From: seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com   
      
   On 3/6/17 1:23 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:   
   > For your reference, records indicate that   
   > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 	And in an uncountably infinite set of universes, you can have any set   
   >> of new physics you like. Generally one doesn't waste time explaining   
   >> them, because that's not the point of a story. If the point of the story   
   >> was "explain how X happens" then yes. But otherwise, no.   
   >   
   > Unless you intend a story to be rubbish, the rules must *still* make   
   > sense to the reader, regardless of the detail you go into.  You can   
   > get away with *some* elements that are impossible (in this universe)   
   > but you *cannot* get away with building a universe that is full of   
   > massive inconsistencies.   
      
   	Consistency was not what you (or I) were discussing. You were bringing   
   up "this is real world stuff that they violate, therefore it sucks", not   
   "This is a set of rules they set up in their story, and then they   
   violated the rules they set up", which is consistency.   
      
   	The latter is bad, I would agree. The other only matters if you're   
   claiming to be doing diamond-hard SF. But you weren't saying "Look at   
   King Kong, they said he could do X and Y and Z, which implies A, but   
   then they showed not-A, which is inconsistent", you were saying "look at   
   this impossible thing which they failed to explain in real-world terms"   
   which isn't "consistency".   
      
   --   
                         Sea Wasp   
                           /^\   
                           ;;;	   
   Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com  Blog:   
   http://seawasp.livejournal.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)