[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Portalis - fall out from Monahans

Well, Geoff,
	I'll try to cover all of these questions - but, I believe starting with
the last and working back would best express my feelings that would much
better be described as a "sneer" and definately NOT a "wink." (the
latter, I associate with amusement).
	The "public," just let me say, includes the farmers in Portalis that
would not consider any offers below the obscenely high - why? because
the same individual that (nearly) single handedly pumped up the whole
Monahans brouhaha called the local newspaper in Portalis to be SURE the
info got there (or, so we were told by a reliable sourse who was in
Portalis at the time). 
	It is THAT public about which I was particularly disturbed. Nininger
paid $1 per POUND in the field - he most certainly did NOT sell for
anywhere close to $1 per LB! And still he nearly starved - certainly was
NOT well off financially. Five years ago (and less), $100 a LB was a
common price to pay for a stony meteorite in the field. Today, LARGELY
BECAUSE OF THE PUMPING UP OF MONAHANS, we are seeing double didgits PER
GRAM in the field!?! 
Does the significance of this excape you???
	So, that is the "public" and that is the "pumping up" - this was an
ongoing discussion on the list because of one individual - and no mater
how many calmer heads warned him about winning a battle and loosing the
war - he BULLED his way onward - becomming SO obsessive as to get
himself suspended from the list - so, yes, I most certainly DO consider
MUCH of the Monahans "controversy" to be a GENERATED phenomenon - AND a
most costly one! To you, to me, to every collector and every dealer on
this planet!!! YOU BET! We will be paying for this INDEFINATELY.
	So, Geoff, what you were reading had to do with my DEEP concern as
noted above.
	 OH, and the auction....well, if you don't "read" anything into THAT,
well, I encourage you to ponder WHO was involved and WHO stands to gain
- oh, no doubt the first few rounds of bidding involved numerous
individuals -but just look where it ended up.... I am NOT going to make
statements that NO ONE can PROVE .... but look where it ended up & who
stood to gain... it certainly isn't anyone currently on this list -
unless they are appearing as Mrs. Peacock or Colonel Mustard! 
	Upset? I AM BESIDE MYSELF! And then to attack Michael Farmer!?! ANYONE
who knows Michael (FARMER) knows he is a bright eyed, honest, hard
working "pure of heart" individual (who lives close to poverty, by the
way) - do not take my word for it - ask ANYONE who knows him. For him to
be attacked, accused of "conspiracy price fixing" by someone using the
alias of a retired military officer...there are not enough exclamation
points or "raised caps" to express the level of my outrage.
	So, yes, Geoff, I used quite a number of quotation marks - I really do
take it as a sign of your inocence (that is a compliment) that you did
not understand the implications being made.
	Best wishes, Michael
Ammonite@aol.com wrote:
> >The inessant [sic] "pumping up" of the supposed rarity of that fall AND
> >the "controversy" of ownership, combined with a preliminary "auction" of
> >fractions of grams at hysterical prices - none of this goes unnoticed by
>>the "general public"
> Dear Michael,
> There are so many "quotes" in your recent post that I'm a bit bewildered after reading it. When quotation marks are used in this manner I gather that it's generally taken to be sort of a wink, as in "it wasn't really an 'auction' because I put quotes around the word." Since I watched the preliminary Monahans auction with great interest and attention, I wonder if you could clarify your use of punctuation when describing it. Was it an imaginary auction? Was the "controversy" over the ownership of Monahans also illusory? The Monahans fall provoked two civil hearings, a voluminous list discussion, extensive media coverage and so on. Surely that much disagreement must constitute a genuine controversy? And, surely, collectors and dealers bidding on a item -- live on the internet -- constitutes a genuine auction?
> Oh yes, and who are the "general public"?
> Confused,
> Geoff Notkin

Send an email To: 
with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject field of your 
email. That's all there is to it!
Thank You