Vic Maris Signs Off S.A.A.
Clive Gibbons
recall him mentioning this to the group.
Vic reports he won't be posting on s.a.a. or answering questions
posted to s.a.a. about his products, in the future.
So, if you have a question to ask, try e-mailing him directly or join the
Stellarvue group on Yahoo.
Cheers,
--
Clive Gibbons
Technician, McMaster University,
School of Geography and Geology.
Len B.
> Sorry if Vic has already announced his intentions to s.a.a., but I don't
> recall him mentioning this to the group.
>
> Vic reports he won't be posting on s.a.a. or answering questions
> posted to s.a.a. about his products, in the future.
> So, if you have a question to ask, try e-mailing him directly or join the
> Stellarvue group on Yahoo.
>
>
> Cheers,
that does his best to satisfy his customers . It has been one hell of
a product quiz for Stellarvue this last two weeks or so. Maybe some of
the " tests " that have been proposed for the near future will clear
up the color issue once and for all. Come back Vic.
rande...@aol.com
He can go hide under a rock. The ONLY reason he's doing it is
to avoid having to answer questions about his dubious claims
regarding his telescopes. He may make good products, but if
he can't back up what he says, what he says doesn't really matter
anyway. You want to see his new products, go to his website.
Then send him more questions. :)
-Rich
Shneor Sherman
Although I don't know him well, I have spoken to him a couple of times
at star parties, where I have often seen him with groups of newbies.
He's a person who spends a lot of time advancing the hobby and
introducing new people to it. He's sincere and has become a small
entrepreneur in addition to his day job. I regret that the tone (at
least, that's what I guess is the issue) of some of the posts had
driven him off saa. I wish he would reconsider. The perceived lack of
civility in some posts is disappointing and unnecessary, to say the
least.
Clear skies,
Shneor Sherman
Clive Gibbons
Shneor Sherman <shn...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>rande...@aol.com wrote in message news:<3c8acad2.388932845@nntp>...
>>
>> to avoid having to answer questions about his dubious claims
>> regarding his telescopes. He may make good products, but if
>> he can't back up what he says, what he says doesn't really matter
>> anyway. You want to see his new products, go to his website.
>> Then send him more questions. :)
>> -Rich
>
>Although I don't know him well, I have spoken to him a couple of times
>at star parties, where I have often seen him with groups of newbies.
>He's a person who spends a lot of time advancing the hobby and
>introducing new people to it. He's sincere and has become a small
>entrepreneur in addition to his day job. I regret that the tone (at
>least, that's what I guess is the issue) of some of the posts had
>driven him off saa. I wish he would reconsider. The perceived lack of
>civility in some posts is disappointing and unnecessary, to say the
>least.
>Clear skies,
>Shneor Sherman
FWIW, I'd certainly encourage Vic to return to s.a.a., but it would be
surprising if he did.
You might also notice that the "Stellarvue Chorus" <g> has recently
refrained from posting to this newsgroup. Not sure if this was some kind
of join decision, or an advisement from "on high". Whatever the case, it
would seem that these folks no longer wish to discuss or address questions
on s.a.a., relating to their SV instruments. A shame, considering what
might be learned by a reasonable exchange of information.
Daniel
> ...
> Vic reports he won't be posting on s.a.a. or answering questions
> posted to s.a.a. about his products, in the future.
Hi Clive,
A wise decision on Vic's part. SAA is a wonderful forum for
amateurs to hold forth, but the evidence to date is that when
manufacturers/vendors venture into these waters they do so at the risk
of rabid attacks by unreasoning iconoclasts, for which no honest
defense will provide fair protection.
Daniel
eye_...@arkansas.net
wrote:
Hi Shneor,
>Although I don't know him well, I have spoken to him a couple of times
>at star parties, where I have often seen him with groups of newbies.
>He's a person who spends a lot of time advancing the hobby and
>introducing new people to it.
No doubt but he also chooses to be seen promoting controversy, too.
That in some ways will not promote factual knowledge in our hobby.
And, he could instead alternately introduce old people to his products
and company by changing his strategy.
> He's sincere and has become a small
>entrepreneur in addition to his day job. I regret that the tone (at
>least, that's what I guess is the issue) of some of the posts had
>driven him off saa. I wish he would reconsider. The perceived lack of
>civility in some posts is disappointing and unnecessary, to say the
>least.
But the same can also be said about the willful promotion of
controversy by this scope seller. I think it's the taking of two to
tango senario even though most of the seller's dancing has been by
default. I think a real man would choose to remain stepped forward on
his own accord.
Clear skies,
Pete
eye_...@arkansas.net
Gibbons) wrote:
<snip>
>Whatever the case, it
>would seem that these folks no longer wish to discuss or address questions
>on s.a.a., relating to their SV instruments. A shame, considering what
>might be learned by a reasonable exchange of information.
No doubt, Clive, but did many of them really do that? <g> OTOH, I'm
still here and am willing to share what I learn from the Stellarclone
78mm I latched onto. So far I like what I've seen for image quality
and contrast. This working at a measured ~70mm aperture and f/7 by
way the restricting 1.25" focuser. Planetary views seem very good for
a low F ratio. Some of the things I will be doing is comparing the
scope to my 102mm f/5 Synta product while at comparable aperture.
Pete
Clive Gibbons
Daniel,
this might be the opinion of some folks, but there have been several
instances in the past when certain manufacturers have been questioned
about the performance of their products and the replies have contained data
that effectively answered the queries. Roland Christen, Tom Back and
Valery D. and Markus L. (to name 4) have provided many technical
insights into their products. I'm grateful that they have attempted to
educate we "amateurs" on s.a.a..
The discussion that's ensued has often been lively, but once the facts
have been presented and understood by everyone concerned, there's usually
a reasonable conclusion.
eye_...@arkansas.net
wrote:
>Hi Clive,
> A wise decision on Vic's part. SAA is a wonderful forum for
>amateurs to hold forth, but the evidence to date is that when
>manufacturers/vendors venture into these waters they do so at the risk
>of rabid attacks by unreasoning iconoclasts, for which no honest
>defense will provide fair protection.
>
>Daniel
No honest defense did provide just that.
There was rabid and attack towards what I understand, for the most
part, as the providing of sound optical theory. Nobody yet has
disputed any of it to the contrary. Fortunately in the process of
dispute we did learn by force why some of the discussed products
function as they do.
Pete
Jan Owen
Chief Inquisitors. Now he's trying to justify his position.
The other side was no better behaved. In many cases their responses were
nothing more than rock throwing.
A poor showing by all.
------------------------------
<eye_...@arkansas.net> wrote in message
news:3c8e2d93...@news.arkansas.net...
Clive Gibbons
Jan Owen <jano...@cox.net> wrote:
>What we had was a modern day Spanish Inquisition, with Clive as one of the
>Chief Inquisitors. Now he's trying to justify his position.
>
>The other side was no better behaved. In many cases their responses were
>nothing more than rock throwing.
>
>A poor showing by all.
Cardinal Fang, bring in the soft pillow... :)
But seriously, Jan!
What's to justify in asking direct questions relating to certain
performance claims and hoping for some clear elaboration. No hysterics or
mud-slinging. Just a few facts requested to clarify things.
Certainly no "Inquisition", thanks very much.
However, since we're no longer getting any input from the Stellarvue
folks, let's move on.
CHASLX200
>From: gibb...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Clive Gibbons)
>Date: 3/12/2002 12:43 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <a6lenh$g...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>
>
>In article <SBqj8.8125$4d.12...@news1.west.cox.net>,
>Jan Owen <jano...@cox.net> wrote:
>>What we had was a modern day Spanish Inquisition, with Clive as one of the
>>Chief Inquisitors. Now he's trying to justify his position.
>>
>>The other side was no better behaved. In many cases their responses were
>>nothing more than rock throwing.
>>
>>A poor showing by all.
>
>
>Cardinal Fang, bring in the soft pillow... :)
>
>But seriously, Jan!
>What's to justify in asking direct questions relating to certain
>performance claims and hoping for some clear elaboration. No hysterics or
>mud-slinging. Just a few facts requested to clarify things.
>Certainly no "Inquisition", thanks very much.
>
>However, since we're no longer getting any input from the Stellarvue
>folks, let's move on.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
Ya lets move on, how about another vote, Meade bashers vs Meade lovers...
Chas P.
Jon Isaacs
>Chief Inquisitors. Now he's trying to justify his position.
Clive asked reasonable and honest questions IMHO. In the years I have been
following this group, he is one of the few who have always maintained a
reasonable attitude.
Asking the proper technical questions does not make one an inquisitor in a
reasonable technical forum. If one cannot ask the right questions, then the
forum ceases to have value.
jon isaacs
jon isaacs
Brian Tung
> What we had was a modern day Spanish Inquisition, with Clive as one of the
> Chief Inquisitors. Now he's trying to justify his position.
>
> The other side was no better behaved. In many cases their responses were
> nothing more than rock throwing.
>
> A poor showing by all.
Gee willickers, Dad, I'm sure sorry. Can Wally and I go out and play
ball now? :-P
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
Jan Owen
---------------------------------------
"Brian Tung" <br...@zot.isi.edu> wrote in message
news:a6liv9$epk$1...@zot.isi.edu...
Peter Besenbruch
>Ya lets move on, how about another vote, Meade bashers vs Meade lovers...
I was just wondering which was better, reflectors or refractors.
I heard somewhere that SCTs weren't any good, is that true?
Should I get a GOTO mount, I want to do astrophotography?
Finally, what do I need to see the 12th planet?
__________________________________________________________
http://www.hawastsoc.org/ (Hawaiian Astronomical Society)
http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky/ (Deepsky Atlas)
Tom
I'll still be here! And I am still expecting that EDT...
Personally, I think Vic's had enough and I can understand that. It is
regretable that it went as far as it did.
Tom T.
gibb...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Clive Gibbons) wrote in message news:<a6l2jk$q...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>...
Rod Mollise
>I was just wondering which was better, reflectors or refractors.
>I heard somewhere that SCTs weren't any good, is that true?
>Should I get a GOTO mount, I want to do astrophotography?
>Finally, what do I need to see the 12th planet?
HI Peter:
Jeez! You left out the all-time winner:
WHICH IS BETTER, MEADE OR CELESTRON?
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto <http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html>
Peter Besenbruch
wrote:
>Jeez! You left out the all-time winner:
>
>WHICH IS BETTER, MEADE OR CELESTRON?
Alright, which IS better? Actually, I had to leave that one to
you.
Rod Mollise
>you.
>____________
To answer that, my son, you must first answer the following VERY similar
questions:
"If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound if no one's around to
hear?"
"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
:-)
Clive Gibbons
Rod Mollise <rmol...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>I was just wondering which was better, reflectors or refractors.
>>I heard somewhere that SCTs weren't any good, is that true?
>>Should I get a GOTO mount, I want to do astrophotography?
>>Finally, what do I need to see the 12th planet?
>
>HI Peter:
>
>Jeez! You left out the all-time winner:
>
>WHICH IS BETTER, MEADE OR CELESTRON?
Harley-Davidson!
(Ducking and running for cover <g>)
Clive Gibbons
Peter Besenbruch <prb.nonl...@product.lava.net> wrote:
>On 12 Mar 2002 18:25:45 GMT, chas...@aol.com (CHASLX200) wrote:
>
>>Ya lets move on, how about another vote, Meade bashers vs Meade lovers...
>
>I was just wondering which was better, reflectors or refractors.
>I heard somewhere that SCTs weren't any good, is that true?
>Should I get a GOTO mount, I want to do astrophotography?
They're all crap!
Get an armillary sphere. You won't regret it. :)
Clive Gibbons
You know how excited he gets when a bright comet appears! :)
In article <KIsj8.8386$4d.13...@news1.west.cox.net>,
Jan Owen <jano...@cox.net> wrote:
>No! Go to your room! {;>)
>
>---------------------------------------
>"Brian Tung" <br...@zot.isi.edu> wrote in message
>news:a6liv9$epk$1...@zot.isi.edu...
>> Jan Owen wrote:
>> > What we had was a modern day Spanish Inquisition, with Clive as one of
>the
>> > Chief Inquisitors. Now he's trying to justify his position.
>> >
>> > The other side was no better behaved. In many cases their responses
>were
>> > nothing more than rock throwing.
>> >
>> > A poor showing by all.
>>
>> Gee willickers, Dad, I'm sure sorry. Can Wally and I go out and play
>> ball now? :-P
>>
>> Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
Peter Besenbruch
wrote:
>"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
15
Paul S. Walsh
>"Peter Besenbruch" wrote:
>"How many angels can dance on the head of a > pin?"
>
> 15
Yes, but without a chaperone: 22
-Paul S. Walsh
Stephen Pitt
news:3c8e1ccb...@news.arkansas.net...
Perhaps, Pete. My offer, and one not coming from Vic Maris, but from
me, still stands. The issue of false colour, vignetting and spherical
aberration are all visible in raw negatives and positives.
That is reality. That is the reality of anyone-the beginning APer, or
advanced master. The members of APML do ocassionally post raw work to
buttress an assertion. I believe those most steeped in a scientific
background would welcome such data. Yet when offered, the defense
mechanism known as discreditation is asserted...even before the
evidence is tabled.
I would welcome the same from any person owning another refractor brand.
Yet, the act of bringing up such a thing on SAA elicited a substantial
knee jerking.
Lets face it, Astrophysics telescopes are very fine, and their user base
includes many true master astrophotographers: Jerry Lodriguss, Chuck
Vaughn, James Janusz, John Mirtle, Sean Walker, Matt BenDaniel, Jon
Kolb, Chris Cook, Alson Wong, Chris Schur, John Boudreau, and many more.
These people gather raw data, and produce beautiful pictures. Why don't
Stellarvue's detractors simply ask these astrophotographers if a raw
positive or negative tells them anything about the optical
characteristics of an instrument.
Ask them if antivignetting techniques are used with
their telescopes. Ask the refractor users if they have any secondary
colour showing in their raw scans. Or, if field curvature required
a field flattener. Ask them if their work was software manipulated.
Members like Brian, Rod, and the majority who tend to wait for facts
before running off at the keyboard, may have some interest in raw data
produced by the new scope on the block.
What are we here for? Lets be fair. Lets see.
Stephen Pitt
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Stephen Pitt
>
> But seriously, Jan!
> What's to justify in asking direct questions relating to certain
> performance claims and hoping for some clear elaboration. No hysterics or
> mud-slinging. Just a few facts requested to clarify things.
> Certainly no "Inquisition", thanks very much.
>
> However, since we're no longer getting any input from the Stellarvue
> folks, let's move on.
>
>
> Cheers,
I'm glad you offer "clear elaboration," Clive.
I'll be at the RTMC, light box and loupe in hand. I don't
see how this could possibly offend your reasonableness. Or anybody
elses. It is unfortunate you think anything associated with SV is
a hustle or scam. It would seem then, and most to your advantage to
encourage such film examination-that is if your above claim is correct.
I think the onus is on the persons most vocal to make an actual
effort to review the data. Of course, you'll be 2500 miles away.
Perhaps someone else from the AP sphere of influence would like to look.
One way or another, light will be shed on this matter. No insults,
no inuendo, just eyeball to loupe. Are you O.K. with that?
rande...@aol.com
wrote:
>Clive Gibbons wrote ...
Rabid attack would be to call someone an idiot.
Reasonable question (does you scope have less
colour?) was NEVER answered by Maris or his hoards.
To Hell with them.
-Rich
rande...@aol.com
>Hey Clive -
>
>I'll still be here! And I am still expecting that EDT...
>
>Personally, I think Vic's had enough and I can understand that. It is
>regretable that it went as far as it did.
Yes, especially with all the Stellarview crowd "taking the fifth."
-Rich
Peter Besenbruch
>Rabid attack would be to call someone an idiot.
>Reasonable question (does you scope have less
>colour?) was NEVER answered by Maris or his hoards.
And to think I agree with Rich on this one.
>To Hell with them.
Well, not quite. [g]
Zane
(snip)
>These people gather raw data, and produce beautiful pictures. Why don't
>Stellarvue's detractors simply ask these astrophotographers if a raw
>positive or negative tells them anything about the optical
>characteristics of an instrument.
(snip)
Film Photos taken at the prime focus of a fast telescope usually don't
reveal much about a telescope unless it's really bad. The film would have
to be able to do considerably better than 300 lp/mm to not mask the
resolution capabilites of a "diffraction limited" f/6 scope. There are, of
course, some films that can do that, but they're not usually used for
astrophotography.
Zane
Jon Isaacs
>-Rich
Was that a fifth of Jim Beam or was it Jack Daniels? Oh yes and did you grab a
bit for yourself??
jon isaacs
Stephen Pitt
>
> Film Photos taken at the prime focus of a fast telescope usually don't
> reveal much about a telescope unless it's really bad. The film would have
> to be able to do considerably better than 300 lp/mm to not mask the
> resolution capabilites of a "diffraction limited" f/6 scope. There are, of
> course, some films that can do that, but they're not usually used for
> astrophotography.
>
What Alan French suggests is quite good and deals with the focus length
of each tested colour. What I offer is photographic evidence of that:
If Alan produced results for the Synta, for instance, I could
demonstrate
a qualititative basis for his numbers. Defocused blue-green and blue-
violet do in fact express on several films and do so proportionately to
the stars' magnitude. That this data isn't quantitative, I'd totally
agree.
But the translation puts the effects of such numbers clearly in view.
Film will also express spherical anomalies as well, and other field
effects, like vignetting. These can be qualitatively appreciated,
because they offer agreement between the calculated, numerical
measurements and the real functioning system.
David Owen
news:a6l2jk$q...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca...
> You might also notice that the "Stellarvue Chorus" <g> has recently
> refrained from posting to this newsgroup. Not sure if this was some kind
> of join decision, or an advisement from "on high". Whatever the case, it
> would seem that these folks no longer wish to discuss or address questions
> on s.a.a., relating to their SV instruments. A shame, considering what
> might be learned by a reasonable exchange of information.
>
>
> Cheers,
Clive:
I quote: "A shame, considering what might be learned by a reasonable
exchange of information". I agree with you completely.
However, the postings over the past two weeks don't represent a
reasonable exchange
of information.....just a bunch of accusations from individuals with
minimal intelligence
and obviously nothing else to do with their lives but sit on s.a.a. and
make fools of themselves.
A complete waste of time. BTW: does your employer know that you spend
the day trolling on s.a.a.?
David
William R. Meyers
William R. Meyers
William R. Meyers
William R. Meyers
Bill Meyers
Nick Zivanovic
<rande...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3c8e9632.637550338@nntp...
The question was answered over and over Rich. You just weren't listening.
nz
Daniel
> Rabid attack would be to call someone an idiot.
Nolo contendere. In rebutting your reply to Cristina, it was
clearly unnecessary for me to characterize you so.
> Reasonable question (does you scope have less
> colour?) was NEVER answered by Maris or his hoards.
> To Hell with them.
Thank you for the demonstration.
Daniel
Zane
(snip)
>Hi Clive,
> A wise decision on Vic's part. SAA is a wonderful forum for
>amateurs to hold forth, but the evidence to date is that when
>manufacturers/vendors venture into these waters they do so at the risk
>of rabid attacks by unreasoning iconoclasts, for which no honest
>defense will provide fair protection.
Some of these amateurs, instead of being "unreasoning iconoclasts", just
have a high sensitivity to the odor of snake oil.
Zane
ValeryD
Stephen,
> Perhaps, Pete. My offer, and one not coming from Vic Maris, but from
> me, still stands. The issue of false colour, vignetting and spherical
> aberration are all visible in raw negatives and positives.
<snip>
> What are we here for? Lets be fair. Lets see.
To be FAIR, as you wish (I doubt this statement), I can tell you,
that raw negatives and positives won't show anything about spherical
aberration, especialy in the case of such F/D.
False colors - less problematic, but a film can be choosed in such
way, that it will be less sensitive to a violet. If I am not mistaken
you noted, that you selected a film(s) which shows less violet.
You also mentioned, that you did used a computer processing of negatives
scans or something like this.
To be fair...he he, this is not about EDT and you.
V.D.
eye_...@arkansas.net
wrote:
<snip>
>> colour?) was NEVER answered by Maris or his hoards.
>> -Rich
>The question was answered over and over Rich. You just weren't listening.
>
>nz
Huh ? Could you please repeat that part the scope fella says about
"If semi-APO means secondary spectrum correction lying roughly between
that of a normal achromat and an apochromat, then the 102EDT is a
semi-APO." ?
Thanks in advance,
Mr. Rasmussen
eye_...@arkansas.net
wrote:
<snip>
>SAA is a wonderful forum for
>amateurs to hold forth, but the evidence to date is that when
>manufacturers/vendors venture into these waters they do so at the risk
>of rabid attacks by unreasoning iconoclasts, for which no honest
>defense will provide fair protection.
Iconoclast: one who attacks settled beliefs or institutions.
Funny you should choose to say that. I won't go into the kinds of
things I've seen take place that were first identified over a year and
a half ago and continue full steam ahead through to this day. Readers
can do their own historical research and may should be able to
determine correctly what institution has been attacked and by whom.
Pete Rasmussen
Thad Floryan
| On 12 Mar 2002 18:25:45 GMT, chas...@aol.com (CHASLX200) wrote:
|
| >Ya lets move on, how about another vote, Meade bashers vs Meade lovers...
|
| I was just wondering which was better, reflectors or refractors.
Reflectors.
| I heard somewhere that SCTs weren't any good, is that true?
No.
| Should I get a GOTO mount, I want to do astrophotography?
Yes.
| Finally, what do I need to see the 12th planet?
Nancy.
:-)
Thad Floryan
| >Alright, which IS better? Actually, I had to leave that one to
| >you.
| >____________
|
| To answer that, my son, you must first answer the following VERY similar
| questions:
|
| "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound if no one's around to
| hear?"
Yep; autorecording tape recorder preserved the sound for posterity.
| "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
The dinosaurs.
| "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
None; why would they want to?
| :-)
:-)
Thad Floryan
| What does :-P mean?
A wry grin. With swiss cheese. :-)
ValeryD
> Film will also express spherical anomalies as well, and other field
> effects, like vignetting. These can be qualitatively appreciated,
> because they offer agreement between the calculated, numerical
> measurements and the real functioning system.
>
> Stephen Pitt
It is quite sad, that you simply don't understand what kind of
nonsense you are saying here. To reasoning about these things,
you need to know more. So, it will be better to spend the time
reading more, trying to understand what did you read than such
time waste here showing your opponents the lack of knowelege of
this subject.
You can do a very nice photos - no real question about this, but
systems evaluations, especially with films is not your best side.
BTW. Where all SV102EDT owners, who did, even once, a direct
AB visual comparition with real APO? and real standard ACHRO?
What is th ereason of such silence?
V.D.
Tom
Tom T.
"William R. Meyers" <st...@auriga.uc.edu> wrote in message news:<3C8ED5CB...@auriga.uc.edu>...
Tom
Wow hoards!!!
rande...@aol.com wrote in message news:<3c8e9632.637550338@nntp>...
David
color correction than Vixen 102 ED 6.5 ?
Did you retreat from this false position ? If not, my challenge to you
is still valid.
David
Clive Gibbons
Stephen Pitt <lth...@pe.net> wrote:
>
>I'm glad you offer "clear elaboration," Clive.
>
>I'll be at the RTMC, light box and loupe in hand. I don't
>see how this could possibly offend your reasonableness. Or anybody
>elses. It is unfortunate you think anything associated with SV is
>a hustle or scam.
Hey Stephen, there you go assuming too much again.
I certainly don't think "anything associated with SV is a hustle or a
scam". Why would you believe that? For the record, one more time:
I believe SV telescopes are fine, well constructed instruments. They
deliver sharp images.
I only question certain performance claims and ask technical questions.
Based on the content of any answers recieved, people can reach their own
conclusions.
>It would seem then, and most to your advantage to
>encourage such film examination-that is if your above claim is correct.
Sure, as I previously mentioned, photographic "evidence" isn't
qualitiative, if it's the only data that's available, folks should take a
look at it and make their own judgement.
>
>I think the onus is on the persons most vocal to make an actual
>effort to review the data. Of course, you'll be 2500 miles away.
>Perhaps someone else from the AP sphere of influence would like to look.
Are you suggesting I'm in the "AP sphere of influence" (whatever that
means!)? Sorry, but I'm not. I don't own an AP refractor and haven't got
one on order. I don't go to trade shows and tout AP products or write
testimonials for AP's website. I'm not a personal friend of Roland Christen,
although I do appreciate his knowledge and willingness to share it.
Once *again*, you assume waaay too much, Stephen.
>
>One way or another, light will be shed on this matter. No insults,
>no inuendo, just eyeball to loupe. Are you O.K. with that?
Knock yourself out!
You don't need my blessing, huh? :)
Cheers,
--
Clive Gibbons
Technician, McMaster University,
School of Geography and Geology.
Howard Lester
"Tom" <ttru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe35d4da.02031...@posting.google.com...
Clive Gibbons
David Owen <owe...@att.net> wrote:
>
>Clive:
>
>I quote: "A shame, considering what might be learned by a reasonable
>exchange of information". I agree with you completely.
>However, the postings over the past two weeks don't represent a
>reasonable exchange
>of information.....just a bunch of accusations from individuals with
>minimal intelligence
>and obviously nothing else to do with their lives but sit on s.a.a. and
>make fools of themselves.
>
>A complete waste of time. BTW: does your employer know that you spend
>the day trolling on s.a.a.?
>David
You're certainly true to form, Dave.
Ever quick with the insults!
Try re-reading your posting and ask yourself what constitutes "a complete
waste of time". While you're at it, dig out a dictionary and learn what
"trolling" means.
There ya go, your day won't be a total loss!
Thanks,
Bill Becker
Best regards,
Bill
William R. Mattil
Rod Mollise <rmol...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Alright, which IS better? Actually, I had to leave that one to
>>you.
>>____________
>
>To answer that, my son, you must first answer the following VERY similar
>questions:
>
>"If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound if no one's around to
>hear?"
>
>
>
Rod, you forgot:
If a man speaks and there is no woman around to hear him is he still wrong ?
:^)
Bill
Tom
Give it a year or so.
Tom T.
ar...@mercury.kherson.ua (ValeryD) wrote in message
Sevenson Midwest
<eye_...@arkansas.net> wrote in message
news:3c8e1ccb...@news.arkansas.net...
> On 11 Mar 2002 19:16:23 -0800, shn...@my-deja.com (Shneor Sherman)
> wrote:
>
> Hi Shneor,
>
> >Although I don't know him well, I have spoken to him a couple of times
> >at star parties, where I have often seen him with groups of newbies.
> >He's a person who spends a lot of time advancing the hobby and
> >introducing new people to it.
>
> No doubt but he also chooses to be seen promoting controversy, too.
> That in some ways will not promote factual knowledge in our hobby.
> And, he could instead alternately introduce old people to his products
> and company by changing his strategy.
>
> > He's sincere and has become a small
> >entrepreneur in addition to his day job. I regret that the tone (at
> >least, that's what I guess is the issue) of some of the posts had
> >driven him off saa. I wish he would reconsider. The perceived lack of
> >civility in some posts is disappointing and unnecessary, to say the
> >least.
>
> But the same can also be said about the willful promotion of
> controversy by this scope seller. I think it's the taking of two to
> tango senario even though most of the seller's dancing has been by
> default. I think a real man would choose to remain stepped forward on
> his own accord.
>
> Clear skies,
>
> Pete
>
John Hopkins
> >Alright, which IS better? Actually, I had to leave that one to
> >you.
> >____________
>
> To answer that, my son, you must first answer the following VERY similar
> questions:
>
> "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound if no one's around to
> hear?"
Well, I know *I* do. "Whoa!"
> "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
What, no amino acids?
> "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
42.
/John "best guess" Hopkins
Cathy Sienko
>>
>>"If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound if no one's
around to
>>hear?"
>>
Is a picture of a cow a cow, why or why not?
( Aesthetics 101... final exam question )
Cathy
--
Clive Gibbons
Cathy Sienko <katr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >>"If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound if no one's
>around to
> >>hear?"
> >>
>
>
>
>Is a picture of a cow a cow, why or why not?
>( Aesthetics 101... final exam question )
>
>Cathy
Good one. :)
How about "Define the Universe in 10 words or less. Give at least 3
examples." <g>
Tom
minutes over your comment the other day "Isn't he the sweetest!"
Tom T.
"Howard Lester" <hle...@as.arizona.edu> wrote in message news:<a6npig$9p1$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>...
Tom
> hear?"
Yes - just because you can't hear it does not mean there is not sound.
> "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
The chicken.
> "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
This one is a little tougher. Actually as many as they want but -
Last I checked all the boy angels were on one side and all the girl
angels were on the other, so there were actually no angels dancing...
Tom T.
Jon Isaacs
>( Aesthetics 101... final exam question )
>
>Cathy
Is a picture of milk a pitcher of milk, why or why not? (Nutrition 101)
jon isaacs
Al M
The following is essentially the perception of an outsider.
I have been following the Stellarvue site and discussions here. At
times it seemed bizarre. I have never seen so much product loyalty by
so many people who haven't even received their telescopes yet. Judging
from many statements, frankly, many of the people are somewhat less
experienced and informed than other groups. Stephen is a strong
exception.
I have communications with many manufacturers and retailers. A common
remark about the Stellarvue group is the label 'Cult Following'. I
personally, wouldn't go that far. I haven't seen any conclusive
evidence as to quality of these telescopes , pro or con.
I talked to Vic a few times. He appears very dogmatic as to ensuring
high quality of his telescopes leading to high confidence. As to the
Stellarvue site, the hoopla and cheerleading has the opposite effect.
I sense that I may become a target for some of these statements.
This kind of activity may backfire and lead to lower sales of fine
instruments.
Best Regards,
Al M
gibb...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Clive Gibbons) wrote in message news:<a6nolb$g...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>...
Cathy Sienko
Jon Isaacs wrote:
--
Idears are like stars. You will not succeed in touching them with your
hands. But, like the seafaring man on the desert of waters, you choose
them as your guides and following them you will reach your destiny.
Daniel
> Holy shit, you people are amazingly pompous and, above all else, dull.
Hi Pete,
"amazingly pompous and ... dull" Ha!!!
Does this mean we can call them "AP's with lousy contrast"? ;^)
Daniel
Daniel
Daniel
> >Alright, which IS better? Actually, I had to leave that one to
> >you.
> >____________
>
> To answer that, my son, you must first answer the following VERY similar
> questions:
>
> hear?"
Only if it barks its skin in the process. (Don't groan folks, it gets
worse)
> "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
The chicken embryo.
> "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Because pinheads are so small, and angels much much smaller, we need
to utilize some optical aids in order to make an accurate count. That
of course begs the question as to what type and configuration of
optical aids should best be used. Naturally there is no debate on the
matter since any fool knows that the ideal setup is...
Bill Foley
to hear him, is he still wrong??
Daniel
> Peter Besenbruch wrote:
> | Finally, what do I need to see the 12th planet?
>
> Nancy.
Now THAT's funny!
William R. Meyers
It's good to hear a Brooklyn accent once again! It's been a long time!
Clear skies,
Bill Meyers
William R. Meyers
Bill Meyers
eye_...@arkansas.net
<seve...@jorsm.com> wrote:
>Holy shit, you people are amazingly pompous and, above all else, dull.
Hi Sevenson Midwest,
That must have been refreshing. Now that you're finished, be sure and
flush, and above all, spray the Lysol.
Scot Mc Pherson
> to hear him, is he still wrong??
That's a dumb question, of course we are...
--
Scot Mc Pherson
N27:20:05
W82:30:30
rande...@aol.com
>>Yes, especially with all the Stellarview crowd "taking the fifth."
>>-Rich
>
>Was that a fifth of Jim Beam or was it Jack Daniels? Oh yes and did you grab a
>bit for yourself??
>
>jon isaacs
Remember, it's "sippin" wiskey so don't slug it back.
-Rich
rande...@aol.com
>Be patient... it's coming. There are far too few of these out yet...
>Give it a year or so.
A YEAR?!? What is that supposed to mean? A new TV or AP or TMB
scope hits the streets and we know within WEEKS how it compares to
other scopes. What is it? Are all Stellarvue owners Arkansas
hillbillies who have NO exposure to other instruments? :)
-Rich
rande...@aol.com
<seve...@jorsm.com> wrote:
>Holy shit, you people are amazingly pompous and, above all else, dull.
>
><eye_...@arkansas.net> wrote in message
>news:3c8e1ccb...@news.arkansas.net...
>> On 11 Mar 2002 19:16:23 -0800, shn...@my-deja.com (Shneor Sherman)
>> wrote:
>>
Is that your real name, or the one you give to little boys at
bus stations?
-Rich
eye_...@arkansas.net
<seve...@jorsm.com> wrote:
>Holy shit, you people are amazingly pompous and, above all else, dull.
Must have been refreshing for you. Flush and spray on your way out.
Pete Rasmussen
Jon Isaacs
>
>>>Is a picture of a cow a cow, why or why not?
>>>( Aesthetics 101... final exam question )
>>>
>>>Cathy
>>>
>>
>> Is a picture of milk a pitcher of milk, why or why not? (Nutrition 101)
>>
>> jon isaacs
>>
Cathy wrote:
>no
That pretty much finishes that one.
jon isaacs
GAREYT
> Sorry if Vic has already announced his intentions to s.a.a., but I don't
> recall him mentioning this to the group.
>
> Vic reports he won't be posting on s.a.a. or answering questions
> posted to s.a.a. about his products, in the future.
> So, if you have a question to ask, try e-mailing him directly or join the
> Stellarvue group on Yahoo.
>
>
> Cheers,
=============
Well now, lets just examine the above statement! CLIVE writes he is
"sorry if Vic has already announced his intentions"??? Well Clive boy
did you see any thread here at SAA in which Vic "announced those
intentions"??? Tell us dear Clive, just why is it YOU felt so
compelled to inform us of Vic's intentions?
Gee, I guess you must feel Vic is not capable of speaking for himself?
What a "nice" and "caring" person you are Clive! What would we do
without YOU to keep us poor souls informed. I'm sure Vic is so happy
with YOU posting HIS intentions!
Just doing your job arent' ya Clive? It's YOUR job to announce Vics
intentions? When did Vic Maris appoint you as his spokesperson Clive?
Clive, your quite a guy......
btw clive, in case your too dense, the sarcism was intended!
Clive Gibbons
GAREYT <gare...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Well now, lets just examine the above statement!
Please do.
>CLIVE writes he is
>"sorry if Vic has already announced his intentions"??? Well Clive boy
>did you see any thread here at SAA in which Vic "announced those
>intentions"??? Tell us dear Clive, just why is it YOU felt so
>compelled to inform us of Vic's intentions?
This isn't too difficult to understand, Garey.
Vic had been involved in some of the discussions on this newsgroup.
S.a.a. folk had been asking him questions here. Then, he dropped out of sight.
I'm sure some people wondered what happened. To the best of my knowledge,
he didn't mention to the group that he wouldn't be participating any
further on s.a.a.. However, he did mention this on the Stellarvue group,
which most s.a.a. folks aren't members of and thus, wouldn't see.
My posting to s.a.a. was only informational, to let folks know what Vic
had decided to do re. his future s.a.a. participation.
>
>Gee, I guess you must feel Vic is not capable of speaking for himself?
> What a "nice" and "caring" person you are Clive! What would we do
>without YOU to keep us poor souls informed. I'm sure Vic is so happy
>with YOU posting HIS intentions!
Well, maybe he is.
Has sarcasm got the better of you, Garey? Take some deep breaths and
relax.
>
>Just doing your job arent' ya Clive? It's YOUR job to announce Vics
>intentions? When did Vic Maris appoint you as his spokesperson Clive?
>
>Clive, your quite a guy......
>
>btw clive, in case your too dense, the sarcism was intended!
Garey, if you don't have *anything* informative, insightful or humorous to
add to discussion on this group, please do everyone a favour and keep
lurking. Your attempt at "sarcism" <sic> doesn't work here.
Jon Isaacs
>Gee, I guess you must feel Vic is not capable of speaking for himself?
> What a "nice" and "caring" person you are Clive! What would we do
>without YOU to keep us poor souls informed. I'm sure Vic is so happy
>with YOU posting HIS intentions!
I don't see why Vic shouldn't be. I imagine though he would be pretty PO'd if
he knew some wazzoo like yourself was attempting to defend him.
If you want to do Vic a favor, I suggest keeping your mouth shut and your
fingers off the keyboard.
>btw clive, in case your too dense, the sarcism was intended!
btw, garey, in case you are too dense, there is no sarcism intended here,
rather some good solid suggests in the event that your truly are hoping to
futher the cause of Vic and SV.
jon isaacs
Shneor Sherman
> On 11 Mar 2002 19:16:23 -0800, shn...@my-deja.com (Shneor Sherman)
> wrote:
>
>
> >Although I don't know him well, I have spoken to him a couple of times
> >at star parties, where I have often seen him with groups of newbies.
> >He's a person who spends a lot of time advancing the hobby and
> >introducing new people to it.
>
> No doubt but he also chooses to be seen promoting controversy, too.
> That in some ways will not promote factual knowledge in our hobby.
> And, he could instead alternately introduce old people to his products
> and company by changing his strategy.
>
> > He's sincere and has become a small
> >entrepreneur in addition to his day job. I regret that the tone (at
> >least, that's what I guess is the issue) of some of the posts had
> >driven him off saa. I wish he would reconsider. The perceived lack of
> >civility in some posts is disappointing and unnecessary, to say the
> >least.
>
> But the same can also be said about the willful promotion of
> controversy by this scope seller. I think it's the taking of two to
> tango senario even though most of the seller's dancing has been by
> default. I think a real man would choose to remain stepped forward on
> his own accord.
>
> Clear skies,
>
> Pete
Pete, I don't disagree, but people have priorities and limited time to
spend on saa. I'm not making excuses for Vic - more for me for not
responding to this sooner, I guess.
BTW, do you have a 150mm f/5 Synta yet?
Clear skies,
Shneor Sherman
Cathy Sienko
Tanks!
Must have been all the night classes at Pratt! ya know? ;)
Cathy
Little Egg Harbor, NJ
GAREYT
So clive, since Vic decided not to post here it became YOUR job to
announce it out of concern for everyone? Funny isn't it - if Vic
posted his position at the Stellarvue board and NOT here did it ever
cross your mind HE had decided for HIS own reasons not to do that?
But it became YOUR job clive?
You will have excuse me Clive - I'm sorry, I didn't know you were not
only the self-appointed spokseperson for others but the boards SUPREME
MODERATOR also. My humble apologies Clive! It was just that I did not
realize your position here...
Yeah Clive, I have seen you and certain other folks here and it
doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize what is going on. Your
"feined" concern for Vic's or anyone else's well being is laughable!
As far as your directions regarding my posting here? I've got a
better one for ya. If you don't want to read what I have to say then
don't open my posts - hows that King Clive?
btw Clive - Nice Deflection! Try it on somebody else cause we both
know why you did it don't we.... wink wink....
Clive Gibbons
GAREYT <gare...@attbi.com> wrote:
>=======
>
>So clive, since Vic decided not to post here it became YOUR job to
>announce it out of concern for everyone? Funny isn't it - if Vic
>posted his position at the Stellarvue board and NOT here did it ever
>cross your mind HE had decided for HIS own reasons not to do that?
>But it became YOUR job clive?
Garey, you must have a problem understanding what I wrote in my previous
post. Try reading it again. If it's still not clear, get someone else to
explain it to you, OK?
>
>You will have excuse me Clive - I'm sorry, I didn't know you were not
>only the self-appointed spokseperson for others but the boards SUPREME
>MODERATOR also. My humble apologies Clive! It was just that I did not
>realize your position here...
Once again, sarcasm isn't your strong suit.
>
>Yeah Clive, I have seen you and certain other folks here and it
>doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize what is going on. Your
>"feined" concern for Vic's or anyone else's well being is laughable!
Shucks Garey, when have I ever said I was concerned for Vic's well-being?
I hope he's happy and well, but he's a big guy who can speak for himself.
My original post, (made a VERY long time ago) was informational and meant
to let s.a.a. folks know why he wasn't relying any more. Understand?
Apparently not...
>
>As far as your directions regarding my posting here? I've got a
>better one for ya. If you don't want to read what I have to say then
>don't open my posts - hows that King Clive?
Well, you should have taken your own advice from the beginning and ignored
my postings, huh? Since you're getting bent out of shape by what I said,
you have my "royal" permission to dump me in your killfile. Please do.
I'd be honored.
>
>btw Clive - Nice Deflection! Try it on somebody else cause we both
>know why you did it don't we.... wink wink....
Wow, that makes *perfect* sense...
Say "Goodnight", Gracie.
(BTW Garey, if you have any further valuable insights about any of this,
please make *everyone* happy and take it to e-mail. I'm done discussing it
with you on this newsgroup)
Richard Harding
>
> __________________________________________________________
Would these be Spanish Angels or Lithuanian Angels? My very detailed
calculations and following the wisdom and opinions of MANY of my
fellow S.A.A. compatriots is:
Spanish 14.367
Lithuanian 15.445
.....the figure for Turkish Angels is still under review.
GAREYT
I don't have any interest in "furthering " anyones cause and I'm not
attempting to defend Vic Maris. I don't even know the man. Funny
isn't it though, how you come to Clives defense at his taking it upon
himself to post someone elses intentions?
Frankly I think I will take your advice and keep my "fingers off the
keyboard" as this place is just simply too childish for myself.... You
people are NUTS!
You kids have a nice life...
CHASLX200
>From: gare...@attbi.com (GAREYT)
>Date: 3/14/2002 7:06 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <d0a9a009.0203...@posting.google.com>
>
>Frankly I think I will take your advice and keep my "fingers off the
>keyboard" as this place is just simply too childish for myself.... You
>people are NUTS!
>
>You kids have a nice life...
****************************************
Heck i would never leave SAA! I get more kicks here than anywhere else, i
thinks it's so funny, when people fight over such dumb things...
This kid loves SAA.
Chas P.
David
David
William R. Meyers
Landsperson! I was born in Orange, N.J., and went to high school at
Stuyvesant, quite close to the Pratt Institute. I went to some lectures at Pratt
and I remember it well.
Cordially,
Bill
ValeryD
No, Chas is MUCH more friendly and humoric.
V.D.
David
Jon Isaacs
>Said the most frequent user of words liar, idiot or fool on S.A.A.
>
So far in this thread you are the only one to use these words.
jon isaacs
Herb York
WE think they are a great value for the price.
Info on our web site soon.
Thank you Vic!
Herb York
Anacortes Telescope
www.BuyTelescopes.com
www.SellTelescopes.com
www.AstroMart.com
360-588-9000
800-850-2001
"Jon Isaacs" <joni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020315095948...@mb-mw.aol.com...
STEVE S.
You guys all must watch the FOX network. They're fond of pointless
comical fights as well!
rande...@aol.com
wrote:
>Same boy here, Chas.
>
>David
Since you consider it "funny" too read what people
who "fight" on here fight about, I suppose then you
won't be weighing into the fight anytime soon, right?
-Rich
rande...@aol.com
Gibbons) wrote:
>In article <d0a9a009.02031...@posting.google.com>,
>GAREYT <gare...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>=======
>>
>>So clive, since Vic decided not to post here it became YOUR job to
>>announce it out of concern for everyone? Funny isn't it - if Vic
>>posted his position at the Stellarvue board and NOT here did it ever
>>cross your mind HE had decided for HIS own reasons not to do that?
>>But it became YOUR job clive?
>
>Garey, you must have a problem understanding what I wrote in my previous
>post.
I've noticed that people who use the term "rocket scientist" to
describe an easy undertaking usually DO have trouble
understanding just about everything.
-Rich