Why do we call Galileo by his first name?

[JKellyMap]

Good point! It would be weird to live in the USV.

…although I wouldn’t mind being in the USVI this week – we’re about to dip down to the negative twenties Fahrenheit here in Wisconsin.

[Boozahol_Squid_P.I]

@Keeve

I think you might have meant to say “Elizabeth Windsor”. “Regina” is a title, not a family name.

It’s also incorrect to call her “Elizabeth Windsor.” Windsor (or, rather, Mountbatten-Windsor) is the name of her house, not her last name. It’s one of those distinctions that only has a difference to the most vaunted and inbred of humans, but it’s the case nonetheless.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@Boozahol_Squid_P.I

It’s also incorrect to call her “Elizabeth Windsor.” Windsor (or, rather, Mountbatten-Windsor) is the name of her house, not her last name. It’s one of those distinctions that only has a difference to the most vaunted and inbred of humans, but it’s the case nonetheless.

Elizabeth is Windsor (the last of that house). Philip and all their children and descendants are Mountbatten-Windsor. Or so Unca Cecil led us to believe.

[iiandyiiii]

There needs to be an in-Dope name for the thing when a Doper asks a question that, it turns out, they already asked on the Dope years before. I’ve seen it enough that it should have its own name.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Boozahol_Squid_P.I

It’s also incorrect to call her “Elizabeth Windsor.” Windsor (or, rather, Mountbatten-Windsor) is the name of her house, not her last name. It’s one of those distinctions that only has a difference to the most vaunted and inbred of humans, but it’s the case nonetheless.

It’s not incorrect. George IV renamed his house Windsor and took Windsor as the family’s surname in 1917 due to rising anti-German sentiment. Prior to that he was George IV of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and the family had no surname.

[Chronos]

Galileo’s name also lent itself to one of the greatest puns of history. Although I can’t agree with the sentiment behind it, I have to admire the craftsmanship of the wordplay: His detractors within the Church paraphrased Acts 1:11 to him, “Viri galilei, quid statis aspicientes in caelum?”, or “Man Galilei, why do you stand staring up into the heavens?”.

[DrCube]

@Northern_Piper

When we talk about the great early astronomers, we refer to Brahe, Copernicus and Newton, not Tycho, Nicholas and Isaac.

But we do call Tycho Brahe “Tycho”. Just like we call Gallileo Gallilei “Gallileo”.

And do you not realize you’re referring to a particular time when last names were a new concept that most people didn’t have? I notice you didn’t ask this question about Archimedes or Ptolemy, nor about Einstein or Hawking. The fact that your question pertains only to a particular time period is informative.

[Mangetout]

@iiandyiiii

There needs to be an in-Dope name for the thing when a Doper asks a question that, it turns out, they already asked on the Dope years before. I’ve seen it enough that it should have its own name.

Didn’t you suggest that in another thread?

[pulykamell]

@iiandyiiii

There needs to be an in-Dope name for the thing when a Doper asks a question that, it turns out, they already asked on the Dope years before. I’ve seen it enough that it should have its own name.

Threadnesia? Although perhaps too generic. I still want a name or law for when a poster crashes into a thread saying “I can’t believe nobody’s mentioned XYZ” and XYZ has already been mentioned, often multiple times, in the thread.

[Northern_Piper]

Well, well, well - learn something new every 13 years!

[Mangetout]

@pulykamell

Threadnesia? Although perhaps too generic. I still want a name or law for when a poster crashes into a thread saying “I can’t believe nobody’s mentioned XYZ” and XYZ has already been mentioned, often multiple times, in the thread.

We need a library of these terms. Including one where someone remarks “You’re all wrong and terrible to say XYZ”, when nobody at all has said XYZ.

[LSLGuy]

@iiandyiiii

There needs to be an in-Dope name for the thing when a Doper asks a question that, it turns out, they already asked on the Dope years before. I’ve seen it enough that it should have its own name.

@pulykamell

Threadnesia? Although perhaps too generic. I still want a name or law for when a poster crashes into a thread saying “I can’t believe nobody’s mentioned XYZ” and XYZ has already been mentioned, often multiple times, in the thread.

@Mangetout

We need a library of these terms. Including one where someone remarks “You’re all wrong and terrible to say XYZ”, when nobody at all has said XYZ.

I suggest “Pipernesia” for asking the same question years later.

The second problem is “TLDRitis” pronounced “TILD-err-Ite-iss”. They read the OP, or sometimes just the OP’s title, maybe cursorily scan a bit of the replies, then start pounding out a reply. My personal flavor of this to carefully read page 1, not notice there’s a page 2, then reply picking up on the ideas of the last post of page 1. Oops. :o

The third problem is called “I can’t (or won’t) read carefully and am unfit to be a Doper”. Y’all will have to work on the short form. I already shot my bolt on the first two.

[Chronos]

We already have a name for that third one: It’s a strawman.

[John_Mace]

@iiandyiiii

There needs to be an in-Dope name for the thing when a Doper asks a question that, it turns out, they already asked on the Dope years before. I’ve seen it enough that it should have its own name.

Threadja vu.

[Northern_Piper]

@LSLGuy

I suggest “Pipernesia” for asking the same question years later.

Oh great! Now I know how Gaudere must feel…

[LSLGuy]

It’s better than being Bristonized.

Besides, threadja vu is a better idea than mine and will probably take hold.

[Northern_Piper]

You’re right : “threadja vu” is far superior and descriptive.

I strongly encourage the Teeming Millions to adopt it immediately!

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

I dunno, I like Northernesia.

[LSLGuy]

But, but …

The Mounties always get their man. No forgetting allowed up there in the Great White North.