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

Re: (meteorobs) NAMN Photographic Form



In a message dated 97-10-20 14:49:20 EDT, you write:

Mark<< 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 solved the problem...I told you the info that your form is lacking...just
add it to what you already got. And thank you for your email address.
 
Mark>> 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.<<

You got all the info that you need to make your form complete enough for the
BASIC level that NAMN is involved with.  I'm sure the NAMN membership would
be surprised to get any kind of email, but I don't need the Credit Line
gratification or a title.

 GeoZay>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. <<
 
Mark>> 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? <<

Well...the  form you have on your website now doesn't look anywhere near the
form that I came up with for any of the modifications. In fact, it looks like
it was produced by someone that didn't have a clue or didn't go by any of my
revised forms. Every version was basically the same...that is they have
nearly the same info with a couple small additions. Most of the modifications
dealt with the cosmetic look of the form. In the end I settled with two
forms...one for guided cameras and another for unguided cameras. The very
first version has more info asked for than what you got on the website. I
definitely don't claim the form on the NAMN website as to belonging to me.
Actually, I think I left NAMN before you got the Photographic form put on the
website. I do know that the first time I saw it was last week. Since I left
NAMN in August 1996, I haven't visited the NAMN website. 
 
 GeoZay>Sending photographic info to Marc de Lignie is fine.
 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.<<
 
 Mark>>NAMN doesn't have, or ever had any photographic expertise. <<

No it didn't have the expertise that IMO has...but when I was with NAMN, the
expertise was there for the Beginner who wanted to get started. I think my
articles about photographing meteors would have suffice for the
beginner...even if my grammar wasn't the best. But I believe it was
understandable?

Mark>> 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. <<

Yes...for an introductory level at least.  Use the WWW to link on to
additional information beyond the introductory level. If a topic is not there
for someone to read about, even at the introductory level, they may not be
aware of it's existence. Such as Telescopic observing, Meteor Spectroscopy,
Radio monitoring or Video recording. 

Mark>>So you are now saying it's
 NOT okay to send folks to Marc de Lignie or the IMO?<<

Look at my quote above that you resent. "Sending photographic info to Marc de
Lignie is fine". Marc de Lignie is IMO. Do you get from my statement that I'm
saying it's not okay to send folks to Marc? I don't get that interpretation
and I'm sure my words are clear enough to understand that I support sending
photographic info to Marc and thus the IMO.
 
 GeoZay>If you did the converting for your website, you weren't very careful
in the
 >conversion process.<<
 
 mark>>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...............<<

As I said earlier...I already provided you with the info that the NAMN form
is lacking. Whether you use it or not is up to you. If you can't handle
advice, how do you expect the grand ole AMS ship to stay afloat as an
Assistant whatever? If you add the additional information I suggested, it
would reduce the amount of possible complaints. As for future
complaints...that possibility will always exist. 
George Zay