[meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question (hopefully)

From: Stuart McDaniel - Action Shooting Supply <actionshooting_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 23:09:53 -0400
Message-ID: <3460CB3A70B24D49BFBC298A7A9668D0_at_toshibauser>

And don't forget "M.C. Hammer.................Hammer-Time" Doom, doom,
do-doom.


Stuart McDaniel
Lawndale, NC
Secr., CCAS
----- Original Message -----
From: <cdtucson at cox.net>
To: <countdeiro at earthlink.net>; "Linton Rohr" <lintonius at earthlink.net>
Cc: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question (hopefully)


> It's my understanding that the Beatles themselves got "Hammered" a time or
> two.
> --
> Carl or Debbie Esparza
> Meteoritemax
>
>
> ---- Linton Rohr <lintonius at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Well folks, since this is getting a bit silly anyway, I'll go ahead and
>> refer you to the tale of Maxwell, the English silversmith, who had a
>> meteor
>> impact his silver gallery, creating one of the most famous hammers of
>> all.
>> <g>
>> Bang, bang...
>> Linton
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <countdeiro at earthlink.net>
>> To: "Bob Loeffler" <bobl at peaktopeak.com>;
>> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 1:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question
>> (hopefully)
>>
>>
>> > Hi Bob and Listers,
>> >
>> > If it hit Mr. Blood. We could call it a "MIKE HAMMER".
>> >
>> > Guido
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> >>From: Bob Loeffler <bobl at peaktopeak.com>
>> >>Sent: Jun 19, 2010 4:54 PM
>> >>To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> >>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question
>> >>(hopefully)
>> >>
>> >>Well, we can't call those two "hammers" because we don't know for sure
>> >>if
>> >>they actually hit animals/dinosaurs, do we? :-) I'm sure they did,
>> >>but
>> >>we
>> >>shouldn't assume.
>> >>
>> >>Bob
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>-----Original Message-----
>> >>From: cdtucson at cox.net [mailto:cdtucson at cox.net]
>> >>Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 2:25 PM
>> >>To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com; Bob Loeffler
>> >>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question
>> >>(hopefully)
>> >>
>> >>Bob.
>> >> "Man made Object"
>> >>Sounds very smart to me.
>> >>So, What would you call a meteorite that makes a big divot say like
>> >>Meteor
>> >>crater or the Dino extinction size? "Sledge hammer"?
>> >>Carl
>> >>--
>> >>Carl or Debbie Esparza
>> >>Meteoritemax
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>---- Bob Loeffler <bobl at peaktopeak.com> wrote:
>> >>> I like the idea of categorizing these meteorites as "hammers", but I
>> >>> don't
>> >>> like the definition because "artifact" is way too general. In my
>> >>> opinion,
>> >>> there are many artifacts of human activity that don't deserve the
>> >>> "hammer"
>> >>> classification. Examples: a mound of dirt, or a landscaped yard, or
>> >>> a
>> >>dirt
>> >>> road, or a "rock garden". But, if there is a garden gnome in your
>> >>> yard
>> >>that
>> >>> scares away young children and a meteorite hits it, then the met
>> >>> would
>> >>> be
>> >>a
>> >>> hammer stone because it is an object that was created by humans.
>> >>>
>> >>> Maybe Michael meant "a man-made OBJECT" when he decided to use the
>> >>> word
>> >>> "artifact", but there are other types/definitions of artifacts and
>> >>therefore
>> >>> the confusion. The word artifact can also be used for the inaccurate
>> >>result
>> >>> of human activity or technology (e.g. a blip in an x-ray image). So
>> >>> some
>> >>> people might stretch the case of the meteorite landing into a cowpie
>> >>> as
>> >>> being an artifact because the cow was not indigenous to the US and
>> >>> people
>> >>> brought them here from Europe, so when it pooped, that poop is an
>> >>> artifact
>> >>> of human activity. Yes, definitely a stretch, but that's because
>> >>"artifact"
>> >>> is too general.
>> >>>
>> >>> In any case, Michael coined the term, so it's his decision to modify
>> >>> the
>> >>> definition or not.
>> >>>
>> >>> I like the term "hammer" (or "hammer stone") only if it's used with a
>> >>> description of why it's a hammer. For example, if an ebay ad says
>> >>"Claxton
>> >>> meteorite - Hammer stone - 10g", that gets my attention. Then when I
>> >>> look
>> >>> at the description of it, it better say WHY it's a hammer stone. If
>> >>> it
>> >>> doesn't, that dealer goes on my blacklist... or I'm just weary about
>> >>> that
>> >>> dealer until they have proven that they are legitimate and not just
>> >>> using
>> >>> the term to increase the marketability of the specimen.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>>
>> >>> Bob
>> >>>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
>> >>> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of
>> >>> Shawn
>> >>Alan
>> >>> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 8:49 PM
>> >>> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> >>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question
>> >>(hopefully)
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Jason and Listers :)
>> >>>
>> >>> Jason, I did get your point and I think your confusing your points
>> >>> because
>> >>> what you keep saying has no purpose from a collecting stand point.
>> >>> Ill
>> >>> explain.... you said from your last post.....
>> >>>
>> >>> "All I'm saying is that the word itself is unnecessary. It takes a
>> >>> detail about a meteorite and generalizes it - if the stone hit a
>> >>> building, it's a hammer, if it hit a road, it....may be a hammer, if
>> >>> it hit a car, it's a hammer."
>> >>>
>> >>> To generalize is unnecessary? I am confused. So for me to put
>> >>> something
>> >>into
>> >>> a category is unnecessary? Well I guess it would be safe to say lets
>> >>dismiss
>> >>> historic falls as a generalized term, or how about a whole stone or a
>> >>slice.
>> >>> The fact of the matter is from a collectors stand point these
>> >>> categories,
>> >>> or in your case Jason, generalization, are there for a collectability
>> >>> purposes.
>> >>>
>> >>> You keep confusions these collectible terms as unnecessary from a
>> >>scientific
>> >>> stand point. That is true, science doesn't care if its a historic
>> >>> fall,
>> >>> or
>> >>> if its a hammer, or if its a hammer stone, or in your case, if its a
>> >>> whole
>> >>> stone. What science cares about is the classification, where the
>> >>> meteorite
>> >>> came from, or the chemical makeup.
>> >>>
>> >>> However, from a historical stand point and collectors stand point,
>> >>> science
>> >>> and history plays a very big role in ones collection and how they see
>> >>> fit
>> >>to
>> >>> collect meteorites. If I only collect hammer falls and hammer stone
>> >>> then,
>> >>I
>> >>> want to know if the stone hit an animal, or human, or artifact, or a
>> >>> man
>> >>> made object and will determine if its worth being in my collection.
>> >>> Or
>> >>> in
>> >>> your case you collect whole stones. Or someone else only may collect
>> >>> historic falls.
>> >>>
>> >>> Collecting is subjective from the individuals taste and wants. There
>> >>> is
>> >>> no
>> >>> science behind it, only a rich history , the stories that meteorites
>> >>> tell
>> >>> people from where they have been. Or the previous owner, or if the
>> >>> meteorite had hit something or not. To have a category for meteorites
>> >>> that
>> >>> have hit an artifact, human, animal, man made object is important in
>> >>> the
>> >>> collectability stand point of meteorite collecting.
>> >>>
>> >>> Many people on the list and around the world use the term hammer
>> >>> stone/
>> >>> hammer fall to decipher a meteorite from a collective stand point. If
>> >>> we
>> >>> didn't have these two terms, which by you its seems generic and
>> >>> lessons
>> >>the
>> >>> value of meteorites, it would be hard to put this type of fall into a
>> >>> sub
>> >>> category from a collectability stand point.
>> >>>
>> >>> Shawn Alan
>> >>> IMCA 1633
>> >>> eBaystore
>> >>>
>> >> http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=&_trksid=
>> >>> p4340
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question (hopefully)
>> >>> Jason Utas meteoritekid at gmail.com
>> >>> Thu Jun 17 17:15:18 EDT 2010
>> >>>
>> >>> Previous message: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question
>> >>> (hopefully)
>> >>> Next message: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question
>> >>> (hopefully)
>> >>> Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> ----
>> >>> Michael, All,
>> >>> You're just getting hung up in the terminology. A collector who
>> >>> collects meteorites that have hit man-made objects is fine by me. But
>> >>> when people start going around using the word "hammer" to describe
>> >>> such stones - and people are taking the liberty of using terms like
>> >>> "hammer-fall stones" to sell stones that haven't hit anything other
>> >>> than the ground...you're just asking for trouble.
>> >>>
>> >>> All I'm saying is that the word itself is unnecessary. It takes a
>> >>> detail about a meteorite and generalizes it - if the stone hit a
>> >>> building, it's a hammer, if it hit a road, it....may be a hammer, if
>> >>> it hit a car, it's a hammer.
>> >>>
>> >>> It's not like we're streamlining things by applying this one term -
>> >>> we're just losing information, and while you say the term "hammer" is
>> >>> well-defined, I would like to point out the debate on-list about the
>> >>> 'hammer status' of a meteorite that hits a dirt road or a
>> >>> plowed/cleared field. After all, a dirt road is about as much of a
>> >>> man-made structure as a leveled and cleared field. Same goes for a
>> >>> dirt dam.
>> >>> So a "hammer" is a meteorite that has fallen on anything that isn't
>> >>> virgin land? I mean...things seems to be a little vague right now.
>> >>>
>> >>> Your definition:
>> >>>
>> >>> "Hammer:" any individual which is part of a hammer fall in which
>> >>> one or more of the individuals struck an artifact, animal or human.
>> >>>
>> >>> Define a "human artifact." Would a road or plowed field be included
>> >>> in your definition? Or does it have to be a smaller sort of tangible
>> >>> object that's been altered by humanity in some way? What if a
>> >>> meteorite hits something like a rose bush in my yard, here in LA.
>> >>> That rose bush wouldn't be here if it weren't for people, and if its
>> >>> remains were excavated from the archaeologic remains of my house in
>> >>> several thousand years, it would be treated as an artifact,
>> >>> because...it is one. That rose is the product of hundreds of years of
>> >>> selective breeding, and wouldn't exist in this climate if it weren't
>> >>> for my grandmother, who planted it, and us, who water it.
>> >>>
>> >>> Or how about the meteorite that hits a plowed field? Again, you're
>> >>> looking at a piece of land that has been substantially altered by the
>> >>> hand of man - it has been leveled, cleared, and fertilized for
>> >>> decades
>> >>> in all likelihood. That piece of land has undergone more alteration
>> >>> than the dirt berm upon which an Ash Creek stone was found - that was
>> >>> just a bunch of dirt piled into a hill.
>> >>>
>> >>> Or how about a dirt road - that's just a strip of land that's been
>> >>> scraped over by a bulldozer. Much less altered than a plowed field.
>> >>>
>> >>> Again, when you start using generic terms to describe things, you
>> >>> lose
>> >>> specificity. When I say that people shouldn't collect "hammers," I'm
>> >>> not critiquing your collection of meteorites that have hit man-made
>> >>> things.
>> >>> I'm criticizing your use of a term that takes the *individual*
>> >>> history
>> >>> of each stone and makes it "a hammer."
>> >>>
>> >>> Chiang Kahn no longer hit a boat - it's a "hammer."
>> >>> Sylacouga no longer clipped Mrs. Hodges - it's a "hammer."
>> >>> And Peekskill didn't hit a car - it's a "hammer."
>> >>>
>> >>> Now do you see what I'm saying? There's no reason to start calling
>> >>> things "hammer" and try to define a new term that is subjective, no
>> >>> matter how much you say it's not.
>> >>>
>> >>> Such practices can be useful - when I see a meteorite, it wouldn't
>> >>> help me for someone to say that, for example,
>> >>> NWA 004 is a meteorite with Fayalite (mol%): 22.2 and Ferrosilite
>> >>> (mol%): 18.6 (12.6-20.5).
>> >>> I can read that, but what means more to me is that because of that
>> >>> information, it is classified as an L4.
>> >>> L4 is what means something to me - not the Fa/Fs numbers. Maybe they
>> >>> will in a few years, but not right now.
>> >>>
>> >>> So when I see you making up a new term to describe something that is
>> >>> already very easily described and doesn't need clarification...I
>> >>> guess
>> >>> you're free to do it, but...I don't understand why you're not just
>> >>> saying "this is a stone that hit a building."
>> >>>
>> >>> Because that seems clear enough.
>> >>>
>> >>> Just say "it hit a boat." Or say "this one was found on the ground,
>> >>> but another stone from this fall hit a building."
>> >>>
>> >>> We'll know what that means.
>> >>>
>> >>> And yes, Michael, there are dealers going around selling things like
>> >>> Park Forest who are saying that their pieces are from a "hammer-fall"
>> >>> and that the pieces that they're selling could have hit a man-made
>> >>> object. Without any sort of verification, I would say that making
>> >>> such claims is nothing but a cheap marketing ploy.
>> >>> If you don't know where the stone that you're selling fell, don't say
>> >>> that it might have hit something man-made when most stones hit
>> >>> nothing
>> >>> but dirt.
>> >>>
>> >>> Or are you going to sell every Junacheng you get as "maybe the stone
>> >>> that fell in the woman's cooking-pot?"
>> >>>
>> >>> Because, if so...it's just a marketing ploy.
>> >>>
>> >>> And Shawn, you missed my point entirely. I hope this message
>> >>> clarifies things.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> Jason
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ______________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>> >>>
>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> >>> Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2917 - Release Date:
>> >>> 06/17/10
>> >>> 00:35:00
>> >>>
>> >>> ______________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>> >>
>> >>No virus found in this incoming message.
>> >>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> >>Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2917 - Release Date:
>> >>06/19/10
>> >>00:35:00
>> >>
>> >>______________________________________________
>> >>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
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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 Sat 19 Jun 2010 11:09:53 PM PDT