Naming a Star companies; NOT officially recognized
Brian Miller
name a star and get it recorded in their database, it's simply a private
database not recognized by anyone officially. So you'd simply be paying for
an expensive certificate and/or a book of others who paid, nothing more. In
other words, different companies reuse/rename the different stars but they
are not registered for use by the professionals.
Here's the official word:
http://www.iau.org/IAU/FAQ/starnames.html
FYI
Brian
Greg Crinklaw
> For those who have wondered about the various companies that claim you can
> name a star and get it recorded in their database, it's simply a private
> database not recognized by anyone officially. So you'd simply be paying for
> an expensive certificate and/or a book of others who paid, nothing more. In
> other words, different companies reuse/rename the different stars but they
> are not registered for use by the professionals.
Well Duh.
The thing that people don't seem to realize is that most people who buy
stars don't care if it's official or not. It's only us snooty
astronomers who give a damn about that! This is a *symbol* not a real
thing, just like buying flowers or a Hallmark card. It's the thought
that counts, not the piece of paper and not whether or not real
astronomers will ever use the name. And it's a nice thought! We
shouldn't stomp all over it.
The vast majority of people know exactly what they are buying: a piece
of paper, nothing more.
In the end the stars don't care what the IAU names them either... I'd
think astronomers would be the first people to realize that. A million
years from now the memory of the piece of paper from a star naming
company will be worth exactly the same as any name issued by the IAU: nada.
I suggest that we give people some credit and find something more
important to get all worked up about.
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
To reply remove spleen
Brian Tung
> The vast majority of people know exactly what they are buying: a piece
> of paper, nothing more.
Just curious: How do you know this? I see significant numbers in both
groups: people who know what they're getting and people who don't.
One less-frequently stated problem is that the value is so poor. Why
for $50 (or whatever it is), you should get at least a third-magnitude
star. In my day, we wouldn't have dropped 50 cents on a ninth-magnitude
punk...
:-o
Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt
Francis Marion
Check this out: http://www.lunarregistry.com/?lr_link or
http://www.moonestates.com/cat_Products.asp
These people are one burrito short of a combination plate!!
F Marion
mark palmquist
tongue firmly planted in check -
ohhh, ohhh I want my own crater can I have the big one with the funny
name, 'Copernicus'? I want to rename it to 'BigAssCrater'.
Now if someone (Bill Gates, etc) actually ante up a few Billion and
go to the moon they can stake a legitimate claim.
Maybe they could recoup some of the expense by charging the US and
Russian governements for hazmat cleanup of the landing sites?
Sue, like Barb Strisand for people photographing your property? that
could add up quick :)
my .0000001 cents worth since the rest of my money just bought some
bridge in Manhattan.
David Knisely
> It's the thought that counts, not the piece of paper and not whether or not real astronomers will ever use the name. And it's a nice thought! We shouldn't stomp all over it.
>
> The vast majority of people know exactly what they are buying: a piece of paper, nothing more.
Well, Greg, I know of more than a few planetarium directors (as well as a
number of amateurs manning public observing sessions) who would disagree with
you on the "majority of people know exactly what they are buying". Some of
these people can get downright testy when we can't show them "their" star.
Our local planetarium director has been hit more than a few times by these
sometimes angry people (the latest one about two weeks ago). They have no
clue that the planetarium dome starfield does not go nearly faint enough to
catch "their" star, nor do they seem to want to understand when told the truth
about that star. We have also gotten visitors to Hyde Observatory who want to
see "their star", and are disappointed, heartbroken (yes, I said
"heartbroken"), or downright angry when we can't usually do this.
Unfortunately, while some do understand the truth about what they bought,
more than a few of these people *do* think that "their" star is official in
some astronomical form. Even with a patient explanation, they apparently
refuse to believe that the name is not really official and that all they
bought was an expensive piece of paper. At Hyde Observatory, we have also
seen people disappointed and even angry when "their star" is not visible due
to any one of four reasons: 1. it's below the horizon during their visit, 2.
it's too faint to see easily, 3. it's in the far-southern celestial hemisphere
(and thus is *never* visible from Hyde), or 4. it is not precisely locatable
due to inaccurate charts or supplied coordinates. We have handouts telling
people about the facts of naming stars, but this sometimes just makes them
more angry. They go away angry at us for not being able to show them the
star, angry at the "star-naming" company, and (sometimes when they finally
"get it"), angry at themselves for falling for this scheme. More importantly,
we have even seen a few go away nearly in tears when they find out that the
star they took the time and money to "dedicate" to a lost loved one is not
considered "astronomically official", not to mention not being visible due to
one of the above reasons.
Most of the stars which are being named are fairly faint and are supplied
with coordinates which sometimes do not precisely correspond to real stars
(they are often close to one or two, but not "spot on" enought to tell which
star is "theirs"). Most of these coordinates are missing the precision in
either R.A. or Dec. (or both) needed to locate the star, and few if any of
these coordinates are supplied with an Equinox number (ie: 1950.0 or 2000.0).
A 12th magnitude star might be visible in our telescopes in some areas of
the sky at some time of the year, but when that star is somewhere in a
constellation like Cygnus, it can be difficult to impossible to show the
person "their star" (especially when we use our C14 with its field-reversing
star diagonal). Doing these "requests" also takes observing time away from
the other members of the public who came to see the main featured objects we
advertised for the evening's viewing.
The problem seems to be getting a little worse as the years go by, so the
truth about star-naming still isn't quite getting through to some. Our
observatory's board of directors have been trying to decide how to deal with
this problem, but so far, we don't have a clear strategy. We may try some
*inexpensive* but tasteful certificate with a selected star that the visitor
can locate for themselves and "dedicate" (but not name) to a loved one on a
particular night when they came to the Observatory, but beyond this, the
"problem" of these "name a star" schemes remains significant but unsolved.
Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely KA0...@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/
**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************
starman
>
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>
> > It's the thought that counts, not the piece of paper and not whether or not real astronomers will ever use the name. And it's a nice thought! We shouldn't stomp all over it.
> >
> > The vast majority of people know exactly what they are buying: a piece of paper, nothing more.
>
> Well, Greg, I know of more than a few planetarium directors (as well as a
> number of amateurs manning public observing sessions) who would disagree with
> you on the "majority of people know exactly what they are buying". Some of
> these people can get downright testy when we can't show them "their" star.
Did the first name a star business let people have the names of the
naked eye stars until they were all used? That would be at least a
thousand.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Paul Schlyter
> David Knisely wrote:
>>
>> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>>
>>> It's the thought that counts, not the piece of paper and not
>>> whether or not real astronomers will ever use the name. And
>>> it's a nice thought! We shouldn't stomp all over it.
>>>
>>> The vast majority of people know exactly what they are buying:
>>> a piece of paper, nothing more.
>>
>> Well, Greg, I know of more than a few planetarium directors (as
>> well as a number of amateurs manning public observing sessions)
>> who would disagree with you on the "majority of people know exactly
>> what they are buying". Some of these people can get downright
>> testy when we can't show them "their" star.
>
> Did the first name a star business let people have the names of the
> naked eye stars until they were all used? That would be at least a
> thousand.
stars brighter than magnitude 6, which is the most commnly used limit
for naked eye visibility of a star.
It's possible that they first sold names of naked-eye stars, but the
only way to find out would be to examine their records -- if they
keep them that long and if they'd let you see them. But if so, that
was a number of decades ago - presumably in the 1950's or perhaps
early 1960's. In the late 1960's the ISR sold names of 7-8'th
magnitude stars; I know that because my father, who was a teacher,
was then given one such name by some of his pupils. The star map
identifying the star was a xerox copy from a sheet of Becvar's Atlas
Borealis (a likely case of copyright infringement btw).
Today there are at least a dozen competing star name selling
companies, which all sell equally invalid star names. Since they are
competitors, it's unlikely that they cooperate to make sure that no
single star is named more than once. Thus it's highly likely that
these star names aren't merely invalid, but also that there are a
number of stars which have been named more than once, by different
star name selling companies.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://www.stjarnhimlen.se/
http://home.tiscali.se/pausch/
starman
I said at least one thousand naked eye stars because most people don't
have magnitude-6 viewing conditions.
P. Edward Murray
Most of these people do not know what they are doing at all!
More importantly, it is a dishonest practice but dishonesty has
never stopped some from taking the poor or sadly not very intelligent folks.
Greg Crinklaw
This isn't really about crooked star naming companies at all. It's
about us astronomers being less than perfect human beings.
I know this is a very controversial stance and very few astronomers are
going to agree with me (at least publicly).
We have heard tales of poor helpless victims coming into planetariums
around the country only to be told that they have been duped. Not only
is this story somewhat apocryphal, but when it does occur it says far
more about astronomers and their human failings than it does about star
naming companies.
Like so many political issues one's position on this matter begins and
ends with one's basic assumption. If you assume a priori that nobody
has the right to sell star names then you are led down a chain of logic
that ends with the star naming companies taking advantage of large
numbers of innocent stooges. One is left with derision not only for the
star naming companies but for the idiots who fall for their money making
scheme.
But I would like to suggest that there is another way to look at the
practice of selling star names. When an Aunt buys her nephew a star,
why does she do it? Think about it. What motivates people do buy a
star? In this case it's an attempt by the Aunt to recognize a special
interest the nephew has in science and astronomy. It's like buying a
space themed Hallmark card: it says I know who you are are I recognize
what is special about you. It's not really about the star at all. And
who cares if the same star is named after someone else by another
company? That's like saying no two people should ever get the same
Hallmark card. It's missing the whole point.
Similarly, when a person buys a star in the name of a deceased love one,
why do they do it? I suggest that this is commonly done for much the
same reason--to recognize the attachment between the sky and the
deceased person. Maybe the deceased was an accomplished amateur
astronomer, or maybe the giver recalls a special night under the stars
many years before. This star name simply serves as a symbol for these
things.
So are star naming companies evil for fulfilling this symbolic need?
The clear answer is no -- not just by the fact that they sell star
names. If they cross the line, like any company, into false
advertising, then that's another matter. While there have been claims
of false advertising, but when I looked at the material offered by the
largest company with an open mind I saw only the same level of
exaggeration we tolerate in all advertising. Now, I'm not saying that
no company has ever falsely said that astronomers would refer to the
star by name for all eternity: one can always find specific examples to
back up a claim. But let's look at the entirety here. All it takes is
one of these companies to operate above board, promising no more than
the sell, and the status of these companies as scams is a suspect claim.
After all, one person's scam may be another persons thoughtful
memorial. If that is what they are buying, why should we stop them? In
fact, we ought to be selling stars at planetariums as fund raisers, but
this snooty attitude that its a scam has stopped that from happening.
What concerns me the most is what happens in those cases where people
follow their purchased star to a planetarium, star party, or astronomy
club meeting as a means of the beginning their own journey toward a
greater understanding of the universe they inhabit.
I ask everyone here, when confronted with one of these people which is
the best reaction:
(1) Tell them that they have been duped and that the star naming
companies have merely taken their money, accompanied with the usual
doses of disdain and condescension.
(2) Welcome their interest in astronomy, recognize that this star is a
symbol for something important: a connection to a loved one (dear or
deceased) or an attempt to connect to the universe around them. Do our
best to find their star for them (even if it's only on an atlas or
computer program). Keep our attitude positive and keep our trap shut
about the star naming companies being a scam. Because maybe, just
maybe, to these people it's not a scam!
If we choose (1), even if we are perfectly polite and kind there is no
way to get around the fact we are telling them that they have been had
and in doing so we turn something that has been a positive force into
something to be ashamed of. And worst of all, rather than be respectful
of this connection that they are seeking to a loved one or to astronomy,
we stomp all over it! Good for us! After all, we are smarter and we
know better.
Or do we?
David Knisely
> Everything I have read so far on this thread only confirms my belief.
snip.
> We have heard tales of poor helpless victims coming into planetariums around the country only to be told that they have been duped. Not only is this story somewhat apocryphal, but when it does occur it says far more about astronomers and their human failings than it does about star naming companies.
Greg, did you even bother to *read* what I posted? It is *not* apocryphal.
It *does* happen and continues to happen.
> Like so many political issues one's position on this matter begins and ends with one's basic assumption. If you assume a priori that nobody has the right to sell star names then you are led down a chain of logic that ends with the star naming companies taking advantage of large numbers of innocent stooges.
No, I'm afraid you have missed the point. Its not a question of whether some
group does or does not have the "right" to sell star names. Its a point of
people being mislead into *exactly* what they are buying. Many people who buy
these certificates (for whatever reason) are indeed convinced that they are
"official" or sanctioned by some astronomical group. The plain and simple
fact is that they are not considered valid names by most if not all of the
astronomical community. A novelty gift is one thing, but when people believe
that these expensive pieces of parchment are more than what they are, there is
a problem. We try to be helpful. We *gently* tell people the truth so that
they understand what they bought. Its *not* done in a high-brow condescending
way as you seem to feel that it is. When these people find out the truth,
they often react with substantial disappointment or even anger, sometimes
directed at us (especially when the "stars" these people buy can't be found or
seen due to the reasons I provided earlier). This is a problem brought on by
the star naming companies, since they do not exactly trumpet out that what is
being sold has no official recognition. A few years ago, the Astronomical
Society of the Pacific "sold" deeds to land on Mercury to raise money. It was
made obvious to those who bought these "deeds" that what they had done was
contribute money to a worthy cause and had no official validity. The star
naming outfits don't play by these rules. Clear skies to you.
WayneH
<capellas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snipping>
>(2) Welcome their interest in astronomy, recognize that this star is a
>symbol for something important: a connection to a loved one (dear or
>deceased) or an attempt to connect to the universe around them. Do our
>best to find their star for them (even if it's only on an atlas or
>computer program). Keep our attitude positive and keep our trap shut
>about the star naming companies being a scam. Because maybe, just
>maybe, to these people it's not a scam!
Finally, a note of *real* reason in this thread. Thanks, Greg - this
was sorely needed...
Wayne Hoffman
33° 49" 17' N 117° 56" 41' W
"Don't Look Down"
Les Blalock
<capellas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
SNIP...
>I ask everyone here, when confronted with one of these people which is
>the best reaction:
>
>(1) Tell them that they have been duped and that the star naming
>companies have merely taken their money, accompanied with the usual
>doses of disdain and condescension.
>
>(2) Welcome their interest in astronomy, recognize that this star is a
>symbol for something important: a connection to a loved one (dear or
>deceased) or an attempt to connect to the universe around them. Do our
>best to find their star for them (even if it's only on an atlas or
>computer program). Keep our attitude positive and keep our trap shut
>about the star naming companies being a scam. Because maybe, just
>maybe, to these people it's not a scam!
SNIP...
Thanks for that post, Greg. I totally agree with it.
(For some reason I was a little surprised at your position, though.)
In the few times I've had contact with recipients of these
certificates they seemed to be quite aware that there was no official
standing to the certificates. A couple of them even seemed a little
embarrassed to show the certificate to me. But, I sure don't doubt
that there are some people who get angry or emotional when it's
politely pointed out to them that their certificate is bogus.
It's obvious to me that Greg's post will not sway the opinion of
everyone on saa and I really doubt he expects it. I do think though
that his post will cause some to really think about the situation
rather than just continue repeating the popular position. I hope to
read several people's opinions on the matter (rather than seeing the
same person's opinion several times).
In my opinion the insistence upon enlightening these people is a bit
like when the club know-it-all* is always correcting people about
really trivial stuff when the correction probably causes more problems
than the slight inaccuracy.
Many SAA members are dyed-in-the-wool, hardcore and stuffy. Always
have been - always will be. At times I've displayed some of the same
traits. And I *know* Greg has, too. :^) Greg's post, my post, David
K.'s post and all the others will not change the the strongly-held
opinion of anyone. But we do like to have our say, don't we?
Les Blalock
http://www.txastro.com
*that's me in our club
Brian Tung
> Everything I have read so far on this thread only confirms my belief.
> This isn't really about crooked star naming companies at all. It's
> about us astronomers being less than perfect human beings.
Heh heh, there are no perfect human beings. And I do think part of it,
though not all, *is* about crooken star-naming companies.
> We have heard tales of poor helpless victims coming into planetariums
> around the country only to be told that they have been duped. Not only
> is this story somewhat apocryphal, but when it does occur it says far
> more about astronomers and their human failings than it does about star
> naming companies.
I think it's a bit unfair to call them apocryphal--do you contend that
they are made up?--but let's suppose they are.
> Like so many political issues one's position on this matter begins and
> ends with one's basic assumption. If you assume a priori that nobody
> has the right to sell star names then you are led down a chain of logic
> that ends with the star naming companies taking advantage of large
> numbers of innocent stooges. One is left with derision not only for the
> star naming companies but for the idiots who fall for their money making
> scheme.
I don't see that most of the respondents have had derision for the people
who have bought stars. Frustration, perhaps, but not derision (unless
they behave poorly on top of everything else).
> But I would like to suggest that there is another way to look at the
> practice of selling star names. When an Aunt buys her nephew a star,
> why does she do it? Think about it. What motivates people do buy a
> star? In this case it's an attempt by the Aunt to recognize a special
> interest the nephew has in science and astronomy. It's like buying a
> space themed Hallmark card: it says I know who you are are I recognize
> what is special about you. It's not really about the star at all. And
> who cares if the same star is named after someone else by another
> company? That's like saying no two people should ever get the same
> Hallmark card. It's missing the whole point.
It would be missing the whole point if the impression were not given
that the star's name is theirs. When you name something after someone,
don't we assume that it isn't also named after someone else?
For example, the USC Engineering School is now the Viterbi School of
Engineering. Certain references to the school now must make mention of
Viterbi. For USC press releases, this is simple, since USC directly
controls those. But suppose the Los Angeles Times were to offer to you
and me the opportunity, at some cost, to name that School after your
old friend or my pet fish Hoover, and to apparently legitimize that,
mentioned that the names we chose would be recorded in book form in the
U.S. Copyright Office. I think many people would conclude that the name
was unique (if the example I chose weren't so ludicrous, of course).
There are a few posters who would advocate that we immediately tell
people that the star name they bought was not recognized by astronomers
worldwide, that they were misled by the star-naming company. I don't
agree with that, and I think most of the posters here do not, also. I
would do my best to show the star, if it were visible from our latitude
and at that time of year, and would only describe the naming operation
if pressed for it specifically. (I can't quite bring myself to lie
about it.)
> So are star naming companies evil for fulfilling this symbolic need?
> The clear answer is no -- not just by the fact that they sell star
> names. If they cross the line, like any company, into false
> advertising, then that's another matter. While there have been claims
> of false advertising, but when I looked at the material offered by the
> largest company with an open mind I saw only the same level of
> exaggeration we tolerate in all advertising.
I don't appreciate deceptive advertising anywhere. However, I can't say
that I'm terribly active about any of it.
But what I can say is that because I'm more informed about astronomy
and how things work there, I can point to specific misleading points in
star-naming ads, where with many ads I can only give a general notion as
to why I think it's misleading. Why *do* they mention that the names
are recorded in book form in the U.S. Copyright Office, if not to give
the impression that the names are unique and permanent? There are ways
to be deceptive that go beyond simple falsehoods. And the ads have
stated this for some time now, and continue to state it.
> All it takes is
> one of these companies to operate above board, promising no more than
> the sell, and the status of these companies as scams is a suspect claim.
I suspect that because one of the companies has been very aggressive
in pursuing legal action against their critics, the claim has often been
advanced as a general one, when it really is against that particular
company. Note that I've been pretty careful about not referring to that
company in this post.
Craig
I had this happen to me a few weeks ago at an outreach we hosted. A
mother came up to me with her 8 year old son and a certificate for a
star she named for him. Ihey wanted to see it of course.
I looked at the documentation they had and quickly discovered that the
star was below the horizion. I then fired up my laptop and tried to show
him where the star was. I used the following programs, Starry Night pro,
The Sky Level 4 Ver. 5, Cartes Du Ceil, and Skytools 2.1c. Of course the
coodinates they gave were devoid of any stars down to at least 18th mag.
I then took the time to explain to them the following:
1: The naming of a star is a nice gesture, but the name is not
officially recognized outside that naming company, and that companies
often just give coordinates, and that very often the star if there is
one is so faint that we can't see it with telescopes from light polluted
areas.
2: I was about the boy's age when I got into astronomy and it is a
wonderful and fascinating hobby.
3: If we have an out reach when his "Star" is up, we'll at least give
him a look at the part of th sky where it is supposed to be.
In article <107qsfi...@corp.supernews.com>,
capellas...@yahoo.com says...
Craig
some one with all proceeds going to the IDA. I should have put something
in to place. Maybe I still will. Of course I would not misrepresent the
transaction, and I would tell folks that what they are getting is a
piece of paper that they can show their friends, but in a greater
gesture they would be helping to preserve the night sky for future
generations.
I could tolerate these star naming companies if they in fact donated to
the IDA.
In article <IAYec.128020$w54.863953@attbi_s01>, swam...@comcast.net
says...
Alan French
news:kpVec.8158$A_4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I've often thought it would be nice to have a web site where someone could
pick their own star from the visible, naked eye stars, and would allow
printing a nice certificate and finder chart. Yes, many names would become
associated with each star, but it would still be nice for someone to know
that their friends, spouse, or co-workers would think of him or her when
seeing "their" star. It might even be fun to have a voluntary database of
folks who picked each star.
Sue and I picked W Ursae Majoris as "our star" long ago, and it is engraved
in our wedding rings.
The worst thing about the star naming companies is that they are selling
stars most folks can't find, and may well be down to stars that even
experienced amateurs might have trouble pinpointing with certainly. We had
a couple bring a chart to one of our star parties several years ago, and
"their" star was added in pencil. No way to be sure which it was in the
sky.
Clear skies, Alan
jeff findley
>
> For example, the USC Engineering School is now the Viterbi School of
> Engineering. Certain references to the school now must make mention of
> Viterbi. For USC press releases, this is simple, since USC directly
> controls those. But suppose the Los Angeles Times were to offer to you
> and me the opportunity, at some cost, to name that School after your
> old friend or my pet fish Hoover, and to apparently legitimize that,
> mentioned that the names we chose would be recorded in book form in the
> U.S. Copyright Office. I think many people would conclude that the name
> was unique (if the example I chose weren't so ludicrous, of course).
Most people would recognize that this was a scam from the beginning
because clearly the name is not the L.A. Times's to sell. In fact, if
the L.A. Times were to try this, I'll bet that the school would sue
(if at all possible).
> There are a few posters who would advocate that we immediately tell
> people that the star name they bought was not recognized by astronomers
> worldwide, that they were misled by the star-naming company. I don't
> agree with that, and I think most of the posters here do not, also. I
> would do my best to show the star, if it were visible from our latitude
> and at that time of year, and would only describe the naming operation
> if pressed for it specifically. (I can't quite bring myself to lie
> about it.)
These star naming companies talk in such a way as the average person
doesn't realize that it's a scam. It sounds good, and most people are
ignorant about how stars are really named.
> But what I can say is that because I'm more informed about astronomy
> and how things work there, I can point to specific misleading points in
> star-naming ads, where with many ads I can only give a general notion as
> to why I think it's misleading. Why *do* they mention that the names
> are recorded in book form in the U.S. Copyright Office, if not to give
> the impression that the names are unique and permanent? There are ways
> to be deceptive that go beyond simple falsehoods. And the ads have
> stated this for some time now, and continue to state it.
This is clearly true. It's deceptive because they omit the fact that
these names are not recognized by anyone. The copyright recognizes
the book, but it is essentially a book of fiction.
> I suspect that because one of the companies has been very aggressive
> in pursuing legal action against their critics, the claim has often been
> advanced as a general one, when it really is against that particular
> company. Note that I've been pretty careful about not referring to that
> company in this post.
It's still a scam, IMHO. Companies can sue to protect their business,
but this is clearly a dishonest business, because they deceive by
omission of key facts that the public is generally unaware.
When someone brings in the name of "their star" to an observatory and
asks if they can see the star "John Q. Public", named after their
friend or relative, it seems dishonest for the person at the
observatory to pretend like they actually know where "John Q. Public"
is in the sky. At that point, you really have to tell the person that
you're sorry, but you have no earthly clue what star they're talking
about. Once you do that, they'll want to know why, since the name is
registered with the U.S. Government. Telling them it's a scam is
unavoidable at that point.
The alternative, which is sickening, is to point the telescope at a
random star and continue the deception. The continued deception
supports and encourages growth of these star naming companies.
Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.
David Nakamoto
news:tUefc.5939$pk5....@fe03.usenetserver.com...
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> > Everything I have read so far on this thread only confirms my belief.
>
> snip.
>
> > We have heard tales of poor helpless victims coming into planetariums
around the country only to be told that they have been duped. Not only is
this story somewhat apocryphal, but when it does occur it says far more
about astronomers and their human failings than it does about star naming
companies.
>
> Greg, did you even bother to *read* what I posted? It is *not*
apocryphal.
> It *does* happen and continues to happen.
As can I personally attest to, after having experienced it first-hand at
public star parties. And unlike Greg, I don't think that perpetuating a
falsehood does anyone any good. It simply makes possible personal
recommendations by "satisfied customers" for these companies to continue to
do business through personal recommendations, "satisfied" meaning that
really do think it is official.
Dave, you might add that when amateurs and professional astronomers tell the
truth about the naming of these stars, we don't make ONE CENT for ourselves,
quite unlike the star naming companies.
So there you have it Greg, and all others who support what many of these
companies do. Those companies make millions of dollars selling people a
piece of parchment with the understanding that somehow these piece of paper
are official, and the star is indeed named for someone. Astronomers don't
make one cent in telling the truth, and what do we get in return? Sometimes
an angry person who directs that anger to us, even though we didn't sell
them the paper or the lie. And then we have to "defend" what we do.
And don't go telling me how it's cruel to pop the bubble on someone's
belief, when that belief is not only based on a lie, but puts even more
money into the hands of the star naming companies through personal referral.
Go tell the companies that sell this stuff to tell the truth for a change.
Let THEM defend their position.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A man is a god in ruins.
--- Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Tung
> Most people would recognize that this was a scam from the beginning
> because clearly the name is not the L.A. Times's to sell. In fact, if
> the L.A. Times were to try this, I'll bet that the school would sue
> (if at all possible).
They probably would. They have the basis to sue, however, only because
the right to name parts of the school legally belongs to the school.
That is not the case with star names. As far as I know, no one legally
retains naming rights to the stars. The IAU is simply the recognized
authority within the scientific community. Outside that community, you
or I have just as much authority.
That isn't well understood by the public, though. I'm sure that many
of them imagine that there is an organization with legal naming rights
to the stars, and that the registry they're buying the certificate from
either is that organization, or has made arrangements with it. The
registry can take advantage of that perception by playing to it without
out and out lying.
After all, when you purchase a .com domain, many of the same promises
are made. What if I sold you a .com domain on the premise that I would
put your domain in my DNS server, whose own address was registered?
Would it matter if I then removed my DNS server from the network and
put it in my coat closet?
Of course, people don't purchase .com domains for sentiment (at least,
most don't). It's more defensible to tell someone they got screwed in
that fashion--in fact, if they were so duped, it would be the only
responsible thing to do. As Greg states, not so cut and dried with the
star names.
> When someone brings in the name of "their star" to an observatory and
> asks if they can see the star "John Q. Public", named after their
> friend or relative, it seems dishonest for the person at the
> observatory to pretend like they actually know where "John Q. Public"
> is in the sky.
You don't have to pretend that you know where it is. You say, "Could
I see the map/ID/coordinates?" In some cases, disappointing them is
inevitable; I wouldn't show them a star I didn't know was the one they
wanted. But sometimes they also give a GSC name, or a Tycho name.
That's enough, if I happen to have my computer along.
Brian Tung
> So there you have it Greg, and all others who support what many of these
> companies do.
Whoa.
Before Greg says it, I will: I don't think Greg supports the companies.
Even amongst those of us who disapprove of the companies, there's room
for disagreement on what is the best course of action.
Derek Lyons
>Everything I have read so far on this thread only confirms my belief.
>This isn't really about crooked star naming companies at all. It's
>about us astronomers being less than perfect human beings.
<snip addled nonsense>
And your answer is lie and mislead the people who have bought star
names. What a *wonderful* way to convince them of the value of
science.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
Alan Cox
news:kpVec.8158$A_4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> claim you can name a star and get it recorded in their database,
> it's simply a private database not recognized by anyone officially.
> So you'd simply be paying for an expensive certificate and/or a
> book of others who paid, nothing more. In other words, different
> companies reuse/rename the different stars but they are not
> registered for use by the professionals.
I've always been very disappointed with the documentation from
these companies whenever people have shown me their purchases.
I remember some guy who had bought a 20th mag star. I told him it
was a great gesture, but he would need a CCD camera. I said I was
an affiliate of ISR and that I could sell him an 8th mag star and better
documentation on the spot for $50. He gave me the money and I printed
a custom made chart with Starry Night Pro. I later spent the $50 at a
strip club.
Greg Crinklaw
and you clearly didn't read my post. This is why it needed to be said:
because people are so caught up in what amounts to an extreme point of
view that they are incapable of reason regarding the issue.
Unfortunately it is this attitude that is doing far more harm than all
the star naming companies combined. Stop reacting for a minute and try
to see the other point of view!
Greg Crinklaw
main point: what is needed is need a paradigm shift in your point of
view. Try imagining *why* people buy these star names. That's the key
issue as I see it. Why do they do it? Talk to some of them about that.
You may be surprised by the answer. And you may be surprised how
that answer affects the whole house of cards argument that these
companies offer nothing in return for the money.
Greg Crinklaw
My God, what a bizarre and irrational point of view. Not mention
entirely circular logic... But that's what we have here folks. It's
the nature of the beast and it ain't pretty.
Greg Crinklaw
> Damn! A few years ago I came out with the idea of naming a crater for
> some one with all proceeds going to the IDA. I should have put something
> in to place. Maybe I still will. Of course I would not misrepresent the
> transaction, and I would tell folks that what they are getting is a
> piece of paper that they can show their friends, but in a greater
> gesture they would be helping to preserve the night sky for future
> generations.
>
> I could tolerate these star naming companies if they in fact donated to
> the IDA.
Careful... that's a slippery slope. Once you accept the idea that the
basic premise isn't evil by nature, the next thing you know you'll be
ostracizing yourself here like me!
Heck, I'd prefer the IAU to sell the names. That way all their data
products (including the IAU Circulars) would be free to everyone. And
when they claimed they were official, nobody could argue otherwise! :-)
Brian Tung
> I'd like to suggest that the argument you guys are having is way off the
> main point: what is needed is need a paradigm shift in your point of
> view. Try imagining *why* people buy these star names. That's the key
> issue as I see it. Why do they do it? Talk to some of them about that.
Do you honestly think that none of us are doing that? If you want us
to consider your point fairly, consider others fairly too. If your
counterargument is just that "You need a paradigm shift," you'll have
to pardon some people if they find that just a tad condescending.
Greg Crinklaw
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>
>>I'd like to suggest that the argument you guys are having is way off the
>>main point: what is needed is need a paradigm shift in your point of
>>view. Try imagining *why* people buy these star names. That's the key
>>issue as I see it. Why do they do it? Talk to some of them about that.
>
> Do you honestly think that none of us are doing that? If you want us
> to consider your point fairly, consider others fairly too. If your
> counterargument is just that "You need a paradigm shift," you'll have
> to pardon some people if they find that just a tad condescending.
Your response indicates that I must have not have made myself very
clear. Given what I meant to say, your comments come across as
needlessly defensive.
I should know better by now than to repeat myself, but here goes: I was
trying to point out that the root of this argument lies at in the very
first, most basic assumption one makes. To even begin to comprehend
that there may be another valid point of view one must first understand
one's own root assumptions. If one replaces one simple assumption with
another, one is led to a completely different set of conclusions. That
was the paradigm shift that I was speaking of.
Furthermore, I was attempting to point out what I see as the root
question, one that I feel is being ignored by many in favor of
presumptuous suppositions: the motivation of the people who purchase
these star names.
I don't see how one can make a logical argument one way or another until
the motivations of the customers are understood. I believe this is the
key factor because, if the motivations are sincere and the star naming
companies are fulfilling a real need, then the practice simply can't be
as evil and vacuous as people make it out to be.
I gave examples of Aunts and deceased loved ones and the other side just
ignored that as if I'm way off base. I think that speaks volumes and
points directly to where the gulf in thinking lies. Instead of assuming
the practice is a scam as a first assumption, as nearly every astronomer
does, instead try looking at this practice as if one is buying a
Hallmark card. What is Hallmark giving in return? A piece of paper
that isn't even unique! What a ripoff. You see, I don't think this is
about stars at all, it's about sentiment! But unless one allows oneself
to entertain and explore that idea one will never even comprehend the
resulting point of view.
As I pointed out before, if this really is about sentiment then we are
the bad guys, not the star naming companies, because we are the ones who
tread on that sentiment every time we tell people that they have been
had. In short, it's not the customers who don't get it, it's us! How's
that for a paradigm shift! :-)
Greg Crinklaw
> Greg,
>
> I had this happen to me a few weeks ago at an outreach we hosted. A
> mother came up to me with her 8 year old son and a certificate for a
> star she named for him. Ihey wanted to see it of course.
>
> I looked at the documentation they had and quickly discovered that the
> star was below the horizion. I then fired up my laptop and tried to show
> him where the star was. I used the following programs, Starry Night pro,
> The Sky Level 4 Ver. 5, Cartes Du Ceil, and Skytools 2.1c. Of course the
> coodinates they gave were devoid of any stars down to at least 18th mag.
>
> I then took the time to explain to them the following:
>
> 1: The naming of a star is a nice gesture, but the name is not
> officially recognized outside that naming company, and that companies
> often just give coordinates, and that very often the star if there is
> one is so faint that we can't see it with telescopes from light polluted
> areas.
> 2: I was about the boy's age when I got into astronomy and it is a
> wonderful and fascinating hobby.
> 3: If we have an out reach when his "Star" is up, we'll at least give
> him a look at the part of th sky where it is supposed to be.
Nice job Craig. It's so much easier to puff out one's chest and show
how smart you are by telling them they have been had by a scam. As
someone said elsewhere on this thread: just like the club know-it-all.
Maybe we've all been that person at one time or another, but we can
aspire to do better; to do as you did. I hope that we can all at least
agree on that point.
Brian Tung
> > Do you honestly think that none of us are doing that? If you want us
> > to consider your point fairly, consider others fairly too. If your
> > counterargument is just that "You need a paradigm shift," you'll have
> > to pardon some people if they find that just a tad condescending.
>
> Your response indicates that I must have not have made myself very
> clear. Given what I meant to say, your comments come across as
> needlessly defensive.
Well, I'd like to think so, but from your repetition, I don't think
you were unclear. (And gee, thanks for calling my statements as
needlessly defensive. Right back atcha.)
I think that many people--certainly myself--have considered at many
points the motivations for buying a star name. I certainly can appreciate
that many people *do* buy it knowing exactly what they are getting.
These people occasionally still want to know how to find their star in
the sky, and I am perfectly happy to help them.
I don't think your examples of loved ones were ignored so much as (in
my case, anyway) I don't understand what we are supposed to make of
them. That the sentiment of the purchasers is a good one is supposed
to make me think the practice isn't a scam? No--I think the practice
is a scam if it's a scam. I'm glad some people get something out of
it, but that doesn't make me think that the company is catering to
them out of honest service-for-pay. If they were, they wouldn't have
to resort to deceptive advertising.
For example, suppose I were to start selling diamond rings. The hitch
is that the diamonds aren't *quite* genuine. However, I don't actually
come out and say that they're diamond rings. I call them engagement
rings and anniversary rings, and I refer to their exquisite cut and
clarity and color, and of course, their outstanding value. Why, other
competing rings cost three to four times what I'm selling these rings
at. People buy my rings for their loved ones and many people are very
happy about them. In a sense, they've gotten what they wanted.
However, the gems still really aren't diamonds. If someone wants to
insure them and needs to get them appraised first, what should the
appraiser tell them? That the gems really are worth three to four times
their cost? Or that the gems aren't really diamonds but are a very
high-quality simulation? I'm sure you can appreciate that it would be
a very difficult situation for the appraiser.
In this case, because so much money is on the line, the appraiser is
ethically (and probably legally) bound to tell the truth. In that
sense, my analogy is inaccurate. But the point I'm trying to express
in this analogy is that what makes it difficult is that we must weigh
the emotional impact on the consumer against the protection of consumers
against further scams of the same kind, and that is not made any less
difficult by the cost being less. You seem to place greater weight on
the emotional impact on the consumer than others in this thread do.
That's your right, but I don't think it's quite fair (or accurate) to
suggest that a paradigm shift will "do the trick" for those who disagree.
I read your Hallmark card analogy, but I also think that is inaccurate.
It's true that the Hallmark card is simply a piece of paper that isn't
even unique, but as far as I can tell, Hallmark doesn't attempt to
convince you otherwise. Those cards are placed in piles of identical
cards. Whereas some of these registries go to some length to convince
you that you are getting the "right" to name a particular star. If it
were like Hallmark, everyone should get a bright star. It would then
be obvious that the star names weren't unique, and many people would
have far less problem with the registry than they do now.
> As I pointed out before, if this really is about sentiment then we are
> the bad guys, not the star naming companies, because we are the ones who
> tread on that sentiment every time we tell people that they have been
> had. In short, it's not the customers who don't get it, it's us! How's
> that for a paradigm shift! :-)
Even granting that it is about the thought, rather than the action, I
still disagree, because the star naming company creates the conflict
that puts us in the difficult position of deciding whether to tell the
truth, or to lie (if only by omission) and protect their feelings. By
that train of thought, what the star naming companies do to mislead
consumers *is* relevant, because that makes it more likely that someone
will do something they don't want. Yes, for many people the sentiment
is the main thing, but for some, at least, it isn't, and they wouldn't
spend their money if all they were getting was the stellar equivalent
of a Hallmark card. You may disagree, that's fine, but I don't think
any paradigm shift will create agreement out of thin air.
I'm sorry to say, my opinion is that there are certain disputes that are
not just a matter of someone not seeing things "the other way." Sometimes
disagreements are just disagreements. In those cases, I don't think we
should tell others that they need a paradigm shift. Personally, I'm not
upset because I don't really care that much what you think I need <g>,
but some people do seem upset, and it seemed that you were misinterpreting
the reason for that. In that case, you're right, repeating yourself will
only put oil on the fire.
Brian Tung
> Nice job Craig. It's so much easier to puff out one's chest and show
> how smart you are by telling them they have been had by a scam. As
> someone said elsewhere on this thread: just like the club know-it-all.
I don't think that's a very nice thing to say to someone who merely
disagrees about the right course of action. Your point--that it can
hurt someone to be told they've been had--is a valid one to consider,
without being accompanied by name-calling.
Honestly, Greg, not trying to play netcop, but it does seem unfair.
David Knisely
> Stop reacting for a minute and try to see the other point of view!
I do see that point, but I'm afraid that it is you who are over reacting (as
well as not really reading the replies you are getting). You are the one
concluding that its some sort of "snooty attitude" that prevents us from
selling starnames. We don't do it because we know the truth about star names
in the science of Astronomy, and we choose to follow that convention. As
novelty item, fine, go ahead, its ok to "buy" the star (as long as the person
understands the lack of "officiality" in the star name, which it is clear that
not everyone does). However, any wording or "claims" hinting of some official
nature to the name (like the misleading "registered in the U.S. copyright
office") is a questionable tactic at best.
I never said that it would be best to shut these people down and sneer at
those who purchase these parchments; only that we sometimes have problems with
the people who get these alleged "star names" and mistakenly think they are
astronomically valid. Again, there are far better ways of remembering someone
than spending $50 or more on what is basically a cheap piece of parchment. A
monetary gift to a charitable organization (American Cancer Society, American
Heart Association, ect.) in memory of one who has passed-on is better. A book
donated to a local library in memory of someone is better. A fine dinner or a
movie for a spouse is better. A book on the stars for someone who is
interested in them is better. *All* of these things and more are better and
they do *not* promise something which isn't exactly true. It would be far
better for those people who are considering a star-name purchase to pick a
star at random *that they can see for themselves*, have someone make up a nice
certificate on a computer for the star name or "dedication" and then give it
to someone. It would have just as much validity (or lack thereof) as the
expensive piece of paper which some of these outlets provide, and would
probably mean more to the recipient, since the giver would have gone to all
the trouble of finding the star and making the certificate without merely
paying someone $50 just to save themselves the trouble.
We can welcome people into the experience the heavens provides, and
nuture their interest, but it would be dishonest to not tell those who
purchase their pieces of paper that the name is not recognized in Astronomy.
Brian Tung
> Even granting that it is about the thought, rather than the action, I
> still disagree, because the star naming company creates the conflict
> that puts us in the difficult position of deciding whether to tell the
> truth, or to lie (if only by omission) and protect their feelings. By
> that train of thought, what the star naming companies do to mislead
> consumers *is* relevant, because that makes it more likely that someone
> will do something they don't want. Yes, for many people the sentiment
> is the main thing, but for some, at least, it isn't, and they wouldn't
> spend their money if all they were getting was the stellar equivalent
> of a Hallmark card. You may disagree, that's fine, but I don't think
> any paradigm shift will create agreement out of thin air.
By the way, one reason why I think the decision *is* so difficult is
that there are plenty of times when one is ethically compelled to tell
the truth, even when it will hurt the person you're telling. Is this
one of those times? Maybe yes, maybe no, but the vehement disagreement
is simply a reflection that it is a difficult decision. If it weren't,
this thread would have been over a long time ago.
Brian Tung
> We can welcome people into the experience the heavens provides, and
> nuture their interest, but it would be dishonest to not tell those who
> purchase their pieces of paper that the name is not recognized in Astronomy.
Yes, but (he says, with a deep sigh) it is precisely Greg's point that
complete and utter honesty isn't always the best policy. I'm not sure
that I necessarily agree in this particular case, but to couch the
decision to "reveal all" in the name of honesty is to miss Greg's point
just as much as you contend he has missed yours.
It isn't that simple. Instead, one must weigh the relative worths of
honesty and compassion. <sarcasm> Gee, easy decision there. </sarcasm>
Lauri Uusitalo
> It isn't that simple. Instead, one must weigh the relative worths of
> honesty and compassion. <sarcasm> Gee, easy decision there. </sarcasm>
I wonder how troubled they would be after the fact has been revealed?
Two minutes of confusion, and then life goes on? You do not have to tell
them they are idiots, but you can sure give them the look (insert
rolling of the eyes here).
disclaimer: I have to admit I am not the most compassionate person.
--
Lauri
Brian Tung
> I wonder how troubled they would be after the fact has been revealed?
> Two minutes of confusion, and then life goes on? You do not have to tell
> them they are idiots, but you can sure give them the look (insert
> rolling of the eyes here).
>
> disclaimer: I have to admit I am not the most compassionate person.
Apparently not! I must admit I don't have the heart to give them the
ol' eye roll. I might even go so far as to observe the "don't ask,
don't tell" rule, but that's it.
Paul Schlyter
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>>
>> In article <407CC2C7...@tech.net>, starman <sta...@tech.net> wrote:
>>
..................
>>> Did the first name a star business let people have the names of the
>>> naked eye stars until they were all used? That would be at least a
>>> thousand.
>>
>> That would be about six thousand, since there are about six thousand
>> stars brighter than magnitude 6, which is the most commnly used limit
>> for naked eye visibility of a star.
..................
> I said at least one thousand naked eye stars because most people don't
> have magnitude-6 viewing conditions.
Dunno about that .... there are an awful lot of people living in what
we would consider rural or near-rural areas in China and India, the
two most populated countries of the world. And even the cities there
are lit up much less than the cities of the US, Europe and Japan.
But if you, when saying "most people", mean "most people in urban
areas of the US, Europe and Japan", then I don't think these people
even see 1000 stars in the sky, since that would require a naked-eye
magnitude limit of about 5, and most urban areas in those regions
are unable to provide that.
Nevertheless, six thousand stars _is_ "at least a thousand stars".
And it doesn't matter much here if we say one thousand or six
thousand - either one is much less than the number of people wanting
to buy those fake star names.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://www.stjarnhimlen.se/
http://home.tiscali.se/pausch/
Lauri Uusitalo
> Lauri Uusitalo wrote:
>>disclaimer: I have to admit I am not the most compassionate person.
>
> Apparently not! I must admit I don't have the heart to give them the
> ol' eye roll. I might even go so far as to observe the "don't ask,
> don't tell" rule, but that's it.
Alright, I found my soft spot... perhaps if it is an old lady I might
give her my understanding look.
--
Lauri
Kilolani
news:107rv7o...@corp.supernews.com...
> I'd like to suggest that the argument you guys are having is way off the
> main point: what is needed is need a paradigm shift in your point of
> view. Try imagining *why* people buy these star names. That's the key
> issue as I see it. Why do they do it? Talk to some of them about that.
> You may be surprised by the answer. And you may be surprised how
> that answer affects the whole house of cards argument that these
> companies offer nothing in return for the money.
I think that most of us realize *why* people buy these star names, and most
of us are appropriately sympathetic with grieving persons who want to see
their loved one's "star." The main point I have seen in opposition, and
with which I agree, is that these companies do not, in fact, offer a
reasonable value for the money.
Kilolani
news:d3fe134f.04041...@posting.google.com...
Now there's an inspirational story for you... *NOT*
David Knisely
> Yes, but (he says, with a deep sigh) it is precisely Greg's point that
> complete and utter honesty isn't always the best policy.
No one said that it was. Compassion is the first thing to consider when
looking at the issue, but only in the *way* you explain the truth behind star
naming (we do it low-key with a simple handout and little comment one way or
the other). I prefer to be at least somewhat honest about the facts of star
naming, as that is the scientific philosophy. We might try to show them their
star *if* we have time, but most often, we just can't do this on a routine
basis. However, what do you do when someone comes up to you at the telescope
and hands you a piece of paper with vague coordinates asking to see "their
star", when its not possible for you to do this? What do you say when they
get mad at you or tell others that "That darn old observatory won't show me MY
star!"? I won't call anyone a fool for buying one of these parchments, but
I'm afraid that I just can't bring myself to hide the truth from them either.
It would be better to have some sort of program in place (and an
*inexpensive* one) which would allow people to see a star or select one, and
then, if they wish, dedicate it to a person or to themselves on the date of
their visit via a nice certificate. The certificate could contain information
about the star and a dedication name with some tastful wording like a poem.
This would kill two birds with one stone. The star would not be "named"
exactly, but the program would serve a purpose similar to that of the
star-naming outfits, as well as providing education to those who feel the need
to consider the stars in the first place. Clear skies to you.
Les Blalock
wrote:
>No one said that it was. Compassion is the first thing to consider when
>looking at the issue, but only in the *way* you explain the truth behind star
>naming (we do it low-key with a simple handout and little comment one way or
>the other). I prefer to be at least somewhat honest about the facts of star
Your points about 'Compassion' and 'the *way* you explain' convince me
that your intentions are good. And it seems everyone posting on the
subject has good intentions. I still wonder about the people skills
of some in this group, though.
It's really interesting to note how I perceive the personalities of
members of SAA... Just when I think I know 'em, they post something
to change my mind again. (And this is not directed at you, David -
it's just a general statement about SAA.)
I still think I'd enjoy observing with Marty. Come on down for TSP,
Marty. I bet you're warped just enough to fit in my group just fine.
Les Blalock
http://www.txastro.com
Greg Crinklaw
I'm sorry David, but your earlier responses to my specific comments
seemed rather like non-sequitors. It is clear that if you did read what
I wrote then it was grossly misinterpreted. Not only that, but you have
ignored the bulk of what was said in favor of taking issue with a few
specific items, all the while ignoring the main thrust of the argument
that I made. That is a debate tactic that I don't wish to respond to
because in my experience that sort of debate is a huge waste of time
because neither side listens to the other.
I assure you I have read and understood everything you have said and I
respect your point of view.
Greg Crinklaw
> And don't go telling me how it's cruel to pop the bubble on someone's
> belief, when that belief is not only based on a lie, but puts even more
> money into the hands of the star naming companies through personal referral.
> Go tell the companies that sell this stuff to tell the truth for a change.
> Let THEM defend their position.
What you may be missing is it is only a lie in your world, not theirs.
Try to see it from their point of view, not yours. I'll resist
restating what I think of anybody who'd burst peoples bubbles, as I
think I already made that quite clear.
Disliking the practice is one thing, but needlessly hurting peoples
feelings and ruining a chance at a lifelong interest in astronomy is
quite another.
Greg Crinklaw
> Yes, but (he says, with a deep sigh) it is precisely Greg's point that
> complete and utter honesty isn't always the best policy. I'm not sure
> that I necessarily agree in this particular case, but to couch the
> decision to "reveal all" in the name of honesty is to miss Greg's point
> just as much as you contend he has missed yours.
Actually, that's not my point at all. I'm saying something much more
radical than that! :-) I'm saying that these pieces of paper are mere
symbols of a sentiment, like a greeting card, and we astronomers take
them (and ourselves) far too seriously.
I contend that most the people who buy star names are getting what
*they* are paying for. That's not to say you or I would find any worth
in it, but it is disrespectful to them to claim they have simply been
duped, when in fact buying a star for sentimental reasons is a real and
meaningful service. And if you look at the practice as an expression of
sentimentality rather than simply a money-making scheme, all the
arguments about the names not being official or used multiply become
absolutely meaningless.
If we don't like the people this money is going to then let's do
something about that: create a free service to name stars or use this
method to support public projects such as planetaria or even the IAU.
-
Greg Crinklaw
> It would be better to have some sort of program in place (and an
> *inexpensive* one) which would allow people to see a star or select one,
> and then, if they wish, dedicate it to a person or to themselves on the
> date of their visit via a nice certificate. The certificate could
> contain information about the star and a dedication name with some
> tastful wording like a poem. This would kill two birds with one stone.
> The star would not be "named" exactly, but the program would serve a
> purpose similar to that of the star-naming outfits, as well as providing
> education to those who feel the need to consider the stars in the first
> place. Clear skies to you.
I agree completely.
But I ask this rhetorically: assuming a star naming company was above
board, what really is the difference?
Greg Crinklaw
> For example, suppose I were to start selling diamond rings. The hitch
> is that the diamonds aren't *quite* genuine. However, I don't actually
> come out and say that they're diamond rings. I call them engagement
> rings and anniversary rings, and I refer to their exquisite cut and
> clarity and color, and of course, their outstanding value. Why, other
> competing rings cost three to four times what I'm selling these rings
> at. People buy my rings for their loved ones and many people are very
> happy about them. In a sense, they've gotten what they wanted.
Maybe looking at this example can help explain where I'm coming from on
this. I claim that they aren't selling anything real at all (like a
diamond), but a piece of paper that has no meaning beyond simple
sentiment -- more like a Hallmark card.
If people are buying sentiment and not stars, then the question of
whether or not the stars are "real" is quite moot...
Brian Tung
> Actually, that's not my point at all. I'm saying something much more
> radical than that! :-) I'm saying that these pieces of paper are mere
> symbols of a sentiment, like a greeting card, and we astronomers take
> them (and ourselves) far too seriously.
Huh! I don't find that radical at all. Maybe that's because I couldn't
care less about the piece of paper on its own. If it were *marketed*
like a greeting card, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. I agree,
it *is* like a greeting card--except for how it's presented.
> I contend that most the people who buy star names are getting what
> *they* are paying for.
I asked you about this early in the thread, but you might have missed
it in the hubbub: Do you have a quantitative basis for this "most"
claim? In my own experience, it seems pretty evenly split.
I don't think we're *that* far apart. In most of the cases that I tell
people the truth, it is they who first indicated by their words and
actions that they clearly expected uniqueness, and are *already* upset
that it isn't unique. I'm sorry, but if someone is going to blame *me*
for what is really the registry's fault, I'm going to explain what is
really going on.
> If we don't like the people this money is going to then let's do
> something about that: create a free service to name stars or use this
> method to support public projects such as planetaria or even the IAU.
That is in fact done for a number of planetariums. A few people have
talked about doing a free service, but it does cost *something* in
printer ink, paper, and time to produce the certificates. I think
charging a few dollars would be reasonable.
Greg Crinklaw
Well, that's probably quite true from our point of view. But the value
of their service is mostly set by how much people are willing to pay for
it. So the question then becomes, how do we treat someone who decided
that the piece of paper is worth the money? We universally assume that,
because we don't see the value in it, these people are ignorant and have
been taken. But I'm suggesting that we have a little more respect for
them than that. I'm suggesting that in their lives this piece of paper
has value--sentimental or entertainment value--at least until one of us
comes along bursts their bubble. When it comes to sentimentality it's
all in their heads... the line between that being based on a "lie" and
being based on something meaningful to them may not be apparent to us,
but it may nonetheless be there. By telling them our opinion that this
is a scam, based on or different point of view, it is we are stripping
the item of the value it had to the person. And I think we should think
twice before doing that.
David Knisely
> But I ask this rhetorically: assuming a star naming company was above board, what really is the difference?
Well, for one thing, the person is actually selecting the star and, if
conditions are good, might actually be able to view it. This involves a
person more directly than just sending off for any old star in the sky
(especially one which is not ever above the horizon as is now happening for
some who "buy" stars in the northern hemisphere). At least then, someone
might have a chance to look up into the sky (or use binoculars, as we could
set a lower magnitude limit) and say, "See that star up there? I dedicated it
to (insert loved one's name) after they passed away last year." Clear skies
Sander Vesik
>
> I should know better by now than to repeat myself, but here goes: I was
> trying to point out that the root of this argument lies at in the very
> first, most basic assumption one makes. To even begin to comprehend
> that there may be another valid point of view one must first understand
> one's own root assumptions. If one replaces one simple assumption with
> another, one is led to a completely different set of conclusions. That
> was the paradigm shift that I was speaking of.
Fine. You are now renamed 'Eddy', to memorialise my long deceased Guinea
Pig who is dearly missed. I bougth the right to rename you after my Guinea Pig
from no less than *five* different companies. You shall from now on
discontinue naming yourself either 'Greg' or 'Crinklaw' or for that matter
anything else but 'Eddy'.
You just have to adjust your simple assumption that companies cannot
be selling your identity - in your awareness or not - to be renamed so
that people can comemorate their passed on pets.
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Greg Crinklaw
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>
>>Nice job Craig. It's so much easier to puff out one's chest and show
>>how smart you are by telling them they have been had by a scam. As
>>someone said elsewhere on this thread: just like the club know-it-all.
>
> I don't think that's a very nice thing to say to someone who merely
> disagrees about the right course of action. Your point--that it can
> hurt someone to be told they've been had--is a valid one to consider,
> without being accompanied by name-calling.
>
> Honestly, Greg, not trying to play netcop, but it does seem unfair.
Brian, I just don't get your responses on this thread. You seem to be
more interested in me than in the topic. I mean, really Brian, I expect
better from you.
POINT: It's not always about you or others responding to this thread.
This isn't personal. My comment should not have been construed as some
sort of dig against anyone. Just take what I say at face value please
and PLEASE don't cut out one ot two sentences from a paragraph and
respond to it as if the rest was never said. To do so is a much more
concrete example of being unfair than what you presume to have read
between the lines...
Thanks,
Greg
Greg Crinklaw
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>
>> But I ask this rhetorically: assuming a star naming company was above
>> board, what really is the difference?
>
>
> Well, for one thing, the person is actually selecting the star and, if
> conditions are good, might actually be able to view it. This involves a
> person more directly than just sending off for any old star in the sky
> (especially one which is not ever above the horizon as is now happening
> for some who "buy" stars in the northern hemisphere). At least then,
> someone might have a chance to look up into the sky (or use binoculars,
> as we could set a lower magnitude limit) and say, "See that star up
> there? I dedicated it to (insert loved one's name) after they passed
> away last year." Clear skies to you.
I think it's a terrific idea!
And just think of the money we could make!
:-) Just kidding.
Jeff Polston
> I contend that most the people who buy star names are getting what
> *they* are paying for.
I don't. If they could go out with the stuff provided by these companies
and actually find and SEE their star, then I might agree. But the people
that have come to me have had 9th magnitude stars. I just help them out
without offering comment on the validity unless it comes up somehow, or they
ask me. Then I comment with consideration of their feelings and why they
"purchased" the star.
There is no reason for people to have stars that are below naked eye level.
Sure there will be duplicates, but since other companies are doing the same,
the duplicates probably already exist. And since there is nothing official
about it, there shouldn't be that much concern for duplicates. Unless of
course, your friend across the street happens to get the same star. :)
Jeff
http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo
Sander Vesik
s/reasonable value for money/have somehow avoided scambusters so far/
Precicely how are they different from people who solicit investments into
their "buinesses" that are based on bogus patents?
Craig
naming a star after her (She is well aware of the true nature of the
Star naming companies). So I promised to print out a certificate, Star
chart and Astronomical information about "her" star. She wants a bright
star in the summer months, so I chose Vega.Now all I have to do is come
up with a good certificate design. I won't even charge her $50.00. <G>
In article <Kgqfc.6933$pk5....@fe03.usenetserver.com>, ka0...@navix.net
says...
Greg Crinklaw
I am sorry, but your logic doesn't really follow. Hopefully, you are
joking. Or do you think the stars give a damn who names them?
Greg Crinklaw
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>
>>Actually, that's not my point at all. I'm saying something much more
>>radical than that! :-) I'm saying that these pieces of paper are mere
>>symbols of a sentiment, like a greeting card, and we astronomers take
>>them (and ourselves) far too seriously.
>
> Huh! I don't find that radical at all. Maybe that's because I couldn't
> care less about the piece of paper on its own. If it were *marketed*
> like a greeting card, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. I agree,
> it *is* like a greeting card--except for how it's presented.
Please cite specific marketing examples and site specific companies.
One thing common to the anti-star naming crowd is to lump them all
together... Generalizations don't help much. Let's see some specifics.
>>I contend that most the people who buy star names are getting what
>>*they* are paying for.
>
> I asked you about this early in the thread, but you might have missed
> it in the hubbub: Do you have a quantitative basis for this "most"
> claim? In my own experience, it seems pretty evenly split.
It's just my experience, like yours. I haven't done a marketing survey! :-)
> I don't think we're *that* far apart. In most of the cases that I tell
> people the truth, it is they who first indicated by their words and
> actions that they clearly expected uniqueness, and are *already* upset
> that it isn't unique. I'm sorry, but if someone is going to blame *me*
> for what is really the registry's fault, I'm going to explain what is
> really going on.
Are you sure about that? In my experience it's the attitude copped by
the person who tells them it's a scam that turns people off. Even if we
don't come right out and say it, or if we state it nicely, it is
difficult to hide the disapproval (and often righteous indignation!)
Unless we accept these things as "greeting cards" and shed our own bias,
how can our attitude not affect them? Someone claimed I was supporting
lying: I'm not. I'm supporting being more understanding and forgiving
of the practice.
> That is in fact done for a number of planetariums. A few people have
> talked about doing a free service, but it does cost *something* in
> printer ink, paper, and time to produce the certificates. I think
> charging a few dollars would be reasonable.
A free service would be web based; people would supply their own ink and
paper. If someone wishes to create such a web-based solution I will be
happy to give it a home at my web site.
--
Matt
clueless when it comes to maters of the heart....
I "bought" a star for my wife many years ago knowing full well the
reality of the "naming convention." She loved(s) it. She hung the
certificate on her wall proudly (its quite elegent). That was 4 years
ago. Every now and then she looks at it and it reminds her of the
Valentines Day that I gave her. She feels amorous, and well, the rest
is between her and I...
I'm telling you it was the best $30 I ever spent. Hehehe
Matt
Rand Simberg
msimmo...@yahoo.com (Matt) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>This whole topic just adds credibilty to the stigma that we geeks are
>clueless when it comes to maters of the heart....
Or matters of economics. Value is whatever people take it to be. Do
these same people think that pet rocks were a rip off?
Craig
into this hobby 30 some odd years ago, I did not know about astronomy
clubs, I really had no one to turn to for information, advise, support.
Oh sure my parents humored me and would come out on occasion to see what
I was looking at, but neither of them had an interest in science, and
they probably didn't see much of anything in the eyepeice of my 60mm
refractor. If I had a chance to talk with others of similar interest,
who knows where I would have ended up. So part of the reason I am so
involved with OCA's outreach program is so I can give the encouragement,
or fan the embers of interest in a youngster who may not know that there
are others with the same interest.
In article <107s91q...@corp.supernews.com>,
capellas...@yahoo.com says...
<SNIP>
> Nice job Craig. It's so much easier to puff out one's chest and show
> how smart you are by telling them they have been had by a scam. As
> someone said elsewhere on this thread: just like the club know-it-all.
> Maybe we've all been that person at one time or another, but we can
> aspire to do better; to do as you did. I hope that we can all at least
> agree on that point.
>
>
Greg Crinklaw
> Thanks for the compliment Greg. I look at it like this; when I first got
> into this hobby 30 some odd years ago, I did not know about astronomy
> clubs, I really had no one to turn to for information, advise, support.
> Oh sure my parents humored me and would come out on occasion to see what
> I was looking at, but neither of them had an interest in science, and
> they probably didn't see much of anything in the eyepeice of my 60mm
> refractor. If I had a chance to talk with others of similar interest,
> who knows where I would have ended up. So part of the reason I am so
> involved with OCA's outreach program is so I can give the encouragement,
> or fan the embers of interest in a youngster who may not know that there
> are others with the same interest.
The older we get (and we keep getting older, don't we...) the more
difficult it is to remember ourselves as absolute beginners. Sometimes
I think I should keep a picture of my first beat-up Tasco on my office
wall...
Brian Tung
> Please cite specific marketing examples and site specific companies.
> One thing common to the anti-star naming crowd is to lump them all
> together... Generalizations don't help much. Let's see some specifics.
I don't wish to cite the specific company in question on SAA, because
they have proven to be unreasonably aggressive in pursuing legal action
against their critics (even when those critics have been substantially
correct). I'll send it to you (and any other interested parties) via
e-mail, though.
> It's just my experience, like yours. I haven't done a marketing survey! :-)
Fair enough. And just as I think our experiences differ, so do our
conclusions. I don't think our conclusions are different only because
we have different values (although that might also be a factor).
> Are you sure about that? In my experience it's the attitude copped by
> the person who tells them it's a scam that turns people off.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I am pretty careful about not
"copping" any attitude until the other person starts. Here's an exchange
from one of the less polite customers:
(after some discussion during which he gets the impression I
know what I'm doing)
"Hey, can you show me my star with that thing?"
"I'll do what I can. What star is it?"
"I bought it for my girlfriend. It's <insert purchased name here>."
"Do you have a certificate for this? I can't find it based on that
name, I'm afraid."
"Hey, I thought you could find stars with this thing." (Inside,
I'm thinking, my name is not "Hey" and my telescope is not "that
thing," but I've taken my meds and I'm keeping control.)
"You know, I can't find it unless I have the coordinates and some
other information about the star."
"Geez, you guys are weak." (I'm not making this up.)
At that point, I must admit, I gave up. I told him, politely but
straightforwardly, the real deal about his supposed star. I don't know
that he was necessarily any happier, but he didn't seem any unhappier
overall, and he was certainly less impolite to *me*. I'll be darned if
I'm going to let some biff take his anger out on me, if I can deflect
it toward the real culprit.
With people who are more polite but also more inquisitive, I'm afraid I
can't just make something up when they ask, "So, do you look these stars
up by the name we bought?" They genuinely want to know how astronomers
do it. (In the dark, obviously.) They ask directly, "What did I get
for this?" Like many others, I can't bring myself to lie, and my general
impression is that they are not *terribly* upset. It could be that this
is L.A., people generally have decent amounts of disposable income, and
it's only $50. Yes, they feel used, but they don't feel terribly crummy
about it, as they would if they were swindled by a fake diamond ring
company for thousands of dollars.
Nonetheless, I still disapprove of what this company does. Knowing that
some consumers (but not all) get what they wanted does not ameliorate
that.
> Even if we
> don't come right out and say it, or if we state it nicely, it is
> difficult to hide the disapproval (and often righteous indignation!)
Oh, once I'm forced to say it, I don't hide my disapproval. I try not
to show righteous indignation, though. My disapproval is sincere; I
don't think this company is doing right.
> Unless we accept these things as "greeting cards" and shed our own bias,
> how can our attitude not affect them?
I've already explained multiple times why I don't feel I can accept the
greetings cards analogy. It doesn't help me feel like it's OK to lie,
or to accept what the company is doing, because I don't think it is
behaving above board the way Hallmark does.
I don't believe, incidentally, that your position is any freer of bias
than mine is. It's simply another bias. Despite my posts on my
reasoning, I have to admit I'm just human, and to be honest, I approach
each instance on a case-by-case basis. I don't have a good hard rule
for how I would deal with all cases, except to trust my own conscience.
> Someone claimed I was supporting
> lying: I'm not. I'm supporting being more understanding and forgiving
> of the practice.
Of the practice of buying, yes. Of the practice of selling, only if it
is done completely honestly, as some companies do, but not all.
Brian Tung
> Or matters of economics. Value is whatever people take it to be. Do
> these same people think that pet rocks were a rip off?
I'm old enough to remember pet rocks in the local mall, but not old
enough to remember how they were marketed. Was the advertising deceptive
in any way?
In retrospect, I suspect many people feel they were a rip-off, but an
inexpensive enough one not to worry about.
Brian Tung
> I don't think that's a very nice thing to say to someone who merely
> disagrees about the right course of action. Your point--that it can
> hurt someone to be told they've been had--is a valid one to consider,
> without being accompanied by name-calling.
Greg has pointed out that I have completely misinterpreted his remarks.
It is true--I did, absolutely, misinterpret them, and the fault is
entirely mine. He was not unclear. I apologize to Greg for calling
him on those remarks, as it was totally unwarranted.
Even Homer nods--but not as often, I'm afraid, as I do.
Rand Simberg
br...@isi.edu (Brian Tung) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>> Or matters of economics. Value is whatever people take it to be. Do
>> these same people think that pet rocks were a rip off?
>
>I'm old enough to remember pet rocks in the local mall, but not old
>enough to remember how they were marketed.
They were marketed as pet rocks. They came with a little brochure
describing how to care for them, feed them, and teach them to do
tricks.
>Was the advertising deceptive in any way?
Perhaps to morons.
>In retrospect, I suspect many people feel they were a rip-off, but an
>inexpensive enough one not to worry about.
No, the people who thought they were a rip-off (like me) didn't
purchase them, but I recognize that they clearly had value to many
people. I suspect that most people who did purchase them thought they
were a gag, and I suspect that many more were purchased as gifts than
for oneself.
Brian Tung
> No, the people who thought they were a rip-off (like me) didn't
> purchase them, but I recognize that they clearly had value to many
> people. I suspect that most people who did purchase them thought they
> were a gag, and I suspect that many more were purchased as gifts than
> for oneself.
Hmm. I thought they were faddish enough to lure consumers that wouldn't
have bought them otherwise, and would later regret their purchase. Do
you remember how much they cost, by any chance? This would have been
as late as the early 1970s, wouldn't it?
Rand Simberg
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>> No, the people who thought they were a rip-off (like me) didn't
>> purchase them, but I recognize that they clearly had value to many
>> people. I suspect that most people who did purchase them thought they
>> were a gag, and I suspect that many more were purchased as gifts than
>> for oneself.
>
>Hmm. I thought they were faddish enough to lure consumers that wouldn't
>have bought them otherwise, and would later regret their purchase. Do
>you remember how much they cost, by any chance? This would have been
>as late as the early 1970s, wouldn't it?
Mid to late seventies. They were four or five bucks, IIRC.
Darren Bly
> Brian Miller wrote:
>
This is a *symbol* not a real
> thing, just like buying flowers or a Hallmark card. It's the thought
> that counts, not the piece of paper and not whether or not real
> astronomers will ever use the name. And it's a nice thought! We
> shouldn't stomp all over it.
>
>
I do 15 or 20 school star parties a year plus 3 or 4 public star
parties and at EACH I get at least one person who wants me to "show
them their star". After reading Gregs post I've come a conclusion:
It's only those that believe it's real that come to star parties
wanting to see their star.
You compare buying flowers or cards to buying a star, the problem is
flowers and cards ARE symbols and everyone knows it. The Ads for
buying a star don't make that claim; in fact they go out of their way
to make your purchase SEEM official.
Darren in Bakersfield
Greg Crinklaw
I think that's overstated. Certainly being as "official" sounding as
possible is important in their business, as there is nothing at all to
keep just anybody from selling these things. But I think it's a mistake
to presume that is the entire point of what they are selling.
And I'd add, anything that gets people to come to your star party is a
*good* thing. I really think we need to lighten up on this. Being so
down on it isn't doing anyone any good as far as I can see.
Greg Crinklaw
> I (Brian Tung) wrote to Greg Crinklaw:
>
>>I don't think that's a very nice thing to say to someone who merely
>>disagrees about the right course of action. Your point--that it can
>>hurt someone to be told they've been had--is a valid one to consider,
>>without being accompanied by name-calling.
>
>
> Greg has pointed out that I have completely misinterpreted his remarks.
> It is true--I did, absolutely, misinterpret them, and the fault is
> entirely mine. He was not unclear. I apologize to Greg for calling
> him on those remarks, as it was totally unwarranted.
Not a biggie Brian. I made remarks in my response to you not realizing
you had misunderstood me. So we *both* made remarks based on a
misinterpretation. Doh!
starman
>
> Rand Simberg wrote:
> > No, the people who thought they were a rip-off (like me) didn't
> > purchase them, but I recognize that they clearly had value to many
> > people. I suspect that most people who did purchase them thought they
> > were a gag, and I suspect that many more were purchased as gifts than
> > for oneself.
>
> Hmm. I thought they were faddish enough to lure consumers that wouldn't
> have bought them otherwise, and would later regret their purchase. Do
> you remember how much they cost, by any chance? This would have been
> as late as the early 1970s, wouldn't it?
This reminds me of mood rings. They had a 'stone' that supposedly
changed color to indicate the wearer's mood. The stone was actually made
with a chemical that responded to the temperature of the person's
finger. It was just a thermometer of sorts. I don't recall the
manufacturer disclosing that fact. I suppose they could have argued that
the wearer's temperature was related to their mood. The chemical
principle of the mood ring has since been used in many useful ways. One
of them is an adhesive patch that can show if an object like an engine,
has reached a certain temperature, based on the color of the patch.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Paul Blay
> Rand Simberg wrote:
> > Or matters of economics. Value is whatever people take it to be. Do
> > these same people think that pet rocks were a rip off?
>
> I'm old enough to remember pet rocks in the local mall, but not old
> enough to remember how they were marketed. Was the advertising deceptive
> in any way?
>
> In retrospect, I suspect many people feel they were a rip-off, but an
> inexpensive enough one not to worry about.
Meh, I'd rather get a mobius mug or an origami boulder.
Paul Blay
> Brian Tung wrote:
> >
> > Huh! I don't find that radical at all. Maybe that's because I couldn't
> > care less about the piece of paper on its own. If it were *marketed*
> > like a greeting card, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. I agree,
> > it *is* like a greeting card--except for how it's presented.
>
> Please cite specific marketing examples and site specific companies.
> One thing common to the anti-star naming crowd is to lump them all
> together... Generalizations don't help much. Let's see some specifics.
Google #1 for "buy a star name"
http://www.starregistry.com/
"Name a Star, that's right, an actual star! International Star Registry is your
star naming resource!"
On the surface that seems to imply some sort of official status, but
presumably not enough to nail down in court. If you look around the site there
are no details as to whether anybody else will have 'named' it beforehand, how
bright the star will be etc.
It's an exercise in non-specificness and avoiding details that should
have red flags waving for anybody who wants to know exactly what they
are buying.
Kilolani
> stars don't care if it's official or not. It's only us snooty
> astronomers who give a damn about that! This is a *symbol* not a real
> thing, just like buying flowers or a Hallmark card. It's the thought
> that counts, not the piece of paper and not whether or not real
> astronomers will ever use the name. And it's a nice thought! We
> shouldn't stomp all over it.
You know, as I read this thread I can't help but be reminded that Greg's
criticism also applies to many "snooty" astronomers (and I have been guilty
of this myself) who deride people who show up at star parties with cheap
department store telescopes.
While we can all recite in our sleep the reasons NOT to buy these scopes
that does little for the person who has already purchased one. I've seen a
lot of people turned off to astronomy by showing up with a "cheap" scope and
rather than being helped, being told all the reasons they shouldn't have
bought "that piece of junk." Needless to say, few of them showed up a second
time.
Darren Bly
Maybe we should leave Miss Cleo, the Physic Friends Network, and John
Edwards alone too. After all "Because maybe, just maybe, to these
people it's not a scam!"
Darren in Bakersfield
WayneH <w6wlr@_REMOVE_THIS_SPAM_FILTER_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2b1r709e4pjmeblqi...@4ax.com>...
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:16:47 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
> <capellas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snipping>
>
> >(2) Welcome their interest in astronomy, recognize that this star is a
> >symbol for something important: a connection to a loved one (dear or
> >deceased) or an attempt to connect to the universe around them. Do our
> >best to find their star for them (even if it's only on an atlas or
> >computer program). Keep our attitude positive and keep our trap shut
> >about the star naming companies being a scam. Because maybe, just
> >maybe, to these people it's not a scam!
>
> Finally, a note of *real* reason in this thread. Thanks, Greg - this
> was sorely needed...
>
> Wayne Hoffman
> 33° 49" 17' N 117° 56" 41' W
> "Don't Look Down"
>
> http://users.adelphia.net/~w6wlr/
Craig
times a year. Every so often someone comes with a el cheap-o 60mm
refractor. Thishappened earlier this month. I helped her learn how to
set the thing up, gave her some tips on making the mount steadier, and
showed her how to align her finder scope. All of these things are
applicable to a better scope as well. I also showed her how to find
several objects and how to focus. She was pleased as puch to have found
Saturn and Jupiter all by herself.
Unfortunately her scope would not reach focus with her 1.25 eyepieces
unless she had a barlow in the light path. and that gave too much
magnification. her scope had too little in focus travel. But I did not
deride her for her scope, after all I started off with something similar
more than 30 years ago.Hope fully she will get herself a better scope.
In article <CtNfc.12561$k05....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
star...@ATkilolaniDOT.net says...
<SNIP>
Greg Crinklaw
> That's just great!
>
> Maybe we should leave Miss Cleo, the Physic Friends Network, and John
> Edwards alone too. After all "Because maybe, just maybe, to these
> people it's not a scam!"
Do you really expect this sort of illogical response to sway anyone's
opinion? Without some sort of logical connection you might just as well
have suggested Martha Stewart instead of the people you listed. This
is, in fact, my point. When people just "know" it's a scam, without any
logical reason, what are we left to conclude the rationale is behind
such strongly held beliefs? Demagoguery anyone?
Paul Schlyter
selling company, check out the "Ministry of Federal Star Registration",
at: http://www.buyastar.com/
Finally, here's a site where you can name a star yourself, for free
(except for the cost of printing out the certificate):
http://www.geocities.com/socalsw/freestar.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year I posted this, and I think it's time to repeat the post:
> What's with this place called "International Star Registry" -- or
> something like that.
>
> They advertise that they will name a star for you, your sweet thing, your
> dog, whatever -- and "register it."
>
> And????
It works like this:
1. You send them your money.
2. They send you a "certificate"; it's a pretty-looking piece of paper
and nothing more.
That's it. The name they attach to some faint telescopic star and
put in their book has no official status whatsoever. Astronomers
will never use that name. And, in addition, that same star may be
named for others, by other "star registries". Yes, there are several
competing companies which sell unofficial star names against a fee.
One of them even tries to appear very "official" by calling itself
"Ministry of Federal Star Registration", but it's just a scam company
among the other star name selling companies. Check out these links:
Info about buying star names:
=============================
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,49345,00.html?tw=wn20011226
Buy a Star, But It's Not Yours (Wired)
http://home.columbus.rr.com/starfaq/
Buy a Star Name FAQ
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/StarNaming.html
Buying a Star: the Facts
http://www.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Companies/Gifts/Personalized_Gifts/Stars
Buying a star
http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo/buystar.htm
Can I Buy a Star?, Can I Name a Star?
http://www.ips-planetarium.org/ips-starnaming.html
IPS: Publications -- IPS Official Statement on Star Naming...
http://home.columbus.rr.com/starfaq/
Official Star Naming FAQ
http://www.findarticles.com/m1202/2_100/63323376/p1/article.jhtml
Sky and Telescope: Astronomers Threatened by Star-Naming Company.
http://home.carolina.rr.com/nirgal/buyastar.html
So You Want to Buy A Star?
Star naming companies -- all of them are unofficial,
including the "Ministry of Federal Star Registration":
======================================================
http://www.celestial-registry.com/
http://www.celestialregistry.com/
Celestial Registry
http://www.shopsite.com/stars/
http://www.starregistry.com.au/
http://www.starregistry.co.uk/
http://www.tyger.co.uk/starreg/
http://www.starregistry.com/
http://www.corporatestar.com/
International Star Registry
http://www.buyastar.com/
Ministry of Federal Star Registration
(despite the name, it's just a small company)
http://www.kreative.net/seascape/star/
Schell's Astronomical Index
http://www.stardeed.com/
Star Deed
http://www.starnames.com/
Universal Star Listing
Some other scams:
=================
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=+%22Oscar+Hartzell%22+%2B+Drake+%2Bfortune
Oscar Hartzell - a very successful scammer
http://www.pulc.com/Programs/professional.htm
Professional Ph.D.'s for sale!!!
http://www.scamorama.com/
Scam o Rama, or The Lads from Lagos
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://www.stjarnhimlen.se/
http://home.tiscali.se/pausch/
Sander Vesik
> Sander Vesik wrote:
>
> > In sci.space.policy Greg Crinklaw <capellas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I should know better by now than to repeat myself, but here goes: I was
> >>trying to point out that the root of this argument lies at in the very
> >>first, most basic assumption one makes. To even begin to comprehend
> >>that there may be another valid point of view one must first understand
> >>one's own root assumptions. If one replaces one simple assumption with
> >>another, one is led to a completely different set of conclusions. That
> >>was the paradigm shift that I was speaking of.
> >
> >
> > Fine. You are now renamed 'Eddy', to memorialise my long deceased Guinea
> > Pig who is dearly missed. I bougth the right to rename you after my Guinea Pig
> > from no less than *five* different companies. You shall from now on
> > discontinue naming yourself either 'Greg' or 'Crinklaw' or for that matter
> > anything else but 'Eddy'.
> >
> > You just have to adjust your simple assumption that companies cannot
> > be selling your identity - in your awareness or not - to be renamed so
> > that people can comemorate their passed on pets.
>
> I am sorry, but your logic doesn't really follow. Hopefully, you are
> joking. Or do you think the stars give a damn who names them?
>
Why do you feel somebody claiming to be able to sell the right to name
you (regradless of whetever you already have name or no) is different than
"selling" the "right" to name a star? In both cases you are dealing with
a scam - whetevr somebody's feelings are hurt in the process of the naming
is utterly irrelevant.
Fred Fantum
> For those who have wondered about the various companies that claim you can
> name a star and get it recorded in their database, it's simply a private
> database not recognized by anyone officially.
Dabble gibbit!!!
> So you'd simply be paying for
> an expensive certificate and/or a book of others who paid, nothing more.
Dabble gibbit!!!
> In
> other words, different companies reuse/rename the different stars but they
> are not registered for use by the professionals.
Dabble gibbit!!!
> Here's the official word:
>
> http://www.iau.org/IAU/FAQ/starnames.html
Dabble, dabble gibbit!!!
Fred Fantum
Greg Crinklaw
I was speaking to the person's logical chain which, to be followed,
would require stars to care just like a person would. Duh. I care. A
star would not. So there's your difference. It's obviously a
completely illogical and fallacious analogy.
I didn't even get to the part where he claims I can no longer use my
name... please show me where the star naming companies require anyone to
use their designations.
Come on, can't anybody do better than this?
Klaus Hellnick
"Fred Fantum" <fredf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aaed29d7.04041...@posting.google.com...
> "Brian Miller" <mill...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<kpVec.8158$A_4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > For those who have wondered about the various companies that claim you
can
> > name a star and get it recorded in their database, it's simply a private
> > database not recognized by anyone officially.
>
Of course. It is a club that will associate your name with a star in a book,
which is then has it's copyright registered in the US. That is all that the
goobledygook means.
Klaus
Greg Crinklaw
> Of course. It is a club that will associate your name with a star in a book,
> which is then has it's copyright registered in the US. That is all that the
> goobledygook means.
And that's exactly what they claim in their so-called "decepetive"
advertising...
Darren Bly
There are many people out there who think they are naming a star for a
loved one forever. When I tell them that they are the only ones who
know the star is named for their love one, and no one else will ever
know, they feel ripped off.
Darren in Bakersfield
BTW: Never thought of Martha as a scam, a cheat yes, but not a scam.
Greg Crinklaw <capellas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<10802f1...@corp.supernews.com>...
Brian Tung
> And that's exactly what they claim in their so-called "decepetive"
> advertising...
It is deceptive. It isn't an untruth, but I don't think I ever said it
was.
Mario_884
Throughout this thread I have completely agreed with your logic. I
guess we are both on the same wavelength.
But I dont see it as a matter of costing very little and not worth
worrying about. A dishonest company would love to be in that position!
Whats the difference between a million people buying the rock for $1
as opposed to 1 person buying it for $1 million?
Some people would have you believe thats its a symbol.. a sentiment
and to lighten up.
I guess those same people are happy to capitalise on people's hopes
and ignorance.
How about selling a certificate that guarantees them entry to Heaven.
Wow what a deal. I reckon people would pay a million dollars for such
a certificate. After all, they would live happily every after in
their belief of what they've purchased.
Or how about slave labour? Hey, those people are now actually happy
to work for 2 dollars an hour. Dont tell them.
A dollar or a million. A scam is a scam is a scam. There are no
little white lies when money exchanges hands.
I think we can tell who have tendencies for little or no morals or
conscience. But then, its hard to grasp that concept if you dont have
much or none to start with.
Mario.
br...@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote in message news:<c5mthj$b3j$1...@zot.isi.edu>...
Brian Tung
> But I dont see it as a matter of costing very little and not worth
> worrying about. A dishonest company would love to be in that position!
> Whats the difference between a million people buying the rock for $1
> as opposed to 1 person buying it for $1 million?
I didn't say there was a difference. I said the people who bought them
felt it didn't matter in part because it was so inexpensive. In any case,
it was a guess, since I don't remember anyone in particular who bought
a pet rock. I remember that a few friends had them at school, but I don't
remember which ones.
Greg Crinklaw
> And my point is : A Scam is A Scam is A Scam!!!
>
> There are many people out there who think they are naming a star for a
> loved one forever. When I tell them that they are the only ones who
> know the star is named for their love one, and no one else will ever
> know, they feel ripped off.
God, I love your logic. When you explain to them it's a scam they feel
ripped off...
What if you are wrong? If so then you are the one who is causing the
harm when you get up on your local "astronomy expert" soapbox and
hurtfully tell them it's a scam. Consider that nobody on this entire
long thread has presented objective evidence that this practice is a
scam. All we have are opinions. Opinions often reflect a specific
point of view or special interest as much as anything tangible and are
seldom universal. We wouldn't be having this argument if they were, now
would we?
Please consider this simple question: if I were to buy a star for
someone, and even though you know I don't think this is a scam, would it
be right for you to inform that person that they have been had and that
it was meaningless? And if you grant that one exception as a difference
of opinion then why not others?
Regardless of your own personal opinion I think telling people they have
been scammed serves no useful purpose and might well turn someone off
from astronomy--someone who has possibly come to you to expand their
interest in astronomy via this very star naming company. Why not just
be thankful that these people have come to you, smile, and do the best
to help them find "their" star? What possible harm could that do?
Jeff Schroeder
> Klaus Hellnick wrote:
> > Of course. It is a club that will associate your name with a star in a
book,
> > which is then has it's copyright registered in the US. That is all that
the
> > goobledygook means.
>
> And that's exactly what they claim in their so-called "decepetive"
> advertising...
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
I believe that their advertising IS deceptive because they are careful to
not address the issue of acceptance of the names by the professional
astronomical community. They must be aware of the heartfelt emotional
reasons that many of their customers have for purchasing a star name from
them. An ethical business would have a disclaimer clearly stating the lack
of official standing of their product. (as many planetarium and astro club
fundraisers have done) If people were really just buying a memento (like
a greeting card) and understood and accepted that, then their business
wouldn't suffer. The fact that there is no such disclaimer indicates to me
that these companies are quite aware of what some of their customers want.
And that want is for a permanent and widely recognised (beyond the purchaser
and recipient) memorial to a loved one. ("one that shines forever" as I
think the phrase goes)
We in the astronomical community are put in the place of having to decide
wether or not to tell someone about the novelty status of what might have
been a very serious gift. The fact that these companies put us in that
position through their carefully worded advertising is to me a clear
indication of their ethics.
I have lectured at a community college planetarium for 26 years now. If
asked, I will point out the location of a star (if I can figure it out), but
also inform them of the unofficial nature of the star name. I try to do it
as nicely as I can, but I do it. Perpetuating the fraud just makes me a part
of it. I just might also prevent them from wasting more of their money.
Jeff Schroeder
Brian Tung
> It is deceptive. It isn't an untruth, but I don't think I ever said it
> was.
Also, I guess I have to say that this is probably a main reason you and
I disagree on this measure, Greg. You don't think it's deceptive because
they don't say they'll do something that they don't in fact do. I think
it's deceptive because I feel it's a reasonable inference to draw that the
names are official in some way. I don't see any way to come to a common
agreement on that issue and I don't plan to try.
The ED label on Tele Vue's Pronto and Ranger bothers some people, too,
because they say it can lead people to infer that they have better color
correction than they do.
Greg Crinklaw
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>
>>And that's exactly what they claim in their so-called "decepetive"
>>advertising...
>
> It is deceptive. It isn't an untruth, but I don't think I ever said it
> was.
The reasonable standard must be that their advertising be more deceptive
than the norm. Granted that, I think it is a huge stretch to call this
specific claim deceptive. It just doesn't wash. Their claim is simple
and straight forward and they deliver on it. They say they put their
data in a book registered by the library of Congress. As far as I can
tell that's exactly what they do.
Thanks Brian for privately sending examples of "deceptive advertising."
But I suppose it won't surprise you that I was not at all impressed.
As I see it, in order for these advertising practices to be seen as
deceptive one must first make several assumptions about what it is, in
fact, people think they are buying. I believe doing so tells us little,
except that this is really just a matter of opinion. To tell you the
truth I expected to hear tales of advertising practices that were far
worse, but I didn't hear anything I hadn't already heard or read myself.
Although something about this whole anti-star naming business has always
smacked of demagoguery to me, I wrote my original comments mostly as an
exercise in persuasive writing. ;-) I expected the usual middle-school
responses, but I also fully expected the seasoned SAA posters of reason,
such as yourself, David Kniseley, and maybe even Rod Mollise, to come up
with some stronger *objective* arguments that the ISR (that's who we are
really talking about here) is using questionable business practices.
But where is the evidence...? Even their so-called "deceptive
advertising" isn't convincingly deceptive when looked at objectively.
At the very least I expected a case to be made that they are going out
of their way to convince people they are buying something more than they
are actually getting. Sure, they make their "product" sound as official
and appealing as possible. But the bottom line is they don't lie about
what you get for your money.
This whole experience has been a real eye opener for me. For one thing
I am quite convinced that our obsession with the "official" status of
their stars is a red herring that has little to do with what they are in
fact selling and is an excercise in hubris on our part. Another thing I
learned was that there is a surprising range in star certificate
quality. These stars should be real stars and they should be stars
that, if not easily visible in a telescope, can at least be found on a
computer star chart. If these guys have somehow already gone through
all 20+ million or so GSC stars... man, I'm in the wrong business! :-)
Regardless, in the future I'm not about to bad mouth these companies
just for doing what they do. I'm going to look at it as something
harmless and silly and help people have fun with it. I mean, why not?
Heck, even if this is a big scam and I'm all wet, I fail to see why this
is so important that we should be hurting peoples feelings and making
them feel badly about their purchase. It's just not that big of a deal
folks!
I'm pretty much done now. Thanks for listening and to just about
everyone who participated in this thread I commend you on your
articulate comments and unusually respectful demeanor.
Clear skies,
Greg
Greg Crinklaw
> Some people would have you believe thats its a symbol.. a sentiment
> and to lighten up.
>
> I guess those same people are happy to capitalise on people's hopes
> and ignorance.
> How about selling a certificate that guarantees them entry to Heaven.
> Wow what a deal. I reckon people would pay a million dollars for such
> a certificate. After all, they would live happily every after in
> their belief of what they've purchased.
>
> Or how about slave labour? Hey, those people are now actually happy
> to work for 2 dollars an hour. Dont tell them.
Hey, that's just plain disrespectful and mean. To denigrate my or
anyone else's opinion with illogical comparisons like this--you ought to
be ashamed of yourself! And in doing this you have brought absolutely
nothing to this debate.
Rand Simberg
Crinklaw <capellas...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> Or how about slave labour? Hey, those people are now actually happy
>> to work for 2 dollars an hour. Dont tell them.
>
>Hey, that's just plain disrespectful and mean. To denigrate my or
>anyone else's opinion with illogical comparisons like this--you ought to
>be ashamed of yourself! And in doing this you have brought absolutely
>nothing to this debate.
<laughing>
Welcome to Usenet...
Greg Crinklaw
> I think we can tell who have tendencies for little or no morals or
> conscience. But then, its hard to grasp that concept if you dont have
> much or none to start with.
If you were standing in front of me right now. Well... You wouldn't be
standing for long. I have been participating on Unsent for over decade
and that is the singularly most disgusting, vile, despicable,
disrespectful, and downright slanderous remark I have ever read.
And Brian... how could you possibly reply to him and let that stand
without comment? I am SO disappointed. And to think I just thanked
everyone on this trhead for the respectful discourse.
Greg Crinklaw
> The ED label on Tele Vue's Pronto and Ranger bothers some people, too,
> because they say it can lead people to infer that they have better color
> correction than they do.
Yeah, but are you going to call it a scam? Are you going to get all
worked up and tell people who buy them that their new telescope, that
they are so proud of, is a ripoff? I don't think you would. And I
don't think you would for the ISR either. But other people do that all
the time!
But that's it, having just suffered the most abusive remarks I have ever
suffered here on SAA, I'm out of here. This just isn't fun anymore.
Nobody even spoke up about it. What does that say about this community?
Brian Tung
> If you were standing in front of me right now. Well... You wouldn't be
> standing for long. I have been participating on Unsent for over decade
> and that is the singularly most disgusting, vile, despicable,
> disrespectful, and downright slanderous remark I have ever read.
>
> And Brian... how could you possibly reply to him and let that stand
> without comment? I am SO disappointed. And to think I just thanked
> everyone on this trhead for the respectful discourse.
Because I thought it was about the companies; I didn't think it was about
you. Should I have?
Greg Crinklaw
>>And Brian... how could you possibly reply to him and let that stand
>>without comment? I am SO disappointed. And to think I just thanked
>>everyone on this trhead for the respectful discourse.
>
> Because I thought it was about the companies; I didn't think it was about
> you. Should I have?
I don't see how it couldn't be about me:
> Some people would have you believe thats its a symbol.. a sentiment
> and to lighten up.
Who do you think he's talking about there? This is more or less what I
said when I started all this. Has anyone else here espoused that
opinion? And even if he didn't mean me specifically, I have espoused
that opinion. Therefore, his logic inescapably applies to me.
> I guess those same people are happy to capitalise on people's hopes
> and ignorance.
"Those same people" -- still me.
> How about selling a certificate that guarantees them entry to Heaven.
> Wow what a deal. I reckon people would pay a million dollars for such
> a certificate. After all, they would live happily every after in
> their belief of what they've purchased.
>
> Or how about slave labour? Hey, those people are now actually happy
> to work for 2 dollars an hour. Dont tell them.
>
> A dollar or a million. A scam is a scam is a scam. There are no
> little white lies when money exchanges hands.
>
> I think we can tell who have tendencies for little or no morals or
> conscience. But then, its hard to grasp that concept if you dont have
> much or none to start with.
I have been called every name in the book at one time or another, but
never has anyone suggested or implied that I "had little morals or
conscience." The implication that, as an astronomy vendor, I might
engage in unethical business practices is slanderous and harmful to my
livelihood. That goes far beyond a simple insult.
Given only what was written I see no way around this last comment being
aimed directly at me. If it wasn't the intent I will accept such a
clarification from the author on this point.