[meteorite-list] NWA 869 continued....

[MexicoDoug at aol.com]

Mark B. wrote:

>Hello again list,

>Doug wrote, after quoting me...  "Colleagues, some of you could really give 
>the scientists a run for  their money.."

>I think that is a little hard, as I have just given  you my observations.  I 
>would rather tell you what I have observed,  rather then repeat what others 
>have said.  Now if you have  observations on the meteorite, I would rather 
>hear them then  observations on my observations.

List, My observation is that the ranges  heard are L3-L6, for NWA 869, where 
Mark truncated my sentence and butchered my  thought is "...I personally can't 
even tell the difference from the outside (and  don't cut nor have 
computerized inventories) between a lot of NWA 869 I saw and  Sahara 02500, L3, Fa = 26% 
+/- 2%, S2, W1 Met Bul. 88, big strewn field, many  stones."  Mark's 
disagreement explaining why it is not L3.8 further  supports a possible pairing to me. 

Why Mark, bother posting your observations of my supposed observations  of 
your observations?  My head hurts in empathy.  Regarding the things  your royal 
dithers would rather be hearing, you edited them all out of my  post:(.  
(introducing your own bias and interpretations in the discusion,  but then again 
this is the list which has its "limitations").  Anyway,  you're not a dude to 
joke with, comprendo.

The only reason I quoted from  your post was the fact that you were the first 
to bring up the L3/L3.8 issue  which according to you, "others" were 
considering as classification of NWA 869,  although you disapproved.  Of course you 
went on to discount not only L3,  but ruled out to some extent L4 and L6 in your 
stream of thinking - not  something I paid a terrible amount of attention to 
it at this fact gathering  stage.  Not having someone else who positively 
suggested L3's, I  conveniently pasted your comment about L3's and Jeff's about 
L4-6  together.  Had George Bush or Vicente Fox posted it was an L3, I would 
have  quoted him instead, and unfortunately Bernd arrived positively exposing L3, 
on  the scene, too late for me.  
 
I'll try being less lazy next time and avoid trying to make something  useful 
out of what you say as support.  My post is repeated unbutchered  below for 
your convenience.  If you have any comments on the possible  pairing of Sahara 
02500, nah...errr...keep 'em to yourself.  But that was  one question that was 
asked by Jeff G., and I hope my observation proves useful  to him as he has a 
heavy order in submitting 869...although I am sure Mark's are  infinitely 
superior and more robust.

Saludos, Doug
POST BEFORE  BUTCHERED BY MARK:
Jeff G. wrote:
"It was a fragmental breccia,  probably
L4-6.  A thin section of L5 material gave Fa24.2, S3,  W1."

Mark B. thinks:
The lighters parts of the meteorite do not show  nice abundent 
chondrules in a thin section from what I have seen.  (To  make the L3.8 as 
some have been selling it.)  Despite what it looks  like in a hand specimen.  
The darker parts of the meteorite is a  shocked portion of the lighter part.

Colleagues, some of you could really  give the scientists a run for their 
money - I personally can't even tell the  difference from the outside (and don't 
cut nor have computerized inventories)  between a lot of NWA 869 I saw and 
Sahara 02500, L3, Fa = 26% +/- 2%, S2, W1 Met  Bul. 88, big strewn field, many 
stones.  

It looks like the Sahara  02500 researchers and suppliers, for example, on 
the other hand, have done a  fantastic job keeping the stock clean for 2500, but 
given all the fingers in the  pot for NWA 869 it is hard to imagine the same. 
 How could NWA 869 be  assigned a weight and name based on this, technically, 
by NomCom rules?  I  am confused but hope it is possible since a lot has not 
all been classified in  accordance to the dense desert protocol.  Could the 
characteristic greenish  tinge be used as an exceptional and unique defining 
characteristic of NWA 869,  and treat this exception as if it were a non-dense 
fall?  Why not, if it  can be truly shown to be unique nomenclature should 
accomodate logic...on such a  grand scale.  What, exactly causes the 
characteristic: environment or  unique composition is an important question?  This would be 
the angle great  to be hearing more.  But then, if we go that route - I would 
think it  should have a real alphabet soup name to be more consistent with 
this type of  nominative exception and what to do if it has already been 
classified by another  number  Good luck Jeff, with this usually very exquisite and 
sensitive  meteorite(s).
Saludos, Doug