[meteorite-list] Fwd: M-List
From: Sharkkb8_at_aol.com <Sharkkb8_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:01:32 2004 Message-ID: <86.1ba1aa44.2a348594_at_aol.com> --part1_86.1ba1aa44.2a348594_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mr. DeRusse writes: > I have followed and learned much from your postings and group, but there is > some elements of your group (individuals) who could benefit from > maintaining an open mind. The reason I say this is because we have > (recently) released some information to the international community (only) > about our discoveries that has them gasping and at the same time praising > our work. I really would like to see our domestic critics (from the list), > who have invested so much of their time and lives creating a niche in > meteoritics not look foolish in front of the world by clinging to static > notions while sacrificing progress and knowledge. As a proud member of the "domestic critic" fraternity mentioned above, I'd like to respond. Mr. DeRusse, with all due respect (if indeed ANY is due), talk is cheap. Anyone with a piece of slag, a word processor and a modem can compose the above sentiments and express them on the list. Many of the list-folks to whom you refer have been through the absurdities of the Emerald Meteorite and the Frass meteorite, which have been "offered" to the meteorite community with remarkably similar self-congratulatory fanfare as the Boggy Creek specimens. Lots of promises, lots of really swell scientificspeak, lots of hype, lots of "we-will-have-vindication-when-the-truth-is-known" rhetoric. Sorry, but those things alone do not merit congratulation. Most of us on the list will be the first to sing the praises of anyone who succeeds in presenting new and exciting meteoritical discoveries to the world (we do it all the time) but we don't rush to heap praise on loud, empty promises. Another noticeable similarity to the above two fraud cases is your "conspiracy-theory", us-against-the-world mentality. Yes, even though scientists usually can't agree on what day it is, we're all quite willing to believe that they have all voted to lay aside their differences just this once, to gang up on you and you alone, to silence your Brave New Message, steal your rocks, and protect us mere mortals from the Truth. Oh, and by the way, it's awfully flattering of you to say that we on the list are actually capable of <<sacrificing progress and knowledge. >> Thank you. I'll take a stab at the three questions you ask in your text. 1) << If our samples were not authentic, why would so many Scientists risk their careers by repeatedly attempting to steal the samples? >> Kindly present their names, case numbers, conviction-details, and any other legal evidence of these crimes. Otherwise, see "talk-is-cheap" comment. 2) << Do you think that someone trying to perpetuate a scam on the Internet is going to show their picture, fax number, mailing and residence address? >> So, there are NO scams on the internet with pictures, addresses and fax numbers? If you're really asking people to believe that, it doesn't exactly enhance your credibility. Besides, you could believe devoutly in your own hype, without it being a "scam", really. There's no law against being wrong. Pretty easy to prove, that one. 3) << Don't you think that if a scam was brewing here, law enforcement wouldn't have been knocking on our door by now? Why do you think that law enforcement agencies have not called us? >> Yes, after all, law enforcement doesn't have much else to worry about these days. By the above logic, any and all operations that law enforcement hasn't investigated are automatically legitimate. Credibility heading further south. You mention "maintaining an open mind". (Ahh yes, knew that one had to come along sooner or later). The demand for the "open mind" is one of those buzz-phrases, it's a favorite warm-and-fuzzy tactic of those who have no real proof to offer, since no one wants to appear to be closed-minded. Mr. DeRusse, a totally open mind only allows the brains to fall out. Seems to me an "open mind" and a healthy skepticism actually go quite well together. But as far as authenticity is concerned, an "open mind" and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee (except here in Southern California ;-). Mr. DeRusse, until you offer something more substantial than hype, until your claims are recognized by credentialed, independent scientific sources, until you can offer arguments that don't appeal strictly to the "my-open-mind-is-my-religion" zealots and those easily seduced by conspiracy-theories, many of us on the list will probably continue to giggle at your claims and your $500,000-per-gram specimens. So prove us wrong. We'll congratulate you, we really will. But kindly present your accepted proofs and meteoritical data first, and THEN demand vindication from your critics, rather than the other way around. Until then, sir, we're not the ones who << look foolish in front of the world >>. Gregory --part1_86.1ba1aa44.2a348594_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2> <BR> Mr. DeRusse writes:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><I>I have followed and learned much from your postings and group, but there is some elements of your group (individuals) who could benefit from maintaining an open mind. The reason I say this is because we have (recently) released some information to the international community (only) about our discoveries that has them gasping and at the same time praising our work. I really would like to see our domestic critics (from the list), who have invested so much of their time and lives creating a niche in meteoritics not look foolish in front of the world by clinging to static notions while sacrificing progress and knowledge. </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> </I><BR> <BR> As a proud member of the "domestic critic" fraternity mentioned above, I'd like to respond. Mr. DeRusse, with all due respect (if indeed ANY is due), talk is cheap. Anyone with a piece of slag, a word processor and a modem can compose the above sentiments and express them on the list. Many of the list-folks to whom you refer have been through the absurdities of the Emerald Meteorite and the Frass meteorite, which have been "offered" to the meteorite community with remarkably similar self-congratulatory fanfare as the Boggy Creek specimens. Lots of promises, lots of really swell scientificspeak, lots of hype, lots of "we-will-have-vindication-when-the-truth-is-known" rhetoric. Sorry, but those things alone do not merit congratulation. Most of us on the list will be the first to sing the praises of anyone who succeeds in presenting new and exciting meteoritical discoveries to the world (we do it all the time) but we don't rush to heap praise on loud, empty promises. Another noticeable similarity to the above two fraud cases is your "conspiracy-theory", us-against-the-world mentality. Yes, even though scientists usually can't agree on what day it is, we're all quite willing to believe that they have all voted to lay aside their differences just this once, to gang up on you and you alone, to silence your Brave New Message, steal your rocks, and protect us mere mortals from the Truth. Oh, and by the way, it's awfully flattering of you to say that we on the list are actually capable of <<<I>sacrificing progress and knowledge. >> </I>Thank you.<BR> <BR> I'll take a stab at the three questions you ask in your text.<BR> <BR> 1) <I><< If our samples were not authentic, why would so many Scientists risk their careers by repeatedly attempting to steal the samples? >><BR> </I><BR> Kindly present their names, case numbers, conviction-details, and any other legal evidence of these crimes. Otherwise, see "talk-is-cheap" comment.<BR> <BR> 2) << <I> Do you think that someone trying to perpetuate a scam on the Internet is going to show their picture, fax number, mailing and residence address? >></I><BR> <BR> So, there are NO scams on the internet with pictures, addresses and fax numbers? If you're really asking people to believe that, it doesn't exactly enhance your credibility. Besides, you could believe devoutly in your own hype, without it being a "scam", really. There's no law against being wrong. Pretty easy to prove, that one. <BR> <BR> 3) << <I> Don't you think that if a scam was brewing here, law enforcement wouldn't have been knocking on our door by now? Why do you think that law enforcement agencies have not called us? >></I><BR> <BR> Yes, after all, law enforcement doesn't have much else to worry about these days. By the above logic, any and all operations that law enforcement hasn't investigated are automatically legitimate. Credibility heading further south.<BR> <BR> You mention "maintaining an open mind". (Ahh yes, knew <I>that</I> one had to come along sooner or later). The demand for the "open mind" is one of those buzz-phrases, it's a favorite warm-and-fuzzy tactic of those who have no real proof to offer, since no one wants to appear to be closed-minded. Mr. DeRusse, a <U>totally</U> open mind only allows the brains to fall out. Seems to me an "open mind" and a healthy skepticism actually go quite well together. But as far as authenticity is concerned, an "open mind" and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee (except here in Southern California ;-). <BR> <BR> Mr. DeRusse, until you offer something more substantial than hype, until your claims are recognized by credentialed, independent scientific sources, until you can offer arguments that don't appeal strictly to the "my-open-mind-is-my-religion" zealots and those easily seduced by conspiracy-theories, many of us on the list will probably continue to giggle at your claims and your $500,000-per-gram specimens. So prove us wrong. We'll congratulate you, we really will. But kindly present your accepted proofs and meteoritical data first, and THEN demand vindication from your critics, rather than the other way around. Until then, sir, we're not the ones who << <I>look foolish in front of the world >>.</I><BR> <BR> Gregory</FONT></HTML> --part1_86.1ba1aa44.2a348594_boundary-- Received on Sun 09 Jun 2002 06:19:00 AM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|