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

From: Zelimir Gabelica <Z.Gabelica_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Jan 6 05:47:02 2005
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20050106105719.02578510_at_pop.univ-mulhouse.fr>

Hi List,

Time is missing to fully comment the whole actual list polemics (boring
ads, attacks, new list, moderated list...). I am just now keeping reading
(= overlooking) various comments and perhaps will send my feelings once
more ideas are put on the table by people technically more expert than me
for some in depth debate or restructuration (if any needed!).
So far, I spontaneously act as Anne or Anita or Rob suggested, thus
ignoring uninteresting posts, ignoring abusers and playing as far as I can
with the "delete" key.

What I wanted just to say here is that I use to put in my own archives
those posts that I consider interesting for my hobby or information.
I just went through my archives built since about 4 years or so and noticed
that most of such posts are dealing with technical data on meteorites
and...hunting stories.

And noticed that, since about one month, the only addition to my archives
turned to be the this morning story sent by Rob Matson about the Lucerne
Dry Lake historical recovery info!

Not because I love or have these particular meteorites (I haven't any), nor
because I want to go hunting over there (probably in another life...).
Just because I love meteorites in general and am curious about how they
reach our Earth and stabilize under favorable conditions. I am always
pleased to complete my references or archives with such infos.
Last but not least, this stimulates my sweetest dreaming about such stories
into which I would have loved to be involved. (No doubt that I am probably
not far from Bernd's feelings)

I am now anxiously looking forward to reading the part 2.

I stay confident that we all are wise and courteous enough to be able to
get rid of all nasty or boring off-topic posts/ads, to leave the flame wars
disappear spontaneously and to share again our feelings or experiences
related to meteorites.

Best wishes,

Zelimir


A 20:27 05/01/05 -0800, vous avez ?crit :
>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
>______________________________________________
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Prof. Zelimir Gabelica
Universit? de Haute Alsace
ENSCMu, Lab. GSEC,
3, Rue A. Werner,
F-68093 Mulhouse Cedex, France
Tel: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 94
Fax: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 15
Received on Thu 06 Jan 2005 05:54:03 AM PST