0
votes

"Plutoed" Chosen as Word of the Year for 2006

posted January 8, 2007 - 6:47pm
"Plutoed" Chosen as Word of the Year for 2006

The verb "Plutoed" was chosen as 2006's word of the year by the American Dialectic Society.

To "Pluto" something is to "demote or devalue" whatever or whomever you are talking about. It is taken from what happened to the one-time planet, Pluto, which was stripped of its planetary status last year by the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union. The Assembly decreed that Pluto did not qualify as a planet.

Other words that were up for contention in this heated battle were the words "murse," or man's purse, and or course, "macaca," the derogatory and racist remark spewed by former Senator George Allen at a stop on the campaign trail.

I think I may have "Plutoed" my blog by writing about this topic, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

Next time someone demeans or otherwise mistreats you, you'll know what to say...



Comments

Maybe ...

... they just did that so that if/when the government workers 'get to' relocate to Pluto, they can still operate things on Earth because they're on its distant Indirect Satellite! Write with Love ... That's me

It IS About Perspective

The only real reason I could come up with for a need to change the classification system is if astronomers were so concerned with something like… finding life on other planets. It could be functional in use if they had to incorporate it into a database that helped them eliminate possibilities based on some factor(s), like size. That’s still not a very significant reason though (even if I knew the exact details of it), because Pluto is only one planet out of miLLLyunnnss n biLLLyunnnss. Why go through all the trouble of changing everyone’s way of thinking of one little Pluto? Btw, that’s not a real question. I know from earlier, but I guess I’m explaining my attempt at trying to find that ‘benefit of the doubt’ that I’m not supposed to ?doubt. Maybe at the Union, there were some words spoken about the validity of the scientist not-on-the-books, or someone implied the thought, I don’t know what was said, even with my searching. But I guess if one thought one absolutely knew the nature of humans, or let’s say, of a group-of-humans, that humans would have such lack of , then one could guess that this is why it was so easy for the group of union humans to demote our lovely little 9th planet. That is, unless some words were spoken. I tend to find the latter perspective very credible though, the one before the redundant reference to the former. How about if “Plutoed” could be… “devalued or demoted by those who have the power to force everyone else to submit to their perspective (or self-serving motives, if you like) that subject will from that point be treated and labeled as being of lower value or status, ?or credibility”? I can just imagine it… someday, I will ask my children what they learned in school, and they will tell me they learned about the planets. “There are 8 planets! Mercury, Venus, Earth…” and I’ll be sittin’ there sayin’, “But… I remember 9 planets!” It does feel strange to imagine this scenario, all I know is… my children will know of Pluto as the 9th planet for sure!!

Wahnsinn Is the Conduction-Coil

ROTFLS!O!LOLS!O! ... :-B lol ... Your countenance, like I said on my profile, inspires men to become magnifying-glasses on all sorts of things! Really, Pluto was 'Plutoed' because of 'factiness' (®Stephen Colbert) itself. That's the same thing that made my injury's so-called "settlement" so low: 'holding to the "evidence" and the "law written before" as the absolute truth.' The way Les tells it, ("they" say) Pluto wasn't originally found and recorded by a 'scientist on the books,' so it can't have been a planet when he found it, and--since it didn't change any--it can't be a planet now. So another definition of "Plutoed" could be "officially shrunken due to an inability to grow as bigger things were discovered." ... blah blah blah Catholic Secret blah blah ... - Write with Love

I Wasn't Expecting You to Answer, Just Anyone Who Could

The reason it was posted twice was because I hit the post comment button twice by accident and there is no way I can delete it. The delete redundancy was because I tried to edit out the second posting and mistakenly made a third post. I obviously wouldn't post the same comment twice on purpose. I'm glad you felt enlightened, even though that wasn't my intent. It was more constructive criticism, and a bit of random silliness. I'm realizing that might not be acceptable behavior here. I hope you felt the humor I tried to put into the use of the word Plutoed and other words one could possibly invent?

I would if I could...

thanks for enlightening me Hatter...twice..but reading that once was enough. thanks.

Not Clueless Yesterday...

Idlewood, I know you were talking about yourself. I didn't think you were so clueless yesterday. "Scientists way back when" found that Pluto fell within the parameters of their planetary classification system. I don't know where your "Should" comes from, I assume only from within your subjective mind, if the classification dwarf planet didn't exist back then, what else would you call it? I'm sorry if I'm reiterating another's words on this. We name elements of the universe a certain way so when I say "planet", you know what I'm referencing. So it's not so much about any "Should" but instead about what already "Is", what exists and has existed for 70 years, and calling it a dwarf planet isn't really going to have the effect on people, for people to all start calling it a "dwarf planet" instead of just planet. Maybe they should just force us all to call it dwarf planet under penalty of law so we all have some way to make references to them so they are understood, but then the ?practical (can I even say that?!) use of the word would only have significance in astronomical research involving real scientists. How "odd" it was? That's just your opinion, I can believe many things in life are "odd" but that doesn't mean everyone else should abide by my standard of what is odd. Besides, what are the "facts"? Are you saying it is reality (fact) just because some nomenclature union redefined the parameters of "normal" planetary classification, and resulted in excluding the "odd" planet Pluto from this category? So reality is what we make it (what we Named it), but then that would apply to any type of classification, if you were to call them real facts. Obviously, there is no name for something until a person or people decide to give it a name, which is based on their perception of the object/idea, which becomes everyone's "reality" if we are so required. By the way, do these "scientists" really require (have a need for) a new classification for planets? How old is this Trans-Neptunian object classification anyways? Btw, I don't EXpecT anyone to answer that, it's a statement I'm putting out there in case anyone has any words of info they have the time to spare me, if you would pity this poor fool.

Nah!

It ain't over, but my vote was not heard at the International Astronomical Union. Sometimes you can't complain loudly enough against those wanting to make a statement. In this regard the current bunch are really talking fashion. The traditional planets could have been left alone and the trans-Neptunian's recognized as frozen scatterings that iced and methaned up as the solar condensation proceeded to catch afire. There are traditions that have some value; Pluto as a planet, was one of them. Currently traditionals give way as profit-motive and one-ups-man-ship arise and sickly soar on hubris neath it's wings. Imagine! Christmas extending from Thanksgiving through New Years. That is New Marketing, Non-traditional, in fact anti-traditional. Every professional and every advanced student of the field knows that Pluto and Chiron are captured trans-Neptunian objects. The idea of calling Ceres, the traditional giant asteroid a "dwarf planet" is about on the same level of hubris as the rest of this bull. Astronomers need to earn some human respect after this, and unless they come to their senses, I do not see much relevance to the historical vastness of Astronomy, played out this recent few minutes. Why call them anything else than their historical traditional characterizations? The new students have no sense of the historical accumulations of Astronomy, even since Astronomy is the oldest true Science. These singers of the dwarf planet school fit with the mythical legions of the Hindus, the ants marching along reincarnation after reincarnation; yes Shiva says, "They were all Princes!" Much less a part of the whole Hubris-laden class of stuff, you an I and others around the planet have financed finding? This is a true case of the "human stupids." Tony Tyson, yeah, I just shake my head. . .no perspective, no true Christmas even in their hearts. Not much humanity. Sagan would have been torn slightly I think, but I think, though I may be wrong -- he would have supported the historical traditionalism to outweigh lumping everything into a bifurcated is/is not classification. Human passion has some value. Tombaugh worked for Percival Lowell, and Flagstaff was a private non university non-government or educationally associated observatory. Mars was Lowell's True passion, and he could see the "canals" on Mars! Yeah, I should xombyted this. Plutoed is a good word, even if there is an "official" reversal.

Planetary discrimination? Not so!

Let's face it, Pluto never should have been a planet in the first place, scientists way back when just put it there because they didn't know enough about it to know how odd it was. Yes, some folks are waxing nostalgic about upsetting the solar system they grew up with, but science should be based on fact, shouldn't it, and not nostalgia? Now I'm sure Les will respond with some astronomy facts that will pluto my argument and splat some slow retrograde-orbit egg on my face... ;-)

Re: Not so clueless (just to clarify)

Just wanted to clear up any potential confusion--I was referring to MYSELF as old and clueless, not the author of the xombyte.

Planetary Discrimination, So Sad

I can't imagine what significance there would be in distinguishing the "dwarf planet" class, it doesn't appear to serve a function that has any real effect on the way anyone would use the word. Maybe some biological 'Nomenclature-Union' will suddenly decide to create a new class of people by calling obese people 'Butterballs'! Then again, planets don't have feelings, right?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text. URLs will automatically be converted to links.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <br> <b> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <span> <object> <param> <embed> <table> <tr> <td> <div>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

Join Xomba Today

Do you like to write? Would you like to make a little extra money on the side? These people do. Join the Xomba community today.
Become a Member