"So which one qualifies as a bright object?"

Rich wrote:
Take a look at their current offerings, have they ever offered a
greater variety? No.

Irrelevant if true, since I don't say they don't both badmouth and
innovate. In my opinion, they should *just* innovate.

BTW; Three star alignment systems are PRIMATIVE.

Take a closer look at Celestron's three-star alignment--it works without
you telling the system which three stars they are. I believe it works
even if one of the "stars" is a planet, provided the system has the right
time.

This ain't your father's three-star alignment.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

"John Steinberg" wrote

Said the mudslinger with the six-shooters and the embarrassing
Halloween cowboy costume.

Regretfully...

*plonk*

Jan is one of the fairest, most knowledgeable posters in this group.

John Steinberg wrote:
Howard Lester wrote:


Regretfully...


It's like a weight lifted off my shoulders.


Jan is one of the fairest, most knowledgeable posters in this group.


Damning you with faint praise, but possibly the most amusing comment
you've made in over 9 years.

Goodbye, Howard. See you if/when you grow up.

Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.



Jeesh! You New Yorker's are something else! The Giants might do it
next year.

Cathy
Diamond Bell, AZ

"Jan Owen" wrote in message
news:5tzwf.7569$JT.6971@fed1read06...

"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?

The beginning of that statement either shows ignorance or deliberately
misrepresenting the situation. In either case, a look at the messages in this
newsgroup show a lot of Meade support; as much, in fact, as there is bashing.
Same for every other make of scope. The good is as often heard here as the
bashing.



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.

If you've received consistently negative responses from a technical support
group, that is NOT an opinion, but a fact. When you've tried t be cooperative
and helpful and received a lot of neglect and a deaf ear, that is not an
opinion, it is a fact. Even if you're the only one that had experienced it, it
still does not make it an opinion, but a fact. The same applies in the other
direction too.

It is also not a singular event when it happens again and again, over months,
whether good or bad.

But the statement "MUCH larger base of happy customers" is an opinion. As I
said, there is just as much praise as there is bashing for Meade here. The
consensus based on that is that the jury is split roughly 50-50, with
adjustments needed to make sure you're counting individuals and not just
messages.



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?

No, but one shouldn't slant one's statements with colorful or emotionally charge
phrases, which is what I was referring to in my statements.

--- Dave
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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

In article , katrinaxx
wrote:

Jeesh! You New Yorker's are something else! The Giants might do it
next year.

I'm a New Yorker too, but I'm from the nice part of the state, where we
raise dairy cows and apples and can see the Milky Way.

--
Joe Bergeron

http://www.joebergeron.com

Jan Owen wrote:

"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.

Meade are doing that for themsleves. By their actions they will be
judged (at least in countries that have advertising standards). They
have made their bed so they can lie in it (pun intended).

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.

So lets get this straight you think we should all keep quiet and
condone unethical business practices by Meade just because some of their
products are quite good? (I own an LX200)

They set their slimy lawyers to beat up some poor sod who had a fairly
legitimate prior art computer controlled scope patent and then after
they had steam rollered him into submission went after Celestron the
same way (and amazingly won). The might is right bottomless pockets and
fat lawyers approach to US litigation never ceases to amaze me.

And now they attack Celestron products with what sounds like the lowest
form of "Knocking Copy" advert. What reaction did you expect to see?

If Meade had wanted to annoy the amateur astronomy community it is hard
to see how they could set about doing it more effectively than by
placing this sort of advert in S&T (UK copy not arrived yet). Perhaps in
the USA it is acceptable to rubbish competitors products in your
adverts, but I can assure you that sort of thing is frowned upon in the ROW.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Brian Tung wrote:

Rich wrote:

Take a look at their current offerings, have they ever offered a
greater variety? No.

Irrelevant if true, since I don't say they don't both badmouth and
innovate. In my opinion, they should *just* innovate.

I don't object to them defending genuine intellectual property either,
but I do object to them beating up smaller competitors with expensive
frivolous litigation.

BTW; Three star alignment systems are PRIMATIVE.

Take a closer look at Celestron's three-star alignment--it works without
you telling the system which three stars they are. I believe it works
even if one of the "stars" is a planet, provided the system has the right
time.

It is actually very clever and a *lot* cheaper than including GPS
hardware. That could explain why Meade is so afraid of it.

Any ideas why SkyAlign asks you to put your location into the controller
at start up? Just pointing it at 3 bright stars should be enough.
Celestrons website claims PatPending but I didn't spot it on USPTO.

I did wonder how many of the brightest stars in the evening sky might be
planets but if it can handle that reliably then there is no problem.

The implication of the Meade advert is that if you are too dumb to
recognise the brightest stars in the sky then you need a Meade scope.
(OTOH the LX200 expects you to know their Arabic names as well)

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 01/10/2006 09:25 AM +0900, John Steinberg wrote:

[ snip ]

Goodbye, Howard. See you if/when you grow up.

Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.

Jeeze, John. You might wanna cut back on the Folger's by a pot or two.

trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

"Trane Francks" wrote

Goodbye, Howard. See you if/when you grow up.

Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.

Jeeze, John. You might wanna cut back on the Folger's by a pot or two.

trane

Good plan. I'd never consider a man's behavior as "mature" when he resorts
to name calling and childish commentary on another person. What a waste of
an otherwise brilliant mind (speaking of "which one qualifies as a bright
object...").

Howard

Martin Brown wrote:

went after Celestron the
same way (and amazingly won).



Just to set the facts straight, they DIDNT win per se,
but Celestron eventually caved in due to the increasing
legal costs which they couldnt keep paying. Which was Meade's
strategy all along in the first place. Every time it finally
got through a court, Celestron would win, and then Meade would
start all over again. Meade had no problem paying the lawyers,
but Celestron did............

It unfortunately says a lot about the lack of ethics of
those running Meade.

And it IS pertinent here, in that some of us decide
on whether we do business with a company based on said
companies business practices.
I for one will not do business with Meade......





AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

Linux CentOS 4.2, KDE 3.3