Pluto is out from planet dictionary

"Mike Williams" wrote in message
...
Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote:
If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?

I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor
planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then. "Dwarf
planets" are not planets now.

Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.

Forget them. They have no right to control what we think.
We grew up on Pluto being the fascinating 9th planet of the Solar System,
and imagined ice crystal creatures radioing each other by telepathy from
there, discussing the mysteries of the universe at large.

"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...

Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article . com,
Double-A wrote:

Mike Williams wrote:
Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote:
If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?

I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor
planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then.
"Dwarf
planets" are not planets now.

Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.

--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure


More like the 300 that actually voted.

Double-A

Those 2200 who didn't care to vote probably won't care now either....


Perhaps the 2200 just don't want their names on the record on one side
or the other of a very controversial issue!

Double-A

I was there, voting. There was only a record of the count, not of the names
of the voters. Do you think I could get something for my historic yellow
voting card, signed and dated, if I put it on e-Bay? Could I get double the
amount if I record on it which way I voted?

The General Assembly had about 2,450 registered participants. Some of these
only attended the first week. Despite the controversy, as usual the
majority of those at the Assembly did not bother to go to the closing
session. The rules say that only the votes of those present and voting
count (and abstentions count--it has to be a majority of the vote, so a lot
of abstentions can result in a resolution not being carried in a close
vote).

There was a lot of reasoned debate on both sides of the question during the
session (pesky thing really dragged on). I have no reason to think that, if
all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been
any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial
wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those
present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
sampling of the overall views of members.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"Mike Williams" wrote in message
...
Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote:
If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?

I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor
planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then. "Dwarf
planets" are not planets now.

Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.

Forget them. They have no right to control what we think.
We grew up on Pluto being the fascinating 9th planet of the Solar System,
and imagined ice crystal creatures radioing each other by telepathy from
there, discussing the mysteries of the universe at large.




They can still do so even if Pluto is now recognised as a "dwarf planet".

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

Wasn't it Mike Dworetsky who wrote:

I was there, voting. There was only a record of the count, not of the names
of the voters. Do you think I could get something for my historic yellow
voting card, signed and dated, if I put it on e-Bay? Could I get double the
amount if I record on it which way I voted?

Absolutely. That's a seriously valuable historic artefact you've got
there.

--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

Mike Dworetsky writes:

I have no reason to think that, if
all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been
any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial
wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those
present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
sampling of the overall views of members.

Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than
one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
"non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility,
then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.

In article ,
Mark Earnest wrote:

"Mike Williams" wrote in message
...
Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote:
If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?

I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor
planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then. "Dwarf
planets" are not planets now.

Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.

Forget them. They have no right to control what we think.
We grew up on Pluto being the fascinating 9th planet of the Solar System,
and imagined ice crystal creatures radioing each other by telepathy from
there, discussing the mysteries of the universe at large.

Calm down - astronomers can indeed not control what people think.
The popularity of astrology is proof enough for that....

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

"Mike Williams" wrote in message ...
Wasn't it Mike Dworetsky who wrote:

I was there, voting. There was only a record of the count, not of the names
of the voters. Do you think I could get something for my historic yellow
voting card, signed and dated, if I put it on e-Bay? Could I get double the
amount if I record on it which way I voted?

Absolutely. That's a seriously valuable historic artefact you've got
there.

Without a doubt.

Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

"Fleetie" wrote in message
...
"Mike Williams" wrote in message
...
Wasn't it Mike Dworetsky who wrote:

I was there, voting. There was only a record of the count, not of the
names
of the voters. Do you think I could get something for my historic
yellow
voting card, signed and dated, if I put it on e-Bay? Could I get double
the
amount if I record on it which way I voted?

Absolutely. That's a seriously valuable historic artefact you've got
there.

Without a doubt.

Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967
110890
Manchester, U.K.
http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie



Hmm, I think you both may be pulling my leg, but I need to recoup my travel
expenses somehow and my grant won't cover it by a long ways.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

wrote in message
...
Mike Dworetsky writes:

I have no reason to think that, if
all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have
been
any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial
wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish
those
present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
sampling of the overall views of members.

Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than
one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
"non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility,
then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.


I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national lines
on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and lots
of different accents.

The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a
trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I
discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a factor.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

Mike Dworetsky writes:

I have no reason to think that, if
all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been
any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial
wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those
present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
sampling of the overall views of members.

Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than
one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
"non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility,
then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.

I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national lines
on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and lots
of different accents.

And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest
petition?

The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a
trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I
discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a factor.

The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of course,
ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places that
didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of a
30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was easily
more than a third of the total.