Well spoken Adam
While our posts were sometimes aimed at each other, words like clown and
thief and lazy will do that, we are really aiming at a difference in
philosophy. I am opposed to the current multiple standards of practice
regarding classification and feel that the current dense area rulings are
for the science of piecing together strewnfield/dynamics information as
opposed to verification of material. If not the case then why can all
meteorites from Burkina Faso, another dense area, pass by my eyes and be
called Gao, Bilanga, Lampiayrie, Bogou, Bereba, Guibga, and Nadiabondi with
the NomCom's blessing. I am part owner of 1877 and am borrowing NomCom data
on my own material with this case and with 1929. All said, the olivine
diogenite suspect I have been selling has been submitted for naming...but it
won't change any outcomes except bogging down real scientific work that
could have been done instead of a hopeless attempt to make an NWA map
hypothesis. IF it were authenticity then other dense areas would apply and
every Gao would be checked against every Lampiayrie and so on.
The names belong to the NomCom, that is who I borrow from, and if my eyes
are trained to assess Tatahouine uncontested they are trained to assess this
one.
My views, not against you but the system and if we don't say the machine is
broken every now and then there will be no debate or effort to change it. So
yes, I bow, on my own accord. It will come up again, and we'll differ again.
Rob Wesel
http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com
------------------
We are the music makers...
and we are the dreamers of the dreams.
Willy Wonka, 1971
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Hupe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 9:04 AM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Personal Thoughts
Dear List,
I will try to present this in a way that is not directed at any single
individual or dealer.
I felt the List needed an explanation as to why I get so upset about
description and number borrowing so that my real motives are known.
First of all, this not entirely about commercial purposes although
admittedly this plays a small part in all of this because there are some
real costs involved. It is about what I feel is right and fair. I do not
feel it is fair for somebody other than parties who had their material
classified use numbers that apply only to certain meteorites for the
following reasons;
Published NWA numbers only apply to meteorites or groups of meteorites
that
were formally studied, submitted and then voted on.
The weight is recorded under a particular number so using nomenclature
that
applies to an official or provisional meteorite to describe another will
only serve to make these weight entries inaccurate.
Although nobody owns these numbers, they do own the material that these
numbers describe. This also includes collectors who purchased officially
studied material under a particular number from a dealer who followed the
processes in good faith.
Dealers sometimes have to wait over five years to have material
classified,
for example, as is the case with our NWA 960 meteorite. Is it fair that
somebody comes along, visually inspects their material and then claim that
it is the same? It may very well be from the same fall but it unjust for
a
dealer to claim they have the same material and use data that was intended
for another meteorite when steps were not taken to officially prove this.
Is it fair that somebody brings back material, waits sometimes up to
several
years for a classification, pays the lab costs, writes the descriptions
and
then have some dealer skip all of these processes and use information that
was intended to describe official material for his own personal gain?
Is it fair to collectors who purchased official material to have
unofficial
and unclassified material being claimed as the same or even likely the
same
without have it first tested? There is too much room for abuse if dealers
are allowed to use data and numbers intended for official or provisional
meteorites to describe unqualified material. Why should anybody get
anything classified if this is an acceptable practice? Heck, if I could
simple borrow numbers and descriptions from others, why bother with
classifications at all? Why get mad at the people who claimed they had
complete Baygorrias for sale if this practice is acceptable. After all,
they share virtually identical classifications and visually look
identical.
The Baygorria fiasco only served to undermine collector confidence is the
only reason I used it as an example. This not directed at any dealer who
followed the Met. Soc. standards in this case.
The point is that the Met. Soc. rules concerning NWA nomenclature might
not
be to everybody's liking but they do serve a valuable purpose. From a
commercial standpoint, Dealers were invited to input their ideas in
regards
to the rules concerning NWA material and a collective consensus was
reached.
A lot of thought went into the process and this is the best that is
available at this time. If somebody doesn't care to follow the rules then
they shouldn't use NWA nomenclature and classifications published by the
Meteoritical Society because they shouldn't have it both ways.
Not trying to start something here, just expressing my personal thoughts.
Adam
______________________________________________
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
