[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) 'large' meteor in Vancouver, Canada.
In a message dated 97-04-15 21:22:17 EDT, you write:
>>
Speaking very honestly here for a moment (and NOT wishing to reopen the old
debate), all I have ever heard from the IMO is the rather imperialistic cry
to "unite and standardize" under their banner, a "solution" which is
unacceptable to the AMS. <<
Sorry to hear AMS still insists being just a part and not the whole.
>> . In failing to gain our subordination, the IMO
has leveled more open and published criticism against the AMS in its young
history than I care to recall -- a soap box which the IMO's U.S. supporters
have gleefully taken up. <<
AMS earned my criticisim. I have no desire to regress by becoming an AMS
member.
>>
I have heard the complaint about multiple forms and multiple organizations
from several quarters over the last few years, but I fail to see a viable
solution in the near future. The AMS recognizes that many of our serious
meteor observers will wish to also be IMO members, and we are at least
looking for ways in which to make data recording and filing as convenient
as possible for such members.<<
The solution is simple...standardize with the world body...IMO.
George Zay