[meteorite-list] NWA 869 continued....

From: MexicoDoug_at_aol.com <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon Jun 13 22:41:31 2005
Message-ID: <100.15738465.2fdf9dc9_at_aol.com>

Mark B. wrote:

>Hello again list,

>Doug wrote, after quoting me... "Colleagues, some of you could really give
>the scientists a run for their money.."

>I think that is a little hard, as I have just given you my observations. I
>would rather tell you what I have observed, rather then repeat what others
>have said. Now if you have observations on the meteorite, I would rather
>hear them then observations on my observations.

List, My observation is that the ranges heard are L3-L6, for NWA 869, where
Mark truncated my sentence and butchered my thought is "...I personally can't
even tell the difference from the outside (and don't cut nor have
computerized inventories) between a lot of NWA 869 I saw and Sahara 02500, L3, Fa = 26%
+/- 2%, S2, W1 Met Bul. 88, big strewn field, many stones." Mark's
disagreement explaining why it is not L3.8 further supports a possible pairing to me.

Why Mark, bother posting your observations of my supposed observations of
your observations? My head hurts in empathy. Regarding the things your royal
dithers would rather be hearing, you edited them all out of my post:(.
(introducing your own bias and interpretations in the discusion, but then again
this is the list which has its "limitations"). Anyway, you're not a dude to
joke with, comprendo.

The only reason I quoted from your post was the fact that you were the first
to bring up the L3/L3.8 issue which according to you, "others" were
considering as classification of NWA 869, although you disapproved. Of course you
went on to discount not only L3, but ruled out to some extent L4 and L6 in your
stream of thinking - not something I paid a terrible amount of attention to
it at this fact gathering stage. Not having someone else who positively
suggested L3's, I conveniently pasted your comment about L3's and Jeff's about
L4-6 together. Had George Bush or Vicente Fox posted it was an L3, I would
have quoted him instead, and unfortunately Bernd arrived positively exposing L3,
on the scene, too late for me.
 
I'll try being less lazy next time and avoid trying to make something useful
out of what you say as support. My post is repeated unbutchered below for
your convenience. If you have any comments on the possible pairing of Sahara
02500, nah...errr...keep 'em to yourself. But that was one question that was
asked by Jeff G., and I hope my observation proves useful to him as he has a
heavy order in submitting 869...although I am sure Mark's are infinitely
superior and more robust.

Saludos, Doug
POST BEFORE BUTCHERED BY MARK:
Jeff G. wrote:
"It was a fragmental breccia, probably
L4-6. A thin section of L5 material gave Fa24.2, S3, W1."

Mark B. thinks:
The lighters parts of the meteorite do not show nice abundent
chondrules in a thin section from what I have seen. (To make the L3.8 as
some have been selling it.) Despite what it looks like in a hand specimen.
The darker parts of the meteorite is a shocked portion of the lighter part.

Colleagues, some of you could really give the scientists a run for their
money - I personally can't even tell the difference from the outside (and don't
cut nor have computerized inventories) between a lot of NWA 869 I saw and
Sahara 02500, L3, Fa = 26% +/- 2%, S2, W1 Met Bul. 88, big strewn field, many
stones.

It looks like the Sahara 02500 researchers and suppliers, for example, on
the other hand, have done a fantastic job keeping the stock clean for 2500, but
given all the fingers in the pot for NWA 869 it is hard to imagine the same.
 How could NWA 869 be assigned a weight and name based on this, technically,
by NomCom rules? I am confused but hope it is possible since a lot has not
all been classified in accordance to the dense desert protocol. Could the
characteristic greenish tinge be used as an exceptional and unique defining
characteristic of NWA 869, and treat this exception as if it were a non-dense
fall? Why not, if it can be truly shown to be unique nomenclature should
accomodate logic...on such a grand scale. What, exactly causes the
characteristic: environment or unique composition is an important question? This would be
the angle great to be hearing more. But then, if we go that route - I would
think it should have a real alphabet soup name to be more consistent with
this type of nominative exception and what to do if it has already been
classified by another number Good luck Jeff, with this usually very exquisite and
sensitive meteorite(s).
Saludos, Doug
 
Received on Mon 13 Jun 2005 10:41:13 PM PDT