Just my $.02 worth about this. I, too, have seen more than enough of Chris' off-topic posts. None of these posts have ever mentioned visual satellite observing, except as a segue to his rants about geodetic datums (data?). I suspect that Chris has been unable to find a newsgroup about his favorite subject, so he decided to invade ours. Chris, you've already expressed yourself more than adequately about this off-topic subject. Please move it to alt.geodetic.datum (I just made that up!), or acquire an interest in satellite observing and try to keep your posts on-topic. Only my opinion, of course. Others may feel differently. Brad Michael McCants wrote: > > Chris Olsson spouts yet another off-topic message: > > >There is an excellent web-page which describes and quantifies the effect of > > This list is for discussion of visual satellite observations. > > Discussion of GPS coordinates is off-topic. > > >Whatever precision is obtained, I would urge anyone who lists their terrestrial > >co-ordinates to also mention the geodetic basis of those co-ords. > > And, of course, I urge you to ignore the urging of Chris Olsson because > such specification is quite irrelevant to visual satellite observing. > > >For celestial co-ordinates, there is only one reference point. It is > >sufficient to list an RA/Dec without declaring any reference. > > This, of course, is false. It gives you a good idea of the ignorance > of the one who states it. > > >Not so for terrestrial co-ordinates. Blah, blah, blah. > > Irrevelvant to visual satellite observing. Specification of such > accuracy in coordinates is "pretentious" in my opinion and shows > a lack of understanding of the inaccuracies inherent in visual > satellite observing. > > >57° 02' 30.9"N 3° 10' 25.9"W 314m (WGS84) > > Pretentious coordinates from someone who has never claimed that > he has ever visually observed a satellite from these coordinates. > > And if he observed ISS "high in the east" from somewhere in Scotland, > we hardly need to know his location that accurately. > > And if he does not know about the two commonly used astronomical epochs, > it is very unlikely that he is going to make a useful positional > observation. > > So Lat 57N, Long 3W would be quite accurate enough for his posts if and > when he ever actually makes and reports on a visual satellite observation. > > I have to wonder if he is deliberately trying to stir up trouble. > > Signed, > One is who is very tired of his off-topic posts. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe' > in the SUBJECT to SeeSat-L-request@lists.satellite.eu.org > http://www2.satellite.eu.org/sat/seesat/seesatindex.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe' in the SUBJECT to SeeSat-L-request@lists.satellite.eu.org http://www2.satellite.eu.org/sat/seesat/seesatindex.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 20 2001 - 17:55:52 EDT