|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Sunday, 14 February 2016 10:49:13 UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 6:30:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote: I'd have liked one. I've owned the 3.5" and the 7" and believe 5" would be idea. Still relatively portable, yet with sufficient aperture to be used under less than good skies, assuming you look at other things than planets. As it is, I've got 2 5" Meade ETXs, but I miss the Questar mount. The Questar was to have been 130mm originally, but 90mm was chosen as more affordable, versatile and practical. The rest is history. No criticism about their choice for the premiere scope, the 90mm was a good choice. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc: However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who can afford Questars. Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar. It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
Quadibloc:
However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. Davoud: I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who can afford Questars. Quadibloc: Yes, I'm sure that _some_ people can afford them, just as some people can afford Rolex watches. However, the word "affordable" doesn't mean that _someone_ can afford it, it means that it is low in price and many people can afford it. Let us agree to disagree. Affordable means to me that more than one "someone" can afford it. Astro-Physics, Takahashi, RCOS, BMW, M-B, Canon, Leica, Nikon, all seem to be doing OK, and not only among 1 percenters. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote: On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote: Quadibloc: However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who can afford Questars. Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar. It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car. Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over your head. Maybe. In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 10:54:08 -0500, Davoud wrote:
Let us agree to disagree. Affordable means to me that more than one "someone" can afford it. By your definition anything, no matter how expensive, will be "affordable" -- ask the two richest people in the world what they can afford... |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Monday, 15 February 2016 12:35:10 UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote: On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote: Quadibloc: However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who can afford Questars. Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar. It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car. Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over your head. Maybe. In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct? Not to a socialist. They tax everything and everyone except welfare BUMS. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
wrote:
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote: On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote: Quadibloc: However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who can afford Questars. Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar. It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car. Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over your head. Maybe. In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct? No, incorrect. Have you done this for extended periods. I worked 65 to 70 hour weeks for years. I paid taxes on the overtime. Why should I expect not to do this? But the quality of the work is hard to keep up when hours are so long. If someone is moonlighting the quality of work in his first job will suffer And so will his health. If a second job is not taxed the employer will be able to pay lower wages and nobody except that employer wins. Are you suggesting that people doing the same job as a first job should pay taxes and those doing a second job should not? And don't talk about the "fair tax" which would bankrupt your country and give the middle class money to the rich. Only the naive could think this a practical way to run an economy. In Europe the EC working time directive put an end to this and forced employers to give their workers decent hours and holidays. Even after the implementation in the UK I was working three twelve hour shifts on successive days and it was just bearable. Four twelve hour shifts was bad. Nobody managed five twelve hour shifts without difficulty. In WW2 my father was working twelve hour shifts in an aircraft factory and the deaths of younger workers from industrial accidents and sickness soared. But they still paid taxes. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:00:56 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote: On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote: On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote: Quadibloc: However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who can afford Questars. Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar. It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car. Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over your head. Maybe. In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct? No, incorrect. Have you done this for extended periods. I worked 65 to 70 hour weeks for years. I paid taxes on the overtime. Why should I expect not to do this? You should not pay the tax because, comparatively, you end up with less spare time and a portion of your earnings and those who didn't work longer end up with more spare time and a portion of your earnings. But the quality of the work is hard to keep up when hours are so long. If someone is moonlighting the quality of work in his first job will suffer And so will his health. In many/most situations that will not be the case. YMMV. If a second job is not taxed the employer will be able to pay lower wages and nobody except that employer wins. I am suggesting that income should not be taxed, period. Are you suggesting that people doing the same job as a first job should pay taxes and those doing a second job should not? What makes you think that!? And don't talk about the "fair tax" which would bankrupt your country and give the middle class money to the rich. Only the naive could think this a practical way to run an economy. Since you do not even understand the very basic ideas behind the fair tax you are not qualified to comment on it. In Europe the EC working time directive put an end to this and forced employers to give their workers decent hours and holidays. Even after the implementation in the UK I was working three twelve hour shifts on successive days and it was just bearable. Four twelve hour shifts was bad. Nobody managed five twelve hour shifts without difficulty. In WW2 my father was working twelve hour shifts in an aircraft factory and the deaths of younger workers from industrial accidents and sickness soared. If you were working overtime without difficulty then why should anyone else be kept from working longer hours if they desire? But they still paid taxes. That they had to pay such taxes is a gross injustice. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:00:56 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: wsnell01 wrote: On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote: On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote: Quadibloc: However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who can afford Questars. Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar. It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car. Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over your head. Maybe. In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct? No, incorrect. Have you done this for extended periods. I worked 65 to 70 hour weeks for years. I paid taxes on the overtime. Why should I expect not to do this? You should not pay the tax because, comparatively, you end up with less spare time and a portion of your earnings and those who didn't work longer end up with more spare time and a portion of your earnings. But the quality of the work is hard to keep up when hours are so long. If someone is moonlighting the quality of work in his first job will suffer And so will his health. In many/most situations that will not be the case. YMMV. If a second job is not taxed the employer will be able to pay lower wages and nobody except that employer wins. I am suggesting that income should not be taxed, period. That's due to your naïveté. Are you suggesting that people doing the same job as a first job should pay taxes and those doing a second job should not? What makes you think that!? And don't talk about the "fair tax" which would bankrupt your country and give the middle class money to the rich. Only the naive could think this a practical way to run an economy. Since you do not even understand the very basic ideas behind the fair tax you are not qualified to comment on it. That's your cowards get out clause because you don't have any answer to my criticisms. In Europe the EC working time directive put an end to this and forced employers to give their workers decent hours and holidays. Even after the implementation in the UK I was working three twelve hour shifts on successive days and it was just bearable. Four twelve hour shifts was bad. Nobody managed five twelve hour shifts without difficulty. In WW2 my father was working twelve hour shifts in an aircraft factory and the deaths of younger workers from industrial accidents and sickness soared. If you were working overtime without difficulty then why should anyone else be kept from working longer hours if they desire? I didn't say I worked those hours without difficulty. I implied that tiredness due to long hours impairs efficiency. That affected me just like everyone else. It also affected my health like most of those working the same shifts. But they still paid taxes. That they had to pay such taxes is a gross injustice. If they did not pay taxes that would be the injustice. I suspect you never worked those kind of hours for extended periods. The longest shift I ever worked was 36 hours. I remember leaving the lab but have no other memories until waking up the next morning 12 hours later. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
5" Celestron Schmidt-Cass, Mount on Camera Tripod | W. eWatson | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | July 11th 08 03:59 PM |
What made "2001" a "great" SF film? | [email protected] | Policy | 2 | February 26th 07 08:41 PM |
What made "2001" a "great" SF film? | Rand Simberg | Policy | 0 | February 7th 07 04:58 PM |
Observing the Sun using a home-made "Solar-Shield" | orion94nl | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | August 7th 06 01:15 AM |