NavList:

   

Reply

George:

Give it a rest, OK? I'm sure you're a competent navigator and an
intelligent person, but on this mailing list you come off as nothing
more than a pompous ass who's more interested in being "right" and
attacking others rather than contributing useful info related to the
topic of navigation (and based on what others have written, that's not
just my opinion).

Contrary to what you might want to believe, this list is NOT all about
you (and your notoriously fragile and pompous ego) - but if that's what
you're really interested in I would suggest that you start your own
list where you can feel free to pontificate to whatever audience you
can attract.

--
GregR



--- George Huxtable  wrote:

>
> Bill wrote a posting in which he offered serious criticism of my
> behaviour
> in an exchange between us, back in his "newbie" days. Those must have
> been
> at least three years ago.
>
> I have been unable to identify the messages he describes, and in
> Navlist
> 5028 have asked him to supply more detail. Even just the date of my
> offence
> should be sufficient to extract the relevant information from the
> archive,
> from even so long ago.
>
> Since I sent that response, Bill has made three further postings,
> with the
> same threadname, none of which were a response to my request.
>
> I ask Bill to take the matter that he has raised seriously, and to
> respond,
> with at least that date. I take it that he is not the type to just
> hit-and-run.
>
> It's most likely that the whole affair is the result of a past
> misunderstanding, his or mine. That's often the way with such
> disputes. But
> how can we tell, unless we can investigate the details? We mustn't
> allow
> such matters to go on rankling with him, as clearly this one has done
> over
> the years. Nor will I allow unspecified and hazy allegations to be
> made
> against me, without some follow-up.
>
> George.
>
> contact George Huxtable at george@huxtable.u-net.com
> or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
> or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill" 
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 10:24 AM
> Subject: [NavList 5026] Re: Navigation exercise
>
>
> |
> |
> | George wrote:
> | > His first problem raises, from me ... in the traditions of
> | > this list, a minor pedantic quibble.
> |
> | Peter wrote:
> | > For all practical purposes the sun 'hangs in the sky' at LAN.  We
> all
> agree
> | > about this.
> |
> | Not really, it seems. In my newbie days I raised the question about
> how
> far
> | wrong one could go latitude wise with a close LAN time
> approximation given
> | 30d to 60d elevation of the Sun and a full range of declinations.
> |
> | Going way back in the archives, I questioned the importance of 10
> or 15
> | seconds time in determining latitude at LAN in mid latitudes with
> Sun
> | elevations from 30d to 60d. A certain "pedantic" list member that
> will go
> | unnamed seemed determined to prove me wrong so changed the
> parameters to
> | worst-case scenario at almost 90d Sun elevation.
> |
> | To quote said member on another issue much later: "To a scientist,
> as I
> am,
> | intellectual honesty is at least as precious, if not more so, than
> pecuniary
> | honesty. If that is to be called in question, then evidence is
> required. I
> | challenge Dan, and anyone else on this list, (other than Peter
> Fogg) to
> | identify a single posting of mine that shows any lack of
> intellectual
> | honesty. Perhaps that wasn't what Dan intended to imply, but it
> reads that
> | way."
> |
> | I won't quibble about terms like "intellectual honesty." Instead
> I'll
> quote
> | a lawyer/politician acquaintance who told me, "If you don't like
> the
> | question being asked, answer another question of your own
> choosing."
> Please
> | tell me the proper phrase for changing the stated parameters of a
> problem
> to
> | settle the other fellow's hash (for our international readers,
> George, an
> | expression roughly meaning, "Win by any means") for no apparent
> gain or
> | purpose.
> |
> | > Rather than just take one random sight and accept its unknown
> errors (in
> this
> | > case, apparently amounting to 1.2' ), we can take as many sights
> as
> possible
> | > over a few minutes on either side of LAN. Then graph them;
> altitude on
> the
> | > vertical axis, time on the horizontal.  Then compare the pattern
> of
> those
> | > sights with a horizontal line, disregarding any that clearly
> don't match
> the
> | > others (outlier = gross error), and thinking hard about the
> others,
> while
> | > bearing in mind those closest to the instant of LAN will least
> reflect
> any
> | > change in altitude.  An intuitive process.
> |
> | We are on the same page page regarding graphing (and fitting Hc
> slopes to
> | observations), and always have been IMHO. I'm just not clear what
> you mean
> | by a "horizontal line" near LAN. The graph surrounding LAN by a few
>
> minutes
> | should look more like a camel's hump as I see it. VERY close to
> LAN, a
> | horizontal line, but as our pedantic friend would point out the
> time
> limits
> | will be dependent on latitude and declination. North Pole, late
> June, take
> a
> | coffee break between sights.  No big deal ;-)
> |
> | Bill
> |
> |
> | |
> |
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1392 - Release Date:
> 4/22/2008
> 3:51 PM
>
>
> >
>


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply