> In agreement, it seems to me that the "PRESS" is part of the public that > needs to be "educated." There are several reporters in southern Nevada who > delight in cultural resource issues. And although they seldom get the facts > straight (is that artistic license?) as we perceive them, they are open to > reasonable, discussion. For example, a leisure reporter some time ago > announced the location of a rock art site on public land as an isolated > (seldom visited), therapeutic location to relax and refresh the spirit. > After upsetting numerous local archaeologists (and Native Americans), this > reporter was invited to another site that has been thoroughly trashed by the > uneducated and was made aware of what his disclosures could potentially do > to his refresh-the-spirit site. Seeing the damage first hand, he said he > had no idea and appreciated the comparison and enlightenment. While this > person does continue to publish locations of sanctioned and controled sites > to visit, he no longer discusses sites that are off the beaten path. > Instead of flaming Dr. Gott, honoring him with the title of moron and making > an enemy (armed with a pen instead of a sword), wouldn't it be better to > establish an open dialoge and convert him, make him see the error of his > ways? Is public education not a professional goal or are we just paying it > lip service? Convert the press, convert the masses - well almost. yeah, but that was what the initial letter tried to do - gott didn't take it that way, and the question now is, what next? we had some success some time back with a similar discussion over "antique roadshow", now this - it's sort of like dealing with a saddam hussein who keeps insisting he won the war - we've tried the high road, now what? > Behold the power of PR (remember Nixon). or goebbels Look at it this way, newspaper > editors love controversy and in order to sell their version of the truth > they encourage their reporters to pursue such issues rather than admitting > mistakes or bad judgement (unless there is proveable negligence and then > they just drop it). If the good Dr. Gott receives approval from his boss to > publicly respond to numerous flaming letters, just imagine the possibilities > for the bad press he could muster. Take for example, POTTY PALACE > ARCHAEOLOGISTS TAKE ISSUE WITH MEDICAL ADVISE, ouch. Now don't get me > wrong, I don't condon what advise he gave or the method he rendered his > opinion. The bottom line is to get the man on our side, show him the > enlightend path, and drop the attack on his credibility. Just a > thought....... geoff carver http://home.t-online.de/home/gcarver/ [log in to unmask]