[vsnet-chat 4204] re vs-chat 4203 [was GK Per etc.]

[crawl@zoom.co.uk]

Should any non-CV observers and/or professionals subscribing to this list
feel that Mr Simonsen's point as elucidated in vsnet-chat 4203 [quoted
below] is in any way petty, I shall make the following points.

There are a number of dedicated (visual) observers of CVs out there, with
an international representation, who are fed up of the "prediscovery" of CV
outbursts as reported by Patrick Schmeer.  Indeed, Mr Simonsen is in no way
the only person to have expressed such views.

The effect of these "prediscovery" reports on a not insignificant part of
this CV observing community ranges from a general sapping of morale to
extreme pissed-offed-ness.

Of course it doesn't cosmically speaking matter who the hummer saw
whichever rarely active CV outbursting first, but note the following : -

for _five_ years now I've been hearing on and off about the "pre-discovery"
activities of Patrick Schmeer, of people complaining that after they have
reported a CV in outburst, a later posted report claiming a _prior_
observation has been sent in by scp.

Over the past 18 months there have been several occasions when a flurry of
email postings have appeared in my inbox just after such and such a rare
outburst has occured.  This has been part of a general interplay between a
bevy of observers from the USA, UK, various nations in Continental Europe,
and even on occasions people of an Anitpodean persuasion, all having a
general "private" and unofficial gripe amongst themselves.  On each
occasion the topic has been the same: SCP has after the fact
"prediscovered" the rare outburst.  Indeed, over the past 18 month a
disproportionate fraction of my email has been on this self same repeated
damn topic.

And let it be clear, the vast majority of such complaints are not
instigated by the person who did first see the outburst, but by colleagues
and friends who have noticed the "slight".

For instance, there is currently a cc-ed email doing the rounds (it cropped
up in my inbox this morning), incidentally _not_ penned by Mr Simonsen,
which analytically dissects the scp email prediscovery notification and
shows from header details therein that it post-dates Mr Simonsen's
announcement, whilst stating a 3 day previous observation.

Yet never is the problem resolved, as these amateurs don't really want to
make a fuss and are usually more interested in getting on with observing.

And on occasions the evidence is somewhat circumstantial, and the benefit
of the doubt is given.

But given the long standing of this behaviour, and the fact that I'm bored
to bleeding death of getting email on it from all over the place every few
months, when it _last_ happened, a few months ago now, and the plethora of
emails from the annoyed hit my email inbox, I made the following suggestion
to everybody, and also stated that if he should repeat the exercise again,
that due to my sheer annoyance with the whole never ending crap of it all,
I'd make the comment public.

Next time Patrick Schmeer prediscovers a CV in outburst, will _everybody_
kindly send him the following email directly:-

"Dear SCP, we know what you're up to, now kindly pack the fuck in!!!!!!!!!!!"

And I don't care if such sentiments get me unsubscribed/banned, I am bored
to death with this problem.

AND you should all note: _ignoring_ this _real_ problem has _not_ worked up
to date.

AND, the only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to the sods.

Cheers

John Greaves


vsnet-chat 4203 was :-

>Am I the only one who finds it suspicious that the initials Scp 'eventually'
>find their way into the VSNET/ AAVSO data when outbursts of "important"
>objects are announced by other observers.
>
>After weeks, perhaps months of absolutely no observations being posted
>publicly (quiescence?), suddenly Patrick reports observations made days,
>hours or minutes prior to the detections already posted to the internet by
>other observers. These "observations" are usually posted *after* the initial
>detections. And strangely enough, they are not "observations" made just
>*after* the initial (dare I say, legitimate?) detections.
>
>After a quick look through vsnet records one can find a number of recent
>examples:
>DO Dra Nov. 2000 -posted after Chris Jones
>HT Cam May 2000 -posted after Timo Kinnunen
>QY Per Dec. 1999 -posted after Mike Simonsen
>HT Cas July 1999 -posted after Eddy Muyllaert
>WX Cet Nov.1998 -posted after Rod Stubbings
>V1251 Cyg  ????  -posted after Gary Poyner
>
>Looks like a pattern to me. And now, true to the apparent period of this
>phenomenon we have:
>20010405.076   132  (M. Simonsen)
>20010405.817   132  (M. Reszelski)
>**20010407.833 130 Scp**
>**20010412.819 128 Scp**
>20010414.089   127  (M. Simonsen)
>20010414.810   126  (M. Reszelski)
>20010415.103   127  (M. Simonsen)
>
>Why, if he observed GK Per bright on the evening
>of the 12th, did he wait until the morning of the 15th (*after* the
>brightening had been confirmed by other observers) to report it?
>
>Putting aside the false claims of credit, his actions can only serve to cast
>suspicion on the results of the hard work of the majority of
>dedicated and honest amateur observers.
>
>I don't care if my name appears in obscure astrophysical papers on the
>behavior of cataclysmic variables. I observe because I enjoy it, and
>frankly, I can't stop! But fair play is fair play.
>
>If I am the only one who finds this troubling, I shall not bring it up
>again...not even the next time.
>
>M. Simonsen

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp