Just a simple question

Anyone got three good reasons for the continued existence of
sci.astro.amateur?

On Monday, March 31, 2014 8:48:38 PM UTC-4, Starstuffed wrote:
Anyone got three good reasons for the continued existence of

sci.astro.amateur?

1) It's unmoderated.
2) It's unmoderated.
3) It's unmoderated.

I could go on.

(Did I mention that it's unmoderated?)

On 3/31/14 7:21 PM, wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2014 8:48:38 PM UTC-4, Starstuffed wrote:
Anyone got three good reasons for the continued existence of

sci.astro.amateur?

1) It's unmoderated.

What? You think someone is suppressing an optical breakthrough
announcement in the Yahoo/Google/Astromart group world?
Maybe an ultra short, ultra light, ultra cheap 8 inch Apo?

Lucky for us this group still exists.

Or maybe you mean so that fools can carp at each other about inanities?

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 00:48:38 GMT, Starstuffed wrote:

Anyone got three good reasons for the continued existence of
sci.astro.amateur?

You came here.
You posted.
You'll be back looking for replies.

I would not call them "good reasons"; but they are your reasons.

--
Email address is a Spam trap.

"Starstuffed" wrote in message ...

Anyone got three good reasons for the continued existence of
sci.astro.amateur?

================================================== ==
It doesn't need a reason. It is part of usenet and will continue to exist as
long as one server somewhere in the world displays messages and one person
writes messages.
If you don't like it, leave.
Does anyone have three good reasons for the continued existence of Radio
Caroline?

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/n...aroline-13863/

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

A bigot

wrote in message
...

On Monday, March 31, 2014 8:48:38 PM UTC-4, Starstuffed wrote:
Anyone got three good reasons for the continued existence of

sci.astro.amateur?

1) It's unmoderated.
2) It's unmoderated.
3) It's unmoderated.

I could go on.

(Did I mention that it's unmoderated?)

======================================
Tough ****, wsnelloi. Some of us object to censorship of any kind and demand
freedom of speech. If you don't like it, leave and set up your own group.
Did I mention you can leave?
BTW, your off topic political crap should be "moderated", you advocate
against yourself.
Did I mention you can always leave?

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 1:48:38 AM UTC+1, Starstuffed wrote:
Anyone got three good reasons for the continued existence of

sci.astro.amateur?

There are loads of moderated groups out there where you will be protected from original ideas and can dwell in the sterile celestial sphere environment of magnification equipment while earning for yourself titles such as 'hyper giant' or other worthless trinkets -

http://www.astronomyforum.net/astronomy-forum/

Apart from science fiction guys and the odd refugee from the relativity forums,this forum represents where astronomy is at the moment - basically dormant.

Starstuffed writes:

Anyone got three good reasons for the continued existence of
sci.astro.amateur?

As a perpetual remainder of our simian origin
and the futility of unmoderated discussions.

pej
--
Per Erik Jorde

On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 8:41:33 AM UTC+1, Per Erik Jorde wrote:
Starstuffed writes:



Anyone got three good reasons for the continued existence of

sci.astro.amateur?



As a perpetual remainder of our simian origin

and the futility of unmoderated discussions.



pej

--

Per Erik Jorde

You are from the same age group as I am yet are unable to reason properly or rather have the tendency to chant the same meaningless voodoo you inherited from previous generations of theorists. You cannot bear to be disturbed from the paper thin pretense of the 'no center/no circumference' ideologies which plague this era but I assure you that some day and some way genuine astronomy will break through the stubborn facade.

Norwegians are an incredibly innovative race of people which makes you somewhat of an exception as you move in celestial sphere circles and the hilarious notions of the celestial arena which attach themselves to that unfortunate framework.

On Monday, March 31, 2014 10:43:15 PM UTC-4, lal_truckee wrote:
On 3/31/14 7:21 PM, wsnell01 wrote:

On Monday, March 31, 2014 8:48:38 PM UTC-4, Starstuffed wrote:

Anyone got three good reasons for the continued existence of

sci.astro.amateur?

1) It's unmoderated.

What? You think someone is suppressing an optical breakthrough
announcement in the Yahoo/Google/Astromart group world?
Maybe an ultra short, ultra light, ultra cheap 8 inch Apo?

That was a strawman argument.

Lucky for us this group still exists.

In another forum I saw a moderator chime in when someone made a point that upset the status quo and the conventional wisdom, even though the discussion was technically on-topic. The thread ended soon thereafter, IIRC, just as it was getting interesting.

Or maybe you mean so that fools can carp at each other about inanities?

Do you mean inanities such as strawman arguments about imaginary, breakthrough telescopes?