577:: that seems to me to be one of those SF enabling devices that is often allowed in stories that otherwise follow an "only real/plausible science or tech allowed" path. There are others--notably alien-intelligence designs that permit us to interact with them so there can be a story at all. My point would be that the issues addressed by the hard/soft labels are what are sometimes called decorum issues, and that they are by their nature flexible or variable or relative. Hard and soft SF are not subgenres of SF but an axis along which stories can be arranged, and given the variability of the rules that readers can apply, there is nothing universal or inevitable about any given arrangement. (How "hard" is Tom Godwin's "The Cold Equations"? Poul Anderson's "Kyrie"? Nancy Kress's "Beggars in Spain"?) And if I were to continue to use the hard-soft axis metaphor, I would have to admit that it's not just one axis but an indeterminate number of them, which yields an N-dimensional descriptive space. But that's probably more than anyone wants to hear about my take on the problems of literary taxonomy.
320:
de-emphasizing the details of technological hardware and physical laws" is tempting but does not hold up under examination--any more than the contrary proposition does for hard SF. I have made a similar argument in the Hard SF discussion area. 3) Neither term should be seen as operating as a logical definition or rigorous and reliable genre label--they evolved out of readers' impressions and reflect (and fossilize) the tastes and biases of particular historical segments of the readership. Some commentators have tried to turn them into rigorous definitions, but with very limited success. ("The squirming facts exceed the squamous mind.")
542:
made it into here. Also like the telepathy thing, although, as was noted on Talk:Science fiction, there's sod all citations for it. Perhaps that could be reworded as being "The use of paranormal phenomena is also a literary device of the soft science fiction genre". Can't say I like the phrase 'points to', but I can't think of an alternative atm. alludes? Why is the FTL space travel thingie an example of soft SF? Is it because the only different thing in this setting would be the FTL travel? Have added a couple of tags to it where it confuses me/is vaguely worded/needs a reference, and put some minor grammar tweaks. -
686:
faster-than-light travel or paranormal powers) to be a mark of "softness." Others might see an emphasis on character or the social implications of technological change (however possible or probable) as a departure from the science-engineering-technology issues that ought to be the focus of hard SF. Given this lack of objective and well-defined standards, "soft science fiction" is not a term for a genre or subgenre of SF but for a tendency or quality--one pole of an axis that has "hard science fiction" as the other pole.
571:: to merge hard and soft SF articles (with appropriate redirects or whatever the Wiki term is). It would certainly simplify certain challenges to clear explanation to treat the pair as a pair (even though hard SF is the senior term). Of course, there are good reasons for retaining separate articles (people look up single terms, not pairs or families or whatever), but if I were doing a class prep to explain a bunch of critical and descriptive terms relating to SF, that's the way I would arrange it.
74:
53:
583:: There have been discussions about such correlations, but those strike me as not particularly close to the heart of the problem of definition-and-example that I take to be Job One of an encyclopedia article. In fact, I take the issue to be a distraction from plain old taxonomy and an artifact of subcultural tensions (e.g., Real Men Don't Do Biology/Anthropology/Whatever) that are now or ought to be moot. But we can certainly talk about it.
22:
350:
that could be made, often, in hard science fiction, the story is about the science; while often in soft science fiction, the story is not about the science, and the science is the means to tell the story. But it is a rather peculiar distinction, as we rarely divide other types of literature in such a way. A war movie might be about a war, or the war might be a means to tell the story. We don't talk about hard and soft war stories.--
84:
468:. The hard-soft pair really needs to be coordinated, and strong articles on those terms will also take some of the pressure off the science fiction article to cover every sub-term in detail. I will try to get to this sometime in the near future, but anyone else who feels up to it should pitch in. I strongly recommend starting with a look at the relevant articles in the Clute & Nicholls
437:
a rigorous critical vocabulary and thus makes for problems in a critical context. Still, both terms have been used by fans, reviewers, and even academic critics for decades. That said, I'm not sure that the term deserves an article all to itself--the concept might better be incorporated in the "Hard
Science Fiction" article, since it's really part of a terminological dyad.
409:
Battlastar
Galactica series, and arguably, Star Wars. I think there should be something about this in the articles of both hard and soft scifi. If there is already, I may have looked it up. I think it should be added because I think most editors would agree with this: if you can have the same story work in a different setting, it may not be sci-fi per se.
239:
fiction" (it doesnt exist Im making it up). Science fiction should deal with something thats scientific, in a broader sense than just something empirical like astronomy or biology. It should be a broader term, going to sociology, human sciences, including philosophy (especially contemporary philosophy that deals with the theory of knowledge).
330:, among others. Much of the discussion here is engaged in re-inventing the wheel, and the bulk of the article itself is needlessly (and, if I understand Wiki culture correctly, inappropriately) dedicated to applying the label to this or that writer. If Bradbury is seem by a significant number of commentators to be a writer of soft SF,
297:
IDEA behind the show: the speculation of what the "final frontier" is and its mystery, humans reacting in fron tof that. From there, humans face aliens, the Qs and all these things that have the answers they seek. I also think that sociology is an important aspect in sci-fi, present in books like Brave New World, even in Star Trek.
769:
works like Orwell's quite realistic 1984 and "plain" SF with implausible or unscientific elements (e.g. Star Trek when featuring telepathy or telekinesis without even an attempt to create some scientific backing for it). How could those two examples be classified as a same subgenre? Moreover, some of
667:
story. The term first appeared in the late 1970s and early 1980s and indicated SF based not on engineering or the "hard" sciences (for example, physics, astronomy, or chemistry) but on the "soft" sciences, and especially the social sciences (anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, and
517:
story. The earliest sense of "soft SF" is SF based not on engineering or the "hard" sciences (for example, physics, astronomy, or chemistry) but on the "soft" sciences, and especially the social sciences (anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, and so on). (insert
Jessesword/OED entry
245:
Agreeing strongly with you here, Mailrobot. This is in itself an important SF concept I believe - the possibility of converging scientific paradigms and its consequenses - that is currently a blind spot in the majority of SF, that is stuck in the flow of mainstream science-technology representations,
735:
isn't based on psychology or sociology, but it's very much soft science fiction. From what I've seen soft SF falls into three main categories: Social SF, Space Opera or
Adventure/Pulp SF, and Literary SF focused more on character development than on the technology itself, all of which may or may not
730:
I think the idea that soft science fiction is that which is based on social sciences isn't really true, despite what that one cited source may say. While science fiction based on social sciences is usually soft, not all science fiction based on physics or biology is "hard". Social science fiction is
522:
space travel in a setting that otherwise follows more conservative standards. A later-developed sense is that soft SF is more concerned with character, society, or other matters that are not centrally tied to scientific or engineering speculations, but this is not the sense in which the term is used
436:
I can assure
Almondwine that the term "hard science fiction" has been around the critical/commentary literature on SF for a good fifty years, with the "soft" back-formation not far behind. (See my comments from April, above.) Since, like "space opera," it comes out of fandom, it's not really part of
296:
I think that what makes sci-fi what it is, is how the story is based on a logic surrounding a science, mostly an experimental science, and ow character development comes from there. Star Trek TNG is a good example in TV. The problem the characters faced, and how they grew, it was all dictated by the
230:
Personally, I am skeptical of the entire notion of soft science fiction as a genre or even a useful term. Within science fiction fandom this seems to be mostly used as a term of insult. For a genre, the term is overtly broad, as you can also see from the writers mentioned as examples. Lois McMaster
671:
Science
Fiction Citations: Soft Science Fiction REF END A sense that may have developed from this hard/soft opposition is that soft SF is more concerned with character, society, or other speculative ideas and themes that are not centrally tied to scientific or engineering speculations. Soft SF may
421:
Seeing as this article makes no references to any literature on science fiction, nor does it seem to reflect any understanding of the genre beyond the original authors hazy distinctions between what appears to be Star Wars/Star Trek-type sci-fi and the far more critically celebrated everything else
291:
Not to be insulting, because this is mostly personal preference, but for me the split is basically between good and bad science fiction. I just can't get into stories where the "characters" jet back and forth across the galaxy, getting into fights and using technology, but never really growing. How
287:
There really does seem to be a wide gap between "hard" scifi writers and "soft". The fringe work can be hard to define, yes, but there are some where you tell plainly that the author is focusing on the characters, on what the situation is doing to them and how they react. And there are others where
541:
That's a lot better. :) It brings it into context with hard science fiction, and defines both its early and more mature forms. I've got a few suggestions, though... Perhaps use the phrase "physical, or 'hard' sciences"? I like the 'feelings/emotions' part of the current intro, but can't say it
384:
I agree. The suggestion in that section that what is in Dune is conceivable in any scientific sense is ridiculous, especially the suggestion that
Unified Field Theory would resolve it. I tried to see how I could rewrite it, but really I don't see scientific and technicial plausibility at all, so I
349:
I don't think that hard vs. soft science fiction is a terribly useful distinction. Mostly it is used to denigrate the works someone doesn't like. Just because something is good doesn't make it "hard" science fiction, and just because something is bad doesn't make it "soft". There is a distinction
308:
Personally, I find the term quite useful, but I don't think that's the issue here. The point is, the term exists, and it needs better explanation than this article provides. Both the Hard SF and Space opera articles are more in-depth and provide examples of the genre in many media. This article is
209:
Anyway, to point, I'm not clear as to what "soft" sci-fi really is. Why again is Asimov soft sci-fi? What's not scientific about it? I think that the editor who wrote this is just not really sure what s/he is trying to say. And I do mean what s/he is trying to say, because I've never seen this
731:
already a term, and it's just part of soft SF. Soft science fiction is simply used to denote works that aren't "hard" (i.e. works where the focus is on the technology itself, and the rigorous detail put into it, with usually little focus on traditional plot or character development). For example,
685:
REF END In fact, in all senses of the term, the boundaries between "hard" and "soft" are not definite or universally agreed-upon, and there is no single standard of scientific "hardness" or "softness." Some readers might consider any deviation from the possible or probable (for example, including
638:
I suggested a revision for this article a while back, and here is a more finished version of what I've come up with to replace the current first two paragraphs. I would also propose cutting nearly all of the long body of material that follows those paragraphs--it's not sourced and in fact sounds
162:
Every scifi book I read is character driven. Jurrasic Park, for example, is about the characters. It goes into some detail about the science, but the science itself is generally considered impossible. Terminal Man is another one. Books are character driven. You can't write a book (at least a
408:
I do agree some science fiction are more scientifically accurate than others. But, I think the common assumption we can all agree with is that if you can have the exact same problem, and take out all the sci fi -ish elements, then its not sci fi (of "hard sci fi"). Thats the problem with the new
319:
A few suggestions and ideas to keep in mind for revision: 1) Historically, the term plays off "hard SF"--it's a back formation--and cannot be understood outside that context. 2) The notion that in soft SF "plots and themes tend to focus on human characters and their relations and feelings, while
593:
I'm not sure what you mean by "plain old taxonomy" but I heartily agree that the terms were used -- invented, some would say -- as an "artifact of cultural tensions". The artifactual nature of the hard/soft distinction is one reason why it doesn't work very well as taxonomy -- and is in fact
238:
This is what makes this whole issue confusing. You see, pilitics, history and human nature ARE SUBJECTS OF DIFFERENT SCIENCES. SCIENCE IS NOT JUST TECHNOLOGY. Actually, I even dare to say that if there is a huge explanation on how a technology works, it falls into the category of "Engineering
715:
Because they were unsourced and not connected to the understanding of "soft science fiction" that is being developed in the article. Exemplars need to be drawn from authorities ("says who?" is always an appropriate question here) and ideally should illustrate the abstract definition--and, if
750:
I'm going to second this. The muddling of "soft" and "social" is definitely not in congruence with my experience of the science fiction community. I've always experienced it as a
Cartesian plane where the axes are hardness and socialness (sic). Of course anecdotal evidence is blah blah etc.
553:
I'm not sure if it needs to be in the lede, but there needs to be some discussion of the fact that soft sf / hard sf has been a common refrain in discussing sf writing by men vs. women. I'm somewhat amazed that it's not there already. Will work on it when I get the chance.
594:
encyclopedic and part of the "definition". Lest we risk ahistoricity, we should surely explain why & how these terms were invented, used, and popularized, and gender dynamics was a significant part of that. I'll work on it ... next week after the job talk. --
195:
number of novels and stories. I think that at least some of them could be considered soft sci-fi. For instance, his
Foundation series has little to do with technology or science and a lot to do with history, politics, human nature, empire-building, etc.
643:
set of examples of writers and texts that exemplify the various senses of "soft SF," but this should be compiled from existing criticism and commentary rather than pulled out of one or more of our own heads. In any case, here's the draft--
325:
So it's probably best to do what lexicographers do and stick to the terms as they have been and continue to be used. There are authorities who have already done the heavy lifting on this--Gary K. Wolfe, the Clute-Nicholls
817:
309:
heavy on its literary critique of Asimov, which, while interesting, seems slightly inappropriate to me. It's on my watchlist; if someone else sees fit to fix it up before I get around to it, that would also be nice.
770:
the works classified as "hard SF" even here on WP, have strong social or psychological messages, for example Carl Sagan's and
Stanislaw Lem's novels. This article really needs some rethinking I say... --
624:
Please don't merge hard and soft science fiction. They are very intertwined, but they are also interesting in their own right. Merging soft and social science fiction may be a start, though. -
446:
Well Orson Scott Card has used the both the term soft and hard science fiction in the way wikipedia refrences. Unfortunatly, his is the only book I have handy that possibly mentions the word.
399:
There's really no hard or soft science when you get right down to it. Sure, others use actual empirical facts to support the concepts in their stories, but they are all purely based on logic.
460:
The article as it stands is imprecise, unsourced, and much too long. Some of the points and examples are worth preserving, but it should be brought into line with the complementary article on
279:
hard science fiction. I find it nerdy and boring. The more common this term becomes, the easier it will be for me to find Bradbury-like authors. I found this short article very retarded.
215:
And it does seem like this cockamamie definition would include Philip K. Dick, even such canonically sci-fi works as "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and "Minority Report."
425:
I've NEVER seen a such a distinction among critics of sci-fi, and the fact that the article has no references leads me to believe that such a distinction does not really exist.
716:
appropriate, lead to a more refined and precise definition. (I suspect that this is not going to be easy, since there is no single, sharp-edged definition of the term. . . .)
821:
813:
681:
Peter Nicholls writes that soft SF is a "not very precise item of sf terminology" and that the contrast between hard and soft is "sometimes illogical."REF HERE "Soft SF,"
260:
140:
732:
167:"Soft science" doesn't mean that it's based less around science, it just means it's based around the social sciences as opposed to the natural sciences.
840:
130:
288:
you can tell that the characters are mostly cursory, and there only to move along the action and the plot, while the technology is the real star.
807:
264:
845:
835:
447:
344:
338:
171:
354:
223:
615:
546:
598:
558:
157:
106:
231:
Bujold certainly does not belong on this list. The historical example of Jack London's Iron Heel belongs under Dystopia/utopia, etc.
628:
608:
385:
deleted the entire section -- if someone wants to try again, feel free to look up the history, but current contents were garbage. --
185:
Hmm. It might be a good idea for Hard Science Fiction and Soft Science Fiction to not contain too names on both at the same time...
587:
535:
705:
694:
484:
97:
58:
802:
313:
292:
humans react in these situations, what they DO instead of what is done to them. That's what really great writing is about.
256:
760:
489:
720:
633:
431:
405:
Im just asking whether this distinction actually exist, or if its just a Star Wars vs Star Trek kind of argument.
745:
455:
790:
441:
450:
779:
784:
518:
here as ref) Soft SF may also be less rigorous in its application of scientific ideas, for example allowing
33:
402:
And ALL of modern science's concepts are derived from philosophy, so all science has a common background.
389:
527:
I'd like to add some examples of actual uses (earlier the better) for both senses of the term and then a
494:
This is rough yet, but it does one thing I think is essential: to tie this article to the "hard SF" one.
379:
89:
756:
710:
422:
that gets lumped in "soft science fiction", I suggest that this article be nominated for deletion.
105:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
303:
21:
270:
394:
39:
752:
672:
also be seen as less rigorous in its application of scientific ideas, for example allowing
660:
510:
461:
252:
812:
Surface Tension (1952) is listed as an example of both hard SF and soft SF. Which is it?
8:
464:(truth in advertising: current version edited my me) and the main article-in-progress on
725:
663:, is a descriptive term that points to the role and nature of the science content in a
513:, is a descriptive term that points to the role and nature of the science content in a
656:
506:
798:
741:
673:
519:
416:
310:
232:
789:
I'll like to see a list of prominent examples of soft science fiction, like that in
186:
168:
664:
514:
465:
428:
220:
180:
102:
775:
625:
543:
639:
like someone's own working out of the issues. There is probably a place for a
829:
676:
space travel in a setting that otherwise follows more conservative standards.
612:
595:
555:
282:
794:
737:
736:
involve made up science, time-travel, or things such as psychic abilities.
717:
702:
691:
584:
532:
481:
438:
359:
335:
669:
386:
690:
Comments, questions, objections, clarifications, and so on encouraged.
351:
73:
52:
771:
476:, and the example citations at the Jessesword SF lexicography site (
376:
334:, and not an argument supporting that proposition, is the point.
83:
179:
Isaac Asimov? Really? Where has he been classified that way?
366:
Dune generally maintains scientific and technical plausibility
372:
477:
375:? Even Star Trek was more hard science fiction than that.
765:
I also agree. There is an enormous difference between
373:
all human memory written into every cell of the body
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
79:
246:that are steered by dominant political discourses.
827:
474:Critical Terms for Science Fiction and Fantasy
371:Now come on, magical spice, prescience, and
19:
791:Hard science fiction#Representative works
163:popular one) that isn't character driven
607:(It's not even historical -- see, e.g.,
210:distinction in any literature on sci-fi.
841:Top-importance science fiction articles
814:2603:3024:1C01:5C00:311D:8763:AEA3:E5C9
199:Should Philip K. Dick be on this list?
828:
808:Surface Tension both hard and soft SF?
345:Mostly a club to beat each other with
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Science Fiction
846:WikiProject Science Fiction articles
836:Start-Class science fiction articles
118:Template:WikiProject Science Fiction
95:This article is within the scope of
15:
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
206:You really should sign your posts.
14:
857:
158:Ca:n't everything be soft SciFi?
82:
72:
51:
20:
683:Encyclopedia of Science Fiction
470:Encyclopedia of Science Fiction
328:Encyclopedia of Science Fiction
135:This article has been rated as
1:
746:12:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
569:an even more radical solution
523:by most critics and scholars.
451:14:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
442:17:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
355:21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
822:19:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
803:19:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
629:22:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
616:19:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
599:00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
588:17:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
581:About hard, soft, and gender
559:16:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
547:10:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
536:06:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
485:18:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
432:19:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
224:19:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
172:19:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
7:
761:14:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
490:Proposed new lead paragraph
314:06:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
98:WikiProject Science Fiction
10:
862:
706:22:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
695:03:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
395:All sci fi is speculative.
265:10:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
141:project's importance scale
90:Speculative fiction portal
721:03:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
531:list of exemplary works.
478:http://www.jessesword.com
390:00:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
380:23:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
339:04:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
634:An actual draft proposal
567:, I've been considering
271:It's a very useful term.
121:science fiction articles
780:12:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
456:Major revision in order
28:This article is rated
785:Need list of examples
661:hard science fiction
649:Soft science fiction
511:hard science fiction
499:Soft science fiction
462:hard science fiction
249:--Random scientist
609:Joe Quirk's comment
733:Back To the Future
34:content assessment
711:Reverted examples
674:faster-than-light
520:faster-than-light
283:I find it helpful
267:
255:comment added by
233:User:Martin Wisse
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
853:
250:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
47:
31:
25:
24:
16:
861:
860:
856:
855:
854:
852:
851:
850:
826:
825:
810:
787:
753:Winston Spencer
728:
713:
700:Posted rewrite.
668:so on).REF HERE
665:science fiction
636:
515:science fiction
492:
466:science fiction
458:
419:
397:
362:
347:
306:
304:Needs expansion
285:
273:
191:Asimov wrote a
160:
120:
117:
114:
112:Science Fiction
111:
110:
103:science fiction
88:
81:
61:
59:Science Fiction
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
859:
849:
848:
843:
838:
809:
806:
786:
783:
727:
724:
712:
709:
688:
687:
678:
677:
635:
632:
623:
621:
620:
619:
618:
602:
601:
562:
561:
550:
549:
525:
524:
491:
488:
457:
454:
418:
415:
411:
396:
393:
369:
368:
361:
358:
346:
343:
342:
341:
322:
321:
305:
302:
294:
284:
281:
272:
269:
257:88.114.119.190
236:
228:
227:
226:
217:
216:
212:
211:
207:
202:
178:
176:
175:
174:
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Top-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Top‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
858:
847:
844:
842:
839:
837:
834:
833:
831:
824:
823:
819:
815:
805:
804:
800:
796:
792:
782:
781:
777:
773:
768:
763:
762:
758:
754:
748:
747:
743:
739:
734:
723:
722:
719:
708:
707:
704:
701:
697:
696:
693:
684:
680:
679:
675:
670:
666:
662:
658:
657:complementary
654:
650:
647:
646:
645:
642:
631:
630:
627:
617:
614:
610:
606:
605:
604:
603:
600:
597:
592:
591:
590:
589:
586:
582:
578:
576:
572:
570:
566:
560:
557:
552:
551:
548:
545:
540:
539:
538:
537:
534:
530:
521:
516:
512:
508:
507:complementary
504:
500:
497:
496:
495:
487:
486:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
453:
452:
449:
444:
443:
440:
434:
433:
430:
426:
423:
414:
410:
406:
403:
400:
392:
391:
388:
382:
381:
378:
374:
367:
364:
363:
357:
356:
353:
340:
337:
333:
329:
324:
323:
318:
317:
316:
315:
312:
301:
300:---Mailrobot
298:
293:
289:
280:
278:
268:
266:
262:
258:
254:
247:
243:
240:
235:
234:
225:
222:
219:
218:
214:
213:
208:
205:
204:
203:
200:
197:
194:
189:
188:
183:
182:
173:
170:
166:
165:
164:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
811:
788:
766:
764:
749:
729:
714:
699:
698:
689:
682:
652:
648:
640:
637:
622:
580:
579:
574:
573:
568:
564:
563:
528:
526:
502:
498:
493:
473:
469:
459:
445:
435:
427:
424:
420:
412:
407:
404:
401:
398:
383:
370:
365:
348:
331:
327:
311:Grammar nazi
307:
299:
295:
290:
286:
276:
274:
251:— Preceding
248:
244:
242:--Mailrobot
241:
237:
229:
201:
198:
192:
190:
184:
177:
161:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
655:, like its
505:, like its
187:Cimon avaro
30:Start-class
830:Categories
726:Misleading
472:, Wolfe's
429:Almondwine
413:Mailrobot
277:don't like
221:Almondwine
181:MightCould
767:social-SF
659:opposite
626:Malkinann
575:About FTL
544:Malkinann
509:opposite
417:Deletion?
613:lquilter
611:1/19) --
596:lquilter
565:Actually
556:lquilter
253:unsigned
795:Dough34
738:Brc2000
718:RLetson
703:RLetson
692:RLetson
653:soft SF
585:RLetson
533:RLetson
503:soft SF
482:RLetson
439:RLetson
336:RLetson
139:on the
448:Adam Y
387:shoyer
36:scale.
651:, or
641:brief
529:short
501:, or
352:RLent
818:talk
799:talk
776:talk
772:Arny
757:talk
742:talk
480:).
360:Dune
332:that
261:talk
193:huge
169:Owen
377:Taw
131:Top
832::
820:)
801:)
793:.
778:)
759:)
744:)
554:--
275:I
263:)
816:(
797:(
774:(
755:(
740:(
259:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
