Hello All, Happy New Year etc, etc.


Ric Ecker wrote:


>Valery,
> Are you really Paul Laughton in disguise ????????? :-)))

What you have against Paul? And me? In general, I like a humor and jokes, but
I can consider your :-))) as poor one.


>We all know that you are a professional Astronmer with bad experiences
>with the 416.

Not only. When you will understood (if you not so biased that you can't do)
that
most of problems in Meade "advanced" products are due to following reasons:

1. Lier ads. Impudent lier ads.
2. Poor perfomance of (mostly well designed) equipment.
3.Total absence of the real QC.
4. Poor responsibility.
5. Poor customer service.

Meanwhile very good idears concerning equipment they are manufacture. But above
problems often making these nice(!) idears worthless.



>We all know that the first VCR (VTR) were junk.

I think that you cansider me as a child. The very first VCR and VTR was on
the front of current technology. So, the mistakes was inevitable.
What kind of revolutionary technology Meade do use in their LX200 or LXD650 ?
Can you give me any example of modern complicated home-use equipment where
so old electro-mechanics is used? Dust-remover may be?



>I have a camcorder with a bad viewfinder (Sony) that cost more to fix
>than a new one.

I have poor Paanasonic camcoder. Was fixed for a fraction of cost and very
quickly.


>Can you fix an LX-200 for less than a new one ???? Yes you can.

If you consider whole scope, yes. But haw much will cost for me the replacement
of the motors (which are very cheap) include shipment, insurance, tax compare
to their own cost?



>Well you keep a person from buying the LX-200 because of your bias, I
>think so.

I am not biased at all. My scientific practice learn me to be as unbiased as
this is possible. You probably know that our company do manufacture some
kinds of APO objectives, Maks and reflective optics under custom orders. We
have enough competitors here. But what I can say something poor about Zeiss,
TAKAHASHI, AP etc? Something about common problems with oiled APO
objectives. No more!
The very best example of two approaches is SBIG and MEADE derby for the
CCD market. Haw reach and powerful Meade compare to SBIG and what the
result. All matter in approach to the job. What you can say here? Is such
example is not enough for you?



>Are you helping this fine group of LX-200 owners with your comments on
>bad optics and mechanical problems, NOPE.

Haw I can help by commenting of poor optics? At least I must see this optics
self . I have no time and possibilities to develop the ways of fixing of Meade's
mistakes in their so called "advanced" products. And I have no wishes to do
their
own engineers job.
I can help (if I can) to any amateur who can ask me about independent
opinion or advice. I will do this as my time and raw english permit. But I
can't help to lier company. I have bring a lot of advices to many amateurs
haw to fix their problems with equipment made by another companies (even
by our direct competitors), haw make a right choice of equipment. And very
often
I have adviced the competitor's equipment. But I have totally negative opinion
about Meade (especially about theirs customer service) and no wishes to help in
fixing theirs own problems. I think that absolut enough that Meade did forms
a wide team of beta-testers of their equipment and use it free of charge.



>Can you be helpful to this group with your vast experience of Astronomy
>and scopes, YEP.
>Is this fun writing this ???? UNHUH !!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Should I care if this group gets screwed up and tries to self destruct
>????? I'm still trying.

It will be better if Meade will remove all problems with their equipment
self and then this group will be really MAPUG but not the Meade
"ambulance" goup.



>When we have negative reports on a contant basis, should I show the other
>side or just butt out, and stay silent.......What does everyone thing
>????????

You silent! One more joke?


Sincerely,

Valery Deryuzhin
ARIES INSTRUMENTS Co. Ukraine.

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: field derotater and flat fields, Graham Warrellow
Next message: Re: [M]: MAPUG "annual report", Rob Roy
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: 7" Refractor woes, Ric L Ecker