Collimation VS Parallax (1 Viewer)

[tenex]

I don’t think one would have to look too deeply into Birdforum to see that some of my comments didn’t have time to get their shoes on before you were Johnny-on-the-spot to contradict me, or at least cast distrusts on what I have said...
...
...
...

No one seems to be disputing my observation that there has not been "much talk on this forum" suffering from this confusion, and instead of simply answering where there has been, you fill a page with complaints and random rants. I was aware of this propensity but not actually trying to provoke it, so do feel free to stop, anytime.

 

[WJC]

No one seems to be disputing my observation that there has not been "much talk on this forum" suffering from this confusion, and instead of simply answering where there has been, you fill a page with complaints and random rants. I was aware of this propensity but not actually trying to provoke it, so do feel free to stop, anytime.

230810

Tenex:

You seem to be a legend in your own mind, so I will give you a chance to keep your own company. I said, "this and other forums" and gave you two examples from just this week. Apparently you don't read to understand either. I will not ignore you because you so frequently differ with me—heck I raised teens to adulthood—but because you are an incorrigible, optically deficient, waste of time. I still think the forum would be enriched if you took seriously my invitation to tell us all about you credentials and experience in optics or with binoculars. You have led me to believe that you have neither. And, of course, it seems when I try to bring you into reality I’m accused of offering a “rant.” Are all those who disagree with you ... “ranting.”

"I wise man speaks when he has something to say; a fool speaks when he has to say something."—Plato

I ask kindly, again, if you have the wherewithal to call me out, please share with us the facts behind the mouth/fingers. I have answered all your challenges ... in spades, and realistically. And for all of them to pass over your head, I am forced to think that your head may not be working on all four. If you can’t show us the goods, you’re just howling at the moon to see if you can get the attention you seem to crave. And I just don’t have time to play with you anymore. As it stands now, you are like a hot air balloon ... without the balloon. I firmly believe you have a right to speak—useful of not, realistic or not, uplifting or not. But please allow me the right to ignore you. I find you to be as it says in Desiderata, “a vexation to the spirit” and a continuing disservice to this forum.

Cheers,

Bill

 

[elkcub]

No one seems to be disputing my observation that there has not been "much talk on this forum" suffering from this confusion, and instead of simply answering where there has been, you fill a page with complaints and random rants. I was aware of this propensity but not actually trying to provoke it, so do feel free to stop, anytime.

Congratulations on your unsuccessful efforts to hijack the thread! You misquoted and misinterpreted what Bill said on post #1, which was:

There has been much talk on this and other forums in which "collimation" and "parallax" are used interchangeably.

Without dragged us through another boring and argumentative semantics interpretation, he was simply making an opening segway to the arcane general topic of Collimation VS Parallax (see title), for which he is an expert and you (and I) are not. Moreover, since he is the OP, YOU are the one who should stop and let those who are interested get on with it.

Ed

 

[WJC]

Congratulations on your unsuccessful efforts to hijack the thread! You misquoted and misinterpreted what Bill said on post #1, which was:

Without dragged us through another boring and argumentative semantics interpretation, he was simply making an opening segway to the arcane general topic of Collimation VS Parallax (see title), for which he is an expert and you (and I) are not. Moreover, since he is the OP, YOU are the one who should stop and let those who are interested get on with it.

Ed

230812

Hi Ed:

Thank you for supporting me.

Starting when I was much younger, I have spent hundreds of hours, including in researching my own optical database, for anything that would help my neighbor with his optical/binoculars queries. During that time ... well, the attachment from, BINOCULARS: Fallacy & Fact explains what has often happened.

I thank you for coming to my aid in this. Many people have appreciated my information and graphics and the to-the-point way they were presented. Yet, almost never will one stand beside me to do the right thing. Most can’t allow themselves to be brought into the fray. For years, however, I have believed in the phrase: “Do what is right; let the consequence follow.” I do and I will.

Cheers,

Bill

 

[tenex]

But please allow me the right to ignore you.

Bill, I practically invited you to ignore me, if the alternative is vituperation like posts 14 and 22.

Congratulations on your unsuccessful efforts to hijack the thread!

Are you serious?

Without dragged us through another boring and argumentative semantics interpretation, he was simply making an opening segway to the arcane general topic of Collimation VS Parallax (see title), for which he is an expert and you (and I) are not. Moreover, since he is the OP, YOU are the one who should stop and let those who are interested get on with it.

Of course I had no intention of obstructing exploration of this topic. I wasn't fooling around with semantics, but trying to make clear what I had said about that segue itself and get out of the way. That didn't seem to work, so I left.

Days later, I still don't see how the attachment in post 14 illustrates the "confusion" alleged in post 1, but perhaps this will be clarified as the topic is further explored, so yes, please do carry on. I thought you might have by now.

 

[albie...]

Bill, I practically invited you to ignore me, if the alternative is vituperation like posts 14 and 22.


Are you serious?

Of course I had no intention of obstructing exploration of this topic. I wasn't fooling around with semantics, but trying to make clear what I had said about that segue itself and get out of the way. That didn't seem to work, so I left.

Days later, I still don't see how the attachment in post 14 illustrates the "confusion" alleged in post 1, but perhaps this will be clarified as the topic is further explored, so yes, please do carry on. I thought you might have by now.

It's quite obvious that you have issues with Bill , I don't believe it's the other way around . Why do you even bother getting involved with his threads when they all seem to end up like this one ?

 

[tenex]

It's quite obvious that you have issues with Bill , I don't believe it's the other way around .

Did you read posts 14 and 22? Actually Bill has serious issues with anyone who questions or contradicts him or ever has or might, and says so at some length all the time, as you really must be aware if you've been reading his posts for years.

Why do you even bother getting involved with his threads...

Lately I have managed to better resist the temptation. It doesn't bother me if he wants to talk about little bottles of fluid. In this particular case it's because the premise of the original post was simply false: confusion of "Collimation vs Parallax" is not common, here or elsewhere. Indeed I wondered what could possibly be said on the subject at all. After another week, the answer is evident.

... when they all seem to end up like this one ?

How they end up is entirely up to Bill. He should just have let this non-topic go and moved on, instead of attacking me and explicitly putting his reputation on the line. That seems unwise, uncomfortably high stakes... all the time. Normal, useful conversations aren't like that.

 

[Maljunulo]

Why don’t you just put Bill on ignore, so we can all “move on”?