Re: Is "Terminator" stuck in a "Gilligan's Island"-style dilemma?

"David Johnston" <david@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:b9vrq35svu317lp266ktk4j81tstf031g9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 07:28:48 -0800, "Arthur Lipscomb"
> <arthur@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>It's not necessary that the exact future that produced that protector
>>>>be there.
>>>
>>> The premise of the first move was that history can't be changed and
>>> all events are predestined.  The premise of the second movie was that
>>> things aren't predestined and history can be changed.  The premise of
>>> the third move is that history can be changed but it don't matter a
>>> lick.
>>
>>Wasn't the "no fate" line introduced in the first movie?
>
> No, it wasn't.  It was introduced in the second move.
>
> If history could
>>not be changed there would be no point in sending back the first 
>>terminator
>>or Reese to stop it.
>
> Pfeh.  Like they had a choice.  In a fixed timeline it doesn't matter
> whether your actions have a point because you have no alternative
> courses of action.  You will do what you are predestined to do. You'll
> just think it's because there's a reason for you to do it. Skynet is
> sending back the Terminator because it doesn't know whether changing
> history is possible or not and at this point it has nothing to lose by
> trying.  John Connor on the other hand is sending back Reese because
> he knows that's what he's predestined to do and he has no alternative
> if he wants to exist.

Double-Pfeh! If it's all predestiny it doesn't matter what he does, he
will 
still exists because he does exist.