From: voxwoman@hotmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:25:57 +0100, Frank Steinmetzger    
   wrote:   
      
   >Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:25:51 +1100, Joel:   
   >   
   >> Yeah but the life span of Bab 5 was significantly longer then that of the   
   >> poor little 'machine of total doom' that the deathstar represents   
   >>   
   >> WarlockBlue   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> ; Which is the better space station ?   
   >>> ;   
   >>> ; Babylon 5 or the Death Star from Star Wars ?   
   >>>   
   >>> You're talking about an immobile space station with barely enough   
   >>> firepower to take out a single capital ship, vs an interstellar capable   
   >>> "station" the size of a small moon with a weapon powerful enough to   
   >>> demolish a planet in one shot.   
   >>>   
   >>> Duh.   
   >   
   >I think you cannot really compare them directly due to the differences   
   >in technology, for example shields vs. interceptors, rotation vs.   
   >gravimetric fields.   
   >If the Death Star is not immobile then it's not a station. STATION   
   >means stationary!!!   
   >B5 is by far more beautiful. *sigh*   
      
   Plus, on Babylon 5, you could pretty much choose your own path, in   
   terms of life and livelyhood.   
      
   If you were on the Death Star, you were an Empire drone. Not much of a   
   life, if you ask me....   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)