So someone takes a cheap scope, puts some wood on it and....

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 1:49:51 PM UTC-4, peterson, aka captain obvious, wrote:


But there are all kinds of people, with all kinds of
interests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hobbies

On Monday, 28 March 2016 16:27:06 UTC+2, wrote:
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 1:49:51 PM UTC-4, peterson, aka captain obvious, wrote:


But there are all kinds of people, with all kinds of
interests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hobbies

Been there, done that.

The young "Ms. Wetherall" is most certainly one short of a functional dewshield. But, as has already been mentioned, it takes all types. One might also suggest a star diagonal was almost "de rigueur" in those shoes. Perhaps I am being too "picky?"

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 11:01:16 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:

The young "Ms. Wetherall" is most certainly one short of a functional dewshield.

So says chrisbcritter, the village idiot.

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 12:34:09 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

The Moonrakers look nice, cost a fortune and are incongruous on those modern mounts,

(Facepalm) "Oh, that's right, the scope needs a mount, too!"

On Monday, 28 March 2016 17:12:53 UTC+2, wrote:

So says chrisbcritter, the village idol.

Is that like being damned by faint praise, but different?

People who live in glass houses... ;-)

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 1:19:13 PM UTC-4, chrisbcritter, the village idiot wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2016 17:12:53 UTC+2, wsnell01 wrote:

So says chrisbcritter, the village idiot.

Is that like being damned by faint praise, but different?

People who live in glass houses... ;-)

You misquoted me again, so I made the appropriate correction.

The artist that you criticized earlier certainly seems to write far more intelligently than you do. Her telescope looks and works better than yours too.

On Sunday, 3 April 2016 02:52:51 UTC+2, wrote:

Overwhelming negativity.

Those who pan for dirt will never find gold. You have my tearful pity and deepest sympathy for your dreadful plight. It must be absolutely awful holding a universal monopoly on the truth. There is, surely, no more intolerable burden for any [minor] god!

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 2:54:00 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:


Overwhelming negativity.

I wrote:

"The artist that you criticized earlier certainly seems to write far more intelligently than you do. Her telescope looks and works better than yours too."

Notice that I used the words "more" and "better" .... that hardly counts as "negativity!"


It must be absolutely awful holding a universal monopoly on the truth.

The truth is: "The artist that you criticized earlier certainly seems to write far more intelligently than you do. Her telescope looks and works better than yours too. "

On Monday, 4 April 2016 14:32:34 UTC+2, wrote:
nowt at all.

Is there any more pitiful sight than a pompous ass rising on its hind legs to pontificate on the meaning of life to its slack-jawed flock of sheep? Why are there those willing to fill the deafening silence since the Big Bang, with their own interpretation of why it took so damned long to conceive of an intelligent species? Then all their imaginary god chose to manufacture was a [cough] s[n]elfish in his own image?!!? Surely a s[n]elfish is absolute proof of the non-existence of any god? The mere concept of a s[n]elfish is so hideous and such an anathema to all intelligent life [throughout the universe] that any god with a sense of responsibility would surely have snuffed out the project long before it even left the drawing board?

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 1:57:53 PM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:

Is there any more pitiful sight than a pompous ass edit ?

So stop making a pompous ass of yourself.