|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"So which one qualifies as a bright object?"
who............................................... .................................................. ............cares.
Brian Tung wrote: Jan Owen wrote: Ahhh! But I didn't say they don't... In fact, I agree with your last sentence, and don't *necessarily* disagree with what you said above it. *Necessarily.* But, then, that wasn't what I *said*, either. Was it? ?!?!?! You must have me confused with someone who wants to play word games or logic twists with the Meade ad and what it says. I do enjoy word games and logic twists, but no--not in this case. -- Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"So which one qualifies as a bright object?"
The subject is the headline of a new Meade ad seen in the February S&T.
It's an attack against Celestron's SkyAlign alignment system, in which the user has to point the scope at 3 bright stars, but without necessarily knowing which stars they are. They only have to be bright. The ad goes on about how hard it is to decide which of all the objects in the sky are brighter than the rest. It says you have to "guess at random" which objects might be considered bright. I would like to propose a new headline that really cuts to the point of what Meade is trying to say: "So what if you're a total dimwit?" -- Joe Bergeron http://www.joebergeron.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"So which one qualifies as a bright object?"
"Joe Bergeron" wrote in message
ed... The subject is the headline of a new Meade ad seen in the February S&T. It's an attack against Celestron's SkyAlign alignment system, in which the user has to point the scope at 3 bright stars, but without necessarily knowing which stars they are. They only have to be bright. The ad goes on about how hard it is to decide which of all the objects in the sky are brighter than the rest. It says you have to "guess at random" which objects might be considered bright. I would like to propose a new headline that really cuts to the point of what Meade is trying to say: "So what if you're a total dimwit?" -- Joe Bergeron http://www.joebergeron.com Maybe you should apply for a job writing their ad copy for them. -- Jan Owen To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address... Latitude: 33.6 Longitude: -112.3 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"So which one qualifies as a bright object?"
Joe Bergeron wrote:
The subject is the headline of a new Meade ad seen in the February S&T. It's an attack against Celestron's SkyAlign alignment system, in which the user has to point the scope at 3 bright stars, but without necessarily knowing which stars they are. They only have to be bright. The ad goes on about how hard it is to decide which of all the objects in the sky are brighter than the rest. It says you have to "guess at random" which objects might be considered bright. I would like to propose a new headline that really cuts to the point of what Meade is trying to say: "So what if you're a total dimwit?" It remains to be seen how many people are taken in by this, but if you've accurately described the ad, I hope it disappears soon. I wouldn't want Meade to develop a reputation of litigating and bad- mouthing rather than actually designing new products. -- Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"So which one qualifies as a bright object?"
Joe Bergeron wrote: The subject is the headline of a new Meade ad seen in the February S&T. It's an attack against Celestron's SkyAlign alignment system, in which the user has to point the scope at 3 bright stars, but without necessarily knowing which stars they are. They only have to be bright. Hi Joe: Well, you know... I like Meade scopes just fine. While I've always considered myself a "Celestron man"...I tend to pick a manufacturer whether it be Celestron on Toyota and stick with it, but that doesn't mean I don't like Meades or Hondas. In fact, I currently own a Meade ETX125, which I like just fine as a grab 'n go. However, I think most beginners will find Celestron's alignment system easier to use than Meades...considerably so. The irony? Meade FORCED Celestron to develop this technology by patenting the "north and level" alignment process (!). Now, Meade is apparently trying to make the best of the situation by means of a lame and ill-natured ad campaign. MEADE: TELL US WHAT YOUR SCOPES CAN DO FOR US, NOT WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOUR COMPETITOR'S SCOPES! SHEESH! Peace, Rod Mollise Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_ Like SCTs and MCTs? Join the SCT User Mailing List. http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user ============================ See my home page at http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm for further details! ============================ For Uncle Rod's Astro Blog See: http://journals.aol.com/rmollise/UncleRodsAstroBlog/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"So which one qualifies as a bright object?"
"Brian Tung" wrote in message
... Joe Bergeron wrote: The subject is the headline of a new Meade ad seen in the February S&T. It's an attack against Celestron's SkyAlign alignment system, in which the user has to point the scope at 3 bright stars, but without necessarily knowing which stars they are. They only have to be bright. The ad goes on about how hard it is to decide which of all the objects in the sky are brighter than the rest. It says you have to "guess at random" which objects might be considered bright. I would like to propose a new headline that really cuts to the point of what Meade is trying to say: "So what if you're a total dimwit?" It remains to be seen how many people are taken in by this, but if you've accurately described the ad, I hope it disappears soon. I wouldn't want Meade to develop a reputation of litigating and bad- mouthing rather than actually designing new products. -- Brian Tung We have folks here on SAA who appear to be dedicated to ensuring that Meade gets a reputation for litigating and badmouthing, or pick your poison, no matter WHAT they do next. But it does sort of appear that Meade HAS come out with at least one interesting new product recently, no? With more on the way... Isn't that what most of this anguish is really all about??? And as for those on SAA who feel one or more of these products are not appropriately named, I don't personally care if Meade chooses to call their latest sku's Bat Guano, as long as they perform. Performance and value will determine whether they're successful. Not badmouthing by SAA. -- Jan Owen To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address... Latitude: 33.6 Longitude: -112.3 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"So which one qualifies as a bright object?"
In article , Brian Tung
wrote: It remains to be seen how many people are taken in by this, but if you've accurately described the ad, I hope it disappears soon. I wouldn't want Meade to develop a reputation of litigating and bad- mouthing rather than actually designing new products. Heavens, no, we wouldn't want anything like THAT to happen! To be fair, the ad doesn't mention Celestron or SkyAlign by name. But it's obvious what they're getting at. -- Joe Bergeron http://www.joebergeron.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"So which one qualifies as a bright object?"
Jan Owen wrote:
We have folks here on SAA who appear to be dedicated to ensuring that Meade gets a reputation for litigating and badmouthing, or pick your poison, no matter WHAT they do next. The *fact* is that they do both. They develop new products, *and* they litigate and--with this ad, if accurately described--badmouth. Not the performance of the Celestron product, but the notion that it doesn't improve the ease of use *enough*. Before you had to know which bright objects you were pointing at; now, you only need to pick three bright ones. I don't think it's a legitimate weakness that you have to know they're bright enough. I feel that Meade is capable of being innovative enough not to resort to that kind of tactic. -- Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"So which one qualifies as a bright object?"
"Brian Tung" wrote in message
... Jan Owen wrote: We have folks here on SAA who appear to be dedicated to ensuring that Meade gets a reputation for litigating and badmouthing, or pick your poison, no matter WHAT they do next. The *fact* is that they do both. They develop new products, *and* they litigate and--with this ad, if accurately described--badmouth. Not the performance of the Celestron product, but the notion that it doesn't improve the ease of use *enough*. Before you had to know which bright objects you were pointing at; now, you only need to pick three bright ones. I don't think it's a legitimate weakness that you have to know they're bright enough. I feel that Meade is capable of being innovative enough not to resort to that kind of tactic. -- Brian Tung Ahhh! But I didn't say they don't... In fact, I agree with your last sentence, and don't *necessarily* disagree with what you said above it. *Necessarily.* But, then, that wasn't what I *said*, either. Was it? -- Jan Owen To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address... Latitude: 33.6 Longitude: -112.3 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"So which one qualifies as a bright object?"
Jan Owen wrote:
Ahhh! But I didn't say they don't... In fact, I agree with your last sentence, and don't *necessarily* disagree with what you said above it. *Necessarily.* But, then, that wasn't what I *said*, either. Was it? ?!?!?! You must have me confused with someone who wants to play word games or logic twists with the Meade ad and what it says. I do enjoy word games and logic twists, but no--not in this case. -- Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|