the kind of people waging a jihad against our pastime includes a minority of foul-mouthed slobs and ivory tower dwelling prejudiced ‘academics’, who have no compunction in exploiting the more vulnerable of their own kind, who, if you read the content of their blogs, you will see are completely off their trollies – or put another way, are more than a few coins short of hoard – in common parlance; ‘nutters.’ These barmy buggers are best ignored, to be pitied even, owing to of thier (sic) inability to grasp (sic) any sense of reality. What disturbs me though, are those other academics and archaeologists who use these poor weak-minds souls to fire the bullets they themselves are shit-scared to do (sic). These ‘abusers’ – for that is what they – are readily identifiable, and a stain on the those (sic) who accuse us of all the heritage ills. When it comes to using mental cripples to promote one’s advocacy, then the lowest depths have been plumbed. Best Hoiker HowlandI leave it up to my readers to identify who they consider to be the real mental cripples and illiterates in the heritage debate, but I think this raises the question - why does that writer expect academics and archaeologists be 'scared sh*tl*ss' of artefact hunters engaged in a pastime? Surely the official narrative promoted by both sides is that the two are 'partners', no?