[meteorite-list] Fw: NWA 5400, etc

From: Richard Montgomery <rickmont_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:05:56 -0700
Message-ID: <305A29CE32F945708A908D1A373C56AF_at_bosoheadPC>

> It is disturbing to see the infighting. (As a peripheral collector of
> verified specimens of unquestionable petigree, I've been on the side-lines
> for years, but haven't been aware that there may be all this crap-slinging
> going on in the marketplace. I fully understand a spirited and ongoing
> scientific discourse on the true classification issues, but this is a buzz
> kill.)
>
> Naturally, we all take pride in the value of our collections. But this
> whole thing reeks more of $$$ rather than the advancement of our passion.
>
> It is time to propose an open question as to why we love
> meteorites....more than $$$.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "GERALD FLAHERTY" <GRF2 at COMCAST.NET>
> To: "Jason Utas" <meteoritekid at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Meteorite-list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 5:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] NWA 5400, etc
>
>
>> On the contrary, it was Greg who brought this to the market place after
>> getting a it thoroughly studied. If someone claims "me too", it becomes
>> their responsibility to prove it their claim by peer review.
>> On Jun 17, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Jason Utas wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry - I was a little fuzzy on that point - I suggested that it
>>> should be peer-reviewed, and then said that Greg should provide the
>>> evidence. I was too vague - if Greg's the one making such
>>> accusations, I have the feeling that he should be the one to get such
>>> things done, whether or not he's the one doing them himself. He
>>> shouldn't be able to just keep claiming that a scientist with
>>> credentials is performing bad work without supplying some form of
>>> proof, or even the intent to get it.
>>> It's practically libel.
>>> I agree with you completely, RIchard.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Richard Kowalski <damoclid at yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hey Jason,
>>>>
>>>> a few points.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that if Greg is arguing that Dr. Jambon did not perform proper
>>>> and complete studies of the submitted material, it is critical that the
>>>> work be reviewed. Unfortunately Greg is not his peer. This is why I
>>>> state that the scientific study need to be peer reviewed. Fellow
>>>> meteoriticists are the ones qualified to determine if Dr. Jambon is a
>>>> competent scientist and the lab he used adequate to make the
>>>> determination of the pairing. Not Greg.
>>>>
>>>> I'll also reiterate my statement that anyone claiming a pairing has the
>>>> burden of proof, that their material is paired to the already
>>>> classified material. This then needs to be peer reviewed to assure that
>>>> the scientist is competent and the laboratory adequate to make the
>>>> determination. This level of proof is beyond almost all dealers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Richard Kowalski
>>>> Full Moon Photography
>>>> IMCA #1081
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>> Visit the Archives at
>>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> Visit the Archives at
>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> Visit the Archives at
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Thu 17 Jun 2010 09:05:56 PM PDT


Help support this free mailing list:



StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
reddit
Yahoo MyWeb