Re: MEMO to Meade: How to write an honest news release

From: RichA (none_at_none.com)
Date: 02/05/05 

Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:11:55 -0500

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:49:44 -0800, Uncle Bob
<realonespam@bogusnet.net> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>> On 1 Feb 2005 21:52:42 -0800, AFM@andersonsoftware.ca wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It was a rhetorical question Roland. The point was there is more than
>>>one way to make a mak. They are all maks. I agree Meade should put a
>>>modifier on the end but they are not entirely out of line in calling
>>>this telescope a Richey.
>>>If on the other hand it does not use two hyperboloid mirrors then you
>>>are correct and I completely agree.
>>>Ian Anderson
>>>www.customopticalsystems.com
>>
>>
>> The only people effected by Meade using the term, R-C are those who
>> dislike Meade. If the scope offers the same level of correction
>> as and R-C, does it really matter what it's called? If they were
>> trying to pawn-off one of their standard SCTs, that would be
>> different. Take a look at eyepieces to see where the idea of
>> "creative" uses of proper names has happened.
>> -Rich
>
>Yes, let us not consider the issue, but rather those who raise the
>issue. That way we can have a nice discussion about personalities,
>instead of principles. It's a nice hook to pull the discussion off track.
>I say blame the media. Making a telescope is hard work. Why do these
>people hate freedom?
>
>Uncle Bob

Look at it this way; If the scopes turn out to be dogs, the Meade
attackers will get another shot at it, and will have legitimate
reasons for attacking, unlike now.
-Rich