Well, speaking for myself only, and with the
bias of having known Mark since the late
1970's and having read the posts, here are my
observations and recommendation:

On short posts of less than 2 or so sentences
where he shoots from the lip, it can
sometimes be very slightly annoying, but
those are in the majority. Who amongst us
hasn't occasionally put out something for
public discussion that later we wished we'd
not? It happens, move on.

On long posts, I've read them in their
entirety and I have always found them to be
thoughtful and articulate. I may not agree
with some of the comments, but I'm an
archaeologist following the truism that where
10 archaeologists are gathered, there are at
least 11 opinions.

Archaeology is many things and when I was
working where Mark now works, and doing part
of what he does along with a humongous list
of other tasks, it was really apparent that I
was not a typical archaeologist, I was more
of an administrator. It was also very clear
that I could have far more of a beneficial
effect on the profession in that capacity
than by dealing with one survey or site at a
time and by plugging along in the normal
fashion. Johnson said something to the effect
that nothing so much focusses the mind as
knowing on the morrow one will hang. Well,
nothing so much focusses the archaeological
mind on synthesis as having to deal with an
entire state's worth of road archaeology and
having to expend limited funds on the sites
which would produce the most bang for the
buck. I always figured that if I had half of
the engineering brigade at VDOT and half of
the SHPO office bent out of shape, I was
probably doing it right.

My advice is this: ignore the nasty comments,
they're part of the background noise and keep
your eyes on the goal. Above all, do not
sign-off as I for one value your input.

Lyle