NavList:

   

Reply

I owe George--and the list--an apology.

Rather than open with George's post, hoping my factual error and subsequent
chagrin is buried at the bottom, George's post will follow my response.

The long and short of it, I had accused George of shifting the parameters of
a question I asked many moons ago to skew the results in his favor. (See
[NavList 5026] Re: Navigation exercise, 18 May 2008 for the full text).

It is my belief my memory was flawed, and George Huxtable was not
responsible for altering my question and replying to a question of his own
devise in this matter. I wish to retract the statements made referring to
George, and offer a sincere personal apology to George for the affront. I
also beg pardon from the list for both my tone, and error in judgment by
pushing "send" before fact checking.

At this point I presume the incident occurred during an October, 2004 thread
"Averaging" which dealt with the pros and cons of averaging multiple
observations, and included discussions of meridian-passage sights. (A good
read given current discussion on LAN observations.) My question was included
in a 19 October, 2004 post. Herbert Prince expanded my elevation parameters
to 85d. Herbert later wrote, "I mention the worst case scenario just for
fun." George was a contributor to the thread, but certainly not the guilty
party.

Bill B.


> Bill wrote a posting in which he offered serious criticism of my behaviour
> in an exchange between us, back in his "newbie" days. Those must have been
> at least three years ago.
>
> I have been unable to identify the messages he describes, and in Navlist
> 5028 have asked him to supply more detail. Even just the date of my offence
> should be sufficient to extract the relevant information from the archive,
> from even so long ago.
>
> Since I sent that response, Bill has made three further postings, with the
> same threadname, none of which were a response to my request.
>
> I ask Bill to take the matter that he has raised seriously, and to respond,
> with at least that date. I take it that he is not the type to just
> hit-and-run.
>
> It's most likely that the whole affair is the result of a past
> misunderstanding, his or mine. That's often the way with such disputes. But
> how can we tell, unless we can investigate the details? We mustn't allow
> such matters to go on rankling with him, as clearly this one has done over
> the years. Nor will I allow unspecified and hazy allegations to be made
> against me, without some follow-up.
>
> George.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply