|
Evo X
Picked my new one up yesterday....Off now for 4 or 5 daays running it in through the moutains of NSW and Victoria. OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. |
Evo X
On Sep 27, 6:28 pm, OzOne wrote:
Picked my new one up yesterday....Off now for 4 or 5 daays running it in through the moutains of NSW and Victoria. OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. Congrats! Still waiting for mine here! I thought I had one last week, but it was scooped up before I could make the deal. RB |
Evo X
On 28 Sep, 13:08, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
Still waiting for mine here! I thought I had one last week, but it was scooped up before I could make the deal. Obviously, you didn't offer enough! Don't feel disheartened. There are some cars that have better performance and are even cheaper! JL posted a link to some of them last week. Some of them had fewer irritating rattles from the dashboard, according to the reviewers. Regards Donal -- |
Evo X
Don't feel disheartened. There are some cars that have better performance and are even cheaper! JL posted a link to some of them last week. Some of them had fewer irritating rattles from the dashboard, according to the reviewers. Well, 1st of all, I'm hardly disheartened. The 2009 model will be shipped any week now and then I'll have what I want. Also: There is no better performing AWD sedan, cheaper or otherwise. And no one posted links to them. I bet you'll gloss over that one! Now I'm off to the home theater. My wife and I are about to watch Kill Bill 2 on our lavish system that you can't afford. Cheers! RB |
Evo X
On 29 Sep, 03:33, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
Don't feel disheartened. There are some cars that have better performance and are even cheaper! JL posted a link to some of them last week. Some of them had fewer irritating rattles from the dashboard, according to the reviewers. Well, 1st of all, I'm hardly disheartened. The 2009 model will be shipped any week now and then I'll have what I want. Also: There is no better performing AWD sedan, cheaper or otherwise. And no one posted links to them. I bet you'll gloss over that one! How much? Here's a link:- http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/220788/ subaru_impreza_wrx_sti_type_uk_versus_mitsubishi_e vo_x_fq300_sst.html One of many derogatory comments from that link:- "And what does all this leave you with once you actually settle down to driving? A slightly unsatisfying car, I知 afraid. " Now I'm off to the home theater. My wife and I are about to watch Kill Bill 2 on our lavish system that you can't afford. You are correct! I couldn't afford to be seen with that pretentious tat in my house! Regards Donal -- |
Evo X
On Sep 29, 9:22 am, wrote:
On 29 Sep, 03:33, "Capt. Rob" wrote: Don't feel disheartened. There are some cars that have better performance and are even cheaper! JL posted a link to some of them last week. Some of them had fewer irritating rattles from the dashboard, according to the reviewers. Well, 1st of all, I'm hardly disheartened. The 2009 model will be shipped any week now and then I'll have what I want. Also: There is no better performing AWD sedan, cheaper or otherwise. And no one posted links to them. I bet you'll gloss over that one! How much? Here's a link:- http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/220788/ subaru_impreza_wrx_sti_type_uk_versus_mitsubishi_e vo_x_fq300_sst.html One of many derogatory comments from that link:- "And what does all this leave you with once you actually settle down to driving? A slightly unsatisfying car, I知 afraid. " Now I'm off to the home theater. My wife and I are about to watch Kill Bill 2 on our lavish system that you can't afford. You are correct! I couldn't afford to be seen with that pretentious tat in my house! Regards Donal -- I think it's great that time and again you demonstrate that you're in no way afraid to look dumb and ignorant. The car tested in that review is the SST version. My car is a GSR, which delivers more WHP (25 more) and has a different firmer suspension. You should certainly stick to what you know. We just can't figure out what that may be! RB |
Evo X
You are correct! I couldn't afford to be seen with that pretentious tat in my house! Regards Donal -- Yeah, those Magnepan panels sure are pretentious! http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p3696847-5.jpg So is the fully custom amp section and tube pre-amps. Just think of the special kisses your wife must be holding back! Oh, and we missed the thrilling car you drive. What was it again? Hmmmmm? RB |
Evo X
On 29 Sep, 23:41, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
On Sep 29, 9:22 am, wrote: On 29 Sep, 03:33, "Capt. Rob" wrote: Don't feel disheartened. There are some cars that have better performance and are even cheaper! JL posted a link to some of them last week. Some of them had fewer irritating rattles from the dashboard, according to the reviewers. Well, 1st of all, I'm hardly disheartened. The 2009 model will be shipped any week now and then I'll have what I want. Also: There is no better performing AWD sedan, cheaper or otherwise. And no one posted links to them. I bet you'll gloss over that one! How much? Here's a link:- http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/220788/ subaru_impreza_wrx_sti_type_uk_versus_mitsubishi_e vo_x_fq300_sst.html One of many derogatory comments from that link:- "And what does all this leave you with once you actually settle down to driving? A slightly unsatisfying car, I知 afraid. " Now I'm off to the home theater. My wife and I are about to watch Kill Bill 2 on our lavish system that you can't afford. You are correct! I couldn't afford to be seen with that pretentious tat in my house! Regards Donal -- I think it's great that time and again you demonstrate that you're in no way afraid to look dumb and ignorant. The car tested in that review is the SST version. My car is a GSR, which delivers more WHP (25 more) and has a different firmer suspension. You should certainly stick to what you know. We just can't figure out what that may be! Soooo... tell me. Could you hit a set of green traffic lights at 50, and turn right without scratching the waiting cars?.... or using the brakes?? Think carefully before you heap scorn on me. You should know me well enough to take the path that will avoid disaster. Unfortunately, I know you well enough to know that you will choose personal humiliation over common sense. Regards Donal -- |
Evo X
wrote:
You should certainly stick to what you know. We just can't figure out what that may be! Soooo... tell me. Could you hit a set of green traffic lights at 50, and turn right without scratching the waiting cars?.... or using the brakes?? If I may be crude: Enough ****ing around, you want real bragging rights, you want a real sports car, you want a car that will turn every head for six blocks? Try this: http://www.bugatti.com/en/veyron-16.4.html 0-60MPH 2.7 seconds. Skid pan numbers, forget it, none of those cheap propaganda rags that Bob reads are ever going to get their hands on on of these. Cheers Marty |
Evo X
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:16:03 -0400, Marty wrote:
wrote: You should certainly stick to what you know. We just can't figure out what that may be! Soooo... tell me. Could you hit a set of green traffic lights at 50, and turn right without scratching the waiting cars?.... or using the brakes?? If I may be crude: Enough ****ing around, you want real bragging rights, you want a real sports car, you want a car that will turn every head for six blocks? Try this: http://www.bugatti.com/en/veyron-16.4.html 0-60MPH 2.7 seconds. Skid pan numbers, forget it, none of those cheap propaganda rags that Bob reads are ever going to get their hands on on of these. Cheers Marty Yeah...beautiful machine.....but it costs a motsa!! OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. |
Evo X
OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:16:03 -0400, Marty wrote: wrote: You should certainly stick to what you know. We just can't figure out what that may be! Soooo... tell me. Could you hit a set of green traffic lights at 50, and turn right without scratching the waiting cars?.... or using the brakes?? If I may be crude: Enough ****ing around, you want real bragging rights, you want a real sports car, you want a car that will turn every head for six blocks? Try this: http://www.bugatti.com/en/veyron-16.4.html 0-60MPH 2.7 seconds. Skid pan numbers, forget it, none of those cheap propaganda rags that Bob reads are ever going to get their hands on on of these. Cheers Marty Yeah...beautiful machine.....but it costs a motsa!! There is that little hitch..... ;-o Cheers Marty |
Evo X
On 1 Oct, 05:56, OzOne wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Here's a link:- http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/220788/ subaru_impreza_wrx_sti_type_uk_versus_mitsubishi_ evo_x_fq300_sst.html One of many derogatory comments from that link:- "And what does all this leave you with once you actually settle down to driving? A slightly unsatisfying car, I知 afraid. " Guess the guy really wanted his satisfaction when he pulled up at the ballet and the parking attendant started droolong over the 'Aston'..... "F" the ballet!! You would have loved what I did yesterday!! Steering with the throttle ... hands on my knees... Speed between 80 and 110 mph (hands on the knees, not on the wheel)... It was exactly like sailing without a rudder when you balance the main versus the genoa. You would have LOVED it Oz. Don't tell me that you wouldn't have enjoyed doing 180 degree turns, 270, 360, and 720 turns in an Aston. Regards Donal -- |
Evo X
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:51:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On 1 Oct, 05:56, OzOne wrote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Here's a link:- http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/220788/ subaru_impreza_wrx_sti_type_uk_versus_mitsubishi_ evo_x_fq300_sst.html One of many derogatory comments from that link:- "And what does all this leave you with once you actually settle down to driving? A slightly unsatisfying car, I知 afraid. " Guess the guy really wanted his satisfaction when he pulled up at the ballet and the parking attendant started droolong over the 'Aston'..... "F" the ballet!! You would have loved what I did yesterday!! Steering with the throttle ... hands on my knees... Speed between 80 and 110 mph (hands on the knees, not on the wheel)... It was exactly like sailing without a rudder when you balance the main versus the genoa. You would have LOVED it Oz. Don't tell me that you wouldn't have enjoyed doing 180 degree turns, 270, 360, and 720 turns in an Aston. Regards Donal Hmmm, sounds like fun....next time try it in a more nimble car :-) OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. |
Evo X
On 1 Oct, 23:58, OzOne wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:51:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On 1 Oct, 05:56, OzOne wrote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Here's a link:- http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/220788/ subaru_impreza_wrx_sti_type_uk_versus_mitsubishi_ evo_x_fq300_sst.html One of many derogatory comments from that link:- "And what does all this leave you with once you actually settle down to driving? A slightly unsatisfying car, I m afraid. " Guess the guy really wanted his satisfaction when he pulled up at the ballet and the parking attendant started droolong over the 'Aston'..... "F" the ballet!! You would have loved what I did yesterday!! Steering with the throttle ... hands on my knees... Speed between 80 and 110 mph (hands on the knees, not on the wheel)... It was exactly like sailing without a rudder when you balance the main versus the genoa. You would have LOVED it Oz. Don't tell me that you wouldn't have enjoyed doing 180 degree turns, 270, 360, and 720 turns in an Aston. Regards Donal Hmmm, sounds like fun....next time try it in a more nimble car :-) It was the most fun that I have had in more than 30 years! Next time it looks like a F360 and AMV8 morning, followed by rally instruction in the afternoon. Do they qualify as more nimble? Regards Donal -- |
Evo X
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On 1 Oct, 23:58, OzOne wrote: On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:51:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On 1 Oct, 05:56, OzOne wrote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Here's a link:- http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/220788/ subaru_impreza_wrx_sti_type_uk_versus_mitsubishi_ evo_x_fq300_sst.html One of many derogatory comments from that link:- "And what does all this leave you with once you actually settle down to driving? A slightly unsatisfying car, I m afraid. " Guess the guy really wanted his satisfaction when he pulled up at the ballet and the parking attendant started droolong over the 'Aston'..... "F" the ballet!! You would have loved what I did yesterday!! Steering with the throttle ... hands on my knees... Speed between 80 and 110 mph (hands on the knees, not on the wheel)... It was exactly like sailing without a rudder when you balance the main versus the genoa. You would have LOVED it Oz. Don't tell me that you wouldn't have enjoyed doing 180 degree turns, 270, 360, and 720 turns in an Aston. Regards Donal Hmmm, sounds like fun....next time try it in a more nimble car :-) It was the most fun that I have had in more than 30 years! Next time it looks like a F360 and AMV8 morning, followed by rally instruction in the afternoon. Do they qualify as more nimble? Regards Donal It wouldn't take much to be more nimble that the 'Aston'.....I was talking substantially more nimble. Still It sounds like you're exploring your limits which is a good thing OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. |
Evo X
On 5 Oct, 03:22, OzOne wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On 1 Oct, 23:58, OzOne wrote: On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:51:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On 1 Oct, 05:56, OzOne wrote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Here's a link:- http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/220788/ subaru_impreza_wrx_sti_type_uk_versus_mitsubishi_ evo_x_fq300_sst.html One of many derogatory comments from that link:- "And what does all this leave you with once you actually settle down to driving? A slightly unsatisfying car, I m afraid. " Guess the guy really wanted his satisfaction when he pulled up at the ballet and the parking attendant started droolong over the 'Aston'..... "F" the ballet!! You would have loved what I did yesterday!! Steering with the throttle ... hands on my knees... Speed between 80 and 110 mph (hands on the knees, not on the wheel)... It was exactly like sailing without a rudder when you balance the main versus the genoa. You would have LOVED it Oz. Don't tell me that you wouldn't have enjoyed doing 180 degree turns, 270, 360, and 720 turns in an Aston. Regards Donal Hmmm, sounds like fun....next time try it in a more nimble car :-) It was the most fun that I have had in more than 30 years! Next time it looks like a F360 and AMV8 morning, followed by rally instruction in the afternoon. Do they qualify as more nimble? Regards Donal It wouldn't take much to be more nimble that the 'Aston'.....I was talking substantially more nimble. So... the F360 doesn't make it? What would you recommend? I still haven't booked the next outing. A friend and I are going to do a "Driving Experience" day for our next birthday (51). I am genuinely open to suggestions! Still It sounds like you're exploring your limits which is a good thing Last Tuesday... limits were not "explored", they were "exploded". I'm looking forward to learning more about driving. Regards Donal -- |
Evo X
|
Evo X
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:45:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
BTW if you can get into a lowly MX5 on that track...give one of them a go too. Not bags of power but balanced like you won't believe and with brakes that just suck the car down onto the road. OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. |
Evo X
It wouldn't take much to be more nimble that the 'Aston'.....I was
talking substantially more nimble. That's putting it nicely. A DB9 is a road car, not a canyon slicer. The Evo is so much more fun. But folks like Donal literally see something more shiny and they expect it must be better. The Aston is VERY shiny, but it's so far down the rungs of handling that I find it hard to believe any school course with use one. An M3 would make much more sense. I actually don't think an Evo would be best to teach someone like Donal though. The Evo is best for someone who understands balance and the full benefit of the AYC system. He needs to play with more basic metal before he can appreciate why the Evo is being stacked up against supercars. RB |
Evo X
On 6 Oct, 03:08, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
It wouldn't take much to be more nimble that the 'Aston'.....I was talking substantially more nimble. That's putting it nicely. A DB9 is a road car, not a canyon slicer. You know absolutely *nothing* about driving a DB9. Your posts make it clear that you have never even been a passenger in a DB9. The Evo is so much more fun. But folks like Donal literally see something more shiny and they expect it must be better. The Aston is VERY shiny, but it's so far down the rungs of handling that I find it hard to believe any school course with use one. An M3 would make much more sense. I actually don't think an Evo would be best to teach someone like Donal though. The Evo is best for someone who understands balance and the full benefit of the AYC system. He needs to play with more basic metal before he can appreciate why the Evo is being stacked up against supercars. I agree. The Evo is best for people understand balance. The DB9 is for people who don't need to bother learning about balance. You can floor it into a sharp corner, and the computer system will take care of balance. When I mentioned 50mph right angle turns in an earlier post, the bit that I omitted was that they were done on a wet skid pan! The car skidded less than 8 feet!!! Bob, you don't seem to understand the difference between a "Supercar" and a turbo-charged family saloon. The DB9's handling is not as good as the Bugati Veyron. But, it is much better than the turbo-charged Evo. Now, why don't you tell us where you took that photo of M31? As I said earlier, it wasn't taken within 50 miles of New York. Pawn to K5. Check. Regards Donal -- |
Evo X
|
Evo X
You
can floor it into a sharp corner, and the computer system will take care of balance. It will? How? Using the traction control to the rear diff or the stability control? Donal, no one thinks a DB9 handles better than a Evo. That's probably because it wasn't designed to. To put it in perspective a tuned Evo will be more nimble than a new GT-R. With time you may learn about cars and driving. A LOT of time. RB |
Evo X
Now, why don't you tell us where you took that photo of M31? As I
said earlier, it wasn't taken within 50 miles of New York. I'm guessing that you mean 50 miles from Manhattan or even the boroughs. I know you're pretty ignorant, but you might want to check maximum elevation and distance of Kent Cliffs. The photo was taken from my deck as stated. You checkmated yourself a while back with this one. RB |
Evo X
On 7 Oct, 01:00, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
Now, why don't you tell us where you took that photo of M31? As I said earlier, it wasn't taken within 50 miles of New York. I'm guessing that you mean 50 miles from Manhattan or even the boroughs. I know you're pretty ignorant, but you might want to check maximum elevation and distance of Kent Cliffs. The photo was taken from my deck as stated. You checkmated yourself a while back with this one. OK Kent Cliffs is *60* miles north of NYC. My statement was that it taken more than 50 miles from NY. Far from checkmating myself, I have shown you what can be gleaned from even a poor quality image. Regards Donal -- |
Evo X
On Oct 7, 1:33 pm, wrote:
On 7 Oct, 01:00, "Capt. Rob" wrote: Now, why don't you tell us where you took that photo of M31? As I said earlier, it wasn't taken within 50 miles of New York. I'm guessing that you mean 50 miles from Manhattan or even the boroughs. I know you're pretty ignorant, but you might want to check maximum elevation and distance of Kent Cliffs. The photo was taken from my deck as stated. You checkmated yourself a while back with this one. OK Kent Cliffs is *60* miles north of NYC. My statement was that it taken more than 50 miles from NY. Far from checkmating myself, I have shown you what can be gleaned from even a poor quality image. You said it wasn't taken from my home. It was. You were wrong and even more so since you added the part about distance, so you were even wrong about where I actually am. So you were wrong twice. As for the image, I like it a lot. It's taken piggyback with one short exposure and no wedge. But let's not lose sight of your hilarious DB9 computer statement. That was truly funny! And you got to be wrong yet again! RB |
Evo X
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:45:30 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob"
wrote: As for the image, I like it a lot. It's taken piggyback with one short exposure and no wedge. I wanna see this pic!!!! OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. |
Evo X
On Oct 7, 6:05 pm, OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:45:30 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob" wrote: As for the image, I like it a lot. It's taken piggyback with one short exposure and no wedge. I wanna see this pic!!!! Here ya go.... http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p677285558-5.jpg 1st time I ever tried such a shot and this was with a Nikon D300 and a Tamron 90 DI Macro lens, ISO 1000 and 64 seconds. That's near the limit without an EQ wedge due to field rotation. I was also happy with it since the Scope was sitting on my wood deck! RB |
Evo X
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:35:09 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob"
wrote: On Oct 7, 6:05 pm, OzOne wrote: On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:45:30 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob" wrote: As for the image, I like it a lot. It's taken piggyback with one short exposure and no wedge. I wanna see this pic!!!! Here ya go.... http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p677285558-5.jpg 1st time I ever tried such a shot and this was with a Nikon D300 and a Tamron 90 DI Macro lens, ISO 1000 and 64 seconds. That's near the limit without an EQ wedge due to field rotation. I was also happy with it since the Scope was sitting on my wood deck! RB Oh...... OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. |
Evo X
On 8 Oct, 01:54, OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:35:09 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob" wrote: On Oct 7, 6:05 pm, OzOne wrote: On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:45:30 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob" wrote: As for the image, I like it a lot. It's taken piggyback with one short exposure and no wedge. I wanna see this pic!!!! Here ya go.... http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p677285558-5.jpg 1st time I ever tried such a shot and this was with a Nikon D300 and a Tamron 90 DI Macro lens, ISO 1000 and 64 seconds. That's near the limit without an EQ wedge due to field rotation. I was also happy with it since the Scope was sitting on my wood deck! RB Oh...... Here is another, not very good, image of the same object! http://www.lanode.com/astro/m31fsqfr.jpg Regards Donal -- |
Evo X
On 7 Oct, 22:45, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
On Oct 7, 1:33 pm, wrote: On 7 Oct, 01:00, "Capt. Rob" wrote: Now, why don't you tell us where you took that photo of M31? As I said earlier, it wasn't taken within 50 miles of New York. I'm guessing that you mean 50 miles from Manhattan or even the boroughs. I know you're pretty ignorant, but you might want to check maximum elevation and distance of Kent Cliffs. The photo was taken from my deck as stated. You checkmated yourself a while back with this one. OK Kent Cliffs is *60* miles north of NYC. My statement was that it taken more than 50 miles from NY. Far from checkmating myself, I have shown you what can be gleaned from even a poor quality image. You said it wasn't taken from my home. I don't think that I said that at all. I "found it difficult" to believe that you took it from home, as I thought that you lived nearer NYC. The only definite statement that I made was that the image was not taken within 50 miles of NY. You have proved that I am absolutely correct, as usual. It was. You were wrong and even more so since you added the part about distance, so you were even wrong about where I actually am. So you were wrong twice. Nonsense! Was it taken from Kent Cliffs? Unless there is more than one Kent Cliffs in NY, then it was taken 60 miles from the city. Regards Donal -- |
Evo X
On Oct 8, 7:20 am, wrote:
On 8 Oct, 01:54, OzOne wrote: On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:35:09 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob" wrote: On Oct 7, 6:05 pm, OzOne wrote: On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:45:30 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob" wrote: As for the image, I like it a lot. It's taken piggyback with one short exposure and no wedge. I wanna see this pic!!!! Here ya go.... http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p677285558-5.jpg 1st time I ever tried such a shot and this was with a Nikon D300 and a Tamron 90 DI Macro lens, ISO 1000 and 64 seconds. That's near the limit without an EQ wedge due to field rotation. I was also happy with it since the Scope was sitting on my wood deck! RB Oh...... Here is another, not very good, image of the same object! http://www.lanode.com/astro/m31fsqfr.jpg Regards Donal -- Wow! You did that piggyback with one exposure? Zoweee! RB |
Evo X
On Oct 8, 7:28 am, wrote:
On 7 Oct, 22:45, "Capt. Rob" wrote: On Oct 7, 1:33 pm, wrote: On 7 Oct, 01:00, "Capt. Rob" wrote: Now, why don't you tell us where you took that photo of M31? As I said earlier, it wasn't taken within 50 miles of New York. I'm guessing that you mean 50 miles from Manhattan or even the boroughs. I know you're pretty ignorant, but you might want to check maximum elevation and distance of Kent Cliffs. The photo was taken from my deck as stated. You checkmated yourself a while back with this one. OK Kent Cliffs is *60* miles north of NYC. My statement was that it taken more than 50 miles from NY. Far from checkmating myself, I have shown you what can be gleaned from even a poor quality image. You said it wasn't taken from my home. I don't think that I said that at all. I "found it difficult" to believe that you took it from home, as I thought that you lived nearer NYC. The only definite statement that I made was that the image was not taken within 50 miles of NY. You have proved that I am absolutely correct, as usual. It was. You were wrong and even more so since you added the part about distance, so you were even wrong about where I actually am. So you were wrong twice. Nonsense! Was it taken from Kent Cliffs? Unless there is more than one Kent Cliffs in NY, then it was taken 60 miles from the city. Nonsense? Haven't you been crying that my photo couldn't POSSIBLY taken from my home? So what exactly were you wrong about? You didn't know where I live, but still questioned where it was taken? Hmmmmm? RB |
Evo X
On 8 Oct, 12:35, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
On Oct 8, 7:28 am, wrote: On 7 Oct, 22:45, "Capt. Rob" wrote: On Oct 7, 1:33 pm, wrote: On 7 Oct, 01:00, "Capt. Rob" wrote: Now, why don't you tell us where you took that photo of M31? As I said earlier, it wasn't taken within 50 miles of New York. I'm guessing that you mean 50 miles from Manhattan or even the boroughs. I know you're pretty ignorant, but you might want to check maximum elevation and distance of Kent Cliffs. The photo was taken from my deck as stated. You checkmated yourself a while back with this one. OK Kent Cliffs is *60* miles north of NYC. My statement was that it taken more than 50 miles from NY. Far from checkmating myself, I have shown you what can be gleaned from even a poor quality image. You said it wasn't taken from my home. I don't think that I said that at all. I "found it difficult" to believe that you took it from home, as I thought that you lived nearer NYC. The only definite statement that I made was that the image was not taken within 50 miles of NY. You have proved that I am absolutely correct, as usual. It was. You were wrong and even more so since you added the part about distance, so you were even wrong about where I actually am. So you were wrong twice. Nonsense! Was it taken from Kent Cliffs? Unless there is more than one Kent Cliffs in NY, then it was taken 60 miles from the city. Nonsense? Haven't you been crying that my photo couldn't POSSIBLY taken from my home? So what exactly were you wrong about? You didn't know where I live, but still questioned where it was taken? Hmmmmm? Now, now, Bob. Calm down. You are acting like an hyerstical "B" rated actress from the 1930's. All I said was that it wasn't taken within 50 miles of NY. As you know, I was correct. I do understand that you are irritated by my ability to interpret your rather poor astrophotograph - taken without a wedge! I have to hand it to you. At least you recognise that you would need a wedge to take a proper photo, with that cheap fork mounted scope. What you don't know, is that even with a wedge, that setup cannot produce a decent photo. If you want to take photos, then you need a proper GEM, or you can spend a million or two on a fork and wedge. Regards Donal -- |
Evo X
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 04:20:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On 8 Oct, 01:54, OzOne wrote: On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:35:09 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob" wrote: On Oct 7, 6:05 pm, OzOne wrote: On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:45:30 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob" wrote: As for the image, I like it a lot. It's taken piggyback with one short exposure and no wedge. I wanna see this pic!!!! Here ya go.... http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p677285558-5.jpg 1st time I ever tried such a shot and this was with a Nikon D300 and a Tamron 90 DI Macro lens, ISO 1000 and 64 seconds. That's near the limit without an EQ wedge due to field rotation. I was also happy with it since the Scope was sitting on my wood deck! RB Oh...... Here is another, not very good, image of the same object! http://www.lanode.com/astro/m31fsqfr.jpg Regards Donal Mmmmmmmm OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. |
Evo X
All I said was that it wasn't taken within 50 miles of
NY. Rewriting history takes some degree of cleverness....and you don't have it. You said, again and again, "Care to tell us where you really took the photo?" It seems that I did from the start. RB |
Evo X
On 8 Oct, 23:33, OzOne wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 04:20:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On 8 Oct, 01:54, OzOne wrote: On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:35:09 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob" wrote: On Oct 7, 6:05 pm, OzOne wrote: On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:45:30 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob" wrote: As for the image, I like it a lot. It's taken piggyback with one short exposure and no wedge. I wanna see this pic!!!! Here ya go.... http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p677285558-5.jpg 1st time I ever tried such a shot and this was with a Nikon D300 and a Tamron 90 DI Macro lens, ISO 1000 and 64 seconds. That's near the limit without an EQ wedge due to field rotation. I was also happy with it since the Scope was sitting on my wood deck! RB Oh...... Here is another, not very good, image of the same object! http://www.lanode.com/astro/m31fsqfr.jpg Regards Donal Mmmmmmmm If conditions are decent tonight, then I might post a decent photo of the same object tomorrow! I'm photographing it now, while Bob is watching an episode of Baywatch on his home cinema!! regards Donal -- |
Evo X
If you want to take photos, then you need a proper GEM,
or you can spend a million or two on a fork and wedge. I don't want to take photos, at least not in any serious measure. I wanted a fun and easy to setup scope that would have great GOTO abilities and cost less than 3 grand complete. The CPC series delivers exactly that. All I added was a better diagonal and some Telveues and it's a perfect scope. BTW, I recently sold my 102 Televue APO and am buying a William Optics 132 triplet. Sorry! RB |
Evo X
On 8 Oct, 23:51, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
If you want to take photos, then you need a proper GEM, or you can spend a million or two on a fork and wedge. I don't want to take photos, at least not in any serious measure. I wanted a fun and easy to setup scope that would have great GOTO abilities and cost less than 3 grand complete. The CPC series delivers exactly that. All I added was a better diagonal and some Telveues and it's a perfect scope. BTW, I recently sold my 102 Televue APO and am buying a William Optics 132 triplet. Sorry! Hmmmm... Your approach to optics seems to be the same as your approach to boats. You must be the first person in history to move "up" from a Televue to a Williams Optics. WO are good, but they are a bit like Celestron. They are superb value for money. If you want the best, then you really cannot go for "value for money". Furthermore, if you want a good refractor, then you need a quadruplet. The triplets are good, but they are not perfect. It's a bit like comparing an Evo with a DB9. Regards V12 DON -- |
Evo X
wrote in message
... On 8 Oct, 12:35, "Capt. Rob" wrote: On Oct 8, 7:28 am, wrote: On 7 Oct, 22:45, "Capt. Rob" wrote: On Oct 7, 1:33 pm, wrote: On 7 Oct, 01:00, "Capt. Rob" wrote: Now, why don't you tell us where you took that photo of M31? As I said earlier, it wasn't taken within 50 miles of New York. I'm guessing that you mean 50 miles from Manhattan or even the boroughs. I know you're pretty ignorant, but you might want to check maximum elevation and distance of Kent Cliffs. The photo was taken from my deck as stated. You checkmated yourself a while back with this one. OK Kent Cliffs is *60* miles north of NYC. My statement was that it taken more than 50 miles from NY. Far from checkmating myself, I have shown you what can be gleaned from even a poor quality image. You said it wasn't taken from my home. I don't think that I said that at all. I "found it difficult" to believe that you took it from home, as I thought that you lived nearer NYC. The only definite statement that I made was that the image was not taken within 50 miles of NY. You have proved that I am absolutely correct, as usual. It was. You were wrong and even more so since you added the part about distance, so you were even wrong about where I actually am. So you were wrong twice. Nonsense! Was it taken from Kent Cliffs? Unless there is more than one Kent Cliffs in NY, then it was taken 60 miles from the city. Nonsense? Haven't you been crying that my photo couldn't POSSIBLY taken from my home? So what exactly were you wrong about? You didn't know where I live, but still questioned where it was taken? Hmmmmm? Now, now, Bob. Calm down. You are acting like an hyerstical "B" rated actress from the 1930's. All I said was that it wasn't taken within 50 miles of NY. As you know, I was correct. I do understand that you are irritated by my ability to interpret your rather poor astrophotograph - taken without a wedge! I have to hand it to you. At least you recognise that you would need a wedge to take a proper photo, with that cheap fork mounted scope. What you don't know, is that even with a wedge, that setup cannot produce a decent photo. If you want to take photos, then you need a proper GEM, or you can spend a million or two on a fork and wedge. Regards Donal -- Here's BS' new vehicle... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktD-SN3C4h4 -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ｩ2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com