Peter Natscher wrote a nice note here, but it bounced
because he used the dreaded "S" word (naughty boy!)
Following is his missive, with slight editing to
prevent another bounce.
Bruce Jensen
************
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:43:16 -0800
From: Peter Natscher <natscher@No-Spam>
Subject: Re: [TAC] Long response to "TAC general BA
astro or..."
To: sf-bay-tac@No-Spam
There is still a lot of enjoyment in my keeping
subskribed to TAC. I'm reading and writing e-mails
mostly to those I know through TAC, not BDOG. BDOG
has its value to me in that some who I still want to
be in contact with now only subskribe to BDOG. To
keep things together for me, I'll continue subskribing
to as many groups as necessary for me to continue to
keep in touch with everyone. I have no problem that
'amateur astronomy' subjects are discussed on any of
the groups so long as they're related to my
hobby--amateur astronomy. Whether it's observational,
imaging, ATM, or whatever, I enjoy reading everyone's
comments. There's much to appreciate from others'
information. That's an important part for me in our
relationship to eachother as a amateur astronomy
group. We all have varying interests but we do all
come together to meet at our few sites to implement
these interests.
Peter Natscher
Monterey
>
>
> "Rich N." wrote:
>
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > It sounds like you are saying, "Screw you guys.
> I'm going to
> > do what I want." That's always nice to hear
> from someone
> > relatively new to the list.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Crisp <rdcrisp@No-Spam>
> > To: sf-bay-tac@No-Spam <sf-bay-tac@seds.org>
> > Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 7:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: [TAC] Long response to "TAC general
> BA astro or..."
> >
> > >
> > >Sterngold wrote:
> > >
> > >> 2) The issue of image postings had been
> discussed here on TAC a year or
> > so
> > >> earlier, and a consensus reached. I had hoped
> to avoid a full-scale
> > >> replication of that earlier lengthy discussion.
> The intent was to avoid
> > >the
> > >> creation of a large volume of traffic, either
> in image postings or in a
> > >> discussion of image postings. That objective
> was not met. <g>
> > >
> > >
> > >Let's be clear here: I have not posted any image
> links since the suggestion
> > >was made, I actually like the suggestion. I just
> brought up the fact that I
> > >had posted links seemed to generate a lot of
> traffic. Also let's not forget
> > >that a year ago I didn't even own a telescope,
> nor had I even been thinking
> > >of buying one.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 30 2001 - 10:59:23 MST