Russ Chmela wrote: > Bill Ferris wrote:-------------------------------------------------- > While it may be an important issue to you, myself and others on this list, > fee demos is not topical to this discussion list. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I do not understand that line of reasoning. Anyone who does not have a > dome or other observatory on thier property, but goes to > remote sites to observe will be subject to - this Subject. My interpretation of the charter for this discussion list is that AZ-observing was not established as a political forum. While a discussion about which lands are open for use (see Stan Gorodenski's recent message) is on topic, I consider a discussion about government policy (fee demos, for instance) to be much more a political topic than an observing topic. That's my interpretation. Some political threads (community lighting legislation, for example) might safely fall under the heading: preaching to the choir. They're political discussions but everybody on the list is in agreement. However, such topics are few and far between. Afterall, reasonable and intelligent people do hold diametrically opposed views on many government policies. As such, most political discussions are inherrently contentious. Jeff and I obviously are in disagreement on the demo fee issue. I respect his right to hold an opposing view. I admire his willingness to get involved and try to make a difference. And while I would much rather stick to deep-sky objects in my postings to this list, it's just not in my nature to allow political commentary with which I disagree to pass without comment. There may be a time and place where you, Jeff, I and others could have a great, energetic discussion about fee demos. I don't think AZ-observing is the appropriate place. Regards, Bill Ferris Flagstaff -- See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please send personal replies to the author, not the list.