On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 11:24:35 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 3:55:53 PM UTC-7, W wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:31:02 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > > Almost certainly, the sort of person considering a big
> > > observatory instrument like this isn't interested in getting a dob
> > > instead!
>
> > With absolute certainty, you are wrong. A person interested in a "big observatory
> > instrument" can pass on this one and buy some other telescope instead,
> That's absolutely true.
>
> > including a large Dob.
>
> But this part, crucial to the conclusion that he was wrong, is not so
> certain. After all, a Dobsonian is, by necessity, on an alt-azimuth mount.
>
> There _are_ computerized motorized Dobsonians out there. For long-exposure
> photography, of course, anything that's alt-azimuth needs image rotation. But
> given that "lucky imaging" has now basically replaced long exposures, as it
> allows bypassing much of the effects of Earth's atmosphere (of course, for
> anything much over 11 inches in aperture, you actually need adaptive optics
> instead, but that's available too...) perhaps that's not too much of an issue either.
>
> So, on reflection, you are correct: a Dobsonian _is_, these days, potentially
> an alternative to a large equatorially-mounted instrument for nearly all purposes.

peterson has gone on record as not liking visual observing.

peterson is therefore not qualified to understand or comment on the motivations of those who do like visual observing.

What he says about this topic is, therefore, unimportant.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 7:54:46 AM UTC-7, W wrote:

> peterson has gone on record as not liking visual observing.
>
> peterson is therefore not qualified to understand or comment on the motivations of those who do like visual observing.
>
> What he says about this topic is, therefore, unimportant.

Um, there's just one problem I have with this.

Since Chris Peterson was talking about "people interested in a big
observatory instrument", are you saying that "a big observatory
instrument" is still possibly of interest to visual observers?

Certainly, visual observing has been done with big observatory
instruments in the past, but I'm not sure that this is how it works
for anyone buying a telescope today for personal use.

John Savard

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 12:38:37 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 7:54:46 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
>
> > peterson has gone on record as not liking visual observing.
> >
> > peterson is therefore not qualified to understand or comment on the motivations of those who do like visual observing.
> >
> > What he says about this topic is, therefore, unimportant.
> Um, there's just one problem I have with this.
>
> Since Chris Peterson was talking about "people interested in a big
> observatory instrument", are you saying that "a big observatory
> instrument" is still possibly of interest to visual observers?
>
> Certainly, visual observing has been done with big observatory
> instruments in the past, but I'm not sure that this is how it works
> for anyone buying a telescope today for personal use.

peterson's original intrusion into this came after my comment about preferring a large Dob (of similar or lower cost) over this particular surplus telescope, which is likely to see cost overruns. I did not make any remarks as to my interests in either visual observing or astrophotography. He simply read something into it in order to try to hurl an insult.

Were I to own the surplus Cassegrain, I could use it for either visual or photo use, obviously. Given the cost of the thing and its utter lack of portability, a better strategy, from my viewpoint, would be to put funds toward a much more powerful Dob, and a less powerful photographic telescope.

Since peterson has gone on record as "finding little of interest in an eyepiece," his opinion about it is now worthless.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 06:54:43 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>peterson has gone on record as not liking visual observing.
>
>peterson is therefore not qualified to understand or comment on the motivations of those who do like visual observing.

I am as competent to understand the interests and motivations of
visual astronomers as I am boaters or racers or football fans or any
of a million other things I have little personal interest in pursuing.

You are so stupid it is hard to imagine you can breathe.

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 10:58:03 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 06:54:43 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >peterson has gone on record as not liking visual observing.
> >
> >peterson is therefore not qualified to understand or comment on the motivations of those who do like visual observing.
> I am as competent to understand the interests and motivations of
> visual astronomers as I am boaters or racers or football fans or any
> of a million other things I have little personal interest in pursuing.

No, actually you are not.

If you don't have interest in something, it is a good bet that you know comparatively little about it, perhaps nothing at all, and no insight into why someone else might be interested in it.

(Your breathing is done passively, via osmosis of some kind, as is typical of the most primitive forms of life.)

https://time.com/person-of-the-year-2021-elon-musk/