February 2005 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Apology, with explanation
by Chuck Hards 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

To All: A list member has contacted me, apparently greivously insulted by my post on one-dimensional scientists/astronomers. Please, folks, if I insulted anyone it was not my intent. I only wanted to expand on Debbies observation that most (perhaps all) of us have so much more to our personalities than astronomy; the "geek" label was perhaps unfair. I wrote that while the people I have met to date have astronomy in common, it was in fact the least interesting aspect of their personalities. It just happens to be the interest that brings us together. I never intended to insult scientists or astronomers just for being scientists or astronomers. I pointed out that those who had no other interests or passions important to them were missing-out on the truly important things in life, that science is a tool to help us understand a greater truth, and not and end unto itself. I have friends who are scientists; those with other facets to their personalities are more whole, complete people (and more interesting of necessity!), those who have nothing else dear to them but their work tend to be bitter and broken, and have missed out on much in life. This is not an attribute of a life of science only, but of humanity. There are multi-faceted, interesting scientists and astronomers as well as single-purpose, soul-less, boring scientists and astronomers. I have known both types in my life. This condition can affect all of us, not just research scientists or astronomers, but they are the ones who stand out as examples from my own expereince, and what makes the post (somewhat remotely, it seems) applicable to an astronomy forum. Again, if anyone feels insulted, please understand that that was not my intent, and if taken as written I do not believe that it is insulting. But if anyone can't get past the feeling, then I am truly sorry I caused you that bad feeling. Life is too short to take personal insult where general observation was the intent. As always, thanks for your time. C. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Planetarium
by Chuck Hards 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

Dale, I remember Dr. Littman fondly as well. He always made me feel like he was genuinely interested in me, and was never too busy to give me a few minutes of his time. I used to stick my head in his office just to say "hi" whenever I went downtown on the bus as a kid (usually to hang-out at the library and planetarium) and he always would smile and ask how I had been, what I had been up to. He would show me books that just came-in that he thought I might be interested in, or take me downstairs and give me advance peeks at upcoming star shows. When I got a little older, he let me hang a black-light painting in the "Black Light Gallery", and let me spruce up a display after the planetariums own model collection fell into some disrepair. He even let me park in the staff lot when I got my driver's license, much to the annoyance of some other staffers, but not the ones who were my friends, astronomer John Mosely and the machinists, Joe Starr (no kidding!) and Mr. Campbell. And yes, one day a guy named Patrick Wiggins got hired-on and he let me wander at-will behind the scenes, too. I spent hundreds of hours in the library poring over old issues of S&T, charts & books. Those are very fond memories. In my opinion, Littman was the best director the place ever had. Nothing against Dr. George or Seth Jarvis, but they are completely out-of-touch with any member of the public who has a genuine interest in the stars. They are mere administrators, concerned with the bottom-line; Dr. Littman was a compassionate, caring, effective leader and teacher. Where the current crop of directors concern themselves with generating profits, Littman concerned himself with bringing the stars to the people. Even the little people, one-at-a-time. Dale wrote: > This is certainly not meant as an affront to Patrick > - but I thought the > planetarium began to decline after (I believe it > was) an overreaching > county official terminated director Dr. Mark Littman __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

1 0

Consider me a geeky stargazing type
by Bob Grant 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

I chuckled at Rolly's column this morning, but then I usually chuckle or harrumph at his column. I am not his source for this story, but I was his source for the goofiness in small print on the enclosure sent with the water bill about a year ago. I chuckled because I remember attending my first SLAS meeting at Hansen Planetarium several years ago and coming home to tell my wife I had never been surrounded by so many geeks like myself. If Rolly is asked to apologize, I'd be tempted to be his next source, too. I'd tell him of the recent discussion on this list about which planets were visible on October 14, 1918. Hey, I referenced two different planetarium software sources myself, and got different answers. The only reason I didn't check a third source was that the cat was sleeping on my lap and I didn't have the heart to wake him up to cross the room. So I was befuddled and couldn't ring in with an answer. Bob Grant Befuddled Geek

1 0