Questar Titanium 7!

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 3:58:57 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:11:24 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

Fine. So you don't even know what the discussion was about. No
surprise.

The (current) discussion is about whether there are any lenses in the COSTAR, and the previous discussion is about whether adding lenses to a reflecting telescope (a Ritchey or a Newt, as examples) even makes it a catadioptric.

It isn't, but if you want to narrow it down to that than fine.

Actually, it is what the discussion is about. And of course you started the ball rolling by making the ridiculous claim that a Newtonian with a coma corrector is no longer a Newtonian. Don't start arguments that you can't finish, peterson.

The
answer is "yes", which is why its designers call it "catadioptric".

They haven't clearly defined what "catadioptric" even means, so I get to call BS.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 04:22:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

They haven't clearly defined what "catadioptric" even means, so I get to call BS.

In fact, I've defined it clearly and supported that definition. Your
refusal to accept it is your deficiency and your problem, not mine.

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 11:18:35 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 04:22:59 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

They haven't clearly defined what "catadioptric" even means, so I get to call BS.

In fact, I've defined it clearly and supported that definition. Your
refusal to accept it is your deficiency and your problem, not mine.

The "designers" haven't provided a definition.

YOUR definition, which is clearly in error, is irrelevant.

On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:59:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 11:18:35 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 04:22:59 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

They haven't clearly defined what "catadioptric" even means, so I get to call BS.

In fact, I've defined it clearly and supported that definition. Your
refusal to accept it is your deficiency and your problem, not mine.

The "designers" haven't provided a definition.

YOUR definition, which is clearly in error, is irrelevant.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Per usual.