Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 6 Aug 2000 12:19:35 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Amen !
Stephanie Stoermer
Ned Heite wrote:
> Timothy James Scarlett wrote:
>
> >Let us avoid the colonial-myopic
> >dislike toward the near past, and when the full report is published we
> >can give the project the benefit of peer-review.
>
> PEER REVIEW??
>
> You call this flock of buzzards "peer review" for projects? Peer review is
> an academic concept. To ask us to peer review something is like asking
> General Mills for an honest critique of Kellogg's Corn Flakes.
>
> No, I take that back.
>
> At least General Mills probably would concede that Corn Flakes are food.
>
> Why don't we simply forget age and state of decay as criteria for applying
> archaeological techniques? Industrial archaeologists will argue
> convincingly that archaeology can actually be performed on a working
> factory, and I subscribe to that school. Certainly the garbage project has
> produced excellent and sometimes disturbing insights, even when you can
> still smell the barbecue sauce on the bones.
>
> What makes it archaeology is the observer, not the condition of that which
> is observed. If bottles with labels are better, it follows that bottles
> with both labels and contents are the best.
>
> Ned Heite ([log in to unmask])
> **************************
> Beadle Bumble was right:
> The law really is a ass!
> **************************
|
|
|