Thank you, anti-SV folks!

"Jon Isaacs" wrote in message
...


I beleive this refers to federal law but I'm not certain:


Please find out. I think in general, it would be good to find out before
posting something like this rather than after.

Yeah, I'll head over to the law library right now.

What do you think Jon, I just pulled it out of thin air? If you want to find
out whether it's state or federal law, go right ahead a research it
yourself, I'm not your secretary. All I know is that according to the
website I copied it from, it is the law. I'm not an attorney, nor do I have
the resources of a law library at my disposal, but I'm also not in the habit
of making things up just to post them on saa.

Man, I don't give two squirts about Chromacorrs, who makes them or who buys
them. All I did was try to provide a little bit of information to the
conversation and I get a load of your self righteousness.

Some on this group have been saying it and it's true. This group has
changed. I swear some people on this group do nothing but look for ways to
argue, bicker or criticize.

Brian A

(Jon Isaacs) wrote in message ...

I beleive this refers to federal law but I'm not certain:


Please find out. I think in general, it would be good to find out before
posting something like this rather than after.

Personally I have no problem with Chromacorr's being reworked but some people
apparently do. Valery would be wise to simply state that it is possible though
not certain that some, if not all of the components of a given Chromacorr have
been reworked.

That would pretty much cover everything.
---------
But lets look at the big picture.

Reality is that the Chromacorr works as advertised. It is certainly the only
viable option for anyone wanting to take a larger medium focal length Achromat
and provide true "color correction" rather than using a Minus Violet filter or
some similar technique which is not "color correction."
Rather than throwing away the unpleasant components like an atenunating filter
does, a Chromacorr refocuses the light so that all the frequencies are focused
to the same point. This is really quite an amazing accomplishment of both
design and manufacture and should be recognized as such.

So the bottomline is that Valery has really provided the amateur community with
quite an amazing tool and rather than complain we should recognize the
importance and magnitude of this accomplishment.

Jon

Only two samples of Chromacor was fully reworked and re-sold. I can easily
hide this fact. But I didn't because no real reason.
What were made?
1. Chromacor is impossible to take out of the cell without full cell damage.
The cell was new.

2. Outer surfaces of Chromacor were re-polished and re-coated.

3. They were put in cells and centered in them.

The ONLY part which was not re-worked is internal glasses, which do not
need this and will last longer than this czech Dave. ;-)


V.D.

"Jon Isaacs" wrote in message
...
Jon,

maybe you missed the fact that it was an used, faulty, returned unit.

David

How was it when he sent it out the second time?

jon

What's seems to be the important issue to me is not what was charged for the
unit, but whether the unit was sold as refurbished, remanufactured, or brand
new condition.

Brian A

Big picture? So it is okay for Valery to sell a Chromacorr as new at a new
price, even though it has been reconditioned, which it has, by the addition
of new parts and possible adjustment/replacement of others.

All he needs to disclose is that this is a possiblity with all units. Nothing
more. It is possible after all, since Valery is based in Russia that this is
standard operating procedure in Russia.

While you are looking up "re-furbished" in your dictionary, try also
"hypocrite" - that goes for the rest of your cynnical, trolling friends,
too.

D.


I suggest that someone who claimed to be a potential buyer of a certain item,
say a Paracorr or some similar device, but only did so in order to lodge a
complaint against the vendor could fit into the definition of a hypocrite.

Would you agree?

Jon Isaacs

What do you think Jon, I just pulled it out of thin air?

I have no idea where you got it. You gave no source.

If you want to find
out whether it's state or federal law, go right ahead a research it
yourself, I'm not your secretary.

You stated that you thought this was the law but were not sure. Why post it if
you are not sure??

You also gave no source. I believe it is the responsibility of someone
posting to provide the support.

All I know is that according to the
website I copied it from, it is the law. I'm not an attorney, nor do I have
the resources of a law library at my disposal, but I'm also not in the habit
of making things up just to post them on saa.

If you copied it from a web site then you needed to provide that information.
First so anyone interested could check the veracity of what you are saying, and
secondly because when you copy something from someone else, it is proper to
give them credit.

This was all that was needed and of course when someone goes back and looks at
the group via Google, it would be a help as well.

jon

"Jon Isaacs" wrote in message
...
What do you think Jon, I just pulled it out of thin air?

I have no idea where you got it. You gave no source.

If you want to find
out whether it's state or federal law, go right ahead a research it
yourself, I'm not your secretary.

You stated that you thought this was the law but were not sure. Why post
it if
you are not sure??

You also gave no source. I believe it is the responsibility of someone
posting to provide the support.

All I know is that according to the
website I copied it from, it is the law. I'm not an attorney, nor do I
have
the resources of a law library at my disposal, but I'm also not in the
habit
of making things up just to post them on saa.

If you copied it from a web site then you needed to provide that
information.
First so anyone interested could check the veracity of what you are
saying, and
secondly because when you copy something from someone else, it is proper
to
give them credit.

This was all that was needed and of course when someone goes back and
looks at
the group via Google, it would be a help as well.

jon


Jon,
Please calm down dude. Your acting like I'm giving testimony in a court of
law here. Actually I feel like I'm back in college writing a paper and the
professor has just taken points off for not properly footnoting a source.
This is an astronomy ng!!! A hobby! You know, fun. I think your taking this
way too seriously. To expect people (or me in this case) to site sources so
someone can "check the veracity of what they are saying," when they just
trying to offer some information they thought might be pertinent to a thread
on a amateur astronomy newsgroup.. well, really Jon, come on now.

I also feel that stating that you feel the need to check the veracity of
what I'm saying can carry a strong implication can it not? I don't know Jon
but I'm not sure you know me well enough, nor have I ever given you reason,
to my knowledge, to question my integrity. If that was not your intent then
I apologize for suggesting it but that is how it sounded to me.

Also, if you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. I did not say "I
thought this was the law but I'm not sure". I said I thought it was FEDERAL
law but I'm not sure. The reason I said that is because it came from a
Massachusetts business law page and I wasn't sure if it was state or federal
law. As I said, if I wasn't sure it was law at all, I would not have posted
it. I don't generally make those kind of things up. Could I have sighted the
source? Yes, I apologize for that. But I have to be honest with you, in this
circumstance, it seems a little crazy.

Look Jon, I've read many of your other posts and you seem to be a good guy.
I just think your taking this stuff a little too seriously. Perhaps I just
jumped in on a subject that you feel very strongly about. Or perhaps you
thought my intent was to take a position on either side of the discussion...
it was not. I just thought I could offer a little info.

Peace and Clear Skies

Brian A

If you're giving facts, you need to
support them or you're going to get raked over the coals around here.

Richard Navarrete

I say we rake him anyway.


rat
~( );

email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address

Look Jon, I've read many of your other posts and you seem to be a good guy.
I just think your taking this stuff a little too seriously. Perhaps I just
jumped in on a subject that you feel very strongly about. Or perhaps you
thought my intent was to take a position on either side of the discussion...
it was not. I just thought I could offer a little info.

Peace and Clear Skies

Brian A

Brian:

Thanks, I do try to be one of the reasonable folks but I do not always succeed.
I appreciate your effort. In order to understand the context of this
discussion, I went back and re-read the entire thread.

I do think that you did have a point of view that you were defending. I have
quoted here your first post to this topic:

"What's seems to be the important issue to me is not what was charged for the
unit, but whether the unit was sold as refurbished, remanufactured, or brand
new condition.

Brian A"

To which Rich responded:

" We aren't taking about car with a rolled back odometer. I hate to
break it to you, but if some company gets back a product
that has zero flaws, or has an element that when replaced renders the
whole new, then why should they have to sell it as used? Eyepieces
and related items do not "wear out" and if they are worn, it is
clearly visible to any buyer.
-Rich"

Your reply to Rich was (including the above quote):

"I beleive this refers to federal law but I'm not certain:

3. Reconditioned, Rebuilt, or Refurbished Goods..."
-----

To me, it certainly seems like you are trying to provide support for your
belief stated in your first post that it is important whether the unit was sold
as refurbished or not.
---------

My thinking is that if I quote something from someone else's website, then it
is my responsibility to at least provide the link. It only takes a moment more
and allows someone else access as well as giving credit where credit is due.

In this case if there had been a pointer, then someone interested could have
easily discovered that this was from Massuchutts law and not Federal Law.
---

Anyway, if you want to continue this discussion, it might be better done in
private.

Best wishes and hope all have had some nice views over the wek end. I
certainly did.

jon

(Jon Isaacs) wrote in message ...
Jon,

maybe you missed the fact that it was an used, faulty, returned unit.

David

How was it when he sent it out the second time?

How was it? Sounds to me like it was refurbished - in other words,
"repaired and resold". But very, very nicely refurbished, I'm sure!

-Skip

(Jon Isaacs) wrote in message ...
Jon,

maybe you missed the fact that it was an used, faulty, returned unit.

David

How was it when he sent it out the second time?

How was it? Sounds to me like it was refurbished - in other words,
"repaired and resold". But very, very nicely refurbished, I'm sure!

-Skip