[meteorite-list] Repost: Re Nevada picture of the day / Reply to Sonny

From: Robert Verish <bolidechaser_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <786788.82748.qm_at_web51711.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

List,

The oft-quoted:
"Guess I'm just jealous that Sonny gets to do things
his way, and I'm forced to abide by "guidelines". "
has been taken out of context from it's original
thread and ignores my subsequent reply and
explanation.

As you can see in that reply (below) I clearly stated
that that Sonny did nothing wrong in how he reported
his Starvation Flat meteorite to the NomComm.

And I never said that Sonny was "wrong" in not getting
any provisional numbers.

There are separate issues here:

Bob V.

--- wahlperry at aol.com wrote:

> Hi Bob ,and List,
>
> With the new Nevada Meteorite, Starvation Flat . I
> found 4 meteorites .
> With these meteorite, I also found many fragments,
> over 100 small pieces .
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> The meteorite in the picture is one of the many
> fragments that were found from Starvation #3
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> The correct number [for the next find at Starvation
> Flat] would be 005 !
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes, Sonny,

You're right! The next find at Starvation Flat
"should be" 005.

Over the weekend, people have pointed out to me that
they see very little difference in opinion between
Sonny and me. They pointed out that Sonny is just as
inclined as I am to number our finds, it's just that I
prefer to use NomComm approved numbers. And as long
as the NomComm continues to request this information
from all finders, I'll continue to supply this
information and use their numbers.

But I still have a question. If I had supplied this
same Starvation Flat information to the NomComm, they
would have told me that I have to get 4 numbers, and
that under "Pieces" for each of those 4 numbers I
would have to supply the total number of fragments.

And I think I know why the NomComm handles requests
differently. But it isn't because anybody did
anything wrong. It's just that there appears to be a
misunderstanding of what the term "Pieces" means by
whoever submitted the name request to the NomComm.

I know for a fact that the NomComm has no intention to
obfuscate recovery data by condensing into one
coordinate the find locations for 4 meteorites, or
their total number of fragments.
It has to be how the data is interpreted and entered
into their two standard forms. Maybe the NomComm
interprets the data differently depending which of the
two forms are used? I don't know for sure, but maybe
the NomComm should review this.

If I have misrepresented the NomComm, or mistated any
facts, I would appreciate a reply from any one of
their representatives.

With best regards,
Bob V.

--- wahlperry at aol.com wrote:

> I think you should change your post from Nevada Pic
> of the Day , To fishing for Nevada Meteorite
> information of the Day!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sonny
>
> http://www.meteorite-times.com/meteorite_frame.htm
> __________________________________________________
Received on Wed 11 Apr 2007 03:29:21 PM PDT