Once again, you are saying that complaining about technobabble is somehow invalid and means one has a fear of "big words." And once again, you are wrong.
Of course complaining about "technobabble" is invalid. It's not "somehow" invalid, it's invalid because
the term has no meaning and everyone, like you, equivocates, switching arbitrarily from one meaning to another to put an end to all rational discussion. Neither you nor your friends can respond to this charge
because it's true.
Since you refuse to explain what you personally mean, the commonest meaning as used, big words, is the default understanding. Since the generous belief that this is all caused by geniune self-misunderstanding is so vehemently denied, I will of course assume in the future that everyone babbling about technobabble is merely displaying petty deceit, astonishing arrogance and a shabby malice (over a TV show you didn't like!
)
Throwing together a bunch of scientific-sounding words that, when dissected, usually make absolutely no logical or scientific sense is not a good idea for any show. An exposition dump in the dialogue is bad enough, but when such a dump consists of highly "technical" (and sometimes made-up terms) that tell the audience nothing ... this is a waste of everyone's time.
By the same token, putting in a bunch of scientific-looking props and FX that, when dissected, usually make no logical or scientific sense is not a good idea either. Or putting in any societies that don't make sense. Or putting in astonishing character "developments" like discovering you were born to be the Emissary or you're really one of the rulers in a far off realm instead of just a foundling are not good ideas either. Nonsense in every other form is perfectly acceptable. Why single out the words, and only the words, except it's the big words you don't like? I really am open to other answers
but no one has even attempted, ever, to give me one! The meaningless term technobabble is apparently meant to end rational discussion.
Is an infodump really such an offense? Really, truly? Isn't the effort to make sense of the plot such a bad thing that it's better to leave holes in the plot just to avoid the offensive language? The notion that it's all just technobabble is why you get plots that don't withstand logical analysis. And that's why rejecting the nonsensical idea of "technobabble" really is constructive criticism.
And I've come to see that the same can be said for attempting to have any kind of rational, respectful discussion with you, stj.
Spouting nonsense is not rational. And refusing to clarify or justify, arrogantly dismissing refuation isn't respectful.
So moving on to more productive discussion, I put a question to the rest of you ... if you could change one thing about Voyager, what would it be?
End all the nonsense about hardship and the rigors of survival. As long as the ship works, they have replicators, and they may be in peril of their lives, but they aren't going to be uncomfortable. A starship with big holes in it isn't going to fly. As long as it has antimatter. And the Trek shows have never bothered to say where that comes from so far as I know.
Openly acknowledge that everyone on the crew has a reasonable chance of living to see home, granting the huge exception of getting killed when the ship breaks. A human lifespan of about one hundred thirty years means everyone on board is either choosing between permanent exile in the DQ or longterm exile on board Voyager.
Which would permit getting rid of the BS about the Maquis. If you must have crew arguing, make the other part Romulans or something, as
Anwar has suggested.
Take the makeup off Torres. Give Paris a real personality.
It's funny 'cause it's true!
