Re: [ENT+] Re: Changing rules for Time Travel

"KalElFan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [crosspost to rec.arts.sf.tv and rec.arts.startrek.current added]
> "David Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> > So why would it "take time" for an historical change to reach the
> > future now and not on previous occasions?  Perhaps it's an issue
> > of how "long" it takes for a change to become "certain".
> 
> Kudos for asking a very good question, and actually suggesting an
> answer -- remember, the writers CAN answer it.  :-)

> Others have noted the apparent discrepancy with famous Trek episodes
> like City on the Edge of Forever, where changes appeared instantaneous
> (except for the landing party which was shielded from them).  That alone
> illustrates again that Trek would do well to establish the "rules" surrounding
> all this, but I think the more pressing reasons to establish how it all works
> are that (i) the temporal cold war is central to this Enterprise series and 
> the more coherent the mythology the better that story will be and (ii) 
> there's an opportunity, if the mythology is done well, to use it in future 
> Trek, including  a remake of the TOS series in 2016, the 50th anniversary of > the 
> series.


As an SF fan for a number of decades now, I find it next to impossible
to understand why anyone would care the least little bit about the
shit STAR TREK has become.

   -The Lady