And then there were 8 ...

[gengbondarenko]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/08/24/pluto.ap/index.htmlRead more... )

Comments

don't put words in my mouth

[orion1778]

Sorry Josh, that was not what I said. I lobbied to end pluto being a planet. I was fine with them adding Ceres though. I tink that ice balls in the Kupier Belt that don't travel in eliptical orbits should not count. I'm fine with them not using the made up term "pluton".

Re: don't put words in my mouth

[gengbondarenko]

But I think we both did agree that they would NOT take out Pluto? On the rest, yeah, you're right on that.. Sorry.

Re: don't put words in my mouth

[orion1778]

Well, I hate to be a jerk and keep contradicting you, but that is not quite right either. Your original comment regarded grandfathering in Pluto, which you support. But my stance was that a proper definition for planets was needed, without exceptions. My reading on the situation at that time was that the committee fully supported a definition of planets that could have led to hundreds of ice balls, including Pluto, being called planets. I didn't like where that was leading. I supported Pluto, and all the other ice ball out there being called plutons (as they called them at that time), but not planets. My take was that the group as a whole wanted to keep Pluto as a planet and to do this they would have to adopt the no ice ball left behind planet definition. However, I believed that if they did not adopt that definition then they would not make exception for Pluto. After all, the whole point is to difinitivly decide what constituted a planet.