| Sponsored By: | |
Subject: Re: [M]: Meade QA facts!
From: M. Gartland
Reply To: mapug@shore.net
Date: Fri May 15 07:23:19 1998
--------------2A4207E98442E86394995FBD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I do not apologize for my tone. My problem with your posting is that one day you
ask a (very valid) question on how good the Meade focuser is based on what you
heard from a retail dealer. Some of us were in the process of writing responses.
The very next day, before any of your concerns are responded to with confirmation
or not, you are quoting that very same (Heresay) comment from that dealer in
another posting having to do with Meade quality. That's my problem. Not a bad day
at all. It is perpetuating unsubstantiated and unvalidated information that may
get picked up by others who may assume the originator is in authority. Sure, (as
an example) My Meade APO sucks (per everyone on this list), obviously I am thick
skined on this issue, there has been enough Meade APO bashing by people who have
owned them and I have respect for their viewpoint because they have owned
them....I still let it go in one ear......it suits my needs and was the right
price. So I obviously take all information in context. However, there are other
situations where people qualify their comments with "I have read on this group" or
"heard from", usually solicitating confirmation, like your orginal post, those are
also in line. But when "non authority" comments are passed along and even
embellished and used in other context, that is where I consider the line crossed.
For a refresher here is the exact quote:
> Not just designed-in flaws, but things that are said by Meade to
> be designed "for" compatibility and they still don't work. Witness,
> the electronic focuser for the Meade refractors - I was just told
> that it doesn't work right no matter what you do. But the JMI version
> of same works fine...
>
There is no challange to this, the words "doesn't work right no matter what you
do" are just too strong to be passed along in a "oh by the way I heard" comment on
the operation, fucntion or quality of any product without clear substantiations.
Plus it is completely incorrect and not true.
Bottom line...Read the postings from Michael Hart and myself if you want to know
about Meade Focusers for their APO's.
It answers you questions, quote from them if you wish.
Have a nice day...
m.
james goss wrote:
> RE: Having a bad day???
>
> I was willing to listen to anyone who had some hearsay information or
> otherwise, this is not a peer reviewed forum, for goodness sake. Most
> of the information I get regarding astro subjects is primarily hearsay
> since I don't have the time to spend endless hours in the field.
>
> I don't want to buy something a dealer strongly recommends against, but
> hey, I guess I already did - one local dealer said to avoid Meade CCDs
> and use SBIG instead. Good advice, I admit, but not entirely all
> encompassing. People have sent me results of the Meade 416s and their
> experiences, and it is easy to see that software was not ready for prime
> time until recently, hardware maybe not as high a spec as SBIG, etc.
>
> Ok, I have one vote for the Meade 1207 from a user, one vote for from
> a 1206 user (I think), one negative vote from a dealer who makes more
> money on the Meade than the JMI (I think), and my own opinion which is
> that believe whatever enough people tell me or if I see it with my own
> two eyes...
>
> Posts in all caps are interpreted as loud, sometimes hostile, and I would
> like to avoid even reading posts with them...
>
> J. Goss
>
> > From: "M. Gartland" <mgartlan@iconn.net>
> > This is why Heresay is not allowed in a court of law.
> >
> > IF YOU DON'T OWN A MEADE REFRACTOR WITH A MEADE ELECTRIC FOCUSER INSTALLED,
> > THEN PLEASE DON'T KEEP COMMENTING ON THEIR PERFORMANCE. ESPECIALLY DON'T
> > QUOTE ANY INFORMATION FROM A RETAILER.
> >
> > m.
> >
> > james goss wrote:
> >
> > > Well, Meade QA comes in two forms (or the lack of it, anyway):
> > >
> > > 1. Things that can be fixed thru reorder or manual adjustment
> > >
> > > 2. Things that just won't work no matter what you do
> > >
> > > I think the 1% figure applies to #1, but not to #2 and that seems
> > > to be where a lot of the posts on this list come from.
> > >
> > > Not just designed-in flaws, but things that are said by Meade to
> > > be designed "for" compatibility and they still don't work. Witness,
> > > the electronic focuser for the Meade refractors - I was just told
> > > that it doesn't work right no matter what you do. But the JMI version
> > > of same works fine...
> > >
> > > Not to mention that Meade sells at least many thousands of SCTs and
> > > other scopes a year (maybe over 10,000) . The sample is about 1% roughly,
> > > but however, it may not be significant statistically.
> > >
> > > My two cents...
> > >
> > > J. Goss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--------------2A4207E98442E86394995FBD
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
I do not apologize for my tone. My problem with your posting is that one
day you ask a (very valid) question on how good the Meade focuser is based
on what you heard from a retail dealer. Some of us were in the process
of writing responses. The very next day, before any of your concerns are
responded to with confirmation or not, you are quoting that very same (Heresay)
comment from that dealer in another posting having to do with Meade quality.
That's my problem. Not a bad day at all. It is perpetuating unsubstantiated
and unvalidated information that may get picked up by others who may assume
the originator is in authority. Sure, (as an example) My Meade APO sucks
(per everyone on this list), obviously I am thick skined on this issue,
there has been enough Meade APO bashing by people who have owned them and
I have respect for their viewpoint because they have owned them....I still
let it go in one ear......it suits my needs and was the right price. So
I obviously take all information in context. However, there are other situations
where people qualify their comments with "I have read on this group" or
"heard from", usually solicitating confirmation, like your orginal post,
those are also in line. But when "non authority" comments are passed along
and even embellished and used in other context, that is where I consider
the line crossed. For a refresher here is the exact quote:
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>Not just designed-in flaws, but things that are said by Meade to
be designed "for" compatibility and they still don't work. Witness,
the electronic focuser for the Meade refractors - I was just told
that it doesn't work right no matter what you do. But the JMI version
of same works fine...</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>There is no challange to this, the words "doesn't work right no matter
what you do" are just too strong to be passed along in a "oh by the way
I heard" comment on the operation, fucntion or quality of any product without
clear substantiations.
<P>Plus it is completely incorrect and not true.
<P>Bottom line...Read the postings from Michael Hart and myself if you
want to know about Meade Focusers for their APO's.
<BR>It answers you questions, quote from them if you wish.
<P>Have a nice day...
<BR>m.
<BR>
<P>james goss wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>RE: Having a bad day???
<P>I was willing to listen to anyone who had some hearsay information or
<BR>otherwise, this is not a peer reviewed forum, for goodness sake.
Most
<BR>of the information I get regarding astro subjects is primarily hearsay
<BR>since I don't have the time to spend endless hours in the field.
<P>I don't want to buy something a dealer strongly recommends against,
but
<BR>hey, I guess I already did - one local dealer said to avoid Meade CCDs
<BR>and use SBIG instead. Good advice, I admit, but not entirely
all
<BR>encompassing. People have sent me results of the Meade 416s and
their
<BR>experiences, and it is easy to see that software was not ready for
prime
<BR>time until recently, hardware maybe not as high a spec as SBIG, etc.
<P>Ok, I have one vote for the Meade 1207 from a user, one vote for from
<BR>a 1206 user (I think), one negative vote from a dealer who makes more
<BR>money on the Meade than the JMI (I think), and my own opinion which
is
<BR>that believe whatever enough people tell me or if I see it with my
own
<BR>two eyes...
<P>Posts in all caps are interpreted as loud, sometimes hostile, and I
would
<BR>like to avoid even reading posts with them...
<P>J. Goss
<P>> From: "M. Gartland" <mgartlan@iconn.net>
<BR>> This is why Heresay is not allowed in a court of law.
<BR>>
<BR>> IF YOU DON'T OWN A MEADE REFRACTOR WITH A MEADE ELECTRIC FOCUSER
INSTALLED,
<BR>> THEN PLEASE DON'T KEEP COMMENTING ON THEIR PERFORMANCE. ESPECIALLY
DON'T
<BR>> QUOTE ANY INFORMATION FROM A RETAILER.
<BR>>
<BR>> m.
<BR>>
<BR>> james goss wrote:
<BR>>
<BR>> > Well, Meade QA comes in two forms (or the lack of it, anyway):
<BR>> >
<BR>> > 1. Things that can be fixed thru reorder or manual adjustment
<BR>> >
<BR>> > 2. Things that just won't work no matter what you do
<BR>> >
<BR>> > I think the 1% figure applies to #1, but not to #2 and that seems
<BR>> > to be where a lot of the posts on this list come from.
<BR>> >
<BR>> > Not just designed-in flaws, but things that are said by Meade to
<BR>> > be designed "for" compatibility and they still don't work.
Witness,
<BR>> > the electronic focuser for the Meade refractors - I was just told
<BR>> > that it doesn't work right no matter what you do. But the
JMI version
<BR>> > of same works fine...
<BR>> >
<BR>> > Not to mention that Meade sells at least many thousands of SCTs
and
<BR>> > other scopes a year (maybe over 10,000) . The sample is about
1% roughly,
<BR>> > but however, it may not be significant statistically.
<BR>> >
<BR>> > My two cents...
<BR>> >
<BR>> > J. Goss
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>></BLOCKQUOTE>
</HTML>
--------------2A4207E98442E86394995FBD--