I got a couple reasons for preferring TNG to B5:

1) There were virtually no episodes of B5 good enough that I remember the damn things ten years after downloading the entire series and binge-watching it. The story-arcs of the non-human characters remain in my brain, as does extreme frustration at the shitty dialogue, but if you asked me which episode I liked most I couldn't even start to answer because they all ran the fuck together. OTOH, there's plenty of TNG episodes I liked, particularly the ones from the 90s which only had Wes 11 times.

2) B5's main advantage it's multi-season story arc. This would never have been approved by the suits if TNG hadn't done the Locutus of Borg thing.

Kes left at the start of Season 4 (she got two episodes), Boobs debuted in the finale of season 3. So you saw at least three of those episodes if you watched them all. And Jennifer Lien was definitely let go due to budgetary reasons -- specifically they didn't have the budget to add Jerri Ryan and keep all their main cast, but they refused to fire that loser who played Harry Kim right after he'd gotten some ridiculous magazine award -- but asking for a raise had nothing to do with it.

The 90s misses most of the really bad episodes, and without TNG there's no way in hell any of the others get made.

Particularly B5. You can convince suits to pay money for a multi-season story arc after Locates of Borg has proven that season-ending cliffhangers are great for ratings, but not before.

If you're counting X-Files, which did not even include the minimal science Star Trek does, and was also a monster-of-the-week show, why wouldn't you count Buffy?

Despite all attempts to create one, there really isn't a sharp dividing line between Sci-Fi and Fantasy. It's more of a spectrum.

They wrote themselves into a corner with her. Her species is only supposed to live 9 years, so three seasons on Voyager should have meant roughly 25 years of aging prosthetics for the actress.

Granted if they'd really wanted to solve it they could have used a deus ex machina, but why do that when you can introduce Boobs of Nine and the Borg?

Wait a sec, you're arguing that the show premised on a long-lost hero returning out of nowhere to save the Minbari by uniting them with their human foes just as the ancient enemy they forgot existed returns ISN'T incredibly cliched?

Don't get me wrong, I liked the cliche, but that don't mean it wasn't a cliche.

The writing on B5 was the absolute worst writing I have ever seen on any SciFi series. The dialogue was crap. All the characters were stock archetypes who didn't develop much (Trek characters typical start as archetypes, but they tend to get some depth by Season 7).

The long story arcs were more interesting then then ones on the Star Treks, largely because the entire show was designed as one long-ass story arc from the absolute beginning; and the universe was in some ways more interesting (because you actually get to hear about the politics, whereas in Trek series you almost never get to see a Federation Councilor or the Federation president); the space ship scenes looked much better then on Trek because actual physics were involved; it's a lot more coherent as a universe then any Trek show because there was only one writer, etc. but that don't mean the writing didn't suck.

If they'd made Star trek one entry there'd be no point to the poll. Right now B5 is within 6 points of TNG, but it's 20 points off the three series combined.

I'm surprised there's no Buffy. If you're calling one supernatural-monster-of-the-week show Sci-Fi why wouldn't you call the other one Sci-Fi?

You can't compare anything but murder because the categories are different. I personally have been the victim of two crimes which would be reported as violent crime in England, which I reported to the local cops, but were not included in these statistics. In addition to these two crimes I mentioned, my sister has been mugged three times in DC and NYC.

If you want a anti-gun-control person's takedown of this particular statistic I refer you to:
http://blog.skepticallibertari...

Dude, all of England (aka: 56 million people) had 560 murders last year in 2013. NYC (8-9 million range) was crowing about 333.

I don't know where you got that number from, but I suspect it was from somebody who was skilled at the art of BS.

About internal Chinese politics?

Nope.

I'm actually better able to explain the internal politics of several obscure, non-anglophone, African states then China.

Where there's no way to get important data on how the object is put together without destroying it. Which is somewhat believable if you're talking about living material, which would actually have to be reproduced at the molecule-level, including velocity of all molecules, electric forces, etc.to create a living copy. It's becoming more believable about electronics. It's hard to see how you could copy something with a 14 nanometre resolution that with a non-destructive external scan.

But even this process wouldn't be moving the damn thing. After all there's no reason you couldn't create two copies of the destroyed object.

You have a surprising amount of faith in investor's ability to tell stupid shit from a "high-risk/high-reward acquisition strategy." Particularly when "high-risk/high-reward" is followed by sophisticated business-speak for "it's all that guy's fault," especially in this case, which includes a large subtext of "and it'll be at least three more years before the police decide to call my bluff on this particular line of ridiculous BS."

By the time all the cops have confirmed that it's BS all the relevant people at HP will have moved to other companies (probably mostly at higher-level positions), and this particular disaster will be the rationalization the next CEO uses to cover his ass when he totally fucks up. Hell this has already happened. Whitman wasn't CEO until a month after the acquisition was completed.

I doubt it.

These shareholders are the exact same people who fired Walter Hewlett for opposing the Compaq merger.

That's virtually impossible to do under our system. It's incredibly complex, with a whole panoply of veto points, and it's specifically designed so that the same individual can never have control of all of those veto points.

Which means if you're taking a tax break away from somebody who uses it, they have a dozen or so places to stop you.

OTOH, why is the Canadian prime Minister Prime Minister? Because he has the Confidence of Parliament. What does that mean we he tells the Chair of some damn finance subcommittee to pass a bill? It means the Chair of the subcommittee has three options: resigning from the subcommittee, new elections, and passing the damn bill.

Don't be silly.

If your sole objective is freedom protection you're an anarchist, and instead of creating a new level of potential oppressors you abolish all levels of potential oppressors.

Even if you weren't full anarchist, the states of the 1790s were a lot easier to dodge then the Feds because you could always move. Moreover state-level elections back then tended to be annual, so they tended to be much closer to the Electorate then the Feds.

Don't be ridiculous.

Buffet, Soros, and the Koch brothers don't own land. They own stock. What we have today's completely different, and much more Democratic, then a landed aristocracy; because it just is.