EIGHT PLANETS Mnemonics for the order of the planets.
don....@paradise.net.nz
What I am about? Sphere, worlds in collision.
The faster you go; the bigger the mess! (LTNZ)
Planets and I moved mutually.
Everybody's speed changes instantaneously!
My Velocity Each Morning..
"Meeting Velocity of Earthly Marbles…"
Mercury Venus Earth Mars…
"AdJuSts UrgeNtly."
Asteroids Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune/
Isaac Newton's 3rd (Action OX = o) reaction Law.
"MoVEments May AdJust S-U-N."
Mercury Venus Earth Mars Asteroids Jupiter
Saturn Uranus Neptune.
Do I move 8X planets/ OR they control us?..
"More eXCiting Play, Chaps!"
Moon Xena Ceres Pluto Charon.
"My Very Enlightened Mentor
Just Showed Us Nirvana." (G.S. Bradley.)
"My Van Errands Must Always Join
Seven United Neighbours." (Chas HNFD.)
Travelling salesman tour of the solar system, torch,
12 hours. DON McD. 15/9/06.
DON S. MC Donald, pg. 296, Newtown,
Wellington.
(steve irwin, + 15/9/2006,
put on this planet for preserving wildlife..)
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>EIGHT PLANETS, Mnemonics for the order of the planets.
I'd end each of these with "Period", however <g>.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
oriel36
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:55:56 -0800 (PST), don.lo...@paradise.net.nz
> wrote:
>
> >EIGHT PLANETS, Mnemonics for the order of the planets.
>
> I'd end each of these with "Period", however <g>.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
The specific way they decided to 'define' a planet reduced the number
from 9 to 7 rather than 8 and this was spotted almost immediately by a
person who can actually think straight -
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/46be522376af3010
Robin Halligan
I always used
Mercury Very Early Made A Jump Sideways UnderNeath Pluto
Dave Typinski
Mnemonics
Very
Earthly
Maybe
Just
Stupid
Unto
Nullity,
Perhaps (or Perhaps Not)
--
Dave
humunculus
My Very Energetic Mother Just Served Us Nothing.
--riverman
Chris L Peterson
<myro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>My Very Energetic Mother Just Served Us Nothing.
... Palatable.
Puppet_Sock
> EIGHT PLANETS, Mnemonics for the order of the planets.
I've known this one since grade school:
Man very easily makes jugs serve useful needs.
And back then the word "promptly" always followed.
But these days...
Socks
Dave Typinski
><myro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>My Very Energetic Mother Just Served Us Nothing.
>
>... Palatable.
For the win!
--
Dave
Katipo
<don....@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:01621176-3a91-4206...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
EIGHT PLANETS, Mnemonics for the order of the planets.
There are NINE planets in the solar system.
What do you need mnemonics for??
Richard Heathfield
>
> <don....@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>
news:01621176-3a91-4206...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> EIGHT PLANETS, Mnemonics for the order of the planets.
>
> There are NINE planets in the solar system.
Seven (at most). Pluto has not cleared its neighbourhood of smaller
objects. Therefore, it is not a planet. Neptune has not cleared its
neighbourhood of smaller objects (e.g. Pluto!). Therefore, it is
not a planet.
>
> What do you need mnemonics for??
I can't remember.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
oriel36
> Katipo said:
>
>
>
> > <don.lo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>
> news:01621176-3a91-4206...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > EIGHT PLANETS, Mnemonics for the order of the planets.
>
> > There are NINE planets in the solar system.
>
> Seven (at most). Pluto has not cleared its neighbourhood of smaller
> objects. Therefore, it is not a planet. Neptune has not cleared its
> neighbourhood of smaller objects (e.g. Pluto!). Therefore, it is
> not a planet.
>
Is there something about this era that takes delight in absurdity at
the expense of the once noble discipline of astronomy ?.
There are 9 planets.
dgates
<myro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Darn. I hate that "Very" that we get stuck with for the "V." It
throws off the rhythm of otherwise memorable sentences.
e.g.,
"My Energetic Mother Just Served Us [Noodles]."
"My Enlightened Mentor Just Showed Us Nirvana."
Oh! Maybe swap in "Exhibitionist," and throw in a "Showed Up Naked,"
and you'll get something that kids can remember for life! :-)
dgates
Wow. But that is SO not-catchy.
I'm working on something more like:
My V_______ explained, "Man, just show up naked!"
Richard Heathfield
> On Jan 13, 9:44 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Katipo said:
>>
>>
>>
>> > <don.lo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:01621176-3a91-4206...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > EIGHT PLANETS, Mnemonics for the order of the planets.
>>
>> > There are NINE planets in the solar system.
>>
>> Seven (at most). Pluto has not cleared its neighbourhood of
>> smaller objects. Therefore, it is not a planet. Neptune has not
>> cleared its neighbourhood of smaller objects (e.g. Pluto!).
>> Therefore, it is not a planet.
>
> Is there something about this era that takes delight in absurdity
> at the expense of the once noble discipline of astronomy ?
Yes, alas.
> There are 9 planets.
If you count Pluto (as, in fact, I do!), I think it's unreasonable
to exclude Eris - so there are actually (at least) ten planets.
Richard Heathfield
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:46:56 -0800 (PST), humunculus
> <myro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>My Very Energetic Mother Just Served Us Nothing.
>
> Darn. I hate that "Very" that we get stuck with for the "V." It
> throws off the rhythm of otherwise memorable sentences.
Madly Vibrant Espresso Man Jovially Shows Us New Planets!
dgates
<r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>dgates said:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:46:56 -0800 (PST), humunculus
>> <myro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>My Very Energetic Mother Just Served Us Nothing.
>>
>> Darn. I hate that "Very" that we get stuck with for the "V." It
>> throws off the rhythm of otherwise memorable sentences.
>
>Madly Vibrant Espresso Man Jovially Shows Us New Planets!
I like "vibrant," or any word that's not soft like "very" or some of
the adverbs. Can we change "madly" to "my?"
Looking at "Espresso Man," I feel like there's a more common "E. Man"
phrase available. It's on the tip of my tongue, but I can't think
what.
My violent espresso man... ?
My vicious every-man... ?
I really like "Shows us new planets."
Patrick FitzGerald
Men Very Easily Make Jugs Serve Useful Nocturnal Purposes
Patrick
Carl G.
<don....@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:01621176-3a91-4206...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
EIGHT PLANETS, Mnemonics for the order of the planets.
Two-in-one mnemonic:
Mad Visionaries Earn Marvelously Juicy Spoonfuls (of) Unappetizing Nausea
The last digit in the number of letters in each word gives another mnemonic
(ignore the "of").
ObChallenge: Create a "Three-in-one" (or a better "two-in-one").
Carl G.
Ted Schuerzinger
> I'm working on something more like:
>
> My V_______ explained, "Man, just show up naked!"
My valentine ejaculated, "Man, just show up naked(, please)!"
--
Ted S.
fedya at hughes dot net
Now blogging at http://justacineast.blogspot.com
oriel36
> oriel36 said:
>
> > On Jan 13, 9:44 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> Katipo said:
>
> >> > <don.lo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>
> news:01621176-3a91-4206...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> > EIGHT PLANETS, Mnemonics for the order of the planets.
>
> >> > There are NINE planets in the solar system.
>
> >> Seven (at most). Pluto has not cleared its neighbourhood of
> >> smaller objects. Therefore, it is not a planet. Neptune has not
> >> cleared its neighbourhood of smaller objects (e.g. Pluto!).
> >> Therefore, it is not a planet.
>
> > Is there something about this era that takes delight in absurdity
> > at the expense of the once noble discipline of astronomy ?
>
> Yes, alas.
>
> > There are 9 planets.
>
> If you count Pluto (as, in fact, I do!), I think it's unreasonable
> to exclude Eris - so there are actually (at least) ten planets.
>
The actual term 'planet' has a specific meaning in context of both its
motion and position within the solar system notwithstanding that
genuine astronomers had no problem with the term in the first
place.These international group of numbskulls who decided to suddenly
'define' a planet tried to do so out of context of its original
meaning and all they had to do was look at what the great astronomer
Copernicus had to say -
"Yet [these orbital motions] differ in many ways [from the daily
rotation or first motion]. In the first place, they do not swing
around the same poles as the first motion, but run obliquely through
the zodiac. Secondly, these bodies are not seen moving uniformly in
their orbits, since the sun and moon are observed to be sometimes
slow, at other times faster in their course. Moreover, we see the
other five planets also retrograde at times, and stationary at either
end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun always advances along its
own direct path, they wander in various ways, straying sometimes to
the south and sometimes to the north; that is why they are called
"planets" [wanderers]. Copernicus
A planet is a 'wanderer' and the wandering motion was resolved by
realising that the orbit of the Earth overtakes the outer planets in
our and their common orbit around the Sun.The following actual motions
of the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn show clearly just how
wonderful the achievement of Copernicus actually is -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
Then we have Isaac who mangled the main argument for the orbital
motion of the Earth by appealing to a hypothetical observer on the Sun
rather than the correct resolution from an orbitally moving Earth -
"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct, " Newton
While knowing how much Newton is revered in the U.K. and
internationally does not excuse the complete mess he made of
interpreting the main argument for the motions of the Earth and his
followers are the ones who ,by the same spurious reasons,managed to
reduce the number of planets from 9 to 7.
Chris L Peterson
<r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>If you count Pluto (as, in fact, I do!), I think it's unreasonable
>to exclude Eris - so there are actually (at least) ten planets.
There are dozens of planets; by some reasonable usage there are millions
or billions. Beyond that, it's simply how we choose to classify them.
oriel36
There were once 5 observed planets by which the great astronomers
figured out not only that only does the Earth orbit between Venus and
Mars but the orbital speed of the planets is variable and the orbital
geometry elliptical but something went badly wrong to the extent that
presently nobody can get a straight answer as to the number of planets
in the solar system ( there are 9).
The word 'planet' cannot be separated from its roots in astronomy as
'wanderers' insofar as they appeared to wander against the stellar
background whereas the Sun and moon did not and this is where people
in this era jump the tracks and behave in an unintelligent manner.It
is not the attempt to 'define' a planet out of context and motions
that is incorrect nor the isolation of a planet as an object, it is
the ignorance as to both the geocentric and heliocentric contexts by
which planets are treated in terms of what is moving and what is not
and what is the arrangement of planets around the central Sun .
In the matter of 'defining' a planet thereby attempting to reduce the
number to 8,it is the only time I have seen the wider population feel
a sense that there is no real intelligence and subsequently an
authority in the matter.You can say there are 7 planets or 9,or 13 or
a million without receiving a single objection yet there is some
irritation out there,not just in the attempt to reduce the number of
planets but the brute reasoning behind the reduction which seen a drop
from 9 to 7.The wider population hardly knows just how dismal the
situation is but I can assure them that the level of intelligence does
not rise above creating mnemonics.
Who knows, maybe the guys from rec.puzzles can figure out what is
wrong with the statement of Newton in contrast to the time lapse
footage of the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn ? -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
Chris L Peterson
<kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>There were once 5 observed planets...
>
>The word 'planet' cannot be separated from its roots in astronomy as
>'wanderers' insofar as they appeared to wander against the stellar
>background whereas the Sun and moon did not...
There were originally seven wanders- Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter,
Saturn, the Sun, and the Moon. These are the obvious naked eye objects
that appear to move against the stellar background.
Later, it was figured out that the Sun and Moon were in entirely
different categories than the first five of these, based on their
location and orbits, and most people stopped calling them planets.
In modern times, we've adopted a nomenclature system that defines things
in terms of their fundamental properties, not their simple appearance.
There are multiple definitions for "planet", ranging from the ancient
astrological ones, the "modern traditional" ones (Mercury through
Pluto), any body orbiting the Sun, any body orbiting any Sun, or bodies
with certain defined characteristics orbiting our or another star. It is
silly to get overly concerned with this highly overloaded word, when
what really matters is our knowledge of the underlying objects it is
used for.
The objects are what they are, regardless of what we choose to call them
(which is bound to change over time).
oriel36
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:59:54 -0800 (PST), oriel36
>
> >There were once 5 observed planets...
>
> >The word 'planet' cannot be separated from its roots in astronomy as
> >'wanderers' insofar as they appeared to wander against the stellar
> >background whereas the Sun and moon did not...
>
> There were originally seven wanders- Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter,
> Saturn, the Sun, and the Moon. These are the obvious naked eye objects
> that appear to move against the stellar background.
>
You will believe whatever you need to maintain this dismal situation
but Copernicus is being absolutely clear as to the distinction between
planets/wanderers as opposed to the Sun and moon,I will even condense
the statement to carry this important point -
Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times, and
stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun
always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various
ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that
is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. Copernicus
What he is saying can now be easily understood by any reasonable
person through actual images of the planets in motion and especially
the Earth's orbital motion overtaking the other planets as the main
argument for heliocenticity -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
> Later, it was figured out that the Sun and Moon were in entirely
> different categories than the first five of these, based on their
> location and orbits, and most people stopped calling them planets.
>
You have a Caltech address and that is the problem,the people
responsible for promoting astronomy just make up whatever story they
wish and that diminishes the magnificent astronomical heritage which
links geocentric and heliocentric astronomies.
> In modern times, we've adopted a nomenclature system that defines things
> in terms of their fundamental properties, not their simple appearance.
> There are multiple definitions for "planet", ranging from the ancient
> astrological ones, the "modern traditional" ones (Mercury through
> Pluto), any body orbiting the Sun, any body orbiting any Sun, or bodies
> with certain defined characteristics orbiting our or another star. It is
> silly to get overly concerned with this highly overloaded word, when
> what really matters is our knowledge of the underlying objects it is
> used for.
>
The time it takes a planet to return to the same place against the
stellar background provided one of the strongest arguments for
replacing the geocentric idea of the Sun between Venus and Mars with
that of the Earth's orbital motion.Kepler himself expresses this -
"Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun
which is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their
whole system ... in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one
place,while the centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement."
'Argument 10'
" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth..but the circuit of the
Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other planets,namely Mars and
Venus,complete their own periods by running around the Sun."
Johannes Kepler
> The objects are what they are, regardless of what we choose to call them
> (which is bound to change over time).
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
The good news is that this 'definition' business has actually exposed
a level of thinking which is now impossible to hide from and
especially in the amazing amount of choices you allow yourselves in
dealing with matters which only allow for the utmost care.
Until such time as people come to their senses and actually work it
out for themselves at the juncture where the 'wandering' nature of
the planets was resolved by realising the Earth is in motion between
Venus and Mars -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
The intelligent person should now delight in the words of Copernicus
match with modern imaging -
"In this arrangement, therefore, we discover a marvelous symmetry of
the universe, and an established harmonious linkage between the motion
of the spheres and their size, such as can be found in no other way.
For this permits a not inattentive student to perceive why the forward
and backward arcs appear greater in Jupiter than in Saturn and smaller
than in Mars, and on the other hand greater in Venus than in Mercury.
This reversal in direction appears more frequently in Saturn than in
Jupiter, and also more rarely in Mars and Venus than in Mercury.....
All these phenomena proceed from the same cause, which is in the
earth's motion." Copernicus De Revolutionibus.
What they are going to do with the junk of Newton in regard to the
resolution for retrogrades I do not know once people realise just how
magnificent the reasoning of Copernicus actually is -
"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct.." Newton
I wish for people to succeed in understanding their astronomical
heritage and part of that success is knowing what is magnificent from
what is careless and false.If they look at the original way the word
'planet' was distinguished from the Sun and moon they will receive an
answer which pays them back a thousand times the initial
effort,truly !.
Katipo
"Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
news:NLednepBft5CZvHU...@bt.com...
> Katipo said:
>
>>
>> <don....@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>
> news:01621176-3a91-4206...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> EIGHT PLANETS, Mnemonics for the order of the planets.
>>
>> There are NINE planets in the solar system.
>
> Seven (at most). Pluto has not cleared its neighbourhood of smaller
> objects. Therefore, it is not a planet. Neptune has not cleared its
> neighbourhood of smaller objects (e.g. Pluto!). Therefore, it is
> not a planet.
>
Following that logic only Mercury and Venus qualify to be called planets!
Richard Heathfield
Um, you forgot the Sun, which also appears to qualify under the new
definition (if we can consider the Sun to be orbiting itself with
an orbital radius of 0).
Dan Tilque
news:gklvp1$18ia$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
There are asteroids (also comets) that cross the orbits of Mercury and
Venus. It looks like there are no planets at all!
--
Dan Tilque
Katipo
> Yes, alas.
>
>> There are 9 planets.
>
> If you count Pluto (as, in fact, I do!), I think it's unreasonable
> to exclude Eris - so there are actually (at least) ten planets.
>
I knew there was another "planet" a little bigger than Pluto but I didn't
realise (until I just read the wikipedia article on Eris) that it has a
moon. In my opinion the solar system clearly does have (at least) 10
planets.
Ed Murphy
> What I am about? Sphere, worlds in collision.
> The faster you go; the bigger the mess! (LTNZ)
>
> Planets and I moved mutually.
> Everybody's speed changes instantaneously!
How do these work?
[other mnemonics snipped, as it's obvious how they work]
> Travelling salesman tour of the solar system, torch,
> 12 hours. DON McD. 15/9/06.
And here we have another classic example of Don-speak. I'm honestly
curious: do you not grasp what complete sentences are (which might be
reasonable if English is not your first language), or do you grasp them
in speech but not in writing for some reason, or are you deliberately
avoiding them so as to establish a distinctive style?
> DON S. MC Donald, pg. 296, Newtown,
> Wellington.
> (steve irwin, + 15/9/2006,
> put on this planet for preserving wildlife..)
And what does "pg. 296" refer to? And why 15/9/2006, when e passed away
on 4/9/2006?
don....@paradise.net.nz
> don.lo...@paradise.net.nz wrote:.
thanks Ed.. This is introduction background theory.
i come onto mnemonics shortly.
> > What I am about? Sphere, worlds in collision.
Em Velhikovsky ???
e.g. my birthdate is A = PI Compass X Compass.
Archimedes base 27.
e.g. ideas_poster_13 ff 21.. World Mathematical Year poster
competition 2ooo.
> > The faster you go; the bigger the mess! (LTNZ)
about reckless driving on the roads.
>
> > Planets and I moved mutually.
> > Everybody's speed changes instantaneously!
> nobody moves alone
even a blink of an eye, or read a full stop period.
speed of light?
> How do these work?
>
> [other mnemonics snipped, as it's obvious how they work]
good intro to subject.>
> > Travelling salesman tour of the solar system, torch,
> > 12 hours. DON McD. 15/9/06.
article.
if a photon ?? is reflected off every planet in near alignment
it visits sun and 9 planets in 12 hours.
titius bodes law.
far better is whole number of periods in 500 years.
>
> And here we have another classic example of Don-speak. I'm honestly
> curious: do you not grasp what complete sentences are (which might be
> reasonable if English is not your first language), or do you grasp them
> in speech but not in writing for some reason, or are you deliberately
> avoiding them so as to establish a distinctive style?
>
i may have a disability i do my best and especially appreciate ed
murphy contributions.
thank you for your understanding and patience
and figuring out.
ouch! i gave a testimony yesterday
my 'wheelie weird wiring.' etc
amazing that the minister spent weeks making galant effort to
understand don.
> > DON S. MC Donald, pg. 296, Newtown,
> > Wellington.
> > (steve irwin, + 15/9/2006,
> > put on this planet for preserving wildlife..)
>
> And what does "pg. 296" refer to? And why 15/9/2006, when e passed away
> on 4/9/2006?
pAge 296 Wellington Whitepages.co.nz
my address.
thanks.
15/9/06 might be........ when i thought this because
he erwin was put on this planets.
what is my / your/ our purposes.
i have answered. above
regards don.
don....@paradise.net.nz
> On Jan 20, 3:43 no no
carl g............... wrote:
>
the original [my] mnemonic had astronomy mechanics physics
and double letters (init. ... IN IT.)
EIGHT PLANETS Mnemonics for the order of the planets.
Dear Astronomers.............. bcc;
MEeting mercury venus
VElocity
(of )
EARTHly earth mars.
MARbles
AdJU STs asteroids? jupiter saturn
URge(NT)ly> uranus neptune.
etc. ETC..
n.b. geo. the scientists confirm not 8 BUT 7 planets defined.
etc. ETC...
not too much silly subconscious stuff. ... ?
regards don.mcdonald wellington. New Zealand
> Mad Visionaries Earn Marvelously Juicy Spoonfuls (of) Unappetizing Nausea
>
> The last digit in the number of letters ??????? in each word gives another mnemonic
PARDON. please?
> (ignore the "of").
>
> ObChallenge: Create a "Three-in-one" (or a better "two-in-one").
>
> Carl G.
Don S. McDonald
> hello george carl,
> >> >
> news:01621176-3a91-4206...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > EIGHT PLANETS, Mnemonics for the order of the
> planets.
> >
> > Two-in-one mnemonic:
>
> very clever but i donot get it please carl. 26/1/09. JANy
> mad threE (letters.) below.
> earn fouR
> juicy fivE................
> ???
>
> perhaps you may like to explain in more detail to the
> confused..
> please reply to astro amateur and cc. mcdonewt.
>
> google profiles dont seem to tell me there have been 30
> replies to> original post.
>
> the original [my] mnemonic had astronomy mechanics physics
> and double letters
>
> MEeting mercury venus
> VElocity
gerson
"Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote
> Madly Vibrant Espresso Man Jovially Shows Us New Planets!
Madly Vibrant Espresso Man Jovially Shows Us New Planets!, Machine Generated
!
My Vital Essences Mix Jenerously Subduing Useless Normal People's Minuscule
Grovelling
Mensanator
How come you didn't include Ceres?
gerson
> "Mensanator"
> > "Richard Heathfield"
> > > Madly Vibrant Espresso Man Jovially Shows Us New Planets!
> >
> > Madly Vibrant Espresso Man Jovially Shows Us New Planets!, Machine Generated
> > !
> >
> > My Vital Essences Mix Jenerously Subduing Useless Normal People's Minuscule
> > Grovelling
> How come you didn't include Ceres?
Wasn't in the series (not serious); i Made a Goof