On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 10:18:19 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 03:27:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Those kinds of scopes are often very good first scopes, and they are
representative of the first scopes of a great many amateur
astronomers.

There you go.

But so what? This has nothing to do with the point I'm making, and
does nothing to support yours.

Your comment

"Those kinds of scopes are often very good first scopes, and they are representative of the first scopes of a great many amateur astronomers"

supports my point perfectly, ie many more people can or will start with inexpensive telescopes than with $2000 ones. Your comment obviously contradicts the one you made earlier.

I see that your most recent stint in the booby hatch has done nothing
to improve your ability to reason.

If you think that "Most of the young people I see getting interested in
astronomy now have fairly inexpensive scopes/mount combos
($1000-$2000)" and that those young people are typical, then you certainly belong in a loony bin, peterson.

What YOU see is irrelevant, peterson.