Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (18027)	7/11/2001 10:07:17 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

garnetiferous ultra-mafic breccia ... kimberlite Assuming both descriptions are semantically correct (I'm not that skilled a geologist), I don't think there's a dispute over the science here... only the money to be made out of the definition. If ten geologists gave ten different identifications, then (given the specific rock is only of one type) either the sample was dubious or there are ten+ different names for it, or all but one is a poor geologist... Meanwhile, if the collectors were foolish enough to survey a kimberlite-rich area, take back a sample without realising what they'd found, and tell the first 'geologist' they located where they'd found it, well... that's a market economy, I suppose. And it looks as though the stakers lost out too, which seems fair <g> Still no scientific problem. Ethical issue, yes indeed.