[meteorite-list] [ebay] ending in about 2 days

[Adam Hupe]

Let it go, Stan, you are completely wrong!


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "stan ." <laser_maniac at hotmail.com>
To: <raremeteorites at comcast.net>; <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] [ebay] ending in about 2 days


>
>
>>Stan,
>>
>>I addressed you and the List directly about the data on NWA 1836/3133 and 
>>you were wrong.
>
> Adam, you spoke of data that was new and never provided any actual DATA 
> only your summary of it.
>
>>If you are too lazy to ask Dr. Bunch yourself, look in the archives as 
>>this two year argument is over.  NAU and Carnegie's data do not support a 
>>pairing, look it up.
>
> I have. I cant find anything published that supports your claims. 
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2005/pdf/5218.pdf says that both 
> 1839 and 3133 are from the CV parent body - CONTRARY to what you claimed. 
> if the data exists why not just simply show me where and I'll admit that 
> 1839 and 3133 arent paired? seems like an awfully simple way to resolve a 
> LONG argument to me...
>
>>I think you are borrowing Aaronson's numbers in regards to the these new 
>>listings, I will ask Dr. Bunch tomorrow.
>
> 'borrowing' Aaronson's number? as i have specifically said Aaronson is my 
> source for this material. the number is not 'his' it bellongs to the stone 
> that I bought from him - I belive Jeff Grossman saw fit to post to the 
> list to publically correct you on this issue before. People do NOT own NWA 
> numbers - they are used to describe material.
>
>>There is no need to argue with a source who has gotten wrong so many 
>>times.
>
> LOL all you have shown me to be wrong on is that Aaronson wasnt the source 
> of nwa 2999 - big deal. You are acting the part of the typical internet 
> troll. you seem to think whoever argues louder and longer 'wins'. I have 
> asked you repeatedly to show me support of your claims and you have 
> avoided my request 5 times now. Is there some reason why you cant back up 
> your position with facts?
>
>
>