[meteorite-list] ORIENTATION Re: March 4 RSPOD Oriented (sic) 32kg stone

From: Mr EMan <mstreman53_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:12:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <222904.70585.qm_at_web51012.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Agreed and put far better than I, Darryl-- and that was the point to my
post-- not attacking anyone and definitely not attacking anyone in
particular. When "oriented" is unquantified then anything and
everything could be oriented. I can't download the Dave sent me but I
am comfortable that he did not use "oriented" uninformed.

I've been criticized for criticizing Dave and I want to assure Dave and
the list that was not the intended purpose of my rant. I was relying
on two things to pose my soapbox essay. The use of "oriented" when any
surface features other than a fresh crack on fresh fusion crust is not
apparent in the photo selected for illustrating "orientation". Note I
did not say it wasn't oriented-- I only asked that the use of the term
with the meteorite in the photo be explained/justified. OK I score
another point for brashness. Mia Culpa.

Hope this has a positive impact on the need for codified definitions
across the board when it comes to describing meteorites.

Elton
--- Darryl Pitt <darryl at dof3.com> wrote:
> in my experience, the single most problematic term in meteorite
> commerce is "orientation." this seems to be in part due to a
> reluctance to differentiate objects which exhibit a bit of
> orientation from those which exhibit nothing but orientation.
>
> the new generation of collectors are not to be faulted for the
> seeming misapplication of the term as a result of what is today its
> liberal, ubiquitous use.
>
> might i suggest that the list come up with a grading system of
> orientation in much the same way that weathering and shocking are
> graded.
>
> three or four grades of orientation to finally---FINALLY--put this
> notion to rest.
>
> d.
Received on Tue 04 Mar 2008 07:12:11 PM PST