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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
> will have to help
> you out on that end.
>
> In any case, I apologize for the presumptions which
> I helped to
> further, that were based on the false data provided
> by Michael Farmer.
> Based on what I actually knew at the time, coupled
> with the
> information from Michael Farmer, which I made the
> mistake of believing
> as true, there was little possibility, in my
> opinion, of my reaching
> another conclusion at the time.
>
> John, I apologize for the statements that I made,
> and I would like to
> apologize again to the list for all of this.
>
> Jason
>
>
> On 3/20/07, Michael Farmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I think Sergey's explanation is most likely, that
> the
> > Richland mass was the transported piece, since it
> only
> > weighed 12 kilograms.
> > I don't recall seeing any signs of human damage
> (other
> > than many plow cuts) but this was a very hard
> iron. I
> > like good mystery, and this is an interesting
> one.
> > Unfortunately we do not know the exact location of
> the
> > find, so there is not much more that could be done
> to
> > search the farm for more pieces.
> > Michael Farmer
> > --- dean bessey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > --- Michael Farmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > Jeff,
> > > > Now comes the question of how a large piece of
> a
> > > > meteorite came to rest 178 miles (297 km) from
> the
> > > > first piece.
> > > > Does anyone have an explanation as to how or
> why
> > > it
> > > > could/would be transported so far back then,
> and
> > > > buried in a farmers field?
> > > >
> > > I suspect that the natives could have done it.
> The
> > > question is why (And not bother to take care of
> at
> > > it
> > > afterwards).
> > > It might have been to eroded to tell (And there
> may
> > > no
> > > longer be photos or memories of the uncut mass)
> but
> > > I
> > > wonder if there was evidence on the original
> mass
> > > that
> > > some pieces were crudely chipped of.
> > > If there was pieces chipped of, a plausable
> > > explanation of why the indians took so much
> trouble
> > > to
> > > move it is that they were making iron tools with
> it
> > > (A
> > > semi common occurance in the pre iron world).
> > > Then after some years of this chipping, neglect,
> war
> > > or other reasons may have caused it to be
> abandoned
> > > and slowly be buried by natural means.
> > > Of course that is onely one possible explanation
> and
> > > there is no real evidence for it but would be a
> > > reason
> > > why it was moved. It could well be another fall.
> > > Just an idea
> > > Cheers
> > > DEAN
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> > > We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to
> love
> > > (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures
> > > list.
> > > http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > >
> >
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> > >
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> >
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
