Please note that after my simple three word reply, _our_ conversation ended,
and even though you continued to jump in there, I left you out of it. My
beef isn't with you. I'm sorry that you felt you were in the middle of this,
but frankly it was what came after my three word reply that escalated this
into the same old crappy point-counterpoint discussion.

The entire argument is predicated on the insistance that the SCT is not the
"best" choice, and that it is somehow a group responsibility to make sure
that everyone knows it.

Personally I DO NOT have a bias. I just find that the SCT better suits my
needs, as do literally thousands of other amateurs like me. I take issue
with the idea that the Dob is the end all and be all of solutions, which it
is not. The SCT is far more versatile by design and execution, right out of
the box, for people who need a versatile solution, like for imaging _and_
observing.

To the Dob lover, that statement apparently makes me an SCT "fan", which I
am not. At least not exclusively. I like all scopes that provide a solution
that I need. I am willing to make compromises to meet those needs, just like
anyone else.

I have no problem with the Dobsonian given it is properly accessorized, as
is the case with any other solution. The big difference is that I accept the
possibility that the SCT user, is an SCT user because they made that choice
based on the SCTs virtues. I don't question the validity of their reasons
for being a user of any particular scope.

When the discussion turned to GoTo GEMs, I suggested the SCT as an
alternative to the Newtonian for reasons of portability, useability of
eyepiece position, and aperture. But the idea was rejected flat out in favor
of rotating rings on the Newtonian, and not because the Newtonian was better
or worse, but because the SCT is not even a consideration.

In fact, the GoTo mount is uniquely beneficial to the SCT user. Why would
someone with a Newtonian's wide field of view, or an affordable wide field
refractor with it's limited aperture even consider a GoTo mount? So, who
has a telescope bias now? Surely not me. I used both an F5 and an F4
Newtonian on a GEM with and without GoTo and never complained about either
solution. I merely decided in the end that the SCT made more sense in that
configuration for both high resolution imaging and deep sky observing.

If asked which is the best telescope for deep sky "observing", well, that's
an entirely different discussion. Clearly the Dobsonian has more advantages
than disadvantages compared to any other design.

However, I don't see it as anyone's responsibility to make sure that an SCT
user has considered a Dobsonian in the context of a discussion about
upgrading their smaller aperture SCT to a larger aperture SCT, and, even if
I were to convey the idea, it wouldn't involve superlatives due to the
history of Dobsnobbery, and Dobvangelsim on this group.

Again, a Dobsonian makes sense, and apparently "more" sense to you. No
problem. It just doesn't make more sense to everyone.

That's all I intended.

-Stephen Paul
PS. If Jon Isaacs so much as sneezes after this post, I'm outta here
permanently.


"John Deer" wrote in message
...
Quite frankly your response takes on huge evangelistly proportions
Read my message again in context. Someone named DOINK suggested a 18" dob
for the next real step.

I repeat : If you want to see more deep sky objects a 10" or 12" dob
makes more sense.
And the wider field of view will allow objects to be found much more
easily.'

My reason is there, a dob allows objects to be found more easily because
of its wider field.

There are far stronger opinions express on this thread,

I own APOS and MAKS too.
I suggest you follow your own advice and show some TACT.

JD


The history here is that folks unwittingly put on the aires of an
evangelist, in particluar, when it comes to the Dobsonian. In my
heart, I call them "Dobvangelists", and they are every bit as annoying
in their solicitations as evangelists if any persuasion who jump at
any opportunity to push their ideas on others.

It's not the message, it's the seeming inability of the messenger to
convey the message in a proper context, and with sufficient tact.