"So which one qualifies as a bright object?"

Jan Owen wrote:


We have folks here on SAA who appear to be dedicated to ensuring that
Meade gets a reputation for litigating and badmouthing, or pick your
poison, no matter WHAT they do next.



Hi:

In my case--I've never been a Meade-basher--it's about what I feel in a
genuinely disingenuous ad campaign.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Join the SCT User Mailing List.
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user
============================
See my home page at
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm
for further details!
============================
For Uncle Rod's Astro Blog See:
http://journals.aol.com/rmollise/UncleRodsAstroBlog/

KLing Oar wrote:
who............................................... .................................................. ............cares.


You must, or you wouldn't have typed all those ......s ;-)


Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Join the SCT User Mailing List.
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user
============================
See my home page at
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm
for further details!
============================
For Uncle Rod's Astro Blog See:
http://journals.aol.com/rmollise/UncleRodsAstroBlog/

You forgot to ad that Mead has emphysema!



RMOLLISE wrote:

Joe Bergeron wrote:
The subject is the headline of a new Meade ad seen in the February S&T.
It's an attack against Celestron's SkyAlign alignment system, in which
the user has to point the scope at 3 bright stars, but without
necessarily knowing which stars they are. They only have to be bright.


Hi Joe:

Well, you know... I like Meade scopes just fine. While I've always
considered myself a "Celestron man"...I tend to pick a manufacturer
whether it be Celestron on Toyota and stick with it, but that doesn't
mean I don't like Meades or Hondas. In fact, I currently own a Meade
ETX125, which I like just fine as a grab 'n go.

However, I think most beginners will find Celestron's alignment system
easier to use than Meades...considerably so. The irony? Meade FORCED
Celestron to develop this technology by patenting the "north and level"
alignment process (!). Now, Meade is apparently trying to make the best
of the situation by means of a lame and ill-natured ad campaign.

MEADE: TELL US WHAT YOUR SCOPES CAN DO FOR US, NOT WHAT'S WRONG WITH
YOUR COMPETITOR'S SCOPES! SHEESH!

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Join the SCT User Mailing List.
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user
============================
See my home page at
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm
for further details!
============================
For Uncle Rod's Astro Blog See:
http://journals.aol.com/rmollise/UncleRodsAstroBlog/

"RMOLLISE" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jan Owen wrote:


We have folks here on SAA who appear to be dedicated to ensuring that
Meade gets a reputation for litigating and badmouthing, or pick your
poison, no matter WHAT they do next.



Hi:

In my case--I've never been a Meade-basher--it's about what I feel in a
genuinely disingenuous ad campaign.

Peace,
Rod Mollise

My point wasn't that Meade isn't guilty, or that they should continue
these ads as is. Or that they haven't sued, or threatened to sue, at the
drop of a hat, at times, apparently, over issues which, from our
perspective, may not have seemed to have even been their original
intellectual property in the FIRST place.

My point is that all the Meade bashers here aren't accomplishing anything
except making SAA an unpleasant place, while showing everyone their true
nature. SAA is a platform for healthy discussion about amateur astronomy,
and a good one at that. But it was never intended as a mud-slinging
circus...

If you don't like their scopes, don't BUY them. If you don't like the way
they conduct business, don't BUY from Meade.

But let's skip all the senseless histrionics here. The court system is
the venue where this should be decided (yes, I know; the courts seem to
often be part of the problem, rather than the solution...). So, if
Celestron thinks they have a case against Meade, let them SUE Meade.
After all, turnabout is fair play...

But there's nothing to be gained here with these discussions on SAA, other
than venting one's spleen, which does NO good, other than, perhaps, making
the venter feel better, somehow... All it really does is add clutter
here.

--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.6
Longitude: -112.3

Jan Owen wrote:

We have folks here on SAA who appear to be dedicated to ensuring that
Meade gets a reputation for litigating and badmouthing, or pick your
poison, no matter WHAT they do next.


GET's a reputation ?? Meade has already earned it !!

No, Meade's immoral, and unethical legal attacks
on Celestron are proven fact already...............
Hats off for Synta for bailing Celestron out from
Meade's incessant and groundless lawsuits. Gooogle
the story for yourself

They make nice equipment no question, but their
upper management suffers from delusions
of grandeur....




AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net


Linux CentOS 4.2, KDE 3.3

"Jan Owen" wrote in message
news:y4wwf.7371$JT.4793@fed1read06...
"RMOLLISE" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jan Owen wrote:


We have folks here on SAA who appear to be dedicated to ensuring that
Meade gets a reputation for litigating and badmouthing, or pick your
poison, no matter WHAT they do next.



Hi:

In my case--I've never been a Meade-basher--it's about what I feel in a
genuinely disingenuous ad campaign.

Peace,
Rod Mollise

My point wasn't that Meade isn't guilty, or that they should continue
these ads as is. Or that they haven't sued, or threatened to sue, at the
drop of a hat, at times, apparently, over issues which, from our
perspective, may not have seemed to have even been their original
intellectual property in the FIRST place.

My point is that all the Meade bashers here aren't accomplishing anything
except making SAA an unpleasant place, while showing everyone their true
nature. SAA is a platform for healthy discussion about amateur astronomy,
and a good one at that. But it was never intended as a mud-slinging
circus...

If you don't like their scopes, don't BUY them. If you don't like the way
they conduct business, don't BUY from Meade.

But let's skip all the senseless histrionics here. The court system is
the venue where this should be decided (yes, I know; the courts seem to
often be part of the problem, rather than the solution...). So, if
Celestron thinks they have a case against Meade, let them SUE Meade.
After all, turnabout is fair play...

But there's nothing to be gained here with these discussions on SAA, other
than venting one's spleen, which does NO good, other than, perhaps, making
the venter feel better, somehow... All it really does is add clutter
here.


But if the word, good or bad, isn't spread out, then other's will not know, and
it's not like we don't get new people here every day. Most companies are
counting on the buying public not knowing the status of their products and
companies, to make money before people wise up. How else are we going to spread
the word? Not buying only affects you if you don't tell others why you didn't
buy something.

And you make it seem like all bashers are irrational nuts. Many HAVE been
bashed by the companies that they bash back on. Are you saying that legitimate
complaints, generated by in some cases the direct action of representatives of
companies, shouldn't be said to warn others of the company's problems? I hope
not.

It is the way some people write here that turns people off. Actual factual
information is always welcome, if not by the people discussing the topic, then
by others reading it and trying to increase their knowledge. Yes, there is a
lot more heat than light in the bulk of messages here, and in other newsgroups
too, but it shouldn't be hard to filter most of it by identifying those that
provide the heat and ignoring their messages.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinprick holes in a colorless sky
Let inspired figures of light pass by
The Mighty Light of ten thousand suns
Challenges infinity, and is soon gone

"RMOLLISE" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jan Owen wrote:


We have folks here on SAA who appear to be dedicated to ensuring that
Meade gets a reputation for litigating and badmouthing, or pick your
poison, no matter WHAT they do next.


Hi:

In my case--I've never been a Meade-basher--it's about what I feel in a
genuinely disingenuous ad campaign.

Peace,
Rod Mollise

No doubt in my mind about the Meade-bashing, Rod!

I think you have consistently gone out of your way to be equally fair to
both Celestron and Meade, and to honestly call a rose a rose, or a turkey
a turkey, no matter who made it.

--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.6
Longitude: -112.3

"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
news:2yywf.33083$uy3.13259@trnddc08...
"Jan Owen" wrote in message
news:y4wwf.7371$JT.4793@fed1read06...
"RMOLLISE" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jan Owen wrote:


We have folks here on SAA who appear to be dedicated to ensuring
that
Meade gets a reputation for litigating and badmouthing, or pick
your
poison, no matter WHAT they do next.



Hi:

In my case--I've never been a Meade-basher--it's about what I feel in
a
genuinely disingenuous ad campaign.

Peace,
Rod Mollise

My point wasn't that Meade isn't guilty, or that they should continue
these ads as is. Or that they haven't sued, or threatened to sue, at
the
drop of a hat, at times, apparently, over issues which, from our
perspective, may not have seemed to have even been their original
intellectual property in the FIRST place.

My point is that all the Meade bashers here aren't accomplishing
anything
except making SAA an unpleasant place, while showing everyone their
true
nature. SAA is a platform for healthy discussion about amateur
astronomy,
and a good one at that. But it was never intended as a mud-slinging
circus...

If you don't like their scopes, don't BUY them. If you don't like the
way
they conduct business, don't BUY from Meade.

But let's skip all the senseless histrionics here. The court system
is
the venue where this should be decided (yes, I know; the courts seem
to
often be part of the problem, rather than the solution...). So, if
Celestron thinks they have a case against Meade, let them SUE Meade.
After all, turnabout is fair play...

But there's nothing to be gained here with these discussions on SAA,
other
than venting one's spleen, which does NO good, other than, perhaps,
making
the venter feel better, somehow... All it really does is add clutter
here.


But if the word, good or bad, isn't spread out, then other's will not
know, and
it's not like we don't get new people here every day.

The problem with this is that the bad is virtually all that is ever
spread. The good is rarely heard from, because the happy campers are out
having fun with their scope. So you have 1000 happy customers and 5
unhappy ones. But three of the five unhappy ones are here on SAA calling
Meade (or whoever) a bunch of uncaring jerks, or the product a piece of
crap. Out of 1005 customers, all SAA hears from is three (figuratively
speaking, of course), but to the newby you are protecting, it looks like
Mead (or X) MUST be a bunch of uncaring jerks, because several folks said
so, and no one refuted them. So is THAT educating the newby?

Most companies are
counting on the buying public not knowing the status of their products
and
companies, to make money before people wise up. How else are we going
to spread
the word? Not buying only affects you if you don't tell others why you
didn't
buy something.

I agree here, but what I said above applies, too. The danger in warning
everyone about a "problem" is that it may be YOUR opinion that there's a
problem, not necessarily a fact. Or there may indeed be a problem, but it
may be unique to your individual scope, or situation, and not others, or
the poor service YOU received may have been a singular event. But if two
or three others chime in with you, it looks like a large problem to a
newby, and maybe even to veterans, too, when it is really only three or
four (quite possibly justifiably) unhappy folks among a MUCH larger base
of happy customers.

And you make it seem like all bashers are irrational nuts.

Certainly some of them are. Others ARE justifiably upset. The newby
doesn't know which is which, like others of us who have been here a long
time and KNOW who will predictably pipe up next in some of these types of
situations.

Worse, NONE of us know if the person complaining is telling the truth.

Many HAVE been
bashed by the companies that they bash back on.

Probably fewer than you imply. Depends on your definition of "many".

Like the Astromart bashers. Not many; just loud and repetitive.

Are you saying that legitimate
complaints, generated by in some cases the direct action of
representatives of
companies, shouldn't be said to warn others of the company's problems?
I hope
not.


Again, time tells us that some of these "legitimate complaints" are,
indeed legitimate, and others AREN'T. The newby can't differentiate
between them. So should those of us who know better stand silent and
allow those illegitimate, or highly questionable assertions to go
unanswered?

It is the way some people write here that turns people off. Actual
factual
information is always welcome, if not by the people discussing the
topic, then
by others reading it and trying to increase their knowledge. Yes, there
is a
lot more heat than light in the bulk of messages here, and in other
newsgroups too, but it shouldn't be hard to filter most of it by
identifying those that
provide the heat and ignoring their messages.

It's fairly easy for you and I to differentiate the wheat from the chaff
here, based on experience (this applies to questionable advertising by
manufacturers, as well), but for the newby it is all but impossible.

Net, I agree that there are negative issues that need to get to as many
people as practicable, especially newbies. But HOW this information is
disseminated is critical, because it is quite easy for a newby to take for
gospel something they read here, which may be a complete myth.

I DON'T have a failsafe solution; my message here is a cautionary note.
NO one is required to agree.

So... Sorry to all for taking up so much space on this thorny subject,
and signing off from this subject.

In article 5tzwf.7569$JT.6971@fed1read06, Jan Owen
wrote:

The problem with this is that the bad is virtually all that is ever
spread. The good is rarely heard from, because the happy campers are out
having fun with their scope.

Clearly, your real complaint is against those careless, happy customers
who ignore their responsibility to broadcast their satisfaction. I take
no responsibility for their crimes.

--
Joe Bergeron

http://www.joebergeron.com

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:18:12 -0800 (PST), (Brian Tung)
wrote:

Joe Bergeron wrote:
The subject is the headline of a new Meade ad seen in the February S&T.
It's an attack against Celestron's SkyAlign alignment system, in which
the user has to point the scope at 3 bright stars, but without
necessarily knowing which stars they are. They only have to be bright.

The ad goes on about how hard it is to decide which of all the objects
in the sky are brighter than the rest.

It says you have to "guess at random" which objects might be considered
bright.

I would like to propose a new headline that really cuts to the point of
what Meade is trying to say:

"So what if you're a total dimwit?"

It remains to be seen how many people are taken in by this, but if
you've accurately described the ad, I hope it disappears soon. I
wouldn't want Meade to develop a reputation of litigating and bad-
mouthing rather than actually designing new products.

Take a look at their current offerings, have they ever offered a
greater variety? No.
BTW; Three star alignment systems are PRIMATIVE.
-Rich