Have these people (and by that I mean the professional bodies who made this decision) heard of diplomacy, or just plain tact. The decent thing to do would have been to define a “planet” as a body of a certain size orbiting with a certain perimeter of the sun.

Frankly I think they (apparently the IAU) have more than a little in common with the book burners in the American Library Association who tossed out everything written before 1970, except what they couldn’t get away with tossing out because the author was too well known.

Make these buffoons read Fleur Adcock’s “The Ex-Queen Among the Astronomers” before they make they make any more decisions matters which bear on heritage in addition to science.

I don’t see why they wanted to stop “dwarf planets” from being full members in the planet club.
It probably would have even been good for astronomy and space in general.
Every time they found a new planet it would have made the news and alot of people would have wanted to learn more about it.
why do they really care if there would have been 20+ planets in our solar system?

BTW, I just found your blog and I’ve read the last couple of entry’s and from what I’ve seen its really good. Keep it up. I know I will be checking back daily.

You’re confirming my fears on what a silly idea it was to re-classify Pluto in the first place (I posted a couple of comments on the BA blog about it, under the login “omnologos”).

Since it is no “planet” any longer it goes off the radar of pretty much everybody not involved in astronomy and space stuff.

Is that because THEY are “educationally challenged” or because SOME PROFESSIONAL ASTRONOMERS are needlessly educationally-challenging the general public?

And I have even not yet started any discussion on how to be classified “dwarf” has become synonimous of a “demotion”…

People of short stature the world over will surely be pleased to hear how troglodyte-like are the views of the astronomical community!!!