The anti-Meade is amusing

Reading some of the wildly speculative posts
about the new Meade RCs here is telling. It
shows that some people just don't know (or care) that Meade,
above all other companies in astronomy has done
more for the hobby than any other, in terms creating
equipment that allowed a massive expansion of
viewing and imaging and did more to increase the
numbers of amateurs than anyone else.
The anti-Meade forces do have different reasons;

-You've got the disgruntled types who were burned
somehow by Meade in the past (at least in their minds)
and they just can't let anyone forget it.

-You've got the apo-elitists, AP Mafiosos who look down
on any scope that doesn't cost $1000/inch or more but who
are too blind to see that technology has allowed "lesser" scopes
to achieve virtual imaging miracles compared to 20 years ago.
They just can't figure out why anyone would bring out a 10"
catadioptric whose OTA alone doesn't cost at least $10,000!

-You've got the TeleVue mob (louder now that the Meade 5000
eyepieces are coming) but who deep down resent the fact their
TeleVue scopes have never achieved the "status" of the APs,
TMBs, TECs, Taks and Aries of the world and who from time to
time probably wonder why they spent $5000 on a 4" apo and
mount when that could have purchased a 14" SCT or custom Newtonian
capable of outstanding planetary and deepsky imaging and visual
performance that would allow them to go way beyond the "showpiece"
objects in deepsky.

Lastly, you've got the underdog worshipers who view ANY
Meade creation as some kind of rip-off (principally from Celestron)
of other scope makers.

What I'd suggest is, keep up the speculation and the invective,
if it proves correct, any of it, then that's a feather in your cap,
you can preen on the group to your heart's contentment. But, if
these RCs and the Meade Series 5000 eyepieces turn out to be
good, then watch what happens to the markets they are aimed at.

If Al Nagler (and of course there are rumours things are afoot)
comes out with something spectacular, eyepiece wise (though I
don't see that happening since his new Naglers are not that old)
then at least the TV supporters will be able to have something
to cheer about.
-Rich

Dont go hog wild with this - you havent even scratched the surface
of the anti-Celestron crowd ... and you thought Green lasters were
bad!....

John



RichA wrote:

Reading some of the wildly speculative posts
about the new Meade RCs here is telling. It
shows that some people just don't know (or care) that Meade,
above all other companies in astronomy has done
more for the hobby than any other, in terms creating
equipment that allowed a massive expansion of
viewing and imaging and did more to increase the
numbers of amateurs than anyone else.
The anti-Meade forces do have different reasons;

-You've got the disgruntled types who were burned
somehow by Meade in the past (at least in their minds)
and they just can't let anyone forget it.

-You've got the apo-elitists, AP Mafiosos who look down
on any scope that doesn't cost $1000/inch or more but who
are too blind to see that technology has allowed "lesser" scopes
to achieve virtual imaging miracles compared to 20 years ago.
They just can't figure out why anyone would bring out a 10"
catadioptric whose OTA alone doesn't cost at least $10,000!

-You've got the TeleVue mob (louder now that the Meade 5000
eyepieces are coming) but who deep down resent the fact their
TeleVue scopes have never achieved the "status" of the APs,
TMBs, TECs, Taks and Aries of the world and who from time to
time probably wonder why they spent $5000 on a 4" apo and
mount when that could have purchased a 14" SCT or custom Newtonian
capable of outstanding planetary and deepsky imaging and visual
performance that would allow them to go way beyond the "showpiece"
objects in deepsky.

Lastly, you've got the underdog worshipers who view ANY
Meade creation as some kind of rip-off (principally from Celestron)
of other scope makers.

What I'd suggest is, keep up the speculation and the invective,
if it proves correct, any of it, then that's a feather in your cap,
you can preen on the group to your heart's contentment. But, if
these RCs and the Meade Series 5000 eyepieces turn out to be
good, then watch what happens to the markets they are aimed at.

If Al Nagler (and of course there are rumours things are afoot)
comes out with something spectacular, eyepiece wise (though I
don't see that happening since his new Naglers are not that old)
then at least the TV supporters will be able to have something
to cheer about.
-Rich

The only thing I can say about Meade is that I feel lukewarm towards the
firm. I've owned two Meade scopes: an ETX-90RA and a Meade 12" SCT. The
ETX I still have and it is a great performer for the price. The 12", now
long sold, was a real disappointment. Granted, it wasn't a new scope when I
bought it, but it's optics were so rough that nothing magnified like planets
ever appeared clearly even under ideal seeing conditions. It was a mid
1990's model and they say the newer models are top notch but I haven't tried
those.

John



"RichA" wrote in message
...
Reading some of the wildly speculative posts
about the new Meade RCs here is telling. It
shows that some people just don't know (or care) that Meade,
above all other companies in astronomy has done
more for the hobby than any other, in terms creating
equipment that allowed a massive expansion of
viewing and imaging and did more to increase the
numbers of amateurs than anyone else.
The anti-Meade forces do have different reasons;

-You've got the disgruntled types who were burned
somehow by Meade in the past (at least in their minds)
and they just can't let anyone forget it.

-You've got the apo-elitists, AP Mafiosos who look down
on any scope that doesn't cost $1000/inch or more but who
are too blind to see that technology has allowed "lesser" scopes
to achieve virtual imaging miracles compared to 20 years ago.
They just can't figure out why anyone would bring out a 10"
catadioptric whose OTA alone doesn't cost at least $10,000!

-You've got the TeleVue mob (louder now that the Meade 5000
eyepieces are coming) but who deep down resent the fact their
TeleVue scopes have never achieved the "status" of the APs,
TMBs, TECs, Taks and Aries of the world and who from time to
time probably wonder why they spent $5000 on a 4" apo and
mount when that could have purchased a 14" SCT or custom Newtonian
capable of outstanding planetary and deepsky imaging and visual
performance that would allow them to go way beyond the "showpiece"
objects in deepsky.

Lastly, you've got the underdog worshipers who view ANY
Meade creation as some kind of rip-off (principally from Celestron)
of other scope makers.

What I'd suggest is, keep up the speculation and the invective,
if it proves correct, any of it, then that's a feather in your cap,
you can preen on the group to your heart's contentment. But, if
these RCs and the Meade Series 5000 eyepieces turn out to be
good, then watch what happens to the markets they are aimed at.

If Al Nagler (and of course there are rumours things are afoot)
comes out with something spectacular, eyepiece wise (though I
don't see that happening since his new Naglers are not that old)
then at least the TV supporters will be able to have something
to cheer about.
-Rich

Just to be sure, I am NOT antiMeade.

However, the new Rx400 scope is not a Ritchey Chetien--my only
complaint is their choice of knomenclature.

More to the point, they seem to make al sorts of claims about
the design of the scope, yet I doubt any of them have actually
seen one. Let alone have access to the designs. Let's hold
off on the flames until someone has actually had a chance to
use one.

RichA wrote:
Reading some of the wildly speculative posts
about the new Meade RCs here is telling. It
shows that some people just don't know (or care) that Meade,
above all other companies in astronomy has done
more for the hobby than any other, in terms creating
equipment that allowed a massive expansion of
viewing and imaging and did more to increase the
numbers of amateurs than anyone else.
The anti-Meade forces do have different reasons;

When I attended my first astronomy club meeting, I was asked to stand
up and ask what kind of scope I had as I introduced myself. I said
"Meade LX200 10"" and I could practically feel the eyes rolling around
me. I know they were joking, but the sentiment is still there.

For the record - Tony Flanders's thong has never been anything but
happy with his 10" LX200 classic.

Tony, in that case you should come to an OCA star party some time. There
are times when the football field area seems like a Meade factory
showroom star party.

In article .com,
says...
When I attended my first astronomy club meeting, I was asked to stand
up and ask what kind of scope I had as I introduced myself. I said
"Meade LX200 10"" and I could practically feel the eyes rolling around
me. I know they were joking, but the sentiment is still there.

For the record - Tony Flanders's thong has never been anything but
happy with his 10" LX200 classic.

On 6 Jan 2005 09:05:17 -0800, wrote:

Just to be sure, I am NOT antiMeade.

However, the new Rx400 scope is not a Ritchey Chetien--my only
complaint is their choice of knomenclature.

There's no published information I've seen which would allow anyone to
conclude one way or the other whether or not it is, in fact, a
Ritchey-Chretien.

Until someone can authoritatively describe the curve of the mirrors, all
claims and counterclaims about whether or not it's a RC instrument are
worthless.


--
- Mike

Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.