No less august a body than the New York Times editorial board has taken issue with the idea that Pluto should remain a planet. In their editorial Dissing Pluto and the Other Plutons, they say:
A panel appointed by the International Astronomical Union thinks it has come up with a dandy compromise to the years-long struggle over whether we should continue to count Pluto as a planet. The trouble is, the new definition of a planet will include an awful mélange of icy rocks found on the outer fringes of the solar system. It would be far better to expel Pluto from the planetary ranks altogether, leaving us to bask in the comfortable presence of the eight classical planets that were discovered before 1900 and have excited wonder ever since. [boldface mine]
Much more importantly, Physics instructor fizzixrat has posted a series of (gasp!) logical and scientific replies to our mission statement. In his post Pluto is NOT a planet (and I shudder to even type those words) he notes a series of supposed flaws in our arguments. We cannot let this stand, but we don't have time to respond right now, as we are busy editing the astronomy section of an earth science book. (Yes, the irony is not lost on us.) We are therefore putting out a call for fellow Plutonians to read his post, and come up with equally valid scientific responses to his arguments. Help us edit our mission statement to put it in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent.