Sky at niight - with Patrick Moore.... but only just

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
In message , Grimble Gromble
writes
[snip]
I like my astronomy deep.
On a twenty-minute TV programme?

Why does it have to be 20 minutes? There's a lot going on out there. BBC2's
Horizon used to cover a lot of ground, clearly, entertainingly, in about 50
minutes (though it's recent efforts to dumb down the program have been
rather ghastly).

Thanks for confirming my reaction to people who post with silly nicknames.

What makes you think my name is a nickname? It isn't.
Grim

"Martin Frey" wrote in message
...
"Grimble Gromble" wrote:
I find Patrick Moore somewhat tiresome.
You are entitled to your opinion.
That is all I was expressing.

I don't recall
ever seeing a SaN program in which he didn't show one of his drawings made
with the help of his 15" telescope.
You are severely remembrancely challenged.
As I have confessed often. The other possibilities are that he didn't make
any such programs or that if he did, I did not see them.

Nor does he ever seem to have anything
new to say, or even a different way of saying it. Even when he has
interesting guests on, he asks them the bog standard questions instead of
letting them expound their own ideas. He also seems to get his name on
just
about every astronomy book going (edited by, foreword by, arse kissed by
...).
Nonsense.
You have examples to the contrary?

Fortunately, none of the books in my collection make any mention of
him. And they're all wonderful books. In fact I use the absence of his
name
as an indicator that a book may be rather more than written for a
simpleton.
I like my astronomy deep.
and pompous with it.
No way (I thought this was a friendly newsgroup - now I'm having second
thoughts). I've no doubt at all that many amateur astronomers would like
more information than PM supplies. There's nowt pompous about that. Perhaps
now that PM is falling by the wayside, SaN could become much more and still
serve all those beginner's (of which I am one - though disgruntled) who have
benefited from his own unique style.
Grim

"Mark Dunn" wrote in message
...
I assume that 'The Moon' is not in your collection.
Correct. Never heard of it.

The standard telescopic
atlas, published in 1955 with Percy Wilkins (you probably haven't heard of
him either).
Also correct. Is he a friend of yours?

Probably made with observations from another telescope you don't like.
And couldn't possibly afford. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I
didn't like PM's telescope. Didn't he have a whole program dedicated to the
observatory in his garden? How many potential astronomers do you know of
that have been put off astronomy by the realisation that to capture images
like the HST, you need a HST? One of the things I liked about the members of
this newsgroup was their willingness to talk to interested parties about
such things as binoculars. PM often irritated me with mention of his 15"
telescope (notwithstanding his helpful advice that binoculars were superior
to a cheap telescope). Are we supposed to aspire to such an instrument? It's
taken me decades to get a 200mm. I don't resent his having one, I do resent
his mentioning it every month.
Grim

"Chris.B" wrote in message
om...
Your opinion is worth as much as anyone's.
I doubt it, but thanks for your kind words.

My irritation with Sky at
Night and it's long serving presenter. Was simply that it was such a
low budget number. Had they had someone who wasn't simply grateful for
some astronomy on TV. Rather than no astronomy at all. I might have
liked it more. As it is, I've rarely bothered to watch it in the 40
years that I've been more than a little keen on astronomy. Which
probably speaks volumes. Either about me or Patrick's cheap talkshow.
A simple blackboard and stick of chalk could have gone a long way to
improving it. We've been led to believe he can draw.

As a book collector I have to admit that the mere presence of PM on
the spine saves me some considerable time when title browsing. Because
I can just skim over without a pause. Much the same as one can in any
public library.
Perhaps if I had not used the word simpleton, it might have been better
received. What I was trying to convey was that though PM can cover a
considerable amount of ground (not a fatist pun) at an elementary level,
what he presents contains little of substance.

Notwithstanding all of the above: Patrick has probably turned on about
as many to astronomy as he has put off. Statistically that probably
means a net gain of converts to cloud watching. At least in comparison
with his never having existed.
I agree he has had a major impact on this countries stargazers. I'm also
sure that SaN would never have been aired had it not been for PM. I also
feel that having become an establishment icon, he would have done better to
pass on the torch rather than retain the program in the same dull format
during the subsequent decades. There's no doubt that he has been a powerful
force in amateur astronomy, but therein lies what I believe to be the
biggest hindrance. It's well past time to move on. Do you think the BBC will
capitalise on the opportunity?
Grim

Pete Lawrence wrote:

Switchback?

Switchback was an attempt at humor by a Mac web-site [1]. It does not
exist.

Init-9403 (you didn't specify language, just OS X)?

LOL! An ancient virus from 1994! I'm sorry, but there's just no way that
could run on OS X, even under the Classic environment.

Don't the numerous macro viruses that run under Office apps also run
just as well on the Mac?

No. Macros are OS-specific. Whilst it has never been easier to exchange
documents between Windows and Mac, Macros written on Windows cannot
be run on the Mac, and vice versa.

Is there some magical way OS X has been written to prevent virus
infection

Yes, OS X is built on the magical way of Unix, the same OS that the
majority of Internet servers run. There are more attacks on Unix variants
than on Windows, yet the ingrained security of Unix has prevented the
Typhoid Mary type of exploits. Furthermore, the open source nature of
Unix helps to quickly expose and then fix security issues before any
cretin has a chance to exploit them. This is in sharp contrast to
Windows, where security fixes are released only AFTER a security hole
has actually been exploited.

or is it just that the eyes of the cretinous few haven't given it much
attention yet? Probably better pray that the Macs don't become too
popular then.

Untrue. A virus or spyware or any other program could not install itself
or execute on my Mac unless I typed (or it guessed) my non-trivial
password, which is in the form of tP*fJ@chP&Axu%. On Windows, a user
gives their permission by double-clicking an executable on an attachment.
What kind of security is that?

Do you work without virus protection?

Yes, because there are no viruses for OS X. None. Nada. Zero.


[1] http://www.lowendmac.com/lite/03/0813.html

"Grimble Gromble" wrote:

Perhaps if I had not used the word simpleton, it might have been better
received. What I was trying to convey was that though PM can cover a
considerable amount of ground (not a fatist pun) at an elementary level,
what he presents contains little of substance.

I think he conveys more of substance than most other astronomy related
programmes. To have the right level of "substance" for all interested
in astronomy would probably require about 50,000 tailored editions of
the same topic. I'd agree that I wish TV gave better coverage with
more substance - but PM is not the villain of the piece.

I agree he has had a major impact on this countries stargazers. I'm also
sure that SaN would never have been aired had it not been for PM. I also
feel that having become an establishment icon, he would have done better to
pass on the torch rather than retain the program in the same dull format
during the subsequent decades. There's no doubt that he has been a powerful
force in amateur astronomy, but therein lies what I believe to be the
biggest hindrance. It's well past time to move on.

He has had a lot more beneficial impact than you allow. Even down to
getting more than a mention in Burnham's Celestial Handbook - perhaps
the most professionally revered and used astronomy book ever,
worldwide. It was a twit who clearly shared your opinion, while
working at the Lowell Observatory, causing them to refuse to publish
the handbook because (among other reasons) it quoted from PM: well up
in the top 10 all-time astro-mega-bloopers and not the Lowell's only
appearence therein.

Do you think the BBC will
capitalise on the opportunity?

No - but you can see the potential candidates jockeying for position.
I'd give that chap from the OU a go but suspect they'll prefer Heather
or the chap from Old Greenwich, both disastrous. John Gribbin writes a
decent populist book with substance - but I can't recall ever seeing
or hearing him in action.

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47

Grimble Gromble wrote in message
news
"Mark Dunn" wrote in message
...
I assume that 'The Moon' is not in your collection.
Correct. Never heard of it.

There's a gap in your education.

The standard telescopic
atlas, published in 1955 with Percy Wilkins (you probably haven't heard
of
him either).
Also correct.

There's another gap. H.P. Wilkins. Look him up. I'm quite surprised you've
been interested in astronomy so long without hearing of either.

Is he a friend of yours?

Who? PM? Met him a few times. Signed my copy of 'The Moon" for me. Percy
Wilkins died some years ago.

Probably made with observations from another telescope you don't like.
And couldn't possibly afford. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I

They used the 33" refractor at Meudon. Look it up. That's how considerable
his professional reputation was in 1955. TSAN didn't start until April 1957.

didn't like PM's telescope. Didn't he have a whole program dedicated to
the
observatory in his garden? How many potential astronomers do you know of

Would that be one programme out of, let's see, 12x47, I make that about 564
programmes?

that have been put off astronomy by the realisation that to capture images
like the HST, you need a HST? One of the things I liked about the members
of
this newsgroup was their willingness to talk to interested parties about
such things as binoculars. PM often irritated me with mention of his 15"
telescope (notwithstanding his helpful advice that binoculars were
superior
to a cheap telescope). Are we supposed to aspire to such an instrument?
It's
taken me decades to get a 200mm. I don't resent his having one, I do
resent
his mentioning it every month.
Grim

You've hit a bit of a raw nerve, as you can see from most of these posts. PM
is widely respected throughout the world for his promotion of astronomy. Not
many people appreciate someone taking a swing at him for being himself.

In message , Mark Dunn
writes

Grimble Gromble wrote in message
news
"Mark Dunn" wrote in message
...
I assume that 'The Moon' is not in your collection.
Correct. Never heard of it.

There's a gap in your education.

The standard telescopic
atlas, published in 1955 with Percy Wilkins (you probably haven't heard
of
him either).
Also correct.

There's another gap. H.P. Wilkins. Look him up. I'm quite surprised you've
been interested in astronomy so long without hearing of either.

I've got both "The Moon" and the big atlas (they were both so cheap I'd
have been crazy not to buy them) but I have heard that the atlas isn't
very accurate. Can anyone here confirm or refute that?

In article ,
wrote:
Hmm, not sure if slagging off Patrick Moore falls under the same
category as bad-mounthing Mother Theresa, the Pope, or Princess Di.

No comparison. PM has advanced the sum total of human knowledge and the
sum total of human happiness.

His Sky at Night are eccentric, maybe, but there's no hiding his
enthusiasm, his knowledge, his devotion, and his sheer presence. The
programme is 100% his own vision, and we have to thank him for keeping
it reasonably 'scientific', and very topical.

It shines out like a shaft gold when all around is darkness. Or
something.

Clearly, he's getting near the end of his TV career. Let the old chap
finish up in his own time and way, and applaud him as he calls it a
day. And let's support whoever takes over... it'll be a hard act to
follow.

Couldn't agree more.
--
Jim Easterbrook http://astro.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/
N51.36 W0.25

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
In message , Grimble Gromble
writes
"Sir Loin Steak" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Silverlight"
wrote
in message ...
In message , Sir Loin Steak
writes
Your opinions may differ to mine!
They may. And they confirm my feeling that it's usually worth kill
filing people who hide behind silly nicknames.
Telling you my real name still won't change the fact that I don't like
Patrick Moore. I apologise if I've upset the astronomy gods, but that's
life
I guess.
[snip]

There are no gods. I find Patrick Moore somewhat tiresome.

No-one says there are. But PM has done more for amateur astronomy than
anyone else.

I am not denying he has done a lot for astronomy, but in my mind the BBC
should be trying to get people interested in astronomy. Considering the
format of the show, and, respect him or not, that awful voice he has, I
doubt many people would suddenly be inspired to start astronomy after
watching SaN.

I like my astronomy deep.
Grim

On a twenty-minute TV programme? Thanks for confirming my reaction to
people who post with silly nicknames.

Lol! You've got to get over this nickname thing. If I posted under the name
'Robert Smith' would that make you happier? There's no guarantee it's my
real name, but god help us it's preferable to Sir Loin Steak. Imagine the
heathen who posts under that name. He obviously can't be serious about
astronomy.