Re: B5 and Sir Isaac

In message <01IGQODT0DHE9GWXUM@avion.stsci.edu> "Out of my mind. Back in
five minutes." writes:
> >> >All-in-all, B5 is remarkably clear 
> >> >of the pseudoscientific doubletalk which passes for science in
much science 
> >> >fiction.	[Lest anyone misunderstand, I don't have problems with
doubletalk 
> >> >per se, I just think that most SF handles it poorly, especially on
TV:  
> >> >Writers get to the point where _anything_ can be justified by
stringing enough 
> >> >polysylabic words together.]
> >> 
> >> At which point I toss it into the category of Science Fantasy, and
not Science
> >> Fiction.  :-)
> >
> >Mark... are implying that B5 is, instead, the latter rather than
> >the former? That it isn't Science Fantasy?
> 
> Sorry, clarification: I was referring to the doubletalk polysylabic
words
> strung together.

Oh, I knew what you were referencing, I was wondering if I was
inferring correctly what you were implying...

> Okay, it's a fine line 'tween the two. I put B5 in the category of
Science
> Fiction. I put a lot of stuff more fantastic like what Star Trek has
become
> (esp the more recent movies) into Science Fantasy.

Star Trek is *more* fantastic?... than a titanic battle between
good and evil?... in which our protagonists are destined to play
major roles, lead great alliances in war, defeat evil, rule 
decaying empires, fulfill prophesies, die heroically in garish CGI?

And I asked if *I* was weird. Sheesh.

-- 
David Brewer