[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Possible Meteorite Fall in Australia
Joel Schiff wrote:
> Ron,
> Maybe we should get together on some of this news. I was planning to run the
> Seismic Mystery Remains in Australia report in our August issue. Now I can't really..
> Joel
Dear Joel,
In reading this message, perhaps I inferred wrongly, but it seemed you
were saying 2 things, both of which concerned me.
First: If you were saying you could not report on the Seismic Mystery
Remains in Australia in METEORITE! in August, because Ron gave us the
news now, I would like to point out that Art has long stated that the
newsletter is limited to 100 recipients. Perhaps I am wrong, but my
impression is that METEORITE! has approximately1,000 readers. It would
seem well worth your while to "run" the story, since only 10% (maximum)
of your readers have received it in advance. Your publication is
outstanding & I, for one, would hate to see you "pull" a story because a
minority of your readership had already received the news.
Second: Again this is my inference - the message seemed to imply you
would like Ron to hold back (at least some) information
so that you could "break the news" later. If I am wrong, please do
correct me. However, if my inference is accurate, I find such a
proposal highly objectionable. We all, as far as I know, belong to this
newsletter, in large part, for just such a reason: to get the news of
what's happening in the world of meteoritics ASAP. If (and again, please
do correct me if I misinterpreted) you are attempting to "controle the
news" (in terms of timing), I find it highly objectionable! You want us
to wait to get news in 3 months that Ron has provided today? Again,
perhaps I am wrong, & if so, I apologize. However, if I am correct, this
is entirely unacceptable.
Ron Baalke & Frank Stroik have been two of the most significant
contributors to this newsletter. Please, hands off!
Again, PLEASE CORRECT ME, if I am wrong. I am quite confident I am not
the only reader who had this interpretation of your statement.
Please, do respond.
Best wishes, Michael
References: