View Single Post
Old September 15 2012, 05:22 PM   #97
Fleet Captain
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
Location: At star's end.
Re: Does the Federation still exist in the 31+th century?


Enterprise in TOS? Really? In the scenes showing it coming apart at the seams?
Is it supposed to have anything in common with the spheres - and their flawless functioning (no sign of distress whatsoever) in creating very fast modified space - beyond being technology?

I give you quotes and evidence from episodes to back up what I say
The quotes you gave only show that the 22rd century xindi attack was a timestream modification - which propagates only slowly toward the future.
My far more self-consistent explanation has no problem whatsoever with either fact.

Daniels acted way too cool (not to mention, he kept existing unchanged) for Archer to have actually changed such a huge chunk of federation history as Procyon 5 - and the massive sociological/political/etc shifts leading up to it. The opposite is far too convoluted/inconsistent to be satisfactory as a fan meta-explanation.

But, if Archer only destroyed a first batch of stealthily acting spheres - which were themselves an attempt to modify history; or, alternatively, if these spheres were replaced by more direct means by the sphere builders in the 26th century - then history would be on track and Daniels should have no objections.
I give various other possible explanations
You give no such thing "beyond hand-wavings and a ~'so what if it's inconsistent - it's time travel in a tv show'". And really out there motivations for Daniels.
You still omitted to address the many inconsistencies inherent in the 'Procyon 5 timeline doesn't exist anymore' idea.

A, yes - and after I've called you out on it, all you could do is ignore all I've said and pretend I said instead "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG over and over".
Obvious staw-man is obvious, KingDaniel.
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton

Last edited by Edit_XYZ; September 15 2012 at 06:42 PM.
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote