[meteorite-list] Boorish comments on a tektite website: a reply

From: Norman Lehrman <nlehrman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:31:15 2004
Message-ID: <20040420170443.96985.qmail_at_web80101.mail.yahoo.com>

Everyone,

You've all been wondering about the silence from me.
Nope, it's not newly learned restraint. I've been out
in the field with no Internet access.

My apologies if you get several copies of this. I've
tried sending it multiple times and it doesn't seem to
have gone throught to the list. One more try---

Thanks to all who have written, both in support(many)
and in criticism (one). I'll try to fill in a few
blanks that should help both sides. First some
specifics about my boorish comments, then a short
diatribe on science, sales, collecting, and Nininger.
Some may wish to skip to that part.

I initially emailed Schultz with a couple of very
specific questions arising from his publications. For
example he mentioned that the glass contained zircons
that had been transformed to Baddeleyite plus silica.
I asked whether the silica was in the form of
lechatelierite. Specific straightforward questions of
the sort that a genuinely interested individual might
ask a researcher in casual conversation. In the text,
I mentioned that I had just acquired a small lot of
Escoria and was writing up a short review piece for my
website and I wanted to be sure to be technically
correct, informative, and not misquote his research.
(I do see our website as an educational resource, a
fairly comprehensive and highly illustrated "book" on
impactites.)

The response was a tirade against commercialization.
No technical answers at all, except to assure me that
Escoria specimens aren't tektites. (Not a question I
would've even considered asking---)

I wrote back that I would unavoidably be using his
publications as reference sources, and questioned
whether he would prefer that I not mention his name,
since he clearly did not want to be associated with a
commercially-tainted endeavor. I offered to send a
draft to him to proof-read to ensure that I was not
misquoting him. (While this would've been nice for
you, the web page reader, the suggestion was made for
his benefit, so that while he might not like what I
was doing, he would at least be quoted accurately). I
was not, as my detractor implies, asking him to drop
everything to be a federally-funded editor. At this
point I was still hoping to win his confidence.

He again took the time to write in condemnation,
responding to my query as to whether he would like to
be kept out if it altogether with: "The last time I
checked it's a free country. You can quote anybody
you want!" My tone was not born in a vacuum.

I had mentioned also that I provide specimens to
universities, researchers, museums, and such like as
well as collectors. He again expressed great angst
over this, saying that he would do the same "for
free". (TRY asking. I'm guessing I know the answer---)
  This is where my taxpayer hackles rose. He was
suggesting that it was proper to use federal funding
to undermine the free enterprise that created those
dollars. Hence, my comment on that subject.

As for some of the Ivory Tower cliches, I tend to face
people as equals. If we can share common interests,
age, size, race, creed, social status, profession, and
credentials are forgotten. I do react strongly to
others who assume a ranker posture (some are ranker
than others!).

Enough on that. The point is that on the website you
only see my reactions, not the invectives that gave
rise to them. I have done time in academia and have
been on both sides of this issue. I must admit to a
great deal of cynicism for teachers who do not wish to
share their passions (or worse, who have none to
share). I don't know which applies in this case.

NOW FOR THE LARGER ISSUE: science, commercialism, and
collectors. This is the perfect forum for such a
debate in that this list would not exist, and chances
are none of us would be involved in meteoritics (and
consequently would not know of each other) were it not
for Harvey H. Nininger, for all practical purposes an
amateur with a passion, who almost single-handedly
gave birth to the serious study of meteorites. This
venture was enabled by (dare I say it?) SALES of
specimens. It was no expression of greed. He was not
getting any federal grants for his work, so he did
what he had to do, often parting sadly with cherished
specimens.

This hasn't changed greatly. I suspect that most who
engage in meteorite sales are essentially supporting
(and sharing) a passion, not getting rich. This tends
to be a labor of love.

Further, were it not for Nininger and the enthusiasts
he is responsible for (even now), thousands of
meteorites would still be laying where they fell,
rusting and weathering into oblivion, like Argentine
Escoria on the beach. Was science impoverished by
this
phenomenal wave of meteorite recovery, mostly by
amateurs, who have sold and traded and donated,
typically motivated by passion and evangelical zeal to
share the mystique?

We all can tell stories of assorted abuses, but they
are pretty rare in the world of meteorites, tektites,
and impactites. Anybody who thinks this is a bulk
strip-mining process hasn't spent much time in the
field looking for them! The only instance that I know
of wholesale mining for tektites is in the case of
moldavites. While it is true that some context
information is lost in the process, this is offset by
the huge amount of material that is now available for
study that would otherwise be resting 12 feet deep in
sand deposits.

I think there is also something to be said for the
role of dealers with respect to research and the world
community. There are many examples, but here are a
few from my experience:

By merit of my marginally self-supporting passion, I
have a very extensive inventory. Researchers
periodically write and ask for very specific
morphologies, features, or oddities. A number of
these specimens (sold, loaned, or simply photographed)
have been utilized in technical publications. Were it
not for dealers in a position to have and recognize
such rarities, most would never make it into the
records.

By merit of the volume that passes through my hands, I
am in a position to recognize "types" that otherwise
might well be considered isolated forms of limited
significance. I can and do make these observations
known, and far from eliminating special objects from
science, I bring them to the attention of researchers.

In one fell swoop, I can provide researchers with
comparative sets of diverse impactites that they would
be hard-pressed to assemble for themselves. I have
supplied entire museum collections as a single package
deal.

Teachers ask for material that they can give to their
classes. I am in a position to provide reasonable
quantities at very low cost, sometimes free (and this
"free" is not purchased with tax dollars!). In this, I
can do a little bit to inspire the researchers and
enthusiasts of the future.

I can buy large lots, big enough to make a difference
in the lives of Thai farmers, Chinese college
students, and retirees ready to liquidate their
collections. I can introduce this material to loving
new homes, and the cycle spins on.

Variations on this theme apply to most, if not all,
dealers. To imply that we are greedy pirates ruining
priceless and unique research opportunities reflects a
failure to understand the real world. Just how should
Nininger have financed his dream if selling is wrong?
And remind me again how a piece of iron rusting in the
field or escoria tumbling in the surf is more valuable
to science than specimens of the same scattered to
researchers and enthusiasts all over the world---

Deep Enough. On a serious note, any of you that think
my footnote would be better left unsaid, please send
me your comments off-list. I do sometimes continue
writing far too late into the night.

Cheers,
Norm Lehrman
http://tektitesource.com
Received on Tue 20 Apr 2004 01:04:43 PM PDT