Bill Lipe makes the following three points in support of ROPA: 1. sufficent problems exist in the field to warrant SOPA's existence, and its transformation into ROPA--just talk with SOPA's past grievance coordinators; 2. high, nationally applied standards will help compliance archaeologists justif y the costs of conducting individual projects; and 3. SOPA's existence already has influenced the creation of higher ethical and, presumably, technical standards. I address each of these points. First, as a scientist, I value anecdotal data; but I prefer hard numbers. As per my original posting of 15 August, I still want to know how widespread the problem o f unethical behaviour has become and its effects on public attitudes and the gener al prosecution of compliance archaeology. Surely SOPA has compiled some sort of dat a to justify the time, money, and effort devoted to the development and enforcement o f ethical standards. While the ability to point to an ethical code to justify a certain level of archaeological study might be convenient, I think there are more effective, less abstract means at hand. Specifically, standards and guidelines promulgated by th e National Park Service and SHPOs across the country. Representatives of lead agen cies in the review process are familiar with the archaeology of their jurisdictions and can make a very good case, backed by hard data, for a particular level of study in connec tion with a project. Reviewers also can, and do, reject reports that describe levels of effort inadequate to meet the terms of state and federal laws and regulations. I f the problems remain unaddressed, the contractor may lose all or part of the contract price. Moreover, clients who experience undue delays or frustrations arising from the incompetence or unethical behavior of their contractors are unlikely to engage t hose contractors in the future. I suspect, also, that 'problem' contractors with poor track records are subject to more stringent reviews by lead agencies. In short, the ma rket weeds out incompetence--whether technical or in the realm of business. We might better devote our resources to the support of SHPOS and the Advisory Council. Finally, I don't doubt that SOPA has played an important role in the development of archaeological ethics. Nor do I doubt that SOPA can have a better spokesman than Bill Lipe. I am not nearly as confident, however, of SOPA's/ROPA's indispensibility. The development of ethical standards will continue without this organization, occurr ing within SHA, SAA, AIA, the various regional, and state organizations. The academy also maintains ethical codes, sustained through the tenure process and through the institutions' administrative offices. Museum anthropologists are subject to the ethical standards of the American Association of Museums. I assume the national organiza tion for SHPOs has its own ethical code, or is developing one, governing SHPOs and their staffs. SOPA never attracted a majority of the working archaeologists in the USA; in fac t, only a small fraction. Why? Disinterest? Apathy? Neither, I think. I propose instead that most of our colleagues are very well satisfied with the efforts made on their be half by SHA, SAA, AIA, and the various other professional organizations that we support through dues and participation. I think many of us are disinclined to subject ourselves to the application process. Afterall, those with M.A.s face more difficult tests and th ose with Ph.D.s like to think that they passed the ultimate test: their doctoral disserta tion defense. (Of the latter, the more senior and productive might wonder who precise ly would pass judgment on their applications.) And, impressionistically, I think that man y of us are a little intimidated by the idea of subjecting ourselves and our actions to the scrutiny of a judicial board, particular one that entertains grievances from non-members. In a field where personal integrity and reputation are our principa l assets, few will be inclined to trust their careers to a system where both can b e easily tarnished, particularly by non-members who are not subject to the same code. Bil l Lipe suggested that list members inquire of past grievance coordinators about the fre quency and severity of unethical behavior. Fine. I also suggest that you find individua ls who have been falsely accused and subsequently cleared by grand juries or by the cou rts. Do their reputations survive intact? I think not. Ballotting will occur soon. The ROPA committee must present hard numbers detaili ng the scope of the ethical problem and its effects on archaeology, as well as estimate s as to how much ROPA will cost in terms of increased SHA dues, increased SAA dues, and individual application fees and annual dues for those who choose to be registere d. As to the latter, ballpark estimates based on income categories will suffice. Without such information, I vote no. I am unsure about tying the knot, I really don't want to rent the rope. Jim Gibb Annapolis, Maryland