RTE & the Astronomy voice of Ireland

Mr Walter - the name is Dave McDonald.

You say the articles started many months ago. I just flicked back through 2 years of A&S and I have Glossary 9 starting in March 2003 - 20 months ago. Presumably glossaries 1 - 8 were published way before. Whatever the case, the articles certainly did not start 'months ago' - try years ago.

As far as recycling goes, you can check the magazine yourself - it states it.

Now - I have a real problem with this:

My contribution is, according to him, 'shameful'. Indeed. I would regard his comments in exactly the same way, and I would say this: if you don't like the magazine, don't buy it. But please refrain from making public comments that are so obviously untrue that I am quite astonished you could seriously hold these views. I shall file a complaint with Bart Busschots regarding this matter, and I trust that in future Mr. McDonagh will confine his remarks to actual fact

1. I never said your contribution was shameful. Read my post. Properly.
2. I don't buy the magazine, I pay a subscription to A&S and get the magazine free.
3. My comments are my personal opinion. I am entitled to make my opinions known just like you are.
4. As far as actual fact goes, I suggest you check your own before posting such a message. That is good manners and common courtesy.

And just so you know that I have checked my facts, here are the articles I have noted in A&S from January 2003:

March 2003 - glossary 9 - Bug Nebula - cD Galaxy
July 2003 - repeated article from previous magazine
September 2003 - glossary 10 - Celestial coordinates - Cepheid Variable
February 2004 - glossary 11 - CH Star - Cluster
July 2004 - glossary 12 - Coalsack - Comet
January 2005 - glossary 13 - Common proper motion - contact

By the time the final glossary is published, I reckon most beginners will be advanced astronomers.

I trust that the Moderators of this board will take your complaint seriously and take whatever action they deem appropriate. Judging by the personal comments and public comments regarding my original post, it seems only you and Gordon Nason have any issues with the content. Everyone else who expressed an opinion agrees with me. Odd.

D. McDonald

PS - glad to see you have joined this group - welcome aboard! I trust we will see regular contribiutions from you, particularly for the many new beginners there are now on board.
[/quote]

Dave (Grennan)

How are they way out of line? Please do go into specifics - I'd be very interested to know how you qualify the word 'excellent' in terms of A&S.

If you do so sucessfully, then I'd be more than happy to change my opinion and you can change the opinion of others on this board who agree with me.

Your comments are waaay out of line. They are ill thought out and totally disengenuous to excellent writers like Denton

Please quote the exact passages in my post that are 'disingenuous' to the writers. If you want to accuse me of this then I think it only fair you produce the evidence.

All you have proved is you know little about whats involved in producing a publication like A&S

Why should I have to know what goes into the production of a publication like A&S? All I'm interested in is value for money. I don't give a hoot how the provider gives it to me.

I will reiterate this point again - I joined Astronomy Ireland for 40 Euro. As part of that fee, I am sent a monthly magazine - FREE. I have no choice in the matter. But as I have said before, if the magazine is 'free', what is my forty quid being used for?

And finally, you are dead right about choice. AI and A&S will certainly not be getting another penny from me. And I wrote my post so that others can make an informed decision on the merits or otherwise of joining AI and receiving A&S.

Cheers

Dave

I would like to congratulate Dave McDonald and Gordon Nason for the time and effort that they have taken to make their opposing points clear. A lot of thought and consideration has gone into their points and while they obviously disagree, I find it very useful that they have a forum for their disagreements. There may be differing views on Astronomy & Space magazine held by posters to this forum but they are sensible to see that disagreements about a magazine are not and should not be taken personally.

Dave Grennan: I don't actually see how Dave McDonald is way out of line. Disagreeing with a person's taste or criticising a publication while remaining within the law are fine, acceptable, and should perhaps be encouraged. If you could be more specific that would be very useful.

However I think this issue has gone as far as it can go in a public forum without becoming personal and losing its way. I'm not the moderator of this forum (my responsibility is the Double/Variable star forum - last post March 2004 - we're very busy over there!) but I think that the last word has been spoken on this issue. Denton, feel free to make complaints to Bart. I'm sure he'll do his best to clear up any outstanding difficulties. If there are any following posts then please keep to the topic in hand, and avoid insulting one another. Again, though, I feel that this debate is probably best conducted in private through PMs or email.

Personally, I find nothing offensive or derogatory in nature in what has been said by anyone in this thread, on both sides of the divide. It does seem like a heated discussion, and as such should not be taken any more seriously than a heated discussion between amateur astronomers down in the pub, or at any star party.

I think debates are healthy, and with the arrival of Denton, we are more informed for the opposite side of the argument, and directly too.

That said, Shane does have a point about ending this thread, but, I would not like to see it ended. Perhaps, as was stated many posts ago in this thread that it were moved to a specificly created forum/section, let the rants go on there.

Also, as there has been a hell of a lot of debate here, why have we not heard from the source of this lengthy debate himself? (I refer to David Moore). I, personally, would like to know why he has not supported any clubs. I would like to know why he never replied to my many emails of a year ago regarding last years COSMOS, and other TAS events. I would also like to know why he has not supported ILPAC, a non-competitive, active awareness group (and NOT a club of any kind). Now, I ask this NOT on behalf of Albert White, but still, TAS is trying its bit in Tullamore to make it known the current and future problems of light pollution - THATS why I ask.

With the utmost respect to Gordon, Dave Grennan, and Denton, and any other (past or present) A&S members, I ask why do we not get (personal or not) responses from David Moore? He doesn't have to respond, but it would be courteous once in a while...

Seanie.

Dave,
Sorry for getting your name wrong, but that is the form in which it was passed on to me. Now, regarding this on-going contention: you list items that have been mentioned previously. Of course various things will have been mentioned previously. If I refer to let us say a white dwarf in an article on Canis Minor, can it be said to be a re-hash if white dwarfs come up in the glossary under W? The Glossary articles are NOT re-hash material. They can not be by their very nature. They may, and indeed do, contain subjects which have been defined previously, but in other articles. Yes, people may be well advanced by the time the Glossary ends, years from now, since it is an occasional series, but that can be said of anything aimed at the total beginner. Advanced persons will not require it. What would you have me do? Put only the Glossary in each month? Space (no pun intended) does not permit that, as it would rule out the constellation series, which I hope you do like? We did run both series togeather at one time, but page requirments and my own work outside of astronomy caused us to run the two series alternating. As to the 'shameful' bit: well, I do think it refers to me. I'm sorry but that is the only way I can take it. You say that my article is "blatantly recycled from previous editions of A&S - shameful in my opinion". If you hold me, as author, responsible for that then obviously the shameful comment must be taken as aimed at me. If that was not your intention you did not make that clear, but I fail to see who else you could consider responsible for my articles but me. The Glossary is NOT a re-hash, nor is there anything 'shameful' about it, and I do resent that word being used. If feel I have grounds for complaint. If your intention was otherwise then fine. But in that case please, as Gordon suggested, retract that part of your comments. I do not wish to start a battle via e-mail, but I do not like seeing my name mentioned in such a manner. I take my position in the magazine very seriously, and I try to provide a product that is of the highest standards.

After all that, have a good New Year.

Denton

Dave,
Just a couple of further points that I decided I would take up with you. You say that you receive A&S 'free'. You do not. It is not sent out to members free of charge, but is paid for by the membership sub. It is however obtained at a reduced cost when taken as part of A.I. membership, costing 54 Euro if you purchased it at the newsagents, but included with your membership for 40 Euro. As such it is very good value, since you not only get the magazine, but also reduced entry to lectures, and the members only telescope nights which the club operate, which of course you would not get if you went into Easons and purchased it. As I said, strictly speaking the magazine is not 'free' in that context. A great deal of hard work goes into both the club and the magazine, and the likes of myself and Gordon (a superb writer I must say) take considerable time and effort over what we do. It is produced by amateurs for amateurs, and is not simply a professional magazine produced by journalists, all its content being the result of A.I. members working in their spare time. (Apart from the odd contribution by a professional, or David Moore's work, since he is full-time if you like) On that note, David Moore works 24/7 for the club and the magazine, and, whatever anyone's opinion of him may be, his dedication to astronomy is without question. I have known him since shortly after A.I. was founded, and I never cease to be amazed at his ability to work around the clock for the club and the magazine. For my own part, I have put in many a late night working on articles, obtaining photographs from various amateur astronomers worldwide, drawing maps and so forth, and the same goes for Martin Brady, who does the magazine layout. He has worked through the night to get it to the printers on time on quite a few issues. Though Martin is a professional, he has gone far beyond what any other graphic design company would do, because he too is a member of the club. You may think the magazine is good or bad, but that does not alter the fact that it is the product of a lot of dedicated hard work by mostly unpaid amateurs, who do it because they love astronomy. On the point of good manners, I think using the 'shameful' comment was itself rather lacking in that regard, since, as I said, it could only be considered as directed at myself as author of the particular item, though indirectly at the magazine editorial staff as well. Maybe that was not your intention. I am quite happy to accept that it wasn't, but that is not the way it comes over on the face of it. The bottom line is that my article was mentioned as being blatantly recycled and that this was shameful. Who else is responsible for that but me? Incidently, since you mention how far back the series goes, why did you say it started with the letter C, when you already knew that it started, as you say, years previously? That also would rule out letter D being in the February issue, wouldn't it. One does indeed have the right to one's own opinion, but not always the right to express it in public when it may be detrimental to someone else's reputation. Many a case for slander or libel resulted from someone deciding to express their own private opinion in a public manner! Please don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to 'fight' with you, and I would welcome any comments you might have regarding any article of mine in the magazine. My e-mail address is shown at the end of each article. Feel free to contact me at any time. I am always glad to get feedback on the articles, good or bad, and I would be more than happy to hear from you. Should we perhaps now put this matter to bed? You said your bit, I said mine. You may not have intended it to be taken in the way Gordon did when he passed it to me, nor in the way I did. But that is the way we did. Enough?

All the best,

Denton