"Davoud" <star@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>> > Sorry Ed, but your response seems a bit of a non sequitor to me. I was
>> > explaining the purpose of the CometObs group, not trying to denigrate
>> > people for not being interested in comets.
> Edward Erbeck:
>> Hum - Just what did I write that led you to think I thought you were
>> denigrating any thing/one?
>> >The OP (and I though perhaps you) seem to have a misunderstanding about
>> >purpose of CometObs.
> As OP, I can confirm that I have no understanding of CometObs. I said
> as much when I said "Comet observers seem to be a different breed -- I
> scoured the 'CometObs' Yahoo group in addition to other web sites and
> learned that they have a particular reporting format that I'm certain
> meets /their/ needs. It gives a great description of the various
> components /without/ giving their sky coordinates."
>> I thought it as a wonderful source of information I felt worthy of
>> sharing, no more no less.
> Mr. Crinklaw -- no disparagement meant here -- is a very sensitive man.
> Two days ago he responded to someone else's post by saying "Given that
> you have never once written anything to me that wasn't a criticism (the
> fairly recent one on comets-ml were so mean-spirited and hurtful I
> actually left the forum for several months)..." gives evidence of this.
> I don't remember what I said that offended him and caused him to place
> me in his killfile, but he said I was there "for good reason," and when
> you think about it, he cannot be wrong, because one's reasons for
> shunning another are personal and not really subject to judgement by
Maybe he should consider Efflexor.