|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Which Berry review got him in trouble? I have back issues and I'd be interested in reading that... It was in '91 I'm pretty sure, shortly after he wrote a cryptic 'farewell' editorial citing the need to serve the reading public. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:57:30 -0500, none ""root\"@(none)" wrote:
Which Berry review got him in trouble? I have back issues and I'd be interested in reading that... It was in '91 I'm pretty sure, shortly after he wrote a cryptic 'farewell' editorial citing the need to serve the reading public. Want to know the minutes of a Meade meeting shortly after he was deposed? It was a cheering fest. I can't say that's when Astronomy started down the hill to mediocrity, but shortly thereafter, I quit reading it. -Rich |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Let then eat cake. (They refuse possum!).
Nudnik RMOLLISE wrote: Dennis Woos wrote: The review of the Meade 14" SCT in the March '05 "Astronomy" is pretty useless vis-a-vis the optical performance of this scope. It should not be too hard to do better than "I viewed a number of close doubles with the magnification pumped as high as 404x with a Meade 8.8mm UWA eyepiece. It was satisfying to resolve companion stars impossible to see with a smaller telescope." Why don't they do better, or why can't they? My two kids could, and would, do a more analytical and critical review. Dennis Hi: I wouldn't call it "terrible." I did note a couple of minor mistakes in the article...but what I'd mainly guess is that the magazine must want reviews tailored to their readership, which, I assume, they believe does not want anything that approaches "detailed" or "technical." Peace, Rod Mollise Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_ Like SCTs and MCTs? Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers! Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Brian Tung wrote: Dennis Woos wrote: In fact, it seems to me that if "Astronomy" wanted a biased review, then it would be in their interest to make sure that it was detailed and technical, and so sound more convincing. More convincing to you and me, perhaps, but I should think that such a hypothetical editor would prefer that their readers complete the review. Really! Patients should then complete their surgeries in addition to paying. Youhave a realthing for the "self serve" society. I hope you will not change your opinion when it comes time for you to have to serve all your own needs? Thre are certains standards toqualify as a review. Either those standards are met, or they ......... aint. Except of course in Russia and other places I could mention. Nud As such, they would include only as many technical details as are needed to sound modestly tech-ish, and no more. I do not intend to insinuate that Astronomy has done this, or has even considered doing this. 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.txt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Meade 80mm Model 312 scope | Allan Adler | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | November 24th 04 07:38 AM |
second scope - which one? Orion ShortTube 4.5 EQ or SkyQuest XT 4.5 | Jim Fedina | Amateur Astronomy | 15 | November 16th 04 01:41 PM |
First experience with a cheap scope -- puke!! | JAS | Amateur Astronomy | 14 | December 24th 03 03:35 PM |
How Young can a Kid Own a Scope? | Tony Flanders | Amateur Astronomy | 22 | December 9th 03 03:21 PM |
SMALL SCOPE + NICE BACKYARD = ENJOYABLE NIGHT! | David Knisely | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | October 27th 03 09:55 AM |