Arguing over "realism" is just one of the kinds of fun in SF land.

I like to consider this a debate rather than an argument.

As for the rest, I do agree with your line of thinking Sir Swicord.

Not all SF needs to make you think. It can be merely a setting for a different type of story. I.E. A platform for an action series. I can think of a couple of SF books that are very relaxing, fun to read, etc. but definitely do NOT include thought. Call it a release from the here and now in these cases.

An example: The Sten series by Allan Cole and Chris Bunch

Not all SF needs to make you think.

Purge, I most certainly indulge in fiction for escapism, and if it is text it is pretty much always SF for me. But I said "strong" and "good" at top. I don't talk with friends about the fluff I suck down for various weird reasons. I *do* keep talking to this day about books, like Dune or Stranger in a Strange Land, that I last read years or decades ago.

The apt point you make is actually one of the driving forces behind a major pet peeve of mine: what the heck did the SciFi channel folks have in their pea brains that made them put professional wrestling on their schedule? The endless series of stupid monster movies is bad enough, but ECW?

Interesting take on sci-fi guys. I think sci-fi is an amalgam of what can be, what could be, and what is possible whether it is beyond our limits or not. Star Trek proved this with the original series touching on technology that was seemingly impossible and far fetched back in that time period. Today, however, there are a great many "trek techs" that in one form or another came about from people who were influenced by the "imaginary" futuristic technology of the Star Trek universe. Lasers anyone? Or space travel, weather control/modification, gene splicing/cloning... you get the point.
Things that sci-fi is portraying today may not seem realistic or doable to us now, but I am sure at some point in the future, we very well could see "mass drivers" or "black hole generators", as well as teleportation (which incidently I believe MIT is attempting or has stumbled upon the pre-cursor experiments to make teleportation reality, using photons or something to that effect), and new forms of exotic propulsion and energy resources. I believe that if there was no form of sci-fi, a good number of techs simply would never have come to fruition simply because the average person doesn't usually ponder such things.
In closing, I apologize for the poorly written reply as my thoughts aren't totally "with me" today but regardless, I believe you get my point. To me sci-fi can always be reality, no matter how unfeasible it may seem at the time.

sci-fi can always be reality, no matter how unfeasible it may seem at the time.

Mining bases flipping on cultural influence, however, is not a part of our future or anybody else's.

G.W. I would argue a fun read is a good book, and I do love some of the trash SF novels, but I get your point. I think the better term might be "inspirational". That would winnow the SF pool down! Something like Dune is certainly inspirational.

And to pile on the pea brain point...Even by my very loose standards ECW is annoying and doesn't belong. Fiction, yes, science, no. I mean, really, couldn't they do re-runs of bad SF from the fifties? It would be a step up. I think the monster movies are pretty horrid as a group, but they, at least, technically make the cut

Wheel, the SciFi channel has been getting better pretty regularly. They still have some pretty bad things on there, but the Friday night line up is worth while. SG-1, SG Atlantis, Dr. Who (new version), BSG, and Heroes have all been part of the line up. Decent stuff has even made appearances on other nights...Eureka is looking solid.

I'd rather watch TV like I play video games--when I want to.

I so second that! But the rental subscription thing seems less hassle than buying and re-selling. The only visual texts I've owned are ones I taped myself back in the VHS dark ages.

I'm all for the market moving to flex-time, but I'm never going to be into connecting directly to big brother for my fix. Like hard currency, I believe removable media are here to stay.

And to try dragging this back to the vauge theme of book-club chat, one of the things that's made me love my DVD player far more than I thought I would is that the technology makes TV a lot more like reading a book. Being able stop at will, pause, and rewind makes something like BSG all the more immersive (not to mention the better picture & sound than I ever get off cable, thanks to that freakin' broadband revolution I'm using to post here). I've found that the more I like a show, the less I can stand watching it on broadcast, even rich-people broadcast like HBO or Showtime.

the technology makes TV a lot more like reading a book

I may be showing my age here, but I don't agree with this at all. I couldn't watch any of the Trilogy of the Ring movies, because they were wrong! I had already seen the movie in my head, 30 years ago. Ditto for Star Wars Episode 1-3. When I was a younger geek we spent entire summers debating whether or not Darth Vader was Luke's father. I had imagined the entire mythos in my head and had it all pretty much worked out and I like my version better. I dig ink and paper books - portable, easy to rewind, and they don't crash!

hardcore advocate of reading.

The image of a bunch of soccer styled RIF* hooligans on a bus comes to mind. On the bus is a gigantic banner, "IF YOU AIN'T READING, YOU'RE A BLOODY WANK."

I like the DVD player because I hate TV. When you get entire seasons and go on a commercial free binge with Rome or Battlestar Galactica, it's an experience on par with books. My mind does very well with books but I like supporting the visual arts as well as the written word. Let a talented filmmaker show me his interpretation.

If visuals didn't matter, I'd play Galactic Civilizations 2 in Microsoft Access.

*R... I... F... Reading Is Fundamental!

Ah, the future will be filled with roving gangs asking you how many books you have read.

"A Clockwork Asimov", perhaps?

A question - and I don't really have an answer - as the available cable channels become more and more fragmented, their target markets get smaller and smaller, as are the audiences of the big broadcast networks. Are we shooting ourselves in the foot? The original "Battlestar Galactica" was able to justify the expense of the series by the audience it could draw. If the potential audience is smaller there will be less available resources to create the show, which leads to poorer production values, which leads to smaller audiences, ad infinitum. Frankly, I am suprised "Babylon 5" got made at all, and even then it was nearly not completed. Are the days of big-budget SF shows over?

Perhaps we will all go back to books anyway!

TV is dead.

Yeah, I think channels like Bravo, Oxygen, and Lifetime took care of that, and if they didn't they definitely aided and abetted it's death. Can't forget to leave out all of the "reality" shows and channels too. As well as American Idol, the Apprentice, the View... I could go on and on.

edit:The original Battlestar sucks rhinoceros balls. Ditto for the original Star Trek.
I missed that one about Star Trek. Come on Wheeloffire, it was so cheesy one couldn't help but like it. Trekkie I am not, but the original rules in my opinion. The Next Generation at least did Star Trek some justice, like giving us a "believable" captain with Patrick Stewart. Kirk was just way too young to have been a Captain in the Federation. At least that's what my friends and I always thought.  

p.s. Offworld diaspora folks, I trust you've all caught this headline: NASA Plans Lunar Outpost