"LOL There is a distinction between Sci Fi and Fantasy"
True to a point, it depends on the specific series I guess. Something like "Dune" is very close to fantasy even though it is formally sci-fi. Something like Star Wars, IMO, is really a fantasy story dressed up as sci fi. I think Star Trek is closer to being more purely sci fi, it has fewer fantasy elements to it.
When I was in 10th grade, we had to do practice tests for the NYS Regents exam we were gonna hafta take in 11th grade, and one section had us read a piece of prose and then answer multiple choice on it. One of the practice prose pieces was this article some guy wrote on the difference between sci fi and fantasy. He said basically that Science Fiction incorporates some sort of actually scientific fact, and then exaggerates its potential, i.e. Jurassic Park (his example, not mine), whereas fantasy is devoid of any scientific foundation, i.e. Star Wars (again his example, not mine).
He was very persuasive, I must admit. However, in the end I subscribe to my own definitions, which are largely aesthetic (but not completely, and I can't put my finger on the non-aesthetic element)...as far as aesthetics go, flying air craft and planets, etc. = sci fi, created lands that resemble our own planet X number of years ago, daggers, cloaks, etc. = fantasy.
Perhaps the non-aesthetic element I refer to has something to do with the key idea of "hero"...in my experience fantasy is more conducive to include this key element, and if this is the case then I can agree that Star Wars is probably a fantasy dressed up like a sci fi flick.
And along THOSE lines, I am a fantasy geek, not a sci fi geek.
(Serious ST fans are "TrekkERS" not "TrekkIES" at least according to some) <Grin>
My sincere apologies.