[meteorite-list] RICHLAND, Final

From: Michael Farmer <meteoriteguy_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <43052.68609.qm_at_web33109.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

There is no need to further this conversation.
My account is not false, Steve did not say my account
is false. He tried to remember the events from years
ago, just like me, exact dates and even the name of
the owner has faded. Months, a year, it no longer
matters, the facts are that the man was not paid,
wanted money, and seeked my out to buy his meteorite,
which I did. Perhaps I was wrong to think that it was
John upset with me, it seems you are the one upset. If
you think that I never emailed the man who was
classifing my meteorite, well, again, that makes no
sense at all now does it? Were my emails blocked,
deleted, sent to spam box, ignored? I don't know, nor
do I now care, the issue is resolved for me and the
buyers now.
You seem to be adamant in your assertions, me in mine,
so how about we agree to disagree? It seems to be as
far as we will get on this topic.
Case closed.
Michael Farmer


--- Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike, All (...),
> I apologized to those who deserved it. After what
> you said, I don;t
> believe you should get one. You seem to think that
> your account of
> the dates was correct. I don't. Steve Schoner just
> posted to say
> that your account is false as well.
>
> -- And you did assume that John had withheld
> information from you out
> of spite. I stupidly believed you when you stated
> that you had
> actually tried to contact him to resolve the issue
> as opposed to
> brooding on it for seven years. Sorry Mike, I don;t
> believe in
> multiple dropped emails. It doesn't happen that
> often - and even if
> it did, by whatever stroke of luck, actually happen,
> you still decided
> to simply sit there in steeping malevolence for the
> better half of a
> decade, instead of simply calling him (google his
> name, the number's
> there).
> I only stated the supposition that he was angry with
> you after
> believing what you said about repeated contact, etc.
> If your
> statement had been true, then yes, the statements
> that I made before
> would have been justified. I apologized or the
> incorrectness of
> these, based on the faulty information I was fed by
> you. When I say
> that I try to contact a person, I don;t simply give
> up after a few
> emails that aren't responded to, sorry. If that
> ever happens, I call,
> write, go see them - anything to ensure that they
> actually get
> whatever message they need to get (assuming that
> it's something as
> important as this sort of issue, which ends in a
> clearly malevolent
> misunderstanding on your part - lasting for seven
> years).
>
> So yes, I'm sorry my statements regarding John's
> intentions were not
> true. They were less vindictive than yours, which
> you already state
> you apologized for. I apologized for mine regarding
> him as well.
>
> However, unless you discount Steve Schoner's take on
> the story as
> well, I see no way in which you can possibly defend
> your statements
> from before. The time scale, as I stated before,
> was indeed measured
> in months instead of years. Not only I, but Steve
> as well stated
> this.
>
> The only real problem that I see is that you believe
> unconditionally
> that your account of what happened seven years ago
> is correct.
> I hate to break it to you Mike, but even *you* can
> be wrong.
>
> Jason
>
> *And Mike, you can take my name out of the address
> list in your
> messages - the only reason I'm still getting any
> mail from you is that
> it's routed through the list.
>
> On 3/20/07, Michael Farmer <meteoriteguy at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Jason,
> > this is sad, your attempt at an apology by saying
> that
> > everything that I said was a lie is not an apology
> at
> > all.
> > I have emailed Dr. Wasson privately, apologized
> for
> > any mmisunderstanding or percieved wrongs by
> either
> > one of us.
> > That being said, every last thing I said on this
> list
> > is true as far as my attempting to get the data
> for
> > the last seven years. You actually need to stop
> saying
> > that I am a liar on here. This is clearly your
> intent.
> > This is not a private matter, there were issues
> > involved with this meteorite that affected the
> > hundreds of collectors that paid for it. Some of
> the
> > things should not have been said, that is true.
> But
> > the facts needed to be heard.
> > You told me John was angry at me "snatching" the
> > meteorite from under him and yourself, the fact
> that I
> > never got a response for years seems to play to
> that
> > fact. What else was I supposed to think, when my
> > emails went unanswered? If Dr. Wasson never saw
> them,
> > then it is a simple matter of mail lost in
> cyberspace,
> > not an uncommon thing these days.
> > Again Jason, I have emailed Dr. Wasson, thanked
> him
> > for providing the data today, and apologized to
> him
> > for any percieved wrong.
> > Now it is time to let it drop, we have the data,
> that
> > is all we need now.
> > Just please do not call me a liar again, that is a
> > little difficult for me to ignore.
> > thanks everyone, including Dr. Wasson for cleaning
> the
> > closet and putting a name to
> Fredericksburg/Richland.
> >
> > Michael Farmer
> >
> >
> > By the, this is exactly what this list is here
> for,
> > the sharing of information, even if it takes some
> > chatter to get the information shaken out of the
> > trees.
> >
> >
> > --- Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello All,
> > > Dr. Wason just emailed both Mike and myself,
> > > clearing this entire issue up.
> > > I don't know exactly why this entire argument
> was
> > > brought to the
> > > list's attention, as it was clearly a private
> > > matter, and for this I
> > > apologize.
> > >
> > > After the ridiculous accusations that Mike
> posted
> > > against John (which
> > > were founded in fasle assumptions made on Mike's
> > > part), I also
> > > responded with comments that were technically
> > > untrue. I would like to
> > > clear this up.
> > > Mike stated that John refused to send him the
> data
> > > because of a
> > > disagreement that they had regarding the
> purchase of
> > > the iron by Mike.
> > > I assumed that Mike knew what he was talking
> about,
> > > and wasn't simply
> > > throwing wild accusations around. As it turns
> out,
> > > Mike was entirely
> > > wrong on this, and, as a result, my argument was
> > > false as well. I
> > > supposed that, based on Mike's supposition that
> Dr.
> > > Wasson was
> > > actually retaining information for whatever
> purposes
> > > (supposedly
> > > spite), Farmer should simply apologize and that
> the
> > > entire issue would
> > > be cleared up.
> > >
> > > As it turns out, Dr. Wasson had simply become
> > > occupied with other work
> > > at the time, and had forgotten to email Mike the
> > > data.
> > > That being said, the question arises as to why
> Mike
> > > did not simply
> > > re-request the data/ask Dr. Wasson to submit the
> > > iron again.
> > > Regarding this, I can offer no explanation -
> Mike
>
=== message truncated ===
Received on Wed 21 Mar 2007 01:13:47 AM PDT