[meteorite-list] Meteorite Collecting Ban
From: MeteorHntr_at_aol.com <MeteorHntr_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:16:31 2004 Message-ID: <9c.3414b2ed.2c656185_at_aol.com> --part1_9c.3414b2ed.2c656185_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello List, What is so hard to understand about this? Let's not forget that the science of meteoritics is big business. Well, not big by Microsoft or American Airlines standards, but compared to collecting it sure is. I was given a number a couple years ago that $12,000,000 a year is given out in grant money to study meteorites. It is hard to put a handle on how many dollars of meteorites are sold in the collecting field to the END consumer. Let's not count the same $5 specimen over and over again as it gets sold and traded to dealer after dealer 6 times then to ebay a few times before getting to a collector as if it were $50 in sales. Researching meteorites pays a lot more each year than all the dealing or field hunting pays. The point is that if a Canadian Meteorite crosses the border and a researcher in the US gets it, the US institution that researcher works for gets the grant money and NOT the Canadian Institution (or researcher who gets the pay check from said institution). This of course goes for any other country that lets a meteorite get out. However, I have not heard too many complaints from the Libyan Meteoritical Society about them losing jobs because they can't get grant money from NASA, because a DaG SNC slipped across of their borders. Folks, it is always about the money. If an attorney is writing a paper on it, ask who is paying him to write the paper? Or ask who is he wanting to see his "advertisement" so someone might hire him in the future as "the foremost legal authority on anti-collecting?" Either way, it comes back to money. I mean come on, do we really believe that he is spending this time because he feels a moral obligation to devote his life to correcting this major injustice is our modern society? I think it is politically incorrect for a scientist to stand up and speak up for the collecting community, so it is hard to know how many support us, and how many really don't. But I have asked around, and I have yet to find one single researcher who bashes dealers and field collectors for "only being in meteorites for profit" who also endorses their paychecks each week and donates them back to the institution they work for. Is this the kettle calling the pot black or what? As far as I know, Art Elhmann at T.C.U. is the only scientist that has been actively contributing to the science who is working for free. I mean, he is getting a pension, but I don't think he makes anything extra for doing what he has done these last few years in helping our science. And even if he did make more money, that is OK, the point is that he is one scientist who supports us. Even Jeff Grossman, who most of us really appreciate what all he does for us, is hesitant to even take a side on this issue! Can we blame him? It seems most researchers might only be in meteorites for the money too. Could it be that they want as big of the $12,000,000 pie as they can get? If they can squeeze out some their competition, and get a monopoly on the money game of meteoritics, then maybe their jobs will be more secure? If only they could squeeze out the collectors and also squeeze out researchers in other countries, then they can keep more money for themselves. But if evil field collectors, smuggle their future pay raises out to researchers in other countries, then that is "bad for science." Don't get dragged off on the rabbit trail of "what is best for science." We all KNOW what is best for science. So do they. They are just hoping their legislators (fellow government employees) won't look deep enough to see the greed behind their requests and add the bill to some Farm Subsidy Bill on page 634. And if their fellow government employees DO see through their requests, maybe a "wink and a nod" will get it passed anyway, especially if the attorney representing the researchers was fraternity bother, in the same law school, as the legislator pushing the Farm Subsidy Bill. Maybe the researchers will agree to help the same legislator in his reelection campaign so he can keep his job security as well. I would have to say that there are some researchers who do care about the science, and odds are pretty good that they are the ones who support the commercial side of the field as well. But unless there is a way to poll the researchers, or if they would want to go on public record (but it might cost some of them their jobs if they buck the trend) we will never know. Just remember the saying "follar the dollar" and things become quite clear. Steve Arnold --part1_9c.3414b2ed.2c656185_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE= =3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">Hello List,<BR> <BR> What is so hard to understand about this?<BR> <BR> Let's not forget that the science of meteoritics is big business. Well= , not big by Microsoft or American Airlines standards, but compared to colle= cting it sure is. I was given a number a couple years ago that $12,000= ,000 a year is given out in grant money to study meteorites.<BR> <BR> It is hard to put a handle on how many dollars of meteorites are sold in the= collecting field to the END consumer. Let's not count the same $5 spe= cimen over and over again as it gets sold and traded to dealer after dealer=20= 6 times then to ebay a few times before getting to a collector as if it were= $50 in sales. Researching meteorites pays a lot more each year than a= ll the dealing or field hunting pays.<BR> <BR> The point is that if a Canadian Meteorite crosses the border and a researche= r in the US gets it, the US institution that researcher works for gets the g= rant money and NOT the Canadian Institution (or researcher who gets the pay=20= check from said institution). <BR> <BR> This of course goes for any other country that lets a meteorite get out.&nbs= p; However, I have not heard too many complaints from the Libyan Meteoritica= l Society about them losing jobs because they can't get grant money from NAS= A, because a DaG SNC slipped across of their borders. <BR> <BR> Folks, it is always about the money.<BR> <BR> If an attorney is writing a paper on it, ask who is paying him to write the=20= paper? Or ask who is he wanting to see his "advertisement" so someone=20= might hire him in the future as "the foremost legal authority on anti-collec= ting?" Either way, it comes back to money. I mean come on, do we= really believe that he is spending this time because he feels a moral oblig= ation to devote his life to correcting this major injustice is our modern so= ciety?<BR> <BR> I think it is politically incorrect for a scientist to stand up and speak up= for the collecting community, so it is hard to know how many support us, an= d how many really don't. But I have asked around, and I have yet to fi= nd one single researcher who bashes dealers and field collectors for "only b= eing in meteorites for profit" who also endorses their paychecks each week a= nd donates them back to the institution they work for. <BR> <BR> Is this the kettle calling the pot black or what?<BR> <BR> As far as I know, Art Elhmann at T.C.U. is the only scientist that has been=20= actively contributing to the science who is working for free. I mean,=20= he is getting a pension, but I don't think he makes anything extra for doing= what he has done these last few years in helping our science. And eve= n if he did make more money, that is OK, the point is that he is one scienti= st who supports us. Even Jeff Grossman, who most of us really apprecia= te what all he does for us, is hesitant to even take a side on this issue!&n= bsp; Can we blame him?<BR> <BR> It seems most researchers might only be in meteorites for the money too.&nbs= p; Could it be that they want as big of the $12,000,000 pie as they can get?= If they can squeeze out some their competition, and get a monopoly on= the money game of meteoritics, then maybe their jobs will be more secure?&n= bsp; If only they could squeeze out the collectors and also squeeze out rese= archers in other countries, then they can keep more money for themselves.&nb= sp; But if evil field collectors, smuggle their future pay raises out to res= earchers in other countries, then that is "bad for science." <BR> <BR> Don't get dragged off on the rabbit trail of "what is best for science."&nbs= p; We all KNOW what is best for science. So do they. They are ju= st hoping their legislators (fellow government employees) won't look deep en= ough to see the greed behind their requests and add the bill to some Farm Su= bsidy Bill on page 634. And if their fellow government employees DO se= e through their requests, maybe a "wink and a nod" will get it passed anyway= , especially if the attorney representing the researchers was fraternity bot= her, in the same law school, as the legislator pushing the Farm Subsidy Bill= . Maybe the researchers will agree to help the same legislator in his=20= reelection campaign so he can keep his job security as well. <BR> <BR> I would have to say that there are some researchers who do care about the sc= ience, and odds are pretty good that they are the ones who support the comme= rcial side of the field as well. But unless there is a way to poll the= researchers, or if they would want to go on public record (but it might cos= t some of them their jobs if they buck the trend) we will never know.<BR> <BR> Just remember the saying "follar the dollar" and things become quite clear.<= BR> <BR> Steve Arnold</FONT></HTML> --part1_9c.3414b2ed.2c656185_boundary-- Received on Fri 08 Aug 2003 04:26:45 PM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|