[sac-forum] Re: Beyond the NGC is Beyond the Pale

Yeah, you're welcome. After reading the March 2000 article, I can't say you
haven't warned me, but my first toe into that water really made me flinch.

The March 2000 article (this was a great issue - I will try to get Stan to
put it on the website, it seems to be missing) defines the advanced programs
and they are in the right order here (I'd say the definitive order). On the
website, they are not. If Stan would be so kind as to get that fixed too?

Jack

> Jack, speaking for Steve Coe and myself . . . thanks for such splendid
> compliments [LOL].
>
> For the relation between Best of the Beyond and 1000+ and all other
observing
> programs see the February and March issues of the SAC newsletter for 2000.
>
> aj
>
> Jack Jones wrote:
>
> > After the FlatIron session, I concluded that the 'Best of the Beyond' is
> > quite a curious bunch of objects. I don't know what was the point of the
> > absolute SADISTS who compiled this list or what they were trying to
prove,
> > but I'm sure they enjoyed it immensely. Some few of the objects are
> > ridiculously easy, but many more are excruciatingly and painfully
difficult.
> > Or as the euphemism goes, these are "Challlenge Objects" (hair-pullers,
> > OK?). If you hate tiny starlike planetaries, you'll positively love to
hate
> > this list. Every strange object type in every weirdo catalog is
represented
> > here, each observation you make a #$%&# in itself. If you ever get thru
this
> > one you will be quite the well-rounded observer, and probably bald.
> >
> > I'm still hazy on 'Best of the Beyond the NGC' vs. the 1000+. I thought
we
> > agreed that the Best of the Beyond was disincluded from the 1000+, yet
the
> > website incorrectly lumps it with the other lists of those which can't
be
> > observed.
> >
> > Jack
>
>
>
>

Other related posts: