[meteorite-list] Term Main Mass

From: dfreeman <dfreeman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri Jan 20 00:56:39 2006
Message-ID: <43D07B9D.7010004_at_fascination.com>

Dear Doug;
"Cereal wars" LOL....I prefer "tastes great, less filling" wars!

I think the "main mass" issue is a product of the system in NWA's.
 I also think that "main mass" is a fluid issue. One could have "had" a
main mass when it was the largest..for example the largest piece before
Steve Arnold (IMB) located the current "main mass" and, yes, bless his
karma, may he find an even larger "main mass" to replace his current one.
NWA world is an amazing elephant in the room for any number of reasons
and we all should elect to accept the issue of NWA's will be an
elephant in the room. Always, and it may be different colors, and it
may leave a "main mass" on those who stir it often.
Didn't we debate this one before?
Best,
Dave F.

MexicoDoug_at_aol.com wrote:

>Hola Adam, Mike, Dean, Bob, and anyone else on this subject,
>
>You guys are all to be commended on your roles in the recovery of these
>specimens. The real question I see is not how many main masses you have -but
>whether you have any main masses at all- from these dense localities: The
>system is quite arbitrary no matter how you attribute subjective/random pairings.
>This shouldn't have any negative connotation associated with it. I posted
>something similar to this about a year or two ago in this forum.
>
>You all definitely have a lot of the world's biggest pieces in your
>possessions, none of you massive dealers needs any bragging rights from a viewpoint
>down here in the trenches, its not as if these were Nobel prizes, nor is it
>comparable in 99% of the cases to Steve Arnold's gig. This is unarguably an
>artificially manufactured situation in the dense collection areas. Besides
>Adam's, Mike's response was pretty straightforward, too, and Dean's logic very
>intelligent as well, as well as the rest...it really sounds much less
>scientific and more like discussion among competing cereal companies on who can label
>the food as "Heart Healthy" and who can't. I'd go retro and just ask
>"Where's the Beef?" while we watch y'all in this potentially high-steaks and
>breadwinning issue.
>
>So as long as we understand this is more of a Cola Wars' type question than
>a meaningful scientific question, it's interesting to hear all these
>arguments and occasionally add a peep or two in the shadow of the giants.
>
>Maybe I'm wrong, but we've seen this discussion in many presentations
>before. That's great, as long as everyone agrees that this is a commercial and not
>a scientific issue. It actually looks like you all do, in my (very) humble
>perception...Saludos, Doug
>
>PS a known pairing series can be open to interpretation, and are not
>exhaustive analyses, right? The science doesn't feel the need to address this
>issue, as far as I gather...
>
>
>
>In a message dated 1/19/2006 10:57:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>raremeteorites_at_comcast.net writes:
>If I followed this logic, I would have 48 planetary "Main Masses." Yeah for
>me! In reality, we have less than a dozen as far as I am concerned. I will
>stick to the what I believe are the rules, the largest piece in a known
>pairing series is the only Main Mass.
>
>______________________________________________
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri 20 Jan 2006 12:56:45 AM PST