Ron:
> To conclude that coal is biological by virtue of
> what it once was would
> be making The same deduction as stating that it is
> social wouldn't it? Or am I missing it.
SA: Ron, this is easy, correct? I was only calling
coal an organic rock, yes, due to "what it once was",
and this is also what is taught in geology courses.
My old textbook calls coal an organic rock. Yes, also
when I look in my old textbook, coal is in the
sedimentary rock section. Geologists do think
about what the grains of a rock once were to help them
understand what a strata once was millions of years
ago or yesterday. If you find coal in a strata, then
millions of years ago the area may have been a swamp -
depends on the context, thus, what the other layers of
rock refer to as well. Your deduction in thinking a
rock could be social according to this line of
thinking is understandable, but I don't think
geologists are concerned about social patterns except
for paleontologists. Yet, I still haven't heard of
geologists calling certain rocks - social rocks.
Is this topic inspirational? Sorry, I need to ask,
didn't think it was a hot button issue.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
