[meteorite-list] Was : High Noon! - Suggestion about List relevance to meteorites

Tue Sep 6 16:46:49 EDT 2011

Hi John and List,

Just like how we flag advertisements to the List with the post prefix
"AD:", then perhaps we could could flag the "serious" meteorite
discussions (science, new fall-find discussions, etc), could be
flagged with a prefix like "SCI:" - lesser or typical meteorite banter
would just fly by without a prefix.

List members who only want to see "very serious" discussions could
filter out all List emails without the "SCI" prefix in the subject
line.  This would limit their influx to discussion about meteoritics,
falls/finds, important news, etc.

I know this is probably not very practical, and shouldn't be necessary
in a perfect world, but maybe it's something to spark a better idea to
accomplish the same goal - a better signal to noise ratio on the List.

FWIW, the definitions of noise and signal varies from person to
person.  Also, the amount of noise that is tolerable to a given person
also varies widely.  It's going to be impossible to perfectly moderate
or filter the List to everyone's satisfaction.  AFAIK, Art is the only
administrator and moderator and he is a single person with a real life
outside of this List.  Given the number of List members and the
average rate of chatter, it would be a full-time job to screen and
moderate the List for content.  It's one thing to decline messages
from people on a "ban list", but it's another thing entirely to read
every message in the queue for content and relevancy.  And even if he
could accomplish that, Art's discretion may or may not make every
happy all of the time - because he is human and every member is human.

Every rational and intelligent List member is a positive asset to the
List, and nobody wants to see a List exodus - even the people I have
butted heads with in the past, are still people who make valuable
positive contributions to the List (well some of them anyway).  Even
if a person is not particularly liked by some or all, if that person
can intelligently discuss meteorites from time to time, then they are
an overall asset in my opinion.

On a message board/forum, the discussions are broken down into
individual topics to organize the discussions - and make it easier to
wade through the noise and find the desired signal.  We do not have
that ability on a mailing list, so it's up to each member to set the
squelch to their desired level and reduce the noise to find the
signal.

The only alternative is a fully moderated List where each post is
screened for content.  This would require  a single person with no
life outside of list moderation, or a team of moderators to shoulder
the load.  Each moderator would be human and subject to their own
discretions and that might produce problems with inconsistency between
the moderators when it comes to judgement calls on approving posts to
the List.

To wrap up this ditty, I see this List the way I see my cable TV
line-up.  Yes, there is stuff I have no interest in, but buried in the
lineup of channels, there is usually something of value that I can
learn something from.  This List is leagues better than TV in terms of
signal to noise ratio.

To get back on-topic, why don't we discuss the meteorite-relevant data
that will soon come out of the NASA Dawn program to Vesta.   :)

Best regards,

MikeG

PS - and the simplest solution to this whole mess and it requires no
moderators : use your email client to filter out (block) List emails
from members that you cannot tolerate or those whose noise to signal
ratio is the highest.  I've done that over the years, and my enjoyment
of the List has increased.

On 9/6/11, John Teague <volgems at icx.net> wrote:
> Well, sure Mike,  why use reason and logic in this 'debate'?!?  Where would
> the world be if we all did that?
>
> This 'debate' is why I NO LONGER suggest this list to my customers at shows.
>  I have had too many of them come back and ask why I had "meteorite-list" on
> my handout of website information for customers.  I received so many
> negative comments/complaints about petty bickering (and NOT so petty!) that
> I've removed it.
>
> I keep asking myself "Why do I continue to subscribe?"  It is getting harder
> and harder to come up with a valid reason ... just stubborn I guess!
>
> Just my two coppers worth ...
>
> John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Michael Gilmer <meteoritemike at gmail.com>
>>Sent: Sep 6, 2011 3:48 PM
>>To: Marc Fries <fries at psi.edu>
>>Cc: Adam <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] FW: High Noon!
>>
>>Hi Gang,
>>
>>I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think one simple fact is being
>>overlooked by almost everyone involved here, and this simple criteria
>>is the ultimate litmus test that definitively confirm or deny a
>>terrestrial origin for a given sample...
>>
>>
>>Drumroll please....
>>
>>Cosmic ray exposure data.  Elemental analysis is fine and dandy, and
>>it can answer many questions, but it cannot definitively confirm or
>>deny the terrestrial (or meteoritic) origin for a sample.  It simply
>>states what elements are present in the sample and in what
>>concentrations (within a margin of error) these elements are present.
>>As we all know, some lunar and martian meteorites are very similar in
>>elemental composition to their terrestrial analogs.  But, terrestrial
>>rocks have never been exposed to cosmic rays.  By contrast, all
>>meteorites have been exposed to cosmic rays during their journey from
>>the parent body to Earth.  This exposure leaves tell-tale markers in
>>the material.
>>
>>Of course, I am over-simplifying to some degree, and the cosmic ray
>>exposure clock can be reset by certain events, but those events also
>>leave their own signatures.
>>
>>Simple XRF analysis, and/or visual comparisons will not cut it to make
>>a truly definitive and authoritative judgement on the origins of a
>>rock.
>>
>>Run cosmic ray exposure studies on the material in question - if it
>>was exposed to cosmic rays, then that material has spent time outside
>>of Earth's protective shield.  Once that has been established, then
>>the samples can be subjected to SEM (scanning electron microprobe) to
>>determine the composition of the material to a more accurate and
>>specific degree than the XRF will reveal.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>MikeG
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Galactic Stone & Ironworks - Meteorites & Amber (Michael Gilmer)
>>
>>Website - http://www.galactic-stone.com
>>Facebook - http://tinyurl.com/42h79my
>>News Feed - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516
>>Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone
>>EOM - http://www.encyclopedia-of-meteorites.com/collection.aspx?id=1564
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>On 9/6/11, Marc Fries <fries at psi.edu> wrote:
>>> Oh come on, Adam!  Clearly the good Sheriff is an expert at identifying
>>> Martian meteorites.
>>>
>>> The only non-awesome part of that email was how I was somehow left off
>>> the
>>> Thinks Steve Curry is a Moron list.  I feel cheated.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Marc Fries
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Adam Hupe <raremeteorites at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi List,
>>>>
>>>> I would suggest deleting Steve C.s emails from now on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Steve got exactly what he was after now that this garbage has been
>>>> posted
>>>> to the List.  His San Juan breccia has already been studied and
>>>> denounced
>>>> by the most qualified laboratories. He refuses to follow the same
>>>> channels
>>>> the rest of us have to in order to make meteorites official.  For some
>>>> reason, possibly watching too much television, he thinks that he is
>>>> better
>>>> than everybody else, can set his own rules and become an instant
>>>> millionaire.  Sorry, Steve, despite what the voices in your head might
>>>> be
>>>> telling you, your gaggle of "Moon Rocks" is not better than the NASA
>>>> Apollo returned collection!
>>>>
>>>> He now wants more attention with this fake showdown which will
>>>> accomplish
>>>> nothing because the results would not be what he wants to hear or
>>>> believe.
>>>> He has the nerve to question the integrity of the best planetary
>>>> scientists in the world in his latest ramblings.  He now thinks by
>>>> comparing his terrestrial rocks to best lunar meteorite in the world
>>>> that
>>>> he can gain even more notoriety. He does not deserve any more attention.
>>>> I will certainly not degrade a piece of real NWA 5K by engaging in this
>>>> ridiculous "High Noon" challenge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My challenge to Stevy is how many "Denver Death Cookies" can he drink at
>>>> Denver show at Teddy's Bar?
>>>>
>>>> Enough of this crap already,
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
>
>
>