Hey NCSoft! Hey hey hey hey!
We could go with "Earthlings" but far too many of us revel in jingoism and religious fanaticism for that to ever catch hold.
Be well, people of CoH.
![](http://pages.suddenlink.net/dmweb/sig1.jpg)
We could go with "Earthlings" but far too many of us revel in jingoism and religious fanaticism for that to ever catch hold.
|
"Terran" has a better ring to it, though that's still "person of the land". "What land?" "This land!" As if there were no other land.
Be well, people of CoH.
![](http://pages.suddenlink.net/dmweb/sig1.jpg)
Solution: Denizens of Sol 3. Happy?
Doom.
Yep.
This is really doom.
Mae Moose brathu fy chwaer unwaith. (Ddim mewn gwirionedd, nid oes gennyf chwaer. Fi jyst eisiau i daflu mewn geirda ffilm)
Premium accounts can't edit signatures.
Huh.
I propose that we name this planet "Petra".
Doom.
Yep.
This is really doom.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
It is pragmatic, as it avoids tedious renaming should we wish to add Pluto to our list of legitimate planets again.
|
Also, Pluto is a planet. I'll consider Pluto not a planet when the IAU makes a definition for planets that isn't completely stupid. The IAU's explanation for redefining what a planet is was that it was scientifically important to make a definition that could be consistently applied. Then they made that definition only work within our Solar System: the definition for planet everywhere else in the universe is different. Pluto would be a planet by IAU definition if it was in a solar system exactly identical to ours ten light years away.
The definition is also very hazily argued to include the Earth as a planet, even though it does not technically meet the neighborhood requirement, as the Earth does not "gravitationally dominate" the orbit of the Moon and is a satellite of the Earth only by the circular argument that the Earth is a planet in the first place. If the IAU cared about Science, it wouldn't care one way or the other if the Earth was defined to be a planet or not. It does, because it knows it can redefine Pluto's status but if it redefined Earth's status everyone would ignore them completely.
Knowing that, and generalizing the sentiment scientifically, I ignore them completely.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
The same thing's going to happen when the Sun eats Mercury.
Also, Pluto is a planet. I'll consider Pluto not a planet when the IAU makes a definition for planets that isn't completely stupid. The IAU's explanation for redefining what a planet is was that it was scientifically important to make a definition that could be consistently applied. Then they made that definition only work within our Solar System: the definition for planet everywhere else in the universe is different. Pluto would be a planet by IAU definition if it was in a solar system exactly identical to ours ten light years away. The definition is also very hazily argued to include the Earth as a planet, even though it does not technically meet the neighborhood requirement, as the Earth does not "gravitationally dominate" the orbit of the Moon and is a satellite of the Earth only by the circular argument that the Earth is a planet in the first place. If the IAU cared about Science, it wouldn't care one way or the other if the Earth was defined to be a planet or not. It does, because it knows it can redefine Pluto's status but if it redefined Earth's status everyone would ignore them completely. Knowing that, and generalizing the sentiment scientifically, I ignore them completely. |
I agree, a more robust definition of a planet would take into account only orbital eccentricity, orbital plane relative to the ecliptic, mass, and composition as it relates to Kuiper Belt and Asteroid Belt objects, all subject to some arbitrary standard deviation limits. Under such a definition, both Pluto and the Moon fail.
Doom.
Yep.
This is really doom.
Mae NCSoft yn twp! Byddan nhw'n farw mewn popty ping. Dw i ddim yn hoffi Cymraeg ail iaith.
NCSoft petaQ! chaH 'oH Hutlh quv!
I propose that we rename Earth "Sol 4". That way when Aliens invade they'll waste their time attacking Mars, Jupiter or Saturn (depending on which way they number their worlds and whether they count Pluto as a planet or not).
@Black Zot: It's Welsh (at least the early ones were, I think a few other languages may have slipped in here and there).
I propose that we rename Earth "Sol 4". That way when Aliens invade they'll waste their time attacking Mars, Jupiter or Saturn (depending on which way they number their worlds and whether they count Pluto as a planet or not).
@Black Zot: It's Welsh (at least the early ones were, I think a few other languages may have slipped in here and there). |
![Confused](images/smilies/confused.gif)
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Why do I get the feeling that you're not a member of the original natives of this land?
|
Your point is invalid, and he was being ironic.
I'm only ladylike when compared to my sister.
I hear "Hey Jerkface!" works with just about any ethnic, cultural, or any subdivision thereof, culture.
He said that anybody who has a baby somewhere becomes a native of that land. Which means Native Americans described, to him, all parents in the USA.
"Indigenous" has the same semantic problem as "native." And "aboriginal" is not literally true since the pre-Columbians did not originate in the Americas.
"Pre-Columbian Americans" is a technically correct term and what ethnologists usually use, but, unlikely to catch on.
And so, those of pre-Columbian American descent will use any of the above terms as the preferential term while being indifferent or antagonistic toward other designations. It just depends who you're talking to.
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides