Re: Admin: policy for reporting high resolution ground-based imageryof Earth satellites

From: Skywise (
Date: Fri Aug 13 2010 - 17:17:58 UTC

  • Next message: Brad Young: "BY Classfd Aug 13"

    The message Don is replying to I accidentally sent a reply to
    Don in private email only and not to the list. For the record,
    here is the text of the message I sent:
     >Don, I do not disagree with your arguments, but there was no
     >need to swing so wildly and extremely opposite my suggestions.
     >I will not counter with a sentence by sentence dissection of
     >your post.
     >I can admit that "REQUIRING" the raw data is too far.
     >However, I do not feel that the reasons I gave are irrelevant
     >nor moot as to why volunteering that data is a good idea.
     >With that, I will make no further comment on the subject. My
     >views probably don't mean a damn since I don't contribute
     >here anyway.
    Now, to address Don's reply.
    First off, do not patronize me by calling me "sir".
    *I* never said anything of the kind that I have the _right_ to
    demand that others do on this list as I say. *YOU* are the one
    reading that into my words.
    I am reminded of past debates on other forums where I found
    the need to reply to folks several times with, "read what I
    wrote, not what you think I wrote", or "do not read between
    the lines, I didn't put anything there."
    As for photographers rights, I know all about that as I am
    stepping into professional photography myself. Not only are
    the raw images protected by copyright, but so are ANY AND ALL
    images the person produces. PERIOD. (at least in the USA)
    Therefore your argument that copyright is important regards
    not publishing the raw imagery is irrelevant.
    Finally, I clearly stated that I agreed that making raw data
    a requirement was too far. Something you failed to acknowledge.
    Ted ask for comments, I gave mine.
    With that, I *am* done. Ted has my comments. That's all that
    (Apologies to Ted and the rest of the group for continuing
    this argument on the list. But I felt it needed to be on the
    record even though my missing post said I was done with the
    -- - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
    Seismic FAQ:
    Quake "predictions":
    Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
    Seesat-l mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 13 2010 - 16:15:06 UTC