Dear Wavytone,
Just because I ask about a telescope issue (in this thread) that is not optics or mount related, does not mean that I have been absent minded over those more crucial topics. I have and continue to give much thought to them! (even in some other places on this site). And of course optical and mount quality take precedence over the optical tube finish. I have never disputed this.
HOWEVER, at least for me, when I plan to spend a good 10 grand on my next telescope to last me the next decade, all else being the same I don't think it is too much to ask for the optical tube finish to remain in good condition and maintain a nice finish when taken care of. I do not think that when you are considering a 10 grand investment, that such a consideration is 'irrational' (see meade image below).
As for your comments implying that I am an "irrational kid", firstly you should know that I live at university (USQ Astronomy is not the only program I am enrolled for) and I choose not to drive, so I do not "squander money" on what you perceive to be poor choices, rather I use my money to support my studies towards becoming a professional astronomer and saving for my next telescope as my interests cover both professional astronomy and recreational stargazing.
It would be nice if you could reply to posts in a non-condescending manner.
Good evening to you.
Regards,
Mark
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavytone
Mark you really need to learn rational decision making using the Analytical Hierachy Process (AHP) or Multi- Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) in order to understand what matters, and what doesn’t.
You remind me of kids who squandered money on poor choices - cars and houses - with no idea why.
Google is your friend.
If the optics are good and it works well the rest is very much in third place.
|