From: droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com   
      
   For your reference, records indicate that   
   "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"  wrote:   
      
   > 	Consistency was not what you (or I) were discussing.   
      
   Yes, it is.  It’s the only thing *worth* discussing in a SF context.   
   It’s what I asserted to be keeping your infinities in check.  You can’t   
   claim that anything is possible, and then turn around and say it must   
   be consistent.  If you don’t see that inconsistency in your own   
   thinking, it makes me wonder if you’re able to see other   
   inconsistencies in your own world building.   
      
   > 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".   
      
   No, I was indeed doing the former.  They are free to explain the   
   existence of large animals in a confined ecosystem on any fantastic   
   terms they want, but then *those* rules must apply to that world in a   
   consistent manner.  Any energy source that sustains even a single   
   creature like King Kong would be a *far* more interesting plot point   
   than fighting the beast.  But I bet they don’t even spend 5 minutes   
   talking about what a monkey that size eats and shits on a regular   
   basis.  Or where its parents are (and all preceding generations, too).   
   Worlds constructed in such a shallow manner are inevitably going to be   
   full of such inconsistencies.   
      
   --   
   "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."   
   River Tam, Trash, Firefly   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)