The Great Troll

Hello Group ,

My My , here we are conversing with the GREAT S.A.A.
troll :
Chuck wrote :

"RichA" wrote in message
...
But what if someone offered a 6" f5 triplet,
that had colour like (eg.) a 6" f10 achro?

Going to a triplet is not going to give you better color
correction. You
will need different (read: expensive) glass to do that. I don't think
people
are going to pay apo sized prices for achro type color correction,
even if
the tube is shorter.

The chromacor is also going to have problems at that fast speed.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

I'm just curious as to why some people who just a few
weeks ago were kicking Rich all over SAA for being a troll are now and
have been answering his posts ??

I said it before and I will repeat it again :
Rich puts more into SAA and gets more discussion going than most
people that come here to SAA. Therefore I personally find him of great
value here .
Chuck whats your problem , are you lonely ? Do you need to see
something you typed on a computer screen late at night ?
I like your posts Chuck ( so don't get me wrong ) but
why do you answer the GREAT TROLL ??????????
Here ,I'll even put a little smile on it .
Leonard





Are you interested in optics?

On 27 Nov 2004 02:27:32 -0800, Leonard wrote:

I said it before and I will repeat it again :
Rich puts more into SAA and gets more discussion going than most
people that come here to SAA. Therefore I personally find him of great
value here .

I happen to agree with you. Rich's posts aren't generally political,
offensive or OT. They seem to be food for thought and conversation
starters. I don't care if he does it out of genuine curiosity or just to
get things rolling (I assume the former). Since his topics aren't likely
to get the largest threads going or start flame wars, I don't think he's
trolling.

Mike Simmons

Hi Leonard,

I agree Rich makes some very good posts. And when he discusses optics, I
enjoying corresponding with him. But I have watched him in a number of
places and he has alternated between trolling and making good posts.

As I said before, his posts we

(1) "A diffractionless lens" ????
Coming from someone else, I would just excuse it to ignorance. I don't
think Rich is ignorant enough to think he is going to eliminate diffraction
effects

(2) Rumor that ISS was created to, "give jobs to starving Russian scientists
so
they wouldn't go build atom bombs for the Arabs."

(3) Are refractors hurt the hobby? (At least it's a change from his usual
Roland/apo makers conspire to keep the price of apos artificially high / It
could be lowered by economies of
scale.)

(4) We just need to tell the Hawaiians their "superstitions" are not
important?

(5-8) Look at this on ebay, and look at that on ebay, and look at this on
ebay,
and look ...

(9) Goto and public school are ruining the hobby?

Why not just restart Meade vs. Celestron and be done with it?

I don't know why, but his threads were running off more and more in that
direction.

Why did I (and some others) complain? We have a number of empty lots around
the city. Talking to those who oversee this stuff, if one car is parked
there with a "for sale" sign for more than a couple of days, there will soon
be two, three, four and within a week, it looks like a used car lot. The
same thing happens with trolls. If you doubt this, go to Sci.astro, which
used to be a nice neighborhood. It is now a netloon and troll ghetto with
only a few diehards actually having a meaningful astro conversation.

Why do I answer Rich now and talk with him? Because it would be hypocritical
of me not to be the first one to acknowledge that his posts have changed and
been less troll and actually very good contributions.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Are you interested in optics?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/

************************************


"Leonard" wrote in message
om...
Hello Group ,

My My , here we are conversing with the GREAT S.A.A.
troll :
Chuck wrote :

"RichA" wrote in message
...
But what if someone offered a 6" f5 triplet,
that had colour like (eg.) a 6" f10 achro?

Going to a triplet is not going to give you better color
correction. You
will need different (read: expensive) glass to do that. I don't think
people
are going to pay apo sized prices for achro type color correction,
even if
the tube is shorter.

The chromacor is also going to have problems at that fast speed.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

I'm just curious as to why some people who just a few
weeks ago were kicking Rich all over SAA for being a troll are now and
have been answering his posts ??

I said it before and I will repeat it again :
Rich puts more into SAA and gets more discussion going than most
people that come here to SAA. Therefore I personally find him of great
value here .
Chuck whats your problem , are you lonely ? Do you need to see
something you typed on a computer screen late at night ?
I like your posts Chuck ( so don't get me wrong ) but
why do you answer the GREAT TROLL ??????????
Here ,I'll even put a little smile on it .
Leonard





Are you interested in optics?

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:59:53 -0800, "CLT" not@thisaddress wrote:

Hi Leonard,

I agree Rich makes some very good posts. And when he discusses optics, I
enjoying corresponding with him. But I have watched him in a number of
places and he has alternated between trolling and making good posts.

As I said before, his posts we

(1) "A diffractionless lens" ????
Coming from someone else, I would just excuse it to ignorance. I don't
think Rich is ignorant enough to think he is going to eliminate diffraction
effects

You could be right. Latest issue of Photonics goes on to say it's
likely never going to happen with visible light.

(2) Rumor that ISS was created to, "give jobs to starving Russian scientists
so
they wouldn't go build atom bombs for the Arabs."

Actually, that was a repeat from another amateur, I hadn't heard it
and thought it was "novel" enough.

(3) Are refractors hurt the hobby? (At least it's a change from his usual
Roland/apo makers conspire to keep the price of apos artificially high / It
could be lowered by economies of
scale.)

Cheap 60mm refractors. It had nothing to do with higher end scopes.


(4) We just need to tell the Hawaiians their "superstitions" are not
important?

I still stand by that. Diplomacy via kowtowing to nonsense rubs me
the wrong way. One reason Indians are rotting on reservations is the
idea that "tradition culture" is beneficial to people living in a
technological world. Evidence all suggests this is stupid and the
perpetuation in the belief of ancient mythology benefits no one.

(5-8) Look at this on ebay, and look at that on ebay, and look at this on
ebay,
and look ...

Just for curiosity's sake.

(9) Goto and public school are ruining the hobby?

Never said Goto is ruining the hobby, more like changing it. Public
schools? Defitinely not encouraging science.

Why not just restart Meade vs. Celestron and be done with it?

Could happen. I enjoyed it the first time, some answers came out of
it.

I don't know why, but his threads were running off more and more in that
direction.

Why did I (and some others) complain? We have a number of empty lots around
the city. Talking to those who oversee this stuff, if one car is parked
there with a "for sale" sign for more than a couple of days, there will soon
be two, three, four and within a week, it looks like a used car lot. The
same thing happens with trolls. If you doubt this, go to Sci.astro, which
used to be a nice neighborhood. It is now a netloon and troll ghetto with
only a few diehards actually having a meaningful astro conversation.

Guardians of the unmoderated group! If your theory was right,
D.J. Min would have destroyed it long ago.
Sci.astro was a nice neighbourhood? And here I thought I'd been
online for a long time...

Why do I answer Rich now and talk with him? Because it would be hypocritical
of me not to be the first one to acknowledge that his posts have changed and
been less troll and actually very good contributions.

The main idea is to keep things going. If there's a lull, feel free
to start a thread on something astronomical.
-Rich

On 28 Nov 2004 13:30:55 GMT, (Jon Isaacs) wrote:

I still stand by that. Diplomacy via kowtowing to nonsense rubs me
the wrong way. One reason Indians are rotting on reservations is the idea
that "tradition culture" is beneficial to people living in a technological
world. Evidence all suggests this is stupid and the
perpetuation in the belief of ancient mythology benefits no one.

Rich:

Time to watch "The God's Must Be Crazy" once again. More to life the
technology..

Jon

No point in romanticising something that has proven so detrimental.
Want an example? Take a look at what the loonies of creationalism
are trying to get put into schools. This problem isn't just with
other cultures.
-Rich

In general I agree. We love Rich- it would be a lesser venue
without him, thats for sure.





Mike Simmons wrote:

On 27 Nov 2004 02:27:32 -0800, Leonard wrote:

I said it before and I will repeat it again :
Rich puts more into SAA and gets more discussion going than most
people that come here to SAA. Therefore I personally find him of great
value here .

I happen to agree with you. Rich's posts aren't generally political,
offensive or OT. They seem to be food for thought and conversation
starters. I don't care if he does it out of genuine curiosity or just to
get things rolling (I assume the former). Since his topics aren't likely
to get the largest threads going or start flame wars, I don't think he's
trolling.

Mike Simmons

No point in romanticising something that has proven so detrimental.
Want an example? Take a look at what the loonies of creationalism
are trying to get put into schools. This problem isn't just with
other cultures.
-Rich

I agree, ours certainly has more than its fair share of such problems. I am
quite sure that the long term outcome of the current western approach is far
from clear. When we do ourselves in because of Global Warming or with nuclear
pollution or whatever, when we have had our say and depleted the worlds
resources so folks can drive around in vehicles that get 12mph, those
"backward" cultures will be there to pick up and start again...

The point however is that one needs to understand and respect other cultures
because they offer other perspectives on the world and because they have a
right to exist regardless of what you or I might believe.

And too, I suggest viewing the "God's Must Be Crazy" because it puts an
interesting perspective on the sort of life that most westerners live.

Jon