Agreed and put far better than I, Darryl-- and that was the point to my post-- not attacking anyone and definitely not attacking anyone in particular. When "oriented" is unquantified then anything and everything could be oriented. I can't download the Dave sent me but I am comfortable that he did not use "oriented" uninformed.
I've been criticized for criticizing Dave and I want to assure Dave and the list that was not the intended purpose of my rant. I was relying on two things to pose my soapbox essay. The use of "oriented" when any surface features other than a fresh crack on fresh fusion crust is not apparent in the photo selected for illustrating "orientation". Note I did not say it wasn't oriented-- I only asked that the use of the term with the meteorite in the photo be explained/justified. OK I score another point for brashness. Mia Culpa. Hope this has a positive impact on the need for codified definitions across the board when it comes to describing meteorites. Elton --- Darryl Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > in my experience, the single most problematic term in meteorite > commerce is "orientation." this seems to be in part due to a > reluctance to differentiate objects which exhibit a bit of > orientation from those which exhibit nothing but orientation. > > the new generation of collectors are not to be faulted for the > seeming misapplication of the term as a result of what is today its > liberal, ubiquitous use. > > might i suggest that the list come up with a grading system of > orientation in much the same way that weathering and shocking are > graded. > > three or four grades of orientation to finally---FINALLY--put this > notion to rest. > > d. ______________________________________________ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
