Re: OT: Pluto IS TOO a planet!
- From: Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM111@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:52:25 -0700
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:21:08 GMT, ted@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
In article <6bSdnZIHCL6eg3PZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Peter B. Steiger <see.sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:27:05 +0000, Rob Wynne sez:
people are going to continue insisting that the millennium
started in 2000 and Pluto is a planet.
Then there are those of us who disagree on the former and agree on the
latter.
--
Peter B. Steiger
I've heard that the new definition excludes Neptune except for a footnote
saying, essentially, "Neptune is a planet". It seems kind of embarassing.
And I still miss brontosauri!
I'll bet you still refer to them as Bombay and Mt. McKinley instead
of Mumbay and Dinali!
--
- ReFlex 76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between
looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
.
- References:
- OT: Pluto IS TOO a planet!
- From: Ted Slampyak
- Re: OT: Pluto IS TOO a planet!
- From: Rob Wynne
- Re: OT: Pluto IS TOO a planet!
- From: Peter B. Steiger
- Re: OT: Pluto IS TOO a planet!
- From: Ted Nolan <tednolan>
- OT: Pluto IS TOO a planet!
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Pluto IS TOO a planet!
- Next by Date: Real Life (8-24)
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Pluto IS TOO a planet!
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Pluto IS TOO a planet!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
