And as a definition, it was pretty well botched even at that! As to merit. But mistake me not: I do understand the gut appeal. Except for that pipsqueak Mercury!
If you believe in the validity of your point, then to circumvent the process and conventions of consensus even within the little traditions and stipulations that govern your own lil' non-binding club - to pull so bold and peremptory a backdoor maneuver over what you say is just plain fact - well, that's just stupid.
It would have been more accurate and more honest (hell, more scientific!) if they had simply revised the definition of "planet" by taking the old definition, and tacking "(excluding Pluto)" on the end of it. It's too clear that it was drafted for the express purpose - an axe-to-grind purpose: to exclude Pluto. Nothing like a little cloak and dagger controversy to perk up a dry topic! That bitch is next on the list.
That is, if you're sincere about science, then it's stupid.
The fact that the majority of those seeking to reinstate Pluto appear to be going primarily on sentiment for tradition doesn't change the fact that this definition is a poor fit for the existing planets. The strong need some astronomers feel to reclassify Pluto makes sense, even if the definition adopted to serve that end does not. The way the motion was snuck through was needlessly divisive. The way this was carried out was a breach of professional respect and a strategic blunder (at least from the standpoint of respectability within the scientific community). This is more than a technicality.
This wasn't about science, it was a publicity stunt; on that score it was brilliant.
We have to admit that Pluto is a vastly different bird to the others, who do pretty well flock together. Well, I fault it first and foremost on procedural grounds. Well, I find the revised definition (of planet) badly crafted, very arguable - needlessly so.
Who says scientists don't understand marketing?
If you believe in the validity of your point, then to circumvent the process and conventions of consensus even within the little traditions and stipulations that govern your own lil' non-binding club - to pull so bold and peremptory a backdoor maneuver over what you say is just plain fact - well, that's just stupid.
It would have been more accurate and more honest (hell, more scientific!) if they had simply revised the definition of "planet" by taking the old definition, and tacking "(excluding Pluto)" on the end of it. It's too clear that it was drafted for the express purpose - an axe-to-grind purpose: to exclude Pluto. Nothing like a little cloak and dagger controversy to perk up a dry topic! That bitch is next on the list.
That is, if you're sincere about science, then it's stupid.
The fact that the majority of those seeking to reinstate Pluto appear to be going primarily on sentiment for tradition doesn't change the fact that this definition is a poor fit for the existing planets. The strong need some astronomers feel to reclassify Pluto makes sense, even if the definition adopted to serve that end does not. The way the motion was snuck through was needlessly divisive. The way this was carried out was a breach of professional respect and a strategic blunder (at least from the standpoint of respectability within the scientific community). This is more than a technicality.
This wasn't about science, it was a publicity stunt; on that score it was brilliant.
We have to admit that Pluto is a vastly different bird to the others, who do pretty well flock together. Well, I fault it first and foremost on procedural grounds. Well, I find the revised definition (of planet) badly crafted, very arguable - needlessly so.
Who says scientists don't understand marketing?
Comments
Now I'm kind of liking it. It's a little on the delightful side. For my tastes, anyway.
A bit abstract for some, possibly. But I say that sometimes, you just have to take things apart and mess with them to get a more interesting result.
It wasn't jumping out at me. It's a little on the delightful side. Now I'm kind of liking it.
So I took all the sentences out and put the whole thing back together in alphabetical order! So this post needs maybe a word of explanation.
I cut and pasted the words and used them all up, just adding some punctuation and poor grammar.
So, now … I'm kind of a bit abstract for some, but I say that, for my tastes … a little on the delightful side.
This needs maybe a word of explanation. I needed to be jazzed up somehow. You just have to jump out at me, grabbing me, liking it, to get a more interesting result.
For a while I'd put the whole thing back together and it just wasn't posting. So, anyway, possibly sometimes this wasn't in alphabetical order. It had took things apart and all the sentences out.
Take a draft of this and mess with them. Post it.
It's.
Well, my little piece can be entitled...
Now I'm Kind Of Liking It: A Dog’s Breakfast Of A Collage Poem With A Side Of Delightful
And don't say you can't! I just took a quick look at all of your poems, and with the exception of one of them, every one has a way cooler title than Now I'm Kind Of Liking It: A Dog’s Breakfast Of A Collage Poem With A Side Of Delightful!
You're just trying to make it look goofy as a self-deprecation tactic, but I'm saying, "don't be holding out on me all stingy on the poem titling magic."
I also like this post. It made sense somehow.
I love the idea of using order to impose randomnity.
But then, I also think fake word "randomnity" sounds better than real word "randomness" in that sentence. So my tastes may be off, a bit.
You know Mel, I do still want to post that collage poem of yours. I just - I'm sorry, but I need a title that's a little more minimalist than Now I'm Kind Of Liking It: A Dog’s Breakfast Of A Collage Poem With A Side Of Delightful
Those collage poems, they need minimalist titles or else they wilt beneath the expectation!
Whoa.
Hmmm
Would it be totally minimalistic to call it Minimalist Title
yeah
eaxactly.
http://mostofyourwords.blogspot.com/2011/01/minimalist-title.html