[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: (meteorobs) NAMN Photographic Form



At 11:54 AM 10/20/97 -0400, you wrote:

>But an incomplete BASIC form!  Why ask if a rotating shutter was used and not
>ask for it's RPM? What's more basic than what day and time the meteor
>appeared? So you are satisfied with having an incomplete form?

>Well Mark...I know this isn't true. Yes I designed the initial report
>form...that's what I referred to when I critiqued what you have at the NAMN
>website. 

Well George, the question is not whether I am satisfied or not. It is
whether you are ever satisfied or not. But I have, after some thought, come
to a solution to this question. To insure your satisfaction, why don't YOU
provide me with the correct form? If you are so worried about incomplete
information, then solve the problem. Send me the html (the letter "L", not
the number "1") code and I will have Gary post it as a replacement. My email
address is:

MeteorObs@charlestondot net

I check my mail each day, and will notify the subscribers to this list, as
well as the entire NAMN membership of your generosity in allowing us to use
the form. I will also insure that the form has a "credit line" giving you
credit for the entire form.

>Well Mark...I know this isn't true. Yes I designed the initial report
>form...that's what I referred to when I critiqued what you have at the NAMN
>website. 

Concerning the ownership of the form (on the web site), you modified the
photographic form several times as you thought best. The one on the site is
an early one of yours. I'm not a photographic observer and NAMN doesn't have
a photographic section. So why would I have produced it? The one you are
using to critique me with is what version of this original? 

>Sending photographic info to Marc de Lignie is fine.

See below.....

>Using your argument would be like saying that since IMO has meteor
observing >instructions already, there would be no need in NAMN or AMS
printing their own.

NAMN doesn't have, or ever had any photographic expertise. Sure I could
spend the time learning the technique and writing the articles myself. But
since IMO has the instructions already written, should I re-write them.
That's a waste of time. It's easier to send folks there, especially via the
internet. In fact, that is one reason for the success of the world wide web.
It's easy to link to a variety of information. So you are now saying it's
NOT okay to send folks to Marc de Lignie or the IMO?

>If you did the converting for your website, you weren't very careful in the
>conversion process.

As careful as you were in designing it. But the problem is solved now
anyway, right? You are going to provide me with that form that meets all of
your expectations. Then there couldn't be any possible complaints. I look
forward to that day................

-Mark