On Friday, June 29, 2012 9:56:30 AM UTC-7, Davoud wrote:
Anders Eklöf:
That woud be closer to mag. -9 than mag. 9

palsing:
No, definitely not mag -9, read this...

Mr. Eklöf didn't say -9 he said closer to -9. But it wouldn't matter if
he had said -300 because he was writing hyperbolically, not literally.

You're not one of those people who, if someone says "It's raining cats
and dogs," looks out the window and says "No it's not! That's just
ordinary water," are you?

*********

No, I'm not.

Upon my initial reading, I mis-understood his comment... he was actually talking about the Iridium satellite, which certainly WOULD be closer to mag -9 than to mag 9...

\Paul A