Sick of rich *******s in astronomy setting the baseline.

You know I've had it up to my neck with you rich idiots that try and
pretend that your overpriced astronomical gimcrack is the baseline of what
makes a useful scope.
Who gives a flying f$$k that you blew $4000 stolen from the rest of us on
some pretty useless telescope. Then you crow about how perfect it is
compared to the scopes the rest of us do useful work with.My god the damn
thing ought to be 1/10 wave. wop de do. It might be news if it wasn't.

Questars, and just about anything from Nagler, all over priced techno crap
for those with too much money to spend and a lack of any sort of moral
sense. Junk who's only real use is to show of your "financial success" and
utter lack of modesty and good taste.

The Robilator:
You know I've had it up to my neck with you rich idiots that [sic] try and
pretend that your overpriced astronomical gimcrack is the baseline of what
makes a useful scope.

Now, now, let's try to compromise. I propose that you decide what is a
useful 'scope for you and that I decide what is a useful scope for me.

Who gives a flying f$$k that you blew $4000...

If you don't care, why did you post this diatribe?

...stolen from the rest of us...

Wha?

...on some pretty useless telescope.

Let's go back to my proposed compromise: let me decide what is useful
for me.

Then you crow about how perfect it is
compared to the scopes the rest of us do useful work with [sic].My god the damn
thing ought to be 1/10 wave. wop de do [sic]. It might be news if it wasn't.

Well, my Questar (somewhat better than 1/10 wave, actually) is still a
pretty good 'scope after 22 years of bouncing around the world under
airliner seats. I don't know that anyone has heard me "crow" that it's
perfect, although I have, on occasion, noted that it is good enough to
serve my needs.

Questars, and just about anything from Nagler, all over priced techno crap
for those with too much money to spend and a lack of any sort of moral
sense. Junk who's [sic] only real use is to show of your "financial success" and
utter lack of modesty and good taste.

In the final analysis, even your most deeply held belief is only your
opinion, and it is worth exactly what you charge for sharing it. You
are not the arbiter of reasonable spending, moral sense, modesty, or
good taste for anyone but yourself.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

The Robilator:
You know I've had it up to my neck with you rich idiots that [sic] try and
pretend that your overpriced astronomical gimcrack is the baseline of what
makes a useful scope.

Now, now, let's try to compromise. I propose that you decide what is a
useful 'scope for you and that I decide what is a useful scope for me.

Who gives a flying f$$k that you blew $4000...

If you don't care, why did you post this diatribe?

...stolen from the rest of us...

Wha?

...on some pretty useless telescope.

Let's go back to my proposed compromise: let me decide what is useful
for me.

Then you crow about how perfect it is
compared to the scopes the rest of us do useful work with [sic].My god the damn
thing ought to be 1/10 wave. wop de do [sic]. It might be news if it wasn't.

Well, my Questar (somewhat better than 1/10 wave, actually) is still a
pretty good 'scope after 22 years of bouncing around the world under
airliner seats. I don't know that anyone has heard me "crow" that it's
perfect, although I have, on occasion, noted that it is good enough to
serve my needs.

Questars, and just about anything from Nagler, all over priced techno crap
for those with too much money to spend and a lack of any sort of moral
sense. Junk who's [sic] only real use is to show of your "financial success" and
utter lack of modesty and good taste.

In the final analysis, even your most deeply held belief is only your
opinion, and it is worth exactly what you charge for sharing it. You
are not the arbiter of reasonable spending, moral sense, modesty, or
good taste for anyone but yourself.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

"The Robilator" wrote in message
...
You know I've had it up to my neck with you rich idiots that try and
pretend that your overpriced astronomical gimcrack is the baseline of what
makes a useful scope.
Who gives a flying f$$k that you blew $4000 stolen from the rest of us on
some pretty useless telescope. Then you crow about how perfect it is
compared to the scopes the rest of us do useful work with.My god the damn
thing ought to be 1/10 wave. wop de do. It might be news if it wasn't.

Questars, and just about anything from Nagler, all over priced techno crap
for those with too much money to spend and a lack of any sort of moral
sense. Junk who's only real use is to show of your "financial success"
and
utter lack of modesty and good taste.

Hi Shawn,

I see you took another AKA. You should be running out of new names soon.
Anyway, your for **** writing habits gave you away.

Al

"The Robilator" wrote in message
...
You know I've had it up to my neck with you rich idiots that try and
pretend that your overpriced astronomical gimcrack is the baseline of what
makes a useful scope.
Who gives a flying f$$k that you blew $4000 stolen from the rest of us on
some pretty useless telescope. Then you crow about how perfect it is
compared to the scopes the rest of us do useful work with.My god the damn
thing ought to be 1/10 wave. wop de do. It might be news if it wasn't.

Questars, and just about anything from Nagler, all over priced techno crap
for those with too much money to spend and a lack of any sort of moral
sense. Junk who's only real use is to show of your "financial success"
and
utter lack of modesty and good taste.

Hi Shawn,

I see you took another AKA. You should be running out of new names soon.
Anyway, your for **** writing habits gave you away.

Al

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:45:53 -0700, The Robilator
stepped up to the plate and batted:

You know I've had it up to my neck with you rich idiots that try and
pretend that your overpriced astronomical gimcrack is the baseline of what
makes a useful scope.
Who gives a flying f$$k that you blew $4000 stolen from the rest of us on
some pretty useless telescope. Then you crow about how perfect it is
compared to the scopes the rest of us do useful work with.My god the damn
thing ought to be 1/10 wave. wop de do. It might be news if it wasn't.

Questars, and just about anything from Nagler, all over priced techno crap
for those with too much money to spend and a lack of any sort of moral
sense. Junk who's only real use is to show of your "financial success" and
utter lack of modesty and good taste.

sarcasm

Damn straight.
(puffs on cigar)

If it wasn't for you peasant offal polluting astromart with your cheap
20$ eyepieces and chinese junk scopes, there would be peace and
harmony in the world.

And don't let me catch you again rummaging in my garbage you eternally
unwashed heap of elk droppings!
(more cigar puffs)

/sarcasm

G../0

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:45:53 -0700, The Robilator
stepped up to the plate and batted:

You know I've had it up to my neck with you rich idiots that try and
pretend that your overpriced astronomical gimcrack is the baseline of what
makes a useful scope.
Who gives a flying f$$k that you blew $4000 stolen from the rest of us on
some pretty useless telescope. Then you crow about how perfect it is
compared to the scopes the rest of us do useful work with.My god the damn
thing ought to be 1/10 wave. wop de do. It might be news if it wasn't.

Questars, and just about anything from Nagler, all over priced techno crap
for those with too much money to spend and a lack of any sort of moral
sense. Junk who's only real use is to show of your "financial success" and
utter lack of modesty and good taste.

sarcasm

Damn straight.
(puffs on cigar)

If it wasn't for you peasant offal polluting astromart with your cheap
20$ eyepieces and chinese junk scopes, there would be peace and
harmony in the world.

And don't let me catch you again rummaging in my garbage you eternally
unwashed heap of elk droppings!
(more cigar puffs)

/sarcasm

G../0

Actually, I agree, although I wouldn't
have put it so crudely.

When I started in astronomy, Cave & Unitron
represented premium equipment. They were expensive
by the standards of the time, but not *insanely*
expensive.

As for TV eyepieces, especially Naglers, they cost
more than any OTA I own, since I build my own,
or buy used equipment. Besides, the best eyepieces
are Circle T Orthoscopics. If you look at
the spot diagrams in "Telescope Optics," Ortho's
(& well designed Plossls) have a tighter image
ON-AXIS than Naglers. You pay a price for all
that extra glass.

My Olympus OM-1 camera body cost me $150. Look at some
of the CCD cameras which cost 5 figures. Plus you
need a fast computer and a good printer. Yes, CCD's
represent an advance over film, but one only the
wealthy can take advantage of. Yeah, you can build
a Cookbook CCD, but it is not in the same league
as the top end Apogee, SBIG, & Finger Lakes stuff.

Actually, I agree, although I wouldn't
have put it so crudely.

When I started in astronomy, Cave & Unitron
represented premium equipment. They were expensive
by the standards of the time, but not *insanely*
expensive.

As for TV eyepieces, especially Naglers, they cost
more than any OTA I own, since I build my own,
or buy used equipment. Besides, the best eyepieces
are Circle T Orthoscopics. If you look at
the spot diagrams in "Telescope Optics," Ortho's
(& well designed Plossls) have a tighter image
ON-AXIS than Naglers. You pay a price for all
that extra glass.

My Olympus OM-1 camera body cost me $150. Look at some
of the CCD cameras which cost 5 figures. Plus you
need a fast computer and a good printer. Yes, CCD's
represent an advance over film, but one only the
wealthy can take advantage of. Yeah, you can build
a Cookbook CCD, but it is not in the same league
as the top end Apogee, SBIG, & Finger Lakes stuff.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:26:13 -0600, jafo
stepped up to the plate and batted:

Actually, I agree, although I wouldn't
have put it so crudely.

No kidding? ; )

When I started in astronomy, Cave & Unitron
represented premium equipment. They were expensive
by the standards of the time, but not *insanely*
expensive.

If you consider that one can now get an 8" reflector on a decent dob
base for less than $500, eyepieces included, the good ol' days
argument is sorta moot. The amateur has a lot more choices in today's
market.

"Premium" is a qualifier that only resides in the eyes of the
beholder. I've had the chance to look through a Questar once during a
star party and, although the view was nice and sharp, I couldn't see
enough of a difference with my synta 8" dob to merit the added $$$.
The questar owner, however, was very happy with his instrument. That
didn't keep him from enjoying the views through my comparatively
modest telescope as well.

As for TV eyepieces, especially Naglers, they cost
more than any OTA I own, since I build my own,
or buy used equipment. Besides, the best eyepieces
are Circle T Orthoscopics. If you look at
the spot diagrams in "Telescope Optics," Ortho's
(& well designed Plossls) have a tighter image
ON-AXIS than Naglers. You pay a price for all
that extra glass.

Yeah but the upside is that you gain all that extra FOV. It's a
tradeoff. I prefer a simpler design for planetary viewing and switch
to the widefields for deep-sky observing. There is a place for all
these designs, even if some of them cost more than my car! : )


The only thing I find important to clarify in this troll-induced
argument is that you don't need a $5000 scope to enjoy the heavens.
There are decent instruments in every price range.

If you so wish to drop half a mortgage on a prime APO refractor, it's
nobody's business but yours and maybe your bank manager. One way or
another, if it makes you happy and you can observe the things you want
to see, good for you. It's all good.


G../0