[Cyberman tM]

(Note: I'm a fan of Asimov's fiction, and I actually find his writing style rather pleasant. So don't expect truly objective text from me :-)

Originally Posted by Anabran

First it all seemed awfully dated with his talk about "nuclear powered" this and that

Well, it IS dated. Think about when it was written - consider it to be alternate future history, branching before the atomic age.
(Like steam punk, just atomic punk?)

Second the complete lack of powerful or relevant, influential female characters.
it read like a cheesy 1950's sci fi novel where all women are just "secretaries"

Correct.
However, in his defense - you aren't going to see many strong females (apart perhaps from Dors Venabili?) or many relevant females at all because he does NOT want to display them all as "secretaries" and on the other hand didn't have much experience with women - so he didn't know how to write about them.
(He wrote about that in his autobiography - using the above explanation when asked why there are no women in his books. Seems sensible, IMO. Don't write about something you don't understand. Would you prefer women who are the supposed male's ideal?)

Third Asimov let his (IMHO) Rabid Atheism color his linguistic choices to the point of sounding goofy & ridiculous.

True enough.
Though I think it can be easily explained that by the time of foundation there would be either one giant amalgamated church composed of all the "little" religions we have today, or be replaced by some sort of atheism/agnosticism (i.e. either the lowest common denominator or division by zero).
(Of course, since I consider myself to be agnostic - perhaps influenced by Asimov? I don't mind it. I think it's refreshing, and probably less problematic than choosing a religion at will.)

And his characters were shallow and uninteresting most times lacking even a physical description to help the reader Visualize the scenes.

You probably won't read it, but there's a short story, "Gold", where he pokes fun at himself, having a character scorn a writer who seems unwilling to describe his characters beyond the necessary minimum.
The writers defense was - naturally - that this way the readers can supply the missing elements themselves, and that his stories rely on talk and ideas, not action and visuals.

Asimov may have been a great Science& technology Visionary

For all his greatness, he didn't expect/realize that the Cassini Division isn't really a gap at all, even though, as he wrote, it should have been obvious that it can't be really empty.
(He said something like that in his autobiography. Seems to have bothered him quite a bit.)

but as a Science fiction writer he just plain SUCKS!!.

Obviously I don't agree. But I can easily see why someone would think so.
Try Heinlein, might be more to your taste. To me, he's almost "too strong", compared to the "mild" Asimov literature.

Originally Posted by holymadness

I agree. Compared to other writers of his era, Asimov sounds like a child.

How so?

Writing science fiction is no excuse.

Why should it?