The "C" in Celestron now stands for COMMUNIST!

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:54:25 GMT, "Roger Hamlett"
wrote:


"RichA" wrote in message
.. .
Synta is now the proud owner of Celestron.
They probably bought in because the patents
and technology to make SCT correctors is
essential to reproduce that business in
MAINLAND CHINA! So the next time a tank
rolls over some democracy protester in Tianamen Square,
picture a C8 mounted on the front of it!
Start by getting your data right.
Synta is a _Taiwanese_ company, not a Chinese company. They do have a
manufacturing plant in China, and are already the largest manufacturer of
OEM optics in the world.

Now where did I say Synta was in Mainland China?
They are no more responsible for their contracted Chinese
factories than Nike was with sweatshops they employed to
make shoes.
-Rich

On 18 Jun 2005 21:38:06 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

In oups.com "Matthew
Ota" wrote:

Our American culture, IMHO is too Euro-centric. Most Americans cannot
differentiate between any Asian counry or culture. This is a good
example.


Not really; the poster was a Canadian and a troll.

Of course it was a troll, I wanted people's
opinions on the subject and the best way to
elicit them is to make the people who buy from the
communist slave owners feel bad or at least defensive.
Which I succeeded in doing, I'd say.
But don't worry; You can assuage your guilt with the
often repeated old saw that "communism and tyranny in China
is being repealed by the capitalism" they are now experimenting
with.
-Rich

"RichA" wrote in message ...
Synta is now the proud owner of Celestron.
They probably bought in because the patents
and technology to make SCT correctors is
essential to reproduce that business in
MAINLAND CHINA! So the next time a tank
rolls over some democracy protester in Tianamen Square,
picture a C8 mounted on the front of it!

oh shut up.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 01:13:13 +0000 (UTC), (Brian Tung)
wrote, in part:
John Savard wrote:
But since Synta has a manufacturing plant in _Mainland_ China - I
believe that must be what you meant, since Taiwan _is_ part of China,

That's a pretty misleading way to put it. Taiwan in no way considers
itself to be part of anything larger--at least, not at the present
moment. It would only consider the proposition of becoming part of
a larger China if the mainland ceases what Taiwan considers to be
unreasonable aggression.

The mainland, of course, does consider Taiwan to be part of it. But
it's not quite the plain factual matter your words suggest.

As I noted, Taiwan is _not_ part of the People's Republic of China.

The People's Republic of China is not China. It's just that part of
China which happens to be under Communist control at the moment.

It certainly is possible for two sovereign states to exist within the
territory of one historic nation. Were Taiwan able to avail itself of
the protection of the UN Charter - which the Communists try to prevent,
so that they can accuse the U.S. of "aggression" if it defends the
freedom of the people currently living in Taiwan - it would still be
part of China, although definitely not part of Red China.

The U.S. missed an opportunity, after Tienanmen square, to reverse the
adoption of the Albanian proposal - and put the Republic of China back
in the U.N., as the holder China's seat on the Security Council. Just as
the U.N. began life as an alliance of the world's democracies against
Nazism, it should continue to be an active alliance of the world's
democratic nations against all forms of tyranny - not something that
admits the foxes to debate on how to guard the henhouse, like the failed
League of Nations.

An enlarged NATO that includes Israel, as well as former SEATO members
such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia, perhaps renamed the World
Treaty Organization, could perhaps replace the U.N. if that body instead
continues its slide into irrelevancy.

As to Taiwan, I would indeed like it to retake the mainland - except, of
course, acknowledging the independence and sovereignity of Tibet and
Uighuristan (also known as Sinkiang province) - so that all those
foreign Mandarin speakers can leave the island of Formosa yet remain
free, so that it can once again be a comfortable home to its rightful
Fukienese-speaking inhabitants.

For true freedom and equality, the ideal would be for China to become a
free trade area embracing sovereign states for each major dialect, so
that Cantonese speakers or Fukienese speakers could rise all the way to
the top in their own homelands without being subject to pressure to
learn other languages to which Mandarin speakers are not equally
subject.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Roger Hamlett wrote:
Start by getting your data right.
Synta is a _Taiwanese_ company, not a Chinese company.

Now, now, don't go confusin' Rich with _facts_! :-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:_Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

On 19 Jun 2005 08:17:38 -0700, "RMOLLISE" wrote:



Roger Hamlett wrote:
Start by getting your data right.
Synta is a _Taiwanese_ company, not a Chinese company.

Now, now, don't go confusin' Rich with _facts_! :-)

Personally, I don't care much if they use Mainland
Chinese workers, but you can't possibly think that
your argument makes sense. Because a company ownership
is elsewhere doesn't make them "better" than a company
that happens to reside in the communist states IF both
are using the communist state's production apparatus.

John Savard wrote:
As I noted, Taiwan is _not_ part of the People's Republic of China.

I saw that. If the thread were about the cultures of Taiwan and the
mainland, your observation would be relevant.

But it is not about the culture of Taiwan. It is about the policies
practiced by the two Chinas (plural definitely intended) and their
effect on business operation, which people in the U.S. are (rightfully)
interested in when choosing what to buy. In that context, pointing
out that Taiwan is part of China, although true from a historical and
cultural perspective, *is* misleading. People in the U.S., when they
think about it at all, identify the name China with the mainland, and
Taiwan with the island, and typically prefer to buy Taiwanese to
Chinese, except where low cost is the overriding factor.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

RichA wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 08:17:38 -0700, "RMOLLISE" wrote:



Roger Hamlett wrote:
Start by getting your data right.
Synta is a _Taiwanese_ company, not a Chinese company.

Now, now, don't go confusin' Rich with _facts_! :-)

Personally, I don't care much if they use Mainland
Chinese workers, but you can't possibly think that
your argument makes sense.

Hi:

Which argument, Rich? That Taiwan isn't "COMMUNIST"? Last time I
checked, it isn't. Kinda the opposite.

Does that mean I think moving all our manufacturing (and by "our" I
mean the U.S.; I don't know what the situation is in your country)
overseas, to China, Mainland or Taiwan, is a good thing? No, I do not.
Manufacturing is pretty much a dead horse here already; most of the
folks, old and young, who would formerly have been employed in
manufacturing are now in low-paying, low-benefit service jobs.

There is an upside, of course, for amateur astronomy: Synta, for
example, is producing telescopes and mounts of amazingly good quality
for the price, which makes it nice to be a beginner these days.
Beginner? Heck, I've got one of their (Synta's) AS GT mounts, and think
it's great.

What will be the final outcome of all this? Search me. It doesn't look
good, though. Not that what I think means pea-turkey--there's little
chance people are going to stop buying Wal-Mart or Synta.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:_Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:30:44 -0400, RichA wrote:

On 18 Jun 2005 21:38:06 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

In oups.com "Matthew
Ota" wrote:

Our American culture, IMHO is too Euro-centric. Most Americans cannot
differentiate between any Asian counry or culture. This is a good
example.


Not really; the poster was a Canadian and a troll.

Of course it was a troll, I wanted people's
opinions on the subject and the best way to
elicit them is to make the people who buy from the
communist slave owners feel bad or at least defensive.
Which I succeeded in doing, I'd say.
But don't worry; You can assuage your guilt with the
often repeated old saw that "communism and tyranny in China
is being repealed by the capitalism" they are now experimenting
with.
-Rich
*****

Which is better to buy from

1) communist controlled company using near slave labor or

2) US capitalistic company using near slave labor?

To me there is no difference. Instead we jump on band wagons of
patriotism and never understand the economics of moves made by
corporate world.

Rule #1 of corporations both comunistic or capitalistic is to make
money.

Rule #2 the bulk of the money made is shared among the investors
and/or controllers of the corporation. Whether it be individuals or
governments.

rule #3 you or I are never going to change rule #1 or rule #2

james

I think you have your head shoved up McCarthy's arse. If Celestron had
been bought by a Canadian company, American's would bemoaning that
production had moved to a
gun-registry-bilingual-gay-marriage-pot-smoking country
(but-at-least-still-better-than-China).

What really hurts is seeing China beat Americans at their own
"capitalist" game and nothing can be done about--can't even invade 'em.
Anybody who feels guilty about buying from China/Synta is really quite
an idiot and should get their head out of Rich's ass.

AstroHoney