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

Re: (meteorobs) Is NAMN and the ALPO Meteor Section needed?




Biedient>>And, Kim, now that you are a member of AMS as well, you'll see Bob
Lundsford's unique monthly tables published in Meteor Trails that
graphically depict the active periods of each shower, along with
information on moonlight, and other valuable info.  No one else is
producing a planning product like that.<<

I'm sure Bob's Meteor Trails is useful....but I get my Meteor Shower Calendar 
each year from IMO, just like all the other IMO members that depicts the 
active periods of each shower, along with information on moonlight and other 
valuable info...for the whole year. Also in IMO's Bi monthly journals, you 
get updated reminders of upcoming events etc. I don't think there is too much 
in Meteor Trails that you won't find in the WGN journals and IMO's annual 
meteor shower calendar? 

biedient>>There would be no point in AMS offering a similar, compteting 
service, that would truly be redundant. <<

I agree.

biedient>> IMO has an
IMO-news list, but it's relatively inactive, I think due to the success of
meteorobs. <<

The purpose of the IMO news list is different than meteorobs. The IMO news 
list is basically for meteor related news or announcements. Not discussions 
or meteor reports.

GeoZay>>The reasoning at the time was to keep the then floundering AMS from 
taking 
>control and essentially putting the squeeze on the newly formed NAMN.<<

Biedient>>This is pretty funny.  George, you gotta make up your mind.  
Depending on
how you feel, the AMS was either "inactive", "floundering", "a broken-down
car on the side of the road" or an evil empire capable of taking over NAMN.
 I don't think we could take over anything... nor do we want to.<<

Well Jim, when Mark and I originally started NAMN, the AMS  WAS "inactive", 
"floundering" and a "broken down car on the side of the road". This fact is 
pretty much documented I would think? Jim Richardson has on occasions in the 
past pretty much stated this in his own words. I remember some words along 
the lines where he related the AMS as "A great ship that needed a new coat of 
paint to restore it to it's former glory"?  That's why all the reorganization 
that took place in the next couple years....trying to jump start it again to 
some form of life. I think it has succeeded to this point? It also was no 
secret that AMS with Jim Richardson leading the effort wanted to absorb NAMN 
to jump start the AMS. Mainly because in the U.S., NAMN represented the most 
potential of meteor observing activity at that time.  As you can see, he was 
successful. It's just that some folks haven't figured that out yet. That's 
why I'm asking the question about whether NAMN and the ALPO meteor section is 
needed?
GeoZay

To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html