Re: 1st Season Terminator: TSCC - Heavy Metal - 5 star poll - SPOILERS AHOY !

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:29:44 GMT, Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-hazred@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>George W Harris wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:31:10 GMT, Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-hazred@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> :>         In the same way that loaning someone your car
>> :> (assuming the car works etc.) isn't interefering with them
>> :> going to the grocery store.
>> :
>> :  That presumes that the individual has the ability to get to the 
>> :store without the loan of the car.
>> 
>>         No, it doesn't.  If you are locked in a room and
>> are trying to get out, and I unlock the door, I'm not
>> *interfering* in your attempt to get out of the room.  I'm
>> enabling it.
>
>  Interference /= impedance.
>
>  One of the dictionary definitions for interference describes the mere
>act of "meddling".  If I pick you up in my car whilst you are running a
>marathon and drive you to the end, I certainly have interfered with your
>race, even though you still reach the finish line.  This applies doubly
>if otherwise you would not be physically capable of completing the race
>(which is roughly analogous to the assistance John Connor provided
>Kyle).
>
>  Both you and David Johnston are fixated on the requirement that only
>actions which prevent your existence count as paradoxes.  I've already
>shown that such has never been a requirement, as far back as Heinlein
>popularized the concept of tem****al paradoxes.  
>
> IOW, your argument boils down to "it's not a paradox because *I* say
>it's not".  

No, my argument boils down do "What is it is contradicting?"  Without
an internal contradiction there is no paradox.