[meteorite-list] Fraudulent Trade

From: Mike Fowler <mqfowler_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue Jun 27 15:42:50 2006
Message-ID: <CA736450-6286-48FF-AABE-5C68320F22FD_at_mac.com>

Dear Michael Blood,

I couldn't disagree with you more on this issue.

When transactions take place between members of the meteorite
community there is a high degree of mutual trust involved.
I trust the people I'm dealing with because I'm sure that the vast
majority of them are intrinsically honest persons.

I also trust members of the meteorite community I've NEVER DEALT WITH
BEFORE, because the meteorite community is very small and I know that
a dishonest person would not last long, because in a small community,
bad news travels fast.

I think McCartney Taylor did the right thing to bring this to a
public forum because:

1) It gives all of us a heads up about a possible rotten apple in our
midst.
2) It gives the other party a chance to state his case and correct
the facts, or pay up as the case may be.

I think this is much better than a bunch of private emails where the
"accused" has no chance to respond, or even know he is being besmirched.

My future trust in members of the meteorite community would be
considerably reduced if I thought that cooks would not be exposed
publicly.

Sincerely,

Mike Fowler

> Comment to all:

> I was very sad to see the original post regarding this private
> issue. As is almost always the case, it would also appear there is
> more
> than one side to the story, as Bob indicates below.
> This is an example of why private issues should not be brought
> up on the list and why people should be very hesitant about "taking
> sides" when they are. If the accusations have merit, they should have
> gone directly to the board of the IMCA, and I encourage both parties
> to pursue that action now.
>
> While it appears there may be significant other issues in this case,
> it is none of my business - nor anyone else's on the list, other
> than board
> members of the IMCA, if this issue is presented to them.
> I have had multiple interactions with both parties involved and
> found each of them to be, in every instance, honest, open and above
> board. Whatever there differences are - they are between the two of
> them
> and I hope they are able to resolve them. In any event, I hope we
> are not
> exposed to the issue further on this list. If it does go before the
> board of
> the IMCA, then, perhaps there will be action taken of which we will be
> made aware. As I said, however, even then, I would hope rather
> for an amicable resolution being reached leaving all parties
> satisfied,
> but in any event, off the list.
>

> Best wishes, Michael
Received on Tue 27 Jun 2006 03:40:03 PM PDT