130mm Apochromat vs 152mm Achromat

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 13:24:34 UTC+2, wrote:

You misquoted me. That is rude. I do nothing rude by setting the record straight.

And when did you [officially] become a saint?

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:31:39 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 13:24:34 UTC+2, wrote:

You misquoted me. That is rude. I do nothing rude by setting the record straight.

And when did you [officially] become a saint?

I am not the one being rude here, YOU are.

On Thursday, 9 June 2016 13:59:05 UTC+2, wrote:

I am not the one being rude here, YOU are.

Dear Saint er-um-er.. William?... Bill?... Warren?... Woodrow?... Wendy?

Is there anybody here you haven't roasted? [Just askin']

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 10:56:14 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 13:59:05 UTC+2, wrote:

I am not the one being rude here, YOU are.

Dear Saint er-um-er.. William?... Bill?... Warren?... Woodrow?... Wendy?

Is there anybody here you haven't roasted? [Just askin']

....Yet another example of your rudeness and lack of social skills, critter.

On Saturday, 11 June 2016 15:22:11 UTC+2, wrote:

...Yet another example of your rudeness and lack of social skills, critter.

And, yet again, I must [politely] point out that all humour flies right over your head.

Mercury, Venus, Jerry, Earth...

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 8:34:03 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 11 June 2016 15:22:11 UTC+2, wrote:

...Yet another example of your rudeness and lack of social skills, critter.

And, yet again, I must [politely] point out

You are NOT a polite person. You give yourself too much credit.


that all humour flies right over your head.

You mistake your nonsense for humor, as usual.

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 9:31:39 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 13:24:34 UTC+2, wrote:

You misquoted me. That is rude. I do nothing rude by setting the record straight.

And when did you [officially] become a saint?

He is stating that, in one instance, by altering a misquote, he did not do
anything rude. He did not say that he had never done anything rude in his whole
life, so accusing him of claiming sainthood is, on the face of it, untrue.

It may be that what he said about that particular instance is incorrect, but
that wouldn't make your claim accurate.

John Savard

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 8:36:25 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 9:31:39 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 13:24:34 UTC+2, wrote:

You misquoted me. That is rude. I do nothing rude by setting the record straight.

And when did you [officially] become a saint?

He is stating that, in one instance, by altering a misquote, he did not do
anything rude. He did not say that he had never done anything rude in his whole
life, so accusing him of claiming sainthood is, on the face of it, untrue.

It may be that what he said about that particular instance is incorrect, but
that wouldn't make your claim accurate.

Having reviewed the section of the thread in question, I see you trimmed his
post when quoting it, but the part you did quote was not changed.

Your reply may have been "silly" and not germane to his statement, and perhaps
he may have felt that this would have been clearer if more of his post had been
quoted, but, yes, trimming a post is not the same as misquoting - a "quotation"
is not the entirety of the thing quoted from, or we wouldn't have such a thing
as "fair use".

So he could have complained about the substance of your reply being rude, but
his claim of being misquoted appears inaccurate.

John Savard

On Sunday, 12 June 2016 16:42:50 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 8:36:25 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

He is stating that, in one instance, by altering a misquote, he did not do
anything rude. He did not say that he had never done anything rude in his whole
life, so accusing him of claiming sainthood is, on the face of it, untrue.

It may be that what he said about that particular instance is incorrect, but
that wouldn't make your claim accurate.

Having reviewed the section of the thread in question, I see you trimmed his
post when quoting it, but the part you did quote was not changed.

Your reply may have been "silly" and not germane to his statement, and perhaps
he may have felt that this would have been clearer if more of his post had been
quoted, but, yes, trimming a post is not the same as misquoting - a "quotation"
is not the entirety of the thing quoted from, or we wouldn't have such a thing
as "fair use".

So he could have complained about the substance of your reply being rude, but
his claim of being misquoted appears inaccurate.

John Savard

Thank you, I think. Basically anything which winds up "Snelly" is fair game for silliness in my book. Variety is the spice of life but what about friction between differing viewpoints? Does friction welding work on humans? Not so far! ;-)

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 10:42:50 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 8:36:25 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 9:31:39 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 13:24:34 UTC+2, wrote:

You misquoted me. That is rude. I do nothing rude by setting the record straight.

And when did you [officially] become a saint?

He is stating that, in one instance, by altering a misquote, he did not do
anything rude. He did not say that he had never done anything rude in his whole
life, so accusing him of claiming sainthood is, on the face of it, untrue.

It may be that what he said about that particular instance is incorrect, but
that wouldn't make your claim accurate.

Having reviewed the section of the thread in question, I see you trimmed his
post when quoting it, but the part you did quote was not changed.

Your reply may have been "silly" and not germane to his statement, and perhaps
he may have felt that this would have been clearer if more of his post had been
quoted, but, yes, trimming a post is not the same as misquoting - a "quotation"
is not the entirety of the thing quoted from, or we wouldn't have such a thing
as "fair use".

So he could have complained about the substance of your reply being rude,

The critter is obviously rude, but then most critters are.

but his claim of being misquoted appears inaccurate.

What I wrote was:

"No doubt. The $4600 one might spend on a new one would grow to ~$6500 in 35 years, at 1% per year interest. The $300 for a Dob would grow to ~$484 over the same period. Given equal care, the Dob can last as long too."

"So the takeaway here is: Newbies, don't see your non-Q or non-apo telescope as somehow inferior."

The critter excluded my first paragraph then posted own words,

"So, basically, you are saying a Dob isn't just for Christmas?"

and tried to ascribe them to me. He was quoting out of context, misquoting, misattributing and presenting a strawman argument.

As with much of the nonsense he posts, it is unclear what he actually meant, although he seems to have been taking a swipe at Dobs in general, along with those who use own, build or use them.