[meteorite-list] ... summarizes the death of a thread

From: Thaddeus Besedin <endophasy_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <100388.12148.qm_at_web62504.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

To say that Peruvians are, as suggested by Mike,
primitive and backwards, when no large impactor may
seem to have survived an impact directly through a
thin Ap/A/C, muddy alluvial soil an hitting an R
horizon of equivalent friablity (or should i say
equivalent hardness) is hardly some attack on Mike for
the sake of attack. I have a feeling that this is
becoming purely some criticism of my alleged communist
beliefs? I don't need to tell you what I believe
philosophically. You can figure it out. I am no
communist, but there are many types of communist.
I don't think that weathering studies are more
important than gas/composition/fragmentary
structural/etc. studies, but, to broadly flash
"science" as a reason to take a single action, to
exhume a ghost of a rock is perhaps like cutting paper
with paper. When did "science" stop and non-science
begin? Peruvian scientists are not represented fairly
here, and sensitive situations are not grounds for
racist humor. I believe, if there is a rock, that it
can be detected using the usual geophysical methods
determining relative resistivity/magnetism/gravity,
once the structure can have a pump draining it running
around the clock, which can be conducted with no or
low impact to the the structure of the crater/pit.
Then digging can occur, but why proceed before using
detection methods? If it is an "ordinary" chondrite in
the ordinary sense of the word "ordinary," then the
structure IS more important, at least more
unprecedented, than the impactor itself, which may
have survived, but probably did not, if we have a pit
formed by explosive gaseous means, versus a crater
formed through decompressional penetration by a
cohesive solid body.
-Thaddeus

metJason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hola All,
> The trouble with this fellow's logic is namely that
> he appears to
> believe that the study of weathering effects on
> meteorites is more
> important than the study of what is (at this point,
> probably 'was')
> likely the largest fresh sample of the remnants of a
> solar nebula
> currently on the planet...
> If you'd like to study weathering effects on
> anything, go buy a
> Juancheng, Amgala, Mali, etc - something of which
> there's a lot about
> and available for study. There's simply no reason
> to destroy such a
> unique and scientifically important sample...merely
> to see how quickly
> it becomes destroyed, especially when such a meager
> amount has made it
> into scientific hands, never mind those of anyone
> else.
>
> To be perfectly frank, I wouldn't put a Rembrandt
> out in the rain for
> a study regarding how quickly paint weathers
> outdoors...I daresay you
> wouldn't either.
>
>
> With regards to rock splitting and your statement:
> "We take our
> technologies for granted, but when do we ever try
> for
> ourselves?"
> I don't know about you, but I haven't used an
> arrowhead in...well,
> ever. Interesting statement, but a nonsequiter.
> Nice try at changing
> the subject...
>
> Why don't you stop being so damn contrary just for
> the hell of it -
> it's obvious what you're doing, "Thaddeus." If you
> have a bone to
> pick with Michael, whoever you really are, keep it
> off-list, please.
> It's not giving anyone anything remotely close to
> useful information.
>
> Jason
>
>
> On 10/26/07, JKGwilliam <h3chondrite at cox.net> wrote:
> > Sterling & List,
> > I was thinking exactly the same...;-)
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > At 10:27 AM 10/26/2007, Sterling K. Webb wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > > No "laws" need be invoked. The process is an
> > >endogenous one.
> > >
> > > I have just completed an analysis of
> Thaddeus'
> > >last 37 (a prime number) posts and have graphed
> their
> > >frequency against their cross product of their
> fractal
> > >dimension and the inverse of their entropy. I
> have
> > >discovered a series of increases in his posting
> frequency
> > >which doubles with a value that increasingly
> approaches
> > >that of every 4.6692 reiterations.
> > >
> > > That number is the Feigenbaum constant, of
> course,
> > >and reveals their content to be a one-dimensional
> chaos
> > >with a period-doubling attractor. Shortly, their
> fractal
> > >dimension will fall to zero, their entropy will
> rise to infinity,
> > >and their source, the hypothetical Thaddeus
> Entity, will
> > >undergo quantum "evaporation."
> > >
> > >
> > >Sterling K. Webb
> >
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Darren Garrison" <cynapse at charter.net>
> > >To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> > >Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 9:09 AM
> > >Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Great picture that
> summarizes Peru'sscientific
> > >minds.
> > >
> > >
> > >On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 03:01:04 -0700 (PDT), you
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >WOW, it was a cartoon. I see it as perfect,
> showing
> > > >Peru's scientists as being confused about the
> need to
> > > >preserve their one and only meteorite fall from
> > > >disentigrating. The Third Reich never really
> entered
> > > >my mind.
> > > >You have some serious issues, please deal with
> > > >them.Michael Farmer
> > >
> > >I invoke Godwin's Law on Thaddeus.
> > >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
> > >
> > >(Also Sturgeon's Law)
> > >______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Thaddeus Besedin" <endophasy at yahoo.com>
> > >To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> > >Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 10:53 AM
> > >Subject: [meteorite-list] self-rightous
> posturing, African Bias,and "The
> > >Pearl"
> > >
> > >
> > >Without citation, I'm self-righteous (or self
> > >confirming), but a book by Steinbeck, called "The
> > >Pearl," is appropriate for the problem of
> inequality
> > >and prejudice that the meteorite trade can
> perpetuate
> > >by affecting prices and wrinkling reputations.
> > >You guys all think I'm on one by now; some people
> like
> > >Mike or myself are vocal about things we may
> later
> > >regret. My problem, it seems, is premature
> inclusion
> > >of misleading non-information as premises for
> argument
> > >(I'm a victim of continental philosophy), but
> > >scientific facts, like carbon dates or climate
> models,
> > >are NEVER distorted in my posts. My difficulty is
> with
> > >legal citation, it seems. So, facts and some
> fallacy,
> > >but not shams and lies... .
> > >
> > >WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE oF
> INFORMATION, though.
> > >
> > >
> > >______________________________________________
> > >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
> >
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Fri 26 Oct 2007 06:19:29 PM PDT