| |
Main
Date: 26 Aug 2007 10:05:25
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Ironic SAA
|
The irony I see is that since the sporge flood ended it seems to me that
the signal to noise on SAA has seldom been higher.
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com
To reply take out your eye
|
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 23:11:25
From: JFK
Subject: Re: Ironic SAA
|
posttosomeoneelsemoron -I wont engage you. have a googlife
oriel36 wrote:
> On Aug 27, 6:53 am, KRP <w...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> > > Margo Schulter wrote:
> > > > What strikes me is that from either an observational or theoretical
> > > > point of view, the precise conventions we use for timekeeping -- or
> > > > RA and Dec or whatever -- are pretty provincial matters compared to
> > > > the scale of the universe, or even of our own Milky.
> >
> > > Of course they are, as they must always be. In fact it is the very idea
> > > of a universal system of coordinates or timekeeping that is
> > > "provincial." That is is childlike error that Gerald--who clearly
> > > suffers from a serious metal illness--is making.
> >
> > He knows exactly what he's doing. All for affect.
> >
>
> No doubt the taxpayers will be delighted to know that the people
> involved in studying climate are the same people who subscribe to
> unreal observations such as the belief that the noon cycles are 24
> hours,not just a minor organisation but ones such as Nasa -
>
> 'Period Of Rotation'
> "The actual value is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. This is the
> length of a "sidereal" day. It is the actual time it takes the Earth
> to rotate 360 degrees. The term "sidereal" (pronounced sigh-dear'-
> real) refers to the rotation of the Earth being measured relative to
> the stars. There ARE 24 hours in a "solar day". This is the time it
> takes from one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon. The difference in
> the two "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also
> travels nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun. "
>
> http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html
>
> There is an old saying that if you cannot be trusted with small
> matters ...
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Where is the center of the Universe? Wherever the observer is standing.
> > > What time is it, truly? Whatever time the observer thinks it is. Ask
> > > a different observer, get a different answer. That is the true
> > > universal truth--that there is no such thing as a universal time or
> > > coordinate frame of reference.
> >
> > > --
> > > Greg Crinklaw
> > > Astronomical Software Developer
> > > Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
> >
> > > SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> > > Observing:http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> > > Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com
> >
> > > To reply take out your eye- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 04:45:35
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Ironic SAA
|
On Aug 27, 6:53 am, KRP <w...@mchsi.com > wrote:
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> > Margo Schulter wrote:
> > > What strikes me is that from either an observational or theoretical
> > > point of view, the precise conventions we use for timekeeping -- or
> > > RA and Dec or whatever -- are pretty provincial matters compared to
> > > the scale of the universe, or even of our own Milky.
>
> > Of course they are, as they must always be. In fact it is the very idea
> > of a universal system of coordinates or timekeeping that is
> > "provincial." That is is childlike error that Gerald--who clearly
> > suffers from a serious metal illness--is making.
>
> He knows exactly what he's doing. All for affect.
>
No doubt the taxpayers will be delighted to know that the people
involved in studying climate are the same people who subscribe to
unreal observations such as the belief that the noon cycles are 24
hours,not just a minor organisation but ones such as Nasa -
'Period Of Rotation'
"The actual value is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. This is the
length of a "sidereal" day. It is the actual time it takes the Earth
to rotate 360 degrees. The term "sidereal" (pronounced sigh-dear'-
real) refers to the rotation of the Earth being measured relative to
the stars. There ARE 24 hours in a "solar day". This is the time it
takes from one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon. The difference in
the two "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also
travels nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun. "
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html
There is an old saying that if you cannot be trusted with small
matters ...
>
>
>
>
> > Where is the center of the Universe? Wherever the observer is standing.
> > What time is it, truly? Whatever time the observer thinks it is. Ask
> > a different observer, get a different answer. That is the true
> > universal truth--that there is no such thing as a universal time or
> > coordinate frame of reference.
>
> > --
> > Greg Crinklaw
> > Astronomical Software Developer
> > Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> > SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> > Observing:http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> > Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com
>
> > To reply take out your eye- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 04:28:52
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Ironic SAA
|
On Aug 27, 6:22 am, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@yahoo.com >
wrote:
> Margo Schulter wrote:
> > What strikes me is that from either an observational or theoretical
> > point of view, the precise conventions we use for timekeeping -- or
> > RA and Dec or whatever -- are pretty provincial matters compared to
> > the scale of the universe, or even of our own Milky.
>
> Of course they are, as they must always be. In fact it is the very idea
> of a universal system of coordinates or timekeeping that is
> "provincial." That is is childlike error that Gerald--
The 24 hour system,how each 24 hour cycle elapses into the next cycle
and subsequently how eqauble hours,minutes and seconds are derived
is so taken for granted that nobody really asks or cares where it all
comes from even though it is a huge achievement that belongs to many
civilisations over many millenia.
There is indeed a childlike element to it insofar as there is
absolutely nothing difficult and very much to enjoy about how the
daily noon correction keeps clocks fixed to natural noon -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
The variations in length of the noon cycle and subsequently the noon
correction which keeps the 24 hour cycles ticking over was tampered
with in the late 17 century,one of the worst things was the
introduction of the 'analemma' hoax which assigns an importance to
variations in the Sun's position to the Equator,it turn the Equation
of Time from a global correction to a hemispherical mess -
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html
Now you have huge problems for climatology because the pseudo-dynamic
of variable axial tilt is believed as a fact just as the equable noon
cycles are believed as a fact.
> Where is the center of the Universe? Wherever the observer is standing.
> What time is it, truly? Whatever time the observer thinks it is. Ask
> a different observer, get a different answer. That is the true
> universal truth--that there is no such thing as a universal time or
> coordinate frame of reference.
>
I will tell you what there is and believe it like a man for a change.
The creation of the 24 hour day involves equalising the variations in
any given noon cycle to a standard pace,this pace we know as the 24
hour day and subsequently it generates equable hours,minutes and
secondsThe invention of clocks involved maintaining a standard pace
for as long as possible and the accuracy of these watches was tested
against the noon cycle by apply the Equation of Time correction -
'To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much
they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.'
"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12.
Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5
hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon
to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd
in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days,
a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c.
(the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that
revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to
which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute
shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must
needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun,
or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is
regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation, and here you have a
Table, that shows it"
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
No doubt all the indoctrination of 'clocks measuring time' has
undermined your ability to appreciate how clocks measure distance
using the stable correlation where 4 minutes of clock time equal 1
degree of geographical seperation making 24 hours/360 degrees.
Whatever intellectual block involved in the inability to appreciate
how the noon corrected 'average' 24 hour day was transfered to the
axial cycle as a 'constant' thereby maintaining a 24 hour/360 degree
correlation there is absolutely no requirement to use clocks and
external references as Flamsteed and his contemporaries believed.
> --
> Greg Crinklaw
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing:http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com
>
> To reply take out your eye
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 03:46:15
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Ironic SAA
|
On Aug 27, 5:50 am, Margo Schulter <mschul...@web1.calweb.com > wrote:
> alliso...@ignmail.com wrote:
>
> > We all know that the earth does not revolve around the Sun once every
> > 365 days, and every 366 days every fourth year. The calendar in
> > standard use assumes thusly because it is convenient and simple to do
> > so for civil purposes.
>
> Hi, there, and that's pretty much my reaction also: I have no complaint
> to direct to Julius Caesar, nor to Pope Gregory XIII, who in response
> to the known fact mentioned for example by Dante around 1300 that the
> Julian calendar was off by about "a hundredth of a day," followed his
> astronomical advisers in introducing the rule that only years divisible
> by 100 which were also divisible by 400 would be leap years (like 1600
> and 2000).
>
> What strikes me is that from either an observational or theoretical
> point of view, the precise conventions we use for timekeeping -- or
> RA and Dec or whatever -- are pretty provincial matters compared to
> the scale of the universe, or even of our own Milky.
>
> I'd see RA and Dec and the mapping of the night sky into constellations
> as simply useful conventions for naming and finding things, much like
> speaking of "sunrise/sunset" or "moonrise/moonset" -- which don't
> necessarily imply a Ptolemaic or more generally geocentric model of
> our Solar System!
>
> Here and elsewhere, professional and amateur astronomers who follow
> these conventions are indeed practicing astronomy, whether it's
> attempting to observe some star cluster or galaxy and discern some
> of its structure, or refining the Cepheid period-luminosity
> relationship, or studying supernova dynamics, or getting new
> information from millimeter wave surveys.
>
> The excitement of this group is that we have both the excitement
> of first-hand visual observation, and the opportunity to learn more
> about the theoretical background and context, even if we don't
> have the equipment to do all of the relevant studies at different
> wavelengths ourselves.
>
> Most appreciatively,
>
> Margo Schulter
> mschul...@calweb.com
> Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430
This highly technical matter has its roots in the difference between
the correct working principles of structural and timekeeping
astronomers before Flamsteed and the astrologically based convenience
which emerged in the late 17th century -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_ascension
No astronomer,not a single one in the pre-empiricist era would ever
have thought of using a clock and external references to justify the
Earth's axial and orbital motion no matter how convenient it was to
track celestial phenomena via the calendar system.
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 03:37:56
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Ironic SAA
|
On Aug 27, 1:03 am, alliso...@IGNmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2:56 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >If you ever get around to
> > realising that trying to fit 4 annual orbital cycles of the Earth into
> > a calendar cycle based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days
> > is a hopl;ess waste of effort then you could probably find yourself
> > doing something useful but as it is,you are just another sour
> > indiovidual with a cartoon view of the Earth's motions derived via
> > Flamsteed.
>
> You know, everybody knows that, you're not telling us anything we
> don't know.
>
Listen carefully,you learn first how the 24 hour day is created from
the inequalities of the natural noon cycle ,learn it from Huygens -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
When you discover that the noon cycles are not 24 hours exactly you
will be undoing centuries of fiction based on the idea that the noon
cycle is 24 hours,the axial cycle is 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds
and the 3 minute 56 second difference represents the orbital motion of
the Earth -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
> We all know that the earth does not revolve around the Sun once every
> 365 days, and every 366 days every fourth year. The calendar in
> standard use assumes thusly because it is convenient and simple to do
> so for civil purposes.
>
The problem is the inability to follow the argument which Flamsteed
proposed in his ill-considered idea that the return of a star to a
location can be used to justify the axial and orbital motion of the
Earth.Listen carefully -
A star will return to a location in 23 hours 56 minutes of a 24 hour
day ONLY when the system is based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of
366 days.This means that justifying 4 annual orbital cycles of the
Earth within a 1461 day calendrical cycle does not and never has
worked.Despite the fact that all major institutions regard the axial
cycle as 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds,it requires the noon cycles to
be 24 hours exactly -
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
> No need to bring that up again here.
>
>
There are another group of people known as 'creationists' who have
basic problems with the 24 hour cycle and natural phenomena and I am
not prepared to see this era continue to believe in utter nonsense
created by the unfortunate Flamsteed in his quest to use astrological
geometry to determine terrestrial longitude.
>
>
>
> > Sorry.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 17:03:27
From:
Subject: Re: Ironic SAA
|
On Aug 26, 2:56 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>If you ever get around to
> realising that trying to fit 4 annual orbital cycles of the Earth into
> a calendar cycle based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days
> is a hopl;ess waste of effort then you could probably find yourself
> doing something useful but as it is,you are just another sour
> indiovidual with a cartoon view of the Earth's motions derived via
> Flamsteed.
You know, everybody knows that, you're not telling us anything we
don't know.
We all know that the earth does not revolve around the Sun once every
365 days, and every 366 days every fourth year. The calendar in
standard use assumes thusly because it is convenient and simple to do
so for civil purposes.
No need to bring that up again here.
>
> Sorry.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 04:50:21
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Ironic SAA
|
allisonki@ignmail.com wrote:
>
> We all know that the earth does not revolve around the Sun once every
> 365 days, and every 366 days every fourth year. The calendar in
> standard use assumes thusly because it is convenient and simple to do
> so for civil purposes.
Hi, there, and that's pretty much my reaction also: I have no complaint
to direct to Julius Caesar, nor to Pope Gregory XIII, who in response
to the known fact mentioned for example by Dante around 1300 that the
Julian calendar was off by about "a hundredth of a day," followed his
astronomical advisers in introducing the rule that only years divisible
by 100 which were also divisible by 400 would be leap years (like 1600
and 2000).
What strikes me is that from either an observational or theoretical
point of view, the precise conventions we use for timekeeping -- or
RA and Dec or whatever -- are pretty provincial matters compared to
the scale of the universe, or even of our own Milky.
I'd see RA and Dec and the mapping of the night sky into constellations
as simply useful conventions for naming and finding things, much like
speaking of "sunrise/sunset" or "moonrise/moonset" -- which don't
necessarily imply a Ptolemaic or more generally geocentric model of
our Solar System!
Here and elsewhere, professional and amateur astronomers who follow
these conventions are indeed practicing astronomy, whether it's
attempting to observe some star cluster or galaxy and discern some
of its structure, or refining the Cepheid period-luminosity
relationship, or studying supernova dynamics, or getting new
information from millimeter wave surveys.
The excitement of this group is that we have both the excitement
of first-hand visual observation, and the opportunity to learn more
about the theoretical background and context, even if we don't
have the equipment to do all of the relevant studies at different
wavelengths ourselves.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 23:22:44
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Ironic SAA
|
Margo Schulter wrote:
> What strikes me is that from either an observational or theoretical
> point of view, the precise conventions we use for timekeeping -- or
> RA and Dec or whatever -- are pretty provincial matters compared to
> the scale of the universe, or even of our own Milky.
Of course they are, as they must always be. In fact it is the very idea
of a universal system of coordinates or timekeeping that is
"provincial." That is is childlike error that Gerald--who clearly
suffers from a serious metal illness--is making.
Where is the center of the Universe? Wherever the observer is standing.
What time is it, truly? Whatever time the observer thinks it is. Ask
a different observer, get a different answer. That is the true
universal truth--that there is no such thing as a universal time or
coordinate frame of reference.
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com
To reply take out your eye
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 00:53:56
From: KRP
Subject: Re: Ironic SAA
|
Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> Margo Schulter wrote:
> > What strikes me is that from either an observational or theoretical
> > point of view, the precise conventions we use for timekeeping -- or
> > RA and Dec or whatever -- are pretty provincial matters compared to
> > the scale of the universe, or even of our own Milky.
>
> Of course they are, as they must always be. In fact it is the very idea
> of a universal system of coordinates or timekeeping that is
> "provincial." That is is childlike error that Gerald--who clearly
> suffers from a serious metal illness--is making.
>
He knows exactly what he's doing. All for affect.
>
> Where is the center of the Universe? Wherever the observer is standing.
> What time is it, truly? Whatever time the observer thinks it is. Ask
> a different observer, get a different answer. That is the true
> universal truth--that there is no such thing as a universal time or
> coordinate frame of reference.
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com
>
> To reply take out your eye
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 11:56:11
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Ironic SAA
|
On Aug 26, 5:05 pm, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@yahoo.com >
wrote:
> The irony I see is that since the sporge flood ended it seems to me that
> the signal to noise on SAA has seldom been higher.
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing:http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com
>
> To reply take out your eye
Now that you have all congratulated yourselves,start to bring up any
astronomical topic beyond magnification and optics which is a very
limited idea of astronomers and astronomy.
I do not bother to read any of your posts,they are just from an
individual who has a computer program based on an astrological
framework and the 1461 day calendrical cycle.If you ever get around to
realising that trying to fit 4 annual orbital cycles of the Earth into
a calendar cycle based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days
is a hopl;ess waste of effort then you could probably find yourself
doing something useful but as it is,you are just another sour
indiovidual with a cartoon view of the Earth's motions derived via
Flamsteed.
Sorry.
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 09:27:16
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Ironic SAA
|
On Aug 26, 11:05 am, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@yahoo.com >
wrote:
> The irony I see is that since the sporge flood ended it seems to me that
> the signal to noise on SAA has seldom been higher.
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing:http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com
>
> To reply take out your eye
Well, yeah, when all the mess is cleared away, Danny and Oriole stand
out purty well. ;-)
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 11:04:10
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Ironic SAA
|
RMOLLISE wrote:
> On Aug 26, 11:05 am, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> The irony I see is that since the sporge flood ended it seems to me that
>> the signal to noise on SAA has seldom been higher.
>>
>> --
>> Greg Crinklaw
>> Astronomical Software Developer
>> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>>
>> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
>> Observing:http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
>> Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com
>>
>> To reply take out your eye
>
> Well, yeah, when all the mess is cleared away, Danny and Oriole stand
> out purty well. ;-)
Oh, I filtered them out long ago. As long as people can keep from
replying to said idiots, quoting them in their entirety only to add a
three word response... ;-)
Seriously though, ironically the "mood" around here is better than it
has been in years.
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com
To reply take out your eye
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 13:27:54
From: Jan Owen
Subject: Re: Ironic SAA
|
"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:36f62$46d1b28b$4212a552$28097@TULAROSA.NET...
> RMOLLISE wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 11:05 am, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> The irony I see is that since the sporge flood ended it seems to me that
>>> the signal to noise on SAA has seldom been higher.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Greg Crinklaw
>>> Astronomical Software Developer
>>> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>>>
>>> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
>>> Observing:http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
>>> Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com
>>>
>>> To reply take out your eye
>>
>> Well, yeah, when all the mess is cleared away, Danny and Oriole stand
>> out purty well. ;-)
>
> Oh, I filtered them out long ago. As long as people can keep from
> replying to said idiots, quoting them in their entirety only to add a
> three word response... ;-)
>
> Seriously though, ironically the "mood" around here is better than it has
> been in years.
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com
>
> To reply take out your eye
I agree as well...
It's been SO much more like the GOOD days since the storm died down, and I
sure hope it continues along these lines (and we hear from even MORE of the
old gang!!!)...
--
Jan Owen
To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.6
Longitude: -112.3
http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 13:38:56
From: Dave Jessie
Subject: Re: Ironic SAA
|
Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> snip < Seriously though, ironically the "mood" around here is better than
> it has been in years.
>
Hi Greg,
I'll have to agree wholeheartedly. Almost like the good old days...and I'm
lovin' it.
I recall taking a two week vacation five years ago and having several
hundred on-topic posts to go through that arrived in that amount of time.
Of late, before the new improved SN ratio, a couple or three OT posts/day
was about average. You were dead on about the irony of this last series of
attacks.
Clear Dark Steady Skies,
Dave Jessie
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 04:31:39
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Ironic SAA
|
Dave Jessie <DJesSHOESsie@neo.rr.com > wrote:
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>> snip < Seriously though, ironically the "mood" around here is better than
>> it has been in years.
>>
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> I'll have to agree wholeheartedly. Almost like the good old days...and I'm
> lovin' it.
> I recall taking a two week vacation five years ago and having several
> hundred on-topic posts to go through that arrived in that amount of time.
> Of late, before the new improved SN ratio, a couple or three OT posts/day
> was about average. You were dead on about the irony of this last series of
> attacks.
>
> Clear Dark Steady Skies,
> Dave Jessie
>
>
Hi, there, all.
As someone new to the group, I wonder if this is a bit like having night fall
in an urban area, starting to observe -- and suddenly realizing that the
naked eye limiting magnitude is somehow 6.5 <grin >.
Anyway, I'm all for clear dark skies with good seeing and a high SN ratio
on s.a.a.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430
|
|
