Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Paul Harris via Meteorite-list]

March 29, 2024

Mr. Jason Utas

The Meteorite Exchange, Inc. (www.meteorites-for-sale.com) was mentioned 
in your post to the Meteorite List on March 28, 2024 (see below).


"I suppose it's not really that simple, because some misrepresented 
material is still going to get into circulation, which is a problem...  
Maybe some of the more experienced members in the Global Meteorite 
Association (GMA) can help Mark sort it out?  I don't know.  What's 
supposed to happen with NWA 14743 now?  I'm seeing active listings of 
what looks to me like at least two different meteorites, sold listings 
for both going back at least a year...pieces for sale on websites like 
www.meteorites-for-sale.com , sold 
pieces there...  It looks like a real headache.  I wouldn't know where 
to begin. "



Mr. Utas, for public record in this matter. Are you stating that the The 
Meteorite Exchange, Inc. is selling misrepresented material (NWA 14743 
sourced from Mr. Mark Lyon).

https://www.meteorites-for-sale.com/nwa-14743-meteorite.html

For public record please answer YES or NO so there is absolutely no 
ambiguity.


Sincerely,

Paul Harris, President
The Meteorite Exchange, Inc.




On 3/28/2024 12:02 PM, Jason Utas via Meteorite-list wrote:

Hello Everyone,

Sorry for the late reply - it's spring break, and the rocks don't find 
themselves.


It's hard to disagree with /common sense/. Unfortunately, Mark has 
already made at least a few pretty bad /common sense/ pairing mistakes 
that I'm pretty sure have put misrepresented material into 
circulation.  Like this one , where 
Mark decided that an unclassified ~CV3 was paired with another 
dealer's published CR2.  And this one 
, where Mark decided that a CV3 was 
paired with what sure looks to me like an unpaired carbonaceous 
chondrite.  More on these meteorites below.


Mark mentioned some of our past conversations.  I agree: they were 
pretty crazy, but I wouldn't say it's because of anything /I/ said.  I 
guess it's a good thing I saved them all, and can share them with you.


Let's get right to it.

In mid-January of 2023, I let John Humphreys know, in private, that 
some “Erg Chech 003" "CR2” slices he was offering on eBay looked to be 
swapped with a ~CV3.  John's one of the few dealers I would trust to 
handle an issue like that honestly and quickly.  Given the texture of 
the stone and its abundant CAIs, it couldn't have been a CR2.  Not 
possible. A photo of the material speaks for itself 
: a real specimen of Erg Chech 003 is 
on the right.  To his credit, John immediately pulled the slices he'd 
listed.  I had no way of knowing it at the time, but Mark had sold 
John this unclassified meteorite as the published CR2 Erg Chech 003 
.  Unfortunately, by the time I'd 
messaged John about the problem, some amount of the ~CV3 had already 
been sold on by a few of the dealers who routinely distribute Mark's 
material, and you can still find some of those unclassified ~CV3 
slices in circulation as CR2s / Erg Chech 003 
.  
Not great.


Had I said nothing, there's no reason to think anyone else would have 
caught the misrepresented material, and the rest of that ~CV3 would 
have been sold as the CR2.  Mark keeps telling people I'm often wrong, 
but...he admitted to the problem in private and refunded John 
. Hm.


I would add: I don't blame John Humphreys for what happened with the 
fake Erg Chech 003.  It's not reasonable to expect everyone to be able 
to ID a carbonaceous chondrite by sight, especially based on just a 
few small slices.  Someone classifying and selling new, unclassified 
meteorites has a greater burden of responsibility than someone who 
thinks they're buying a documented meteorite from a reputable dealer.  
Ultimately, Mark was the one who put those specimens into circulation 
labelled as something they weren't.  It should have been safe for John 
to trust him.


This "Erg Chech 003" ~CV3 is also a perfect example of Mark's ‘/rules 
for thee but not for me/.’  Mark argued in his email that Benzaki 
Mohamed's use of Jason Whitcomb's NWA number was different from Taza, 
Jikharra 001, etc., because Whitcomb's CK was "/probably a single 
person classification with low total known weight. Anyone with common 
sense can see that this is different from huge finds/."


Well, let's look up Erg Chech 003 
.  How many 
tonnes is it?  It has a TKW of...just 1.1 kilograms.  Oh. 
That's...really small.  And it's owned by...two dealers who often 
collaborate with each other. Not Mark.  So...not only did Mark use 
someone else's DCA number from a small find -- he screwed up the 
pairing when doing it and put misidentified material into 
circulation.  

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Mark Lyon via Meteorite-list]

Sorry. I am sure everyone is tired of this conversation, but I needed to
write one more email because I mis spoke about something, and this thing I
misspoke about should effectively end any credibility Jason Utas had in
this situation.  He accused me of using someone else's classification and
mispairing NWA 14743, and I had replied I had never used that number,
knowing that I had never paired a CV3 like that.  I looked into it more and
discovered that I had used the number because it was MY CLASSIFICATION, so
anything he said about me mispairing it is completely absurd.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=77242.  So, again, my main
point -- don't make irresponsible claims.  Regarding the CR2, I have always
been upfront regarding anyone I sold it to about where it came from, and
while I was waiting for classification (which is different from waiting for
analysis) I did tell some people that it was found in the same strewnfield
as erg chech 003 and was likely the same material.  Regarding Utas's claim
that it was "incorrectly paired' and actually a "CV3" I have a screenshot
of a conversation with the classifier, way back from may 2022 saying that
the writup was complete and then it would be submitted for classification
that next day. I don't know why classification has taken so long, but that
is really an issue with nom-com and the classifying scientist.   This site
won't let me post the photo here but I have shared the screenshot it with
the presidents of the IMCA and GMA (since Utas brought them into it) and it
is available for anyone who wants to see it.  On another note, it is kind
of weird that Jason brought up the IMCA and GMA at all, since he was forced
out of the IMCA over classification issues, and he is not a member of the
GMA.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:17 PM Mark Lyon  wrote:

> Jason,
>
> I am not going to extend this argument or bother reading past your first
> paragraph, but this is exactly the type of irresponsible claims that i am
> talking about.  I have no idea what Imgur is (the website you are sending
> photos from ) but I can tall you that none of those photographs are of my
> material, my hand or my yard.  They do say Mark Lyon at the bottom.  They
> don't make any reference to whose material it actually is or where these
> photographs come from.  I can also tell you that i have never claimed any
> of my meteorites were paired with NWA 14713.  Regarding erg chech 003, the
> photo you sent was again not my hand or my hard or my material, but I
> bought a few kilos of CR2 as paired with Erg chech 003 (I didn't "decide"
> it was paired but it was a large find and sold by a moroccan dealer from
> the same stewnfield) and that material has been analysed as CR2 and will
> have its own name soon.  I have no idea what the photo on the left is, but
> if I had to guess by the glove the photo on the right is probably Matt
> Streams.  I believe I did sell some to Matt Steam, and he probably put some
> up on ebay, but I guess my question is if unless you analysed the material
> what makes you so much more sure that it is a Cv3 than the classifying
> scientist who had the material and conducted the analysis?  Personally,
> deciding between two options, I would choose the insite over the scientist
> who actually analysed the material itself, whose job it is to be able to
> analyse the data, over someone who made the judgement just by looking at a
> photograph.  I have close to 100 classifications, and 95% of what I sell is
> material in which I am the main mass holder. I go out of my way to not use
> other people's classification.  With lunar, for example, everyone is
> selling bachar 003 (paired) whereas I went out of my way to get a new
> classification, NWA 15373.  Meteorites such as Erg Chech, Jikharra, etc,
> everyone is selling this material but I was on the original classification.
>   I don't blame them. it would be dumb to reclassify everytime anyone wants
> to sell.  Anyway, you can  write another long email if you want to, but I
> won't read that one either.  What I am saying is simple, and as an educated
> man and aspiring scientist you should understand it.  Don't make
> irresponsible claims.
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 12:03 PM Jason Utas 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Everyone,
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply - it's spring break, and the rocks don't find
>> themselves.
>>
>> It's hard to disagree with *common sense*.  Unfortunately, Mark has
>> already made at least a few pretty bad *common sense* pairing mistakes
>> that I'm pretty sure have put misrepresented material into circulation.
>> Like this one , where Mark decided that
>> an unclassified ~CV3 was paired with another dealer's published CR2.  And 
>> this
>> one , where Mark decided that a CV3 was
>> paired with what sure looks to me like an unpaired carbonaceous chondrite.
>> More on these meteorites below.
>>
>> Mark mentioned some of our past 

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Mark Lyon via Meteorite-list]

Jason,

I am not going to extend this argument or bother reading past your first
paragraph, but this is exactly the type of irresponsible claims that i am
talking about.  I have no idea what Imgur is (the website you are sending
photos from ) but I can tall you that none of those photographs are of my
material, my hand or my yard.  They do say Mark Lyon at the bottom.  They
don't make any reference to whose material it actually is or where these
photographs come from.  I can also tell you that i have never claimed any
of my meteorites were paired with NWA 14713.  Regarding erg chech 003, the
photo you sent was again not my hand or my hard or my material, but I
bought a few kilos of CR2 as paired with Erg chech 003 (I didn't "decide"
it was paired but it was a large find and sold by a moroccan dealer from
the same stewnfield) and that material has been analysed as CR2 and will
have its own name soon.  I have no idea what the photo on the left is, but
if I had to guess by the glove the photo on the right is probably Matt
Streams.  I believe I did sell some to Matt Steam, and he probably put some
up on ebay, but I guess my question is if unless you analysed the material
what makes you so much more sure that it is a Cv3 than the classifying
scientist who had the material and conducted the analysis?  Personally,
deciding between two options, I would choose the insite over the scientist
who actually analysed the material itself, whose job it is to be able to
analyse the data, over someone who made the judgement just by looking at a
photograph.  I have close to 100 classifications, and 95% of what I sell is
material in which I am the main mass holder. I go out of my way to not use
other people's classification.  With lunar, for example, everyone is
selling bachar 003 (paired) whereas I went out of my way to get a new
classification, NWA 15373.  Meteorites such as Erg Chech, Jikharra, etc,
everyone is selling this material but I was on the original classification.
  I don't blame them. it would be dumb to reclassify everytime anyone wants
to sell.  Anyway, you can  write another long email if you want to, but I
won't read that one either.  What I am saying is simple, and as an educated
man and aspiring scientist you should understand it.  Don't make
irresponsible claims.

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 12:03 PM Jason Utas  wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> Sorry for the late reply - it's spring break, and the rocks don't find
> themselves.
>
> It's hard to disagree with *common sense*.  Unfortunately, Mark has
> already made at least a few pretty bad *common sense* pairing mistakes
> that I'm pretty sure have put misrepresented material into circulation.
> Like this one , where Mark decided that
> an unclassified ~CV3 was paired with another dealer's published CR2.  And this
> one , where Mark decided that a CV3 was
> paired with what sure looks to me like an unpaired carbonaceous chondrite.
> More on these meteorites below.
>
> Mark mentioned some of our past conversations.  I agree: they were pretty
> crazy, but I wouldn't say it's because of anything *I* said.  I guess
> it's a good thing I saved them all, and can share them with you.
>
> Let's get right to it.
>
> In mid-January of 2023, I let John Humphreys know, in private, that some
> “Erg Chech 003" "CR2” slices he was offering on eBay looked to be swapped
> with a ~CV3.  John's one of the few dealers I would trust to handle an
> issue like that honestly and quickly.  Given the texture of the stone and
> its abundant CAIs, it couldn't have been a CR2.  Not possible.  A photo
> of the material speaks for itself : a
> real specimen of Erg Chech 003 is on the right.  To his credit, John
> immediately pulled the slices he'd listed.  I had no way of knowing it at
> the time, but Mark had sold John this unclassified meteorite as the
> published CR2 Erg Chech 003 .  Unfortunately,
> by the time I'd messaged John about the problem, some amount of the ~CV3
> had already been sold on by a few of the dealers who routinely distribute
> Mark's material, and you can still find some of those unclassified ~CV3
> slices in circulation as CR2s / Erg Chech 003
> .
> Not great.
>
> Had I said nothing, there's no reason to think anyone else would have
> caught the misrepresented material, and the rest of that ~CV3 would have
> been sold as the CR2.  Mark keeps telling people I'm often wrong, but...he
> admitted to the problem in private and refunded John
> .  Hm.
>
> I would add: I don't blame John Humphreys for what happened with the fake
> Erg Chech 003.  It's not reasonable to expect everyone to be able to ID a
> carbonaceous chondrite by sight, especially based on just a few small
> slices.  Someone classifying and selling new, unclassified meteorites has 

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Mendy Ouzillou via Meteorite-list]

Since the GMA <https://gmeta.org/>  and I were mentioned at the end of the post 
below, I will make the following points.

1.  Mark Lyon is a member in good standing of the Global Meteorite 
Association.
2.  The GMA’s responsibility only begins when a formal complaint 
<https://gmeta.org/community/complaints>  has been lodged against a member.

 

These are to be interpreted as two independently statement of facts and nothing 
more. 

 

Regards to all,

 

Mendy

 

From: Meteorite-list  On Behalf Of 
Jason Utas via Meteorite-list
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 2:03 PM
To: Mark Lyon 
Cc: Meteorite-list ; humboldt bay jay 

Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

 

Hello Everyone,

Sorry for the late reply - it's spring break, and the rocks don't find 
themselves.  

It's hard to disagree with common sense.  Unfortunately, Mark has already made 
at least a few pretty bad common sense pairing mistakes that I'm pretty sure 
have put misrepresented material into circulation.  Like this one 
<https://i.imgur.com/dqkqk05.jpg> , where Mark decided that an unclassified 
~CV3 was paired with another dealer's published CR2.  And this one 
<https://i.imgur.com/A0y83Tj.jpg> , where Mark decided that a CV3 was paired 
with what sure looks to me like an unpaired carbonaceous chondrite.  More on 
these meteorites below.  


Mark mentioned some of our past conversations.  I agree: they were pretty 
crazy, but I wouldn't say it's because of anything I said.  I guess it's a good 
thing I saved them all, and can share them with you.  


Let's get right to it.  

In mid-January of 2023, I let John Humphreys know, in private, that some “Erg 
Chech 003" "CR2” slices he was offering on eBay looked to be swapped with a 
~CV3.  John's one of the few dealers I would trust to handle an issue like that 
honestly and quickly.  Given the texture of the stone and its abundant CAIs, it 
couldn't have been a CR2.  Not possible.  A photo of the material speaks for 
itself <https://i.imgur.com/dqkqk05.jpg> : a real specimen of Erg Chech 003 is 
on the right.  To his credit, John immediately pulled the slices he'd listed.  
I had no way of knowing it at the time, but Mark had sold John this 
unclassified meteorite as the published CR2 Erg Chech 003 
<https://imgur.com/a/47qmQK7> .  Unfortunately, by the time I'd messaged John 
about the problem, some amount of the ~CV3 had already been sold on by a few of 
the dealers who routinely distribute Mark's material, and you can still find 
some of those unclassified ~CV3 slices in circulation as CR2s / Erg Chech 003 
<https://5dhealingcrystals.com/products/pallasite-meteorite-erg-chech> .  Not 
great. 

Had I said nothing, there's no reason to think anyone else would have caught 
the misrepresented material, and the rest of that ~CV3 would have been sold as 
the CR2.  Mark keeps telling people I'm often wrong, but...he admitted to the 
problem in private and refunded John <https://i.imgur.com/lUWiP9q.png> .  Hm. 

I would add: I don't blame John Humphreys for what happened with the fake Erg 
Chech 003.  It's not reasonable to expect everyone to be able to ID a 
carbonaceous chondrite by sight, especially based on just a few small slices.  
Someone classifying and selling new, unclassified meteorites has a greater 
burden of responsibility than someone who thinks they're buying a documented 
meteorite from a reputable dealer.  Ultimately, Mark was the one who put those 
specimens into circulation labelled as something they weren't.  It should have 
been safe for John to trust him.  

 

This "Erg Chech 003" ~CV3 is also a perfect example of Mark's ‘rules for thee 
but not for me.’  Mark argued in his email that Benzaki Mohamed's use of Jason 
Whitcomb's NWA number was different from Taza, Jikharra 001, etc., because 
Whitcomb's CK was "probably a single person classification with low total known 
weight. Anyone with common sense can see that this is different from huge 
finds." 


Well, let's look up Erg Chech 003 
<https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=74840> .  How many tonnes is 
it?  It has a TKW of...just 1.1 kilograms.  Oh.  That's...really small.  And 
it's owned by...two dealers who often collaborate with each other.  Not Mark.  
So...not only did Mark use someone else's DCA number from a small find -- he 
screwed up the pairing when doing it and put misidentified material into 
circulation.  ...I guess "common sense" rules only apply to everyone else.  Not 
Mark Lyon.  

 

Let's turn the clock back to January 2023 for a moment.  When I first notified 
John about the issue with the fake Erg Chech 003, I had no idea the material 
had even come from Mark.  How could I?  Erg Chech 003 wasn't even "his 
classification."  I didn't know it yet, but John had forwarded my messages to 
Mark, letting him know I was the one who had raised the i

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Jason Utas via Meteorite-list]

Hello Everyone,

Sorry for the late reply - it's spring break, and the rocks don't find
themselves.

It's hard to disagree with *common sense*.  Unfortunately, Mark has already
made at least a few pretty bad *common sense* pairing mistakes that I'm
pretty sure have put misrepresented material into circulation.  Like this
one , where Mark decided that an
unclassified ~CV3 was paired with another dealer's published CR2.  And this
one , where Mark decided that a CV3 was
paired with what sure looks to me like an unpaired carbonaceous chondrite.
More on these meteorites below.

Mark mentioned some of our past conversations.  I agree: they were pretty
crazy, but I wouldn't say it's because of anything *I* said.  I guess it's
a good thing I saved them all, and can share them with you.

Let's get right to it.

In mid-January of 2023, I let John Humphreys know, in private, that some
“Erg Chech 003" "CR2” slices he was offering on eBay looked to be swapped
with a ~CV3.  John's one of the few dealers I would trust to handle an
issue like that honestly and quickly.  Given the texture of the stone and
its abundant CAIs, it couldn't have been a CR2.  Not possible.  A photo of
the material speaks for itself : a real
specimen of Erg Chech 003 is on the right.  To his credit, John immediately
pulled the slices he'd listed.  I had no way of knowing it at the
time, but Mark
had sold John this unclassified meteorite as the published CR2 Erg Chech 003
.  Unfortunately, by the time I'd messaged
John about the problem, some amount of the ~CV3 had already been sold on by
a few of the dealers who routinely distribute Mark's material, and you can
still find some of those unclassified ~CV3 slices in circulation as CR2s /
Erg Chech 003
.
Not great.

Had I said nothing, there's no reason to think anyone else would have
caught the misrepresented material, and the rest of that ~CV3 would have
been sold as the CR2.  Mark keeps telling people I'm often wrong, but...he
admitted to the problem in private and refunded John
.  Hm.

I would add: I don't blame John Humphreys for what happened with the fake
Erg Chech 003.  It's not reasonable to expect everyone to be able to ID a
carbonaceous chondrite by sight, especially based on just a few small
slices.  Someone classifying and selling new, unclassified meteorites has a
greater burden of responsibility than someone who thinks they're buying a
documented meteorite from a reputable dealer.  Ultimately, Mark was the one
who put those specimens into circulation labelled as something they
weren't.  It should have been safe for John to trust him.

This "Erg Chech 003" ~CV3 is also a perfect example of Mark's ‘*rules for
thee but not for me*.’  Mark argued in his email that Benzaki Mohamed's use
of Jason Whitcomb's NWA number was different from Taza, Jikharra 001, etc.,
because Whitcomb's CK was "*probably a single person classification with
low total known weight. Anyone with common sense can see that this is
different from huge finds*."

Well, let's look up Erg Chech 003
.  How many tonnes
is it?  It has a TKW of...just 1.1 kilograms.  Oh.  That's...really small.
And it's owned by...two dealers who often collaborate with each other.  Not
Mark.  So...not only did Mark use someone else's DCA number from a small
find -- he screwed up the pairing when doing it and put misidentified
material into circulation.  ...I guess "common sense" rules only apply to
everyone else.  Not Mark Lyon.

Let's turn the clock back to January 2023 for a moment.  When I first
notified John about the issue with the fake Erg Chech 003, I had no idea
the material had even come from Mark.  How could I?  Erg Chech 003 wasn't
even "his classification."  I didn't know it yet, but John had forwarded my
messages to Mark, letting him know I was the one who had raised the issue.

I'd never put two and two together before, but, after reviewing our
correspondence, it's like a switch flipped within about a week of my
messaging John about the issue.  As far as I can tell, Mark didn't like the
idea of being 'corrected,' and that's when he decided that he didn't like
*me*.  After a few unwarranted, aggressive interactions on Facebook
that same month, Mark went after me in private.  It was *weird*.  He called
me a bunch of names, and a liar a dozen or so times.  I responded by simply
calling out his empty insults and asking him what he thought I'd lied
about.  He never did give me an answer.  After a few days of that strange
back and forth, I think it became apparent to him that he wouldn't get a
rise out of me.  He cracked and wrote this:

https://imgur.com/a/mVVnmF1

I don't feel the need to address his scattershot insults: it's clear that
Mark knows even 

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Mark Lyon via Meteorite-list]

She could be talking about me. I was being very disrespectful.

On Sat, Mar 23, 2024, 7:00 PM John Lutzon via Meteorite-list <
meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:

> Hello Anne,
>
>   In most cases, I Agree. In this case, both parties were respectful but
> had different views of
>  several implications of information divulgence. I enjoyed their points
> and the results.
>
>   Meteorite related aspects and meteorite discussions on a Meteorite-List,
> Brilliant!!
> John Lutzon
>
> > On 03/23/2024 2:19 PM EDT Anne Black via Meteorite-list <
> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hey Everybody,
> >
> > When you have a disagreement with somebody, did you ever consider
> resolving it PRIVATELY?
> >
> >
> > Anne Black
> > IMPACTIKA.com
> > impact...@aol.com
> >
> >
> > On Friday, March 22, 2024 at 08:27:09 PM MDT, Mendy Ouzillou via
> Meteorite-list  wrote:
> >
> >
> > I’m not getting in the middle of these discussions. I will simply make
> the following 3 statements + 1 opinion:
> >   1. Here is Mohamed’s exact statement: “Hi all members liste , I have a
> nice carbonaceous Nwa 15758 CK6 paired ,if anyone interested please
> contacte me.” Notice that he used the word “paired” making no claim it was
> part of the TKW of NWA 15758.
> >   2. This discussion about “pairing” has been going on for forever. The
> Global Meteorite Association has a policy to guide transparency:
> https://gmeta.org/standards/descriptive-terms/pair-pairings. Mohamed
> could have use better terminology to clarify the type of pairing, but I
> personally did not see his description as problematic and applauded his
> transparency.
> >   3. On a related note, when a north African (or any seller) offers
> material for sale that is unclassified, there is NO issue with doing so.
> They are under no obligation to get material classified before trying to
> sell. As long as both parties are transparent, and they agree to the terms
> of the transaction, there is no injury to either party.
> >
> > My opinion is that our community is sufficiently large that we cannot
> know every seller, much less their intent. Most of us do repeat business
> with sellers we trust, but that in no way means that all other sellers have
> ill intent. Like anything transaction in life – caveat emptor.
> >
> > My regards to the community,
> >
> > Mendy
> >
> > From:Meteorite-list  On
> Behalf OfMark Lyon via Meteorite-list
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 9:50 PM
> > To: humboldt bay jay 
> > Cc: Meteorite-list 
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15
> >
> > Jason Humboldt,
> >
> > You just have to learn to tune out Jason utas. He has been doing this
> for years. He isnt going to change. You should have seen some of the
> messages he sent me before i blocked him. The first time I met him he went
> in my display room in tucson and started complaining about me selling taza
> (nwa 859) because it was his dad's classification. Then he claimed he was
> just using it as an example because he thought he overheard me attacking
> dustin Dickens (a friend of mine) for pairing meteorites. More recently, he
> made damaging accusations about omolon specimens actually being brahin. Not
> caring how it affected a Russian group who had just spent months travelling
> and collecting the materials. He always thinks he is right, and he very
> seldom is. For the record, you did not attack a Moroccan seller. You
> politely told him not to use your classification, which was probably a
> single person classification with low total known weight. Anyone with
> common sense can see that this is different from huge finds like hah346 and
> jikhara 001 and erg chech and whatever else he complained about. I didn't
> read his whole message because I have heard it all before. Collectors want
> to know they are getting these, and not another meteorite. People are not
> using these names to be dishonest but to accurately describe what they are
> selling. It would be doing the community a disservice not to use these
> names.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 9:04 AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list <
> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
> > > I appreciate the immense amount of time I anticipated you would spend
> on your reply.
> > >
> > > Thinking extensively about this, I wondered why you tried to shame me
> as a hypocrite, even when you have witness to me striving for best
> practices. Having autism I often struggle to understand people's intention.
> Many times I have gone wrong assuming the worst

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[John Lutzon via Meteorite-list]

  Shannon,

  And?   Don't tease us---who had more fun?--you or the kids?
Which pallasite?
   Best, John 

> On 03/23/2024 10:32 PM EDT Hotmail  wrote:
> 
>  
> All,
> 
> I have been a member for around bit over a year— ever since I bought my first 
> meteorite, an end chunk of Pallasite.  I took that meteorite to my daughter’s 
> eight grade class and presented to the entire class, passing it around.  It 
> was a really enjoyable experience for me.
> 
> Anyway I just wanted to say that I learned a ton from that email chain over 
> the past few days!!
> 
> Shannon
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On Mar 23, 2024, at 22:00, John Lutzon via Meteorite-list 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > Hello Anne,
> > 
> >  In most cases, I Agree. In this case, both parties were respectful but had 
> > different views of
> > several implications of information divulgence. I enjoyed their points and 
> > the results.  
> > 
> >  Meteorite related aspects and meteorite discussions on a Meteorite-List, 
> > Brilliant!!
> > John Lutzon
> > 
> >> On 03/23/2024 2:19 PM EDT Anne Black via Meteorite-list 
> >>  wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Hey Everybody,
> >> 
> >> When you have a disagreement with somebody, did you ever consider 
> >> resolving it PRIVATELY?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Anne Black
> >> IMPACTIKA.com
> >> impact...@aol.com
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Friday, March 22, 2024 at 08:27:09 PM MDT, Mendy Ouzillou via 
> >> Meteorite-list  wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I’m not getting in the middle of these discussions. I will simply make the 
> >> following 3 statements + 1 opinion:
> >>  1. Here is Mohamed’s exact statement: “Hi all members liste , I have a 
> >> nice carbonaceous Nwa 15758 CK6 paired ,if anyone interested please 
> >> contacte me.” Notice that he used the word “paired” making no claim it was 
> >> part of the TKW of NWA 15758.
> >>  2. This discussion about “pairing” has been going on for forever. The 
> >> Global Meteorite Association has a policy to guide transparency: 
> >> https://gmeta.org/standards/descriptive-terms/pair-pairings. Mohamed could 
> >> have use better terminology to clarify the type of pairing, but I 
> >> personally did not see his description as problematic and applauded his 
> >> transparency.
> >>  3. On a related note, when a north African (or any seller) offers 
> >> material for sale that is unclassified, there is NO issue with doing so. 
> >> They are under no obligation to get material classified before trying to 
> >> sell. As long as both parties are transparent, and they agree to the terms 
> >> of the transaction, there is no injury to either party.
> >> 
> >> My opinion is that our community is sufficiently large that we cannot know 
> >> every seller, much less their intent. Most of us do repeat business with 
> >> sellers we trust, but that in no way means that all other sellers have ill 
> >> intent. Like anything transaction in life – caveat emptor.
> >> 
> >> My regards to the community,
> >> 
> >> Mendy
> >> 
> >> From:Meteorite-list  On 
> >> Behalf OfMark Lyon via Meteorite-list
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 9:50 PM
> >> To: humboldt bay jay 
> >> Cc: Meteorite-list 
> >> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15
> >> 
> >> Jason Humboldt,
> >> 
> >> You just have to learn to tune out Jason utas. He has been doing this for 
> >> years. He isnt going to change. You should have seen some of the messages 
> >> he sent me before i blocked him. The first time I met him he went in my 
> >> display room in tucson and started complaining about me selling taza (nwa 
> >> 859) because it was his dad's classification. Then he claimed he was just 
> >> using it as an example because he thought he overheard me attacking dustin 
> >> Dickens (a friend of mine) for pairing meteorites. More recently, he made 
> >> damaging accusations about omolon specimens actually being brahin. Not 
> >> caring how it affected a Russian group who had just spent months 
> >> travelling and collecting the materials. He always thinks he is right, and 
> >> he very seldom is. For the record, you did not attack a Moroccan seller. 
> >> You politely told him not to use your classification, which was probably a 
> >> single person classification with low tot

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[John Lutzon via Meteorite-list]

  Ha, ha,
 Mark, do not feel honored, she talks about me too. ;-)
  I'm sure, on other social meteorite platforms things are very busy, busy, and 
great for business. 
  For some not in the groove, but here, it would be great for anyone to throw 
up anything meteorite
  and we'll see where the meteorites fall. I sometime reply in an unusual 
manner--
  and then just blame it on Anne.
JL 

> On 03/23/2024 10:09 PM EDT Mark Lyon  wrote:
> 
> 
> She could be talking about me. I was being very disrespectful.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2024, 7:00 PM John Lutzon via Meteorite-list 
>  wrote:
> > Hello Anne,
> >  
> >  In most cases, I Agree. In this case, both parties were respectful but had 
> > different views of
> >  several implications of information divulgence. I enjoyed their points and 
> > the results. 
> >  
> >  Meteorite related aspects and meteorite discussions on a Meteorite-List, 
> > Brilliant!!
> >  John Lutzon 
> >  
> >  > On 03/23/2024 2:19 PM EDT Anne Black via Meteorite-list 
> >  wrote:
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > Hey Everybody,
> >  > 
> >  > When you have a disagreement with somebody, did you ever consider 
> > resolving it PRIVATELY?
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > Anne Black
> >  > IMPACTIKA.com
> >  > impact...@aol.com
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > On Friday, March 22, 2024 at 08:27:09 PM MDT, Mendy Ouzillou via 
> > Meteorite-list  wrote:
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > I’m not getting in the middle of these discussions. I will simply make 
> > the following 3 statements + 1 opinion:
> >  > 1. Here is Mohamed’s exact statement: “Hi all members liste , I have a 
> > nice carbonaceous Nwa 15758 CK6 paired ,if anyone interested please 
> > contacte me.” Notice that he used the word “paired” making no claim it was 
> > part of the TKW of NWA 15758.
> >  > 2. This discussion about “pairing” has been going on for forever. The 
> > Global Meteorite Association has a policy to guide transparency: 
> > https://gmeta.org/standards/descriptive-terms/pair-pairings. Mohamed could 
> > have use better terminology to clarify the type of pairing, but I 
> > personally did not see his description as problematic and applauded his 
> > transparency.
> >  > 3. On a related note, when a north African (or any seller) offers 
> > material for sale that is unclassified, there is NO issue with doing so. 
> > They are under no obligation to get material classified before trying to 
> > sell. As long as both parties are transparent, and they agree to the terms 
> > of the transaction, there is no injury to either party.
> >  > 
> >  > My opinion is that our community is sufficiently large that we cannot 
> > know every seller, much less their intent. Most of us do repeat business 
> > with sellers we trust, but that in no way means that all other sellers have 
> > ill intent. Like anything transaction in life – caveat emptor.
> >  > 
> >  > My regards to the community,
> >  > 
> >  > Mendy
> >  > 
> >  > From:Meteorite-list  On 
> > Behalf OfMark Lyon via Meteorite-list
> >  > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 9:50 PM
> >  > To: humboldt bay jay 
> >  > Cc: Meteorite-list 
> >  > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15
> >  > 
> >  > Jason Humboldt,
> >  > 
> >  > You just have to learn to tune out Jason utas. He has been doing this 
> > for years. He isnt going to change. You should have seen some of the 
> > messages he sent me before i blocked him. The first time I met him he went 
> > in my display room in tucson and started complaining about me selling taza 
> > (nwa 859) because it was his dad's classification. Then he claimed he was 
> > just using it as an example because he thought he overheard me attacking 
> > dustin Dickens (a friend of mine) for pairing meteorites. More recently, he 
> > made damaging accusations about omolon specimens actually being brahin. Not 
> > caring how it affected a Russian group who had just spent months travelling 
> > and collecting the materials. He always thinks he is right, and he very 
> > seldom is. For the record, you did not attack a Moroccan seller. You 
> > politely told him not to use your classification, which was probably a 
> > single person classification with low total known weight. Anyone with 
> > common sense can see that this is different from huge finds like hah346 and 
> > jikhara 001 and erg chech and whatever else he compl

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Hotmail via Meteorite-list]

All,

I have been a member for around bit over a year— ever since I bought my first 
meteorite, an end chunk of Pallasite.  I took that meteorite to my daughter’s 
eight grade class and presented to the entire class, passing it around.  It was 
a really enjoyable experience for me.

Anyway I just wanted to say that I learned a ton from that email chain over the 
past few days!!

Shannon

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 23, 2024, at 22:00, John Lutzon via Meteorite-list 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hello Anne,
> 
>  In most cases, I Agree. In this case, both parties were respectful but had 
> different views of
> several implications of information divulgence. I enjoyed their points and 
> the results.  
> 
>  Meteorite related aspects and meteorite discussions on a Meteorite-List, 
> Brilliant!!
> John Lutzon
> 
>> On 03/23/2024 2:19 PM EDT Anne Black via Meteorite-list 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hey Everybody,
>> 
>> When you have a disagreement with somebody, did you ever consider resolving 
>> it PRIVATELY?
>> 
>> 
>> Anne Black
>> IMPACTIKA.com
>> impact...@aol.com
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, March 22, 2024 at 08:27:09 PM MDT, Mendy Ouzillou via 
>> Meteorite-list  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I’m not getting in the middle of these discussions. I will simply make the 
>> following 3 statements + 1 opinion:
>>  1. Here is Mohamed’s exact statement: “Hi all members liste , I have a nice 
>> carbonaceous Nwa 15758 CK6 paired ,if anyone interested please contacte me.” 
>> Notice that he used the word “paired” making no claim it was part of the TKW 
>> of NWA 15758.
>>  2. This discussion about “pairing” has been going on for forever. The 
>> Global Meteorite Association has a policy to guide transparency: 
>> https://gmeta.org/standards/descriptive-terms/pair-pairings. Mohamed could 
>> have use better terminology to clarify the type of pairing, but I personally 
>> did not see his description as problematic and applauded his transparency.
>>  3. On a related note, when a north African (or any seller) offers material 
>> for sale that is unclassified, there is NO issue with doing so. They are 
>> under no obligation to get material classified before trying to sell. As 
>> long as both parties are transparent, and they agree to the terms of the 
>> transaction, there is no injury to either party.
>> 
>> My opinion is that our community is sufficiently large that we cannot know 
>> every seller, much less their intent. Most of us do repeat business with 
>> sellers we trust, but that in no way means that all other sellers have ill 
>> intent. Like anything transaction in life – caveat emptor.
>> 
>> My regards to the community,
>> 
>> Mendy
>> 
>> From:Meteorite-list  On Behalf 
>> OfMark Lyon via Meteorite-list
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 9:50 PM
>> To: humboldt bay jay 
>> Cc: Meteorite-list 
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15
>> 
>> Jason Humboldt,
>> 
>> You just have to learn to tune out Jason utas. He has been doing this for 
>> years. He isnt going to change. You should have seen some of the messages he 
>> sent me before i blocked him. The first time I met him he went in my display 
>> room in tucson and started complaining about me selling taza (nwa 859) 
>> because it was his dad's classification. Then he claimed he was just using 
>> it as an example because he thought he overheard me attacking dustin Dickens 
>> (a friend of mine) for pairing meteorites. More recently, he made damaging 
>> accusations about omolon specimens actually being brahin. Not caring how it 
>> affected a Russian group who had just spent months travelling and collecting 
>> the materials. He always thinks he is right, and he very seldom is. For the 
>> record, you did not attack a Moroccan seller. You politely told him not to 
>> use your classification, which was probably a single person classification 
>> with low total known weight. Anyone with common sense can see that this is 
>> different from huge finds like hah346 and jikhara 001 and erg chech and 
>> whatever else he complained about. I didn't read his whole message because I 
>> have heard it all before. Collectors want to know they are getting these, 
>> and not another meteorite. People are not using these names to be dishonest 
>> but to accurately describe what they are selling. It would be doing the 
>> community a disservice not to use these names.
>> 
>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 9:04 AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list 
>>>  wrote:
>&g

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[John Lutzon via Meteorite-list]

Hello Anne,

  In most cases, I Agree. In this case, both parties were respectful but had 
different views of
 several implications of information divulgence. I enjoyed their points and the 
results.  
  
  Meteorite related aspects and meteorite discussions on a Meteorite-List, 
Brilliant!!
John Lutzon

> On 03/23/2024 2:19 PM EDT Anne Black via Meteorite-list 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hey Everybody,
> 
> When you have a disagreement with somebody, did you ever consider resolving 
> it PRIVATELY?
> 
> 
> Anne Black
> IMPACTIKA.com
> impact...@aol.com
> 
> 
> On Friday, March 22, 2024 at 08:27:09 PM MDT, Mendy Ouzillou via 
> Meteorite-list  wrote:
> 
> 
> I’m not getting in the middle of these discussions. I will simply make the 
> following 3 statements + 1 opinion:
>   1. Here is Mohamed’s exact statement: “Hi all members liste , I have a nice 
> carbonaceous Nwa 15758 CK6 paired ,if anyone interested please contacte me.” 
> Notice that he used the word “paired” making no claim it was part of the TKW 
> of NWA 15758.
>   2. This discussion about “pairing” has been going on for forever. The 
> Global Meteorite Association has a policy to guide transparency: 
> https://gmeta.org/standards/descriptive-terms/pair-pairings. Mohamed could 
> have use better terminology to clarify the type of pairing, but I personally 
> did not see his description as problematic and applauded his transparency.
>   3. On a related note, when a north African (or any seller) offers material 
> for sale that is unclassified, there is NO issue with doing so. They are 
> under no obligation to get material classified before trying to sell. As long 
> as both parties are transparent, and they agree to the terms of the 
> transaction, there is no injury to either party.
> 
> My opinion is that our community is sufficiently large that we cannot know 
> every seller, much less their intent. Most of us do repeat business with 
> sellers we trust, but that in no way means that all other sellers have ill 
> intent. Like anything transaction in life – caveat emptor.
> 
> My regards to the community,
> 
> Mendy
> 
> From:Meteorite-list  On Behalf 
> OfMark Lyon via Meteorite-list
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 9:50 PM
> To: humboldt bay jay 
> Cc: Meteorite-list 
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15
> 
> Jason Humboldt,
> 
> You just have to learn to tune out Jason utas. He has been doing this for 
> years. He isnt going to change. You should have seen some of the messages he 
> sent me before i blocked him. The first time I met him he went in my display 
> room in tucson and started complaining about me selling taza (nwa 859) 
> because it was his dad's classification. Then he claimed he was just using it 
> as an example because he thought he overheard me attacking dustin Dickens (a 
> friend of mine) for pairing meteorites. More recently, he made damaging 
> accusations about omolon specimens actually being brahin. Not caring how it 
> affected a Russian group who had just spent months travelling and collecting 
> the materials. He always thinks he is right, and he very seldom is. For the 
> record, you did not attack a Moroccan seller. You politely told him not to 
> use your classification, which was probably a single person classification 
> with low total known weight. Anyone with common sense can see that this is 
> different from huge finds like hah346 and jikhara 001 and erg chech and 
> whatever else he complained about. I didn't read his whole message because I 
> have heard it all before. Collectors want to know they are getting these, and 
> not another meteorite. People are not using these names to be dishonest but 
> to accurately describe what they are selling. It would be doing the community 
> a disservice not to use these names.
> 
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 9:04 AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list 
>  wrote:
> > I appreciate the immense amount of time I anticipated you would spend on 
> > your reply.
> > 
> > Thinking extensively about this, I wondered why you tried to shame me as a 
> > hypocrite, even when you have witness to me striving for best practices. 
> > Having autism I often struggle to understand people's intention. Many times 
> > I have gone wrong assuming the worst in people's actions. So one of my 
> > strategies is to try to think of the best possible intention that someone 
> > could have. I admit sometimes it is difficult with your approach (and 
> > attempt to shame me) but since your critique was not sound I came to reason 
> > that you saw an injustice that I perpetrated against Benzaki Mohamed and 
> > you felt the need to "punch the bully in his face"

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Anne Black via Meteorite-list]

Hey Everybody,
When you have a disagreement with somebody, did you ever consider resolving it 
PRIVATELY?   
Anne blackimpactika.comimpact...@aol.com
 

On Friday, March 22, 2024 at 08:27:09 PM MDT, Mendy Ouzillou via 
Meteorite-list  wrote:  
 
 
I’m not getting in the middle of these discussions. I will simply make the 
following 3 statements + 1 opinion:
   
   - Here is Mohamed’s exact statement: “Hi all members liste , I have a nice 
carbonaceous Nwa 15758 CK6 paired ,if anyone interested please contacte me.” 
Notice that he used the word “paired” making no claim it was part of the TKW of 
NWA 15758.
   - This discussion about “pairing” has been going on for forever. The Global 
Meteorite Association has a policy to guide transparency: 
https://gmeta.org/standards/descriptive-terms/pair-pairings. Mohamed could have 
use better terminology to clarify the type of pairing, but I personally did not 
see his description as problematic and applauded his transparency.
   - On a related note, when a north African (or any seller) offers material 
for sale that is unclassified, there is NO issue with doing so. They are under 
no obligation to get material classified before trying to sell. As long as both 
parties are transparent, and they agree to the terms of the transaction, there 
is no injury to either party. 

  

My opinion is that our community is sufficiently large that we cannot know 
every seller, much less their intent. Most of us do repeat business with 
sellers we trust, but that in no way means that all other sellers have ill 
intent. Like anything transaction in life – caveat emptor.

  

My regards to the community,

  

Mendy

  

From: Meteorite-list  On Behalf Of 
Mark Lyon via Meteorite-list
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 9:50 PM
To: humboldt bay jay 
Cc: Meteorite-list 
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

  

Jason Humboldt,

  

You just have to learn to tune out Jason utas.  He has been doing this for 
years.  He  isnt going to change.  You should have seen some of the messages he 
sent me before i blocked him.  The first time I met him he went in my display 
room in tucson and started complaining about me selling taza (nwa 859) because 
it was his dad's classification. Then he claimed he was just using it as an 
example because he thought he overheard me attacking dustin Dickens (a friend 
of mine) for pairing meteorites.  More recently, he made damaging accusations 
about omolon specimens actually being brahin. Not caring how it affected a 
Russian group who had just spent months travelling and collecting the 
materials.  He always thinks he is right, and he very seldom is.    For the 
record, you did not attack a Moroccan seller. You politely told him not to use 
your classification, which was probably a single person classification with low 
total known weight. Anyone with common sense can see that this is different 
from huge finds like hah346 and jikhara 001 and erg chech and whatever else he 
complained about. I didn't read his whole message because I have heard it all 
before.   Collectors want to know they are getting these, and not another 
meteorite.  People are not using these names to be dishonest but to accurately 
describe what they are selling.  It would be doing the community a disservice 
not to use these names.  

  

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 9:04 AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list 
 wrote:


I appreciate the immense amount of time I anticipated you would spend on your 
reply.

Thinking extensively about this, I wondered why you tried to shame me as a 
hypocrite, even when you have witness to me striving for best practices.  
Having autism I often struggle to understand people's intention.  Many times I 
have gone wrong assuming the worst in people's actions.  So one of my 
strategies is to try to think of the best possible intention that someone could 
have.  I admit sometimes it is difficult with your approach (and attempt to 
shame me) but since your critique was not sound I came to reason that you saw 
an injustice that I perpetrated against Benzaki Mohamed and you felt the need 
to "punch the bully in his face".  A fierce sense of justice that sometimes 
leads me to act foolish is also part of my condition so I was able to have 
sympathy with this realization.  Now that you have responded I can more clearly 
see your intention.  So here is my considered response.

  

To the community:  I am happy to assist with meteoritics in any way that I can. 
 If you have material that you feel might be paired with mine I am happy to 
look at any information and give my honest response.  It would be unethical and 
dirty feeling to do otherwise.  I have not made it to where I am in life by 
acting in short term interests.  Relationships are life long.

  

To Benzaki Mohamed:  I am sorry if I shamed you.  I am often blunt and act 
quickly.  Jason's best point is that I should have reached out to you in 
private first.  If y

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Mendy Ouzillou via Meteorite-list]

I’m not getting in the middle of these discussions. I will simply make the 
following 3 statements + 1 opinion:

1.  Here is Mohamed’s exact statement: “Hi all members liste , I have a 
nice carbonaceous Nwa 15758 CK6 paired ,if anyone interested please contacte 
me.” Notice that he used the word “paired” making no claim it was part of the 
TKW of NWA 15758.
2.  This discussion about “pairing” has been going on for forever. The 
Global Meteorite Association has a policy to guide transparency: 
https://gmeta.org/standards/descriptive-terms/pair-pairings. Mohamed could have 
use better terminology to clarify the type of pairing, but I personally did not 
see his description as problematic and applauded his transparency.
3.  On a related note, when a north African (or any seller) offers material 
for sale that is unclassified, there is NO issue with doing so. They are under 
no obligation to get material classified before trying to sell. As long as both 
parties are transparent, and they agree to the terms of the transaction, there 
is no injury to either party. 

 

My opinion is that our community is sufficiently large that we cannot know 
every seller, much less their intent. Most of us do repeat business with 
sellers we trust, but that in no way means that all other sellers have ill 
intent. Like anything transaction in life – caveat emptor.

 

My regards to the community,

 

Mendy

 

From: Meteorite-list  On Behalf Of 
Mark Lyon via Meteorite-list
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 9:50 PM
To: humboldt bay jay 
Cc: Meteorite-list 
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

 

Jason Humboldt,

 

You just have to learn to tune out Jason utas.  He has been doing this for 
years.  He  isnt going to change.  You should have seen some of the messages he 
sent me before i blocked him.  The first time I met him he went in my display 
room in tucson and started complaining about me selling taza (nwa 859) because 
it was his dad's classification. Then he claimed he was just using it as an 
example because he thought he overheard me attacking dustin Dickens (a friend 
of mine) for pairing meteorites.  More recently, he made damaging accusations 
about omolon specimens actually being brahin. Not caring how it affected a 
Russian group who had just spent months travelling and collecting the 
materials.  He always thinks he is right, and he very seldom is.For the 
record, you did not attack a Moroccan seller. You politely told him not to use 
your classification, which was probably a single person classification with low 
total known weight. Anyone with common sense can see that this is different 
from huge finds like hah346 and jikhara 001 and erg chech and whatever else he 
complained about. I didn't read his whole message because I have heard it all 
before.   Collectors want to know they are getting these, and not another 
meteorite.  People are not using these names to be dishonest but to accurately 
describe what they are selling.  It would be doing the community a disservice 
not to use these names.  

 

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 9:04 AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list 
mailto:meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> > wrote:

I appreciate the immense amount of time I anticipated you would spend on your 
reply.

Thinking extensively about this, I wondered why you tried to shame me as a 
hypocrite, even when you have witness to me striving for best practices.  
Having autism I often struggle to understand people's intention.  Many times I 
have gone wrong assuming the worst in people's actions.  So one of my 
strategies is to try to think of the best possible intention that someone could 
have.  I admit sometimes it is difficult with your approach (and attempt to 
shame me) but since your critique was not sound I came to reason that you saw 
an injustice that I perpetrated against Benzaki Mohamed and you felt the need 
to "punch the bully in his face".  A fierce sense of justice that sometimes 
leads me to act foolish is also part of my condition so I was able to have 
sympathy with this realization.  Now that you have responded I can more clearly 
see your intention.  So here is my considered response.

 

To the community:  I am happy to assist with meteoritics in any way that I can. 
 If you have material that you feel might be paired with mine I am happy to 
look at any information and give my honest response.  It would be unethical and 
dirty feeling to do otherwise.  I have not made it to where I am in life by 
acting in short term interests.  Relationships are life long.

 

To Benzaki Mohamed:  I am sorry if I shamed you.  I am often blunt and act 
quickly.  Jason's best point is that I should have reached out to you in 
private first.  If you send me images or any supporting information I am happy 
to give you my honest opinion.  You would then have my full support marketing 
the material as paired if it checks out.

 

To Jason: I forgive y

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Mark Lyon via Meteorite-list]

Jason Humboldt,

You just have to learn to tune out Jason utas.  He has been doing this for
years.  He  isnt going to change.  You should have seen some of the
messages he sent me before i blocked him.  The first time I met him he went
in my display room in tucson and started complaining about me selling taza
(nwa 859) because it was his dad's classification. Then he claimed he was
just using it as an example because he thought he overheard me attacking
dustin Dickens (a friend of mine) for pairing meteorites.  More recently,
he made damaging accusations about omolon specimens actually being brahin.
Not caring how it affected a Russian group who had just spent months
travelling and collecting the materials.  He always thinks he is right, and
he very seldom is.For the record, you did not attack a Moroccan seller.
You politely told him not to use your classification, which was probably a
single person classification with low total known weight. Anyone with
common sense can see that this is different from huge finds like hah346 and
jikhara 001 and erg chech and whatever else he complained about. I didn't
read his whole message because I have heard it all before.   Collectors
want to know they are getting these, and not another meteorite.  People are
not using these names to be dishonest but to accurately describe what they
are selling.  It would be doing the community a disservice not to use these
names.

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 9:04 AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list <
meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:

> I appreciate the immense amount of time I anticipated you would spend on
> your reply.
>
> Thinking extensively about this, I wondered why you tried to shame me as a
> hypocrite, even when you have witness to me striving for best practices.
> Having autism I often struggle to understand people's intention.  Many
> times I have gone wrong assuming the worst in people's actions.  So one of
> my strategies is to try to think of the best possible intention that
> someone could have.  I admit sometimes it is difficult with your approach
> (and attempt to shame me) but since your critique was not sound I came to
> reason that you saw an injustice that I perpetrated against Benzaki Mohamed
> and you felt the need to "punch the bully in his face".  A fierce sense of
> justice that sometimes leads me to act foolish is also part of my condition
> so I was able to have sympathy with this realization.  Now that you have
> responded I can more clearly see your intention.  So here is my considered
> response.
>
> To the community:  I am happy to assist with meteoritics in any way that I
> can.  If you have material that you feel might be paired with mine I am
> happy to look at any information and give my honest response.  It would be
> unethical and dirty feeling to do otherwise.  I have not made it to where I
> am in life by acting in short term interests.  Relationships are life long.
>
> To Benzaki Mohamed:  I am sorry if I shamed you.  I am often blunt and act
> quickly.  Jason's best point is that I should have reached out to you in
> private first.  If you send me images or any supporting information I am
> happy to give you my honest opinion.  You would then have my full support
> marketing the material as paired if it checks out.
>
> To Jason: I forgive you.  I know what it is like to have conflict with the
> world.
>
> Best regards,
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 5:50 PM Jason Utas  wrote:
>
>> Hello Jason,
>>
>> As long as material is described accurately, I don't care what you do.  I
>> only butted in here because it annoyed me to see you attacking a Moroccan
>> seller who is probably selling accurately paired material, while you’re
>> openly doing the same thing with other meteorites.  Glass house + throwing
>> stones, not cool.
>>
>> I'm saying that it *should* be fine for you to buy and sell HaH 346 and
>> Jikharra 001 as those meteorites as long as you've accurately IDd them.
>> But not if you're going to tell other people they can't do the same thing.
>> That's the rub.
>>
>> Your points -
>>
>> 1 & 4)  Why does it matter where you got your HaH 346?  It didn't matter
>> to you where Benzaki got his NWA 15758.
>>
>> Your posts didn't address the origin of Benzaki Mohamed's CK in any
>> way, or whether or not his material is paired with NWA 15758.  Based on
>> everything you've shared here, you don't know or care about whether or not
>> Benzaki's material is paired with yours.  Your concern is "your NWA number"
>> and protecting that investment. I can empathize with that, but your #1 and
>> #4 bullet points don't agree with your actions:
>>
>> Did you ask Benzaki where his material had come from before you sent that
>> public complaint?  No.  Did you confirm that it came from a different
>> finder, the same place, or a different place?  No.  When it came to
>> 'protecting  your NWA number,' none of that mattered.  Sure, the onus is on
>> him to show it's 

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list]

I appreciate the immense amount of time I anticipated you would spend on
your reply.

Thinking extensively about this, I wondered why you tried to shame me as a
hypocrite, even when you have witness to me striving for best practices.
Having autism I often struggle to understand people's intention.  Many
times I have gone wrong assuming the worst in people's actions.  So one of
my strategies is to try to think of the best possible intention that
someone could have.  I admit sometimes it is difficult with your approach
(and attempt to shame me) but since your critique was not sound I came to
reason that you saw an injustice that I perpetrated against Benzaki Mohamed
and you felt the need to "punch the bully in his face".  A fierce sense of
justice that sometimes leads me to act foolish is also part of my condition
so I was able to have sympathy with this realization.  Now that you have
responded I can more clearly see your intention.  So here is my considered
response.

To the community:  I am happy to assist with meteoritics in any way that I
can.  If you have material that you feel might be paired with mine I am
happy to look at any information and give my honest response.  It would be
unethical and dirty feeling to do otherwise.  I have not made it to where I
am in life by acting in short term interests.  Relationships are life long.

To Benzaki Mohamed:  I am sorry if I shamed you.  I am often blunt and act
quickly.  Jason's best point is that I should have reached out to you in
private first.  If you send me images or any supporting information I am
happy to give you my honest opinion.  You would then have my full support
marketing the material as paired if it checks out.

To Jason: I forgive you.  I know what it is like to have conflict with the
world.

Best regards,
Jason













On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 5:50 PM Jason Utas  wrote:

> Hello Jason,
>
> As long as material is described accurately, I don't care what you do.  I
> only butted in here because it annoyed me to see you attacking a Moroccan
> seller who is probably selling accurately paired material, while you’re
> openly doing the same thing with other meteorites.  Glass house + throwing
> stones, not cool.
>
> I'm saying that it *should* be fine for you to buy and sell HaH 346 and
> Jikharra 001 as those meteorites as long as you've accurately IDd them.
> But not if you're going to tell other people they can't do the same thing.
> That's the rub.
>
> Your points -
>
> 1 & 4)  Why does it matter where you got your HaH 346?  It didn't matter
> to you where Benzaki got his NWA 15758.
>
> Your posts didn't address the origin of Benzaki Mohamed's CK in any
> way, or whether or not his material is paired with NWA 15758.  Based on
> everything you've shared here, you don't know or care about whether or not
> Benzaki's material is paired with yours.  Your concern is "your NWA number"
> and protecting that investment. I can empathize with that, but your #1 and
> #4 bullet points don't agree with your actions:
>
> Did you ask Benzaki where his material had come from before you sent that
> public complaint?  No.  Did you confirm that it came from a different
> finder, the same place, or a different place?  No.  When it came to
> 'protecting  your NWA number,' none of that mattered.  Sure, the onus is on
> him to show it's paired, but you didn't give him a chance.
>
> You were preemptively trying to avoid any possible / probable pairings to
> 'protect your investment.'  I understand your motivations, and think many
> dealers would take your side, but it's ethically questionable, at best.
> TKWs affect meteorite values, and if you're aware of significant pairings,
> (main) masses, etc., and you hide that information from your customers,
> that's dishonest.  Sure, new things can turn up, but what if a dealer sold
> you a "main mass," and you later found out that they were aware of a larger
> specimen all along?  Would you care?  Would you be annoyed?  What would
> you think?
>
> ...Is what you're doing here any different?
>
> You asked me what I would do.  I sold some NWA 15364 (nakhlite) a while
> back.  When describing it, I said: "Northwest Africa 15364 is one member of
> a large pairing group including, but not limited to: Hassi Messaoud 001,
> Bir Moghrein 002, Qued Mya 005, NWA 13368, NWA 13669, NWA 13764, NWA 13786,
> NWA 14369, NWA 14962, and NWA 15200.  The published total known weight of
> these finds is approximately 4.3 kilograms.  It is probable that additional
> pairings will be approved in the future."  That was ~as accurate as I could
> describe the meteorite's pairings and TKW, to the best of my ability.  I
> spent a bit of time looking at the analytical data for each of them in the
> Bulletin, finding photos of each of them, and trying to make sure I got it
> right.  I guess I could have omitted mentioning the pairings, to make my
> pieces seem more rare?  Would that be honest?  I'd say no.  But a few
> dealers are definitely doing 

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Jason Utas via Meteorite-list]

Hello Jason,

As long as material is described accurately, I don't care what you do.  I
only butted in here because it annoyed me to see you attacking a Moroccan
seller who is probably selling accurately paired material, while you’re
openly doing the same thing with other meteorites.  Glass house + throwing
stones, not cool.

I'm saying that it *should* be fine for you to buy and sell HaH 346 and
Jikharra 001 as those meteorites as long as you've accurately IDd them.
But not if you're going to tell other people they can't do the same thing.
That's the rub.

Your points -

1 & 4)  Why does it matter where you got your HaH 346?  It didn't matter to
you where Benzaki got his NWA 15758.

Your posts didn't address the origin of Benzaki Mohamed's CK in any way, or
whether or not his material is paired with NWA 15758.  Based on everything
you've shared here, you don't know or care about whether or not Benzaki's
material is paired with yours.  Your concern is "your NWA number" and
protecting that investment. I can empathize with that, but your #1 and #4
bullet points don't agree with your actions:

Did you ask Benzaki where his material had come from before you sent that
public complaint?  No.  Did you confirm that it came from a different
finder, the same place, or a different place?  No.  When it came to
'protecting  your NWA number,' none of that mattered.  Sure, the onus is on
him to show it's paired, but you didn't give him a chance.

You were preemptively trying to avoid any possible / probable pairings to
'protect your investment.'  I understand your motivations, and think many
dealers would take your side, but it's ethically questionable, at best.
TKWs affect meteorite values, and if you're aware of significant pairings,
(main) masses, etc., and you hide that information from your customers,
that's dishonest.  Sure, new things can turn up, but what if a dealer sold
you a "main mass," and you later found out that they were aware of a larger
specimen all along?  Would you care?  Would you be annoyed?  What would you
think?

...Is what you're doing here any different?

You asked me what I would do.  I sold some NWA 15364 (nakhlite) a while
back.  When describing it, I said: "Northwest Africa 15364 is one member of
a large pairing group including, but not limited to: Hassi Messaoud 001,
Bir Moghrein 002, Qued Mya 005, NWA 13368, NWA 13669, NWA 13764, NWA 13786,
NWA 14369, NWA 14962, and NWA 15200.  The published total known weight of
these finds is approximately 4.3 kilograms.  It is probable that additional
pairings will be approved in the future."  That was ~as accurate as I could
describe the meteorite's pairings and TKW, to the best of my ability.  I
spent a bit of time looking at the analytical data for each of them in the
Bulletin, finding photos of each of them, and trying to make sure I got it
right.  I guess I could have omitted mentioning the pairings, to make my
pieces seem more rare?  Would that be honest?  I'd say no.  But a few
dealers are definitely doing that with some of those pairings...

It hurts collectors.  Last week, I saw someone comment on a Facebook post,
excited because he'd purchased multiple pieces of the above nakhlites.  He
thought he'd bought pieces of different meteorites, not pieces of paired
stones.  He seemed disappointed to learn otherwise.  It's great for the
sellers, not so good for collectors.  And it's not a new issue.  The first
similar instance I remember was in an ancient met-list thread back in the
early 2000s, when someone tried to sell a meteorite paired with NWA 869.
NWA...900ish, if I recall...  It's probably been 15 years.  Hmmm...

http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/0989.html

http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/1120.html

http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/0961.html

My email doesn't go back that far, had to find it on Google.  NWA 900 is
another 869 pairing, but the problem was NWA 904.

I've never really sat down and thought about it, but a significant part of
the NWA market is based on dealers pleading or feigning ignorance about
pairings and TKWs to collectors.  It's ~accepted conduct, and it’s
totally unethical.  Dean Bessey called it out back in 2004, and nothing's
changed.

2 & 5)  We're talking about scientific descriptions of rocks.  Little rocks
are rocks.  Big rocks are rocks.  Size doesn't matter.

Unfortunately, larger finds and falls are widely distributed, tend to get
less scrutiny, and get mislabeled often.  Those three big meteorites you're
using as examples are some of the biggest problems, because they're such
large finds.  Sure, it can be fun: I couldn't tell you the number of
interesting things I've pulled out of lots of "NWA 869" over the years.
And you should keep an eye out for the fresh L3s in shipments of HaH 346.
Many of them still have skid-marks, and there's nothing quite like a W0
type-3.  If you're on Facebook, you've probably seen the multi-kg lots of a
totally new brecciated eucrite being 

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list]

I am sending this again as I realized I only replied to you and not the
list as well.  This turns out good for me because it offers a chance to
better compose my thoughts.  I was running errands when I sent the first
email.  To begin again:

Jason,
I see what you are saying, and it is a reasonable point but I disagree.
These are the reasons:

1. I can elaborate that "since you never contacted me" means I would have
been happy to provide assistance and the name if the vendor would have done
so with some images of supporting information such as sourcing from the
same finder.

2. There is a clear difference between multi ton finds that have ample
documentation and a kilo find that has had little publicity.  Even then I
agree that best practices are to communicate leading me to

3. Point out that you were part of one of my conversations about this in
regard to the likely Jikharra specimen you are referencing.  You stated
that "The Jikharra’s obviously that."  You are also well aware that I am
not selling any of the obviously Jikharra until my own classification is
approved because you were part of the discussion.

4. You don't actually know where I sourced my material because you did not
ask.  For example the metbul mentioned many kilograms traded as Ghadamis
that was not in Marcin's possession.  Since I bought and traded Ghadamis
before the name HaH 346 was approved, how do you think I should have
handled the situation differently?

5. In regards to nwa 869 the following quote is from the metbul "At least 2
metric tons of material comprising thousands of individuals has been sold
under the name NWA 869 in the market places of Morocco and around the
world." along with the appropriate caveats due to its abundance- "Scientists
are advised to confirm the classification of any specimens they obtain
before publishing results under this name."   So again I do not feel you
are making an apples to apples comparison with your critique of my logic.

We all obviously respect your encyclopedic understanding of meteorites so
perhaps you can share with us your framework for best practices in these
situations.

Best regards,
Jason

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:21 PM Jason Utas  wrote:

> Hello Jason,
> To be consistent, you should remove the HaH 346 and NWA 869 specimens you
> have listed for sale on your website.  Those classifications were submitted
> by other dealers; your stones are unclassified individuals from DCAs with
> no evidence of their find locations, etc.
> On your "featured" page, you also have a specimen listed as a "likely
> Jakharra 001 Pairing."  Similar issues aside, relying on that standard, it
> should be okay for Benzaki Mohamed to call his specimens "likely NWA 15758
> pairings."
> Regards,
> Jason
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 7:09 AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list <
> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Benzaki Mohamed for swiftly reaching out to me.  I appreciate
>> your attention to this matter.  All is good.
>> Best regards to everyone,
>> Jason Whitcomb
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:29 PM <
>> meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to
>>> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> meteorite-list-ow...@meteoritecentral.com
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of Meteorite-list digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>>1. Meteorite Picture of the Day (p...@tucsonmeteorites.com)
>>>2. Re: Very sad news (Ruben Garcia)
>>>3. Re: Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 14 (humboldt bay jay)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:35:54 -0700
>>> From: 
>>> To: 
>>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
>>> Message-ID: 
>>> Content-Type: text/plain
>>>
>>> Thursday, Mar 14 2024 Meteorite Picture of the Day: HAH 346
>>>
>>> Contributed by: J?r?me de Creymer
>>>
>>> http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=03/14/2024
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:17:06 -0700
>>> From: Ruben Garcia 
>>> To: bernd.pa...@paulinet.de
>>> Cc: Meteorite Mailing List 
>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Very sad news
>>> Message-ID:
>>> >> jxhjti60uojwdgvdoreuf4jfjd7paim...@mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>
>>> Hi Bernd,
>>>
>>> I've know John for a very long time. This is very sad indeed. Thank you
>>> for
>>> posting this.
>>>
>>> Ruben Garcia
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 4:03?PM bernd.pauli--- via Meteorite-list <
>>> 

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[Jason Utas via Meteorite-list]

Hello Jason,
To be consistent, you should remove the HaH 346 and NWA 869 specimens you
have listed for sale on your website.  Those classifications were submitted
by other dealers; your stones are unclassified individuals from DCAs with
no evidence of their find locations, etc.
On your "featured" page, you also have a specimen listed as a "likely
Jakharra 001 Pairing."  Similar issues aside, relying on that standard, it
should be okay for Benzaki Mohamed to call his specimens "likely NWA 15758
pairings."
Regards,
Jason

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 7:09 AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list <
meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:

> Thank you Benzaki Mohamed for swiftly reaching out to me.  I appreciate
> your attention to this matter.  All is good.
> Best regards to everyone,
> Jason Whitcomb
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:29 PM <
> meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>
>> Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to
>> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> meteorite-list-ow...@meteoritecentral.com
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Meteorite-list digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Meteorite Picture of the Day (p...@tucsonmeteorites.com)
>>2. Re: Very sad news (Ruben Garcia)
>>3. Re: Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 14 (humboldt bay jay)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:35:54 -0700
>> From: 
>> To: 
>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
>> Message-ID: 
>> Content-Type: text/plain
>>
>> Thursday, Mar 14 2024 Meteorite Picture of the Day: HAH 346
>>
>> Contributed by: J?r?me de Creymer
>>
>> http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=03/14/2024
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:17:06 -0700
>> From: Ruben Garcia 
>> To: bernd.pa...@paulinet.de
>> Cc: Meteorite Mailing List 
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Very sad news
>> Message-ID:
>> > jxhjti60uojwdgvdoreuf4jfjd7paim...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Hi Bernd,
>>
>> I've know John for a very long time. This is very sad indeed. Thank you
>> for
>> posting this.
>>
>> Ruben Garcia
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 4:03?PM bernd.pauli--- via Meteorite-list <
>> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear List,
>> >
>> > It is my sad duty to inform you that John Blennert has passed away :-(
>> >
>> > John, rest in peace!
>> >
>> > Bernd
>> > __
>> > Meteorite-list mailing list
>> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>> >
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/55acab68/attachment-0001.htm
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:53:43 -0700
>> From: humboldt bay jay 
>> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 14
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> caat9en4eebof8m_4p5anuoo9wo9+_qqv1e9-1mbjdnj6yvh...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Benzaki Mohamed,
>> Since you have never reached out to me about my classification, Nwa 15758
>> CK6, I politely request that you do not use this name. I invested time and
>> resources into having it analyzed and if you wish to sell your material as
>> a named meteorite I suggest you do the same. Thank you in advance.
>> Jason
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:29?PM <
>> meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to
>> > meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> >
>> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> > meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com
>> >
>> > You can reach the person managing the list at
>> > meteorite-list-ow...@meteoritecentral.com
>> >
>> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> > than "Re: Contents of Meteorite-list digest..."
>> >
>> >
>> > Today's Topics:
>> >
>> >1. Meteorite Picture of the Day (p...@tucsonmeteorites.com)
>> >2. Meteorite carbon (Benzaki Mohamed)
>> >3. Very sad news (bernd.pa...@paulinet.de)
>> >4. Claims of Extrasolar Spherules from Pacific Ocean Site CNEOS
>> >   2014-01-08 

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15

[humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list]

Thank you Benzaki Mohamed for swiftly reaching out to me.  I appreciate
your attention to this matter.  All is good.
Best regards to everyone,
Jason Whitcomb

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:29 PM <
meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:

> Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to
> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> meteorite-list-ow...@meteoritecentral.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Meteorite-list digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Meteorite Picture of the Day (p...@tucsonmeteorites.com)
>2. Re: Very sad news (Ruben Garcia)
>3. Re: Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 14 (humboldt bay jay)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:35:54 -0700
> From: 
> To: 
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Thursday, Mar 14 2024 Meteorite Picture of the Day: HAH 346
>
> Contributed by: J?r?me de Creymer
>
> http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=03/14/2024
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:17:06 -0700
> From: Ruben Garcia 
> To: bernd.pa...@paulinet.de
> Cc: Meteorite Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Very sad news
> Message-ID:
>  jxhjti60uojwdgvdoreuf4jfjd7paim...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Bernd,
>
> I've know John for a very long time. This is very sad indeed. Thank you for
> posting this.
>
> Ruben Garcia
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 4:03?PM bernd.pauli--- via Meteorite-list <
> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear List,
> >
> > It is my sad duty to inform you that John Blennert has passed away :-(
> >
> > John, rest in peace!
> >
> > Bernd
> > __
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/55acab68/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:53:43 -0700
> From: humboldt bay jay 
> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 14
> Message-ID:
> <
> caat9en4eebof8m_4p5anuoo9wo9+_qqv1e9-1mbjdnj6yvh...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Benzaki Mohamed,
> Since you have never reached out to me about my classification, Nwa 15758
> CK6, I politely request that you do not use this name. I invested time and
> resources into having it analyzed and if you wish to sell your material as
> a named meteorite I suggest you do the same. Thank you in advance.
> Jason
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:29?PM <
> meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>
> > Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to
> > meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > meteorite-list-ow...@meteoritecentral.com
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Meteorite-list digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >1. Meteorite Picture of the Day (p...@tucsonmeteorites.com)
> >2. Meteorite carbon (Benzaki Mohamed)
> >3. Very sad news (bernd.pa...@paulinet.de)
> >4. Claims of Extrasolar Spherules from Pacific Ocean Site CNEOS
> >   2014-01-08 Disputed (Paul)
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:35:54 -0700
> > From: 
> > To: 
> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
> > Message-ID: 
> > Content-Type: text/plain
> >
> > Wednesday, Mar 13 2024 Meteorite Picture of the Day: Hamlet
> >
> > Contributed by: Anne Black
> >
> > http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=03/13/2024
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:16:15 +
> > From: Benzaki Mohamed 
> > To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite carbon
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> > cagzkz4-7hufr2n7mzy4hapufexcssju66gn+v9ajuxjkt8t...@mail.gmail.com>
> >