On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:14:06 -0500, "KalElFan" <kalelfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
:"George W Harris" <gharrus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
:news:reumq39l1i4d4arf2sadlgqek9t8cochk1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:34:48 -0500, "KalElFan"
<kalelfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
:> wrote:
:>
:> :Not necessarily. The two writing constraints that the show now has,
:> :in terms of the time travel element, can be described as:
:> :
:> : (i) the human protector from the first movie (John Connor's father),
:> : must go back to circa 1982 and conceive John. The Terminator
:> : must also go back to be the nemesis back then; and
:>
:> May, 1984, actually. That's solidly established.
:
:The first movie came out in 1984 and perhaps May, 1984 was specifically
:mentioned at some point as the month Reese and Connor conceived John?
That's the date on Sarah's timecard, and in T2
the date of John's birth is seen on a computer screen to
be February 28th, 1985.
:
:The main point is that his existence is part of a time loop, and some of
:the assertions or excuses in other posts don't address that. Suggesting
:we just don't think about it, or using semantics that try to avoid or
wish
:away the inherent paradox, will be insufficient for the core base that
gets
:the issue.
The is no inherent paradox in a closed
timelike-curve, or a causal loop. There's only a paradox
in an *inconsistent* closed timelike curve; a kill-your-
grandfather situation.
--
Never give a loaded gun to a woman in labor.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
|
