[meteorite-list] Fraudulent Trade?

From: JKGwilliam <h3chondrite_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed Jun 28 04:00:54 2006
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060628004312.01cd0f98_at_pop.west.cox.net>

I also disagree with Michael Blood. Can we on one hand claim to be part of
a "meteorite community" promoting fairness and good faith and on the other
hand turn our heads when issues like this are brought to light? Don't we
all as a group have some sort of responsibility to applaud the honorable
meteorite folks and expose the frauds? If what McCartney said is true, Bob
Evan's had several opportunities to resolve the problem before it became a
public issue.

I admit that I haven't done business with either McCartney or Bob, but I
know both of them casually and by reputation. And, if I had to make a call
on this issue, I'd have to ask some people who know the two of them better
than I do before I could make a decision. So, I sent out a few queries and
got back a dew replies. For those of you who are following this issue, you
might want to take a look at this item that was sent to me by a Met List
member.

http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2004-July/162607.html

Best,

John Gwilliam

At 10:03 PM 6/27/2006, Eric Twelker wrote:
>Michael,
>
> I don't often comment on this list, but I will this time to disagree.
>In this dispute the two sides are McCartney's detailed complaint and Bob
>Evans' email basically telling McCartney to stuff it.
>
> That's not what I or most people would consider "two sides" to a
>dispute. That's an abuse that people should know about and condemn.
>
> And what does the IMCA have to do with this. So far as I can see Bob
>Evans isn't a member--and perhaps the reason why is evident.
>
> Eric Twelker
>
> > Hi Mike and all,
> > Well, it just goes to demonstrate once more how there are more
> > than one side to every issue and each side can be "right" in its own
> > way and that doesn't necessarily make the other side "wrong."
> > Best wishes, Michael
> >
> >
> >
> > on 6/27/06 12:40 PM, Mike Fowler at mqfowler_at_mac.com wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >> ______________________________________________
> >> Meteorite-list mailing list
> >> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
>
>______________________________________________
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Wed 28 Jun 2006 04:00:50 AM PDT