[meteorite-list] Fw: NWA 5400, etc
From: Richard Montgomery <rickmont_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:05:56 -0700 Message-ID: <305A29CE32F945708A908D1A373C56AF_at_bosoheadPC> > It is disturbing to see the infighting. (As a peripheral collector of > verified specimens of unquestionable petigree, I've been on the side-lines > for years, but haven't been aware that there may be all this crap-slinging > going on in the marketplace. I fully understand a spirited and ongoing > scientific discourse on the true classification issues, but this is a buzz > kill.) > > Naturally, we all take pride in the value of our collections. But this > whole thing reeks more of $$$ rather than the advancement of our passion. > > It is time to propose an open question as to why we love > meteorites....more than $$$. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "GERALD FLAHERTY" <GRF2 at COMCAST.NET> > To: "Jason Utas" <meteoritekid at gmail.com> > Cc: "Meteorite-list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 5:14 PM > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] NWA 5400, etc > > >> On the contrary, it was Greg who brought this to the market place after >> getting a it thoroughly studied. If someone claims "me too", it becomes >> their responsibility to prove it their claim by peer review. >> On Jun 17, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Jason Utas wrote: >> >>> Sorry - I was a little fuzzy on that point - I suggested that it >>> should be peer-reviewed, and then said that Greg should provide the >>> evidence. I was too vague - if Greg's the one making such >>> accusations, I have the feeling that he should be the one to get such >>> things done, whether or not he's the one doing them himself. He >>> shouldn't be able to just keep claiming that a scientist with >>> credentials is performing bad work without supplying some form of >>> proof, or even the intent to get it. >>> It's practically libel. >>> I agree with you completely, RIchard. >>> Thanks, >>> Jason >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Richard Kowalski <damoclid at yahoo.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Hey Jason, >>>> >>>> a few points. >>>> >>>> I agree that if Greg is arguing that Dr. Jambon did not perform proper >>>> and complete studies of the submitted material, it is critical that the >>>> work be reviewed. Unfortunately Greg is not his peer. This is why I >>>> state that the scientific study need to be peer reviewed. Fellow >>>> meteoriticists are the ones qualified to determine if Dr. Jambon is a >>>> competent scientist and the lab he used adequate to make the >>>> determination of the pairing. Not Greg. >>>> >>>> I'll also reiterate my statement that anyone claiming a pairing has the >>>> burden of proof, that their material is paired to the already >>>> classified material. This then needs to be peer reviewed to assure that >>>> the scientist is competent and the laboratory adequate to make the >>>> determination. This level of proof is beyond almost all dealers. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Richard Kowalski >>>> Full Moon Photography >>>> IMCA #1081 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ______________________________________________ >>>> Visit the Archives at >>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html >>>> Meteorite-list mailing list >>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com >>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >>>> >>> ______________________________________________ >>> Visit the Archives at >>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html >>> Meteorite-list mailing list >>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com >>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >> >> ______________________________________________ >> Visit the Archives at >> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html >> Meteorite-list mailing list >> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > Received on Thu 17 Jun 2010 09:05:56 PM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|