The Pluto Issue

[SelfSim]

I'm not going to go with what science says, if science rigged a vote to say it.

There is no such thing as a 'rigged vote'.
(There are however, a bunch of sore losers, who seem to think that the outcome of every fair voting process should always go their way for some strange reason, though ..)

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no such thing as a 'rigged vote'.

Tell Andrew Kerr that.

 

[sjastro]

There is no such thing as a 'rigged vote'.
(There are however, a bunch of sore losers, who seem to think that the outcome of every fair voting process should always go their way for some strange reason, though ..)

I have a conspiracy theory the vote was rigged by American astronomers who watched too many Walt Disney movies to ensure Pluto was not to be demoted.
They failed as their European counterparts are not into Disney movies and the vote carried.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have a conspiracy theory the vote was rigged by American astronomers who watched too many Walt Disney movies to ensure Pluto was not to be demoted.
They failed as their European counterparts are not into Disney movies and the vote carried.

You seem to be taking this personally, and that is up to you.

I take it personally as well.

I can read the OP and conclude the vote was rigged.

Evidently you can't, and that's your choice.

I'm not going to allow anyone to give me the third degree on this.

I think it was rigged, and that settles it for me.

 

[SelfSim]

.. I can read the OP and conclude the vote was rigged.
...
I'm not going to allow anyone to give me the third degree on this.

I think it was rigged, and that settles it for me.

That process IS rigged!

 

[sjastro]

You seem to be taking this personally, and that is up to you.

I take it personally as well.

I can read the OP and conclude the vote was rigged.

Evidently you can't, and that's your choice.

I'm not going to allow anyone to give me the third degree on this.

I think it was rigged, and that settles it for me.

If you boast about having standards then so is the burden of proof which is your responsibility.
Otherwise you have no credibility whatsoever and come across as an individual with a big chip on your shoulder.
So who rigged the vote?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you boast about having standards then so is the burden of proof which is your responsibility.

And I take that responsibility seriously.

Otherwise you have no credibility whatsoever and come across as an individual with a big chip on your shoulder.

Suit yourself.

So who rigged the vote?

The IAU.

 

[chad kincham]

"Star" in the Bible can mean: star (Matthew 2:2), planet (Jude 13), or asteroid (Revelation 8:11).

Binary stars?

You left out angels as stars.

 

[klutedavid]

There is no such thing as a 'rigged vote'.
(There are however, a bunch of sore losers, who seem to think that the outcome of every fair voting process should always go their way for some strange reason, though ..)

Fake news.

 

[AV1611VET]

You left out angels as stars.

I did, didn't I?

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

 

[sjastro]

And I take that responsibility seriously.Suit yourself.The IAU.

You are not even making any sense.
If you take the burden of proof seriously you would have provided evidence the vote was rigged.
Furthermore this blanket accusation of the IAU being responsible is even more nonsensical
as the 424 astronomers that voted were all IAU members.
They clearly cannot all be corrupted as a certain percentage voted in favour of maintaining Pluto's status as a planet.
So the question still stands albeit in a modified form; since you take the burden of proof seriously what percentage of the 424 astronomers who voted for Pluto's demotion did so because they are corrupted as opposed to those who did so for legitimate technical reasons?

 

[AV1611VET]

So the question still stands albeit in a modified form; since you take the burden of proof seriously what percentage of the 424 astronomers who voted for Pluto's demotion did so because they are corrupted as opposed to those who did so for legitimate technical reasons?

Give it up, chief.

I'm not going to take the third degree from someone I think is emotionally charged.

 

[SelfSim]

Fake news.

Gangsters watch that.

 

[sjastro]

Give it up, chief.

I'm not going to take the third degree from someone I think is emotionally charged.

There is no need to be defensive and calling me chief is a good indicator of who is emotionally charged.

If you want to convert the subject of Pluto into a conspiracy theory and post in the science forum then it is going to be given the third degree and ultimately found to be wanting.
For it to even remotely qualify as a science topic you needed to supply evidence of rigged voting; instead your posts have degenerated to such a degree when you resort to blatant falsehoods such as taking the burden of proof seriously when you have done no such thing.

As a science topic without having to resort to conspiracy nonsense the discussion could have been on the for and against POVs; who was qualified to vote given astronomy and planetary science are large fields and only a small percentage of scientists work directly in areas applicable in determining Pluto's status; or whether the 5% of scientists that did vote represents a sufficiently large sample size to reflect a majority view of the scientific community.

 

[Kylie]

No.

How can you say no when that's exactly what you actually did?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have probably said this before but... why is this such a big issue? So Pluto isn't a planet... so what?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have probably said this before but... why is this such a big issue? So Pluto isn't a planet... so what?

I think we've been through this before.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think we've been through this before.

Very likely. And the likely answer was "Because you want it to be an issue."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have probably said this before but... why is this such a big issue? So Pluto isn't a planet... so what?

Exactly; reclassifications occur in science all the time - they are a taxonomic convenience.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly; reclassifications occur in science all the time - they are a taxonomic convenience.

I'm pretty sure that we've been over this before.

Yes ... reclassifications occur in science all the time.

By legitimate due processes.

Pluto being an exception in my ... and others' ... opinion.