[meteorite-list] Term Main Mass

[dfreeman]

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
>
>
>  
>