RTE & the Astronomy voice of Ireland

This will be brief

Perhaps it should come to a stop unless he is invited to say his piece?

He's been told about this site many times. But David again, if you are reading, consider yourself invited, like everyone else in the world!

Could some one explain to me why his organisation is excluded, and what his organisation is defined as?

BRIEFLY. The IFAS constitution (in the Navigate tab on the left) governing the running of IFAS says

Article 3: Membership
* Membership shall be open to amateur astronomical societies in the island of Ireland which are governed by a democratically elected council or committee, subject to the approval of the Council. For the purposes of the Federation, Societies includes Clubs and Associations.

This is the sole reason that AI/DM/A&S/etc. complain about being excluded.

It does not say "Astronomy Ireland is excluded" or anything like it. It's simply stating an ethos about what an astronomy club is considered to be. The GAA for example requires GAA clubs to have democratically elected committees also. If people really want to discus this then start a thread in "IFAS matters".

All A&S subscribers, committee, directors etc. like everyone else around the world are welcome to take part in this website. Its open to all.

That a public message board from a website with freely downloadable material and affiliated to 15 clubs that anyone can join can be described as "exclusive" is amusing really

Cheers,
~Al

I'm confused

IFAS is an organisation which excludes his organisation why would he read these boards?

This, in my opinion, makes the whole thread even more futile and pointless. Why is a man being questioned or supported in a place where he is not allowed to state hs own argument nor defend himself? It is no wonder that the thread has gone on too long and should stop. It also raises many more questions, which would only serve to continue the thread even further, such as what part of his organisation is excluded? Where does that exclusion begin and end? why the exclusion? is it the organisation which is excluded, or himself that is excluded? Surely the whole argument, whether you are for him or against him, only serves to include his organisation.
Now, without me taking sides or being accused of disrespect to anyone, or of being insulting, this seems to me to border on stripping a man of his rights. I find it extremely hard to believe that Mr Moore, having such a strong connection with astronomy, doesn't visit these boards and read what is going on. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent him, and everyone out there knows that. It strikes me like a kangaroo court that he has to read all this and know he can't do anything about it to defend himself. Perhaps it should come to a stop unless he is invited to say his piece? Could some one explain to me why his organisation is excluded, and what his organisation is defined as?

bill,
as albert says he is not excluded from joining IFAS or these boards. having been there at the first meeting where it was decided to form IFAS, i can assure you there was a long debate on wether he should be allowed to join. it helped us to set out the ground rules. no organisation is banned from joining IFAS so long as they meet the criteria set out in the IFAS constitution. we simply defined what we thought was an astronomy club if Mr. Moore and his organisation have a different view well that is fine for them but this is incompatible with what we are trying to achieve. the fact there are more clubs being formed by ex members of his organisation and they are joining here should speak volumes it think.

the reason that each club has the same number of representatives is to prevent the my club is bigger than your club arguement. it is based on bitter expirence of what happened during the IAS / Moore split back at the start of the ninties which i will not go into again.

I would think mr moore is actually looking at these boards can't see a reason why he would not be keeping an eye on it. One of the major differences between IFAS / Mr moores organisation is that people here are allowed to express their opinion here within reason, although it has got a little bit heated at times. if you go to the AI website there is no such facility , their mailing list correct me if i am wrong is read only, i.e. you cannot reply to it. this leads me to only one conclusion that if you could do the same things over there as you could here there would be nothing on his site other than complaints. the fact that he doesn't enter into any sort of debate directly speaks volumes to me. he is simply ignoring it and hoping it will go away. instead people have found this site and you get the resulting debates here.

but enough ranting for now. hopefully this arguement will die down soon and we can get back to debating astronomy again.
stephen.

Folks

this is indeed a lively debate. If only, as Gordon Nason has iterated, we could direct this energy more into IFAS and become a real (healthy) competitor to AI and A&S...

That said of course, I'm as guilty as the next for perpetuating this thread.

And on that subject, a few more comments:

If I have a strong opinion, I will express it. I thank IFAS and this website for giving me the opportunity for doing so on a forum of folks that share my hobby. I would always qualify my opinion with facts and figures and would take great care in not being offensive to any individuals. After all, its a small world and we only get it for a woefully inadequate portion of time.

Likewise, I have no problem whatsoever with any alternative opinion provided the same ground rules apply. In fact, I am very open to changing any opinion I currently have if the alternate is expressed in an intelligent manner and backed up with facts and figures.

Denton - the word 'shameful', in its proper context, was directed at A&S magazine. It was not directed at Gordon, you, or any other individual. I stated categorically that I enjoy Gordon's articles and I will now state categorically that I enjoy your pieces too. I had hoped that on reading the original post you would have understood that it was directed at A&S. I trust this clears up any misconceptions.

You may now clear up a misconception I have. I filled in an 'application for membership' to Astronomy Ireland and duly paid €40.00. The 'membership' form clearly stated that A&S is provided 'free'.

So, and here I invite Gordon also to contribute and clear up my possible misconception, is my 40 quid a subcription to a magazine or is it a membership fee? Or is it both? This was a crucial point in my original post and has not yet been satisfactorily answered.

It is refreshing that Gordon took the initiative and let you know of the debate going on here, especially as you have been able to provide an alternate viewpoint and opinion. But I feel that focus has been taken away from my original post.

I was arguing that A&S is not value for money in my opinion and I would not use the word 'excellent' to describe it. That is no reflection on any individual contributor. As contributors, yourself and Gordon have defended your personal positions - which, by the way, I never called into question. I am sure all of the work you and Gordon do is unique, valuable and worthy of publication. How and when it is published is the point I was making. Perhaps not well enough for you and Gordon to take it the way it was meant. Individual articles are 'excellent'. The magazine as a whole is not, in my opinion.

Dave (Grennan) - I have no problem with you feeling that my comments were 'way out of line' and did not intend to you to retract it. I do feel strongly though that any comment or opinion should be qualified and backed up. And thanks for not lumping me in with the nerds on this board.

I hope that this clears up any misconceptions regarding my original post with Dave Grennan, Gordon Nason and Denton Walter. But the question of 'membership' or 'subscription' or some kind of hybrid remains.

Since this thread seems to be in its dying throes (or is it?), I heard the other day that the earth is in fact a sphere and not flat, as we all know. How odd.


Cheers

Dave

bill,
as albert says he is not excluded from joining IFAS or these boards.

Then I'm pleased to hear this. I, for one, couldn't understand this "exclusion", but obviously Dave Grennan has his information wrong, which has been passed on in a misleading way. Thank you for the clarification.

but enough ranting for now. hopefully this arguement will die down soon and we can get back to debating astronomy again.

Hear hear.
Bill

why is everyone else taking this so personally and fighting Mr Moores corner for him? Bill H

Nobody is fighting on behalf of DM as his proxy so to speak. I've no idea where you got that idea from. I articulate my own beliefs and the way I see things, which I am quite entitled to do, as are others with either similar or opposing views. If people make comments that I construe as offensive, inflammatory or potentially libellous against contributors to A & S such as Denton and myself, then yes, I take these personally. I informed Denton of the attack on his reputation, as I knew he wasn’t a member here. Anyone who has read Denton’s excellent articles must realise the vast amount of time he puts in both in terms of research and writing to promote astronomy. I believe he has articulated his position very clearly.

Gordon

If only, as Gordon Nason has iterated, we could direct this energy more into IFAS and become a real (healthy) competitor to AI and A&S...

Please don't misquote me. I said "I sometimes wonder how many clubs around the country would actually be trying to get into the public eye now if AI didn't exist. I suspect many committees would still be sitting on their collective backsides concerned only about their select bands of members."

If I have a strong opinion, I will express it. I would always qualify my opinion with facts and figures and would take great care in not being offensive to any individuals. I had hoped that on reading the original post you would have understood that it was directed at A&S. I trust this clears up any misconceptions.

Strong opinions are fine. Offensive or inflammatory remarks against individuals are not. You have "clarified" what you meant to say but that is not how Denton and I saw it. Please take a little more care in articulating precisely what you mean in future posts to avoid possible misconceptions.

You may now clear up a misconception I have. I filled in an 'application for membership' to Astronomy Ireland and duly paid €40.00. The 'membership' form clearly stated that A&S is provided 'free'. So, and here I invite Gordon also to contribute and clear up my possible misconception, is my 40 quid a subcription to a magazine or is it a membership fee? Or is it both?

This is not for either Denton or myself to answer, neither of whom are involved in the running of AI, A&S or the AI website. You should write to the AI office to clarify this.

I was arguing that A&S is not value for money in my opinion and I would not use the word 'excellent' to describe it. That is no reflection on any individual contributor. As contributors, yourself and Gordon have defended your personal positions - which, by the way, I never called into question. I am sure all of the work you and Gordon do is unique, valuable and worthy of publication. How and when it is published is the point I was making. Perhaps not well enough for you and Gordon to take it the way it was meant. Individual articles are 'excellent'. The magazine as a whole is not, in my opinion.

We're going around in circles so I really think we should let this topic die as Shane requested.


Gordon