TMB supermono reviewer checklist

I have used my TMB supermono's now for:

[ ] _______ seconds
[X] __12__ minutes

under
[X] crappy
[ ] poor
[ ] bad
seeing conditions

in
[X ] f/4 dob with paracorr
[ ] 60mm refractor
[ ] stellarvue achromat

and I see
[X] small FOV
[X] soft at edges

OF course Gary S. used other scopes than the F4.5 Newt....

jon

OF course Gary S. used other scopes than the F4.5 Newt....

jon

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:14:10 -0500, John Davis
wrote:

I have used my TMB supermono's now for:

[ ] _______ seconds
[X] __12__ minutes

under
[X] crappy
[ ] poor
[ ] bad
seeing conditions

in
[X ] f/4 dob with paracorr
[ ] 60mm refractor
[ ] stellarvue achromat

and I see
[X] small FOV
[X] soft at edges

---
Aw, what's the matter didn't some TMB drone confirm your decision to
buy overpriced & underperforming eyepieces....too bad. Thank God
somebody had the guts to call out some of these high-end dorks and
tell the truth for a change.

Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:14:10 -0500, John Davis
wrote:

I have used my TMB supermono's now for:

[ ] _______ seconds
[X] __12__ minutes

under
[X] crappy
[ ] poor
[ ] bad
seeing conditions

in
[X ] f/4 dob with paracorr
[ ] 60mm refractor
[ ] stellarvue achromat

and I see
[X] small FOV
[X] soft at edges

---
Aw, what's the matter didn't some TMB drone confirm your decision to
buy overpriced & underperforming eyepieces....too bad. Thank God
somebody had the guts to call out some of these high-end dorks and
tell the truth for a change.

Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast

The question is, "What did he tell the truth about ?"
If his was a representative sample, and we have no way to asses that
beyond Ludes' post (I assume), then there is cause for concern. You
cannot take this review at face value any mnore than we can now take
the Mono's at face value. As so often happens everything is now
uncertain.

I would not flutter too high, Flutterblast. The full story is yet to be
told.
I have mono's from the first run and they are superb+, and that's a
fact.
Edith -




"Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast" wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:14:10 -0500, John Davis
wrote:

I have used my TMB supermono's now for:

[ ] _______ seconds
[X] __12__ minutes

under
[X] crappy
[ ] poor
[ ] bad
seeing conditions

in
[X ] f/4 dob with paracorr
[ ] 60mm refractor
[ ] stellarvue achromat

and I see
[X] small FOV
[X] soft at edges

---
Aw, what's the matter didn't some TMB drone confirm your decision to
buy overpriced & underperforming eyepieces....too bad. Thank God
somebody had the guts to call out some of these high-end dorks and
tell the truth for a change.

Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast

The question is, "What did he tell the truth about ?"
If his was a representative sample, and we have no way to asses that
beyond Ludes' post (I assume), then there is cause for concern. You
cannot take this review at face value any mnore than we can now take
the Mono's at face value. As so often happens everything is now
uncertain.

I would not flutter too high, Flutterblast. The full story is yet to be
told.
I have mono's from the first run and they are superb+, and that's a
fact.
Edith -




"Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast" wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:14:10 -0500, John Davis
wrote:

I have used my TMB supermono's now for:

[ ] _______ seconds
[X] __12__ minutes

under
[X] crappy
[ ] poor
[ ] bad
seeing conditions

in
[X ] f/4 dob with paracorr
[ ] 60mm refractor
[ ] stellarvue achromat

and I see
[X] small FOV
[X] soft at edges

---
Aw, what's the matter didn't some TMB drone confirm your decision to
buy overpriced & underperforming eyepieces....too bad. Thank God
somebody had the guts to call out some of these high-end dorks and
tell the truth for a change.

Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast

Edith Head wrote in message ...
The question is, "What did he tell the truth about ?"
If his was a representative sample, and we have no way to asses that
beyond Ludes' post (I assume), then there is cause for concern. You
cannot take this review at face value any mnore than we can now take
the Mono's at face value. As so often happens everything is now
uncertain.

I would not flutter too high, Flutterblast. The full story is yet to be
told.
I have mono's from the first run and they are superb+, and that's a
fact.
Edith -

Hardly a fact. That's just your impressions.

Andrea T.

Edith Head wrote in message ...
The question is, "What did he tell the truth about ?"
If his was a representative sample, and we have no way to asses that
beyond Ludes' post (I assume), then there is cause for concern. You
cannot take this review at face value any mnore than we can now take
the Mono's at face value. As so often happens everything is now
uncertain.

I would not flutter too high, Flutterblast. The full story is yet to be
told.
I have mono's from the first run and they are superb+, and that's a
fact.
Edith -

Hardly a fact. That's just your impressions.

Andrea T.

On 2 Jul 2004 03:36:56 -0700, (andrea tasselli)
wrote:

Edith Head wrote in message ...
The question is, "What did he tell the truth about ?"
If his was a representative sample, and we have no way to asses that
beyond Ludes' post (I assume), then there is cause for concern. You
cannot take this review at face value any mnore than we can now take
the Mono's at face value. As so often happens everything is now
uncertain.

I would not flutter too high, Flutterblast. The full story is yet to be
told.
I have mono's from the first run and they are superb+, and that's a
fact.
Edith -

Hardly a fact. That's just your impressions.

Andrea T.
---
Absolutely correct, Andrea. Most of the high-end equipment is good,
make no mistake about that. But, the magical qualities assigned this
equipment by the *owners* speaks from the wallet or ego more than
anything else. Marcus Ludes has never met a piece of equipment he was
*selling* that wasn't "superduper" or way above "standert", hardly a
ringing endorsement, in my view.

"It costs a lot & everybody else who owns one says it's good, so it
has to be good, right?" Why yes, (insert TMB or AP) drone.

Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast