I feel that there is a continued need for groups like TAC and the observation-only
BigDog group for the many levels of appreciation in amateur astronomy. The TAC
group should continue to accept a broader subject matter than the more explicite
groups allow. It serves a good purpose.
Peter Natscher
Monterey
Richard Crisp wrote:
>
>
> I have no problem at all with those postings, but cited them solely to expose
> the hypocrisy among the "don't post image links because they have nothing to do
> with observing" crowd. Bottom line is that there's lots of non-observing report
> traffic here and only some of it seems to get the fur of the old hands riled up.
> So what sort of "off topic" posts are OK or does it depend on WHO it is that is
> posting them?
>
> Clearly there are at least two camps here: those that do not want links posted
> and those that do. There are also pragmatic folks that know how to skip over
> postings they don't want to read and are willing to do so. Personally I think
> this controversy is more about controlling others behavior (ie the "net nanny"
> phenomenon) than it has to do wiith any unambiguous regulations, rules or
> operating procedures. But that's my opinion.
>
> What's a newbie to do? Should I continue to post links as quite a number have
> asked me to do, or should I not?
>
> rdc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 30 2001 - 11:55:13 MST