, trap, tray, tree, tref, trek, tres, tret, trey, trig, trim, trio, trip, trod, trog, trop, trot, trow, troy, true, trug, tsar, tsks, tuba, tube, tubs, tuck, tufa, tuff, tuft, tugs, tuis, tule, tump, tuna, tune, tung, tuns, tups, turf, turn, tush, tusk, tuts, tutu, twae, twas, twee, twig, twin, twit, twos, tyee, tyes, tyin, tyke, tyne, type, typo, typp, typy, tyre, tyro, tzar,

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

[Fishslice]

quote:Originally posted by Unitof1



Fishy; The loads of wonga guarantee is not in the wonderful contract, but the ENGINEER is involved in all the other ICE contracts with somebody called THE MAN, also known as the EMPLOYER.

If the load of wonga guarantee is not in the contracts why did you say it was?

Does this possibly mean that there are errors, generalisations and wild inaccuracies in your other posts???

If unitof1 can't save us from THE MAN who can? Does John Shaft do archaeology?

Who's ill informed archaeologist
That's a sex machine to all the curators?
(Unitof1!)
You're damn right

[Sparky]

I think he meant Trow and might have been putting some sort of Orcadian or Shetland curse on himself. How kind!

[gorilla]

Strange... I keep seeing Uof1 as the last postee on this subject (11am on 17th August), but no message from him appears. Did his last message totally contravene the AUP or has he mysteriously disappeared up his own fundament?

A suitable subject for bonekickers, no-doubt.

Ooo, ooo, ooo... I wanna be like you-ooo-ooo

[Oxbeast]

You come up as the last poster if you edit one of your own posts, though it doesn't seem to make it much easier to fathom.

[vulpes]

Yeah, if we waait long enough eventually Uo1 will rearrange all the letters in his posts into the words of a popular song or the complete scripts from bonekickers, or something....

[gorilla]

Aha... thank you Oxbeast. There I was thinking he was gone for good, yet it is just a BAJR editing thingy.

Pity...

[gorilla]

"Yeah, if we waait long enough eventually Uo1 will rearrange all the letters in his posts into the words of a popular song or the complete scripts from bonekickers, or something...."

An infinite number of monkeys armed with an infinite number of typewriters couldn't come up with half the things Uof1 does.

[Unitof1]

The contract is no longer full of wonder and needs a new name. I am toying with the dishonest contract, the cowards contract, smokescreen contract. Any suggestions.

I don’t know what I had expected of the contract. As an underachiever in watching briefs on porch extensions for little old ladies, I suppose that I was afraid that one day a little old lady would have said to me, that after research she and had sent out a runner six weeks previously to the british library who had now returned with the only guide to the only contract that the institute of field archaeology had put its thumb print too. I would have pleaded, that contract is not intended for these small types of jobs.

She might have said, Well why did the ifa not start off by producing contract standards for small jobs and then built up to playing with the big boys. A simple client archaeologist document, they have a code about contracts. She might also have pointed out that in the introduction to the guide the ifa director has said that the contract is intended as much in the Building as in the Civil engineering industry. It is not mentioned in the guide that the contract is not intended for little jobs. And the contract says that the project requires a Consultant. I would plead, what about all the double handling and said something like, I could do both positions or the curators can, we don’t have to fill in the consultants name and that it would still be a usable contract. But the contract goes on and on about the consultants duties, more so than the archaeologists which makes the consultant a difficult thing to cut out. The consultant even gets their name in the contract even though they don’t sign it. Does that mean I cant take advise from elsewhere? She might add, Whats all this about liquidated damages and how are you going to do rectification of defects, fill the hole back in. I would suggest that they are irrelevant engineering terms that show that this was a badly cobbled together document from other minor engineering contracts solely intended to legitimise consultants. You might try to cheat me, isn’t that why we need a consultant. I might counter that’s why there are standards, maybe, you might need another consultant to tell you whether the first consultant is also cheating you. I mean if all archaeologists are born cheats, who require monitoring, supervision and cant be trusted to not work in the rain, and these consultants are supposed to be experienced archaeologist, arent you worried that they might be really good cheats. I see the narrowing of the little old ladies eyes, honed by years of bargain hunting victories, replying, Be what may, the other structure set up in this contract is that I am to have no contract connecting me to you, I am the employer of the engineer, and hensefourthwit you have to be employed either through my architect or builder and from the structure of your institutes contract you are to be employed by them after they have employed a consultant. You have also got to insure my liabilities or something. From this point on I must not be seen with you. I am the money, you are the shame. You dog.

But I need your copyright permission.

No, we need that subject muddied to high heaven. The engineer can pretend that the wayleaves agreements cover it

But they have not presented a contract for the consultant

No, and that’s none of your business.

I would then point out that her planning permission had been granted with the condition and having an archaeological consultation would have been more useful before she had applied for permission.

All this piffle about the duties of the consultant, strapped all over a contractors contract. Well I think it is because the main archaeological duty of the consultant is not mentioned in this cowards contract and by cowards I mean the archaeologists.

What I think this contract is about the archaeologist not being involved in the negotiations with the authorities. This contract is for scams that could go to a Public Inquiry and the consultant archaeologist is the specialised poodle, all fluffed up as The wise old, named, archaeologist for the parade to make sure that some scheme goes ahead. No trowel required. The engineers employer and the diggers are hidden several steps away from the debate. This contract is about the field archaeologist accepting the prior and ongoing consultants arrangements with the curators.

How does this contract affect the average digger. It would seem, from this thread, mostly by having to dig in the rain. This is one of the ways that the consultant can be seen to throw their weight around on the ground, in the hole. Does digging in the rain mean much? Well if you can make somebody dig or not in the rain you probably have quite a bit of control on what they are paid and the rest of their conditions.

The archaeological reputation, power is in the regulations and Acts and to not be involved in things like public inquires takes identity and reputation away from the field archaeologists and diggers and lets others make money off their backs.

1man is going to say that you cant have the archaeologists produce the WSI.

Sorry 1man I must learn Its the consultants job to put words in my mouth not the other way round

[Oxbeast]

"This contract is about the field archaeologist accepting the prior and ongoing consultants arrangements with the curators." Yes, absolutely.

The rest of your post unfortunately demonstrates why people have so much trouble engaging with your arguments. It is overly long, ungrammatical and badly written and veers from point to point. I can see most people losing patience halfway through that huge central paragraph...

I've seen both good and bad consultants, but I think that they're here to stay. Its just the way that the construction industry works. If you need a bridge to be built, get a consultant civil engineer to supervise the contractors. If you have archaeology to be done, get an archaeological consultant to supervise the contractors.