[meteorite-list] Dr. Bunch's Latest on NWA 1839/3133

[stan .]

>Dr Bunch's exact quote "The petrography, mineral chemistry and OXYGEN 
>ISOTOPSE clearly indicate that NWA 1839 and NWA 3133 are NOT paired, 
>period! bingo!"

*all caps mine*

Adam,as i recall when we had discussed this matter previously you had said 
that further testing of 1839 - specifically isotopic concentrations other 
than oxygen - had suggested that the material came not fromt he CV parent 
body as nwa 3133 does - but rather from another carbonaceous (CO or CR iirc) 
- please correct me if i am not remebering any of your statements accuratly.

As much as it might surprise you I actually would be pleased to hear that 
nwa 3133 and 1839 are NOT paired - nothing is better to a type collector's 
ears than finding out there is a new type of material out there AND that it 
is already represented in your collection. This is why I have REPEATEDLY 
asked you for your data.

Are you now saying that the original oxygen data for 3133 is in question?

from the initial classification of 3133:
ä18O = 1.78, 0.92, 0.89, ä17O = -2.91, -3.67, -3.62, Ä17O = -3.84, -4.16, 
-4.08 per mil

Some time ago I was contacted by The Open University with a request for 
primitive achonderites. nwa 1839 (material provided to me by Nelson Oaks - 
the owner of the main mass of 1839 - NOT 'self paired' material) is one of 
the meteorites i provided a sample of. The data from Open University is as 
follows:
ä18O = 1.334, ä17O = -3.254, Ä17O = -3.948

The numbers plot on the same CV line. Open University's opinion was that the 
oxygen isotopse data supported the conclusion that the material originated 
from the CV parent body.

Is there no room for anything but your brand of pettyness on the list? 
Please present your data so we can have a frank, adult discussion about the 
origins of this unique rock and maybe just maybe list members can learn 
something interesting about these neat rocks instead of watching you and me 
trade insults.