?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
(no subject)
Self-Portrait 3
hellblazer
Fuck you, buddy.

I've been taught my entire life that Pluto was a planet, and as far as I'm concerned it still is and it always will be. Anybody that disagrees can gobble my fucking dingus.


  • 1
Are you guys sure this has nothing to do with an allegiance to the puppy-friend of one Mister Mickey Mouse?

That's what at least one report on NPR suggested.

Oh. And I third.

(Deleted comment)
You're just saying that because you've always harbored a secret desire to mouthify my wang.

My car gets fifty gallons to the hogshead, and that's the way I like it!

Like anyone commenting on this post believed what they were told in grade school to be sacrosanct anyway. Hell, I had to correct my AP English teacher's pronunciation half the time (she pronounced "subtleties," "sub-tel-EASE."

Re: haw haw haw

(Anonymous)
rods, luke, rods. hogsheads and gallons are both liquid measures; you've essentially just said "my car gets 4.8 litres to the gallon."

Jesus, Dave. Sure do appreciate the charitable interpretation you've given Will, Shane, and me.

Allow me to expand my point in a less colloquial manner. Pluto's status as a planet has been debatable for some time. This isn't because some backwards asshole and some super genius asshole disagree about its status yesterday vs. today. Astronomers, the non-lay people, haven't agreed on the requirements for planet classification for a long time. It seems silly to start taking planets off the list or adding new ones, something that is pertinent only in basic ways to us lay folk, unless and until a sufficiently comprehensive set of reasons describing planetitude is embraced by the experts and can be conveyed to a literate population. There was hardly any coverage about what makes a planet, in fact, a planet. Without explanations and reasons, I prefer to distrust what the media and scientific community decide to tell me. You know, "smoking is good for you", etc. For all I can tell, the new classification scheme is as arbitrary as the old.
Will, Shane, and I are literate enough that, if the press had explained the necessary and sufficient reasons for the new classification scheme, we would recognize them more dutifully. The New York Fucking Times didn't publish a story about the reasons for the change.
Pluto's in limbo. The IAU put it to a vote. In a previous vote, denying Pluto planet-hood failed. This week's vote passed. In what alternate reality of zealous devotion to the rule of the majority is this science?

So I guess my nuts are going for the slobbery as well.




(Deleted comment)
Yes, the IAU put the matter of planethood to a vote, not Pluto's status. The vote was explicitly about planethood but implicitly about Pluto by necessity. That is, it was a vote to the effect of demoting Pluto. Your point about that was a quibble. Also, I reiterate that voting on planethood is absolutely stupid and bad science. Such practices smack too much of the sort of shit produced by Bush & co.

I didn't read the excerpt you quoted in the NY Times. I never saw any such summary mentioned in the Guardian, the Independent, the Times or our local paper (owned by the Times and, consequently, redundant). I believe that you read the quote from the Times, but I never saw it, I don't have any kind of citation, and the onus is not on me to find vague references without sources. And, besides, if it wasn't in any of the half dozen stories I've read on the topic this week, fuck it, because I shouldn't have to read anything else to learn the requirements.

As you mention, the NASA guys are peeved. NASA has its own agenda, to be sure. So does the IAU. The BBC had an article taking the response at NASA into account, and the article makes some very good points.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm

Why is the new definition better because the alternative is to have 12 planets? How is one option better or worse than the other? Shouldn't we prefer whichever option is the consequence of a non-problematic definition?

If the new definition works because the average person can get it, then we're all royally fucked in an unpleasant, prison movie manner. Here I've been thinking that definitions should be relevant to facts and not dependent upon what average people get! In my previous response, I blamed the media for failing to report comprehensively on the matter to literate people. That shouldn't be mistaken for allowing the common denominator of average people to determine definitions according to their understanding.

By the way, you're included with the rest of us lay folk, self-proclaimed former astronomy dorkism notwithstanding.

Finally, If I misunderstood your tone and point, I sincerely doubt I was at fault. I can and did pick up on the sarcasm, but you responded caustically to a silly dialogue among people you know pretty well. How should I have interpreted your response? As far as I could tell, I had a few response options: 1-explain my points to reassure you that I base my opinions on reasons, 2-think "oh, someone just lit the fuse on Dave's tampon and he's pissy today. It'll pass.", or 3-behave as belligerently as you. In my first response, I chose the first option. Since that approach failed, I let the third option be my guide for this response.
Now, I'm just going to option two. So, really, who gives a shit now?


  • 1