[sac-board] Re: Webpage Deep Sky or Deep Something Question

Right now I don't have much time to respond to this very important topic,
much less read all the messages.  But let me say this much; going back to
the first message I sent, which went something like this:

Gulp!!!  Folks Jack is correct!

Now, forget everything I said following that statement as it was not correct
to change the rules in the middle of the stream, especially since they were
already documented in February and March 2000 and the fact that there are,
already, folks working on the lists.

The rules, as stated in the newsletters should stand.  That means the
Messier, Best NGC and 400 Herschel are NOT eligible for the 1000; but the
Beyond NGC will be - again as indicated in the Newsletters.

I'd have to go back to those directions to see what, if anything, is said
about the doubles list.

To state this in another way, following Jacks message, it will NOT go
againts you Jack; that's not what the observing lists are for, they are to
foster deep sky observing.

If you have the February and March 2000 issues of the SAC newsletter I'd
suggest reading; there you'll find the rules the Deep Sky Chairman "should"
have followed in the first place, in addition the Beyond the NGC is also
referenced.

When I get a little more time I'll send an update to Stan so the web site
will be consistent with the Newsletter articles.

I apologize for any inconvenience caused and hope this will start to clear
up confusion.

aj


Jack Jones wrote:

> Well we have prob 4 or 5 years to figure it out. I was working the 1000
> with no knowledge the "Beyond NGC" was even recognized by SAC as an
> award. Many of my observations for 1000 are on that list. If this goes
> against me, I will just switch over to doing the Beyond NGC list and do
> the 1000 thereafter if still not blind. Plus ex-out another 110 objects
> from my lists and computer. This would mean all on a 1000 list would
> most likely be all NGC and IC objects with a smattering of UGC, MCG, and
> CGCG etc. for fill, assuming shallow sky and double stars are also
> prohibited. (I never got around to asking about the details. The only
> other person I suspect may be working the 1000 is Joe Goss, so he may be
> surprised too.)
>
> What you propose has the problem that the rules change for those going
> after the previous awardee(s). Will some other lists be added in some
> day and then be prohibited from the 1000?  Like 110 Best Planetaries,
> Best 110 Deepsky Challenge Objects, Best of the Arp Catalog on and on
> ala carrot-and-the-stick. I would like to see these as awards, yes, but
> I don't think the 1000 list should be changed from its original, or at
> the very least draw the line and make it independent just from the big
> three (or four).
>
> So you are saying you did the Beyond NGC and Steve C. did the 1000?
> Also, didn't Gerry Rattley also complete the 1000?
>
> Jack Jones
> Saguaro Astronomy Club
> Lunar List Awards and
> Messier Marathon Co-coordinator
> Phoenix AZ
> spicastar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >
> > GULP!!!  Folks Jack is correct.
> >
> > I did some research into this and discovered the February and March
> 2000 SAC
> > Newsletters where in the latter periodical lists the 1000 objects
> prior to
> > Beyond the NGC.  And references the prior three lists as being in
> eligible for
> > the 1000 new objects.  That leaves the Beyond NGC as possible for
> being
> > included in the 1000.
> >
> > So, the Newsletter and the web site are at odds with each other and
> some
> > resolution is necessary.
> >
> > Here's what I'd like to do .  .  . make the web site as it is today
> the
> > standard, afterall we're only cutting out another 110 objects.

Other related posts: