Re: Arthur C Clarke, RIP

"W. Citoan" <wcitoan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:slrnfu8ar4.2co.wcitoan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Amanda wrote:
>>
>>  W. Citoan wrote:
>>
>> > Amanda wrote:
>> >
>> >> Don't you think that definition should be left to the writers of
>> >> science fiction?
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> http://www.panix.com/~gokce/sf_defn.html
>> >
>> >
>> > Given that the authors cannot come up with a single, unified, and
>> > consistent definition, I think your argument from authority is a bit
>> > misplaced.
>>
>>  True...but at least in all their definitions they haven't excluded
>>  anyone. If anything, they are more inclusive. Even in all their
>>  disagreement, their definitions are stronger than the one Peter was
>>  suggesting.
>
> A number of those definitions exclude wide swaths of what is marketed as
> science fiction.  Requiring plausibility limits many works.

 The problem with a 'plausibility' goal post is that it is constantly in 
motion when viewed across any population.