[sac-forum] Re: Paul's Programming

Stan,

I understand your position, but I think there is a need to proceed by
membership consensus, if only to keep the collective membership happy and in
place.  The large issues we members can agree upon are that we like
astronomy and those things like telescopes and such that immediately aid us
in regard to astronomy. For that reason, astronomy needs to remain the
focus, here at least.

We all have other interests as well, but many of mine, I am sure, would bore
the members here to tears, so I seek out audiences compatible with those
interests elsewhere, just like I sought out the astronomy club and its
website for my interest in astronomy and telescopes.  We are all very
secular and compartmentalized these days in regard to our interests and
sometimes friends, but apparently that is the way we like it and can best
get along.

Kimball

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stanley A. Gorodenski" <stan_gorodenski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 7:34 PM
Subject: [sac-forum] Re: Paul's Programming


>
> Kimball,
> Your opinion is welcome because the participants of a list determine how
it
> is used. I do not view this as an issue of standards, as you imply, and my
> intention is not to turn this into a big controversy directed at me.
Indeed,
> all I initially did was respond with a question to the message Paul (the
> listowner or moderator or whatever SAC may call him because I am sure he
is
> not technically the 'list owner') initially posted. If the list
> owner-moderator (or whatever he is called in SAC because I am sure he is
not
> technically the 'list owner') felt the subject appropriate in SAC Forum,
> thenI felt it appropriate to also respond. I recall Paul saying when he
> firstannounced the creation of SAC Forum a number of years ago that
anything
> related to astronomy could be discussed, which is a lot more liberal than
> Az-Observing. Granted, programming is far afield from astronomy, but Paul,
> asthe list owner-moderator (or whatever he is called in SAC because I am
> surehe is not technically the 'list owner'), brought the subject up,
> apparently felt it was astronomy related, and made an astronomy connection
> inhis first post. This is where I am coming from, not from any 'standard'.
>
> For these reasons I do not understand AJ's position. With this I will post
> nomore on the subject. After all, all I initially did was respond with a
> simple question to a message posted by an Official (in whatever capacity
> thatmay be if not an actual officer) of the club! I leave it to the
> authorities in the club to explain what is going on.
> Stan
>
> Kimball Corson wrote:
> Stan, I suggest that your standard of relevancy is so broad as to be no
> standard at all and therefore would permit too much that really is not
> relevant or of interest to astronomers. Kimball Corson AJ, You are really
a
> nice guy, but in this I respectfully have to say I think you are a little
> tooextreme in your response below . . . . Besides, I personally find these
> discussions interesting and relevant because some day I may be writing a
> program to control a telescope, or a part of a telescope or instrument,
and
> learning from other astronomers the existence and capabilities of
> programminglanguages is helpful. Respectfully, my opinion for the good of
> theclub. Stan
>
>

Other related posts: