XPost: rec.arts.sf.movies, alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.sf.written   
   XPost: alt.tv.sevendays   
   From: gossg@gossg.org   
      
   Jonathan Schattke  wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   Star Trek changed their mind on which model to use.   
   --   
   Tomorrow is today already.   
   Greg Goss, 1989-01-27   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)