Damn them all to HELLL!!!!!! (Pentax)

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 5:01:29 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 10:49:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:23:28 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 05:02:54 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

For example, peterson will probably vote for Trump in the primary and for the demonrat in the general.

Not this year. I'm voting for Sanders, because he's a solid choice
over Clinton.

So, we're not a "registered republican" any more?

I changed to independent, because in Colorado I can now declare at the
caucus or election which ballot I want to vote. Best of all worlds. I
expect that in most cases I'll still declare Republican in primaries,
since that gives me more of a voice. But this year, there's a real
race in the Democratic side of things, which hasn't happened for a
long time.

IOW when you claimed to be a conservative, you were lying?

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 9:53:10 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 15:42:33 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 20 February 2016 11:26:59 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 06:05:01 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:03:02 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Somehow, I don't really envy your friend, as nice as Questars are. (I would
never buy a used Questar without original bill of sale and fully documented
provenance.)

You expect his friend to eventually be jailed for having stolen it?

Or is it just that it may turn out to have not been properly cared for?

I do remember that the old Questars used threaded eyepieces, so one could only
use the Brandons that came with them, so there is reason not to envy him _too_
much. Can a Questar really be _that_ much better than the 90mm go-to Maks that
London Drugs now sells cheaply?

Optically, a Questar is nothing special. Nor does its mount offer any
real advantages over some of the mounts found on similar sized scopes.

I saw one test out to near 1/20th wave recently. Better than Chinese stuff, or even AP/TEC.

1/20th wave is utterly meaningless visually with a 3.5" scope.

It will help with focusing.

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:11:20 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 10:55:05 AM UTC-8, wsne... wrote:

But a Questar is still a thing of beauty and craftsmanship.

I think something made of brass and oak would look better in a den.

Well, that's just your opinion, isn't it? A lot of people would agree with you, so you would share opinions.

Notice that I wrote "I think" not "Everyone thinks," dumb***.



A lot of people would prefer the Questar, which would be their opinion.

It's fairly rare to see any telescope on display in a home and not "a lot" of people own Questars anyway.

Perhaps a Questar might look good in a kitchen, so long as it doesn't clash with the stainless steel fridge.

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:44:01 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 20 February 2016 11:23:28 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 05:02:54 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

For example, peterson will probably vote for Trump in the primary and for the demonrat in the general.

Not this year. I'm voting for Sanders, because he's a solid choice
over Clinton.

Sanders is a throw-back socialist dope.

Only dopes would vote for him.

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 05:40:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 5:01:29 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 10:49:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:23:28 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 05:02:54 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

For example, peterson will probably vote for Trump in the primary and for the demonrat in the general.

Not this year. I'm voting for Sanders, because he's a solid choice
over Clinton.

So, we're not a "registered republican" any more?

I changed to independent, because in Colorado I can now declare at the
caucus or election which ballot I want to vote. Best of all worlds. I
expect that in most cases I'll still declare Republican in primaries,
since that gives me more of a voice. But this year, there's a real
race in the Democratic side of things, which hasn't happened for a
long time.

IOW when you claimed to be a conservative, you were lying?

Anybody who can be simply defined as either "conservative" or
"liberal" is a simplistic idiot.

I consider myself fairly conservative on fiscal matters, and fairly
liberal on social matters. And even that is a gross oversimplification
of my views.

On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 10:15:00 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 05:40:30 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 5:01:29 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 10:49:49 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:23:28 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 05:02:54 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

For example, peterson will probably vote for Trump in the primary and for the demonrat in the general.

Not this year. I'm voting for Sanders, because he's a solid choice
over Clinton.

So, we're not a "registered republican" any more?

I changed to independent, because in Colorado I can now declare at the
caucus or election which ballot I want to vote. Best of all worlds. I
expect that in most cases I'll still declare Republican in primaries,
since that gives me more of a voice. But this year, there's a real
race in the Democratic side of things, which hasn't happened for a
long time.

IOW when you claimed to be a conservative, you were lying?

Anybody who can be simply defined as either "conservative" or
"liberal" is a simplistic idiot.

Extreme liberals are certainly "simplistic idiots" but conservatives are not idiots at all.

I consider myself fairly conservative on fiscal matters,

You believe in government-forced control/redistribution of income/wealth so you cannot be a conservative.

and fairly
liberal on social matters.

You believe in the infringement of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion, therefore you cannot be a "liberal."

It is still possible that you are an idiot, however.

And even that is a gross oversimplification
of my views.

It certainly was.

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 03:26:53 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I consider myself fairly conservative on fiscal matters,

You believe in government-forced control/redistribution of income/wealth so you cannot be a conservative.

I believe that the government should spend no more than it collects in
taxes. I believe that government financial policy should be based on
rational analysis of costs and benefits. IMO, that is the very
definition of fiscal conservatism.

and fairly
liberal on social matters.

You believe in the infringement of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion, therefore you cannot be a "liberal."

In no way to I advocate any legal limitations of freedom of speech or
religion.

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:19:54 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 03:26:53 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

I consider myself fairly conservative on fiscal matters,

You believe in government-forced control/redistribution of income/wealth so you cannot be a conservative.

I believe that the government should spend no more than it collects in
taxes. I believe that government financial policy should be based on
rational analysis of costs and benefits. IMO, that is the very
definition of fiscal conservatism.

That has nothing to do with the fact that you wish to use government to redistribute wealth and use tax money that it collects for things that are not appropriate for government involvement. You are NOT a fiscal conservative.



and fairly
liberal on social matters.

You believe in the infringement of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion, therefore you cannot be a "liberal."

In no way to I advocate any legal limitations of freedom of speech or
religion.

You are in favor of the "fairness" doctrine and in restricting the teaching of religion.

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 05:09:14 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:19:54 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 03:26:53 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

I consider myself fairly conservative on fiscal matters,

You believe in government-forced control/redistribution of income/wealth so you cannot be a conservative.

I believe that the government should spend no more than it collects in
taxes. I believe that government financial policy should be based on
rational analysis of costs and benefits. IMO, that is the very
definition of fiscal conservatism.

That has nothing to do with the fact that you wish to use government to redistribute wealth and use tax money that it collects for things that are not appropriate for government involvement. You are NOT a fiscal conservative.

I believe the function of government is to support society, and all
citizens have a moral, legal, and functional obligation to support
that society. Taxation in support of society is not the same as
redistributing wealth.

I consider myself fiscally conservative, and it matters to me not in
the least whether you do. You have already demonstrated an incoherent,
immoral, and unworkable view of reality.

and fairly
liberal on social matters.

You believe in the infringement of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion, therefore you cannot be a "liberal."

In no way to I advocate any legal limitations of freedom of speech or
religion.

You are in favor of the "fairness" doctrine and in restricting the teaching of religion.

The fairness doctrine deals with fair allocation of a public resource.
It has nothing to do with free speech rights. I don't advocate any
laws restricting the teaching of religion outside of public schools.

On Saturday, 20 February 2016 21:53:10 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 15:42:33 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 20 February 2016 11:26:59 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 06:05:01 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:03:02 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Somehow, I don't really envy your friend, as nice as Questars are. (I would
never buy a used Questar without original bill of sale and fully documented
provenance.)

You expect his friend to eventually be jailed for having stolen it?

Or is it just that it may turn out to have not been properly cared for?

I do remember that the old Questars used threaded eyepieces, so one could only
use the Brandons that came with them, so there is reason not to envy him _too_
much. Can a Questar really be _that_ much better than the 90mm go-to Maks that
London Drugs now sells cheaply?

Optically, a Questar is nothing special. Nor does its mount offer any
real advantages over some of the mounts found on similar sized scopes.

I saw one test out to near 1/20th wave recently. Better than Chinese stuff, or even AP/TEC.

1/20th wave is utterly meaningless visually with a 3.5" scope.

Correction can impacts more than just resolution.