[meteorite-list] Technical question about NomCom and Bulletin

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 06:16:38 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinJPFpNYHdp-DbiYgQIdTjgEElTXf8vr9AeqeBd_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hello Michael, All,

>> by approving those meteorites that have been illegally exported,
>> the Nomenclature Committee is in effect financially supporting the
>> illegal export of meteorites from countries where it is prohibited.
> ? ? ? ?The Nomenclature Committee would be performing the function
> exactly as it defines itself to be, as Jeff stated, " Note that the
> activities of the Society only involve dissemination of information.

Right, but part of the issue, as I stated in my post, is that the
objectives of the Meteoritical Society, in this case, are being
determined as we debate this issue. You note that the function of the
committee is as it has been written. The point of my posit was that,
as Jeff stated, this is actually a somewhat open issue at the moment.

>>What we're saying is that the Nomenclature committee, because they
>>Provide a service to dealers by verifying and providing an easy way to
>>authenticate a given meteorite, which makes them easier to sell,
>>should perhaps not allow the submission of illegally exported
>>materials of great scientific value. ?The work on them can still be
>>done by labs if they choose to do it, and the papers will still be
>>written, but the service provided by the Nomenclature Committee of
>>having this information posted online would not be done, so that the
>>private sector would...well, it would be a much riskier thing to buy.
> ? ? ? ?You seem to be implying that information, academic and otherwise,
> Should be withheld because someone may - or even does ?- use that
> Information in profiting in a way in violation of some laws of some
> Countries.
> ? ? ? ?Ah, this sounds a uncomfortably closer to fascism than to academic
> freedom.

As I said, the information would never be withheld. Studies and
reports on stones, if institutions wanted to pursue them, would be
performed and published; neither the Meteoritical Society nor the
Nomenclature Society can tell any lab what to do -- but stones that
had been illegally exported would not become officially named
meteorites. I repeated myself several times in my last post. I'm not
going to go over it repeatedly here.

>> So, by approving those meteorites that have been illegally exported,
>> the Nomenclature Committee is in effect financially supporting the
>> illegal export of meteorites from countries where it is prohibited.
>> Think about it; if the Committee/Society were to go through with this,
>> no one would get any new official (or provisional?) numbers for Omani
>> stones. ?It would be harder to sell them as unnumbered
>> Shisr/Dhofar/etc stones, or something along those lines.
> ? ? ? ? ? ?The premise is completely off to begin with. The Nomenclature
> Committee never has or ever will "approve" anything. They record
> Information by assigning names appropriate to given falls or finds.
> ? ? ? ? ? ?Perhaps we should burn all the art books and archaeology texts
> Because art and artifact thieves benefit a great deal from the information
> Contained there in.
> ? ? ? ? ? ?Jason, I always perceived you as highly intelligent, but the
> arguments you present in this instance are academically indefensible.
> Any curtailment of or hiding of information is tantamount to a step
> Backwards toward the dark ages - certainly, it is at the very least a
> Form of censorship.
> ? ? ? ? ? ?Again, perhaps I am missing something here, but what you have
> Stated does not lead me to believe that is the case.

Well, you cut out about 8/10 of my post. Perhaps you should reread it.
Regards,
Jason
Received on Sun 06 Jun 2010 09:16:38 AM PDT