Author Topic: IRC/MSN/AIM Quotes Thread (Read 10386 times)

Fluffy Cocaine · « **Reply #20 on:** May 10, 2008, 10:44:41 PM »

Lmao. I was supposed to unlock this two weeks ago.

Unlocked.

Defose · « **Reply #21 on:** May 10, 2008, 11:07:05 PM »

Lol Freeze, you are slipping up a little.

Fluffy Cocaine · « **Reply #22 on:** May 10, 2008, 11:07:54 PM »

Quote from: Defose on May 10, 2008, 11:07:05 PM

Lol Freeze, you are slipping up a little.

I live on icy floors, then. :x

Cesium · « **Reply #23 on:** May 10, 2008, 11:31:23 PM »

Wait, what was the point of that edit? :x

Defose · « **Reply #24 on:** May 10, 2008, 11:34:21 PM »

For some reason I skipped the "are" in that sentence.

Cesium · « **Reply #25 on:** May 10, 2008, 11:53:45 PM »

Quote from: Defose on May 10, 2008, 11:34:21 PM

For some reason I skipped the "are" in that sentence.

No, the one where you changed you to your. Unless Freeze did that in his quote.

Anyway...

hey Dan! I was wondering... Since Ari and Ryan are not going to be at the majority/all of MC08, will you be doing the raps?
Er, no.

You know it's OK to let traditions pass on and get replaced by new, cooler traditions.
OK, but I just think you'd be good at this sort of thing
Oh, I've tried. 'twas not pretty.
soy
soy?
patty radish
Dang, I've forgotten what that means again.
but really, what's wrong with not being pretty?
blink
you said it was not pretty when you tried before
Well, because it would fail, and potentially cause some pain as well.
pain for whom?
Pretty much everyone.
i think it would be fun!
No.
but failure can amuse!
So very true, and so very, very unconvincing.
what would be convincing?
Yeah, um, basically nothing.
In fact, not ever bringing it up again would be very convincing.
what about kidnapping?
Nope, wouldn't work. Also, I'm stronger than you.
yes, but there are more of me than you!
Yeah, but I'm pretty much stronger than *all* of you.
hahaha, you are so delusional
Uh huh.
what if we are armed with laundry?
the royal we, of course
I have become far more effective at defending against laundry, I shall have you know!
and rubber-bands?
As we already know, those are no problem.
what about bears?
I'm already protecting you from bears.
are you effective at defending yourself against chocolate truffles?
I am effective at defending myself against everything.
we'll see about that!
Indeed.

Alex · « **Reply #26 on:** May 11, 2008, 12:01:10 AM »

Haha, I grinned. I'm already protecting you from bears!

Snoggums · « **Reply #27 on:** May 11, 2008, 12:09:06 AM »

Quote from: Alex on May 11, 2008, 12:01:10 AM

Haha, I grinned. I'm already protecting you from bears!

So did I, that was actually very heart warming, gave me a good chuckle. Reminds me how my friends and I used to bicker in science. Thanks for the nostalgia.
"Pluto is a planet."
"No, it is not."
"Yes it is!"
"Stop lying you sinner."
"SATAN WILL CRUSH YOU."

Pluto not being an actual planet... I'm really happy about that.

GracefulDave · « **Reply #28 on:** May 21, 2008, 02:58:19 AM »

Me too! Finally, someone besides my Astro prof who agrees with me! Everyone was all, "Oooh, when I was a kid, Pluto was a planet! Let's petition to get it back!" Please. If popular opinion had any affect on astronomers, they wouldn't be in astronomy. It's too god damn small. MOVE ON!

Cesium · « **Reply #29 on:** May 21, 2008, 07:40:28 AM »

I don't see what the big deal is. It ("planet") is an artificial name that we should be able to change at any time. It's not like it was given by the ancient Greeks 3000 years ago, either. Humans are getting shuffled around all the time into different domains and kingdoms and phyla and sub- and super- and infra- every taxonomic order you can imagine, and no one complains about that.

Rosti LFC · « **Reply #30 on:** May 21, 2008, 08:21:06 AM »

There is no definition of "planet" that can include Pluto and can't include thousands of other similar sized objects in the Kuiper Belt, unless you arbitrarily make Pluto's size the minimum size for a planet. Other than the fact it's big for an asteroid, and is called "Pluto" instead of, say, 2005FY9, it's nothing special.

GracefulDave · « **Reply #31 on:** May 21, 2008, 03:39:50 PM »

Exactly. Hell, even Pluto's moon is bigger than it is. If you make Pluto a planet, then by any definition all the other KPOs of that size should be included. It's just not a planet...

Fluffy Cocaine · « **Reply #32 on:** May 21, 2008, 03:44:04 PM »

It's just horribly annoying that we'd established for many years that Pluto was indeed a planet and we had 9 planets in the solar system, etc. etc. Then, scientists had to factually invalidate tons of educational material just because it's "technically" not what they said it was in the first place! It seemed unnecessary to me.

Cesium · « **Reply #33 on:** May 21, 2008, 05:27:48 PM »

There's nothing wrong with continuing to consider Pluto a planet. It isn't going to matter to most people anyway. When some teachers are saying Pluto is a planet and some aren't, that's a problem, but you have to go for scientific consistency over the rest.

Rosti LFC · « **Reply #34 on:** May 21, 2008, 06:11:52 PM »

Freeze, that's a dumbass reason. We considered Pluto to be a planet because we thought things were different to how they actually are. We've now found out otherwise, so we've changed stuff. Science moves on.
I'm sure all those people writing scientific journals were jolly pissed off when it was proved the Earth was round, or that the planets orbited the Sun, but it'd be stupid to not change things simply because it's a hassle and people have thought that way for ages. (I'm aware that's a slight Straw Man argument there, but I think the logic still holds.)
Pluto wasn't even discovered that long ago anyway. There's easily a few people alive who could say "When I was a kid, Pluto wasn't a planet because we didn't know it existed".

Fluffy Cocaine · « **Reply #35 on:** May 21, 2008, 06:15:33 PM »

Quote from: Rosti LFC on May 21, 2008, 06:11:52 PM

Freeze, that's a dumbass reason. We considered Pluto to be a planet because we thought things were different to how they actually are. We've now found out otherwise, so we've changed stuff. Science moves on.
I'm sure all those people writing scientific journals were jolly pissed off when it was proved the Earth was round, or that the planets orbited the Sun, but it'd be stupid to not change things simply because it's a hassle and people have thought that way for ages. (I'm aware that's a slight Straw Man argument there, but I think the logic still holds.)
Pluto wasn't even discovered that long ago anyway. There's easily a few people alive who could say "When I was a kid, Pluto wasn't a planet because we didn't know it existed".

That's not a dumbass reason at all. I see no reason why they made such a big deal over whether or not it's a planet when it really affects nothing at all in the end.

The Earth being round is a lot more significant than how we refer to the ball of rock that we once called "Pluto".

Rosti LFC · « **Reply #36 on:** May 21, 2008, 06:21:40 PM »

Quote from: Polarimetric on May 21, 2008, 06:15:33 PM

That's not a dumbass reason at all. I see no reason why they made such a big deal over whether or not it's a planet when it really affects nothing at all in the end.

The Earth being round is a lot more significant than how we refer to the ball of rock that we once called "Pluto".

I know it's more significant. I even pointed out my use of a Straw Man argument.

It's not over whether Pluto is or is not a planet. It's how we actually define the term 'planet'. We either have 8, or we have quite a large number of planets. The only reason Pluto was ever considered one was because we thought it was alone in it's region of space. It now turns out that it isn't, and there's thousands of other balls of rock out there which are mostly smaller, but not by that much. Aside from being discovered first, there's no reason why Pluto is that special. If Pluto is to be called a planet, then there's a whole shitload of other planets out there.
If anything, Pluto not being a planet makes things easier, and less of a hassle, because if the definition includes Pluto, and therefore most of the other reasonably large objects in the Kuiper belt, then we're probably going to have a new planet every few days. And that is far more difficult for textbooks to keep track of.

Cesium · « **Reply #37 on:** May 22, 2008, 07:42:53 AM »

The scientists didn't make a big deal out of it. The definition of planet is important, so it was a big decision, but the press were the ones that blew the whole thing up.

Empirical Pussy · « **Reply #38 on:** May 27, 2008, 09:02:44 PM »

5:58:57 PM Alex: It was reverse date rape
5:59:01 PM Alex: He randomly woke up inside her :x
5:59:07 PM Kryshak: lmao what?
5:59:10 PM Kryshak: she ate him?

GracefulDave · « **Reply #39 on:** May 28, 2008, 02:16:03 AM »

Quote from: Sidewinder on May 21, 2008, 06:11:52 PM

Freeze, that's a dumbass reason.

I agree Rosti. Public opinion should have absolutely no say in what we teach or not. Yes, if you look at the practical application of what a planet is it doesn't have a HUGE impact on the average person, but if that were the driving force behind it then why even teach about the planets anyways? If it's so irrelevant then get rid of it all. But if you're going to teach something about the world, then you have make a point to make sure it's correct.

News:

Author Topic: IRC/MSN/AIM Quotes Thread (Read 10386 times)