Newsgroup math

In Epsilon Eridani
wrote:

canopus56 wrote in
52:

X: no-archive

Epsilon Eridani wrote in
:

The number of CHINK spam ads is in inverse proportion to the number
of astronomical posts. Once astro posts reach about 20 per day, the
spam ads disappear. You'll see this on most forums.

Your racist quip aside, the problem has to be laid at Google's feet.

Uh huh. Kind of like blaming the gun for shooting someone and not the
shooter.

Not quite.

Following up on your metaphor, google is like a criminal gang, supplying
arms and other resources to its criminal members.

Googlegroups makes it easy to spam the newsgroups and google does
absolutely nothing to stop it.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

On Dec 12, 9:44 am, Tom McDonald wrote:
Epsilon Eridani wrote:
The number of CHINK spam ads is in inverse proportion to the number of
astronomical posts. Once astro posts reach about 20 per day, the spam ads
disappear. You'll see this on most forums.

Don't suppose you'd care to post any astro articles, ****head?
Now about that new Orion $50 FunScope 76mm Reflector Telescope,
maybe compared to the $50 Celestron FirstScope. Any comments on them?

LOL: Please provide a link Tom.
I'm trying to figure this out,
http://www.opticsplanet.net/bushnell...0-voyager.html
In the paragraph it writes "reflector".
I'm sure this is a good telescope, but the write-up confuses
me.
Ken

On Dec 12, 12:44 pm, Tom McDonald wrote:



Now about that new Orion $50 FunScope 76mm Reflector Telescope,
maybe compared to the $50 Celestron FirstScope. Any comments on them?

How about buying one of each and doing a side-by-side evaluation? Let
us know what you find out.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:33:50 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 12, 12:44 pm, Tom McDonald wrote:



Now about that new Orion $50 FunScope 76mm Reflector Telescope,
maybe compared to the $50 Celestron FirstScope. Any comments on them?

How about buying one of each and doing a side-by-side evaluation? Let
us know what you find out.


The two gadgets appear to be the same except for the paint job. It
might be fun to convert one into a scale model of Newton's 1668
telescope. An up-scaled model since Newton's was only about an inch
and a quarter instead of three inches. Vixen wants $600 for their
version.

Bud

On Dec 13, 1:43 pm, William Hamblen
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:33:50 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 12, 12:44 pm, Tom McDonald wrote:

Now about that new Orion $50 FunScope 76mm Reflector Telescope,
maybe compared to the $50 Celestron FirstScope. Any comments on them?

How about buying one of each and doing a side-by-side evaluation? Let
us know what you find out.

The two gadgets appear to be the same except for the paint job. It
might be fun to convert one into a scale model of Newton's 1668
telescope. An up-scaled model since Newton's was only about an inch
and a quarter instead of three inches. Vixen wants $600 for their
version.

I think you get a red-dot finder with the Orion unit and more
reasonable magnifications of 15x and 30x with the included eyepieces.
At f/4 the spheroidal mirror is a bit of a concern, but if you think
of this as a 15x76 monocular with a built-in support and comfortable
viewing arrangement, this rig looks interesting. For more advanced
amateurs, it might serve well as a finder scope on a large Dob or as a
guidescope for a telephoto lens on a small equatorial mount. For a
general purpose beginner's scope in this size range, I would
recommend going with an f/10, or something larger and more expensive
with a parabolized mirror.

If you really wanted to make a working model of Newton's original
reflector, you could probably find a good plano-concave lens, have the
concave side aluminized ($?) and go from there.

wrote:
On Dec 12, 12:44 pm, Tom McDonald wrote:


Now about that new Orion $50 FunScope 76mm Reflector Telescope,
maybe compared to the $50 Celestron FirstScope. Any comments on them?

How about buying one of each and doing a side-by-side evaluation? Let
us know what you find out.



Can't afford that. I have a 4.5" Orion StarBlast, and it's a
fine, simple, easy-to-use scope. I was curious about the
comparison, as I know a couple of kids who are interested in
astronomy, have crap plastic "scopes", and might be stimulated to
a real love of astronomy if they had a better, functional,
flexible small Dob.

Hell, at $50, I might even be able to afford to get one for one
of the kids. (The other has an MD for a mom, and probably could
buy one out of her allowance.)

--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Dec 12, 9:44 am, Tom McDonald wrote:
Epsilon Eridani wrote:
The number of CHINK spam ads is in inverse proportion to the number of
astronomical posts. Once astro posts reach about 20 per day, the spam ads
disappear. You'll see this on most forums.
Don't suppose you'd care to post any astro articles, ****head?
Now about that new Orion $50 FunScope 76mm Reflector Telescope,
maybe compared to the $50 Celestron FirstScope. Any comments on them?

LOL: Please provide a link Tom.
I'm trying to figure this out,
http://www.opticsplanet.net/bushnell...0-voyager.html
In the paragraph it writes "reflector".
I'm sure this is a good telescope, but the write-up confuses
me.
Ken

I have no idea whether it's a good 'scope, but it says
"upgradeable to 1.25" format". So, presumably it comes with .965"
eyepieces. Weak.

The blurb also mentions an "innovative adjustable aluminum
tripods", while the specs say, "Adjustable Hardwood Tripod".

Confusion seems to be the idea here. This suggests either
carelessness (which does not speak well to Bushnell's care in
their business), or intentional confusion (which does not speak
well to Bushnell's integrity).

Could be a third option; perhaps I am not understanding something
quite simple. Or perhaps Bushnell didn't write the blurb and/or
specs.

--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Dec 12, 9:44 am, Tom McDonald wrote:
Epsilon Eridani wrote:
The number of CHINK spam ads is in inverse proportion to the number of
astronomical posts. Once astro posts reach about 20 per day, the spam ads
disappear. You'll see this on most forums.
Don't suppose you'd care to post any astro articles, ****head?
Now about that new Orion $50 FunScope 76mm Reflector Telescope,
maybe compared to the $50 Celestron FirstScope. Any comments on them?

LOL: Please provide a link Tom.

Missed this.

Orion Funscope:

http://www.telescope.com/control/tel...ctor-telescope

Or:

http://tinyurl.com/y989crx

And Celestron Firstscope:

http://www.celestron.com/c3/product.php?ProdID=568

Or:

http://tinyurl.com/mhycjw

HTH.

I'm trying to figure this out,
http://www.opticsplanet.net/bushnell...0-voyager.html
In the paragraph it writes "reflector".
I'm sure this is a good telescope, but the write-up confuses
me.
Ken


--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald

On Dec 13, 12:52 pm, Tom McDonald wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Dec 12, 9:44 am, Tom McDonald wrote:
Epsilon Eridani wrote:
The number of CHINK spam ads is in inverse proportion to the number of
astronomical posts. Once astro posts reach about 20 per day, the spam ads
disappear. You'll see this on most forums.
Don't suppose you'd care to post any astro articles, ****head?
Now about that new Orion $50 FunScope 76mm Reflector Telescope,
maybe compared to the $50 Celestron FirstScope. Any comments on them?

LOL: Please provide a link Tom.
I'm trying to figure this out,
http://www.opticsplanet.net/bushnell...0-voyager.html
In the paragraph it writes "reflector".
I'm sure this is a good telescope, but the write-up confuses
me.
Ken

I have no idea whether it's a good 'scope, but it says
"upgradeable to 1.25" format". So, presumably it comes with .965"
eyepieces. Weak.
The blurb also mentions an "innovative adjustable aluminum
tripods", while the specs say, "Adjustable Hardwood Tripod".
Confusion seems to be the idea here. This suggests either
carelessness (which does not speak well to Bushnell's care in
their business), or intentional confusion (which does not speak
well to Bushnell's integrity).
Could be a third option; perhaps I am not understanding something
quite simple. Or perhaps Bushnell didn't write the blurb and/or
specs.
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald

That's my fault, the link I gave is NOT Bushnell's, check this out,
http://www.bushnell.com/products/oth...ager-sky-tour/

We received a Walmart xmas flyer that had the Bushnell 60mm
refractor with something called "smart mount" @ $150.
Off hand it looks innovative to me.
Ken

On Dec 13, 9:46 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:52 pm, Tom McDonald wrote:



Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Dec 12, 9:44 am, Tom McDonald wrote:
Epsilon Eridani wrote:
The number of CHINK spam ads is in inverse proportion to the number of
astronomical posts. Once astro posts reach about 20 per day, the spam ads
disappear. You'll see this on most forums.
Don't suppose you'd care to post any astro articles, ****head?
Now about that new Orion $50 FunScope 76mm Reflector Telescope,
maybe compared to the $50 Celestron FirstScope. Any comments on them?

LOL: Please provide a link Tom.
I'm trying to figure this out,
http://www.opticsplanet.net/bushnell...0-voyager.html
In the paragraph it writes "reflector".
I'm sure this is a good telescope, but the write-up confuses
me.
Ken

I have no idea whether it's a good 'scope, but it says
"upgradeable to 1.25" format". So, presumably it comes with .965"
eyepieces. Weak.
The blurb also mentions an "innovative adjustable aluminum
tripods", while the specs say, "Adjustable Hardwood Tripod".
Confusion seems to be the idea here. This suggests either
carelessness (which does not speak well to Bushnell's care in
their business), or intentional confusion (which does not speak
well to Bushnell's integrity).
Could be a third option; perhaps I am not understanding something
quite simple. Or perhaps Bushnell didn't write the blurb and/or
specs.
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald

That's my fault, the link I gave is NOT Bushnell's, check this out,http://www.bushnell.com/products/oth...pes/voyager-sk...

We received a Walmart xmas flyer that had the Bushnell 60mm
refractor with something called "smart mount" @ $150.
Off hand it looks innovative to me.

That amount sounds a little high for a 60mm telescope.