[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Norton County

Hello All,

Please note that the arguments we have today are rarely over new topics.
Bernd's
recent posting about Norton Co. written by Ursula B. Marvin contains such
an example. As you read the final paragraph Bernd posted, remember that
Norton Co. fell in 1948, half a century ago.

Also remember that the argument Lapaz put forth against Nininger was not
new since
it had been played out at the turn of the century in the United States by
many others. And the century before that, in Europe. In fact, some of the
early reasons for protecting the Ensisheim followed the same path of
reasoning as those we encounter  today. In reality, this should not be
surprising.

Here is the final paragraph of Bernd's post in case you did not read that
far:

"We need not ask whether or not Nininger received his requested specimens
of Norton County from the Institute of Meteoritics. LaPaz evidently felt
deeply that meteorities should be raised from the realm of dealers,
hobbyists, and amateur collectors and established as an academic discipline
to be pursued in universities, preferably by professors like himself who
held Ph.D. degrees in mathematics, physics, or astronomy. Not only did he
deplore Nininger's selling of meteoritesat his museum, he was scandalized
when Nininger brought specimens to Society meetings and offered them for
sale. In all probability, LaPaz saw dealers as posing a genuine threat to
research opportunities by inflating the prices of meteorites. He may also
have felt a whiff of the disdain toward "men-in-trade" that was traditional
among gentlemanly scholars on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean."


Cheers,

Martin






























----------
Archives located at:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/list_best.html

For help, FAQ's and sub. info. visit:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing_list.html
----------
References: