Solar Eyepiece Filters - Unsafe!

[AndyH]

Good show Nick

I honestly thought these filters were a thing of the past. The sellers should sell baader(or similar) safety film instead.

I had a close call many years ago with my Tal Alcor 65mm newt. Heard the crack just in time. Lesson learned

Cheers,

Andy.

[Iris]

I am not and will not be using any DDOS tool...and have not suggested that I will be to them in any way shape or form, and I know the law full well (and also have a sense of humour!). BTW...the software I have is a web vulnerability scanner, not a DDOS tool, nor is it recognised as a DDOS tool, its use in verification of website security is valid and not illegal in any way shape or form.

There are many ways to do things...:-)

Sorry nick (and everyone else), firstly please I dont mean to berate you in any way (not that I think I have nor have you sugested that I have.

I missed the humour in your earlier posts - but I fully accept that we all have different senses of humour.

I really hope you succeed in ending the sale of dangerous goods and I support an encourage your aims, but If I have misread the tone of the messages even slightly then so may others of course.

I have been here only as short while so maybe in time I'll get less worried about things.

On the matter of the web testing tool - the fact that it is a test tool is not the point - if it were usend in the way I thought you might have been suggesting then it would still be an illegal act - the computer misuse act does not discriminate in the tool used but in the manner and intent of usage. You wouldnt necessarily even need to use a tool to comit an offence as described - half a dozen mates manually overloading a web site would be sufficient for a crime to have been committed (I exaggerate the number slightly here for effect) the point being the tool used is not the determining factor.

But I'm sure you knew that.

Lastly - and so we can get back to the discussion I think you really want to have which is about dangerous goods and their removal from sale (I don't want a rap on the knuckles from the mods for seeming to hijack the thread) - you dont of course need to carry out a threat to have committed an offence - in an admittely theoretical sense - it may be enough to take posts on a forum such as ours and make a case for conspiracty to carry out the act which may itself be an offence.

Sorry to have rambled on there - I mean well.

[NickH]

and it's gone...result all round..

[NickH]

Iris, no offence at all...the sense of humour side is something which only those who know me will get :-)

[Iris]

and it's gone...result all round..

Congrats on a successful and persuasive campaign pester power at its best!

[MishMich]

That's good. Well done then. Better they are not sold. The warnings simply serve to limit their liability, not the risk. Not selling them eliminates the risk. I don't think that there can be any grounds for suggesting a conspiracy against the other trader - as nobody here has mentioned their name. The only name that has been mentioned resolved the issue speedily once reasoned with. The other organisation would not accept the criticism when I contacted them a while back, which is why I complained to eBay about their telescopes that were sold on the solar viewing angle. It sounds like they hadn't quite learned their lesson, and that they have withdrawn these without the need for complaint is a positive outcome.

M.