Slorrin

http://fenglee.com/game/aog/

Also, i've been playing this for ages.

I just posted this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here.

Seasons 4, 5, 6 of TNG over TOS, but TOS over TNG taken as a whole.  Seasons 6 and 7 are overall terrible, season 2 is mediocre, season 1 is a lot of TOS rehash and finding footing and stuff.  Even the good episodes from season 6 and 7 of TNG dont' make up for the bad ones. TNG loses its footing and stops being "about" anything the longer they go on without Gene at the helm.  It becomes multiple random stories but without a social message.  Even though Inner LIght is an amazing sci fi story, it teaches me nothing about humanity and how to live.  What i liked about TOS was that even the seemingly random episodes are about a philosophy (with a few exceptions).  Devil in the Dark about understanding things that are different form you for instance.  but "masks" is about nothing.  Emergence is about putting people on a train.  Fistful of Datas is about trying to do a western for the sake of a western.  

The original trio from TOS, Kirk/Bones/Spock had the best chemistry. Their chemistry was handled by D.C. Fontana, who was involved in the first couple seasons of TNG, trying to create a similar cast with rich personalities and stuff but it never really worked the same way. The TNG cast is very diffuse, they don't really have a tight packet at the core the same way TOS does.  Aside from Picard and miraculously Brent Spiner (who's an unappologetic ham usually), the rest of the actors are sort of hum drum.  The core actors of TOS are better.  

However, I'd take Picard over Kirk.

I grew up watching TNG during its first run, so i came to TOS later.  Once i got over its "1960sness" and got into the stories, i realized how much deeper and richer it is, even though it's more on the nose and obvious with its storytelling.  It's a product of its time, but TNG is very much a late 80s tv show (even in the 90s years), and we don't hold that against it.  Well, we fans don't. 

here's a bigger question: DS9 or Voyager?

Season 3, 4, 5 of TNG over TOS, but TOS over TNG as a whole (because season 6 and 7 are dreadful... "next stop! VERTIFORM CITY!"... fistful of datas... yeesh.  Even the good episodes can't counter the meaninglessness that is 'masks'.)

The original trio of Bones, Kirk and Spock over the diffuse cast of TNG, but Picard over Kirk.

my 2 cents.

Yeah, I had the same thought.  Eggs don't get heavier unless some mass is being added, but eggs (on earth) don't do that.  All the nutrition that would feed the embryonic moon dragon would be within the egg at the time it was laid.  The yolk is the food that the embryo uses to sustain its growth.  Mass isn't just created out of thin air.  And then when the dragon flies off, it lays a moon sized egg.  An egg that is larger than its own size.  

I guess if the TARDIS can be bigger on the inside, dragons can to... 

There's a lot of this kind of thing going on though in the show. But that shouldn't trouble you. Sci Fi adhering to accurate scientific principles is a relatively recent idea.  Childhood's End has a moon getting destroyed and the planets spin slows down.  I checked with an astronomer friend, and she assured me that that's just not how tidal forces work. Go figure.  Maybe she's wrong, who knows, she's a heliologist so she focuses on stars.   The Foundation series is based on the idea that a "really smart" historian can figure out the future based on the universal psyche of human beings.  Obvious mumbo jumbo, but it's the "one big idea" for the books.  War of the worlds has a race of superinteligent blobs come to a planet without any kind of thought given to what kinds of diseases might be there, and also has those blobs be succeptible to our diseases.  Think how many diseases cats get that we can't catch, or how many diseases we get that lizards can't catch.  Now add another planet's species into the mix.  It's preposterous.   But it's still a great book.

"hard" sci fi is its own sort of branch and it can be great, but its existence doesn't invalidate "soft" sf or simply "pure imagination for the sake of it" sf.  

My 2 cents.

I'm part of the old generation that watched Doctor Who the first time around. I grew up with Tom Baker as my doctor, who was comedic and capable of seriousness.  I have trouble judging the new doctors in general because the writing is so different.  The way the new writers write is... let's say modern to be polite.  Peter Capaldi is a fantastic actor, and a great comedic actor, so it's weird to watch him play the doctor knowing that if the shows were better written, the characters better realized, he would shine as probably the best of the modern crop of Docs.  I still think he's the best one so far, but i think it's not as obvious.  Again... due to the writing.