Hola all the way Darren! Jerry PS I liked the Stern's definition in Ron Blaake's post. Three unremarkable features. "Round" In it's "own" orbit of a star Without nuclear fireworks[brown dwarfism ok?] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darren Garrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dawn & Gerald Flaherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Meteorite Mailing List" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 9:05 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers to Decide What Makes a Planet
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:47:39 -0400, "Dawn & Gerald Flaherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >A thought provoking concept Darren. >Analagous to seventeenth century religiousity which refused to accept the >Copernican revolutionary thought? >Kinda "don't rock the boat cause its too damned complicated and might cause >a 'panic' for joe sixpac"[that's me by the way before my doctor screwed that >up] Jerry Yeah, by the same "give up on defining a planet because a planet is what the general public says it is" logic, we might as well start calling meteorites meteors, because the general public tends to call meteorites meteors. Or we should accept that apes are monkeys, because the general public calls them monkeys. Or that pterasaurs are flying dinosaurs, because the general public calls them flying dinosaurs. I say come up with a reasonable definition, and if that disagrees with what the "general public" thinks, then tell the general public to go sit on a bunsen burner. ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
