Tcc

[notsolost42]

I just wanted to start a thread that TIME CAN CHANGE. I believe it can be changed based on the Butterfly Effect caused by the variables.

Let me use the example that Mrs. Hawking showed Desmond by the antique shop:

If, for instance, the man with the red shoes was killed crossing the street rather than the building falling on him, that would have changed an aweful lot of things. Yes, he still died. However, the butterfly effect of his death has changed and now his death effects the driver of the car, his family, his auto mechanic, and so on like ripples out from the point of his death. This is opposed to the building falling on him and its effect on the contractors working there, the owner of the company, etc. and the ripples out from that having happened. So, Time Can Change....

That's exactly what the variable does. It causes a change in an equation as it can vary and be different. Per Wiki, basically a variable is a symbol that stands for a value that may change and is in oppostion to a constant, which is a non-varying or fixed value. When you change the equation, you change the results. Hence, TCC!

[smthng2dowthlost]

Yeah I agree but to me the thing would be that you have to know what the future is like desmond or hawking, desmond could keep changing circumstances of charlie's death until the benefit was greatest. But Dan not knowing what he had previously done in 1977(I don't think previously is the correct time traveling word but) tried changing things which in fact caused things to happen the way they were supposed to. I don't know why but thats what it looks like to me. If you don't know whatever you do is going to be WHH but if you know WHH you can change it but you have to be prepared for course corrections.

[islander]

Yeah I agree but to me the thing would be that you have to know what the future is like desmond or hawking, desmond could keep changing circumstances of charlie's death until the benefit was greatest. But Dan not knowing what he had previously done in 1977(I don't think previously is the correct time traveling word but) tried changing things which in fact caused things to happen the way they were supposed to. I don't know why but thats what it looks like to me. If you don't know whatever you do is going to be WHH but if you know WHH you can change it but you have to be prepared for course corrections.

As you note, if Charlie had been struck by lightning on the beach he would not now be considered a hero by all of us. Des delayed his death until his death could be for the greater good, in your example and we now consider Charlie a hero - so that small change resulted in how we now remember Charlie. Des' knowledge of the ability to make minor changes came to him through his dreams, or so it seemed, but it shows the potential impact of a small change.

Right now Dan looks like he's attempting a big change by preventing the incident. That seems to be asking too much, but I think he will realize that he needs to make smaller, more optimistic changes. (If he's still alive. If he's dead, it will be up to Jack to figure this out.)

[notsolost42]

Yeah I agree but to me the thing would be that you have to know what the future is like desmond or hawking, desmond could keep changing circumstances of charlie's death until the benefit was greatest. But Dan not knowing what he had previously done in 1977(I don't think previously is the correct time traveling word but) tried changing things which in fact caused things to happen the way they were supposed to. I don't know why but thats what it looks like to me. If you don't know whatever you do is going to be WHH but if you know WHH you can change it but you have to be prepared for course corrections.

I completly agree with the first part of what you said. I have said all along that Desmond put Charlie's death off until it benefited him. The benefit was making contact with Penny. That would never have occured if Charlie had died any other way. As for the second part of what you are saying, I obviously disagree. Dan knows that variables change equations and since they are not in their past but their present anything can happen. We know that some of the DI left the island. We know that Charlotte and her mom as well as Miles and his mom left at the least. It also appears pretty apparent that the h-bomb was detonated because everything under the Swan is covered in concrete, no less than what was done in Chernobyl according to Sayid. So, we know that these events did happen originally. And I am not saying that they will not happen again. What I am saying is that now they can be changed so that the ripple effects I described before will be different. That in turn will change many things to come.

[TXAgg]

I think that the change in Dharma village between '04 and '07 is probably proof that things can change. (if Ben is the one who moved the others into the Dharma village, and now in '07 it looks like they were never there, then somehow does Ben not become the leader of the others?)

Unless WHH does exist and things were always going to change... ohh god... my head hurts

Just kidding, I'm convinced that some sort of change can happen, WHH may not be so concrete.

Could Desmond maybe change things because he was able to sort of look into the future before the event occurred, rather than know what happens in the future because you experienced it in your past?

[notsolost42]

As you note, if Charlie had been struck by lightning on the beach he would not now be considered a hero by all of us. Des delayed his death until his death could be for the greater good, in your example and we now consider Charlie a hero - so that small change resulted in how we now remember Charlie. Des' knowledge of the ability to make minor changes came to him through his dreams, or so it seemed, but it shows the potential impact of a small change.

Right now Dan looks like he's attempting a big change by preventing the incident. That seems to be asking too much, but I think he will realize that he needs to make smaller, more optimistic changes. (If he's still alive. If he's dead, it will be up to Jack to figure this out.)

Islander, Dan is dead. He will not be attempting to do anything else. He will not realize anything and will not make any more decisions. He is dead. I think that now Jack will take over in his place. Jack is the closest thing to a scientist, and a doctor really is a scientist but just not a physicist, and will continue the journey to find Jughead. Unfortunately, Jack will likely make the same mistake and detonate it but because it is him doing the deed may be enough to change things in the future.

[LissaMarie]

I agree, Nots! I believe that is why that scene with Jack, Kate and Daniel by the river in The Variable was so poignant. Daniel essentially drew Kate and Jack a map as to how to change the course of events and now they are the variables.

[islander]

Islander, Dan is dead. He will not be attempting to do anything else. He will not realize anything and will not make any more decisions. He is dead. I think that now Jack will take over in his place. Jack is the closest thing to a scientist, and a doctor really is a scientist but just not a physicist, and will continue the journey to find Jughead. Unfortunately, Jack will likely make the same mistake and detonate it but because it is him doing the deed may be enough to change things in the future.


Awww c'mon, now that Sawyer is whipped, Dan is/was :( my favorite non-female character...say it isn't so.

[Lostdude2341]

Awww c'mon, now that Sawyer is whipped, Dan is/was :( my favorite non-female character...say it isn't so.

It aint so. Trust. lol

[notsolost42]

Awww c'mon, now that Sawyer is whipped, Dan is/was :( my favorite non-female character...say it isn't so.

I just finished rewatching the epi. I mean the man died with his eyes open. That's how Naomi died also. And I think there were others who died like that too. Oh yeah, Horace after the purge. Eyes open = Dead and not coming back! Sorry, he was my favorite geek. I could relate to him! lol.

[islander]

I just finished rewatching the epi. I mean the man died with his eyes open. That's how Naomi died also. And I think there were others who died like that too. Oh yeah, Horace after the purge. Eyes open = Dead and not coming back! Sorry, he was my favorite geek. I could relate to him! lol.

His eyes move in that final scene.

[islander]

I just wanted to start a thread that TIME CAN CHANGE. I believe it can be changed based on the Butterfly Effect caused by the variables.

Let me use the example that Mrs. Hawking showed Desmond by the antique shop:

If, for instance, the man with the red shoes was killed crossing the street rather than the building falling on him, that would have changed an aweful lot of things. Yes, he still died. However, the butterfly effect of his death has changed and now his death effects the driver of the car, his family, his auto mechanic, and so on like ripples out from the point of his death. This is opposed to the building falling on him and its effect on the contractors working there, the owner of the company, etc. and the ripples out from that having happened. So, Time Can Change....

That's exactly what the variable does. It causes a change in an equation as it can vary and be different. Per Wiki, basically a variable is a symbol that stands for a value that may change and is in oppostion to a constant, which is a non-varying or fixed value. When you change the equation, you change the results. Hence, TCC!

BYW - you're preaching to the choir regarding TCC. :D

[notsolost42]

His eyes move in that final scene.

To a frozen stare. I watched for this very closely. Dan is dead. What I was actually wondering is this. Ellie shot him from behind and we see the exit wound in his stomach. Richard was standing in front of him. Where's the bullet? If it went all the way through Dan, which on its own probably shouldn't have, and came out the front, then it should have also hit Richard!!!! Eeeek!!! But, it did not, obviously.

[islander]

To a frozen stare. I watched for this very closely. Dan is dead. What I was actually wondering is this. Ellie shot him from behind and we see the exit wound in his stomach. Richard was standing in front of him. Where's the bullet? If it went all the way through Dan, which on its own probably shouldn't have, and came out the front, then it should have also hit Richard!!!! Eeeek!!! But, it did not, obviously.

I also thought Ellie was aiming higher than where Dan's wound was, but I'm just being overly sentimental. Dan basically wrote his own obituary with his conversation about "any of us can die" and then he passed his "knowledge torch" to Jack with his conversation about the Variable and his showing Jack the journal.

That's why the incident occurs. Dan is the only physicist there and he's dead so anyone else will muck it up.

[islander]

To a frozen stare.

Damm, I was hoping you wouldn't notice that. :D

[notsolost42]

Damm, I was hoping you wouldn't notice that. :D

lol. Listen, no one would be more thrilled than I woud if Dan were really alive. He is my geek! But, he is not alive, he has been killed.

[SilentAssassin]

I just wanted to start a thread that TIME CAN CHANGE. I believe it can be changed based on the Butterfly Effect caused by the variables.

Let me use the example that Mrs. Hawking showed Desmond by the antique shop:

If, for instance, the man with the red shoes was killed crossing the street rather than the building falling on him, that would have changed an aweful lot of things. Yes, he still died. However, the butterfly effect of his death has changed and now his death effects the driver of the car, his family, his auto mechanic, and so on like ripples out from the point of his death. This is opposed to the building falling on him and its effect on the contractors working there, the owner of the company, etc. and the ripples out from that having happened. So, Time Can Change....

That's exactly what the variable does. It causes a change in an equation as it can vary and be different. Per Wiki, basically a variable is a symbol that stands for a value that may change and is in oppostion to a constant, which is a non-varying or fixed value. When you change the equation, you change the results. Hence, TCC!

You are WRONG, dan always died, they were always at 77, etc etc.
WHH.

[Nemesis Prime]

It also appears pretty apparent that the h-bomb was detonated because everything under the Swan is covered in concrete, no less than what was done in Chernobyl according to Sayid.


Didn't Dan say that the DI covered the energy pocket with concrete after they drilled into it? I don't think that had anything to do with the bomb going off. If the bomb had actually went off there wouldn't even be a swan station.

[Carry the One]

Didn't Dan say that the DI covered the energy pocket with concrete after they drilled into it? I don't think that had anything to do with the bomb going off. If the bomb had actually went off there wouldn't even be a swan station.

Right on. A h-bomb on that island would leave quite a large crater. I don't think this is the last we'll see of the bomb. It's such a major thing to introduce and never see again.

[TXAgg]

Don't we have a friendly asian on the island who can talk to dead people? Maybe Miles is going to be important here and get some info from recently deceased Dan. Something like "oh crap, she killed me", or "oh I was expecting this".

[notsolost42]

You are WRONG, dan always died, they were always at 77, etc etc.
WHH.

Tell me what you really think....don't hold back! :rolleyes:

[imwiththeothers]

I'm trying to open my mind to the idea that time can change, but here's the problem I encounter. Like Faraday said, the plane crashed on the island because Desmond didn't push the button and he's pushing the button b/c the Dharma drilled into the Electromagnetic energy. I think we can all agree that Faraday, Jack, and Kate are in 1977 because of the plane crash. Faraday wants to change what happened by avoiding the Dharma from drilling into the energy, meaning the Swan never gets built, the plane never crashes, etc. But wouldn't that also mean that Faraday, Jack, and Kate never get to the island in 1977? So keeping the Dharma from drilling in 1977 couldn't happen because they would never make it to 1977. It doesn't make sense to me. (I think Kate actually asked this question in the last episode too.) Please help!

[Panda]

To a frozen stare. I watched for this very closely. Dan is dead. What I was actually wondering is this. Ellie shot him from behind and we see the exit wound in his stomach. Richard was standing in front of him. Where's the bullet? If it went all the way through Dan, which on its own probably shouldn't have, and came out the front, then it should have also hit Richard!!!! Eeeek!!! But, it did not, obviously.

That is maybe why Richard said "he was not going to shoot me". It was Elly who was going to shoot Richard....but unfortunately Dan was standing there which he wasn't in the original 77 scene......The reason why Elly was banished from the Island.

No I am not serious about this. Rambling again....as I wonder why Elly was sent off Island.

[Here'sLOCKEing at you,Kid]

I'm trying to open my mind to the idea that time can change, but here's the problem I encounter. Like Faraday said, the plane crashed on the island because Desmond didn't push the button and he's pushing the button b/c the Dharma drilled into the Electromagnetic energy. I think we can all agree that Faraday, Jack, and Kate are in 1977 because of the plane crash. Faraday wants to change what happened by avoiding the Dharma from drilling into the energy, meaning the Swan never gets built, the plane never crashes, etc. But wouldn't that also mean that Faraday, Jack, and Kate never get to the island in 1977? So keeping the Dharma from drilling in 1977 couldn't happen because they would never make it to 1977. It doesn't make sense to me. (I think Kate actually asked this question in the last episode too.) Please help!

well, don't forget..... the past, l977 frame, is THEIR PRESENT...and they CAN act "as presently" during that time and change things.

[Panda]

well, don't forget..... the past, l977 frame, is THEIR PRESENT...and they CAN act "as presently" during that time and change things.

Yes it seems that they can change some things....but will the result be better?

I am not sure in what time the Ajira flight landing upon the Island. I read a few times that it is 2007.
So in 2007 Locke and Sun and a bunch of people are there.
For the losties who are now in 77.....Sun and Locke are to them in the future.
So up till now, whatever they did, there are still people on the Island in 2007.

And these people in 2007 seem to be fine. So why is there a need to change something? If actually people can be alive on the Island in 2007 it means that even if they don't change a thing...the Island will still exist and people will still be able to live on it.

Now if they change something....who says that in 2007 the Island would be still in tact and a place where people could live?

[smthng2dowthlost]

Even the firmest WHH theory has that things can change we all know desmond is the exception to the rule and can change things. BUt since he is in 2007 I don't think anything will change in the past everything these people are trying to change( widmore eloise) has to do with the upcoming war, that's why she sent her own son to die to keep things happening the right way to later try and change something far more dangerous. Jack and akte and sayid and sawyer are just doing WHH even if they don't know that they are the only change can be from desmond. My theory or guess at this point.

[wiley]

I'm trying to open my mind to the idea that time can change,

Me too. But every time I open my mind, My eyes close.

[Here'sLOCKEing at you,Kid]

Who are those people and why do they keep rolling across my screen ??:eek:
(at the bottom.)

[Epy]

I COMPLETLY agree with this. Time can change, in fact, we have already seen this happen.

WHH is a general rule. But rules are meant to be broken.

As long as you don't cause any paradoxes, the universe won't need to course correct.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Incident will happen. If Jack sets of the H-bomb and stops the incident, then he wont ever come to the island in the first place and wont set off the H Bomb, and the incident will happen.

However If something changes in 1977 that does not effect flight 815 from crashing, but through the butterfly effect manages to change something in the future(past 2007), the universe will not course correct because there is no paradox.

I think this is what Hawking and Widmore are trying to accomplish.

[Pung]

I just wanted to start a thread that TIME CAN CHANGE. I believe it can be changed based on the Butterfly Effect caused by the variables.

Let me use the example that Mrs. Hawking showed Desmond by the antique shop:

If, for instance, the man with the red shoes was killed crossing the street rather than the building falling on him, that would have changed an aweful lot of things. Yes, he still died. However, the butterfly effect of his death has changed and now his death effects the driver of the car, his family, his auto mechanic, and so on like ripples out from the point of his death. This is opposed to the building falling on him and its effect on the contractors working there, the owner of the company, etc. and the ripples out from that having happened. So, Time Can Change....

That's exactly what the variable does. It causes a change in an equation as it can vary and be different. Per Wiki, basically a variable is a symbol that stands for a value that may change and is in oppostion to a constant, which is a non-varying or fixed value. When you change the equation, you change the results. Hence, TCC!

While Des and Hawking are talking the man with the red shoes meets his demise. Eloise explains that if she warned him, then he would die a different way tomorrow, and so on. If eloise had warned him, then you believe this is changing time?

Eloise knew that the mans destiny was to die. she chose not to warn him, with her own free will BTW, and he died. If she did decide to warn him, and then the next day he gets hit by a car, then he dies the next day. Either way, if you were to travel back in time to witness the event then how ever it happened is the way that it happened. What ever choice Eloise made, is the choice any time traveler would see.

The same goes for Charlies death. Desmond was having visions of Charlies death. Visions. Desmond made decisions based on those visions. What ultimately happened in the looking glass was directly caused by Desmonds decisions. His free will. Charlie only died once. and whether you traveled back in time to see it or not, he would have died in exactly the same way.

[Pung]

I COMPLETLY agree with this. Time can change, in fact, we have already seen this happen.

WHH is a general rule. But rules are meant to be broken.

As long as you don't cause any paradoxes, the universe won't need to course correct.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Incident will happen. If Jack sets of the H-bomb and stops the incident, then he wont ever come to the island in the first place and wont set off the H Bomb, and the incident will happen.

However If something changes in 1977 that does not effect flight 815 from crashing, but through the butterfly effect manages to change something in the future(past 2007), the universe will not course correct because there is no paradox.

I think this is what Hawking and Widmore are trying to accomplish.

You cant have your cake and eat it to!:D

And also when did we see time change?

[smthng2dowthlost]

I don't think we ever did. The only thing I would have considered a change was that desmond went to see hawking because faraday told him to when they were time flashing/jumping but we don't know if that was suppposed to happen or not

[Epy]

You cant have your cake and eat it to!:D

And also when did we see time change?

What I'm saying is that 99% of the time WHH is true, but there are loopholes. So yes, I will have my cake, but I'm going to dip my finger in the frosting a little. ;)

We saw Desmond change the future when he saved Charlie several times, and he changed the past with the calibrations in Dan's journal.

[smthng2dowthlost]

I don't know about that charlie stuff anymore. If everything you change gets course corrected are you really changing it. If charlie hadn't flipped off the switch the freighter would never have found the island ben wouldn't have turned the wheel everyone wouldn't have flashed and faraday wouldn't have been shot by his mother. But 30ish Faraday always got shot by his mother in 1977. Doesn't that mean in 2004 charlie always turned off the looking glass?

I don't remember seeing the different calibrations or changed calibrations I thought he just told him what the younger version of himself would understand.

[Pung]

What I'm saying is that 99% of the time WHH is true, but there are loopholes. So yes, I will have my cake, but I'm going to dip my finger in the frosting a little. ;)

We saw Desmond change the future when he saved Charlie several times, and he changed the past with the calibrations in Dan's journal.

Charlie only died once, in the looking glass. The future was never changed. Desmond had visions of Charlies death and made decisions whether or not to act on those visions. The decisions that he made is what happened. Nothing was changed.

Just becasue desomond had visions of what could happen, doesnt mean that those visions are what was going to happen.

[Locke=Cylon?]

Were those merely visions, or were they the beginnings of his conciousness becoming unstuck in time, Billy Pilgrim style? If the latter, he saw Charlie die (so it goes) the way it really happened, and was going to happen, until he changed it. I'm becoming frustrated with this question. Why can Desmond change time? Is it because they basically have to allow for it because they already wrote it and can't truly adhere to WHH? Is Desmond Tralfamadorian? If so, who is writing this stuff, Kilgore Trout?

[Epy]

Charlie only died once, in the looking glass. The future was never changed. Desmond had visions of Charlies death and made decisions whether or not to act on those visions. The decisions that he made is what happened. Nothing was changed.

Just becasue desomond had visions of what could happen, doesnt mean that those visions are what was going to happen.

Yes, but if Charlie died as he originally was supposed to, he would have been struck by lightning, and would never have gone to the looking glass and unjammed the communications, and the freighter would have never showed up.

[smthng2dowthlost]

Were those merely visions, or were they the beginnings of his conciousness becoming unstuck in time, Billy Pilgrim style? If the latter, he saw Charlie die (so it goes) the way it really happened, and was going to happen, until he changed it. I'm becoming frustrated with this question. Why can Desmond change time? Is it because they basically have to allow for it because they already wrote it and can't truly adhere to WHH? Is Desmond Tralfamadorian? If so, who is writing this stuff, Kilgore Trout?

TPTB made desmond special time changer when they made him turn the failsafe key at the end of seasson 2. BUt the question here is If desmond didn't "change" the visions or whatever they were wouldn't the entire time travel jumping not happened because ben wouldn't have turned the wheel and there fore everything that happened as a consequence to that wouldn't have happened but that stuff already happened because faraday was forced by his mother to return like he did eloise shot him like she did. This all makes it seem like desmond can't change time because things have happened the same way because we see the consequences of those actions later.

[smthng2dowthlost]

Yes, but if Charlie died as he originally was supposed to, he would have been struck by lightning, and would never have gone to the looking glass and unjammed the communications, and the freighter would have never showed up.

exactly but the freighter always showed up because faraday always got shot in 1977 as a indirect consequence or else his mother wouldnt' have forced him to go back like she did and we never would have met him in the first place. Desmond saving charlie seems to have always happened the way it did. maybe the island course corrected using desmond knowing he would save him a couple of times.

[Epy]

exactly but the freighter always showed up because faraday always got shot in 1977 as a indirect consequence or else his mother wouldnt' have forced him to go back like she did and we never would have met him in the first place. Desmond saving charlie seems to have always happened the way it did. maybe the island course corrected using desmond knowing he would save him a couple of times.

Exactly, this is why I am saying time can change in spite of WHH. Charlie was going to die. If Desmond had not seen the future, then he would have been killed by the lightning strike. So WHH is dependent on Desmond changing things. Much like if Sayid had never time traveled, Ben would have never been shot and would have never joined the others. The past has become dependent on the intervention of the future.

[smthng2dowthlost]

so desmond saw/recieved the vision of charlie dying so he could stop it? And like wise eloise and widmore sent daniel back to the island because they knew he was supposed to die there. I agree with you but you would think that there would be a better way to ensure charlie would press the button other than hoping desmond would keep saving charlie until the right time it seems kinda risky especially when desmond says that abraham test thing except I failed because I changed what I saw. This is all pretty weird.

[Epy]

so desmond saw/recieved the vision of charlie dying so he could stop it? And like wise eloise and widmore sent daniel back to the island because they knew he was supposed to die there. I agree with you but you would think that there would be a better way to ensure charlie would press the button other than hoping desmond would keep saving charlie until the right time it seems kinda risky especially when desmond says that abraham test thing except I failed because I changed what I saw. This is all pretty weird.

Indeed, this whole mess is an example of why meddling with time is a horrible idea. Shame on you Ms. Hawking!

[smthng2dowthlost]

yeah time should definately be left alone especially when I'm trying to understand a TV show:D

[SilentAssassin]

well, don't forget..... the past, l977 frame, is THEIR PRESENT...and they CAN act "as presently" during that time and change things.

No, you are wrong he is right. If you can change things, and we have ONE timeline, you get a paradox, whether you like it or not.

It may be possible to change things if there are multiple parallel timelines, but I sure hope there aren't it'll make the show stupid.

SOOOOOOOOO, WHH. Get a grip......

[notsolost42]

No, you are wrong he is right. If you can change things, and we have ONE timeline, you get a paradox, whether you like it or not.

It may be possible to change things if there are multiple parallel timelines, but I sure hope there aren't it'll make the show stupid.

SOOOOOOOOO, WHH. Get a grip......

There are two worlds. Mirror matter worlds, quantum entangled worlds. There are two timelines. Soooooooooo, TCC. Get a grip........:D
And this is not stupid at all, it is absolutly brilliant! And we all love Lost because it is so great, so brilliant!

[chester]

Yeah I agree but to me the thing would be that you have to know what the future is like desmond or hawking, desmond could keep changing circumstances of charlie's death until the benefit was greatest. But Dan not knowing what he had previously done in 1977(I don't think previously is the correct time traveling word but) tried changing things which in fact caused things to happen the way they were supposed to. I don't know why but thats what it looks like to me. If you don't know whatever you do is going to be WHH but if you know WHH you can change it but you have to be prepared for course corrections.

I agree smthng. Anyone traveling back in time, with no knowledge of the events of where/when they're traveling to, will exert their free will only to behave the same way they 'did before'. Only those who actually have knowledge, and free will, would have the option to either do as was done before or behave in someway different - even though that might/will lead to 'course corrections'.

I'm thinking of the LOST spacetime continuum having two ends; each either the beginning or end depending on which way along the time dimension you are going. And there is like an electrical 'potential difference' between those two ends. The actual course of events along that spacetime continuum would then be like a static spark that 'exists' between these two charged end-plates. With people traveling back in time; that spark moves around. Maybe doing something paradoxical, that cant be 'corrected', stops the spark, and "god help us all".

Just my thoughts for the moment.

[LissaMarie]

And since Daniel filled Kate and Jack in on the fact that they are variables in the equation, I think they will attempt to change the course. There are also the variables of Miles and Hurley who can commune with the dead. I believe they will play a central role in changing WHH.

[SilentAssassin]

Ok so atleast you understand that if TCC then there are parallel time lines or else we'll have a paradox.

Now, don't you think parallel time lines will ruin the whole show? It is really equivalent to ending the show by seeing jack wakes up and thinks it was all a dream. It makes everything pointless.

So as I said, I hope that WHH.
But for those who think TCC - atleast realize it must mean parallel time lines, which, imo, sucks.

[notsolost42]

Ok so atleast you understand that if TCC then there are parallel time lines or else we'll have a paradox.

Now, don't you think parallel time lines will ruin the whole show? It is really equivalent to ending the show by seeing jack wakes up and thinks it was all a dream. It makes everything pointless.

So as I said, I hope that WHH.
But for those who think TCC - atleast realize it must mean parallel time lines, which, imo, sucks.

Actually, I think if this is the case, mirror matter universes with two timelines, then I bet we see that TPTB have really been showing this to us all along and I would say that's damned brilliant and doesn't suck at all!

[ortrules]

Here's my thoughts on Desmond and Charlie. Isn't anyone else at all thinking about HOW Desmond had these visions of saving Charlie? It wasn't just some magical reason.

In my opinion, Desmond had visions of what would happen to Charlie because the island (or whatever higher power) needed Charlie to get to the looking glass station. The only reason Desmond had these visions was to do exactly what he did - save Charlie until that point. Also note that after Charlie died, Desmond stopped having visions. Coincidence? Likely not.

Desmond was having specific visions about a specific person. He wasn't given super powers. He was given knowledge to do what needed to be done.

Plus, we've been told that Desmond is "special" and that the "rules don't apply to him". He may be the exception to the rule, which many have speculated since the beginning of the season, so I don't think he's a good example to show that the future can change. He may be the only true variable in the equation.

[tpbaxter]

Here's my thoughts on Desmond and Charlie. Isn't anyone else at all thinking about HOW Desmond had these visions of saving Charlie? It wasn't just some magical reason.

In my opinion, Desmond had visions of what would happen to Charlie because the island (or whatever higher power) needed Charlie to get to the looking glass station. The only reason Desmond had these visions was to do exactly what he did - save Charlie until that point. Also note that after Charlie died, Desmond stopped having visions. Coincidence? Likely not.

Desmond was having specific visions about a specific person. He wasn't given super powers. He was given knowledge to do what needed to be done.

Plus, we've been told that Desmond is "special" and that the "rules don't apply to him". He may be the exception to the rule, which many have speculated since the beginning of the season, so I don't think he's a good example to show that the future can change. He may be the only true variable in the equation.

i agree with this. i was just ranting about this in another thread. Desmond's visions of the future seemed strange and out of place. I like the idea that it was the smoke monster (or something else?) manipulating him and Charlie.

Also I agree that Desmond being the variable makes more sense than what Faraday said.

[Pung]

Here's my thoughts on Desmond and Charlie. Isn't anyone else at all thinking about HOW Desmond had these visions of saving Charlie? It wasn't just some magical reason.

In my opinion, Desmond had visions of what would happen to Charlie because the island (or whatever higher power) needed Charlie to get to the looking glass station. The only reason Desmond had these visions was to do exactly what he did - save Charlie until that point. Also note that after Charlie died, Desmond stopped having visions. Coincidence? Likely not.

Desmond was having specific visions about a specific person. He wasn't given super powers. He was given knowledge to do what needed to be done.

Plus, we've been told that Desmond is "special" and that the "rules don't apply to him". He may be the exception to the rule, which many have speculated since the beginning of the season, so I don't think he's a good example to show that the future can change. He may be the only true variable in the equation.

Thats what I am trying to say about Desmond's visions. It doesn't matter if it is a special gift, the smoke monster, or whatever...the fact remains that Desmond did what he did, in the order he did, and Charlie dies in the looking glass. He only died once. So it doesnt matter why Desmond made the decisions he did. Those decisions led to the actions he committed, and we have what happened.

That whole scene happened in what we have have called 'the present' when we were first watching it before all of this time travel business. So I still do not see how this 'changed time' in any way

[ortrules]

That whole scene happened in what we have have called 'the present' when we were first watching it before all of this time travel business. So I still do not see how this 'changed time' in any way

That's what I'm trying to grasp in general. People continue to say "you can change the past" but I still haven't seen a solid example of how that's happened. In fact, it's really just the opposite:

Sayid tried to change the past by shooting Ben. He shoots Ben, Ben is taken to the Temple, Ben becomes the person he is today. Sayid changes nothing.

Dan tried to change the past by talking to his mother in the 70s. He is shot. Meanwhile, Eloise in the future tells us that she always knew the fate of her son. So Dan changes nothing.

Sawyer "changed" the past by saving Amy. Turns out, Amy gives birth to Ethan. So Sawyer didn't actually change anything.

For every instance of "change" we've seen on this show, the events still continue to play out as they should. Dan wanting to change these events with a variable was not a proven method. He was testing his hypothesis by trying to implement a change and he failed. Therefore, his theory was wrong.

[islander]

Here's my thoughts on Desmond and Charlie. Isn't anyone else at all thinking about HOW Desmond had these visions of saving Charlie? It wasn't just some magical reason.

In my opinion, Desmond had visions of what would happen to Charlie because the island (or whatever higher power) needed Charlie to get to the looking glass station. The only reason Desmond had these visions was to do exactly what he did - save Charlie until that point. Also note that after Charlie died, Desmond stopped having visions. Coincidence? Likely not.

Desmond was having specific visions about a specific person. He wasn't given super powers. He was given knowledge to do what needed to be done.

Plus, we've been told that Desmond is "special" and that the "rules don't apply to him". He may be the exception to the rule, which many have speculated since the beginning of the season, so I don't think he's a good example to show that the future can change. He may be the only true variable in the equation.

LOL..It only takes one.

[Waitin4Godot]

That's what I'm trying to grasp in general. People continue to say "you can change the past" but I still haven't seen a solid example of how that's happened. In fact, it's really just the opposite:

Sayid tried to change the past by shooting Ben. He shoots Ben, Ben is taken to the Temple, Ben becomes the person he is today. Sayid changes nothing.

Dan tried to change the past by talking to his mother in the 70s. He is shot. Meanwhile, Eloise in the future tells us that she always knew the fate of her son. So Dan changes nothing.

Sawyer "changed" the past by saving Amy. Turns out, Amy gives birth to Ethan. So Sawyer didn't actually change anything.

For every instance of "change" we've seen on this show, the events still continue to play out as they should. Dan wanting to change these events with a variable was not a proven method. He was testing his hypothesis by trying to implement a change and he failed. Therefore, his theory was wrong.

Amen. I agree.

If something does change -- and the given example is the plane doesn't crash... then the whole show is pointless. The closing scene is everyone getting off the plane (perhaps looking at each other like... wtf?!), but still.. Kate goes to jail, Locke's in a wheelchair.... and Jack to bury his dead... and all the rest.

[ortrules]

LOL..It only takes one.

Variable doesn't necessarily mean change. Mathematically, a variable is dependent on the equation in which the variable is presented.

[bunnydixon]

That's what I'm trying to grasp in general. People continue to say "you can change the past" but I still haven't seen a solid example of how that's happened. In fact, it's really just the opposite:

Sayid tried to change the past by shooting Ben. He shoots Ben, Ben is taken to the Temple, Ben becomes the person he is today. Sayid changes nothing.

Dan tried to change the past by talking to his mother in the 70s. He is shot. Meanwhile, Eloise in the future tells us that she always knew the fate of her son. So Dan changes nothing.

Sawyer "changed" the past by saving Amy. Turns out, Amy gives birth to Ethan. So Sawyer didn't actually change anything.

For every instance of "change" we've seen on this show, the events still continue to play out as they should. Dan wanting to change these events with a variable was not a proven method. He was testing his hypothesis by trying to implement a change and he failed. Therefore, his theory was wrong.


it's a funny one. i think the major arguement is based on desmonds visions. desmond 'sees' charlie die several different times yet he continuously saves him until of course charlie gets to the looking glass. now the assumption here is that desmond was doing some kind of time travel in order to know what happens to charlie. and by saving charlie he has mildly altered the past, although the overall outcome is the same - charlie dies.

but what if he isnt time travelling and the truth is that he somehow knows that unless he does something at a particular time, charlie will die. Therefore, he is ALWAYS saving charlie who never actually died at all.

[tpbaxter]

Variable doesn't necessarily mean change. Mathematically, a variable is dependent on the equation in which the variable is presented.


f(x) = y


in this example both sides of the equation contain variables... I was thinking to write a long post on this, but decided against it for now. the point is, "The Variable" is a broken metaphor that probably doesn't mean very much. I doubt it has much to do with math and you can probably make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

[islander]

Variable doesn't necessarily mean change. Mathematically, a variable is dependent on the equation in which the variable is presented.

Aren't there "dependent" variables and "independent" variables?

I agree so far WHH....everything we've seen happen in previous time periods has already happened. But it only takes one person to do some tiny little thing differently in the past to materially change future events. I like my odds.

[ortrules]

in this example both sides of the equation contain variables... I was thinking to write a long post on this, but decided against it for now. the point is, "The Variable" is a broken metaphor that probably doesn't mean very much. I doubt it has much to do with math and you can probably make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

In the context of Dan using variables in physics, then yes, it has a lot to do with math.

I studied relativistic physics my entire life. One thing emerged over and over--can't change the past. Can't do it. Whatever happened, happened. All right? But then I finally realized... I had been spending so much time focused on the constants, I forgot about the variables. Do you know what the variables in these equations are, Jack?

I certainly don't know what his equations are, but it's likely that they can't be solved by simply adding a single variable.

[tpbaxter]

I certainly don't know what his equations are, but it's likely that they can't be solved by simply adding a single variable.

This is what I mean. I doubt it has anything to do with real mathematical formulas. I was saying somewhere else the Constant was just a romantic metaphor for Penny and Desmond. The variable is the opposite of that and since Faraday said Desmond was miraculously special and the rules don't apply to him it makes sense that Desmond is the logical opposite of Constant and he is a variable, but that's not what this episode was about. Constant had little to do with math in this context and the same thing goes for the Variable.

[wiley]

Many times a variable is used to represent the results of an equation not the source. So a variable in this case would be the effect not the cause.

[Chronos]

now the assumption here is that desmond was doing some kind of time travel in order to know what happens to charlie. and by saving charlie he has mildly altered the past, although the overall outcome is the same - charlie dies.

but what if he isnt time travelling and the truth is that he somehow knows that unless he does something at a particular time, charlie will die. Therefore, he is ALWAYS saving charlie who never actually died at all.


Thought I would throw in my $0.02 worth in this one.

The situation with Desmond/Charlie was not one of "mildly altering the past" like the case of those Losties that are in the 70's. We know that Desmond had (or had) the ability to move his consciousness into his own body in a different time. Desmonds actions are those of guidance, not of changing the past. He was actually mildly changing the future, which there is no argument against.

Yes, the overall outcome is that Charlie dies, but he dies once he accomplished his purpose. Note that Desmond made no effort (or, could not have) to prevent Charlies's death in the Looking Glass, because that's what Desmond was guiding him into in the first place.

[Panda]

well I am still hoping that someone will give a nice example of some changes that have happened.

We had some flash backs of the DI of young Ben.....but in the story where we are with the losties at the DI we don't really see if there is a difference.

We saw Ben seeing the ghost of his mother and meeting Richard in a flashback of Ben somewhere in one of the episodes.
Once our losties are in 74---77 we see that again....so at that point everything seems to remain the same.
We never had a flash back of young Ben being short, as Ben never told that story somewhere in the episodes. But maybe it just happened that way as we saw it now for the first time.
We had a flash back of a young Ben killing his father with a sort of gas.
Up till now we our losties haven't arrived in that period to experience it all themselves...so we don't know if that will change or may change.

Up till now the writers haven't told us what the incident was. We know they were more than one incident and there was a purge. But how it all exactly went on, we simply don't know.
And it is only now that they may show us what the incident is. And if the show us what happens....Jack using the H bomb or not, or a release of magnetic tatata or not....once they show it, it is for the first time they show it. And if it is for the first time they show the whole story....how can we say that it happened different this time....if we have even not an idea how it had happened otherwise.
So what they show us, may be the only version of the story there is, as they never showed us another version of the story before.
If you have only one version of the story and no other version to compare it to how could we suggest than that something has changed?

You certainly now those drawings..nearly two the same on one page one next to the other....than you have to look and search for the little differences between the two drawings. So you compare lines in one drawing to lines of the other drawing.
Now if they give you only one drawing and ask you to find the difference with another drawing that is not there....than you can mark any line you like as different or none at all....as you have nothing to compare the drawing to.

[islander]

well I am still hoping that someone will give a nice example of some changes that have happened.

We had some flash backs of the DI of young Ben.....but in the story where we are with the losties at the DI we don't really see if there is a difference.

We saw Ben seeing the ghost of his mother and meeting Richard in a flashback of Ben somewhere in one of the episodes.
Once our losties are in 74---77 we see that again....so at that point everything seems to remain the same.
We never had a flash back of young Ben being short, as Ben never told that story somewhere in the episodes. But maybe it just happened that way as we saw it now for the first time.
We had a flash back of a young Ben killing his father with a sort of gas.
Up till now we our losties haven't arrived in that period to experience it all themselves...so we don't know if that will change or may change.

Up till now the writers haven't told us what the incident was. We know they were more than one incident and there was a purge. But how it all exactly went on, we simply don't know.
And it is only now that they may show us what the incident is. And if the show us what happens....Jack using the H bomb or not, or a release of magnetic tatata or not....once they show it, it is for the first time they show it. And if it is for the first time they show the whole story....how can we say that it happened different this time....if we have even not an idea how it had happened otherwise.
So what they show us, may be the only version of the story there is, as they never showed us another version of the story before.
If you have only one version of the story and no other version to compare it to how could we suggest than that something has changed?

You certainly now those drawings..nearly two the same on one page one next to the other....than you have to look and search for the little differences between the two drawings. So you compare lines in one drawing to lines of the other drawing.
Now if they give you only one drawing and ask you to find the difference with another drawing that is not there....than you can mark any line you like as different or none at all....as you have nothing to compare the drawing to.

LOL...that's the beauty of challenging the WHHers. All the facts are on YOUR side. There is not one single event I can point to that proves WHH has been violated, yet the WHHers seem so defensive.

Maybe you're worried that the show is part science fiction and we are at the whim of TPTB. Or maybe you're worried because Dan and Ben seem to be attempting to change some future event. Or maybe you're worried that Locke, Richard, Christian, or maybe Jacob himself would be able to alter one little, teensie weenie thing that could change something?

I seriously doubt the WHH debate will be solved until the final minutes of season 6. So sit back and relax, you WHHers hold all the cards. :D

[wiley]

If TCC then I think Dan wasted a lot of time. He had three years but waited until he was left with just six hours to try and change things. You would think if you wanted to change something that having more time to do it would be better.

[HisNameIsRobertPaulson]

If TCC then I think Dan wasted a lot of time. He had three years but waited until he was left with just six hours to try and change things. You would think if you wanted to change something that having more time to do it would be better.

My guess is that he incorrectly assumed that Jack, Hurley, Kate, and Sayid were not going to travel back to 1977. So when he found out that they did, he went over to the island immediately to try to prevent the problem that he *knew* that they were going to cause. Little did he know, that's what he always did. ;)

[Panda]

LOL...that's the beauty of challenging the WHHers. All the facts are on YOUR side. There is not one single event I can point to that proves WHH has been violated, yet the WHHers seem so defensive.

Maybe you're worried that the show is part science fiction and we are at the whim of TPTB. Or maybe you're worried because Dan and Ben seem to be attempting to change some future event. Or maybe you're worried that Locke, Richard, Christian, or maybe Jacob himself would be able to alter one little, teensie weenie thing that could change something?

I seriously doubt the WHH debate will be solved until the final minutes of season 6. So sit back and relax, you WHHers hold all the cards. :D

I am pretty relaxed. And I don't consider myself a WHHer or TCCer or Pjk-er or Lzfr_er...etc ;)
I really just try to understand what people are saying on the forums.
I just try to see what they see. And sometimes a good example works better for me to understand something.
I am not a smart person that can come up with theories. And as I don't really have a theory on anything on Lost, the only thing I can do is try to understand other people's theories and views....and sometimes ramble and guess a bit.

So the only challenge here for me is to learn to understand other people.

And I am not worried about the show at all. The writers are brilliant and I"ll be pleased with whatever they come up next episode and next season. I really enjoy the show. It surprises me every time. And I have not a desire about how the show has to move on or not. It doesn't matter to me if the show ends with TCC or WHH....I know that they way they will bring it will be just as lovely as all other episodes we already had.

My participation on the forums is not in relation to what I expect of the show. It is rather an experience in communication with people how they see things, and if it is possible to catch a glimp of their point of view.

[FanFiltration]

I love this quote from the final scene of "Battlestar Galactica".

"Let a complex system repeat itself long enough,eventually something surprising might occur"

[Pung]

LOL...that's the beauty of challenging the WHHers. All the facts are on YOUR side. There is not one single event I can point to that proves WHH has been violated, yet the WHHers seem so defensive.

Maybe you're worried that the show is part science fiction and we are at the whim of TPTB. Or maybe you're worried because Dan and Ben seem to be attempting to change some future event. Or maybe you're worried that Locke, Richard, Christian, or maybe Jacob himself would be able to alter one little, teensie weenie thing that could change something?

I seriously doubt the WHH debate will be solved until the final minutes of season 6. So sit back and relax, you WHHers hold all the cards. :D

I defend WHH because its what I feel are the rules involving time travel in general. I dont think that time travel ever will exist in real life, but if it did, I think that WHH would have to be followed.

[New Age Messiah]

My guess is that he incorrectly assumed that Jack, Hurley, Kate, and Sayid were not going to travel back to 1977. So when he found out that they did, he went over to the island immediately to try to prevent the problem that he *knew* that they were going to cause. Little did he know, that's what he always did. ;)That's how I saw Faraday's mind working when he told Jack, you're not supposed to be here, "does not compute" "does not compute".

I think he also incorrectly assumed something about his mum, like that she was nice.

[tpbaxter]

I am pretty relaxed. And I don't consider myself a WHHer or TCCer or Pjk-er or Lzfr_er...etc ;)
I really just try to understand what people are saying on the forums.
I just try to see what they see. And sometimes a good example works better for me to understand something.
I am not a smart person that can come up with theories. And as I don't really have a theory on anything on Lost, the only thing I can do is try to understand other people's theories and views....and sometimes ramble and guess a bit.

So the only challenge here for me is to learn to understand other people.

And I am not worried about the show at all. The writers are brilliant and I"ll be pleased with whatever they come up next episode and next season. I really enjoy the show. It surprises me every time. And I have not a desire about how the show has to move on or not. It doesn't matter to me if the show ends with TCC or WHH....I know that they way they will bring it will be just as lovely as all other episodes we already had.

My participation on the forums is not in relation to what I expect of the show. It is rather an experience in communication with people how they see things, and if it is possible to catch a glimp of their point of view.

again, I agree with Panda. you are very wise.

in these debates i am almost being forced to take sides, but a good scientist should not have a preference for one hypothesis over another. once contradictory evidence is found to disprove a hypothesis s/he should be able discard the theory and move on to a better one. as it was said by islander, right now the evidence supports WHH.

WHH in Lost that is. theoretically I don't see why one couldn't change the future, if given enough information about the future and if one could travel back to the past in the first place, which they can't anyway...

[islander]

I love this quote from the final scene of "Battlestar Galactica".

"Let a complex system repeat itself long enough,eventually something surprising might occur"

Yup...just one little thing....seemingly unnoticed at the time....

[TXAgg]

We had some flash backs of the DI of young Ben.....but in the story where we are with the losties at the DI we don't really see if there is a difference.

We saw Ben seeing the ghost of his mother and meeting Richard in a flashback of Ben somewhere in one of the episodes.
Once our losties are in 74---77 we see that again....so at that point everything seems to remain the same.
We never had a flash back of young Ben being short, as Ben never told that story somewhere in the episodes. But maybe it just happened that way as we saw it now for the first time.
We had a flash back of a young Ben killing his father with a sort of gas.
Up till now we our losties haven't arrived in that period to experience it all themselves...so we don't know if that will change or may change.


When Kate gave young Ben to Richard he warned her that he wouldn't remember what had happened to him.... so if we're looking at Ben flashbacks there wouldn't be a shooting flashback because he doesn't remember it

[islander]

I defend WHH because its what I feel are the rules involving time travel in general. I dont think that time travel ever will exist in real life, but if it did, I think that WHH would have to be followed.

That's fair.

I just think why go through all the trouble of time travel if you aren't gonna change something?

[tpbaxter]

That's fair.

I just think why go through all the trouble of time travel if you aren't gonna change something?

1. because time travel was a way of telling us how things happen instead of having more flashbacks.

2. because the lost members created the future they were living in. they didn't change it, they created it. Sayid shot Ben. This is why he came back... yes this is paradoxical i think but whatever. If he didn't shoot Ben then there would be some alernate reality where he did which would be the reality he changed... my nose is starting to bleed.

good thing time travel is not actually possible...

[New Age Messiah]

I just think why go through all the trouble of time travel if you aren't gonna change something?Wanting to change things reveals a soul's unrest with the ways things are.

You must be at peace with the way things are, first.

The island, fate, will winnow you down, wear you out, cut you off, until and unless you accept things the way they are, i.e. the truth.

And Locke has, for the most part, and I think that's why he's going to be the last man standing, so to speak.

He tells the truth when they ask about where he came from. "Last thing I remember, I was dead." Everyone else, like Sawyer, for example, makes something up, calculated deception, and it comes back to bite him.

[Panda]

That's fair.

I just think why go through all the trouble of time travel if you aren't gonna change something?

Maybe just to experience all that trouble? :D
And next find out that if you want to live a happy life that there is no need to travel in time or space at all?

People do so many things that give nothing but trouble for themselves, but believed that all those actions would bring them what they wanted,needed, were in hunger for.....so time travel is maybe just one of those actions?

Just guessing.

[Epy]

in these debates i am almost being forced to take sides, but a good scientist should not have a preference for one hypothesis over another. once contradictory evidence is found to disprove a hypothesis s/he should be able discard the theory and move on to a better one. as it was said by islander, right now the evidence supports WHH.

Indeed. I have always been a believer of what happened happened, but there is new evidence that suggests it may not be absolute. I believe we should be investigating all possibilities instead of picking sides like politicians.

[ortrules]

Indeed. I have always been a believer of what happened happened, but there is new evidence that suggests it may not be absolute. I believe we should be investigating all possibilities instead of picking sides like politicians.

What is the new, alternative evidence?

99.9% of the evidence says WHH. The other .1% stems from Dan randomly saying "variables can change things" and then not actually changing anything.

Sure, they could always pull the carpet out from under our feet after all this time, but I don't see them doing that. In fact, I don't think this show has ever really done that over a long period.

[smthng2dowthlost]

I'm not sure if it means one way or the other but the podcast talks about a deleted scene that faraday was throwing rocks into a stream and saying small changes don't matter but maybe a huge change could change things.

[notsolost42]

Indeed. I have always been a believer of what happened happened, but there is new evidence that suggests it may not be absolute. I believe we should be investigating all possibilities instead of picking sides like politicians.

Yes, you have always been a believer in WHH. I am glad to see that you are at least open to the possibility that things may change. You are right. This is not a matter to take sides with. Although, that is exactly what has occured ever since TPTB coined the phrase Man of Science, Man of Faith. People, many I should say and not all, have thought you can only be just one or the other. That is very untrue. Some of the worlds leading astrophysicists, exploring the big bang theory and what happened when the universe formed, have faith and believe in whatever appropriate to their religion. They can seperate their work and the science from their faith. Some people on this board have found that inconceiveable. I find that rediculous. It's nice to see that there are minds open to possibilities and not just rigid in their beliefs.
We were invited for a long and crazy ride when we first began watching LOST. This is only a part of it. There is always going to be something new around each corner.

[notsolost42]

I'm not sure if it means one way or the other but the podcast talks about a deleted scene that faraday was throwing rocks into a stream and saying small changes don't matter but maybe a huge change could change things.

I don't think it would have great impact on the storyline or they would not have cut it. But it just goes to show that the ripples that occur from the event are important. I think I used that same analogy in another thread when I talked about the man with the red shoes and how he dies. How the ripples from the way he died were what changes dependant upon how he dies. How he died was the variable, not his death alone. I referred to the Butterfly Effect and the ripples. Thanks for the heads up about the podcast. I can't wait to check it out!

[Missie]

Some people on this board have found that inconceiveable. I find that rediculous.

Now thats definatly the pot calling the kettle black, Woman of Science!

(Yes I know about the petition but I refuse to sign it for the same reason that I still say "Dont touch that dial.")

[notsolost42]

Now thats definatly the pot calling the kettle black, Woman of Science!

(Yes I know about the petition but I refuse to sign it for the same reason that I still say "Dont touch that dial.")

Are you insinuating that I have no faith Missie? I don't really think you meant to say that the way it came out.

[Epy]

What is the new, alternative evidence?

99.9% of the evidence says WHH. The other .1% stems from Dan randomly saying "variables can change things" and then not actually changing anything.

Sure, they could always pull the carpet out from under our feet after all this time, but I don't see them doing that. In fact, I don't think this show has ever really done that over a long period.

Right, there is very little evidence, other than Daniel's statement. The important thing is that we can't take Dan's word as gospel anymore. He is either wrong about WHH, or wrong about TCC.

I fully believe that Jack will fail because stopping the incident will create a pretty blatant paradox. Much as all the other evidence for WHH conveniently becomes a means to avoids paradox.

I think that WHH is almost always true, 99% of the time. I'm suggesting that its possible small details can be changed that do not effect the outcome.

I will not be surprised if I am wrong with this theory. In fact, it's likely we will all be wrong.

[Panda]

Some of the worlds leading astrophysicists, exploring the big bang theory and what happened when the universe formed, have faith and believe in whatever appropriate to their religion. They can seperate their work and the science from their faith. Some people on this board have found that inconceiveable. I find that rediculous. It's nice to see that there are minds open to possibilities and not just rigid in their beliefs.


What is being rigid in beliefs?
Is that being 100% sure about the way you see things?
Are "normal beliefs" is being not sure about how you see things?
Why would one try to convince other people of something that he or she is not 100% sure of?
So in that case scientists have "normal beliefs" are not 100% sure about their religion....and are trying to undo their faith in their religion?
i'll say it once more....these phrases with question marks at the end are honest questions....no conclusions.
I am not sure what you mean with your words so that is why I pose some questions.

[notsolost42]

What is being rigid in beliefs?
Is that being 100% sure about the way you see things?
Are "normal beliefs" is being not sure about how you see things?
Why would one try to convince other people of something that he or she is not 100% sure of?
So in that case scientists have "normal beliefs" are not 100% sure about their religion....and are trying to undo their faith in their religion?
i'll say it once more....these phrases with question marks at the end are honest questions....no conclusions.
I am not sure what you mean with your words so that is why I pose some questions.

Oj\kay Panda, fair enough. This is what I am saying. Some people on this forum think you can only believe in either science or faith. They think you cannot believe in both ideas but only one. What I am saying is that there are world known scientists, who research how the universe began in a scientific manner with scientific conclusions, have both science and religion. They have whatever faith they keep and are scientists at the same time. I do not think the two are mutually exclusive. Science and faith are inclusive.

[Missie]

Are you insinuating that I have no faith Missie? I don't really think you meant to say that the way it came out.

No, Im not sure if you have faith or not, as far as this board goes though you have really only shown us your science side. And have claimed to be a Woman of Science over and over again. No offense, but you are one of the most stubborn people on this board. Yeah, yeah, I know I am too. Which is most of the reason why we clash so much. I really dont mean that as an insult, but you are very set in your ideas and thoerys, which isnt a bad thing. Anyways that is what I really meant by my previous statement.

[ortrules]

No offense, but you are one of the most stubborn people on this board. Yeah, yeah, I know I am too.

I agree. You are both incredibly stubborn people. Shame on both of you. :p

[ortrules]

What I am saying is that there are world known scientists, who research how the universe began in a scientific manner with scientific conclusions, have both science and religion.

I'm not sure about this, really? I really don't know.

I would think that if you're researching how the universe began and you discover a scientific origin, that basically defeats the main aspect of religious beliefs that God created the universe. Like if the Big Bang is found out to be true, then God didn't create the Earth and a fundamental religious belief has just been shattered.

Can you be a creationist big bangist? :D

[notsolost42]

I'm not sure about this, really? I really don't know.

I would think that if you're researching how the universe began and you discover a scientific origin, that basically defeats the main aspect of religious beliefs that God created the universe. Like if the Big Bang is found out to be true, then God didn't create the Earth and a fundamental religious belief has just been shattered.

Can you be a creationist big bangist? :D

I wasn't aware you knew any astrophysicists Ort? Really? Hehehehe!!!! Kidding! But I have spoken with some, listened to many. There are many with religious views. Go to the website of Fred Alan Wolf. If you haven't been there already, you'll be in for a shocker! I think he is a Lost collaberator! But he won't admit it to me! Just that he is a very big fan!!!! LOL!!! You'd swear he worked for the DI!!!!!

[chester]

Right, there is very little evidence, other than Daniel's statement. The important thing is that we can't take Dan's word as gospel anymore. He is either wrong about WHH, or wrong about TCC.

I fully believe that Jack will fail because stopping the incident will create a pretty blatant paradox. Much as all the other evidence for WHH conveniently becomes a means to avoids paradox.

I think that WHH is almost always true, 99% of the time. I'm suggesting that its possible small details can be changed that do not effect the outcome.

I will not be surprised if I am wrong with this theory. In fact, it's likely we will all be wrong.

I think he was wrong at Time 1, WHAH, as he admitted at Time 2, HistoryCC, becuase he didn't know as much at Time 1 as he did at Time 2. He was educated in between; and he passed on that education to us: People (in LOST) HAVE FREE WILL. Combine that with a knowledge of past events and time travel to them, and you have the ability to change those events.

[Panda]

Oj\kay Panda, fair enough. This is what I am saying. Some people on this forum think you can only believe in either science or faith. They think you cannot believe in both ideas but only one. What I am saying is that there are world known scientists, who research how the universe began in a scientific manner with scientific conclusions, have both science and religion. They have whatever faith they keep and are scientists at the same time. I do not think the two are mutually exclusive. Science and faith are inclusive.

Thanks for making more clear what the main message of your post was.

[notsolost42]

Thanks for making more clear what the main message of your post was.

Anytime Panda. Please feel free to ask whenever you need to and I'll be happy to explain.

[ortrules]

But I have spoken with some, listened to many. There are many with religious views.

To what extent though? Scientists can be religious, no doubt. But how many have a large conflicting interest? Like I said, is it possible to believe in God and the Big Bang theory?

Certainly, you could be a physicist studying time travel and still believe in God as they don't really contradict each other. But can you believe in creationism and evolution? Can you believe that God created Adam and Eve and humans evolved from primates?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I think there can be a harmony between science and religion. But at the same time, I feel like there is a point where science and religion contradict each other and you almost have to choose a side.

[chester]

Here's my vision of what would have happened had Daniel confirmed the Fatalists wishes:

Daniel: Jack, Kate, we can't behave any differently than we always have back here. What happened, always happened. Nothing can change that. We don't have free will. Now you might think you are exerting your free will, but really you are just setting up your own destiny. You alway did whatever you're about to do.

Jack/Kate: But, but....

Daniel: See! Look here in my book, it said you were going so say that. It even says I was going to say that. And that. You see to me with this book I am fully aware of the illusion of free will. So. There's no need to get emotional about anything, just sit back and watch you're future be already decided for you. Of course you could die. But you always did anyway.



On the forums:

WHAHers: You see Daniel is the authority on what can happen in time travel on the show of LOST. Clearly the writers were using Daniel's dialogue to pass on important information to us. It would be disrespectful to the writers if we didn't fully take it on board. WHAH, there is NO FREE WILL. Fatalism for ever, yeahhhh,

[ortrules]

Here's my vision of what would have happened had Daniel confirmed the Fatalists wishes:

If it was that definitive, what argument would you have against it?

If Dan came out and clearly said all that, this whole discussion would be over.

[islander]

What is the new, alternative evidence?

99.9% of the evidence says WHH. The other .1% stems from Dan randomly saying "variables can change things" and then not actually changing anything.

Sure, they could always pull the carpet out from under our feet after all this time, but I don't see them doing that. In fact, I don't think this show has ever really done that over a long period.

So you're happy watching a show where you know the ending?

I'll put up $100 with a 99.9 to .1 long shot. :)

(is that the same a 999 to 1 odds?) I like it!

[chester]

If it was that definitive, what argument would you have against it?

If Dan came out and clearly said all that, this whole discussion would be over.

Exactly! But he didn't say that.

He said something else.

[chester]

So you're happy watching a show where you know the ending?

I'll put up $100 with a 99.9 to .1 long shot. :)

(is that the same a 999 to 1 odds?) I like it!

999:1 for what? That it will turn out to be something different to what Ort is currently thinking? I want some of that action too. What's the max bet? :D

[notsolost42]

So you're happy watching a show where you know the ending?

I'll put up $100 with a 99.9 to .1 long shot. :)

(is that the same a 999 to 1 odds?) I like it!

I'll take $20 on that hundred Islander!!!!!

[islander]

I'll take $20 on that hundred Islander!!!!!


LOL..you got it.

[islander]

Just a wierd thought that relates to TCC.

We could debate WHH and TCC forever if there's a scene where Jack realizes he has the ability to change an event that would result in their plane never crashing, but then he realizes he never would have met Kate and he declines to make the change....OMG....what a great ending...the debate could rage forever...

[boutte]

I'm trying to open my mind to the idea that time can change, but here's the problem I encounter. Like Faraday said, the plane crashed on the island because Desmond didn't push the button and he's pushing the button b/c the Dharma drilled into the Electromagnetic energy. I think we can all agree that Faraday, Jack, and Kate are in 1977 because of the plane crash. Faraday wants to change what happened by avoiding the Dharma from drilling into the energy, meaning the Swan never gets built, the plane never crashes, etc. But wouldn't that also mean that Faraday, Jack, and Kate never get to the island in 1977? So keeping the Dharma from drilling in 1977 couldn't happen because they would never make it to 1977. It doesn't make sense to me. (I think Kate actually asked this question in the last episode too.) Please help!

This is the problem with any story based on time travel. None of these things could happen without creating either an endless time loop or a divergent time line.

[chester]

This is the problem with any story based on time travel. None of these things could happen without creating either an endless time loop or a divergent time line.

Unless.....some very clever people have come up with a novel resolution.

[tpbaxter]

I do not think the two are mutually exclusive. Science and faith are inclusive.

I think this is now off-topic but I only partially agree with you. This is subjective and some scientists believe in some sort of religion while others may completely reject the idea.

But I think believing in both is a difficult tight rope to walk. As I said, scientists should not be predisposed to one position or the other. They make their theories based on observations and should be able to discard their theory if contradicting evidence is found. Absolutely believing in something against all odds is not part of the scientific process but it is exactly the definition of faith...

[notsolost42]

I think this is now off-topic but I only partially agree with you. This is subjective and some scientists believe in some sort of religion while others may completely reject the idea.

But I think believing in both is a difficult tight rope to walk. As I said, scientists should not be predisposed to one position or the other. They make their theories based on observations and should be able to discard their theory if contradicting evidence is found. Absolutely believing in something against all odds is not part of the scientific process but it is exactly the definition of faith...

Sorry to go so far off topic Bax. I only mentioned that because I have seen interviews with a few astrophysicists who expressed this. So, I was speaking based on what they said. They are not mutually exclusive. I also am basing it on Fred Alan Wolf, an astrophysicist who has his beliefs based in Hindi beliefs. He is a model DI scientist!!! Hahaha!!! He is actually very cool and a big Lost fan! We have emailed about the show before.

[tpbaxter]

sorry, as I'm going through this a second time I realize me and ortrules might be saying the same thing?

notsolost42, I'm not saying they are mutually exclusive, I'm just saying it's difficult to balance the two and it is something to be careful about. Personally I would be weary about a scientists arguments if I knew s/he was devout to some religion. It's one thing to make a discovery and say, 'oh yeah that matches exactly what this religion is saying' vs. 'this religion must be true and i am going to go out of my way to find evidence that supports it.'

You may come to a correct conclusion with the second option, but more than likely you will manipulate data to your advantage since you favor a specific outcome.

[tpbaxter]

Like I said, is it possible to believe in God and the Big Bang theory?

I'm not that knowledgeable about all religions, but as far as the bible goes I think you can, if you don't take it literally. God said let their be light could be interpreted as the big bang. Creationism vs. Darwinism on the other hand... I'm not so sure?

So you're happy watching a show where you know the ending?

Possibly, but I don't know if the ending to Lost has been revealed to us. The plane crashing in 2004 is not necessarily how this ends. It's how it starts from the Losties perspective and in the grand scheme it may be the middle of the story.

[New Age Messiah]

Absolutely believing in something against all odds is not part of the scientific process but it is exactly the definition of faith...I had my motto, Reality is God, and it wasn't faith, like, I believe this or that story, or even I believe in God.

It was simply an absolute certainty that NOTHING could be greater than Reality, so no matter what someone said God was, a mystical creature or whatever, no matter what their pimple minds could IMAGINE God would be, NOTHING could be greater than Reality.

So, I did this mission and then all these miracles happened, and the greatest true story ever told happened, to ME, after I declared this mission and had that motto. I had a revelation, light filled my mind, and then all these "LOST" type unfathomably IMPOSSIBLE destiny coincidences happened. I had a pendant made, and the first guy to put one on went into "convulsions" as soon as he did. He was in New York, I was in Idaho.

Faith doesn't have to be strictly defined by religious "belief". Faith in my case was certainty, there was no belief whatsoever, until after the coincidences, there were still severe almost impossible hurdles and stuff that I could not face "alone" and then I had to be "believe" that it was part of this destiny map and God would work it out. Then it became faith, which is more like what Locke has. He knows the Island has divine attributes, that the destiny thing is going on, KNOWS, but he also has faith that regardless of his will, whatever happens will be the Island's (God's) will, and he trusts the island.

I think the writers are maybe interested in redefining faith, since it has a severe black eye nowadays.

[Epy]

We could debate WHH and TCC forever if there's a scene where Jack realizes he has the ability to change an event that would result in their plane never crashing, but then he realizes he never would have met Kate and he declines to make the change....OMG....what a great ending...the debate could rage forever...

Oh God, that would be awesome and asinine all at the same time. :D

[New Age Messiah]

Maat was the personification of the fundamental order of the universe, without which all of creation would perish. The primary duty of the pharaoh was to uphold this order by maintaining the law and administering justice. To reflect this, many pharaohs took the title "Beloved of Maat," emphasizing their focus on justice and truth.

http://www.touregypt.net/godsofegypt/maat.htm

[ortrules]

So you're happy watching a show where you know the ending?

How do I know the ending? I know what happens in 2004 and some of 1977. 2007 is still pretty much up for grabs. 1978-2003 is still up for grabs. Pre 1977 is up for grabs. Post 2007 is up for grabs.

I believe in WHH. Yet, this season, I was surprised to see Sayid shoot Ben, Kate save Ben, Richard take Ben to the temple, Dan getting shot by his own mother, Sawyer being head of security for Dharma, Locke coming back to life, Ilana and this new third party...need I go on?

Nothing about WHH says the show will end with 815 crashing again. All it means is that the events in the past can't change. In fact, I think that by the end of this season or very early next, those people in 1977 will find a way back to 2007 with Locke and company.

[Pung]

How do I know the ending? I know what happens in 2004 and some of 1977. 2007 is still pretty much up for grabs. 1978-2003 is still up for grabs. Pre 1977 is up for grabs. Post 2007 is up for grabs.

I believe in WHH. Yet, this season, I was surprised to see Sayid shoot Ben, Kate save Ben, Richard take Ben to the temple, Dan getting shot by his own mother, Sawyer being head of security for Dharma, Locke coming back to life, Ilana and this new third party...need I go on?

Nothing about WHH says the show will end with 815 crashing again. All it means is that the events in the past can't change. In fact, I think that by the end of this season or very early next, those people in 1977 will find a way back to 2007 with Locke and company.

Yes, yes, yes. Again I will say that what is great about what is happening in the 70s right now is that we know the outcome obviously. We have been told about the incident and the purge since before the time traveling even started. Now we are getting to see HOW it happened. And the fact that characters we have already seen in 2004 were actually the cause of these events is mind blowing! How is it not?

[islander]

How do I know the ending? I know what happens in 2004 and some of 1977. 2007 is still pretty much up for grabs. 1978-2003 is still up for grabs. Pre 1977 is up for grabs. Post 2007 is up for grabs.

I believe in WHH. Yet, this season, I was surprised to see Sayid shoot Ben, Kate save Ben, Richard take Ben to the temple, Dan getting shot by his own mother, Sawyer being head of security for Dharma, Locke coming back to life, Ilana and this new third party...need I go on?

Nothing about WHH says the show will end with 815 crashing again. All it means is that the events in the past can't change. In fact, I think that by the end of this season or very early next, those people in 1977 will find a way back to 2007 with Locke and company.

Your guess is as good as mine. I don't see them ever leaving the island again (since they weren't supposed to leave before) so I can't get past 815's crash. Of course other characters will be in 2007 off island, but pre 2004 on the island, I'm pretty sure I know what happens - I'm waiting to see what DOESN'T happen. :D

[ortrules]

but pre 2004 on the island, I'm pretty sure I know what happens

What happens on the island in 1985?

How bout 1997?

What happens after the incident?

Does Sawyer live?

[Pung]

What happens on the island in 1985?

How bout 1997?

What happens after the incident?

Does Sawyer live?

These are among many questions that we still have no idea. There is still so much to find out about the events that happened in the 70s, 80s, 90s. All we really know is two main things. Incident and Purge.

[ortrules]

All we really know is two main things. Incident and Purge.

And we don't even know that much about either.

[Pung]

And we don't even know that much about either.

Oh don't worry, I'm with you 100%

[islander]

What happens on the island in 1985?

How bout 1997?

What happens after the incident?

Does Sawyer live?

lol...WHH.....give me a harder one.

[ortrules]

lol...WHH.....give me a harder one.

So you don't really know what happened? Interesting.

[islander]

So you don't really know what happened? Interesting.

WHH is the answer to everything. Until the very last episode.

I don't mean to be a wise guy, but that's what was in my head when I said I already know what's going to happen...WHH. I thought it was obvious...;)

[ortrules]

WHH is the answer to everything. Until the very last episode.

I don't mean to be a wise guy, but that's what was in my head when I said I already know what's going to happen...WHH. I thought it was obvious...;)

But that doesn't mean anything. What if the show ends with our Losties in 2008? WHH doesn't apply because we wouldn't know what happens. What if the show ends with our Losties in 1982? WHH still doesn't apply because we don't know what happens in 1982. All that we know is there is an incident, a purge in the 90s, and a plane crash in 2004 - that's it.

[islander]

But that doesn't mean anything. What if the show ends with our Losties in 2008? WHH doesn't apply because we wouldn't know what happens. What if the show ends with our Losties in 1982? WHH still doesn't apply because we don't know what happens in 1982. All that we know is there is an incident, a purge in the 90s, and a plane crash in 2004 - that's it.

person #1: I know what happens on Lost.
person #2: Oh Really...what happens?
person #1: WHH.

[Pung]

person #1: I know what happens on Lost.
person #2: Oh Really...what happens?
person #1: WHH.

You smart alec!:rolleyes:

[islander]

You smart alec!:rolleyes:

Yes and no. I was agreeing with the WHHers....momentarily. Right now, as far as I can tell, no matter what happens on the show (Sun finds Jin, Kate and Jack get married by Christian, Sawyer and Jules have a baby), that's what happened. There will be no convincing any WHHer that something different happened without conclusive proof.....correct?

[Pung]

Yes and no. I was agreeing with the WHHers....momentarily. Right now, as far as I can tell, no matter what happens on the show (Sun finds Jin, Kate and Jack get married by Christian, Sawyer and Jules have a baby), that's what happened. There will be no convincing any WHHer that something different happened without conclusive proof.....correct?

No probably not. Until I see anything happen in the 70s that would have made anything in 2004 impossible to happen, then I will firmly stand by it.

Here's a twist way to think about it. Instead of thinking about time travel to the past, try time travel to the future. I believe that WHH would still apply. If we are in the present, 2009, and you and I time travel let's just say 1 year into the future. We stand there, maybe grab the days newspaper to confirm the date, and then have a chat about how frickin cool it was that we just time traveled. Well if we were to then go back to 2009 where we were before and lived our lives for one year. To me, it is time travel law that we would appear at that exact moment we had time traveled before. Once something has happened in time then it has always happened.

Now someone (Chester!) might say, 'what if you talked to your future/past self and told them what was happening?' I feel that the rules would still apply. If when we first went to 2010 we say our future selves standing there waiting for our past selves to appear, then we would remeber that when we reach 2010 to assume the roles that our future selves have already carried out.

[friendly1013]

sorry, as I'm going through this a second time I realize me and ortrules might be saying the same thing?

notsolost42, I'm not saying they are mutually exclusive, I'm just saying it's difficult to balance the two and it is something to be careful about. Personally I would be weary about a scientists arguments if I knew s/he was devout to some religion. It's one thing to make a discovery and say, 'oh yeah that matches exactly what this religion is saying' vs. 'this religion must be true and i am going to go out of my way to find evidence that supports it.'

You may come to a correct conclusion with the second option, but more than likely you will manipulate data to your advantage since you favor a specific outcome.

To be honest, if you look a little deeper, your conclusion is the fatal flaw in modern science.

It is impossible to conduct any test without favoring a certain outcome. All proofs have hypotheses. Scientific data are always interpreted in light of some sort of belief system.

Science and Religion are far from mutually exclusive. Ever since Einstein, you can tell that the two are starting to mesh.

[notsolost42]

But that doesn't mean anything. What if the show ends with our Losties in 2008? WHH doesn't apply because we wouldn't know what happens. What if the show ends with our Losties in 1982? WHH still doesn't apply because we don't know what happens in 1982. All that we know is there is an incident, a purge in the 90s, and a plane crash in 2004 - that's it.

person #1: I know what happens on Lost.
person #2: Oh Really...what happens?
person #1: WHH.

You know, I don't understand why everyone is so interested in the end of the show at this point! For goodness sakes, we don't even know the correct timeline. What I mean is, we don't even know when the story really begins! Does it really begin with the crash of 815? Maybe not!!! There is a parallel timeline going on right now. Take all your WHH and TCC and now put it into that perspective! Is the chronological beginning the first date in 1973? Is it prior to that? Is it after that? We just don't know! How's that for a wrench in your machine?

[Pung]

You know, I don't understand why everyone is so interested in the end of the show at this point! For goodness sakes, we don't even know the correct timeline. What I mean is, we don't even know when the story really begins! Does it really begin with the crash of 815? Maybe not!!! There is a parallel timeline going on right now. Take all your WHH and TCC and now put it into that perspective! Is the chronological beginning the first date in 1973? Is it prior to that? Is it after that? We just don't know! How's that for a wrench in your machine?

Here's your wrench back...

If you were to look at Lost as a book in Chronological order, then you would know that we started reading the book in the middle with the crash of 815. The events in 1974-2004 have already been written and we are now seeing what they are. When we time travel, think of it as skipping pages. Thats the simplest way to describe WHH I can think of

[notsolost42]

Here's your wrench back...

If you were to look at Lost as a book in Chronological order, then you would know that we started reading the book in the middle with the crash of 815. The events in 1974-2004 have already been written and we are now seeing what they are. When we time travel, think of it as skipping pages. Thats the simplest way to describe WHH I can think of

I don't think you get my point. Did it start in the chronological beginning? How? It couldn't have if they didn't crash and go back in time! So, where is the beginning?

[ortrules]

You know, I don't understand why everyone is so interested in the end of the show at this point! For goodness sakes, we don't even know the correct timeline. What I mean is, we don't even know when the story really begins! Does it really begin with the crash of 815? Maybe not!!! There is a parallel timeline going on right now. Take all your WHH and TCC and now put it into that perspective! Is the chronological beginning the first date in 1973? Is it prior to that? Is it after that? We just don't know! How's that for a wrench in your machine?

First of all, don't wrenches fix machines? I guess having a wrench in my machine would feel pretty good then if that was the case.

Second, you're saying exactly what I've been saying. A lot of people are assuming that WHH means we know how the show will end. I'm saying, we don't know. It could end in the 70s, the 80s, the 2000s, the 1400s, or any time at all.

In my opinion, this season will end with everyone back in 2007 to play out the rest of the show and the war between Widmore and Ben. In which case, WHH doesn't necessarily apply because we don't quite know what happens in the first place.

[ortrules]

So, where is the beginning?

The first page of the book. :p

[wiley]

Here's your wrench back...

If you were to look at Lost as a book in Chronological order, then you would know that we started reading the book in the middle with the crash of 815. The events in 1974-2004 have already been written and we are now seeing what they are. When we time travel, think of it as skipping pages. Thats the simplest way to describe WHH I can think of

That's a perfect analogy. The whole story is written. No matter what we read in the first few pages, when we go back and re-read the middle or later pages the story will still be the same.

[notsolost42]

The first page of the book. :p

Which is the first page?

[ortrules]

Which is the first page?

The page with the 1 on it.

[wiley]

Which is the first page?

So far the first page is Locke turning the wheel.

[notsolost42]

The page with the 1 on it.

So cute!!!!!! :p

[Pung]

I don't think you get my point. Did it start in the chronological beginning? How? It couldn't have if they didn't crash and go back in time! So, where is the beginning?

The beginning is the earliest date in time that you would have anything to do with the island, since this seems to be the most focal point of the show.
We, as the viewers, started the story in the middle (or wherever) with the 815 crash. If you are talking about each individual character, then their conscious timeline begins at birth, even if their future selves have existed prior to thier birth.

[Pung]

That's a perfect analogy. The whole story is written. No matter what we read in the first few pages, when we go back and re-read the middle or later pages the story will still be the same.

Thank you Wiley

[tpbaxter]

Which is the first page?

It's relative. From Jack's perspective the first page is when Jack first opens his eyes after crashing and sees Jacob, I mean err.. Vincent. From Richard's perspective it may be 1954. We are seeing the story from the same perspective as Jack and co.

[notsolost42]

It's relative. From Jack's perspective the first page is when Jack first opens his eyes after crashing and sees Jacob, I mean err.. Vincent. From Richard's perspective it may be 1954. We are seeing the story from the same perspective as Jack and co.

But......is that ALL there is to it? There isn't anything else going on? Hmmm. I'm not too sure about that Baxie. And I'm not too sure about all this perspective stuff but I am a believer in duality....mirror universes.

[VeraLynn]

I completly agree with the first part of what you said. I have said all along that Desmond put Charlie's death off until it benefited him. The benefit was making contact with Penny. That would never have occured if Charlie had died any other way. As for the second part of what you are saying, I obviously disagree. Dan knows that variables change equations and since they are not in their past but their present anything can happen. We know that some of the DI left the island. We know that Charlotte and her mom as well as Miles and his mom left at the least. It also appears pretty apparent that the h-bomb was detonated because everything under the Swan is covered in concrete, no less than what was done in Chernobyl according to Sayid. So, we know that these events did happen originally. And I am not saying that they will not happen again. What I am saying is that now they can be changed so that the ripple effects I described before will be different. That in turn will change many things to come.

Without reading the some 145 other posts while I'm slaving away at the office, a response to this one. It sounds like a compromise between WHAH and the sort of anything goes, alternate universe, Back To The Future theories floating around. It is reasonable! But to be a devil's advocate: Looking back, as a person from the future, on the events that take place directly after the Swan implosion, assume that you see Desmond turning the key, having prescient flashes, and preventing Charlie's death until the best moment. From that point of view, there is no ripple effect. There is only what always happened, happening (as in, Desmond always turned the key, always saved Charlie, yadda, yadda, yadda). What may look like course correction staved off until an opportune time (to a person watching from the present as it happens), could simply be what always happened and always had to happen (from a person from the future's perspective). Which leads to this: Is course correction even real? It all depends on which direction you look at it from, I guess.

This is giving me a headache!

[VeraLynn]

Yes, yes, yes. Again I will say that what is great about what is happening in the 70s right now is that we know the outcome obviously. We have been told about the incident and the purge since before the time traveling even started. Now we are getting to see HOW it happened. And the fact that characters we have already seen in 2004 were actually the cause of these events is mind blowing! How is it not?

That is exactly how I feel about it. Reading this thread reminded me of Harry Potter...one of the movies (don't read the books), where events converge in such a way as to allow characters to escape from bad situations. Later in the movie we learn that the characters themselves had gone back in time and helped out (causing distractions and such and such). It was time travel with WHH.

[New Age Messiah]

I am a believer in duality....mirror universes.Could the mirror effect be PERSPECTIVE, particle or wave? Same universe, different perspective? Neither perspective ultimate. Either perspective misses the truth, which is ultimately, divine mystery.

[chester]

That's a perfect analogy. The whole story is written. No matter what we read in the first few pages, when we go back and re-read the middle or later pages the story will still be the same.

I like the book analogy very much. Chuck uses it as an analogy in 'Rant' too. Only when you flip back into an earlier part of the book, you are able to change some of it. Since the book is discriptive of what you did, whatever you do, when you flip back, different or not, will then be what is written in the book then.

[Pung]

I like the book analogy very much. Chuck uses it as an analogy in 'Rant' too. Only when you flip back into an earlier part of the book, you are able to change some of it. Since the book is discriptive of what you did, whatever you do, when you flip back, different or not, will then be what is written in the book then.

So Chuck is not a WHH supporter then eh? :D

[chester]

So Chuck is not a WHH supporter then eh? :D

Yes he is. Just not a WHAH supporter. He likes PHFW too. :D

[notsolost42]

Do any of you really know what the book Rant is about. Chester talks about it and touts how similar it is in many ways to Lost. I think you all should check into it a little before you jump on the Rant bandwagon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/books/07masl.html?_r=1

[chester]

Do any of you really know what the book Rant is about. Chester talks about it and touts how similar it is in many ways to Lost. I think you all should check into it a little before you jump on the Rant bandwagon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/books/07masl.html?_r=1

Unless you've read it, you wont know what it's about. Thanks, SoLost.

But absolutely. Don't jump on, or off, the Rant bandwagon, before reading it. I'm just passing on the way I see my interpretation of that book being analogous in it's treatment of time-travel.

Here's a much more balanced review.

http://atomjackmagazine.com/6/rantreview.html

[notsolost42]

Unless you've read it, you wont know what it's about. Thanks, SoLost.

But absolutely. Don't jump on, or off, the Rant bandwagon, before reading it. I'm just passing on the way I see my interpretation of that book being analogous in it's treatment of time-travel.

Here's a much more balanced review.

http://atomjackmagazine.com/6/rantreview.html

Sorry Chester, every major book review in the US newspapers that I found completly panned your book. Not just that, but Rant is not really about time travel. It plays a very minor role in the book so I don't get how you can keep touting this concept from Rant. You can find all the obscure publications you want but I'll stick to the major ones that people actually read.

[chester]

Sorry Chester, every major book review in the US newspapers that I found completly panned your book. Not just that, but Rant is not really about time travel. It plays a very minor role in the book so I don't get how you can keep touting this concept from Rant. You can find all the obscure publications you want but I'll stick to the major ones that people actually read.

Well instead of reading reviews you should have read the book, and then you might have actually had some idea about what your talking about. Now your telling me what the book is about because you've read some bad reviews. You really are a piece of work. Rant, for your information, is completely about time-travel. The reviews wont tell you this because it is a plot twist. Get a grip.

[notsolost42]

Well instead of reading reviews you should have read the book, and then you might have actually had some idea about what your talking about. Now your telling me what the book is about because you've read some bad reviews. You really are a piece of work. Rant, for your information, is completely about time-travel. The reviews wont tell you this because it is a plot twist. Get a grip.

Apparently you did not even bother to read the review. Not surprising. Here's a little snip-it for you.


"And just when this tower of piled-on ingredients seems to be at its wobbliest, Mr. Palahniuk adds the crowning contrivance: time travel. To translate this concept into Rant-ese, as expressed by one of his dimmer fans: “What if you found yourself a long time ago — by accident — and you met your own great-great-grandmother before it was wrong to date her? And what if she was a babe? And let’s say you two hooked up? And how about she has a baby who’d be both your daughter and your great-grandmother?”

Or in the words of one of the more articulate speakers: “Picture time travel as nothing more than knocking your half-read book to the floor and losing your place. You pick up the book and open the pages to a scene too early or late, but never exactly where you’d been reading.”

The trouble with “Rant” is not that these thoughts are so gratuitous or derivative; it’s that they are delivered with so little conviction. Mr. Palahniuk’s best books really do have mind-blowing twists and turns, to the point where the reader walks away from them in an altered state. They offer entrée into all-encompassing strange new worlds. But “Rant” lacks that kind of vision. Instead it carries a whiff of desperation, as if Mr. Palahniuk had ratcheted the fantasy stakes too high and strip-mined the same parts of his vast, fertile imagination too often."


After the reviews I read about Rant, I wouldn't waste my time and my time is more valuable.

[chester]

Apparently you did not even bother to read the review. Not surprising.
And just when this tower of piled-on ingredients seems to be at its wobbliest, Mr. Palahniuk adds the crowning contrivance: time travel. To translate this concept into Rant-ese, as expressed by one of his dimmer fans: “What if you found yourself a long time ago — by accident — and you met your own great-great-grandmother before it was wrong to date her? And what if she was a babe? And let’s say you two hooked up? And how about she has a baby who’d be both your daughter and your great-grandmother?”

Or in the words of one of the more articulate speakers: “Picture time travel as nothing more than knocking your half-read book to the floor and losing your place. You pick up the book and open the pages to a scene too early or late, but never exactly where you’d been reading.”

The trouble with “Rant” is not that these thoughts are so gratuitous or derivative; it’s that they are delivered with so little conviction. Mr. Palahniuk’s best books really do have mind-blowing twists and turns, to the point where the reader walks away from them in an altered state. They offer entrée into all-encompassing strange new worlds. But “Rant” lacks that kind of vision. Instead it carries a whiff of desperation, as if Mr. Palahniuk had ratcheted the fantasy stakes too high and strip-mined the same parts of his vast, fertile imagination too often.


After the reviews I read about Rant, I wouldn't waste my time. It's more valuable. Everyone has a choice.

Here's a little snip-it for you.

Yes and having not read it, but read other people's ideas about it, your knowledge of it is about as weak as your knowledge of science. For the same reason.

There's another snippet.

[notsolost42]

Yes and having not read it, but read other people's ideas about it, your knowledge of it is about as weak as your knowledge of science. For the same reason.

There's another snippet.

You know, I'd love to continue this battle with you Chester, but it really wouldn't be fair as you appear unarmed.

[chester]

The only battle is you pretending to be knowledgable about stuff you know f-all about.

By all means, continue...

[notsolost42]

Maybe this is why Mr. alahniuk is waiting until 2010 to release his next book, as you said...he's waiting for everyone to forget about the egg he laid with Rant.

[chester]

There's a world full of possibilities.

[notsolost42]

Seattle Times
April 27, 2007
By Mark Lindquist
"Rant: An Oral Biography of Buster Casey"
by Chuck Palahniuk
Doubleday, 320 pp., $24.95
Journalists often lift technique from novelists, and sometimes novelists return the compliment by imitating the documentary style of nonfiction.
In "Rant," Chuck Palahniuk adopts the oral biography format used by George Plimpton for "Truman Capote" and Jean Stein for "Edie" in his study of Buster Casey, a "naturopathic serial killer." This style, you would think, might lend an air of authenticity to the story. Instead, Palahniuk's eighth novel is a high-minded version of "South Park."

I guess if you are a fan of South Park you could appreciate Rant. I'm not and I have no interest in it.

[HisNameIsRobertPaulson]

I guess if you are a fan of South Park you could appreciate Rant.

LOL, that bumps Rant up a notch in my queue. :D

[chester]

I agree. I wouldn't recommend anyone reading the book who gets offended by South Park. Unless you like getting offended, of course. It's not a book for kids. If you read the review I posted above, which I agree with after having read the book myself several times (everyone is entitled to their opinions, however - even Main-stream news book reviewers.). The last line says almost all; a must for anyone interested in smart science fiction. To that, I would like to add that there is not one scrap of "political correctness" to be found within it's pages. A fact the major news papers find quite distasteful, and something that is common to all of Palahniuk's work.

[notsolost42]

LOL, that bumps Rant up a notch in my queue. :D

And I am not surprised by that at all!!! lol.:p

[notsolost42]

I agree. I wouldn't recommend anyone reading the book who gets offended by South Park. Unless you like getting offended, of course. It's not a book for kids. If you read the review I posted above, which I agree with after having read it several times (everyone is entitled to their opinions, however - even Main-stream news book reviewers.). The last line says almost all; a must for anyone interested in smart science fiction. To that, I would like to add that there is not one scrap of "political correctness" to be found within it's pages. A fact the major news papers find quite distasteful, and something that is common to all of Palahniuk's work.

I've not said that I was offended by South Park. It has its place with its tongue in cheek political humor. But that is not science fiction. Here's more from the NY Times Book Review:

"But Mr. Palahniuk doesn’t write for tourists. He writes for hard-core devotees drawn to the wild, angry imagination on display and to the taboo-busting humor at which he usually excels. The very outrageousness of “Rant” is supposedly part of its appeal. But Mr. Palahniuk has been walking a thin line lately. In this book and its unpalatable predecessor, “Haunted,” his outrages feel perfunctory, and his new tricks are old tricks, executed by a writer recycling his best gambits for less and less coherent reasons."

Let's hope Mr. Palahnuik doesn't trip on his way down and take anyone with him.

[chester]

I've not said that I was offended by South Park. It has its place with its tongue in cheek political humor. But that is not science fiction. Here's more from the NY Times Book Review:

"But Mr. Palahniuk doesn’t write for tourists. He writes for hard-core devotees drawn to the wild, angry imagination on display and to the taboo-busting humor at which he usually excels. The very outrageousness of “Rant” is supposedly part of its appeal. But Mr. Palahniuk has been walking a thin line lately. In this book and its unpalatable predecessor, “Haunted,” his outrages feel perfunctory, and his new tricks are old tricks, executed by a writer recycling his best gambits for less and less coherent reasons."

Let's hope Mr. Palahnuik doesn't trip on his way down and take anyone with him.

Wow! Now your posting quotes by a reviewer on a book you haven't even read, which you seem to think sums up your view of the book.

That's a whole new level. Well done!!

[bunnydixon]

the beauty of literature is that it's open to individual interpretation. one persons justified perception of it may not match anothers!

[notsolost42]

And yet there's more:

The Austin Chronicle
April 13, 2007
By Wayne Allan Brenner
It's unfortunate that Palahniuk chooses to spike his compelling mix of two-fisted tales of near-future eccentrics with what amounts to an inelegant hack of Robert Heinlein's "All You Zombies." It's disappointing to have to suspend disbelief of time-twisting autogenesis (or its possibility), to be soaked in warmed-over genre tropes, when the gritty albeit freakish realism that preceded it was what kept the pages turning. Stephen King, say, might require vampires, parallel dimensions, and such to redeem the bulk of his stories; Palahniuk probably doesn't. Here's hoping that, in the future, he leaves them and their ilk to people who need them more.

[chester]

the beauty of literature is that it's open to individual interpretation. one persons justified perception of it may not match anothers!

I absolutely agree Bunny. But what does it mean when someone forms such strong opinions on a piece of literature, based only on someone else's opinions?

[bunnydixon]

I absolutely agree Bunny. But what does it mean when someone forms such strong opinions on a piece of literature, based only on someone else's opinions?

identity crisis? :p :p

[notsolost42]

the beauty of literature is that it's open to individual interpretation. one persons justified perception of it may not match anothers!

That's a very true statement Bunny. Chester keeps touting this book as a masterpiece that relates to Lost. I am still going through book reviews to see exactly why he says this. So far, all I have is that it is about some small town lunatic who sticks his arms down holes to be bitten by rattlesnakes, gophers and cyotes in order to contract rabies and feel as though he is alive. He then spreads his disease throughout the world as he murders, commits other felonies his bizzare sexual conquests. Sound like Lost yet? There's more and I don't find any of it at all like Lost. But, it's okay if Chester feels as though it is like Lost. That's his point of view. And, I am permitted mine as well.

[chester]

identity crisis? :p :p

I think I'm allowed to have my opinion on a book now. Even though, because it's not the same as the opinion of the forum Queen, even though she hasn't even read it, it is probably the wrong opinion to have.

Phew! So long as I get to my own informed-from-having-read-it opinion. That's the main thing, isn't it?;):D

[notsolost42]

I think I'm allowed to have my opinion on a book now. Even though, because it's not the same as the opinion of the forum Queen, even though she hasn't even read it, it is probably the wrong opinion to have.

Phew! So long as I get to my own informed-from-having-read-it opinion. That's the main thing, isn't it?;):D

Well, there you go again Chester. It never ceases to amaze me that you always stoop to the level of name calling to make your point Chester. I had though you were an intelligent person but once again, you have proven me wrong.

[chester]

I'm just a guy who's not affraid, to call a spade a spade. :D

[New Age Messiah]

Newspaper book reviews, newspaper news, and all mainstream media propaganda channels are full of it.

They're trying to control people and preach certain worldviews, ALWAYS.

The author must have said something in a way that made them nervous for their thrones.

[chester]

Newspaper book reviews, newspaper news, and all mainstream media propaganda channels are full of it.

They're trying to control people and preach certain worldviews, ALWAYS.

The author must have said something in a way that made them nervous for their thrones.

I agree Messiah; mainstream news is FULL OF IT!

Pretty much what Chuck says in Rant to. Think you might be on to something..;):D

[notsolost42]

I'm just a guy who's not affraid, to call a spade a spade. :D

Newspaper book reviews, newspaper news, and all mainstream media propaganda channels are full of it.

They're trying to control people and preach certain worldviews, ALWAYS.

The author must have said something in a way that made them nervous for their thrones.

I agree Messiah; mainstream news is FULL OF IT!

Pretty much what Chuck says in Rant to. Think you might be on to something..;):D

I haven't laughed so hard in such a long time!!!!!! You guys are really so amusing!!!!!!

[chester]

I haven't laughed so hard in such a long time!!!!!! You guys are really so amusing!!!!!!

Good for you!!! :D

[notsolost42]

Hehehehehehehehe

[Pung]

Wow, I leave for three hours and this is what happens....

First off, I will say that any attack on South Park for whatever reason is terrible. The show is not just tounge and cheek political humor. The show is in your face humor about every aspect of life; religion, philosophy, and many more real life issues that are direct in a very unapologetic way.

I also think that perhaps you should have started your rant about rant in another thread instead of ruining your own. I have not read rant but I can obviosly tell that any reference he was using, was in regards to time travel. Why do you not discredit or post other peoples views on back to the Future, or Terminator, or Star Trek, or any other sci-fi story about time travel. I'm sure I could surf the web and find bad reviews about all 3. Don't use the content of the story and other people's review simply to bash someone elses thoughts. Chester is just as entitled to whatever he would like to post as you are.

[notsolost42]

Wow, I leave for three hours and this is what happens....

First off, I will say that any attack on South Park for whatever reason is terrible. The show is not just tounge and cheek political humor. The show is in your face humor about every aspect of life; religion, philosophy, and many more real life issues that are direct in a very unapologetic way.

I also think that perhaps you should have started your rant about rant in another thread instead of ruining your own. I have not read rant but I can obviosly tell that any reference he was using, was in regards to time travel. Why do you not discredit or post other peoples views on back to the Future, or Terminator, or Star Trek, or any other sci-fi story about time travel. I'm sure I could surf the web and find bad reviews about all 3. Don't use the content of the story and other people's review simply to bash someone elses thoughts. Chester is just as entitled to whatever he would like to post as you are.

Pung, I never once said he wasn't. I am just stil trying to understand how Rant is so much like LOST. Chester seems to use it as a comparison for everything that happens on the show. I only posted reviews contrary to what he said about the book to show there is more than one side. I have not read it, and based on the reviews I would not read it. It is just not something that I would be interested in. My time is worth more to me. We all have our own opinions and that was my point.

[Pung]

Pung, I never once said he wasn't. I am just stil trying to understand how Rant is so much like LOST. Chester seems to use it as a comparison for everything that happens on the show. I only posted reviews contrary to what he said about the book to show there is more than one side. I have not read it, and based on the reviews I would not read it. It is just not something that I would be interested in. My time is worth more to me. We all have our own opinions and that was my point.

Chester has told you that you will not get an opportunity to as the connection he is making are not in the reviews. It just seems that for someone who often cites other works and makes outside connections to the show, you would be a little more open to someone else doing the same. Is it becasue it appears to be a more philisophical reference as opposed to a scientific one?

[notsolost42]

Chester has told you that you will not get an opportunity to as the connection he is making are not in the reviews. It just seems that for someone who often cites other works and makes outside connections to the show, you would be a little more open to someone else doing the same. Is it becasue it appears to be a more philisophical reference as opposed to a scientific one?

Well, like you said, we all have our opinions.

[chester]

Wow, I leave for three hours and this is what happens....

First off, I will say that any attack on South Park for whatever reason is terrible. The show is not just tounge and cheek political humor. The show is in your face humor about every aspect of life; religion, philosophy, and many more real life issues that are direct in a very unapologetic way.

I also think that perhaps you should have started your rant about rant in another thread instead of ruining your own. I have not read rant but I can obviosly tell that any reference he was using, was in regards to time travel. Why do you not discredit or post other peoples views on back to the Future, or Terminator, or Star Trek, or any other sci-fi story about time travel. I'm sure I could surf the web and find bad reviews about all 3. Don't use the content of the story and other people's review simply to bash someone elses thoughts. Chester is just as entitled to whatever he would like to post as you are.

Chester has told you that you will not get an opportunity to as the connection he is making are not in the reviews. It just seems that for someone who often cites other works and makes outside connections to the show, you would be a little more open to someone else doing the same. Is it becasue it appears to be a more philisophical reference as opposed to a scientific one?

I agree with Pung.

South Park ROCKS!! :D

[notsolost42]

I agree with Pung.

South Park ROCKS!! :D

Yes, I never doubted that you would. If I didn't know better, I would think the last 90 pages were written by a college freshman poaching ideas from his physics, comparative religion, and introductory philosophy classes. Juvenile fits you well.

[chester]

Just for the record. When I cite Rant, I am doing so because my take on a particular LOST topic-under-discussion has come from that book. And I don't want anyone to think that the idea is my own, becuase it's not - though I most certainly would, and would be proud of it, if they were. Simple as that.

And I will continue to give credit whenever I use someone else's ideas to provide any hypothetical answers to any further discussion which may pop up. And I will continue to try to do that as part of the prose, in an effort to try to make my posts easier for people to read.

[notsolost42]

Just for the record. When I cite Rant, I am doing so because my take on a particular LOST topic-under-discussion has come from that book. And I don't want anyone to think that the idea is my own, becuase it's not - though I most certainly would, and would be proud of it, if they were. Simple as that.

And I will continue to give credit whenever I use someone else's ideas to provide any hypothetical answers to any further discussion which may pop up. And I will continue to try to do that as part of the prose, in an effort to try to make my posts easier for people to read.

"Easier for people to read"...That's not the first time that you've insinuated people aren't as smart as you are. Hmmmm.

[chester]

I'm not insecure about my intelligence, at all.

[notsolost42]

I'm not insecure about my intelligence, at all.

Well great! That makes two of us then. Probably lots more really, on the site. Now, can you get back to discussing Lost instead of your tribute to Rant or your own greatness.

[chester]

LOL I beg to differ :D

[chester]

[/B]

"Easier for people to read"...That's not the first time that you've insinuated people aren't as smart as you are. Hmmmm.

I didn't quote you in that post SoLost. It had nothing to do with you. I was comparing my own posts; those with references in prose, compared to me putting the references in more formally in my dscussions.

How does that song go?

"Your so vein,

I bet you think this post is about you,

......"

In this case it is. :p:D

[chester]

Yes, I never doubted that you would. If I didn't know better, I would think the last 90 pages were written by a college freshman poaching ideas from his physics, comparative religion, and introductory philosophy classes. Juvenile fits you well.

Oh, I missed this. Is that for me? lol

Well I would much prefer to be juvenile than senile. Thank you. :D

[notsolost42]

LOL I beg to differ :D

You shouldn't beg Chester. It's very unbecoming.

[InTheBeginning]

South Park ROCKS!! :D

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/32/56985816_538c1fe7f5.jpg?v=0

[chester]

Cool, nice one Beginning; South Park Losties. :)

Did they do a LOST episode?

[smthng2dowthlost]

who's the blonde on the very right by walt?

[notsolost42]

who's the blonde on the very right by walt?

Mrs. Cleaver.

[InTheBeginning]

Cool, nice one Beginning; South Park Losties. :)

Did they do a LOST episode?
Not sure, haven't watched since my 5 1/2 year old son was born...:( I used to live for South Park like I do LOST now!
who's the blonde on the very right by walt?

Shannon

[LissaMarie]

Good God people. Seriously.

Agree to disagree and move on.

[bunnydixon]

OMG - I've been to bed, slept, got up, washed, fed & dressed the kids and you are STILL arguing LOL!!!

Hey, wouldnt the world be a very boring place if we all agreed on everything :p

[chester]

OMG - I've been to bed, slept, got up, washed, fed & dressed the kids and you are STILL arguing LOL!!!

Hey, wouldnt the world be a very boring place if we all agreed on everything :p

I agree .

[bunnydixon]

Chester has told you that you will not get an opportunity to as the connection he is making are not in the reviews. It just seems that for someone who often cites other works and makes outside connections to the show, you would be a little more open to someone else doing the same. Is it becasue it appears to be a more philisophical reference as opposed to a scientific one?

trying to judge the full content of the book from the review or judge what someone else has walked away with from the book based on some negative reviews is nigh on impossible. Its like people trying to decode the previews of lost, which have been edited and taken out of context in order to excite viewers and an audience in then telling other people the way they saw/heard the same thing is wrong.

So Chester has interpreted the book in a way different than some of the reviewers, he has justified himself therefore we need to accept it as valid.

Notso I think we can see that based on the reviews you can easily conclude that this book is most likely not to your taste. But without reading the entire book yourself, you cannot tell chester his personal perceptions of it are wrong.

Lets also use for example back to the future - most of us on here have seen this and cannot help but draw parallels between that and Lost. You have not seen the film (which you have admitted several times) yet have proceeded to tell people that the similarities which THEY see are wrong. How can you do this with limited knowledge? In order to have a fair, justified, valid opinion you would need to be fully familiar with the material. If you did that and still disagreed or read Rant and continued to express the same opinion, it would be more easily accepted?

[abcd1234]

Good God people. Seriously.

Agree to disagree and move on.


seriously. I have almost no interest in any of the threads on here anymore. arguing about this time travel crap makes it no fun to watch the show after a while.

[tpbaxter]

seriously. I have almost no interest in any of the threads on here anymore. arguing about this time travel crap makes it no fun to watch the show after a while.

i have no interest in this thread anymore since it has completely fallen apart. it appears the TCCers (or is it HCCers?) have defeated themselves with their internal strife... the days is ours fellow WHHers! BWHAHAHA! ... and so forth

all of these conversations are what logically follows time travel themes though. that's what i was saying earlier, i like it, but i wonder if all the time travel stuff is more distracting then it is helping the show talk about the things it wants to talk about?

[Pung]

i have no interest in this thread anymore since it has completely fallen apart. it appears the TCCers (or is it HCCers?) have defeated themselves with their internal strife... the days is ours fellow WHHers! BWHAHAHA! ... and so forth

all of these conversations are what logically follows time travel themes though. that's what i was saying earlier, i like it, but i wonder if all the time travel stuff is more distracting then it is helping the show talk about the things it wants to talk about?

tp your avatar rocks, I love thomas

[tpbaxter]

tp your avatar rocks, I love thomas

thanks. it terrifies me personally. it has a Stay Puft Marshmallow Man way about it...

[Pung]

thanks. it terrifies me personally. it has a Stay Puft Marshmallow Man way about it...

The new shows have computer animation so their faces move much more cartoonish, the older episodes with actual miniature trains is really creepy. I have a 2 yr old daughter who loves it though, so I get to see my share

[ortrules]

The new shows have computer animation so their faces move much more cartoonish, the older episodes with actual miniature trains is really creepy. I have a 2 yr old daughter who loves it though, so I get to see my share

Is 2-year-old daughter code for I love watching it and use her as an excuse?

[Pung]

Is 2-year-old daughter code for I love watching it and use her as an excuse?

Haha, I've already told Chester that my guilty pleasure is the Wiggles, they rock. But no I do have a daughter who will be 3 in July

Thats her in my avatar. Her name is Kaydence Leigh

[LissaMarie]

Haha, I've already told Chester that my guilty pleasure is the Wiggles, they rock. But no I do have a daughter who will be 3 in July

Thats her in my avatar. Her name is Kaydence Leigh

She's a beautiful little girl with a beautiful name, Pung! You are very blessed...

[Pung]

She's a beautiful little girl with a beautiful name, Pung! You are very blessed...

Thank you so much LissaMarie. She's my world for right now, she has a little brother or sister expected in October. But they say you dont split the love, the love grows! :D

[LissaMarie]

Thank you so much LissaMarie. She's my world for right now, she has a little brother or sister expected in October. But they say you dont split the love, the love grows! :D

I can testify that it is true! Love isn't finite, it's infinite! I know it may feel like you'll never be able to love another little one as much as you do your beautiful daughter but you will. And watching her love the new little one will break your heart and it will multiply again and again!

Good luck with your new project, Pung! I know being preggers in the summer can be kind of a drag but it's so worth it! Besides, it's more of an excuse to send your hubby on an ice cream run!!:D

[Pung]

I can testify that it is true! Love isn't finite, it's infinite! I know it may feel like you'll never be able to love another little one as much as you do your beautiful daughter but you will. And watching her love the new little one will break your heart and it will multiply again and again!

Good luck with your new project, Pung! I know being preggers in the summer can be kind of a drag but it's so worth it! Besides, it's more of an excuse to send your hubby on an ice cream run!!:D

My wife is the one whose preggers :D, but yeah I had to go and get Cheezits and Hot Tomales the other day. During her first pregnancy, her big thing was cotton candy, weird eh?

[LissaMarie]

My wife is the one whose preggers :D, but yeah I had to go and get Cheezits and Hot Tomales the other day. During her first pregnancy, her big thing was cotton candy, weird eh?

Ha! Sorry about that, Pung!! It's so hard to tell gender. Then you get no sympathy! Spoil your wifey with lots of ice cream this summer!!:D

Cotton candy is a strange craving but it's better than some I've heard of! I think there were more things I couldn't stand rather than craved. Eggs were the worst. Little chicken embryos?!:eek:

I've never heard of either of those food joints before. Where are y'all from? (Generally speaking)

[Pung]

Ha! Sorry about that, Pung!! It's so hard to tell gender. Then you get no sympathy! Spoil your wifey with lots of ice cream this summer!!:D

Cotton candy is a strange craving but it's better than some I've heard of! I think there were more things I couldn't stand rather than craved. Eggs were the worst. Little chicken embryos?!:eek:

I've never heard of either of those food joints before. Where are y'all from? (Generally speaking)

Well we live in Michigan, and Cheezits are the little square cheese crackers and Hot Tomales are the little cinnamon candie like Mike & Ikes

[LissaMarie]

Well we live in Michigan, and Cheezits are the little square cheese crackers and Hot Tomales are the little cinnamon candie like Mike & Ikes

LOL!! I thought they were burger joints! What a dork...:D

Well, we're sending you another warm, sunny day tomorrow, Pung!! Great day for a trip to the park with the little one! :) It's a sunny day and tonight is a new epi. Life is good!!

[ortrules]

Haha, I've already told Chester that my guilty pleasure is the Wiggles, they rock. But no I do have a daughter who will be 3 in July

Thats her in my avatar. Her name is Kaydence Leigh

How do I know that's not just a picture of some little girl you got on the web? :p

Kidding of course.

[ortrules]

Well we live in Michigan, and Cheezits are the little square cheese crackers and Hot Tomales are the little cinnamon candie like Mike & Ikes

I love both foods.

[Pung]

LOL!! I thought they were burger joints! What a dork...:D

Well, we're sending you another warm, sunny day tomorrow, Pung!! Great day for a trip to the park with the little one! :) It's a sunny day and tonight is a new epi. Life is good!!

Well thank you very much for the kind words! Looks like our Wings and Blackhawks are going to have to bounce back from 2-1 defecits. I would love to see them two play in the West final!

[ortrules]

Well thank you very much for the kind words! Looks like our Wings and Blackhawks are going to have to bounce back from 2-1 defecits. I would love to see them two play in the West final!

Redwings suck. Go Hawks!

[chester]

Maybe TCC stands for 'threads can change' :D

[Pung]

Redwings suck. Go Hawks!

Well looks like they are in similar circumstances. I take it you didnt care much for the winter classic game earlier this season?

[VeraLynn]

Well looks like they are in similar circumstances. I take it you didnt care much for the winter classic game earlier this season?

This belongs in the General discussion section!

JK :p

[Pung]

This belongs in the General discussion section!

JK :p

I know, but I figured this thread went to crap a long time ago, so why not?:D

[ortrules]

Maybe TCC stands for 'threads can change' :D

I think they were always meant to do what their doing right now.

[chester]

LOL

Oooga Boooga!!!

Was that meant to happen?

[ortrules]

Well looks like they are in similar circumstances. I take it you didnt care much for the winter classic game earlier this season?

As I recall, we won 3-1...





...after the first period.

[ortrules]

LOL

Oooga Boooga!!!

Was that meant to happen?

Yep. .

[tpbaxter]

LOL

Oooga Boooga!!!

Was that meant to happen?

No it was not. by doing that you have just changed history. my alternate reality self is a jerk btw. man i hate that guy!

thanks chester. :mad:

[notsolost42]

THREAD CRASHERS!!!!!!!

You will all eat your words!!!!

[bunnydixon]

Thank you so much LissaMarie. She's my world for right now, she has a little brother or sister expected in October. But they say you dont split the love, the love grows! :D

congrats pung :) and btw your daughter is super cute :D

[LissaMarie]

Something had to change with this thread!! I say....chat away! Any topic is fine!!:)

Yes Pung...we are in the same boat with the hockey, eh? It would be great if the Redwings and Hawks made it! Not that there needs to be more fuel to the fire of that rivalry though.

I miss the days when your football team was more of a challenge. I hope they rebuild soon so it will be more exciting to watch!! The Lions scored a few good players recently, didn't they?

[JfromtheD]

I miss the days when your football team was more of a challenge.
So do we, trust me! :D