d299bb75   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.movies, alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.sf.written   
   XPost: alt.tv.sevendays   
   From: wizwom@gmail.com   
      
   Michael Grosberg wrote:   
   > On May 23, 3:57 am, Tim Bruening  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Congratulations for coming up with a good moral case against my idea of   
   saving   
   >> the Kelvin.  All the previous objections I have seen have been on the   
   practical   
   >> difficulties involved in preventing the very powerful ship Narada from   
   >> destroying the Kelvin.   
   >>   
   >> Has the above moral argument been mentioned by the writers of the movie?   
   >   
   > There's no need for a moral argument. The time travel paradigm used in   
   > the new Star Trek movie is that of a splitting timeline: when you jump   
   > back in time and cause a change, you split the timeline in two. The   
   > Kelvin and Vulcan were destroyed but both still exist in the original   
   > timeline - it was not "erased". If you go back and attempt to destroy   
   > the Narada before it does anything you'll only create another split ad   
   > there will be three timelines. It won't help the people who already   
   > live in the new timeline where Vulcan and the Kelvin were destroyed.   
      
   Um, no, Star Trek uses a "rewrite time" model.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)