NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Navlist coutesy Re: was: Star-star distances for arc error
From: George Huxtable
Date: 2009 Jun 26, 10:26 +0100
From: George Huxtable
Date: 2009 Jun 26, 10:26 +0100
There has recently been some sort of concord, between Frank and me, about aspects of star-star distances, and also about the effects of magnification on eye danger. That seemed an unnatural state of affairs, and here I am bringing it to an end. Instead, I wish to deal with a matter of list-courtesy. It's a matter I have raised before, to no avail, about Frank Reed's postings. When putting together a posting to Navlist, my own practice, and I suggest that of most other contributors, is to download any waiting postings just before pressing "send", to see if the same point has recently been made by another. If so, either I desist from sending, as there's no point in cluttering the list with the same matter being repeated. Or I may wish to expand on, or endorse, or argue with, what's been said already, in which case I acknowledge the previous contribution, usually providing a message-number as a handy link to it. Sometimes, I fail, but that's the aim. Frank's recent postings illustrate his own practice. Whether or not the same thing has been said by another, Frank goes ahead and says it again, without acknowledgment. Frank, read your own mailing-list, before you press send. Acknowledge what's been said before, if you're going to repeat it. Do as the rest of us seem to manage to do. It's common courtesy, to the list as a whole. ========================== Another matter of common courtesy is the introduction of personal stuff into what ought to be technical content. Those words, in [6761], "A sure indication that you have never tried it!" were unwise and provocative. In [8794], he's at it again, with - "But you haven't really tried anything, have you? Have you experimented with measuring a complete set of angles around the horizon (another method of checking arc error)? Have you tried observing lunars (still another method which many people find more successful than star-star disstances)? Ya know, everybody is entitled to an opinion, but opinions should be based on empirical facts, not speculations." Other listmembers manage to say what they think, without resorting to such language. There are better ways to say such things. As list manager, Frank should be setting a hetter example. Frank's references to Douglas' political interests were completely irrelevant to any question of navigation, demonstrating no more than Frank's readiness to make and misuse a Google search. As far as factual matters relevant to navigation are concerned, we should be quite ruthless in exposing and correcting error, though we should do our best to avoid being offensive in doing so. It's a difficult line to tread. End of sermon. George. contact George Huxtable, at george@hux.me.uk or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222) or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc To post, email NavList@fer3.com To , email NavList-@fer3.com -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---