[Rockhounds] Re: Rockhounds Digest, Vol 61, Issue 1

Mon Jun 1 20:37:56 PDT 2009

You so called Poopologist need to come back to earth.  The microscopic and
chemical analysis may confirm but not eliminate the possibility that the
Salmon Creek coprolites are real.  Complete replacement of the original skat
could possibly explain the lack of both microscopic structures and chemical
trace constituants.  A more definitive test is the shape of the specimens.
I have specimens that I collected as a child at Salmon Creek that have the
blunt but rounded one end and a distinctive sphincter pinched other end.
It may no longer smell like poop, but they sure look like poop.

Owen Kramer
Richland, WA

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:01 PM, <rockhounds-request at lists.drizzle.com>wrote:

> Send Rockhounds mailing list submissions to
>        rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        rockhounds-request at lists.drizzle.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        rockhounds-owner at lists.drizzle.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Rockhounds digest..."
>
>
> [Rockhounds-Digest]
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Salmon Creek poop (NOT) (Tim)
>   2. Re: Salmon Creek poop (NOT) (pmodreski at aol.com)
>   3. Re: Salmon Creek poop (NOT) (Lanny R)
>   4. Re: Salmon Creek poop (NOT) (Jay Bates)
>   5. RE: Salmon Creek poop (NOT) (Tim)
>   6. Re: Salmon Creek poop (NOT) (Jay Bates)
>   7. Re: Salmon Creek poop (NOT) (Tim)
>   8. RE: Salmon Creek poop (Thomas Yancey)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 07:58:13 -0700
> From: "Tim" <nospam at orerockon.com>
> Subject: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
> To: "'Rockhounds List'" <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
> Message-ID: <000001c9e2c9$6307cfd0$29176f70$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii"
>
> http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/68-7d8-8-1c
>
> A very well thought out article on the "coprolites" from Salmon Creek WA.
>
>
> Tim Fisher
> Ore-ROCK-On!
> Email address at http://OreRockOn.com <http://orerockon.com/>
>
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/mixed
>  text/plain (text body -- kept)
>  application/ms-tnef
> ---
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:57:28 -0400
> From: pmodreski at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
> To: nospam at orerockon.com, rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com
> Message-ID: <8CBB0F12DFB1090-3CC-965 at webmail-mf04.sysops.aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> That's a great article about coprolites, Tim, thanks for sharing the link.
>
> Aside from the Salmon Creek "coprolites" probably not being real
> coprolites, I talked with Karen Chin once when she gave a lecture about
> coprolites at CU (I mean the lecture was at CU, not the droppings)... and
> she expressed some doubt about whether the warty-looking chalcedony nodules
> found in western Utah and thereabouts and generally known among rockhounds
> as coprolites, also really are.? For a couple of the same reasons: no
> phosphate content, and no visible partly-digested plant or animal fragments
> embedded within them.? I don't think anyone has really subjected those
> Jurassic supposed-coprolites to any in-depth scientific study--Karen said
> she personally had never studied those--and until someone does, I think
> their status will remain questionable; though all the rockhounds recognize
> them and rockshops sell them as?"coprolites".
>
> Pete
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim <nospam at orerockon.com>
> To: 'Rockhounds List' <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
> Sent: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 8:58 am
> Subject: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
>
>
>
> http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/68-7d8-8-1c
>
> A very well thought out article on the "coprolites" from Salmon Creek WA.
>
>
> Tim Fisher
> Ore-ROCK-On!
> Email address at http://OreRockOn.com <http://orerockon.com/>
>
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/mixed
>  text/plain (text body -- kept)
>  application/ms-tnef
> ---
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
> Subscription Services:
> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> List Usage Policy:
> http://rockhounds.ning.com/page/list-rules
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
>  text/plain (text body -- kept)
>  text/html
> ---
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:09:07 -0700
> From: Lanny R <lanny.r at roadrunner.com>
> Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
> To: nospam at orerockon.com,       "Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list
> for
>        rock and gem collectors"        <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
> Message-ID: <8564B20C-7D77-4FF4-AD91-9A8C416BF589 at roadrunner.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Thanks Tim, nice article.
>
> I like Mustoe's explanation for the Salmon Creek goodies.
>
> Gee the list is dead. I hope everyone is out collecting, or gardening.
>
> Lanny
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Tim wrote:
>
> > http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/68-7d8-8-1c
> >
> > A very well thought out article on the "coprolites" from Salmon
> > Creek WA.
> >
> >
> > Tim Fisher
> > Ore-ROCK-On!
> > Email address at http://OreRockOn.com <http://orerockon.com/>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:26:31 -0700
> From: Jay Bates <jaybates at rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
> To: "Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem
>        collectors"     <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
> Message-ID: <4A242B67.7030705 at rcn.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Many petrified woods do not show visible plant material nor traces of
> minerals associated wood. They are called limb casts. I think if the
> coprolites come from the right formation associated with dinosaurs like
> those found in Utah, there is a good possibility they are casts of real
> dino dung. If not, what are they then?  Doubts disprove nothing.
>
>
> pmodreski at aol.com wrote:
> > That's a great article about coprolites, Tim, thanks for sharing the
> link.
> >
> > Aside from the Salmon Creek "coprolites" probably not being real
> coprolites, I talked with Karen Chin once when she gave a lecture about
> coprolites at CU (I mean the lecture was at CU, not the droppings)... and
> she expressed some doubt about whether the warty-looking chalcedony nodules
> found in western Utah and thereabouts and generally known among rockhounds
> as coprolites, also really are.? For a couple of the same reasons: no
> phosphate content, and no visible partly-digested plant or animal fragments
> embedded within them.? I don't think anyone has really subjected those
> Jurassic supposed-coprolites to any in-depth scientific study--Karen said
> she personally had never studied those--and until someone does, I think
> their status will remain questionable; though all the rockhounds recognize
> them and rockshops sell them as?"coprolites".
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim <nospam at orerockon.com>
> > To: 'Rockhounds List' <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
> > Sent: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 8:58 am
> > Subject: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/68-7d8-8-1c
> >
> > A very well thought out article on the "coprolites" from Salmon Creek WA.
> >
> >
> > Tim Fisher
> > Ore-ROCK-On!
> > Email address at http://OreRockOn.com <http://orerockon.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> > multipart/mixed
> >   text/plain (text body -- kept)
> >   application/ms-tnef
> > ---
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:27:10 -0700
> From: "Tim" <nospam at orerockon.com>
> Subject: RE: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
> To: "'Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem
>        collectors'"    <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
> Message-ID: <000c01c9e308$1acee520$506caf60$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii"
>
> They don't, it's a Miocene swamp or lacustrine delta with low grade lignite
> seams and poorly preserved wood. If you see the "raw" concretions before
> they have been worn smooth by the creek,  they aren't casts of anything
> either (unless that something had a fractally convoluted surface). The
> point
> of the article is that if no other fossilized remains are associated with
> it, then it probably isn't coprolite. See Occam's Razor...
>
>
> Tim Fisher
> Ore-ROCK-On!
> Email address at http://OreRockOn.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com
> [mailto:rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com] On Behalf Of Jay Bates
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 12:27 PM
> To: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem collectors
> Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
>
> Many petrified woods do not show visible plant material nor traces of
> minerals associated wood. They are called limb casts. I think if the
> coprolites come from the right formation associated with dinosaurs like
> those found in Utah, there is a good possibility they are casts of real
> dino dung. If not, what are they then?  Doubts disprove nothing.
>
>
> pmodreski at aol.com wrote:
> > That's a great article about coprolites, Tim, thanks for sharing the
> link.
> >
> > Aside from the Salmon Creek "coprolites" probably not being real
> coprolites, I talked with Karen Chin once when she gave a lecture about
> coprolites at CU (I mean the lecture was at CU, not the droppings)... and
> she expressed some doubt about whether the warty-looking chalcedony nodules
> found in western Utah and thereabouts and generally known among rockhounds
> as coprolites, also really are.? For a couple of the same reasons: no
> phosphate content, and no visible partly-digested plant or animal fragments
> embedded within them.? I don't think anyone has really subjected those
> Jurassic supposed-coprolites to any in-depth scientific study--Karen said
> she personally had never studied those--and until someone does, I think
> their status will remain questionable; though all the rockhounds recognize
> them and rockshops sell them as?"coprolites".
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim <nospam at orerockon.com>
> > To: 'Rockhounds List' <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
> > Sent: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 8:58 am
> > Subject: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/68-7d8-8-1c
> >
> > A very well thought out article on the "coprolites" from Salmon Creek WA.
> >
> >
> > Tim Fisher
> > Ore-ROCK-On!
> > Email address at http://OreRockOn.com <http://orerockon.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> > multipart/mixed
> >   text/plain (text body -- kept)
> >   application/ms-tnef
> > ---
> >
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
> Subscription Services:
> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> List Usage Policy:
> http://rockhounds.ning.com/page/list-rules
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:07:05 -0700
> From: Jay Bates <jaybates at rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
> To: nospam at orerockon.com,       "Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list
> for
>        rock and gem collectors"        <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
> Message-ID: <4A245F19.2040907 at rcn.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I said nothing about the Washington so-called coprolite. I only
> mentioned the Utah coprolite. There has been quite a number of instances
> where the food eaten by dinosaurs has been identified from the coprolite.
>
> http://www.uky.edu/KGS/education/Mesozoic2.htm
>
> I have dug up a number of petrified wood casts that have not been stream
> worn that do not include remnants of the wood except for the obvious
> outside form.
>
> Occam's Razor only is good guidance toward the most likely explanation,
> nothing more.
>
> Tim wrote:
> > They don't, it's a Miocene swamp or lacustrine delta with low grade
> lignite
> > seams and poorly preserved wood. If you see the "raw" concretions before
> > they have been worn smooth by the creek,  they aren't casts of anything
> > either (unless that something had a fractally convoluted surface). The
> point
> > of the article is that if no other fossilized remains are associated with
> > it, then it probably isn't coprolite. See Occam's Razor...
> >
> >
> > Tim Fisher
> > Ore-ROCK-On!
> > Email address at http://OreRockOn.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com
> > [mailto:rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com] On Behalf Of Jay Bates
> > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 12:27 PM
> > To: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem collectors
> > Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
> >
> > Many petrified woods do not show visible plant material nor traces of
> > minerals associated wood. They are called limb casts. I think if the
> > coprolites come from the right formation associated with dinosaurs like
> > those found in Utah, there is a good possibility they are casts of real
> > dino dung. If not, what are they then?  Doubts disprove nothing.
> >
> >
> > pmodreski at aol.com wrote:
> >
> >> That's a great article about coprolites, Tim, thanks for sharing the
> link.
> >>
> >> Aside from the Salmon Creek "coprolites" probably not being real
> >>
> > coprolites, I talked with Karen Chin once when she gave a lecture about
> > coprolites at CU (I mean the lecture was at CU, not the droppings)... and
> > she expressed some doubt about whether the warty-looking chalcedony
> nodules
> > found in western Utah and thereabouts and generally known among
> rockhounds
> > as coprolites, also really are.? For a couple of the same reasons: no
> > phosphate content, and no visible partly-digested plant or animal
> fragments
> > embedded within them.? I don't think anyone has really subjected those
> > Jurassic supposed-coprolites to any in-depth scientific study--Karen said
> > she personally had never studied those--and until someone does, I think
> > their status will remain questionable; though all the rockhounds
> recognize
> > them and rockshops sell them as?"coprolites".
> >
> >> Pete
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Tim <nospam at orerockon.com>
> >> To: 'Rockhounds List' <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
> >> Sent: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 8:58 am
> >> Subject: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/68-7d8-8-1c
> >>
> >> A very well thought out article on the "coprolites" from Salmon Creek
> WA.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tim Fisher
> >> Ore-ROCK-On!
> >> Email address at http://OreRockOn.com <http://orerockon.com/>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> >> multipart/mixed
> >>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
> >>   application/ms-tnef
> >> ---
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:14:06 -0700
> From: "Tim" <nospam at orerockon.com>
> Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
> To: <pmodreski at aol.com>, <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
> Message-ID: <001b01c9e30e$a981e780$fc85b680$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii"
>
> Nevertheless it is interesting that to my knowledge they appears in
> Morrison
> Fm. strata (among others?) right alongside dinosaur remains. Do they appear
> in any strata without dino remains? My guess would be no, but then that's
> worth, well, not much!
>
>
>
>
>
> Tim Fisher
> Ore-ROCK-On!
> Email address at http://OreRockOn.com <http://orerockon.com/>
>
>
>
> From: pmodreski at aol.com [mailto:pmodreski at aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 9:57 AM
> To: nospam at orerockon.com; rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com
> Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
>
>
>
> That's a great article about coprolites, Tim, thanks for sharing the link.
>
> Aside from the Salmon Creek "coprolites" probably not being real
> coprolites,
> I talked with Karen Chin once when she gave a lecture about coprolites at
> CU
> (I mean the lecture was at CU, not the droppings)... and she expressed some
> doubt about whether the warty-looking chalcedony nodules found in western
> Utah and thereabouts and generally known among rockhounds as coprolites,
> also really are.  For a couple of the same reasons: no phosphate content,
> and no visible partly-digested plant or animal fragments embedded within
> them.  I don't think anyone has really subjected those Jurassic
> supposed-coprolites to any in-depth scientific study--Karen said she
> personally had never studied those--and until someone does, I think their
> status will remain questionable; though all the rockhounds recognize them
> and rockshops sell them as "coprolites".
>
> Pete
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim <nospam at orerockon.com>
> To: 'Rockhounds List' <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
> Sent: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 8:58 am
> Subject: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
>
> http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/68-7d8-8-1c
>
> A very well thought out article on the "coprolites" from Salmon Creek WA.
>
>
> Tim Fisher
> Ore-ROCK-On!
> Email address at http://OreRockOn.com <http://orerockon.com/>
> <http://orerockon.com/>
>
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/mixed
>  text/plain (text body -- kept)
>  application/ms-tnef
> ---
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
> Subscription Services:
> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> List Usage Policy:
> http://rockhounds.ning.com/page/list-rules
>
>
>
>  _____
>
> Wanna slim down for summer? Go to America
> <
> http://www.aolhealth.com/diet/weight-loss-program/?ncid=emlcntusheal0000000
> 1>  Takes it Off to learn how.
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
>  text/plain (text body -- kept)
>  text/html
> ---
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 18:14:35 -0500
> From: Thomas Yancey <teyancey at suddenlink.net>
> Subject: RE: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop
> To: nospam at orerockon.com,       "Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list
> for
>        rock and gem collectors"        <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
> Message-ID: <a06240803c64a0cb7c08f@[10.10.10.100]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>
> The case of Salmon Creek concretions is more complex than this. The
> original concretions taken from mud matrix are solid siderite and
> show the classic markings of extrusion on the surface. Internally,
> the siderite is a mosaic of crystals all of similar size and anhedral
> crystal boundaries. Externally they have detailed squeeze surface
> features, but this is not seen internally. Those with a "fractally
> convoluted surface" are composed of iron oxide and are an oxidized
> replacement of the siderite. The mineral replacement process
> 'explodes' the siderite, causing the concretions to acquire a heavily
> cracked surface. Intermediate conditions consist of siderite interior
> and iron oxide exterior in the same concretion. Mineral replacement
> makes it difficult to generalize about these concretions. Those that
> have a smoothed surface are usually ones that have been carried in
> the bedload of Salmon Creek and are worn, removing any indications of
> origin. The sediments of this deposit contain both siderite and iron
> oxide concretions, but the iron oxide concretions may be oxidized
> from another mineral (siderite, pyrite, etc.).
>
> Tom Yancey
>
>
>
>
> >They don't, it's a Miocene swamp or lacustrine delta with low grade
> lignite
> >seams and poorly preserved wood. If you see the "raw" concretions before
> >they have been worn smooth by the creek,  they aren't casts of anything
> >either (unless that something had a fractally convoluted surface). The
> point
> >of the article is that if no other fossilized remains are associated with
> >it, then it probably isn't coprolite. See Occam's Razor...
> >
> >
> >Tim Fisher
> >Ore-ROCK-On!
> >Email address at http://OreRockOn.com
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com
> >[mailto:rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com] On Behalf Of Jay Bates
> >Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 12:27 PM
> >To: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem collectors
> >Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
> >
> >Many petrified woods do not show visible plant material nor traces of
> >minerals associated wood. They are called limb casts. I think if the
> >coprolites come from the right formation associated with dinosaurs like
> >those found in Utah, there is a good possibility they are casts of real
> >dino dung. If not, what are they then?  Doubts disprove nothing.
> >
> >
> >pmodreski at aol.com wrote:
> >>  That's a great article about coprolites, Tim, thanks for sharing the
> link.
> >>
> >>  Aside from the Salmon Creek "coprolites" probably not being real
> >coprolites, I talked with Karen Chin once when she gave a lecture about
> >coprolites at CU (I mean the lecture was at CU, not the droppings)... and
> >she expressed some doubt about whether the warty-looking chalcedony
> nodules
> >found in western Utah and thereabouts and generally known among rockhounds
> >as coprolites, also really are.? For a couple of the same reasons: no
> >phosphate content, and no visible partly-digested plant or animal
> fragments
> >embedded within them.? I don't think anyone has really subjected those
> >Jurassic supposed-coprolites to any in-depth scientific study--Karen said
> >she personally had never studied those--and until someone does, I think
> >their status will remain questionable; though all the rockhounds recognize
> >them and rockshops sell them as?"coprolites".
> >>
> >>  Pete
> >>
> >>
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >>  From: Tim <nospam at orerockon.com>
> >>  To: 'Rockhounds List' <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
> >>  Sent: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 8:58 am
> >>  Subject: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/68-7d8-8-1c
> >>
> >>  A very well thought out article on the "coprolites" from Salmon Creek
> WA.
> >>
> >>
> >>  Tim Fisher
> >>  Ore-ROCK-On!
> >>  Email address at http://OreRockOn.com <http://orerockon.com/>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> >>  multipart/mixed
> >>    text/plain (text body -- kept)
> >>    application/ms-tnef
> >>  ---
> >>
> >
> >--
> >_______________________________________________
> >Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
> >Subscription Services:
> >http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> >List Usage Policy:
> >http://rockhounds.ning.com/page/list-rules
> >
> >--
> >_______________________________________________
> >Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
> >Subscription Services:
> >http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> >List Usage Policy:
> >http://rockhounds.ning.com/page/list-rules
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
> Subscription Services:
> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> List Usage Policy:
> http://rockhounds.ning.com/page/list-rules
>
> End of Rockhounds Digest, Vol 61, Issue 1
> *****************************************
>

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---