Dear Doug;
"Cereal wars" LOL....I prefer "tastes great, less filling" wars!
I think the "main mass" issue is a product of the system in NWA's.
I also think that "main mass" is a fluid issue. One could have "had" a
main mass when it was the largest..for example the largest piece before
Steve Arnold (IMB) located the current "main mass" and, yes, bless his
karma, may he find an even larger "main mass" to replace his current one.
NWA world is an amazing elephant in the room for any number of reasons
and we all should elect to accept the issue of NWA's will be an
elephant in the room. Always, and it may be different colors, and it
may leave a "main mass" on those who stir it often.
Didn't we debate this one before?
Best,
Dave F.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hola Adam, Mike, Dean, Bob, and anyone else on this subject,
You guys are all to be commended on your roles in the recovery of these
specimens. The real question I see is not how many main masses you have -but
whether you have any main masses at all- from these dense localities: The
system is quite arbitrary no matter how you attribute subjective/random pairings.
This shouldn't have any negative connotation associated with it. I posted
something similar to this about a year or two ago in this forum.
You all definitely have a lot of the world's biggest pieces in your
possessions, none of you massive dealers needs any bragging rights from a viewpoint
down here in the trenches, its not as if these were Nobel prizes, nor is it
comparable in 99% of the cases to Steve Arnold's gig. This is unarguably an
artificially manufactured situation in the dense collection areas. Besides
Adam's, Mike's response was pretty straightforward, too, and Dean's logic very
intelligent as well, as well as the rest...it really sounds much less
scientific and more like discussion among competing cereal companies on who can label
the food as "Heart Healthy" and who can't. I'd go retro and just ask
"Where's the Beef?" while we watch y'all in this potentially high-steaks and
breadwinning issue.
So as long as we understand this is more of a Cola Wars' type question than
a meaningful scientific question, it's interesting to hear all these
arguments and occasionally add a peep or two in the shadow of the giants.
Maybe I'm wrong, but we've seen this discussion in many presentations
before. That's great, as long as everyone agrees that this is a commercial and not
a scientific issue. It actually looks like you all do, in my (very) humble
perception...Saludos, Doug
PS a known pairing series can be open to interpretation, and are not
exhaustive analyses, right? The science doesn't feel the need to address this
issue, as far as I gather...
In a message dated 1/19/2006 10:57:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I followed this logic, I would have 48 planetary "Main Masses." Yeah for
me! In reality, we have less than a dozen as far as I am concerned. I will
stick to the what I believe are the rules, the largest piece in a known
pairing series is the only Main Mass.
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
