[meteorite-list] RE: New Lucerne discovery -- historical info first

From: Matson, Robert <ROBERT.D.MATSON_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed Jan 5 23:32:07 2005
Message-ID: <AF564D2B9D91D411B9FE00508BF1C86904EE62DA_at_US-Torrance.mail.saic.com>

Hi Bob and List,

> I understand the point you were trying to make, Rob,
> but you chose a bad example when you picked Franconia.
> Actually, Franconia was first mentioned (by me) at
> Tucson two years ago, not last year.

I stand corrected -- since last year was my first year at
the Tucson show, I was not privy to conversations held in
prior years there. In any case, I wasn't really referring
to the initial find there -- rather, I was referring to the
announcement that many, many finds were being made there.
(A couple of equilibrated ordinary chondrite finds doesn't
tend to create much buzz, but a strewn field of large stones
is obviously another matter.)

> Not having checked the List Archives, I can't say for
> sure that I made a post "here" to the List, but I did
> publish an article about Franconia that same month.
> Now if your point is just that, that I excluded the
> List from my "announcement", then I will have to take
> exception to that.

I wasn't passing any judgment on ~how~ the news of Franconia
broke -- I simply used it to illustrate how this list is
rarely a good source of interesting new meteorite recovery
information nowadays.

> First, where is it written that this List is the
> clearing-house for all such announcements?

It isn't. Maybe Franconia wasn't the best example, but try
not to take everything so personally, Bob. Recovery information
is freely exchanged at Tucson (and other shows) that never sees
the light of day on this list. Why is that? If everyone tends
to keep things hush-hush until they publish results in a peer-
reviewed journal, why does this information leak out at meteorite
shows long before you'd ever read it here (Park Forest and
Tagish Lake not withstanding)? You can't argue that meteorite
show attendees are any more high-brow than the members here.

Five years ago this list provided information that was much more
interesting to me personally than it does now. That's was my
main point: I miss the good old days.

> Second, but more to the point, why should I have to
> risk the bad reputation of this List tainting my
> efforts at raising the stature of meteorite-recovery
> in the eyes of professionals and of the general
> public.

I know how you feel and I suspect that the few professionals that
peruse this list do so more for perverse entertainment than
anything else. However, I consider myself a scientist and a
professional, and as poor as this list has become, there isn't
(currently) a good alternative forum for the public exchange of
meteorite and bolide information. (As good as MAPS is, it's neither
a source of real-time information, nor one for meteorite recovery.)

> I'll get to the point, until this List cleans up it's
> act, it doesn't deserve the "Part 2" of your Lucerne
> Valley post. There! We clearly are in disagreement.

Well, we're in agreement about the current condition of the
list. The question is what to do about it. I don't know; sometimes
I think the time has come to retire it. In my opinion there are
too many advertisements (few of which use the AD keyword in the
subject), and too few adventure/discovery posts. Perhaps that's
a consequence of the NWA flood -- when 90% of the meteorites are
found by nameless people in nameless locations under unknown
circumstances, a lot of the "romance" is gone. Meteorite hunting
gets reduced to "shopping". I'd much rather read about people's
adventures in Park Forest, or Tagish Lake, or Oman or even new
finds at old locations like Holbrook, Correo, Gold Basin, Franconia,
etc.

> I give you the "high ground" on this one, Rob. And
> probably my heart is with you on your noble effort,
> but this is how I see the current situation - this
> noble effort is nothing more than casting pearls
> before swine - and all you end up with are pearls
> of wisdom covered in mud.

One thing's for sure -- if we do nothing, this list will die.
The passive approach isn't going to fix it. My intent was
to try to breathe some life back into the list and perhaps
inspire others to share similar stories. But when "content"
messages are met with a chorus of crickets while bad-mouthing
and off-topic subjects earn a symphony of responses, the current
may already be too strong to swim upstream. Still, when I
consider this list's longevity, I feel it deserves some sort
of "show of hands" before effectively issuing a DNR and pulling
the plug.

> Rob, you still have until Jan 11th to submit a "print-only"
> abstract of your Lucerne Valley findings to the Houston
> LPSC Meeting. You should share your findings with your
> peers.

Perhaps I will. Ideally it shouldn't be an either-or
situation -- I ought to feel comfortable doing both...

Cheers,
Rob
Received on Wed 05 Jan 2005 11:27:14 PM PST