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?
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
