Or fantasy is "imagination, especially when extravagant and unrestrained, and a supposition based on no solid foundation."

Science fiction, besides being an oxymoron, is "a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc."

Ratch

Glad we agree.

 

Ratch, you are about as dumb as a box of rocks.
Dan

Ratch, although wildly unpopular because of his lust to argue, is certainly more well-written than yourself. Unlike you and I, he has shown a lot of self-control and maturity; both signs of intelligence.

It is a good idea to doubt and question things, otherwise things wouldn't change!

Steve

 

Ratch, although wildly unpopular because of his lust to argue, is certainly more well-written than yourself. Unlike you and I, he has shown a lot of self-control and maturity; both signs of intelligence.

It is a good idea to doubt and question things, otherwise things wouldn't change!

Steve

There is a difference between thinking outside the box to argue a case and arguing just for the sake of it. One is useful, agreed, but the other is a waste of time and obnoxious to the extreme. I have better things to do.

One clue, ever see a point conceded?

 

Bill,

Sometimes people think raised questions are annoying, but you need to question the motives for the 'annoyance'. Sometimes it is generated out of frustration because we are uncertain, or maybe embarrassed we do not know the answers.

A good example is a course that I am taking this semester called "Society and Technology". At first, I was annoyed. Why are these sociology idiots questioning technology? It is something they don't understand and are clearly afraid of it. We don't need these unless people judging what we do. To put it bluntly, the class was horrible because it was questioning the impact of what I set my life to do.

If attendance was not mandatory, then I probably would have not went to class, but it was. These people are bringing up really good concerns about morality, sociology, etc. Finally, a fresh perspective brought on the seemingly annoying questions! I am now becoming more aware of the dark side of what technology has done for our planet. Let's not turn this into a debate on technology, rather, let's thank people like Ratch for being the ones who 'bump' us on the sides of our heads. Without them, we are too set in our ways!

My humble opinion..

Steve

 

Try Lewis Mumford's "Technics and Civilization" for some further thoughts in the effects of technology.

 

Ratch,
Get a dictionary. Then I'll argue with you.
First look up pedant.
Dan

 

Ratch,
Get a dictionary. Then I'll argue with you.
First look up pedant.
Dan

There is really nothing to argue about. Ratch's point is that 'Science Fiction' should be titled 'Pseudo Science' because scientific principles are presented horribly.

This does not matter because even if Sci-Fi presented scientific principles 100% accurately one could still call it Science Fiction because the story itself does not have to be based on fact.

Fiction is a made up story and the portail of science is independent of that.

 

Steve.
To argue, one must have a point, state it clearly, and use the same, or similar language. I'd like to explain further, but on your journey through life, some discoveries are best left to the fates.
I will tell you this, ask yourself what made that class interesting. Did they argue or fight? Did they have a point? Did YOU understand?
Arguing with a fighter leaves you frustrated, which is what they want.
I noticed you wrote Ratch is well written, as opposed to well read.
With all humility, Dan

 

floomdoggle,

Get a dictionary. Then I'll argue with you.
First look up pedant.

I do own a dictionary, several of them in fact, for many years. What do you want to argue about?

To argue, one must have a point, state it clearly, and use the same, or similar language. I'd like to explain further, but on your journey through life, some discoveries are best left to the fates.

I made a point on the first post of this thread, and stated it clearly. I made it in English, and am still using the same language. I learned most of what I know through school, self-study, and experience. My dictionary lists fate as singular, never plural. It does list "the Fates" as the three goddesses of destiny in mythology. I have not learned much from either fate or the Fates.

Ratch

 

What I said Ratch and yourself were merely observations from my perspective as of date. I have never claimed to be 'well-read', and, admittingly, writing is not my forte.

Regarding the class, yes, we did argue significantly. The futility of the general technical audience is what revealed the truth behind the matter. Of course, 'they' had a point, otherwise I don't believe we could warrant an entire semester on a useless subject. If I didn't understand the concepts behind the topic, then I would not have a 'fresh' perspective as mentioned above. I don't really want to get into a debate about technology and sociology here, so can we please leave this at rest?

My point was that we need people questioning! We need people to show us our ignorance, so that we may progress and better ourselves. People, like Ratch, to accomplish this.

I apologize for insulting you, but, if you poke, then be ready for a jab back. As I was ready with you trying to expose my poor writing.

Steve

 

Steve,
Intelligent points never insult me. It should be me apologising to you if my writings were not succinct enough.
You seem aware enough to see needs others do not. Keep on keeping on.
A question not asked in humility; not wanting to hear the answer, only to elicit a contrarion response, might not be a valid arguement.
Dan

 

My dictionary lists fate as singular, never plural. It does list "the Fates" as the three goddesses of destiny in mythology. I have not learned much from either fate or the Fates.

Perhaps a dictionary specific to mythology would be in order. The Fates were not "godesses" save in the most generic of terms. They held sway even over the deities. Ditto for their Nordic incarnations the Norns.

 

Ratch
As I wrote, look up pedant first.
Dan

 

Since I needed to brush up on the vocabulary, I took the liberty of looking up "pedant".

a person who pays more attention to formal rules and book learning than they merit

A pedant, or pædant, is a person who is overly concerned with formalism and precision, or who makes a show of learning.

Steve

 

floomdoggle,

Ratch
As I wrote, look up pedant first.
Dan

No need to do so. I already know. After all, it is part of my tag line, as you must have noticed. You have to admit, I am up front and honest about it.

Ratch