Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

5min maximum integration time?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
197 replies to this topic

#176 Rickster

Rickster

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,504
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2008
  • Loc: NC Kansas Bortle 3 SQM 21.8+

Posted 27 November 2019 - 02:39 PM

I should add that yes, I agree that 5 minutes is plenty for me on Messier objects.  I have a 16in scope under dark skies.  And yes, I moved past the Messier objects long ago.  I am always pushing for the limits of what I can see given my rig and location.  And I think that (pushing) attitude is the most common characteristic of all astronomers, of all times, and of all types. 


 

#177 Clouzot

Clouzot

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 337
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2018
  • Loc: French Riviera

Posted 27 November 2019 - 02:42 PM

Just of the tops of your heads, think about the integration times for the Messier objects, is 5 min enough? You betcha. Planetary? Solar? So is it really limiting, or are most of you beyond that stuff? If you are, that's fine, but know that you guys arguing are the outliers of the average observer.

At f/2, 5 minutes is more than enough to capture a majority of Messier objects (M42, M31 come to mind) but try and grab detail in say, M33 or M63 under 5 minutes with your average sky... And f/2 is probably an exception here, so you may probably multiply those durations by 2 or 3 for the common f/4 to f/6 telescope.

Of course, some will be happy with a 5-minute integration of M33 using a C8 and a x0.63 reducer. I was, until I became confident enough to integrate some more. And boy did it make a difference in what I was able to observe...
 

#178 Barkingsteve

Barkingsteve

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 77
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2018
  • Loc: Essex, U.K.

Posted 27 November 2019 - 03:58 PM

I personally have said several times including in this post to bear with us and we are working on a compromise that will give everyone some but not all of what they want. Please everyone, do so.

I think some kind of compromise is all most people were asking for so thank you for listening.


 

#179 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 21,024
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 27 November 2019 - 05:55 PM

Just of the tops of your heads, think about the integration times for the Messier objects, is 5 min enough? You betcha. Planetary? Solar? So is it really limiting, or are most of you beyond that stuff? If you are, that's fine, but know that you guys arguing are the outliers of the average observer.

I'm sorry but that's absolutely not true. First of all there is no "average observer".

 

I have gone a lot longer than 5 minutes of stacking when observing things like the jet in M87 or the Ha regions in the arms of M33 or the globules in M16. I spend virtually all my time only observing and I just don't capture many images, but I will many times go well over 5 minutes of time on a single object. 

 

Like Hiten and many others I've done a lot of simple viewing of deep/faint objects both on my own and with friends crowded around a monitor, sometimes spending 30 minutes or more on a single object and doing nothing but letting the live stacking continue to run. Nothing IMHO could be better described as EAA ... and now if I happen to post a snapshot taken during that session (no post processing or anything like that) someone is going to tell me it's not EAA? You've got to be kidding me.

 

I've sat on my hands through this whole thread but many of what appear to me to be ill advised comments (many from our mods) have pushed me too far.

 

Virtually none of what we do in this forum is welcome in the AP forum. You can suggest all you want that we're all nice and playing by the rules but it's very clear to anyone who has spent any serious time in there that there is a subtle bias that comes out over time, and makes some folks feel un welcome. Ever wonder what happened to many of those "lucky" imagers who were around over the past few years? (those that use thousands of very short exposures, often on undriven mounts) Most of them don't post on CN anymore or have entirely gone elsewhere for just the simple fact that they don't fit anywhere and don't feel welcome. 

 

Keep setting ill advised arbitrary limits or funnel folks into the AP forum and it will be the same for many EAA observers.

 

Despite being dominated by specific products from time to time this forum has never been about any particular technology or processes, it's about primary intent. Very simply do you set out to view an object or capture it? A snapshot taken during the course of observing isn't "imaging" no matter how much stacking or inline/live processing has been going on.


Edited by mclewis1, 27 November 2019 - 05:56 PM.

 

#180 Don Rudny

Don Rudny

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,659
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Mauna Kea, Hawaii

Posted 27 November 2019 - 06:48 PM

Well said, Mark.  I think many of us have been trying to say the same thing.  I might add one thing, that just because one posts an observing capture here without an observing report, doesn’t mean we’re trying to show a pretty picture.  The capture speaks for itself and the requirement is to also list the equipment and exposure.  Most list what the conditions were, too, so it gives an idea to others what can be achieved with certain equipment in their situation.


Edited by Don Rudny, 27 November 2019 - 06:51 PM.

 

#181 Sean Cunneen

Sean Cunneen

    Let Me Think

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4,032
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Flossmoor Il.

Posted 27 November 2019 - 08:52 PM

I'm sorry but that's absolutely not true. First of all there is no "average observer".

I have gone a lot longer than 5 minutes of stacking when observing things like the jet in M87 or the Ha regions in the arms of M33 or the globules in M16. I spend virtually all my time only observing and I just don't capture many images, but I will many times go well over 5 minutes of time on a single object.

Like Hiten and many others I've done a lot of simple viewing of deep/faint objects both on my own and with friends crowded around a monitor, sometimes spending 30 minutes or more on a single object and doing nothing but letting the live stacking continue to run. Nothing IMHO could be better described as EAA ... and now if I happen to post a snapshot taken during that session (no post processing or anything like that) someone is going to tell me it's not EAA? You've got to be kidding me.

I've sat on my hands through this whole thread but many of what appear to me to be ill advised comments (many from our mods) have pushed me too far.

Virtually none of what we do in this forum is welcome in the AP forum. You can suggest all you want that we're all nice and playing by the rules but it's very clear to anyone who has spent any serious time in there that there is a subtle bias that comes out over time, and makes some folks feel un welcome. Ever wonder what happened to many of those "lucky" imagers who were around over the past few years? (those that use thousands of very short exposures, often on undriven mounts) Most of them don't post on CN anymore or have entirely gone elsewhere for just the simple fact that they don't fit anywhere and don't feel welcome.

Keep setting ill advised arbitrary limits or funnel folks into the AP forum and it will be the same for many EAA observers.

Despite being dominated by specific products from time to time this forum has never been about any particular technology or processes, it's about primary intent. Very simply do you set out to view an object or capture it? A snapshot taken during the course of observing isn't "imaging" no matter how much stacking or inline/live processing has been going on.


Please read the 5 minute rule again as what it asks and what you are complaining about have nothing in common.

You are assuming that a 5 minute limit on integrations means you are not permitted to observe longer than 5 minutes. This is not valid, you can observe as long as you like.

EAA is changing, equipment and software are making it easier for you to collect and process images on the fly and we have a duty to make sure that all ways of enjoying the hobby are represented.
 

#182 CharlesC

CharlesC

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,217
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Georgia

Posted 27 November 2019 - 09:07 PM

Not logging on to CN is permitted too, and more are taking that route with EAA rules that are exclusive instead of inclusive.


Edited by CharlesC, 27 November 2019 - 09:07 PM.

 

#183 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5,314
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 27 November 2019 - 09:07 PM

Regards to the question of times in the AP forums, I think if you check out the image specs posted you'll see that there is a spread of times. At the lower end you'll find 5-10 minute total integration times of certain wavelengths to be combined. The truth is, looking outside this forum, 5 minutes makes sense for now in terms of pics posted. I don't think any mod cares to limit or impose a time limit as to what is or isn't EAA or AP, but for the vitality of the forum, we have to keep posts pertinent and away from mixing into AP.

This is getting tiresome... the point I and many others are making is that the difference between EAA and AP is intent not exposure time.

 

Check out some observing videos on my website: https://raniobservat...log/eaa-videos/. I usually spend 10-15mins on most faint objects.

 

Do any of these look like AP? 


Edited by Astrojedi, 27 November 2019 - 09:08 PM.

 

#184 Don Rudny

Don Rudny

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,659
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Mauna Kea, Hawaii

Posted 27 November 2019 - 09:12 PM

Please read the 5 minute rule again as what it asks and what you are complaining about have nothing in common.

You are assuming that a 5 minute limit on integrations means you are not permitted to observe longer than 5 minutes. This is not valid, you can observe as long as you like.

EAA is changing, equipment and software are making it easier for you to collect and process images on the fly and we have a duty to make sure that all ways of enjoying the hobby are represented.

 

Well, here’s the rule:

 

3) EAA images are allowed for the purposes of augmenting your descriptions of your live viewing sessions, illustrating your EAA equipment's capabilities, and for giving or receiving assistance with technical issues. Stacked EAA images must be done in real time “on-the-fly”. The maximum integration time for any posted EAA image is 5 minutes. Post-processing of EAA images is not allowed under any circumstances.

 

So, if we want to augment our description of our viewing session, or illustrate our EAA equipment capability, we can’t if we go longer than five minutes.  I would say that has a lot in common with what Mark is complaining about.  But, I don’t think “complaining” is a fair description.  He is stating his very logical viewpoint.  

 

Don


 

#185 OleCuss

OleCuss

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,655
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2010

Posted 27 November 2019 - 09:15 PM

This is getting tiresome... the point I and many others are making is that the difference between EAA and AP is intent not exposure time.

 

Check out some observing videos on my website: https://raniobservat...log/eaa-videos/. I usually spend 10-15mins on most faint objects.

 

Do any of these look like AP? 

I think the mods/admins actually do understand that the distinguishing factor is intent.

 

They just don't believe the intent of some of those who are doing the longer integrations and so to cut out what they believe to be conventional AP in this sub-forum they are setting an arbitrary (not using that as a perjorative) integration time limit in order to effectively ban what they believe to be an intent which is not what I call OAP.

 

I happen to disagree with that but I'm not a moderator here and I certainly don't know all of what they have to deal with and what constraints are put on them so I'll happily admit that it is possible they are doing the absolute best thing for us which they are empowered to do.  They really are some pretty bright people.


Edited by OleCuss, 27 November 2019 - 09:16 PM.

 

#186 tmaestro

tmaestro

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 528
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015
  • Loc: West of Houston, Texas

Posted 27 November 2019 - 09:18 PM

This is getting tiresome... the point I and many others are making is that the difference between EAA and AP is intent not exposure time.

 

Check out some observing videos on my website: https://raniobservat...log/eaa-videos/. I usually spend 10-15mins on most faint objects.

 

Do any of these look like AP? 

 

For me, videos like that are the most enlightening and illustrative of what EAA is.  "Browsing the Milky Way at f/2" is the type of thing that wows people.


 

#187 Creedence

Creedence

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2018
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 27 November 2019 - 09:25 PM

I avoided CN for the better part of a year and actually stopped posting in the EAA subforum entirely until this post because of how unwelcome I was made to feel. I’m sorry to say, the negative bias is absolutely apparent from my perspective- for reasons I’m obviously not privy to. Among other things, I was excoriated for wondering aloud why this subforum resides under the fold of the page with space rocks and trade shows rather than up with the other observing techniques like AP and sketching. Clearly there’s a lot going on behind the scenes because this has the feel of something that carries extraordinary weight and imprtance for some rather than an internet forum for a hobby.

I hope this gets resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, and perhaps more importantly, I hope someday the environment serves to draw in the many newcomers we could get to our very niche little hobby with Sellina, etc rather than serving as another of the litany of reasons people disengage from it.

Edited by Creedence, 27 November 2019 - 09:58 PM.

 

#188 Don Rudny

Don Rudny

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,659
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Mauna Kea, Hawaii

Posted 27 November 2019 - 09:45 PM

I avoided CN for the better part of a year and actually stopped posting in the EAA subforum entirely until this post because of how unwelcome I was made to feel. I’m sorry to say, the negative bias is absolutely apparent from my perspective- for reasons I’m obviously not privy to. Among other things, I was excoriated for wondering aloud why this subforum resides under the fold of the page with space rocks and trade shows rather than up with the other observing techniques like AP and sketching. Clearly there’s a lot going on behinds the scenes because this has the feel of something that carries extraordinary weight and imprtance for some rather than an internet forum for a hobby.

I hope this gets resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, and perhaps more importantly, I hope someday the environment serves to draw in the many newcomers we could get to our very niche little hobby with Sellina, etc rather than serving as another of the litany of reasons people disengage from it.

 

Interesting post.  Thanks for sharing.  Good point that I never thought about.  Just looked at the categories for Specialty Forums and you have a good question.  I also get the feeling from the mods that they aren’t that receptive to our ideas.  I looked up the definition of forum and found this:

 

fo·rum
/ˈfôrəm/
noun
1.
a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
 

I would hope we could exchange ideas in the manner outlined by the forum rules.  It’s a hobby after all and we should all be dedicated to making it fun and helpful to new people.  I thought this sub forum was going that way, but this latest rule change seems to go against that, and I still don’t understand why.

 

Don


 

#189 Sean Cunneen

Sean Cunneen

    Let Me Think

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4,032
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Flossmoor Il.

Posted 27 November 2019 - 10:19 PM

I avoided CN for the better part of a year and actually stopped posting in the EAA subforum entirely until this post because of how unwelcome I was made to feel. I’m sorry to say, the negative bias is absolutely apparent from my perspective- for reasons I’m obviously not privy to. Among other things, I was excoriated for wondering aloud why this subforum resides under the fold of the page with space rocks and trade shows rather than up with the other observing techniques like AP and sketching. Clearly there’s a lot going on behind the scenes because this has the feel of something that carries extraordinary weight and imprtance for some rather than an internet forum for a hobby.

I hope this gets resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, and perhaps more importantly, I hope someday the environment serves to draw in the many newcomers we could get to our very niche little hobby with Sellina, etc rather than serving as another of the litany of reasons people disengage from it.


My understanding is that the software the site runs on is a bit limited as to how many fora can run at a time under each topic (others can explain it better) to my knowledge, EAA while unique in it's ah... debates is not being punished.
 

#190 Alien Observatory

Alien Observatory

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1,263
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2015

Posted 27 November 2019 - 10:29 PM

My last posted image on the EAA Forum... November 10, 2018...17 total minuets exposure time...I must have broken all the rules...me Bad...Pat Utah :)

 

https://www.cloudyni...enge/?p=8942984


 

#191 Dwight J

Dwight J

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,721
  • Joined: 14 May 2009
  • Loc: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

Posted 27 November 2019 - 10:47 PM

This is getting tiresome... the point I and many others are making is that the difference between EAA and AP is intent not exposure time.

 

Check out some observing videos on my website: https://raniobservat...log/eaa-videos/. I usually spend 10-15mins on most faint objects.

 

Do any of these look like AP? 

And I would add that the process that one follows is significantly different.  If I am serious about obtaining an image I certainly wouldn’t use Astro Toaster but something like APT, I would take longer sub exposures, possibly use a different camera, use a different focal ratio, set up and use auto guiding, take a nap or watch TV, etc.  With regards to “not adding anything of value” and “stirring the pot” along with being in a cult, insults seem to come easy to some.  Perhaps a certain Dr. should adhere to the TOS.  And I stand by my comparison with imaging fora that do not impose a limit.  Don’t like that comparison....too bad.  


 

#192 tgrlx200

tgrlx200

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 163
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Posted 27 November 2019 - 11:09 PM

Thanks for posting the link, Pat. That to me is what EAA is all about. Sharing what we have been able to observe based on the technology that we have. I was amazed at the number of observable galaxies in your M33 post. Thanks for sharing and breaking the tension. :)
 

#193 nicknacknock

nicknacknock

    A man of many qualities, even if they are mostly bad ones

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 15,497
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nicosia, Cyprus

Posted 28 November 2019 - 01:07 AM

I seem to recall I kindly asked for your patience for a bit until the mod / admin teams finish their discussion on the subject. I also seem to recall mentioning that we are near a solution that will more or less accommodate everyone. I seem to have fallen on deaf ears lol.gif

 

Lemme note some things down:

 

1. You can integrate all you want on your own. Just refrain from posting images with more than 5 minutes of integration.

2. We understand that depending on LP levels and / or magnitude of object, more integration may be needed by a small minority here and we are working on a solution for that.

3. You all seem not to want to acknowledge that some members of the admin / mod teams ALSO do EAA and are aware of the issues you mention. Well, we are aware and we know from experience.

4. Yes, your voices have been heard and acknowledged. Now, please, let us conclude on what we are discussing so that we can wrap this up in a way that allows all of us to move forward.


 

#194 Rickster

Rickster

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,504
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2008
  • Loc: NC Kansas Bortle 3 SQM 21.8+

Posted 28 November 2019 - 01:14 AM

How would the guys in the Deep Sky Observing forum react if they were told that they couldn't report any observation that took more than 5 minutes to make?   My guess is baffled and insulted.


 

#195 nicknacknock

nicknacknock

    A man of many qualities, even if they are mostly bad ones

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 15,497
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nicosia, Cyprus

Posted 28 November 2019 - 01:16 AM

Uh, they are observing at the eyepiece*. You are observing on a monitor. Both observing. Feel free to report your observations and what you saw. An image is not necessary. But an actual observing report, not "I saw that" and an image, would go a LONG way in validating you are doing observing and not AP.

 

* Been a member there for a few years.

 

Your patience is kindly requested (saying this with clenched teeth as patience is rapidly evaporating).


 

#196 dr.who

dr.who

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,313
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 28 November 2019 - 02:23 AM

Just a few clarifications... 
 
- I don’t think Dwight was saying he wants to share the 2.5hr exposure. He was just making a point. He also never mentioned post processing.

Leaving aside the issues that I cannot discuss about the post per the ToS, in addition what he is doing is making a strong argument to close the forum and move anyone doing observations to an observation forum with no photos allowed and everyone who wants to post an image to an AP forum. You all really need to think before you post. You all are sending signals to everyone on the Admin/Mod team and when one like this and just about every post after it pops up it strengthens the argument to shut the forum down and move everything to AP or Observing Fora.
 
You all do not consider the second and third order effects of your demands. This is a unique forum in its makeup and there is a good argument to be made that with all the strides in new software and technology there is really no longer a need for an EAA forum since those doing it to observe can simply post an observing report with no image, those who need help with equipment can go to the beginners imaging forum, and those who want to post pictures can do so in the DSLR or CCD/CMOS forums. You all are really helping make the case to do this and you all don't seem to understand this. Instead of working with us to keep the forum as a separate one you all seem to want to run screaming down the path of the closure of this forum. 
 

- You seem to have strong pre conceived notions around longer exposure EAA. No, this is not AP in disguise. No we are not being sneaky. Yes, there are some posters who are posting very long stacks but that is the exception. Most stacks here are under 30mins and probably 95% under 15min.


And you like to put words in my mouth. Speaking personally and completely candidly I want this forum to stay as it is in terms of being separate from the other observing and AP fora. A compromise in order to keep it that way was the 5 minute rule. You all have blown right through that. 
 

- This is exactly the point I have been trying to make from my first post in this thread. There are many objects that require longer than 5min. Nothing can change that... it is just physics. But limiting ourselves to 5min you are limiting the universe you can observe and share. Why would you do that?


Sure. And there are many objects that can only be seen using AP techniques like that post about a 20.x mag object that requires long sub exposures and post processing. Again, making the argument, even though it isn't your intention to do so, to close this forum and move everything. 
 
I can't speak anymore plainly than this post. Take a minute, read the post again, then consider the meaning of my words as it relates to what you all are doing to further sabotage your own best interests and what is going on behind the scenes among the Admin staff who, with Moderator input, will ultimately decide on what to do about the forum. To be even more clear, not everyone thinks this forum has a place here like Nick or I do.


 

#197 dr.who

dr.who

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,313
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 28 November 2019 - 03:01 AM

What I am requesting is a congenial place for those of us interested in the science and observations rather than the artwork.  Somewhere we can post images AND technique AND why each of those are of interest from a scientific and practical point of view.  At the moment we fall between two stools: we either  spend too long collecting data  and / or do too much processing to make our subjects visible, or we go somewhere with excessively (IMO, of course) strong discouragement of explanation and / or commentary --- along with a side helping of sneering condescension.


Which is fine and we are, as I have now said too many times to count, working on a compromise. 
 
 

Not logging on to CN is permitted too, and more are taking that route with EAA rules that are exclusive instead of inclusive.


Very true. And the ToS also states your only recourse if you do not agree with the Terms of Service is to stop using the site. We won't stop you.  
 

And I would add that the process that one follows is significantly different.  If I am serious about obtaining an image I certainly wouldn’t use Astro Toaster but something like APT, I would take longer sub exposures, possibly use a different camera, use a different focal ratio, set up and use auto guiding, take a nap or watch TV, etc.  With regards to “not adding anything of value” and “stirring the pot” along with being in a cult, insults seem to come easy to some.  Perhaps a certain Dr. should adhere to the TOS.  And I stand by my comparison with imaging fora that do not impose a limit.  Don’t like that comparison....too bad.


Coming from you Dwight "Adhering to the ToS" is pure comedy gold! As you know we aren't allowed to comment on any specific moderation actions taken against a member with other members or in public and we are required to follow the ToS just like you all are, otherwise I would have been much more direct in my previous response to you and even more so in this one.  Speaking of which you were quite... brisk... in your post. I decided, with the agreement of the Mod staff in this forum, to be equally... brisk in my response to you. You all have gotten to provide a full throated airing out your grievances and I decided to call you all on it especially you because of the tone of your post. If you don't like it, don't be so brisk in your posting style. 

 

Oh and for the record I didn't comment on any specific moderation actions taken against anyone in this post and I was within the ToS on my last one as well as this one.


 

#198 nicknacknock

nicknacknock

    A man of many qualities, even if they are mostly bad ones

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 15,497
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nicosia, Cyprus

Posted 28 November 2019 - 03:34 AM

In the spirit and letter of the TOS, whereby a question has been asked, it has been discussed exhaustively, the members are aware that a solution is being worked on and yet you all keep at it, I am locking this topic.

 

I am both into Trad Visual and EAA. You had an ally here who has fought repeatedly to find solutions to keep everybody happy, members, mods and admins. Every time there was an issue, I was always here taking broadsides from both sides and I didn't mind as it is for the overall good of the community - all of you - regardless of disagreements between us.

 

I am telling you as a fellow EAA practitioner that you went overboard this time with this thread. I submit to you that you should all have displayed a bit of patience for the teams to finish their discussions. I asked for your patience and you repeatedly shot the messenger and your ally. Instead everybody was arguing about this and that and really making a case that EAA is AP Lite.

 

Also you were behaving like you own the forum and CN. Newsflash people, it belongs to NONE of us. Last sentence of the TOS states: Cloudy Nights is owned by Cloudy Nights LLC. And just before that: If you are not happy with the service rendered, ultimately your sole recourse is to stop your use of said service.

 

I will "kindly" ask that no further threads on the subject are initiated after I lock this one down. Let's see what can be salvaged now....


 


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics