Guy, again you have completely missed the point. I never argued the efficiency of technology- it's obvious that it is a labor-saver. Too, I am not convinced that profitability was a concern in this case, or claiming that astronomical observation is a race; that whoever can slew to the most objects per unit of time wins. Efficiency isn't a benchmark when talking about a qualitative experience. Of course the guy in the helicopter saw "more", but he saw far less detail- less "data" if you will. It's the same reason you use a telescope in the first place- you see "more" with the naked eye, (the equivalent of the helicopter view in this case) but for the really interesting, detailed, informative views you gotta have the telescope! (the equivalent of the close-up trail experience). Most of use would rather have the telescope at the star-party, than just the naked-eye, unless counting meteors or some other task that specifically prohibits telescope use. And, again, you didn't seem to notice that I expressly didn't condemn the technology outright and demand its abolishment. You always fall back on that "where would we be" platform even when it's not applicable to the arguement. What I am a proponent of is knowledge itself. I said learn the sky, learn to get along without the technology and you will have a richer experience no matter what your level of eventual instrumentality. Brent, I, Mike, and others know the satisfaction of knowing the sky as an old friend. Looking up multiple references, reading the full descriptions from many sources, finding the objects in different seasons, parts of the sky, different instruments. Learning the aspects of celestial motions, intuitively feeling the movement of the machine that is the solar system, the rotating earth beneath your feet, the galaxy ascending and descending against the seasonal sky backdrop. You cannot condemn that state of mind until you know what it is. We already know what it means to use a GoTo scope, find everything for us, and let a computer chip give us short, edited descripions. Walk in our shoes first, just as we have walked in yours, then if you still feel you wasted your time, I'll allow that I'm off-base, apologize, and say publicly, "Guy Wins The Debate". And I'm still wondering why someone with your history would even be interested in doing anything the "easy" way, in the first place. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com