^Jumping to a conclusion is not okay when it contradicts virtually everything we know about Star Trek time travel. The future in the Trek universe is mutable. It's very mutable. I've given you the overwhelming in-story evidence that that's the case, and I've given you the real-world explanation why the storytellers adopted that policy. (That's what I mean by "real-world common sense." I'm not talking about the imaginary time-travel rules used within the fiction, but about the real-world reasons why it's sensible for writers in a shared fictional universe to favor a mutable future over a rigid one, because the latter would be too restrictive on their own or others' future storytelling choices.)
No, those stories you've narrowly fixated on (while ignoring quite a few others) do not blatantly contradict each other, but that does not even begin to prove that they couldn't be in separate timelines, or that the future can't change, especially when we have plenty of other evidence that it can and does change. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
On top of everything else, you're making some rather rigid assumptions about the particular situation presented in Hive without even having read the whole story. At the very least, you should wait to get all the facts before you draw any conclusions. This whole conversation is premature.
I think you forgot to read this part of my post:
"Well, thatís the thing. Weíll just have to wait and see. But, yes, I am making the mistake of thinking this is real, but thatís what fans do."
@KingDaniel. Christopher isn't perfect. In any case, that book is on my amazon.com wish list. I'll see for myself if it makes sense and somehow makes all the time travel coherent, thank you.