Re: leveling a tripod
- From: Chris L Peterson <clp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:55:38 GMT
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 09:45:12 -0700 (PDT), brian@xxxxxxx (Brian Tung)
wrote:
<grammar role=cop,condescendingSchoolTeacher>
Chris L Peterson wrote:
As I read it, what you said was the RA axis does not need to be aligned
to the celestial pole axis. That is false everywhere.
Strictly speaking, he should have used "that" instead of "which."
Your statement could also be interpreted in a different (and correct
way). That's what ambiguous means.
Then he needs a comma before the non-restrictive "which." :)
</grammar>
Of course, I knew what he meant (because I know that he understands how
an equatorial mount works). I just found it amusing that he chose to
misinterpret Stephen's ambiguous comment, and then attempted to clarify
things with a similarly ambiguous comment. I'm quite sure Stephen also
understands how an equatorial mount works.
There's no escaping condescending school teachers on this group!
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: leveling a tripod
- From: Brian Tung
- Re: leveling a tripod
- References:
- Re: leveling a tripod
- From: Marty
- Re: leveling a tripod
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: leveling a tripod
- From: atasselli@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: leveling a tripod
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: leveling a tripod
- From: Brian Tung
- Re: leveling a tripod
- Prev by Date: Re: leveling a tripod
- Next by Date: Re: 16 bits/component free Windows image processing apps?
- Previous by thread: Re: leveling a tripod
- Next by thread: Re: leveling a tripod
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|