Another Awful Scope Review

Which Berry review got him in trouble? I have back issues and I'd be
interested in reading that...


It was in '91 I'm pretty sure, shortly after he wrote a cryptic
'farewell' editorial citing the need to serve the reading public.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:57:30 -0500, none ""root\"@(none)" wrote:



Which Berry review got him in trouble? I have back issues and I'd be
interested in reading that...


It was in '91 I'm pretty sure, shortly after he wrote a cryptic
'farewell' editorial citing the need to serve the reading public.

Want to know the minutes of a Meade meeting shortly after he
was deposed? It was a cheering fest. I can't say that's when
Astronomy started down the hill to mediocrity, but shortly thereafter,
I quit reading it.
-Rich

Let then eat cake. (They refuse possum!).
Nudnik


RMOLLISE wrote:

Dennis Woos wrote:
The review of the Meade 14" SCT in the March '05 "Astronomy" is
pretty
useless vis-a-vis the optical performance of this scope. It should
not be
too hard to do better than "I viewed a number of close doubles with
the
magnification pumped as high as 404x with a Meade 8.8mm UWA eyepiece.
It
was satisfying to resolve companion stars impossible to see with a
smaller
telescope." Why don't they do better, or why can't they? My two
kids
could, and would, do a more analytical and critical review.

Dennis

Hi:

I wouldn't call it "terrible." I did note a couple of minor mistakes in
the article...but what I'd mainly guess is that the magazine must want
reviews tailored to their readership, which, I assume, they believe
does not want anything that approaches "detailed" or "technical."

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

Brian Tung wrote:

Dennis Woos wrote:
In fact, it seems to me that if "Astronomy" wanted a biased review,
then it would be in their interest to make sure that it was detailed
and technical, and so sound more convincing.

More convincing to you and me, perhaps, but I should think that such a
hypothetical editor would prefer that their readers complete the review.

Really! Patients should then complete their surgeries in addition to paying.

Youhave a realthing for the "self serve" society. I hope you will not change
your
opinion when it comes time for you to have to serve all your own needs?
Thre are certains standards toqualify as a review. Either those standards
are
met, or they ......... aint. Except of course in Russia and other places I
could mention.
Nud




As such, they would include only as many technical details as are needed
to sound modestly tech-ish, and no more.

I do not intend to insinuate that Astronomy has done this, or has even
considered doing this.

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.txt