You knew there had to be Pluto Wank somewhere, didn't you?
Well, didn't you?

So here is is! Astronomer Phil Plait states the new definition of 'planet' and shares his thoughts on the whole mess - namely, he thinks that 'planets' as opposed to 'other star-orbity things' is a distinction that exists entirely in the human mind and all this dickering is silly.

Then the Internet comes into play, and other people with a weaker grasp on spelling share their views.

Gems include this guy, who won't stop harping on a technicality:</a>

hehehe. now not only our solar system has 8 plannets, the entire universe has only 8 planets. and all orbit our sun. So what are those things orbiting other stars they have found? Whatever they are, they are not planets.

How come you don’t see why the definition excludes the extrasolar objetcs? It says right there - orbit the SUN. Who cares how large the ESP is, as long as it does not orbit the SUN it falls out of the definition of the planet. ESPs under this definition are not planets!

Some quibbling over whether 'planet' is worth defining:

The BA leaves me a little confused. He says that a planet classification system is a cultural definition and silly. So is the solar classification system he often refers to also cultural and silly? His writings would seem to suggest he endorses classifying stars. Why is classifying planets different?

Has anybody read to the bottom of the AP reports on the decision? My favorite part of the press coverage is this gem from the latest AP article: “It was unclear how Pluto’s demotion might affect the mission of NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft, which earlier this year began a 9 1/2-year journey to the oddball object….” It’s a bit late now to cancel the mission, does the AP think New Horizons will get out to Pluto’s orbit and find just empty space (maybe a “Pardon our dust” sign with the IAU logo)?

How can it be that the definition of a basic term in your field is “silly”? Can you imagine any other field of science where the definition of a basic term would be an exercise in silliness? Imagine chemists saying that attempting to define the term “element” is silly. Would anyone take them - or their field of study - seriously?

I find one thing kind of funny, anytime someone mistakenly calls a meteorite a meteor or vise versa, Phil is quick to point out their mistake. Yet he states that coming up with rules that define what is a planet and what isn’t is “silly”.

Bad Astronomy shares my issues with this new definition, but I disagree that it is a silly argument. Maybe it is my innate drive to name and classify everything, but I do think it is a worthwhile discussion. I have the same feelings about lakes and ponds, streams and rivers. IMHO we should set an official definition of these as well.

Plenty of random funny, both intentional and not:

It seems that planets are like pornography - hard to define but you know it when you see it.

Nice work of IAU guys: their clarifying definition confuses things even more.

Ah well, at least the fingercounting crowd can still count the planets on their fingers or some ridiculous mnemonic. Hukt awn fahniks wirks 4 IAU. I truly appreciate the sick irony of a heliocentric definition for planets, the Christians must be drooling over the possibility of restoring Earth’s place as “special” in the universe.

I know what Xena is, I’m not retarded. I just don’t want to waste 3 seconds of my life typing UB313 when insted I could use that time to utter my last important words with my last breath.

From now on, I’m going to call Earth a “large, wet asteroid.”

Using the word “neighborhood” to to describe astronomical distances is just weird. Could we not have some formulas, or numbers, or something?

honestly. sol has one planet, three minor planets, and a lot of debris.

Pluto shares its own thoughts here.

And this guy wins:

If we allowed Pluto to have planetary status then it would be a short step to polygamy and people marrying dogs.