Originally sent to a wide range of recipients, names withdrawn to
protect both the guilty and innocent from any potential blog or usenet
hate attacks.


I have advised some here about publishing venues in recent times and
in the past. One such venue is eJAAVSO, especially for amateur work
as it has always been difficult, although not impossible, to publish
work based on amateur observations. General overviews of many stars
of specific classes based on visual data can manage to be published at
times, but in the current age the eJAAVSO, JBAA and OEJV are probably
the most likely venues for such work. JBAA is a journal for all
brands of astronomy, not just variable stars, and bimonthly, so has
restricted space, OEJV is generally amenable, and then there is the
modern version of JAAVSO, eJAAVSO, which for more detailed analyses
seems the better choice for a variable star specific venue.

Then came several eJAAVSO that might put some doubt in your minds on
this being a suitable venue for any work you do. You decide. I have
said in the past that to some extent what other kinds of papers appear
in a venue are not necessarily important, it is whether your own paper
is of quality and merit such that anyone else, professional or
amateur, researching the same object at a later date finds the paper
of use to them. All the groups I'm writing to the heads of here are
usually strongly and openly playing the "variable star astronomy is a
way for the amateur to do enjoy astronomy _and _ participate
productively in science" card. So the following is relevant if they
really adhere to that viewpoint in both practice and theory.

Now we have eJAAVSO 96.


eJAAVSO is ostensibly peer reviewed. In eJAAVSO 96 are what wikipedia
would describe as a lack of citations, and the article would be
flagged as making heavy use of "weasel words". The noting of one
thousand or more stars as low amplitude irregular variables adds
nothing to science, yet the weasel words used in the paper describe
why the objects are difficult to classify any better, and that many
are classed as _possibly _ low amplitude red irregular variables,
which with magnitude scatter down at the level of the noise inherent
in the ROTSE1 cameras' data should be worrying, but excuses are made
for the why and wherefore.

But these are the least of the paper's problems.

The first point is that the paper does not reference an earlier work
by the same author, Martin Piers Nicholson, namely OEJV 35


which was the first paper published by him based on this project
methodology back in the days when OEJV was completely peer and
editorial review free. After OEJV 38, after Nicholson had to withdraw
a paper following on from that OEJV number due to pressure, including
and most effectively strongly from #, on OEJV because it was agreed by
a few of you on this cc list that the paper was pretty much just a
copy of hundreds of DIRBE point source catalogue objects flagged as
possibly variable with no new science, Nicholson withdrew (though
claiming to do so only because he was bored with the dialogue about it
and not because he accepted it was wrong) said paper and OEJV at a
later time instigated an elective editorial board. Notice that
Nicholson will post for years in various places and blogs when
something of his work is not accepted, but except for the copy # kept
of this paper no mention is ever made of it ever existing, least of
all by Nicholson, except when I have to remind people.

In eJAAVSO 96 he neither references the contextually relevant OEJV 35
paper nor does he reference the fact that he fully shows in OEJV 35
and on his own webpages (unless they've been edited to remove it
already) that the methodology he uses is based on an email note to
AAVSO Discussion mail list by John Greaves. He instead leaves the
full implication that it is his own methodology. In OEJV 35 the tone
of the introduction even suggests that he was sceptical at first as to
the method working, yet by the end of the paper he delights in how
successful he has been, whilst then suddenly forgetting to acknowledge
that the method he was doubtful about does in fact produce results as
promised. In time he forgets it was the method of another he adopted
and that he was dismissive of it, at one time he even voted down OEJV
25 which directly used the same route he now champions


for having used the method. (Remember his voting practices, as
virtually only his papers and papers of people he didn't like were
voted upon, always gave his papers five stars and ones he didn't like
one star. # will be able to tell you about that, he'll remember. In
the end OEJV had to stop the voting system. Further, comments had to
be tightened up because Nicholson tended to get people to make
comments on papers of people he didn't like. In the end these people
sounded so much like him, and complained about such pointless things
like use of words etc, all irrelevant to the paper, that it became
clear someone was repeating Nicholson's lines for him. # commented
that he in fact thought it was Nicholson himself and that my theory it
was others forwarding them for him was too elaborate.

In the end OEJV had to tighten up the commenting procedure too to
include only comments directly related to the science and results of
the paper, and the previous alluded to comments were deleted. Later
#'s suggestion was well vindicated when I was able to show that
several of Nicholson's supporting commentors and/or attackers of
people who had revealed that Nicholson's OEJV papers on "new" objects
again and repeatedly included published objects, and on various lists,
were indeed all emailing often on the same modem as Nicholson within
hours of each other although ostensibly being resident in the USA,
Eire, Australia, Scotland and elsewhere. Most of these people were in
fact listed as co-authors to his OEJV papers, yet never allowed to be
prime author even when more than one joint paper was published. No
one, and I've in the past asked several of you all on this cc list
which contains leaders and high ups of several of the World's amateur
variable star organisations, had ever heard of few if any these
variable star astronomers before or since, they have only ever been
heard of when as Nicholson's co-authors and as posters to binary stars
uncensored, aavso discussion, vsx discussion and usenet groups where
in nearly every case examples can be found of Nicholson emailing to
the same or another list on the same modem on the same day.

I have demonstrated this in the past to about half of you on this cc
list, with evidence and links, and # has found still existing examples
in the AAVSO Discussion archive where this has happened, and # #
deleted emails allegedly from Hannah Varley in Dublin to VSX
Discussion when it was shown they were from Nicholson's modem, none of
those emails now occur in that list's archive. All of you agreed and
stated that the evidence was clear and convincing, and this was
several years ago now.

Some side issues there, but contextually relevant in terms of the
trail from OEJV 12 to eJAAVSO 96 and the lack of improvement or change
in habit of Nicholson between those two papers.

The second point is that the paper is entitled

"Identifying Previously Uncatalogued Red Variable Stars in the
Northern Sky Variability Survey"

and goes on to state that rigorous checks were made to ensure they
were "uncatalogued". He includes AAVSO VSX in this source database
checklist despite knowing full well, for he had been told directly and
seen on mail list threads, that _at that time _ AAVSO VSX was very
much out of date and not containing much that had been published over
the past year or two previous.

And of course if you write up a paper in mid 2008 for objects you have
not done any work on since early 2007, objects you have not as yet
published anywhere, then you do new literature work. You do not make
some weasel word noises that it doesn't matter if they appeared in the
literature after 2007 because all that matters is that you found them
first. It is science, not a race.

But that's not the core problem. The core problem is that at least a
dozen, one percent, of the objects published in eJAAVSO 96 had
previously been published by the Director of AAVSO in a 1998 and soon
subsequent paper as FASTT candidate variables and had been available
via VizieR, a standard tool as much as SIMBAD is, long before 2006.
Furthermore many other of the objects can be found to have been
published since the submission of this paper to eJAAVSO.

Thirdly he claims that these objects are in AAVSO VSX but does not
publish a table but instead gives a link to a website he owns thus
allowing the possibility of change in that table.

Investigation of B/VSX at VizieR reveals that for the objects in that
table, when a search is conducted using the 2MASS reference positions
from that table, at least a dozen FASTT candidate variables are in his
list. Most are classified "MISC" by Henden and Stone, which is
equivalent to the L classification used by Nicholson, with some even
classed as LPV by Henden and Stone in their paper, whereas Nicholson
still classes them as L, so he hasn't improved on the original paper.
However his paper is about finding uncatalogued objects. Titled like
an instruction manual yet containing comments suggesting as long as
something was checked in the long past no new checks need to be done.

And more importantly, some of them only return one result in B/VSX,
the result being that for the FASTT identifier. That is, despite what
Nicholson claims in the paper, his submission to VSX for these objects
is not in VSX. He hasn't even bothered to check which of "his"
objects are in VSX, only to claim that they are.

There are also many other objects published already that he claims
prediscovery of, despite his paper being submitted in mid 2008 and
taking nearly a year and two revisions for him to fix. Two revisions
and it is still mostly weasel words. Some objects at his positions
return up to three results in AAVSO VSX, and examination of some of
these reveals they have been published and imported into AAVSO VSX, at
times published as miscellaneous at times as semiregulars.

A fourth most damning aspect of the paper is that Nicholson has since
that time spammed all over usenet and listed in blogs innumerable
posts about "ten minute challenges" and semiregular variable projects
and much other robotic telescope intensive work, often like the ten
minute challenges of little if any scientific context, but not once
does he appear to have even thought to use say half a dozen
observations on a handful of his L: classed objects to scientifically
test his predictions of these suspects being valid variables, an easy
task as the GRAS telescopes he used to do all this work had higher
accuracy, both photometrically and astrometrically, and lower limiting
magnitude, than the ROTSE1 cameras that the NSVS data is based upon.
Further he even has access to and has used AAVSOnet robotic telescope
time. He brags of science projects and interest in furthering
science, yet when it comes down to it is incapable of instigating
scientific methodology without being guided.

eJAAVSO 96 of 2009 emulates well OEJV 12


read the comments there, not mine, those of others, and Nicholson's
evasive replies, his unwillingness to address the points raised and to
use weasel word excuses for having published known objects.

AND just the same he says they were on his webpages for years
beforehand. Now he suggests in eJAAVSO 96 that he does not need to do
any further checks since January 2007 as he had placed these objects
in AAVSO VSX at that time, a time when # # had not yet got around to
including much new data to an out of date VSX data holding. But even
besides that, so what? AAVSO VSX was not widely known, was not
official, was little more than a web service provided by an amateur
astronomy group. Why should professionals and other groups have to
have looked at it? It didn't allow batch checking so even those
unaware of it would not be willing to play with it, seeing as it was
in no way official, has no formal peer reviewed publication describing
it or its data make up or its management and completeness. Even now.

But these are his stars because he looked in AAVSO VSX and didn't find
them there prior to 2007.

And despite some being constant, or indistinguishable from the noise
in NSVS data, some being published already, before the 2008
submission, and one percent at least certainly before his first
attempts at this work as outlined in his 2005 OEJV 35, and therefore
_CATALOGUED _ and not uncatalogued as claimed in eJAAVSO 96, and
already published by the current Director of AAVSO no less, despite
all this, eJAAVSO has peer reviewed and published this paper.

And the general damning is that I warned them that this would happen.
I told # and others on this cc list that they had to be careful with
Nicholson's work. That # had to check it because if anyone disagreed
with Nicholson's work he would damn them, in blogs and usenet groups
he would repeatedly complain and be bitter and say it wasn't fair that
his work wasn't accepted. Same as he did in the double star

His work? In the double star community he would submit work
repeatedly, and if told there was a problem with it, he would do it
again and resubmit it until it was eventually accepted. And then at a
later date he'd make the same mistakes with new submissions. But it
was his view that it was the referee's job to solve problems, as he
told a senior # staff member.

Yet he gets the credit.

This is why I warned # he should take the brunt of this person, who #
already knew the nature of with respect to character after dialoguing
with him during the issue with his withdrawn OEJV on DIRBE objects.

But in the end AAVSO VSX moderators were left out to dry. Nicholson
would submit objects, and if they were wrong he would be advised they
were wrong, and he would then submit them again, and again, until they
were done right or more likely until the moderators were fed up and
decided that that was adequate enough and accepted them for the peace
and quiet of it.

Now, question? Who did the analysis work then? Nicholson, or the
moderators, primarily one moderator, who told him every time he did
something wrong what it was that he had done wrong? This isn't a one
off at the start of the procedure you know, it's the same for all of
them, and the case and situation can still continue at times, last I
heard even when he presents OGLE II Galactic Disc objects, which is
incredibly easy data to use.

And it is easy to see that he had to revise eJAAVSO 96 at least twice,
because it says so at the top. Took him nearly a year too. I mean,
read the paper, what content does it have to speak of? It had to be
revised _twice _ to get up to that "level" of standard?!

AAVSO were aware this would happen as I told them, I told about a
third of you on this list this would happen about two years ago. And
it has.

AAVSO has peer reviewed and published an empty paper containing
objects unproven, already catalogued, and not all in AAVSO VSX as it
states. Thus as I explained to them the potential for problems this
guy can deliver, as they now have an eJAAVSO peer reviewed paper that
contains statements that can readily be disproven by simple use of
AAVSO VSX, but even before that which reads as very weak with weasel
word apologies. Yes, it is one of those papers that is one long
apology that claims much but apologises for not really being able to
claim anything.

AND it shows that it is possible to claim that objects are accepted
and added to AAVSO VSX that are not in AAVSO VSX, whilst claiming
credit for their inclusion when the moderator in some cases will have
done most of the work.

This is why # needed to deal with this guy, # who knew and has
conceded the facts re some of the things he has done in the past, and
is aware of his past publishing record. But likes to prefer to think
the guy has learnt and adapted.

Well, it is clearly not the case. Over half of you on this cc list
have read and examined these papers



both by Nicholson and both claiming some result or other based on two
consecutive minima each for two separate outbursting cataclysmic

All who have looked at it thought it meaningless, and couldn't
understand how a paper that said little more than "I have measured two
eclipse minima, here are the measurements" could be published by
eJAAVSO. # wondered if there was going to be a paper a star, rather
than having them all collected together in a big list, which latter is
the normal case for publishing times of minima work, as done by most
other people.

And a third of you on this cc list, those with knowledge of O-C
matters, have said that the paper makes no sense. No new ephemerides
are generated, because they can't be with such little data. Also the
previousy published ephemerides cannot be so readily proven wrong by
such minimal data, the consecutiveness of the eclipses are not only
irrelevant, they are actually less statistically meaningful than well
separated ones. And # informed me that the paper even got the maths
wrong in the formulae. I didn't read the papers personally, just the
abstract, as it was clear from the very abstract itself that the
papers were meaningless. That is, prone to Pauli's "second" exclusion

eJAAVSO 87 and eJAAVO 92 are not even wrong!

Already Nicholson has posted links to one or possibly both of these
papers in several places, such as GRAS forums, where he claims that
robotic telescope science is moribund, whilst he has been achieving
peer reviewed success with papers like these.

This latter is all the more strange as he recently seems to have
fallen out with GRAS too and now claims it is not suitable for long
term projects. This is very strange as for two years or more he has
been regaling usenet members of sci.astro and sci.astro.amateur and
many other usenet astro groups with links to and mentioning updates of
his astro project works done by robotic telescope, and at times
encouraging people to join his important work. In the past he emailed
to many groups his details for a long term project where people would
contribute money to using RAS/GRAS 'scopes for a long term nova
patrol. Some warned that this sounded like a scam, including amongst
them professional astronomer and educator # #, who was roundly damned
by a Nicholson clone, even if no evidence was brought to refute #'s
statements. Nicholson's claims of hundreds to thousands of missed
novae per year were however edited down to less unrealistic numbers.

And over half of you have said you can not see what eJAAVSO means by
publishing such work as these two papers. A third of you say it is
meaningless. He links to it all over the place.

Now, I warned of this, and I warned that because of the tactic of
Nicholson using hate tactics on Web 2.0 interfaces it needed someone
with a thick skin and authority like #, not just # losing his temper
with Nicholson (or me or anyone for that matter) but # to govern or
else situations would arise where AAVSO were not only incidentally but
virtually assisting pseudoscience to be promulgated, to the detriment
of the reputation of AAVSO's journal and to AAVSO's hopes for a good
reputation of the VSX database.

Remember for years Nicholson has insisted that # was going to publish
new AAVSO VSX variables for people.

After looking at eJAAVSO 96 we can see why he felt the need for that
to happen.

Of course, variables found based on an idea by John Greaves, variable
analyses fixed up and cleaned up by AAVSO VSX moderator Patrick Wils,
and then published variables published for him by Arne Henden, yet
still giving Martin Piers Nicholson the credit for the objects. Well,
that would've been nice for him, wouldn't it? Unfortunately for both
him and AAVSO he only managed the first two.

I also tested a sample of forty of his thousand plus AAVSO VSX
submissions and found about ten percent were indistinguishable from
constant, and I made AAVSO aware of this. Some very new submissions
at that time were conceded as indistinguishable from constant given
the data, as I showed, and were not accepted. Based on the data and
lack of supporting evidence of variability. I mean, AAVSO VSX could
be riddled with L: which is GCVS speak for "just possibly variable",
if care wasn't taken.

I also promised at that time that if these objects from AAVSO VSX were
published without due provenance, and were published declaring them
new without proper literature checks to ensure they were new
"previously uncatalogued" objects, and declared to be real variables
just by their inclusion in AAVSO VSX (and at least around four aren't
in AAVSO VSX other than with their single FASTT identifiers, ie are
not Nicholson discovered objects in AAVSO VSX, from a very basic
preliminary check, which is something I didn't expect him to do, him
to actually mention objects being in there when they aren't, and
remember even though only around four have been found so far they
stood out and were obvious even with a basic check, more may exist,
but notwithstanding, they were easy and obvious finds), then I would
make the fact known even if I'd to publish all the constant objects in
it myself.

But I don't need to waste time doing that. VizieR B/VSX exists and
using his spreadsheet for coordinates and a batch check against B/VSX
we can see that some of his peer review eJAAVSO paper's statements are
not valid. There are catalogued objects in the paper, and even if his
self imposed deadline of January 2007 is accepted, there are objects
catalogued and in VizieR and SIMBAD prior to that in it. They aren't
identified in SIMBAD by their variability identifier of FASTT
necessarily, but they were there and the SIMBAD pages linked them to
the FASTT objects. And OEJV 35 shows the truth of where the
methodology used came from at core, and some of the objects do not
appear to be in B/VSX as Nicholson discoveries. All from a simple
basic check. I leave others to easily find these objects, in the past
noting Nicholson's failings has led to his work being "improved" such
that the evidence, including at times whole yahoo groups of his, has
disappeared. This leaves me open to being accused of making
unsubstantiated claims, but that paper, the spreadsheet it links to,
and VizieR and B/VSX are there. I am not afraid of anyone checking.
If I detail stars they will likely be fixed, possibly the only core of
evidence left being that he states a total number of objects in his
paper, so the spreadsheet has to match that tally. There is no
summary table in the paper though, or linked to at AAVSO repository as
a safe backup or any other independent archive, so eJAAVSO with
outlinking to data tables is not a safe scientific repository of
evidence in this instance.

Maybe AAVSO or Nicholson thought no-one would ever check or read his
paper? And never notice these obvious things. He used to do stuff
like this with doubles too, put up spreadsheet lists of high proper
motion common motion pairs to lists and the like, some still there in
some cases like binary stars uncensored, and the highest motion ones
were usually already catalogued. He just doesn't know how to research
properly and do real literature work, he just matches data of
coordinates exported from spreadsheets against VizieR, as shown by his
links to Brian Skiff's spectroscopy for "his" objects (although he was
unable to find the FASTT objects that have been listed in VizieR for
years in a similar way, ironically enough). He never looks deeper
than these list matchings and shows no indication of ever having read
the papers connected with other catalogues or else he would not make
these mistakes.

Anyway, I made a promise, and part of the promise was to use some of
the very self same techniques as Nicholson uses. After all, _all _ of
you on this cc list are aware of and have stated that you recognise
what some of his past actions have been with respect to Nicholson
clones and/or Nicholson papers and/or Nicholson claims at some level
or another. Yet he is evidently forgiven all these infringements and
allowed to continue as normal, in eJAAVSO 96 just the same as nearly
four years ago in OEJV 12. So, why should he be the only one so
privileged? At least the rest of us use facts and evidence from his
work, whereas he cries about agendas and not fairs. He claims
anything as peer reviewed yet he's never been anywhere near successful
in appearing in a true professional peer reviewed piece of work and is
strongly jealous of anyone who has, and that his is agenda.

And whilst I know of at least two good quality OEJV papers, for
instance, that are in the works from some authors that still haven't
seen the light of day appear, we have factually challenged stuff like
this appear readily for someone of known and acknowledged past

No doubt he will now submit it for inclusion in aavso datasection as a
paper of note to be listed seeing as it has appeared peer reviewed in

Just read the damn thing, make your own mind up about the quality and
utility and science of such a paper, irrespective of where the idea,
the checking and cleaning up work, and whatever else, came from. And
check the claims within for validity, irrespective of whether you feel
setting artificial limits on an analysis in order to justify not doing
certain standard analytic and literature work is acceptable.

But has he has already started using blogs and listings to again
attack me personally and accuse me personally of things and having an
agenda, whilst not addressing the shortcomings of this paper, I will
as promised start from today using his very own tactics. If it is
okay for him to be forgiven for using such tactics, I shall descend to
his level, _except _ I will give statements of fact, statements of
knowledge, such that it can be shown that B/VSX does not support some
of his paper's assertions and that OEJV 35 reveals the provenance of
"his" methodology, and demonstrate where and how his papers and works
are wrong.

I've had some advice about this Web 2.0 environ you know, he's upset
quite a few people with his attitude at times, and I've had pointers
and advice and assist on how it works and why his tactics work. Most
blog servers, for instance, do not care and even abrogate all
responsibility about what appears in their blogs. The more hits their
nodes get, the more they can charge in advertising revenue, and the
more they are likely to get advertising orders, and that is all they
care about on the whole. And he uses this to good effect to maintain
a large google presence, because you find his sites and usenet posts,
ones initiated by him, are rarely visited or commented upon or
acknowledged, except the odd clone and people who will sympathise with
anyone on reflex.

Names will be censored, after all if any people in this cc list ended
up being in his numerous blogs and hate postings to usenet because of
me that would not be fair, would it, and would certainly spoil all the
effort of compromising that may or may not have occurred such as to
lead to the publishing of what are demonstrably weak and incorrect
papers, not just the current one, but also in the past. Did you like
the wording of the last one? Little trick Nicholson uses, statement
says nothing, balances, cancels out, hypothesises and conjectures, but
carries strong words. General ponderings couched in language
potentially interpretable by some as accusatory, but really showing
that the author has no idea whether this happened or not, but merely
imagines it being a feasible explanation in his own opinion.
Nicholson uses this "I think" trick a lot, you will have seen it.

Some of you on the cc list know from experience he uses papers like
these to justify his "science" and to push his projects onto newbies.
Helping beginners isn't just about guiding them and showing them the
right way, it is also about protecting them. As many groups and their
members are often too busy or the beginner feels inadequate compared
to the professional looking (and deceptively so sometimes) front _some
_ of the major amateur groups present, a helpful experienced
individual giving private guidance in a quiet out of the way maillist
is tempting. How are they to know they are not necessarily getting
that guidance, especially when the groups have managed to give him
ammunition in the form of peer reviewed papers with his name on that
he can claim as good work, when two of the papers contain what many on
this cc list personally feel is pseudoscience and one paper is
demonstrably economical to varying degrees with several aspects of the
truth, including methodology, results, analysis and conclusion.

As for publishing venues? Well, again, visual work has few outlets if
that is all the data that is to hand, and the other outlets can be
very slow and moribund even if the work is not visual. If the paper
is good and reached via literature work of an object orientated
nature, ie people were looking for info on the star you wrote on, the
paper itself will be the context. But if someone dips into recent
eJAAVSO and sees these three papers and judges all eJAAVSO work by
them... ...well, nope that's a subjective viewpoint of mine, so what
you have to do is read eJAAVSOs 87, 92 and 96, see if they make any
sense, see if they actually say anything, and then wonder about
appearing in a venue that includes such stuff.

You see, John Greaves' agenda is clear, he promised that if there was
a dereliction of duty with respect to Martin Piers Nicholson by people
who knew what was likely to happen with respect to MPN publishing
large numbers of near meaningless L stars, and MPN making inadequate
and inaccurate statements and claims around them, even though people
were warned on this list that this could happen, then he would reveal
the details as widely as possible in the same way Nicholson is allowed
to spout his guff, except I'd use evidence and point to facts and
expect people to make their own judgement based on the papers and
checking the data.

The truth is in reality the vast majority of people will not care a
damn either way, with respect to neither the parties involved nor the
papers involved.

But some balance as to the eventual claims about, and the current
claims in, this paper needs to be presented given the bile and context
irrelevant claims Nicholson invariably spouts all over the web when
he's been outed.

And if any of you have the balls to say in public what you've said
about him and his work privately for years, couched in terms of your
personal opinion, then now is the time to do it.

But truthfully I hope he publishes more like this, I hope he posts
more to VSNET alert with updates and measured superhump periods, I
hope he sends more updates to cvnet outburst and baavss alert that #
and # have to kick back because the object is already confirmed and no
longer an alert, I hope he becomes active in assisting aavso data
section with their work by pushing his projects and methods, because
only by the true nature of his work being revealed does it become so
self evidently clear.

That is as long as idiots don't go fixing things in the background for
him and letting him take the credit as if he'd done it all himself.
AAVSO VSX needs a "three times you're out" rule for people who
repeatedly have to have their submissions cleaned up for them, after
being repeatedly told in past instances why those were rejected, and
after repeating the same mistakes.

Nicholson's tactic is to submit until accepted. And another is to
forget provenance.


Great misnomers of our time number 3 : AAVSO "Discussion" and VSNET