Posts Made By: Anthony Morse

I agree, from personal experience, that the majority of Meade and Celestron's low-end scopes are basically junk. Furthermore, and perhaps even more egregious, are the outrageous magnification claims made on the boxes...which trumpet magnitudes to the tune of 500 power or so. In addition, the box is adorned with beautiful, misleading photographs of planets and star fields implying that you'll see the same with your included, virtually useless 4mm eyepiece and the omnipresent, plastic 3xbarlow. That said, here is my question. From a business standpoint what favorable solutions do Meade and Celestron have? Several posters provided data indicated the bulk of sales/revenue from low-end merchandise. Does anyone believe that by increasing the quality/price of their basic scopes that revenue could be maintained? If not should they simply fall on their swords for the love of astronomy? Should they downsize their workforce and specialize in high-end optics? I completely agree with the criticisms leveled, and abhor cheap, mass produced, unreliable junk. However, given the nature of an economic market I'm wondering what, if anything, people would propose be changed? Thanks.

Anyone here find it a tad annoying when people who have never served and never will are extremely vocal and gung-ho about sending our military into harm's way? Clearly I'm not referring to people who are physically unable to. I am also not referring to veterans who have served proudly. I also recognize that one has the freedom to make a choice. However, it just bother me when people are so enthusiastic about war provided someone else goes and does the fighting.

Hi everyone...

Do you feel that war in inevitable at this point? Or, can you foresee any realistic set of circumstances that might avert war? By realistic I don't mean situations such as Saddam voluntarily leaving Iraq for exile...I don't believe this is a possibility. More germane are situations such as Saddam destroying his missiles and Hans Blix reporting that Iraq is showing "substantive" compliance. Would the aforementioned by sufficient to avoid war? Or, is it necessary for us to remove Saddam and affect change regardless of what transpires over the next week? Are we committed and going or is there still some uncertainty? Any thoughts?

Let's assume you are a young Star Fleet Ensign...which Star Fleet captain would you most like to serve under..and why? Captains Janeway, Picard, Kirk, Sisco (spelling?), or the new Enterprise guy (haven't really have a chance to watch that show...I seem to get immersed in the re-runs). Or perhaps you'd like to be a Klingon, or Romulan, or serve under someone who appeared in just one show but made such an impression that you just say "that's my guy/gal!". Remember that in choosing you also are picking a certain time in the Star Trek history...with all the attendant technologies, treaties, and conflicts.

Clearly this Al-Queda planner is being tortured. How do you all feel about the use or torture to gain information? Do you find it acceptable for the US to 'watch' while forein agents administer touture? Would it be acceptable for US operatives to administer the torture themselves? Is it not at all acceptable? And, how far does it go...let's say here in the U.S. a man kidnaps a little girl, we have him and don't know her whereabouts...alive or dead...should law enforcement exert torture? Once it's established where does it stop and where does one draw a line?

Hi everyone,

I heard on the radio this morning that John Travolta supports President Bush...so those of you who feel the same can show your support by renting Saturday Night Fever, dusting off any late 70's disco attire you may have stashed in the back of your closets, and firing up a disco ball.

Hi All,

Just curious how many here think Fox News is unbiased and the O'Reily Factor a no-spin zone?

I'm also curious how you feel about newscasters, particularly anchors, offering personal comments, 'editorializing' if you will, along with their broadcasts.

Cheers

Any thoughts on why academic departments/professors tend to be left-leaning?

Why is it that countries we saved (either from their own madness run amok and/or external threats) seem to hold us in such disdain?

France...1917-1918, while Americans can certainly not claim they saved France, their contribution was significant. American forces did serve with distinction, effectiveness, and many made the ultimate sacrifice.
France...1944-1945, America and Britain (with an assist from other allied powers and the French underdround/French in exile) did save France.

Germany, 1941-1945, America helped defeat the most barbaric, tyrannical regime ever to blight the earth....AND (this is important) rebuilt their nation....AND....prevented West Germany (and Western Europe for that matter) from falling to the Soviet Menace for 46 years!

Japan, 1941-45, wrested the country from a destructive, Militaristic, recklessly expansionist cult mentality...rebuilt their nation...and helped turn them into one of the most productive, technological advanced, affluent societies on earth. Granted, Japan hasn't been treating us with the diplomatic disdain of the above two, but many examples (unfair trade practices, feelings of cultural superiority) do exist.

Isn't it interesting that emerging from WWII as a victorious superpower (and the only one wielding the atomic hammer at the time) that rather than enslaving nations (as did the USSR) we rebuilt their infrastructure and returned their control to an indigenous democracy?

*** Why can't they be grateful and more the agreeable lapdogs that Thatcher and Blair have been? ***
(That was a joke.)