NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: misunderstandings: was Automatic deviation calculation by electronic compasses
From: Joel Jacobs
Date: 2009 Dec 15, 09:03 -0500
Determining orientation by the Earth's field is the one of the most-ancient
topics in the history of navigation, dating back to the 12th century. I do
not think we need to excuse ourselves for discussing modern instruments to measure it; even if those might even be iPhones. Though it would be nice to keep such discussion to navigational matters, rather than how a tourist might identify the Taj Mahal. [I have no idea who is saying what here though the last sentence sounds like George and the first sounds like it could be Frank]
NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList+@fer3.com
From: Joel Jacobs
Date: 2009 Dec 15, 09:03 -0500
I wish it could be a software glitch Geoffrey, but I
was referring to 11061 which in the headline, says it was mailed by George H.
I copy-paste it below. That in blue are my explanatory comments:
----- Original Message -----
From: George Huxtable
To: navlist@fer3.com
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 7:50
AM
Subject: Re: [NavList 11061] Automatic
deviation calculation by electronic compasses
George starts by saying: A few responses to
Frank's posting.
He writes, about orientation devices using Earth's magnetic field-
"...despite being technically off-topic for our traditional navigation group
(not a complaint, merely an observation),..." [In the second phrase, George is clearly referring to Frank, and that may apply to the third phrase in brackets, or does it?]
Does our group deliberately restrict itself to "traditional navigation",
whatever that may be? I would hate to think so. There are (in my view) good reasons to limit discussion of GPS, as an enormous separate topic on its own, which has supplanted other navigation and has its own forum. But we happily deal, sometimes at length, with other applications of modern
technology; and why not, indeed? [ All of this I now know is George's quote of what Lu Abel said in 11066, but could you tell that from here?]
He writes, about orientation devices using Earth's magnetic field-
"...despite being technically off-topic for our traditional navigation group
(not a complaint, merely an observation),..." [In the second phrase, George is clearly referring to Frank, and that may apply to the third phrase in brackets, or does it?]
Does our group deliberately restrict itself to "traditional navigation",
whatever that may be? I would hate to think so. There are (in my view) good reasons to limit discussion of GPS, as an enormous separate topic on its own, which has supplanted other navigation and has its own forum. But we happily deal, sometimes at length, with other applications of modern
technology; and why not, indeed? [ All of this I now know is George's quote of what Lu Abel said in 11066, but could you tell that from here?]
Determining orientation by the Earth's field is the one of the most-ancient
topics in the history of navigation, dating back to the 12th century. I do
not think we need to excuse ourselves for discussing modern instruments to measure it; even if those might even be iPhones. Though it would be nice to keep such discussion to navigational matters, rather than how a tourist might identify the Taj Mahal. [I have no idea who is saying what here though the last sentence sounds like George and the first sounds like it could be Frank]
In any case, it is clear that the parties to this
portion of a more lengthy message in which Frank Reed is
identified, thought by thought in the second half, are not named. This
is what I was referring to when I said I was baffled. I now conclude I could
have understood George's 11061 as he meant it, if I had
simultaneously reread a copy of every other post on this topic in
conjunction with it. Of course it would have been easier if each of the players
were named. Just a thought.
Joel Jacobs
------- Original Message -----From: Geoffrey KolbeTo: navlist@fer3.comSent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:32 AMSubject: Re: misunderstandings: was[NavList 11161] Automatic deviation calculation by electronic compassesI, too am now thoroughly confused. George did not write 11066.... Lu Abel did (as George has already stated in 11090). George did write 11064 and 11068 and, as far as I can see in these - as in all his posts - he was his usual exemplary self in citing who said what before dealing with the questions raised.
I have to wonder if Joel Jacobs is having a software problem and is getting the emails re-numbered in some arbitrary fashion? Too, I have an email client (Eudora) which 'snips' quoted sections as I scroll through the list of emails and only gives the full quotation when I click on a specific email. I wonder if Joel's email client is playing similar tricks without him realizing it?
Geoffrey Kolbe
At 05:34 15/12/2009, you wrote:
I've spent quite a bit of time looking at George H's post from all angles trying to arrive at a reasonable response, and I've concluded that only a limited response is best. I will just wonder why, as a highly trained scientist, George could publish something that would not make clear whom he was quoting in the original? Or not tell the us that what Lu Abel was saying was his quoting of George.--
The bottom line is, I've read and re-read his explanation, and still can't figure out who is saying what, in what context, and when. In the second section of Post 11066 George clearly named Frank Reed as the person whom he was quoting as he debated what Frank was saying. Why George didn't do the same in the first section of that post, is mind numbing? If you are finding it difficult to understand this, I will not be surprised. ;-( Please ignore it.
Joel Jacobs
NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList+@fer3.com
NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList+@fer3.com
