Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site qubix.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!steven From: steven@qubix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Death Star weapon. Message-ID: <1155@qubix.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Jun-84 16:47:26 EDT Article-I.D.: qubix.1155 Posted: Fri Jun 1 16:47:26 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Jun-84 19:41:01 EDT References: <12537@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <1514@dartvax.UUCP>, <436@denelcor.UUCP>, <1104@qubix.UUCP>, <3894@utzoo.UUCPRe: Death Star Lines: 38 weapon. Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA Lines: 35 [ * ] I agree! The very act of appearing in a place before light has a chance to get there (you know what I mean) is exactly equivalent to going back in time. Now tell me; what so bad about going backwards in time? -Kieran A. Carroll ...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll =================== Well, nothing, except that there is no evidence for it. I realize that this is a pretty lame excuse to have hanging around in net.sf-lovers, HOWEVER most sci-fi has FTL without (for some inexplicable reason) time travel. To name a few: Star Trek, Star Wars, Niven, Heinlein, MZ Bradley, CJ Cherryh, Pohl, Asimov, etc., etc., etc. While I have no explicit objection to the "science" in many stories by Dr. Who (even though exceedingly improbable, they are at least possible), I would point out that most science fiction is patently false. (But what if 2 + 2 DID equal 5??). Steven Maurer ... As it is, psionics promises to be even funnier than dianetics or Ray Palmer's Shaver stories. It suggests once more how far from accurate is the stereotype of the science fiction fan as a bright, well-informed, scien- tifically literate fellow. Judging by the number of Campbell's readers who are impressed by this nonsense, the average fan may very well be a chap in his teens, with a smattering of scientific knowledge culled mostly from science fiction, enormously gullible, with a strong bent toward occultism, no understanding of scientific method, and a basic insecurity for which he compensates by fantasies of scientific power. -- Marvin Gardener