[meteorite-list] Meteor's Appearance Over Wisconsin A Hot Topic

From: MexicoDoug_at_aol.com <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Jan 6 14:38:23 2005
Message-ID: <1c6.22454174.2f0eeda6_at_aol.com>

My argument is that clarification of the magnetic properties of meteorites
is a great idea and in agreement with you. My problem with your posts is
simply not to start saying that meteorites are usually not magnetic, when in fact
most are magnetic. Your points are addressed below with your statements.-DD
 
En un mensaje con fecha 01/06/2005 12:40:24 PM Mexico Standard Time,
dfreeman_at_fascination.com escribe:

>Dear Doug;
>Try telling that nit-picky scientific story
 
Dave, with all due respect, the explanation was for you, and it looks like I
tried telling it to you and it got the message across perfectly fine.
You're doing the nit-picking of the great article that appeared in the paper, so
don't call the kettle black (or whatever the appropriate English idiom is
here), please consider that the nit-picker is foremost your post.

>to those that carry a paper clip on a string and actively use that simple
>tool to distinguish magnetic meteorites in the field......BAH!!!
 
That is hogwash, plain and simple as far as I can see. This evokes imagery
of a Macedonian flank of paperclip on a string "amateurs" combing the
landscape with their modified meteorite divining rods to me. Most people know that
iron is magnetic, so you have it the other way around. On the other hand if
you stop improperly nit-picking the definition of magnetic and just say
"meteorites attract magnets", "meteorites are magnetic" but, "meteorites aren't
magnets", I think your campaign will succeed better...
 
This strategy you have will have you look at every shorthand definition and
refurbish it. Why stick with magnetic. When we say fusion crust I bet
plenty of people think of a pizza pie (with spinach topping so it is magnetic), by
that logic. Well maybe someone ought ought to tell the amateurs that the
nit-picky definition of a fusion crust so they don't bring amylase as a field
testing reagent.

>Guess I deal with too many amateur field hunters and not enough
>acadamians like yourself.
 
I am not an acadamnation so please don't play psychologist / politician and
unfairly type my personality based on certain posts - I assure you they are
only one aspect of my personality and I am capable of relating as well as you
without manipulating on-topic arguments as I feel you do this one. Now that
you have manipulated me on the defensive (by saying that "I" am an
"acadamian", nearly a dirty word) with that worthless and very loaded comment, perhaps I
 should mention that I haven't seen a classroom in a decade or two. I spend
most of my time dealing (mason, electrician, checking) with poorly
constructed buildings by Mexican standards, that are falling apart. The list provides
me a wondrous escape to mull about what I really love with like minded
people and wish I could do 25 hours a day. I read and try to assimilate as much
as I can. I try to stick to the subject matter and not start studying the
people, though it can get hard at times.
 
I have attempted to provide content to the list and would appreciate the
both the explicit as well a covert personal attacks when I am on my best
behavior not provolking the bad side of me that doesn't need much to join in.

>Para-nuttic,
>Dave F.
I enjoy your posts, jokes, we have one disagreement here, and that doesn't
influence the rest. And don't forget, didn't you say recently that the way to
get a great geology academic background was to read the Audubon Field Guide
to Rocks and Miinerals. Don't your recall the quotes I provided on the last
round where that guide that you give accolades to clearly considers
paramagnetic rocks like hematite and non-magnetized magnetite as magnetic...and we
know they aren't magnets.
Ferro-nuttically, Doug
 
Received on Thu 06 Jan 2005 02:38:14 PM PST