My problem is that I have little or no interest in defending B5 as good
SF to anyone. I think his definition is arbitrary. Ray Bradbury said that
good SF is whatever one points to and says that's good SF. It seems to me
that those most interested in defining SF are the ones who most profit from,
and hew to, their own definitions. It's as inherently silly a discussion as
the folks from the War of the Worlds series insisting that their show was NOT
a science fiction series (excuse me? aliens, and starships, and interplanetary
warfare, and it's NOT an SF series?).

jms