[meteorite-list] Personal Thoughts

From: JKGwilliam <h3chondrite_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue May 9 00:06:37 2006
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060508210253.02bd3320_at_pop.west.cox.net>

Thanks you Rob for sharing your incite and feelings on this issue. It's
refreshing to read a well-composed and thought out perspective expressed
in a way where I can't see rows of dollar signs between the lines.

The NWA naming and pairing system in it's current form has some flaws and
the only way they are ever going to be corrected is through rational dialog.

Best,

JKGwilliam

At 06:30 PM 5/8/2006, Rob Wesel wrote:
>Well spoken Adam
>
>While our posts were sometimes aimed at each other, words like clown and
>thief and lazy will do that, we are really aiming at a difference in
>philosophy. I am opposed to the current multiple standards of practice
>regarding classification and feel that the current dense area rulings are
>for the science of piecing together strewnfield/dynamics information as
>opposed to verification of material. If not the case then why can all
>meteorites from Burkina Faso, another dense area, pass by my eyes and be
>called Gao, Bilanga, Lampiayrie, Bogou, Bereba, Guibga, and Nadiabondi
>with the NomCom's blessing. I am part owner of 1877 and am borrowing
>NomCom data on my own material with this case and with 1929. All said, the
>olivine diogenite suspect I have been selling has been submitted for
>naming...but it won't change any outcomes except bogging down real
>scientific work that could have been done instead of a hopeless attempt to
>make an NWA map hypothesis. IF it were authenticity then other dense areas
>would apply and every Gao would be checked against every Lampiayrie and so on.
>
>The names belong to the NomCom, that is who I borrow from, and if my eyes
>are trained to assess Tatahouine uncontested they are trained to assess
>this one.
>
>My views, not against you but the system and if we don't say the machine
>is broken every now and then there will be no debate or effort to change
>it. So yes, I bow, on my own accord. It will come up again, and we'll
>differ again.
>
>Rob Wesel
>http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com
>------------------
>We are the music makers...
>and we are the dreamers of the dreams.
>Willy Wonka, 1971
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>
>To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
>Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 9:04 AM
>Subject: [meteorite-list] Personal Thoughts
>
>
>>Dear List,
>>
>>I will try to present this in a way that is not directed at any single
>>individual or dealer.
>>
>>I felt the List needed an explanation as to why I get so upset about
>>description and number borrowing so that my real motives are known.
>>
>>First of all, this not entirely about commercial purposes although
>>admittedly this plays a small part in all of this because there are some
>>real costs involved. It is about what I feel is right and fair. I do not
>>feel it is fair for somebody other than parties who had their material
>>classified use numbers that apply only to certain meteorites for the
>>following reasons;
>>
>>Published NWA numbers only apply to meteorites or groups of meteorites that
>>were formally studied, submitted and then voted on.
>>
>>The weight is recorded under a particular number so using nomenclature that
>>applies to an official or provisional meteorite to describe another will
>>only serve to make these weight entries inaccurate.
>>
>>Although nobody owns these numbers, they do own the material that these
>>numbers describe. This also includes collectors who purchased officially
>>studied material under a particular number from a dealer who followed the
>>processes in good faith.
>>
>>Dealers sometimes have to wait over five years to have material classified,
>>for example, as is the case with our NWA 960 meteorite. Is it fair that
>>somebody comes along, visually inspects their material and then claim that
>>it is the same? It may very well be from the same fall but it unjust for a
>>dealer to claim they have the same material and use data that was intended
>>for another meteorite when steps were not taken to officially prove this.
>>Is it fair that somebody brings back material, waits sometimes up to several
>>years for a classification, pays the lab costs, writes the descriptions and
>>then have some dealer skip all of these processes and use information that
>>was intended to describe official material for his own personal gain?
>>
>>Is it fair to collectors who purchased official material to have unofficial
>>and unclassified material being claimed as the same or even likely the same
>>without have it first tested? There is too much room for abuse if dealers
>>are allowed to use data and numbers intended for official or provisional
>>meteorites to describe unqualified material. Why should anybody get
>>anything classified if this is an acceptable practice? Heck, if I could
>>simple borrow numbers and descriptions from others, why bother with
>>classifications at all? Why get mad at the people who claimed they had
>>complete Baygorrias for sale if this practice is acceptable. After all,
>>they share virtually identical classifications and visually look identical.
>>The Baygorria fiasco only served to undermine collector confidence is the
>>only reason I used it as an example. This not directed at any dealer who
>>followed the Met. Soc. standards in this case.
>>
>>The point is that the Met. Soc. rules concerning NWA nomenclature might not
>>be to everybody's liking but they do serve a valuable purpose. From a
>>commercial standpoint, Dealers were invited to input their ideas in regards
>>to the rules concerning NWA material and a collective consensus was reached.
>>A lot of thought went into the process and this is the best that is
>>available at this time. If somebody doesn't care to follow the rules then
>>they shouldn't use NWA nomenclature and classifications published by the
>>Meteoritical Society because they shouldn't have it both ways.
>>
>>Not trying to start something here, just expressing my personal thoughts.
>>
>>
>>Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>______________________________________________
>>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 Tue 09 May 2006 12:10:40 AM PDT