On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 09:45:12 -0700 (PDT), brian@xxxxxxx (Brian Tung)
>Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> As I read it, what you said was the RA axis does not need to be aligned
>> to the celestial pole axis. That is false everywhere.
>Strictly speaking, he should have used "that" instead of "which."
>> Your statement could also be interpreted in a different (and correct
>> way). That's what ambiguous means.
>Then he needs a comma before the non-restrictive "which." :)
Of course, I knew what he meant (because I know that he understands how
an equatorial mount works). I just found it amusing that he chose to
misinterpret Stephen's ambiguous comment, and then attempted to clarify
things with a similarly ambiguous comment. I'm quite sure Stephen also
understands how an equatorial mount works.
There's no escaping condescending school teachers on this group!
Chris L Peterson