Re: The delusional one's 10th off-topic post (I mean him, not me!)

From: Atul Sowani (
Date: Tue Sep 04 2001 - 00:36:32 EDT

Hello all list members,

Let's concentrate on satellite watching and let's stop this thread
here. There are so many beautiful shining birds zipping through
skies, silently miding their own business! Lets watch them!

With no offense meant, I have a request for the soliciter of our
list: Could you please put a filter to remove all incoming  mails
with words like "geodetic datum", say, or such other off-topic
mailings so that they will not be distributed? I don't know if this
could be implemented or how easy it is - just a suggestion.

On Mon, 3 Sep 2001 13:59 -0500, Michael McCants wrote:

> From your very first post:
> >Of course for most casual observers of satellites, using binoculars and a
> >stopwatch, a positional discrepancy in an observational location of a hundred
> >metres or so is of no practical consequence whatsoever.  It is only when high
> >accuracy astrometry is used, such as is obtainable by CCD cameras on good
> >telecopes, that the datum becomes a significant factor.
> So in your very first post, before there was even one response saying
> "it's irrelevant", you admitted "it's irrelevant".  And yet you persist
> in your campaign to get us to do something that's irrelevant.
> >RA/Dec can, in the absence of contrary information, reasonably be presumed...
> In the absence of epoch information, a position observation will be
> discarded as being ab-sense.  You are trying to cover up your blunder.
> >The efforts of those who strive for single arc-second precision...
> are delusional and/or ridiculous.  Name a satellite observer that you want
> to put into this category.
> >It seems a pity to make a mockery...
> It seems a pity to make a mockery of the posting guidelines for this
> mailing list.
> >I, for one, am glad that the IAU and Cospar standards are not being eroded by
> >those who would try to dumb down accuracy and precision and drag us all down to
> >the level of the lowest common denominator.
> Hilarious.  This from one who has never tried to make or analyze a positional
> observation.  The word "us" is not applicable.  You are not one of "us".
> >I applaud those who take the time and trouble to make sense of otherwise
> >insensible terrestrial co-ordinates by the simple expedient of openly declaring
> >the basis of stated Lat/Longs.
> Hilarious.  There are no programs that could use that "information" and
> there is no need to add such capability to those programs.
> I think you should go back to Compuserve and stir up the Second Amendment
> argument or get to work on your delusional Newland Constitution.
> Web site:
> April 30 was not a Tuesday and a lot of your links don't work any more.
> Should I hold out any hope that you can be embarrassed enough to go
> away and not bother us any more?  Nahh.  You appear to be quite
> immune to anything I can toss your way.  You failed to respond to
> my previous post.  Perhaps you dare not read my posts.  Perhaps
> you cannot respond intelligently.  You've certainly proven that
> nine times in a row.
> No name, no quote, no cheers, only sorrow.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe'
> in the SUBJECT to

Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe'
in the SUBJECT to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 20 2001 - 17:55:52 EDT