Peter says it well and without being a participant in the unintended combat. Thank you
Peter.
rdc
Peter Natscher wrote:
> 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
-- Richard Crisp rdcrisp@No-Spam
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 30 2001 - 12:29:14 MST