Charles Gilman wrote:
A little harsh, surely.

No. Entirely justified, IMO. YMM(&OD)V.

As I read it, Larry Wilson merely got his terminology wrong and failed
to follow his own advice. Perhaps he didn't even know the term
Exeligmos,

Then one must question why he was using the term. It is clear, from his
first post, that he knows that the 18yr cycle is the Saros. It is also
clear, from my initial response, that "Exeligmos" refers to what Wilson
falsely claimed was recently discovered, i.e. the 54yr cycle.

We all make mistakes.

Indeed we do, but we don't all twist the evidence in order to make a
point (e.g. using Biblical pseudo-chronology to re-date Thales's eclipse
by a century or so, or pretending that the 54yr cycle is "recently
discovered" when it was written in cuneiform!). Neither do we all
respond to the statement of verifiable fact with, as Wilson did in his
latest post, sniping sarcasm.

I get thoroughly fed up at the way astronomy is misused by those with
other, usually pseudo-scientific or pseudo-historical, agendas, and I
have to admit to having little, if any, tolerance for it. Of course,
everyone is entitled to his own beliefs and opinions, but that does not
equate to an entitlement to try to pass them off as fact.

Rant over. :-)

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +