Ad by google

Thursday, 20 March 2014

Just to clear things up. Impersonation alert ( new update)

A recent blog post by Paul Barford located here is suggesting that a regular commentator on this blog named Steve is actually the person who has been impersonating me on various blogs.

I asked Paul to send proof of his claim to save me having to download ip tracking software but he declined in his usual unhelpful way.

so I have downloaded the software and will check it out myself.

Im unsure why anyone would want to impersonate me in the first place which I find very weird. There are some odd people out there though.


After a re-read of Pauls post it appears he is trying to imply to his readers that the impersonator of his blog and the person impersonating  me is actually me. I just want to assure the readers here that this is not the case as Paul full well knows as he will have my ip address. These are very underhand tactics he is using to ruin my good name.

Next update

Paul has revealed the ip he believes is that of the person who is impersonating himself and me.

I have checked the ip against yesterdays full list of visitors and it matches none of them. So I think that totally rules out Steve and any other commenter here. I have let Paul know but he will not post the comment I sent him to his post about Steve.  Which I guess shows Paul has an agenda against Steve.  Which would come as no suprise considering the nature of Steves comments on this blog


  1. This Steve is clearly doing a poor job at being provocative as he failed to realise that in order to get your point across you need to put key words in capitals so us idiots can grasp the point trying to be made.

  2. Paul knows full well Andy that you are not the author of his impersonation blog, he just trying to do a smear campaign on you.

    Certainly no need for him to call you a .....vindictive retard twerp Baines..... in his reply on his blog.

    Some people are s**t stirrers and have their own agendas Andy and that is why someone is pretending to be you,, if it is Steve who is the impersonator or not I have no idea but Paul unless he has hacked your blog and got Steves ip address but more likely he has just put 2 + 2 together and got 5

    What Steve wrote in his post was not provocative as Paul put it and I see Paul hasn't refuted what Steve wrote!


    1. Good point and well spotted KPVW.

      I forgot Paul can only have the ip of the people on his own blog. Which means he has no idea really if Steve is the person impersonating me or Paul.

      And yes Pauls comments about me dont surprise me one bit. Thats just how he is when opposed to any opposition.

  3. Shouting and name calling doesn't seem like a very well thought out smear campaign.

  4. I can assure you all that i am not impersonating anyone and am certainly not going to. I have no need to, but to avoid attracting the obvious personal abuse that goes with giving out an identity i will remain as just plain Steve which is my real christian name.
    My comments are intended to give details of what goes on in the real world of archaeology to compare and contrast with those arguments used by some to knock detectorists. I am not knocking archaeologists nor defending the actions of some detectorists. I am simply adding another dimension to the debate and the actions of some in trying to make me into someone sinister in doing this is singularly unhelpful. I have obviously hit a nerve from the reactions to my factual comments.
    I have picked up on this blog site and found it to be one where i felt i could add informed comment and use reasoned argument to contribute to relavent issue being discussed. I have never had any inclination to enter into debate on for example the blogs run by Paul Barford and others because of the inevitable personal abuse that would follow and to find my words and comments being twisted and used to further another part of an anti detecting, anti PAS etc agenda.

    1. Hi Steve, thanks for posting. Your comments have been nothing less than informing and relevant to debate.

      I have a hunch about who the impersonator is, an arrogant man with an ego that is the size of a house that is on a mission to blacken the name of detectorists and get people to feel sorry for himself

  5. Thanks Andy. I see my words and intents are being twisted by a certain person i will not name, in the hope i will either give up commenting or be diverted onto matters which they wish me to comment on. I have no intention of doing that and will contribute factually where i can and feel it to be helpful to the debate.
    It is dreadful how the situation on a certain blog site has developed and is a real eye opener to a newcomer.

    1. Well he hasn't addressed any of the issues you have raised, instead he has just aimed verbal attacks at me. However he seems to have removed them from the post body on his blog and the comments, which I find strange. I expect we will see an influx of attacking posts over the mext couple of days to skirt around the comments you have posted here. Right im going to order my first archaeology book.

  6. Hehe what book are you ordering? I noticed the comment removal to.

    1. Hi detectorbloke hope your well.

      I just made a new post about the one I chose :)

  7. Well Andy it seems that with respect to Mr. Barford and i feel i need to name the individual now as he as you say is obviously trying to rubbish me and what i have said. The way he acts is deplorable and he fits the bill as the typical bully on the block.
    All the comments i made are factual and true. After doing a bit of research on Mr. Barford it seems he left the UK in 1986 ? and so has missed the rise of the commercial archaeological units and the onset of hundreds of multiphase extensive developer led archaeological projects and of course has not been a part of the way excavation practice has changed since his day to accomodate the new order. Being divorced from UK archaeological projects by now resideing in Poland, he is not in any position to be able to take on board my comments or respond from an informed position.
    However i have also been told that Mr. Barford sharpened his trowel on some of the very first large scale excavations on gravel quarry sites in Essex and i understand that in those days bulldozer pulled box scrapers were used to strip a site prior to archaeological excavation taking place, so he may actually be in a postion to make comment on how the archaeological small finds in the topsoil/subsoil strips were dealt with in those days prior to being dumped in screening bunds, topsoil stores and so on. Now my archaeological contact may be wrong on this and i look to Mr. Barford to clarify this.


Comment will show when approved :)