Posts Made By: Kevin Conville

I agree with what you've said James. I personally, do not have respect for anyone who's still on the fence. To me, it's THE most indefensable position one can have. Of the people I've seen interviewed who are undecided, I haven't heard anything intelligent eminate from them.

Close Darrell. I predicted several months ago that around this time "someone" will uncover pictures of Osama bin Laden in bed with Teresa Heinz-Kerry. :S

Tongue firmly in cheek?!

I personally would go with a 35 Panoptic (just a hair under 3 degrees @23X and 5mm exit pupil) and the 17 T4 Nagler (1.74 degrees@ 47X). Both of these are really sweet in a small refractor like yours.

I use both for my Fujinon 16 x 70s. I modified a UA light mount by making a new L-bracket and mounting a Bogen 3130 quick release fluid head. I did this because the standard "light" mount does not have good lateral movement and I also wanted quick release. The "deluxe" version has much better movement but still nowhere the movement I get with the fluid head. The downside is that one does have to lock down the motion knob on the fluid head if you take your hands completely off the binos. I don't mind this.

The tripod I use is a Bogen 3221 that also has a 3130 fluid head attached which make mounting and transferring the binos a snap. I use both at different times for different reasons but for extended viewing especially near zenith you just can't beat a parallel mount. These "tall" versions of Bogen's heavy tripods give lots of height which (of course) is necessary for straight view binos.

You don't say what size binos you want to use and I'm sure that will have a great influence on the type/size of your mount. Regardless of what binos you want to use, the parallelogram type mount is the ultimate in comfort at (maybe) the expense of reduced mobility.

The adage "We have exactly the government we deserve" comes to mind. We're (collectively) just not very alert and politically informed in this country. Hell, by and large, we're just not very smart.

One example (outside of politics): Look at Madison Avenue. See what works. Disgusting isn't it?

We have oil men. Iraq has a lot of oil. Bush has an interest in keeping the US on the oil teat. By controlling Iraq they control that oil. In the face of much growing world demand for that oil, we're now in the thick of it. They have set up a fort, now they can start buying the place with beads.

Simple answer.

That scenario is not necessarily beyond the pale, and I think it would immediately send the country into a tailspin. There would be violence and civil disobedience breaking out everywhere. It would be the proverbial "straw".

Nice to meet you too Paul.

You must be a Seinfeld fan though as you start most sentences with "have you ever noticed?"
You're not as funny though. But, keep at it.

Losing hurts doesn't it? Oh, and here's a tip: more fiber!

Paul K-
"Democrats:
If Bush wins, and your worst fears are realized and you believe that we have 4 more years of war plague & famine in store for us, then rest assured that by 2008 the country will be so sick of republicans that democrats will run virtually unopposed."

Believe me I've thought of that. The problem is that we'll have a lame duck version of what we've had for four years and it promises to become much worse. The damage to our environment, the economy, the constitution, our foreign standing... may become irreparable.

The Democrats getting an easy time in '08 doesn't do much for me in and of itself. I'm not gung ho Democrat and I don't hate republicans. It's GEORGE BUSH and his ilk that we need to can.