| |
Main
Date: 11 Sep 2006 10:14:32
From: Howard Lester
Subject: How about a new newsgroup?
|
I'd call it something like sci.astro.amateur.telescopes
The remaining posting could be grouped under sci.astro.amateur.insanity
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 17:28:46
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:14:32 -0700, "Howard Lester" <hlester@mmto.org >
wrote:
>I'd call it something like sci.astro.amateur.telescopes
>
>The remaining posting could be grouped under sci.astro.amateur.insanity
The insanity will follow...
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 11:09:58
From: Howard Lester
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
"Chris L Peterson"
>>I'd call it something like sci.astro.amateur.telescopes
>>
>>The remaining posting could be grouped under sci.astro.amateur.insanity
> The insanity will follow...
Yes, it will. I should have written "the remaining *postings* (plural) could
be grouped under sci.astro.amateur.insanity"... *sigh*
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 01:06:53
From: Wally
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
Howard take a long walk................................. I do it all the time.
Howard Lester wrote:
> "Chris L Peterson"
>
> >>I'd call it something like sci.astro.amateur.telescopes
> >>
> >>The remaining posting could be grouped under sci.astro.amateur.insanity
>
> > The insanity will follow...
>
> Yes, it will. I should have written "the remaining *postings* (plural) could
> be grouped under sci.astro.amateur.insanity"... *sigh*
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 08:59:55
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
RMOLLISE wrote:
> Howard Lester wrote:
> > I'd call it something like sci.astro.amateur.telescopes
> >
> > The remaining posting could be grouped under sci.astro.amateur.insanity
>
> Hi:
>
> And I gurantee that within an hour of it going up, you'd see the
> following article:
>
> "VICIOUSLY *LIBERAL* _SCUMSUCKING_ Dustbunnies have @STOLEN@ Little
> DannyMin's stash of Depends(tm) UNDERGARMENTS and will **ROT** in
> HADES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
>
> And that it would soon sport a thread 50 posts long.
>
> Be careful what you wish for...
>
> s.a.a. is still OK...just ignore the silliness. For quiet, reasoned
> discussion (which may not be quite as much fun), there's Yahoogroups.
>
> :-)
>
> Peace,
> Rod Mollise
> Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
> and
> _The Urban Astronomer's Guide_
> <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm>
> Like SCTs and MCTs?
> Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers:
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user>
The alternative is to convert s.a.a. to a moderated group. At this
stage it's worth at least a discussion. Min and whatever loonies who
feel it's their duty to leave their mental defecations all over the net
would be defeated, but it would certainly introduce a minor delay in
seeing new postings.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 17:15:08
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
On 12 Sep 2006 08:59:55 -0700, "Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net >
wrote:
>The alternative is to convert s.a.a. to a moderated group. At this
>stage it's worth at least a discussion. Min and whatever loonies who
>feel it's their duty to leave their mental defecations all over the net
>would be defeated, but it would certainly introduce a minor delay in
>seeing new postings.
Moderated newsgroups don't work unless they are small and specialized.
Why worry about a handful of cranks (and it really is only a handful)?
Either read their posts for a laugh, or ignore them. The bandwidth is
trivial, and it shouldn't impact topical posting much at all. Gerald is
pretty much the only one who throws his crap into the middle of
otherwise reasonable posts, and he is very easy to killfile since he
doesn't morph.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 10:49:30
From: Howard Lester
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
"Chris L Peterson" wrote
> Moderated newsgroups don't work unless they are small and specialized.
> Why worry about a handful of cranks (and it really is only a handful)?
> Either read their posts for a laugh, or ignore them. The bandwidth is
> trivial, and it shouldn't impact topical posting much at all. Gerald is
> pretty much the only one who throws his crap into the middle of
> otherwise reasonable posts, and he is very easy to killfile since he
> doesn't morph.
A few? There are all the crossposters and lengthy political threads and moon
hoaxes and all that... my killfile of these people is larger than the number
of GOOD posters. And the loony and crossposter list continues to grow. No,
the newsgroup is mostly insanity. We used to have discussions of optics,
telescopes, eyepieces, accessories, observing.... The percentage of such
postings is very limited compared to just a couple years ago.
I know we've gone around in circles over this topic, and the fact is we've
lost quite a few good people over the years. It's worth revisiting. But like
really obnoxious neighbors and bad drivers, you just can't make them go
away.
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 18:48:09
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:49:30 -0700, "Howard Lester" <hlester@mmto.org >
wrote:
>A few? There are all the crossposters and lengthy political threads and moon
>hoaxes and all that... my killfile of these people is larger than the number
>of GOOD posters. And the loony and crossposter list continues to grow. No,
>the newsgroup is mostly insanity. We used to have discussions of optics,
>telescopes, eyepieces, accessories, observing.... The percentage of such
>postings is very limited compared to just a couple years ago.
Boy, I sure don't see that. I don't have any kill filters, so I see
everything. Who cares about the volume of _posts_? What matters is the
volume of topical _threads_, and they still represent the overwhelming
majority.
I don't understand why anybody who gets value here, or who has something
to contribute, would leave just because of a few wacky threads. The
thinking behind that completely escapes me. Indeed, it is just such
irrational behavior that has contributed to the percentage increase in
off-topic posts. The nutcases never leave.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 10:01:07
From: Martin Howell
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
On 12 Sep 2006 08:59:55 -0700, Richard Adams wrote:
> RMOLLISE wrote:
>> Howard Lester wrote:
>>> I'd call it something like sci.astro.amateur.telescopes
>>>
>>> The remaining posting could be grouped under sci.astro.amateur.insanity
>>
>> Hi:
>>
>> And I gurantee that within an hour of it going up, you'd see the
>> following article:
>>
>> "VICIOUSLY *LIBERAL* _SCUMSUCKING_ Dustbunnies have @STOLEN@ Little
>> DannyMin's stash of Depends(tm) UNDERGARMENTS and will **ROT** in
>> HADES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
>>
>> And that it would soon sport a thread 50 posts long.
>>
>> Be careful what you wish for...
>>
>> s.a.a. is still OK...just ignore the silliness. For quiet, reasoned
>> discussion (which may not be quite as much fun), there's Yahoogroups.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Peace,
>> Rod Mollise
>> Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
>> and
>> _The Urban Astronomer's Guide_
>> <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm>
>> Like SCTs and MCTs?
>> Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers:
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user>
>
> The alternative is to convert s.a.a. to a moderated group. At this
> stage it's worth at least a discussion. Min and whatever loonies who
> feel it's their duty to leave their mental defecations all over the net
> would be defeated, but it would certainly introduce a minor delay in
> seeing new postings.
A killfile makes a nice lil moderator.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 16:47:37
From: Marty
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
>whatever loonies who feel it's their duty
> to leave their mental defecations all
> over the net would be defeated,
Gee, I'd really miss being able to post here...
Marty
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 15:05:37
From: Howard Lester
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
"Marty" wrote
> >whatever loonies who feel it's their duty
>> to leave their mental defecations all
>> over the net would be defeated,
>
> Gee, I'd really miss being able to post here...
> Marty
Nahhh, you symbolize the blinding light of the group.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 17:44:25
From: Jan Owen
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
"Howard Lester" <hlester@mmto.org > wrote in message
news:ee7apl$svv$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
>
> "Marty" wrote
>
>> >whatever loonies who feel it's their duty
>>> to leave their mental defecations all
>>> over the net would be defeated,
>>
>> Gee, I'd really miss being able to post here...
>> Marty
>
> Nahhh, you symbolize the blinding light of the group.
True story. I agree totally... In fact, Marty has a communicative style
seldom seen since Leslie Peltier. Makes me want to just sell everything and
move, to become a neighbor and supporter of, Marty!!! OOPS!!! Uhhh... the
SUN!!!
And I personally think the Sun's messages here are Lyric...
But His messages notwithstanding, too much of the rest of that's being
posted on SAA from day to day has become detritus...
--
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: 13 Sep 2006 07:19:06
From: Marty
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
>Marty has a communicative style seldom
> seen since Leslie Peltier. Makes me
> want to just sell everything and move, to
> become a neighbor and supporter of,
> Marty!!! OOPS!!! Uhhh... the SUN!!!
>And I personally think the Sun's
> messages here are Lyric...
Yeah, whut he said...
Marty
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 04:37:13
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
Howard Lester wrote:
> I'd call it something like sci.astro.amateur.telescopes
>
> The remaining posting could be grouped under sci.astro.amateur.insanity
Hi:
And I gurantee that within an hour of it going up, you'd see the
following article:
"VICIOUSLY *LIBERAL* _SCUMSUCKING_ Dustbunnies have @STOLEN@ Little
DannyMin's stash of Depends(tm) UNDERGARMENTS and will **ROT** in
HADES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
And that it would soon sport a thread 50 posts long.
Be careful what you wish for...
s.a.a. is still OK...just ignore the silliness. For quiet, reasoned
discussion (which may not be quite as much fun), there's Yahoogroups.
:-)
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
and
_The Urban Astronomer's Guide_
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm >
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user >
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 15:18:36
From: gobbletwo
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
RMOLLISE wrote:
> Howard Lester wrote:
>> I'd call it something like sci.astro.amateur.telescopes
>>
>> The remaining posting could be grouped under sci.astro.amateur.insanity
>
> Hi:
>
> And I gurantee that within an hour of it going up, you'd see the
> following article:
>
> "VICIOUSLY *LIBERAL* _SCUMSUCKING_ Dustbunnies have @STOLEN@ Little
> DannyMin's stash of Depends(tm) UNDERGARMENTS and will **ROT** in
> HADES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
>
> And that it would soon sport a thread 50 posts long.
>
> Be careful what you wish for...
>
> s.a.a. is still OK...just ignore the silliness. For quiet, reasoned
> discussion (which may not be quite as much fun), there's Yahoogroups.
>
> :-)
>
> Peace,
> Rod Mollise
> Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
> and
> _The Urban Astronomer's Guide_
> <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm>
> Like SCTs and MCTs?
> Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers:
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user>
>
LOL :-)
jon
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 16:23:59
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
tension_on_the_wire wrote:
> Your idea is very interesting and looks effective too, provided you are
> willing to commit to a group list without future additions. It
> somewhat hijacks the public nature of the newsgroup from those honest
> posters who might come along and wish to get involved. <snip>
The way the list works is that it flags promising threads. You still
have the option - and must - look at an unfiltered view to read the
entire thread. This also gives you the option to scan for new threads
where no connector-maven is present - if you want to. It is anticipated
that you would expand the list as people join or leave. I add about 1
person a month to my own rules list. As a practical matter in my
experience, it does not have the reasonable negative side effects that
you are anticipating. Whatever the negative effects are of the
practice, IMHO it is the optimal choice amongst a series of
undesireable solutions, e.g. - honest posters being driven away by
irresponsible net trolls and loons and right-wing facist posters.
More desireable solutions would be 1) a non-commercial moderated group
or 2) Microsoft adding the Outlook e-mail junk mail tool to the Outlook
Express newsreader at no additional charge.
Clear Skies - Canopus56
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 11:49:03
From: tension_on_the_wire
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
canopus56 wrote:
> Richard Adams wrote:
> <snip>
> > The alternative is to convert s.a.a. to a moderated group. At this
> > stage it's worth at least a discussion.
>
> Seconded. It should be a moderated group in a non-commercial forum
> like the usenet. Since a moderated SAA group is unlikely to come to
> fruitrition, here's my method for "postive" filtering this newsgroup by
> limiting to persons making higher content posts -
>
> http://members.csolutions.net/fisherka/astronote/notes/Outlookfiltering.html
>
> - Canopus56
>
> P.S. - I'm bucking up for Min and Conard going nuts through the Nov.
> congressional election and making three or four inappropriate
> propaganda posts a day. Heavy "positive" filtering does get rid of
> them.
Your idea is very interesting and looks effective too, provided you are
willing to commit to a group list without future additions. It
somewhat hijacks the public nature of the newsgroup from those honest
posters who might come along and wish to get involved. Hopefully they
would get identified by their responses to one of the "maven"-marked
threads, but if they don't know that all-important list to begin with,
they might never think that they must post to other people for sometime
before they get their name added to a list that permits them to get
read by the serious regulars of the group. They could, theoretically,
be sitting here posting to a brick wall and wondering why the only
response they are getting to questions posed in good faith are from
horrendously vengeful trolls. The upshot is that your group might
become somewhat stagnant for lack of new blood, and will be perceived
by the rest of the general readership as being no different from a
private club where all newcomers are ignored. At least a moderated
group has an opportunity for newcomers to join, which process they all
understand. I am one of those reading lurkers who would not have made
your list, and I am most certainly not one of the trolls you are trying
to contend with. And I might hazard a guess that there's plenty more
where I came from.
--tension
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 11:20:43
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
Richard Adams wrote:
<snip >
> The alternative is to convert s.a.a. to a moderated group. At this
> stage it's worth at least a discussion.
Seconded. It should be a moderated group in a non-commercial forum
like the usenet. Since a moderated SAA group is unlikely to come to
fruitrition, here's my method for "postive" filtering this newsgroup by
limiting to persons making higher content posts -
http://members.csolutions.net/fisherka/astronote/notes/Outlookfiltering.html
- Canopus56
P.S. - I'm bucking up for Min and Conard going nuts through the Nov.
congressional election and making three or four inappropriate
propaganda posts a day. Heavy "positive" filtering does get rid of
them.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 20:47:46
From: John Nichols
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
"canopus56" <canopus56@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1158085243.319438.55720@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Richard Adams wrote:
> <snip>
>> The alternative is to convert s.a.a. to a moderated group. At this
>> stage it's worth at least a discussion.
>
> Seconded. It should be a moderated group in a non-commercial forum
> like the usenet. Since a moderated SAA group is unlikely to come to
> fruitrition, here's my method for "postive" filtering this newsgroup by
> limiting to persons making higher content posts -
>
> http://members.csolutions.net/fisherka/astronote/notes/Outlookfiltering.html
>
> - Canopus56
>
> P.S. - I'm bucking up for Min and Conard going nuts through the Nov.
> congressional election and making three or four inappropriate
> propaganda posts a day. Heavy "positive" filtering does get rid of
> them.
>
Actually it isn't so much Min or Oriel. Rather it's the damn ninnys who
keep replying to their crossposted and offtopic trash without ever trimming
out the irrelevant groups. And so the garbage keeps showing up. I have
well over two hundred messages rules to filter this stuff out, the
overwhelming majority of which are dedicated to s.a.a. I've lost track of
how many I've killfilled.
What is really needed is some sort of bot that can be deployed for the
purpose of sniffing out wacko posts and wiping them out before they ever
appear. Better yet, it would simply fry once and for all wacko access to
the Net.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 21:50:15
From: Ioannis
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
"canopus56" <canopus56@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1158085243.319438.55720@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Richard Adams wrote:
> <snip>
> > The alternative is to convert s.a.a. to a moderated group. At this
> > stage it's worth at least a discussion.
>
> Seconded. It should be a moderated group in a non-commercial forum
> like the usenet. Since a moderated SAA group is unlikely to come to
> fruitrition, here's my method for "postive" filtering this newsgroup by
> limiting to persons making higher content posts -
>
> http://members.csolutions.net/fisherka/astronote/notes/Outlookfiltering.html
Kurt,
I believe you want "SkySea" and not "SeaSky" for Dale Gombert (on the
"allowed" list).
> - Canopus56
--
Ioannis
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 10:39:53
From: W8MJE
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
Howard Lester wrote:
> I'd call it something like sci.astro.amateur.telescopes
Only if it's moderated ;-)
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 22:20:22
From: gobbletwo
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
W8MJE wrote:
> Howard Lester wrote:
>> I'd call it something like sci.astro.amateur.telescopes
>
>
> Only if it's moderated ;-)
>
Have keyer: will travel.. ;-)
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 15:41:05
From: Howard Lester
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
"gobbletwo" <gobble-two@yahow.org > wrote in message
news:GoGNg.40471$uH6.10942@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> W8MJE wrote:
>> Howard Lester wrote:
>>> I'd call it something like sci.astro.amateur.telescopes
>>
>>
>> Only if it's moderated ;-)
>>
> Have keyer: will travel.. ;-)
di-di-di-dit di-dit
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 11:46:33
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2006 10:58:16 -0700, "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I assure you that I was well aware of what I was letting myself in for
> >by posting to these groups and know only too well the loss of dignity
> >in these matters,not just personally but for the entire astronomical
> >discipline...
>
> No, it's just your own lost dignity, I'm afraid.
>
God forbid you ever know the experience of presenting the original
texts of Copernicus and Kepler along with contemporary time lapse
footage ( to make things fairly easy to comprehend ) and watch as these
things fail to impact on the accepted Newtonian mutations.It is one
thing to try to promote this astronomical material and lose my dignity
in the process,it is something else to see the great Western
astronomical achievements perverted into a linguisitc mess with no
content and character .You feel no remorse but I certainly do mind that
the inherited astronomical tradition now amounts to nothing more than
magnification and photography.and it is presented to humanity as such.
Dignity is mine to lose and I accept it only with the barest
courtesy,my pride in my astronomical tradition being that much
greater.That pride extends to encompassing the observational and
magnification facet but these things are not in themselves astronomy.
I have taken my stand at the most simple and most basic physical
description of your error,beyond which it is impossible to be an
astronomer and do astronomy in the true sense it existed since
antiquity.You are fortunate to be capable of seeing that error
presented in the most clear way it can be,whether you wish to deal with
it or not.Maybe you can take it to the next conference -
The return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec cannot be
justified using the axial and orbital motions of the Earth
Whatever dignity you imagine is wrapped up in tying axial rotation
directly to celestial sphere geometry,it can hardly be astronomical.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 10:58:16
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
I assure you that I was well aware of what I was letting myself in for
by posting to these groups and know only too well the loss of dignity
in these matters,not just personally but for the entire astronomical
discipline.You inhabit a tiny facet of astronomy that sprung up with
the emergence of telescopes,the major body of work stretching from
Roemer right back to remote antiquity did not involve magnification but
rather intuitive intelligence that produced the heliocentric system,its
refinements and the clock system ..
For the first time,men have the chance to appreciate the two step
process which refers the 24 hour day to rotation at 15 degrees per hour
using the noon Equation of Time correction,a concept so simple and so
pragmatic that to argue these principles for 4 years to creatures who
justify the return of a star to a meridian by the axial and orbital
motions of the Earth is almost unthinkable.
You insist in justifying your celestial sphere geometry even though it
is impossible, for the Ra/Dec is just an observational convenience and
to know the difference is to be an astronomer.You do not want to do
that,you want your celestial sphere outlook to mesmerise people with
multiple universe,warped space,dark matter and everything observational
astronomy should be fighting against for truly no person can look into
the celestial arena and dump these things into it.
All that leaves are people interested in magnification alone and if
that is an astronomer then call the newsgroup whatever you like.
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2006 08:59:55 -0700, "Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The alternative is to convert s.a.a. to a moderated group. At this
> >stage it's worth at least a discussion. Min and whatever loonies who
> >feel it's their duty to leave their mental defecations all over the net
> >would be defeated, but it would certainly introduce a minor delay in
> >seeing new postings.
>
> Moderated newsgroups don't work unless they are small and specialized.
> Why worry about a handful of cranks (and it really is only a handful)?
> Either read their posts for a laugh, or ignore them. The bandwidth is
> trivial, and it shouldn't impact topical posting much at all. Gerald is
> pretty much the only one who throws his crap into the middle of
> otherwise reasonable posts, and he is very easy to killfile since he
> doesn't morph.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 18:01:49
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
On 13 Sep 2006 10:58:16 -0700, "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>I assure you that I was well aware of what I was letting myself in for
>by posting to these groups and know only too well the loss of dignity
>in these matters,not just personally but for the entire astronomical
>discipline...
No, it's just your own lost dignity, I'm afraid.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 04:19:03
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> No, it's just your own lost dignity, I'm afraid.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
Hi Chris:
You assume the poor thing ever had any.
His schtick is even more depressing that those of DannyMin and Ed
Coalhead. Let's leave him in peace.
You see, I'm not sure it's a good idea to reply to some of these folks.
Beyond the fact that it clutters up the newsgroups with "loon threads,
I'd guess some of them may be potentially dangerous.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 20:40:57
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
Considring that you cannot give the correct answer to the most
fundamental question in astronomy,the basic correlation between clocks
and axial rotation,you can call the forum whatever you like .
The astrological natre of you observations should be a cause for
concern in an era when it is crucial to get the relationship between
axial and orbital motions right and I have not seen the slightest move
in that direction hence this situation where I have to keep plugging
away.
Mij Adyaw wrote:
> Does this mean that Oriel says "NO" to the idea of a new newsgroup? If we
> create a new newsgroup, it should be "Republican Astronomers". :-)
>
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158258211.224290.16940@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > None of you have anything to say technically in regard to supporting
> > your dumb celestial sphere geometry and how you use the axial and
> > orbital motions of the Earth to justify it.
> >
> > It takes the barest intelligence to go outside and affirm why
> > justifying thereturn of a star to a meridian is ashockingly
> > unintelligent way to justify axial and orbital motion regardless of the
> > convenience for observational purposes.
> >
> > The difference between yourselves and the astrologers is that they do
> > not take themselves too seriously and people who are of like
> > sensibilities go along with the schemes,predictions and conclusions
> > while you certainly take yourselves seriously with the same system and
> > people of like sensibilities go along with the schemes,conclusions and
> > predictions .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > RMOLLISE wrote:
> >> Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > No, it's just your own lost dignity, I'm afraid.
> >> >
> >> > _________________________________________________
> >> >
> >> > Chris L Peterson
> >> > Cloudbait Observatory
> >> > http://www.cloudbait.com
> >>
> >> Hi Chris:
> >>
> >> You assume the poor thing ever had any.
> >>
> >> His schtick is even more depressing that those of DannyMin and Ed
> >> Coalhead. Let's leave him in peace.
> >>
> >> You see, I'm not sure it's a good idea to reply to some of these folks.
> >> Beyond the fact that it clutters up the newsgroups with "loon threads,
> >> I'd guess some of them may be potentially dangerous.
> >
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 11:23:31
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
None of you have anything to say technically in regard to supporting
your dumb celestial sphere geometry and how you use the axial and
orbital motions of the Earth to justify it.
It takes the barest intelligence to go outside and affirm why
justifying thereturn of a star to a meridian is ashockingly
unintelligent way to justify axial and orbital motion regardless of the
convenience for observational purposes.
The difference between yourselves and the astrologers is that they do
not take themselves too seriously and people who are of like
sensibilities go along with the schemes,predictions and conclusions
while you certainly take yourselves seriously with the same system and
people of like sensibilities go along with the schemes,conclusions and
predictions .
RMOLLISE wrote:
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> >
> > No, it's just your own lost dignity, I'm afraid.
> >
> > _________________________________________________
> >
> > Chris L Peterson
> > Cloudbait Observatory
> > http://www.cloudbait.com
>
> Hi Chris:
>
> You assume the poor thing ever had any.
>
> His schtick is even more depressing that those of DannyMin and Ed
> Coalhead. Let's leave him in peace.
>
> You see, I'm not sure it's a good idea to reply to some of these folks.
> Beyond the fact that it clutters up the newsgroups with "loon threads,
> I'd guess some of them may be potentially dangerous.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 17:42:29
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: How about a new newsgroup?
|
Does this mean that Oriel says "NO" to the idea of a new newsgroup? If we
create a new newsgroup, it should be "Republican Astronomers". :-)
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1158258211.224290.16940@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> None of you have anything to say technically in regard to supporting
> your dumb celestial sphere geometry and how you use the axial and
> orbital motions of the Earth to justify it.
>
> It takes the barest intelligence to go outside and affirm why
> justifying thereturn of a star to a meridian is ashockingly
> unintelligent way to justify axial and orbital motion regardless of the
> convenience for observational purposes.
>
> The difference between yourselves and the astrologers is that they do
> not take themselves too seriously and people who are of like
> sensibilities go along with the schemes,predictions and conclusions
> while you certainly take yourselves seriously with the same system and
> people of like sensibilities go along with the schemes,conclusions and
> predictions .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RMOLLISE wrote:
>> Chris L Peterson wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > No, it's just your own lost dignity, I'm afraid.
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________
>> >
>> > Chris L Peterson
>> > Cloudbait Observatory
>> > http://www.cloudbait.com
>>
>> Hi Chris:
>>
>> You assume the poor thing ever had any.
>>
>> His schtick is even more depressing that those of DannyMin and Ed
>> Coalhead. Let's leave him in peace.
>>
>> You see, I'm not sure it's a good idea to reply to some of these folks.
>> Beyond the fact that it clutters up the newsgroups with "loon threads,
>> I'd guess some of them may be potentially dangerous.
>
|
|
