The whole thing kind of reminds me of the movie, "The Englishman". Just because the cartographers wanted to change the designation from a mountain to a hill because it wasn't 1000 ft high - didn't make it any less of a mountain to the locals. I'll always consider Pluto a planet - because, for me, it always has been. But, perhaps my grandkids will have a different opinion. Of course, to take the movie analogy further - perhaps some enterprising individual with more dollars than sense will crash some asteroids et al into Pluto to increase its diameter and mass. <g> -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission. com] On Behalf Of Kim Hyatt Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:11 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] the Pluto controversy continues Sorry, Jim - I wasn't being contemptuous, but amused. Planet, planetoid, Kuiper Belt Object... the arguments are purely semantic and don't change the fact that Pluto is an unusual and interesting place. I just don't think that the arguments are productive. "I say tomato, you say tomahto..." I heard once that the IAU was planning to define a "planet" as any object whose size is such that its own gravity will make it spherical. Anyone else heard that? If true, then our own Solar System obviously has more than nine "planets." Kim