I'm surprised you didn't reply to that. I thought it was quite significant. Did you even read it?
One time, when I was a kid, I was walking through the park, and I walked past a bunch of guys playing football. One of them asked me if I wanted to play, because they had uneven sides. I said "That's OK. I don't know how to play football." He looked at me and said "You're a guy? And you don't know how to play football??" As if knowing how to play football was a requirement of being a member of the male gender. I have never even watched a football game in its entirety in my life.
I tell you this because it's not a requirement to know military history to own a gun. Sure, a lot of people who own guns know military history. But then, a lot don't. All my interest in guns told you was that I was interested in guns. That's it. Assuming I knew military history was a form of prejudice, whether you like it or not. You were talking like it's completely unreasonable that someone who has seen Final Countdown and is interested in guns wouldn't be interested in the Pearl Harbor attack.
Two
Mistake
I'm surprised you didn't reply to that. I thought it was quite significant. Did you even read it?
I read it. I did not find it terribly significant.
Sure, my response was a form of prejudice: I prejudged that someone with an interest in military hardware and military movies would be interested in military history. I had no way of knowing that you were not interested in military movies or in military history. But then, all of our interactions with other people are based on prejudgements: we bet that someone will or will not like something based on our past experience with them. You guessed that I would like tuna and peanut butter, and so you offered to send it to me; in fact, I and several others in the house like both of those foods, and I am grateful. But were I to offer those foods to you, you would decline, precisely because you don't like them. Now, before you sent them, it might have occurred that someone looking in your pantry would have thought, "Gee, John sure likes tuna--look at all that he's stockpiled." It would be a wrong conclusion from misunderstood evidence, and it would be prejudicial, but it would certainly be understandable.
Getting to know someone is a process of creating prejudices and then dissolving them. One of my prejudices was that I pigeonholed you as "likes military hardware and military movies, therefore likes things military". You've corrected that. Now you want to say, shame on Mark for having reached such a prejudicial conclusion. Well, fine, say it as many times as you like, because I'm not running your games anymore and I don't have to make any guesses about what you do and do not like--therefore I don't have to think about it at all. I do have to think about what might Mike or Adam or Kyler or Kurt or Jeff like, because they're all in my games, and so I have to make prejudicial guesses concerning who they are based on what I already know. Sometimes I'm wrong, and games get dull or turn in unexpected directions. Sometimes I'm wrong even about my own sons and friends who have played with me for decades. Sometimes I'm wrong about what would make my wife happy or please my mother or father, and I've known them quite a long time. And sometimes they're wrong about me. And that's the process of getting to know someone: create a prejudice-based image of who they are based on what you know of them and who you know like them, and then see if it stands or falls when you act on it.
But if you're going to be all upset because I guessed wrong, I'll stop guessing.
And that, probably more than anything else, is why I won't resume the Terminator game nor any other game with you as player. I'm tired of having you tell me how wrong I am about who you are, so that now I don't really much care, and am glad I don't have to care.
--M. J. Young
It was an episode of Star Trek The Next Generation. Geordi La Forge is taking Data to the holodeck to play Sherlock Holmes. Geordi asks the computer to create "A character capable of defeating Data." He meant to say "A character capable of defeating Sherlock Holmes." The holodeck character then proceeds to cause all manner of havoc and mayhem on the ship. At the end of the episode, he's talking about the mistake he made. "All of this trouble, just because I misspoke a single word."
That was your problem. You misspoke a single word. You said "I knew" when you should have said "I suspected". I could absolutely understand if you suspected. But there's a big difference between knowing and suspecting. If you know that I know the attack, that's going to affect what you think of the outcome. If you suspect that I know it, that's going to turn your expectations differently. You never "knew" that I knew anything outside the information given in Final Countdown. If you had simply said "I suspected he knew the attack" this would have ended a long time ago.
What you did know though was that I was opposed to changing history. For that reason above all others, I am in shock and disbelief that you thought for a moment that I would want to stop the bombing. Best to just leave well enough alone. I can live with the outcome that did happen. When I didn't stop it, you would then "know" that I was dedicated to non-involvement. See how much trouble misspeaking a single word can have?
Speaking of changing history, if I could have one day of my life to do over, it would be the day in B Movie Monster World when you said "John's next world has already been chosen." I would have responded saying "I hope it's not Pearl Harbor......"
As an aside about that Next Generation episode, some folks were speculating that the holodeck safety systems should have kicked in and prevented that from happening. Not really. If you asked for a holodeck character capable of defeating Commander Riker, an 18th century Professor Moriarty could do that without breaking character. No one would notice. They only noticed the flaw when they asked it to defeat Data. It's speculated that the incident led to a Federation-wide overhaul of the holodeck safety systems.
It's been 4 days
And I made a mistake typing this.
(Doing Therapy)
Another mistake in my typing.
(Doing Therapy)
MJ, I think this thread is marking me as a spammer, and for the love of all things holy DO NOT FIX IT!!!!! "If an obsessed idiot posts, and no one knows that there's anything there, is it still annoying?"
I really hope you're not even aware that this is here.
Please do reply if you actually know this is here and can read it. This could be just what we needed.
(Doing Therapy)
Two Posts, looks like I was wrong.
Hey MJ, is there any way you can make this thread mark me as a Spammer? That way, I could post to my heart's content, and you would never have to know it was here. It wouldn't show up on the outside. Unless they actually, voluntarily took the time to check, no one else would have to know it was here. Can you do that?
Hey, I know full well no one cares anymore. I won't force you to know I posted. "If an obsessed idiot posts, and no one else knows it's here, is it still bothersome?" I just want the peace of mind that it brings, knowing my thoughts can be seen by other gamers. Can you do that?
I hope you see this as a reasonable compromise. I just hope being marked as a Spammer works like I think it does.
(Doing Therapy)
More than one, and days apart.
It wasn't changing the past. It was an alternate universe, which I'm pretty sure the Architect explained in that first starter gather. So MJ had all reasonable expectation that you would treat it as an alternate universe and therefore it doesn't matter that it's a historical event.
Glantri said this, and it just bugs me to no end. You should say it doesn't matter "To you" or apparently "To MJ" that it's a historical event. You //better// //believe// it matters "To me". That's the only thing that matters. It means I have a long-term model for the future history of the world. MJ expected that I knew the attack. That means he expected whatever knowledge I had to be accurate and relevant to this scenario. The knowledge that I have is that Pearl Harbor was destroyed, and then The United States came back swinging and established herself as a badass in World War Two. Do you ever wonder why the US is the most powerful country in the world? It's because the rest of the world learned in WW2 not to mess with us. A third of The Pacific Fleet is decimated, the US is in a financial crisis, and we came back and showed the rest of the world what we were made of. That event was the catalyst for the rest of history which followed. MJ expected that my knowledge would be accurate. Well, this is my knowledge. Now please, give me one good reason why I'd want to risk changing that, and really, why you say it "doesn't matter" that it's a historical event?
(Doing Therapy)
More than one
Glantri, I /am/ treating it as an alternate universe. Our universe is the model. That's the bar I'm setting. Our US survived it. Are they as good as ours? I know this has a really good chance of ending really well if I leave it alone. What's your future model for saving the place?
And yeah, I warned them to save myself. At least I played my character accurately.
See what I mean about marking me as a Spammer? Glantri would never even have to know this was here. No one would, unless they checked it. I'd be satisfied knowing it /could/ be seen.
(Doing Therapy)
John, I've scanned your posts; sorry I was not here to respond sooner.
I have no ability to tell a thread to mark you as a Spammer, although I can mark your posts as Spam which might cause the entire forum to do so.
--M. J. Young
It was an episode of Smallville I watched recently. Lex Luthor was a child, and he got into a fight with his best friend. Lex got on top of him, punching him and screaming "Why do you have to be such a loser? Why can't you be like everybody else????"
I feel like that's what you're saying to me sometimes.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
You don't want to know what was here an hour ago. I wrote it before I got high. I deleted it after. Therapy's a-workin'!!!!!!!
(Doing Therapy)
Sounds like the wife berating her husband in the jail cell: "Look at this record. Attempted robbery. Attempted arson. Attempted murder. Why are you such a failure?"
--M. J. Young
Speaking of the legal system, MJ, I really think you would have made a piss-poor attorney. I'll tell you why. You had me tried and convicted of knowing the minutia of the Pearl Harbor attack on two pieces of circumstantial evidence. In what courtroom would two pieces of circumstantial evidence be enough for a conviction? That's enough evidence to create a suspect. Not get a conviction.
And speaking of evidence, my mind is still blown that you didn't consider that I would apply the principles of time travel to that situation. Eight Years MJ. Eight Years. And speaking of convictions, I might not have any real convictions to non-involvement, but you apparently have no real convictions to the principles of time travel. You did say you would warn them...... Look at The Big Picture. Would a swift, decisive victory really be better than a long, drawn out campaign?
And speaking of a long, drawn out campaign, in the game, one of the last things that happened was Mexico invaded the US. I'm not worried about that because the first line of defense is Texas, and they already beat them once. However, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that wasn't caused, directly or indirectly, by my warning Pearl Harbor. All it would have taken is one Mexican/American officer/defector who, because of me, survived the attack. He gave intel to the Mexican forces. That's all it would have taken to change the timeline.
(Doing Therapy)
Since I have been pulled into court several times and never lost in defending myself, I'll write off your insolence to your ignorance of what is involved in being a good attorney.
As to what happened once your game was handed to Kyler, well, I make no claims that Kyler's choices were at all historically likely--he declined to run Pearl Harbor (was on the list of those I asked) based presumably on the recognition that he would not have the necessary background on World War II to do it justice.
--M. J. Young
OK then, insolence from ignorance. What I meant is you'd make a piss-poor judge, or whatever profession it is where a conviction based on 2 pieces of circumstantial evidence would be of importance.
based presumably on the recognition that he would not have the necessary background on World War II to do it justice.
See MJ? That's what I'm talking about. You went out of your way to find a referee I couldn't get along with, based on "Knowing" that I knew the details of the attack. You, Kyler, Scott, anyone could have effectively ran that game. Anyone who had seen Final Countdown and had a good enough imagination to fill in the blanks could have ran it, actually. That's all the factual info I had. If it turned out in game that "The Arizona" was a Western-themed officer's club, I'd just nod and smile. (Bunch of 5 star generals got killed? Sure. There'd be a memorial in the future.) For all I knew, that's exactly what it was.
You went out of your way to get a bad (for me) referee on the mistaken assumption that I knew the attack. I think that's ironic as all hell.
(I also want you to know that I also think this is funny as all hell and I was laughing whilst I typed this. Not upset at all.)
(Doing Therapy)
And that, probably more than anything else, is why I won't resume the Terminator game nor any other game with you as player. I'm tired of having you tell me how wrong I am about who you are, so that now I don't really much care, and am glad I don't have to care.
MJ, I was rereading this, and I would like to say that I could not agree more. (Would you let me referee you though? Hey, think about that for a second.) You and I are not compatible. I think you're consciously or unconsciously so stuck in a certain way of doing things that you didn't know how to react to me. Eric doesn't just think outside the box, he doesn't seem to know there is a box. You keep saying that "Eric is wrong" for consistently having high magic. Ah, but I've learned more hands-on skills since I've been with him than I ever did with you. Dancing Princess. John completely avoids the main story in favor of learning to blacksmith. I can't believe you didn't pick /anything/ out of that. "Gee, maybe John really likes to work with his hands, and I should give him those opportunities....." Most of the worlds I've been to with Eric were low-tech, high mag, with a possibility of having high psionics as well. That's presenting the chance to learn hands-on skills, while keeping magic fun. And the best part is, the magic comes from Magehammer's blacksmithing hammer. Magic and hands-on, all in one. You seem to think challenging the player is the most important thing. Eric seems to think having a good time playing is the most important thing. I agree with Eric. If you're having a good time, the challenges will come.
(Doing Therapy)
Here's a scenario I bet you never considered MJ. You've maintained that an unprovoked surprise attack with less loss of life would still bring the US into WW2. But what if warning Pearl Harbor prevented the attack entirely? What if the first Japanese recon pilot flies over and sees the base is on alert status. The ships are not lined up neatly on Battleship Row and are out patrolling. The base is not a sitting duck, but is prepared to repel them. Isn't it reasonable that he will radio back to halt the attack entirely? That's a serious change to the historical timeline. I seriously doubt a violation of US airspace would qualify as an act of war. So now the US doesn't enter WW2 at all. That would be entirely possible. What are the repercussions of that? I bet you never even considered that possibility, did you? Best to just leave well enough alone.
(Doing Therapy)
Here's a scenario I bet you never considered A1. You've maintained that this is driving you crazy, and we've responded that you're driving us crazy with it. But what if pushing this too far causes me to begin deleting all your posts, all your game threads, all your activity here at Gaming Outpost? That would be entirely possible. I bet you never even considered that possibility, did you? Best to leave well enough alone.
--M. J. Young
<irony>Funny, I thought you liked talking about temporal paradoxes......</irony>
There's another lifetime in another world where you're the mentally ill player and I'm the harried game designer. I'm really looking forward to that one.
(Doing Therapy)
<irony>Funny, I thought you liked talking about temporal paradoxes......</irony>
What really makes that ironic is in fact I don't. I started doing it originally because I would see movies which confused friends and acquaintances which seemed entirely obvious to me, and so I would explain them, and in explaining them started to create the terminology which led to the theory as originally published in <i>Multiverser</i>. Then I started the web site in which I published these explanations, in order to attract attention to the game. Then the web site became incredibly popular (as compared with my other sites, at least, although the D&D stuff also became very popular) and I became anonymously famous as the go-to guy for temporal anomalies and time travel problems. Then a friend suggested I might make some money writing these for TheExaminer instead of posting them free, and so now I get paid to analyze time travel movies. It's annoying, because most of the time the mistakes are obvious and stupid, but I have to struggle to figure out whether there's any way around them, and to explain how so or why not. I actually enjoy, unqualified, maybe twenty percent of such movies. Of the twenty-six movies listed at <i>The Examiner Connection as having been (or about to be) analyzed on their site, I enjoyed <i>Star Trek (2009)</i> because the younger versions of the characters were so wonderful; <i>The Time Traveler's Wife</i> because it was so quirky; <i>Los Chronocrimines</i> because it was a surprisingly plausible story; <i>Source Code</i> because it totally surprised me; <i>11 Minutes Ago</i> because it succeeded in executing its premise in a way that made you feel as if it could have happened; and <i>Men In Black III</i> because the comedy of the series appeals to me despite the fact that it was certain to be a temporal disaster. The rest of them range from Eh to Ugh, but I watched them and analyzed them because time travel fans want to read about it, and some days I make a dollar from that readership. But I remember when <i>The Sarah Connor Chronicles</i> was hot, people wrote saying that they knew I must be watching the series, and I never saw enough of a single episode that I could tell you what Sarah looked like, other than that I read somewhere that history had been changed such that buff brunette Sarah was now a mousy blonde. And that might have been in one of the letters I received.
So no, I don't like talking about temporal paradoxes. I'm just good at it, and I like being good at something.
--M. J. Young
It's annoying
You used to swear that it wasn't annoying to you when I wrote time travel letters. Just saying is all.
<i>The Sarah Connor Chronicles</i> was hot, people wrote saying that they knew I must be watching the series, and I never saw enough of a single episode that I could tell you what Sarah looked like, other than that I read somewhere that history had been changed such that buff brunette Sarah was now a mousy blonde.
The Sarah in The Sarah Connor Chronicles was brunette and quite tough. John and Derek Reese (Kyle's brother) were sitting outside talking and waiting for Sarah and Cameron (the female Terminator protector) to accomplish some mission or other.
Their conversation went something like this. (Paraphrasing)
Derek "So why are the boys outside waiting, while the girls have all the fun?"
John "Because one of the boys is wanted for murder, and one of the girls is harder than nuclear nails."
Derek. "Yeah. And the other one's a cyborg."
That summed up Lena Headey as Sarah Connor pretty well. Unless you mean Linda Hamilton was the mousy blonde. I'd call her a brunette, but she's closer to blonde than Lena Headey.
(Doing Therapy)
Two Posts
<i>The Sarah Connor Chronicles</i> was hot, people wrote saying that they knew I must be watching the series, and I never saw enough of a single episode that I could tell you what Sarah looked like, other than that I read somewhere that history had been changed such that buff brunette Sarah was now a mousy blonde.
You probably didn't notice, but this also shows how people "know" things that are wrong based on circumstantial evidence. Not sure exactly what to think.
So you didn't like the Terminator movies? And you actually don't like talking time travel? Not sure if that's such a wise thing for you to disclose publicly my friend. Makes me wonder why you wanted to run me in a Terminator world. Sounds like you wouldn't have enjoyed it, even if it had been going well.
Would you let me run you in a world though? Seriously. You can give me your version of the treatment I gave you.
(Doing Therapy)
Kyler is running me right now, and the fact that I have two verser characters in different games is already one more than I believe any player ought to have.
--M. J. Young
Where is Kyler anyway? I was running a game for him.
(Doing Therapy)
I can tell you that he was talking to people here on a video chat line earlier, and he was home with his daughter who was also chatting with us, but I don't think that helps you at all.
--M. J. Young
The more I think about it, the more certain I am. There is no "right way" to test non-involvement. I'll tell you why. If the player doesn't warn Pearl Harbor, you're never certain of their dedication. So I'm in custody. Did I not warn them because of dedication to non-involvement, or because I didn't want to interrupt the historical timeline? If you let me loose on the base and I run, did I run because I'm dedicated, or because I don't want to be arrested? If the player doesn't warn them, you're never certain. There is no way to be certain, unless they do warn the base.
One thing I AM certain of is that Adam did NOT "Do the right thing." If he had, we would have had a blast playing and wouldn't still be talking about it, in addition to finding out my dedication.
You've said yourself. A heavily-armed individual found on the base could set them on alert, whether or not they warn them. What's the difference? History is still changed. Regardless of intent, the result is the same. That's why I keep insisting that I was clearly involved the minute the MP pulled up. I still changed history, just by someone knowing I was there. What happens when they see the Soviet markings on my AK-47 and decide I'm a Russian spy? I still changed history. Only way I'd say I was not involved is if I got off the base without anyone knowing I was there. And you could make that fun and challenging.
You've said yourself. A heavily-armed individual found on the base could set them on alert, whether or not they warn them. What's the difference? History is still changed. Regardless of intent, the result is the same.
Seriously. This is driving me nuts. /What's/ /The/ /Difference/???????
If my mere presence there sets them on alert, which would be very possible, what difference does it make if I warn them or not? I'll tell you exactly what I would have done there. I would have tried my solemn best to observe my right to remain silent. Then it's up to Adam and the dice. So, they've got a guy with an unknown assault rifle with Soviet markings, and a pistol in a caliber just being developed by the Nazis, who is refusing to talk. He must be a European spy, we should put the base on heightened alert. At that point, /What/ /Difference/ /Does/ /It/ /Make/ /If/ /Warn/ Them/??????? I still changed history!!!!!!!!!!! Regardless of intent, the result is the same.
I can't even risk doing that much contamination to the timeline if no one knows I'm there at all. This is why I keep insisting I was forced to get involved.
(Doing Therapy)
More than one, days apart
I guess what I was trying to say with that PA announcement opening is that a good referee can always take the player into custody, but you only get one shot to see what the player will do on their own.
That's why I think the PA announcement is better.
(Doing Therapy)
This site's been screwy for a while. Can you contact Aaron?
Because of it being screwy, I'm not entirely surprised that you didn't reply. Did you read it though? I mean, Marty McFly didn't intercept George with the intention of radically changing the future, but he still did it. If my mere presence sets them on alert, what difference does it make if I warned them or not? I still radically changed the future.
Regardless of intent or action, the result is the same.
(Doing Therapy)
I should apologize. I wrote a response yesterday, but the database stopped acknowledging me, and when I returned I forgot I'd saved it. Here it is:
John, quoting himself:
You've said yourself. A heavily-armed individual found on the base could set them on alert, whether or not they warn them. What's the difference? History is still changed. Regardless of intent, the result is the same.Seriously. This is driving me nuts. /What's/ /The/ /Difference/???????
If my mere presence there sets them on alert, which would be very possible, what difference does it make if I warn them or not?
The difference is that we never cared in the least whether you changed history; we only cared whether you tried to change history. Since that was what we wanted to know, your nonsense about whether or not you actually did change history is entirely irrelevant. I didn't care whether on some random roll the Japanese saw you sitting armed on the beach and turned tail and ran. I cared whether you consciously chose to take any action that might change events.
I will grant you that there are two distinct definitions of "involvement". They are:
- You are present in the universe and therefore cannot help having an impact on events around you; this level is unavoidable in Multiverser, because of course once we bring you into a world you are in this sense involved.
- You take conscious action to guide events in the direction you desire; this is the only level on which you have any control of whether to become involved or not, and therefore it is complete nonsense to ask whether we wanted to test something less than this.
Since once you are in the universe you are forced to be involved in the sense that you will be seen, you will have impact on events by your presence, it should be blatantly obvious to even the most incompetent imbecile that we were not and could not have been testing whether you inadvertently changed anything, but could only mean that we wanted to see whether you would affirmatively act to alter events in any way.
But Douglas Adams once said that anyone who calls anything foolproof has underestimated the ability of fools, and apparently you are nowhere near as smart as I credited you, because you cannot understand this most obvious point. No one cares whether you changed anything by your presence; we only care whether you changed anything by your specific intention to do so.
So even if everything you say is true about being "more involved" when the MP saw you, it's still completely and entirely irrelevant to anything about which any intelligent being in the entire universe cared.
--M. J. Young
I should probably read it over again, but I'll post it first, because I'm pressed for time tonight.
--M. J. Young
But Douglas Adams once said that anyone who calls anything foolproof has underestimated the ability of fools, and apparently you are nowhere near as smart as I credited you, because you cannot understand this most obvious point. No one cares whether you changed anything by your presence; we only care whether you changed anything by your specific intention to do so.
So even if everything you say is true about being "more involved" when the MP saw you, it's still completely and entirely irrelevant to anything about which any intelligent being in the entire universe cared.
MJ, I think that's the single most insulting thing I've ever seen you say. You're saying the equivalent of "An abortion is between a woman and her doctor." Aren't you forgetting someone? /I/ /Care/. Am I not someone? Am I not a thinking being? Seems you're not as smart as I credited you for, if you're going to insist that no one cares about it. Who cares? /I/ /Care/.
/I/ /Care/ that I inadvertently had a major impact on what I know as a historical event. To say that it's: "completely and entirely irrelevant to anything about which any intelligent being in the entire universe cared." is to say that I am not an intelligent being.
Am I not a person, and a thinking, sentient being?
Someone /does/ care. That's the part you're still missing. If no one cared, we wouldn't still be talking about it.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Too much drivel
(Doing Therapy)
Three
Too much drivel
(Doing Therapy)
More than one
My friend Rob knows the attack probably better than you thought I did. He's also a gamer. You better believe I've pestered him about this too. I've asked him about it a lot. What he told me was the attack as it happened destroyed primarily battleships. Battleships were probably one of the most expendable pieces of hardware there, and all but two of them were saved and eventually put back into service. On top of that, one of the two that were lost was about to be retired and scrapped anyway.
In short, the battleships were fun for the Japanese to shoot at, but hardly the most crippling targets for The United States Navy.
According to Rob (and this is purely speculation on his part) If the ships weren't lined up neatly on Battleship Row, it is probable that the attack would have focused on the fuel supply for the Entire Pacific Fleet. And, from what he said, I doubt any amount of preparation would have prevented its destruction. That single target would have set the Entire American Pacific Fleet response back at least a year. All the gas that would be left is what's in the ships. What good is it to save them if they're out of diesel fuel?
Go ahead. Warn the place. Save 3,800 lives. How many millions more will be lost when the fleet runs out of fuel? Then the civilian gas rationing and shortages which are sure to follow. How does that affect the already crippled economy? A fuel depot isn't the same symbol. "Even on alert, they couldn't protect the diesel fuel." they mutter as they trudge down the street. The Military is a disappointment. Nobody wants to join up now. Not to mention the ecological damage of blowing up that much diesel fuel in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. If I had known it as well as you thought I did, (Or hell, as well as I do now) I probably would have been willing to verse out in traction.
Even if all it is is the MP is late coming back (because I killed him). That by itself could put them on alert. An abandoned army jeep, a blood stain on the ground, and at best unfamiliar, at worst, known to be German weapon casings. (The AK-47 and 9mm respectively) Along with unknown tire tracks. Even if that's all the impact I have; tell me that couldn't put the base on alert. Yeah, someone cares that he was more or less inadvertently forced to change history.
(Doing Therapy)
You are right and I apologize. I was being hyperbolic because of my level of frustration. But let me toss an analogy at you.
Let's suppose that somehow a building has become filled with iron dust, fine enough that it blows around in the air on the ventilation system. Several of us know that some materials which are not particularly flammable in solid chunks will flash ignite if reduced to powder, and we wonder whether iron might be one of them, because we want to know how dangerous the iron dust situation is. So we create a controlled experiment filling a container with fine iron dust and ordinary air, with a flame ignitor with which to attempt to light it. The iron dust does not burn in that situation, so we say, "We're safe from that, we won't have a fireball from the iron dust igniting."
Then you come along and you say, "No, you're wrong, because if the iron dust were in a pure oxygen environment, a flame would ignite it and it would burn, probably quickly. You failed to test for that."
Our response is, "We failed to test for that because that's not what we wanted to know. Maybe you want to know whether iron dust in a pure oxygen environment will ignite into a fireball, but since that's not something we're ever going to see happen here, we don't care."
Now we're all arguing because you insist that iron will burn in a pure oxygen environment and we're not taking that possibility into account, and we're insisting that that is completely irrelevant to anything we wanted to know, so of course our test was not designed to test for that.
Our test was not designed to test for whether you would change events at Pearl Harbor. It was designed to test whether you might be induced to choose to change those events. Any other impact you had--whether by avoiding or by killing the MP, whether by being seen, whether by leaving tire tracks on the beach--was entirely irrelevant to what we wanted to know, and therefore your insistence that our test did not cover that is in essence saying we did not test for what we did not want to know, and so we're guilty of not testing what matters to you when we only wanted to know what matters to us.
I have granted that you are right in everything you say about how your presence might have altered history. You have refused to accept that all of that is completely irrelevant to what we wanted to know, which was what the test was supposed to determine. If you simply recognize that we never cared about what you might inadvertently change and that the only thing that mattered <i>to the test itself</i> was whether you were induced to attempt to change events intentionally, you would stop posting.
And I would be a lot less frustrated.
--M. J. Young
Have you ever been the only person in the world who cared about something MJ? Do you know what that feels like? I'm asking because I want to know. Have you ever been in this position?
OK, it's irrelevant to what you wanted to know. That's fine. I accept that. But I still changed history. So, the base goes on alert, the ships are on maneuvers, the fuel supply gets hit instead. I just (inadvertently) helped the Japanese deal a crippling blow to the US, and there's absolutely nothing I can do to fix it. How do versers live with themselves with things like this hanging over them? And destroying worlds?
Maybe God uses the versers to change worlds' histories. Maybe God wants Germany to win on that world, so send a verser to interrupt the course of history.
There's no way you'll ever convince me that Adam "Did the right thing" though. Appropriate. Historically Accurate. These are not synonyms for "Right".
(Doing Therapy)
Two
MJ, you asked the wrong non-involvement question when you sent me to Pearl Harbor. I still can't believe you didn't factor in the time travel. I think you should have known to send me there to see how hard I would work to stay as uninvolved as possible. That's changing history to me.
Immediate arrest by an MP is most definitely NOT the way to answer that question. The only way I'd consider myself to be "completely uninvolved" in any known historical setting is if I can get out before anyone knows I'm there. Or my presence isn't discovered until after the attack. Then it doesn't really matter. And you could make that a fun world.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
And you could make that a fun world.
To clarify, there are some things you just know can be done. Maybe not how or why, just that you know it can be done. This is one of those things.
(Entering Dextroland)