/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

	wait, so my model is too... real? ;)
	Posted By: MrHen	Date: 12/22/06 1:57 p.m.
	In Response To: Re: back to the math ;) (Forrest of B.org) : Leci n'est pas une grandpapa. : (It's a picture of a grandpa). : ;-) I laughed. :) : Ok. So would you say, then, that there is some time in the past, some other : point "behind us" on the "T-axis", where there is some : arrangement of matter in such a form that it would commonly, grossly, be : identified with your great-great-great-grandfather? I.e. that matter has : some causal relation commonly called "fatherhood" with some : other matter in another time that bears the same relation to some other : matter in another time that bears the same relation to some other matter : in some other time, etc etc, that bears that relation to some matter which : is causally connected in some appropriate way with the matter that is : presently "you"? That's another way of asking the original : "ancestor question" which (hopefully) circumvents these problems : with identity you're concerned about. In a more simple sense, I can "see" or perceive my ancestor in my past, yes. : I don't think it's absurd for the same four-dimensional object to exist twice : in the same time, any more than it's absurd for a three-dimensional object : like a tree branch to intersect the same plane twice. Only that stopping : and turning around on the spot, rather than some sort of continuous curve : through spacetime, is absurd, because then you're occupying the same PLACE : at the same time. You seemed to be talking as though it might be possible : to get in some machine which sit still in space and just reverses it's : "motion" through time. Presumably it would need to move specially as well. Or push things out of the way when it traveled back along the t-axis. : This is why I think identification metaphysics are silly (by which I don't : mean any offense to you). There's no real paradox here; it's just : confusion of our labelling. Right. Which is why most of the time-travel movies I see annoy me. There is a paradox of sorts, but the paradox has to do with us, not Rock and Rock'. : There's a four-dimensional object (or if you : like, a causally-connected series of three-dimensional objects, which when : you get down to it are really just collections of 0-dimensional point : particles) which twice intersects the same three-dimensional cross-section : of the universe. I do like. :) : Which one is "really" the rock? Both; they're : different parts of the same (4D) rock. Sure, given that the 4D object is really our mental construction. If the rock is the simplest thing in the universe, than it would not be the same, literal rock. We would see them as the same rock, but there is no 4D identity. The identity is casual, not literal. In shorter terms: if the rock is the most simple thing in the universe, it will no longer be the same rock when it moves. If the rock is not the most simple thing in the universe, than the identity of the rock is a perception and it just becomes a word game. But I understand what you are saying, I think you got my point, so moving on. : If we watched time play forward : from here we'd watch the two rocks come together and then vanish; Yeah, that makes sense. : in fact, : antiparticles are often described as regular particles temporally flipped, : "going backward" in time; an electron and a positron : annihilating are physically the same exact thing as an electron : "turning around" in time. (Quotes because they're not literally : "moving" in time; they "turn around" or "go : backward" the same way a windy road "turns around", without : actually moving in time). Hm. Interesting. I really know nothing about physics. I just took math and philosophy. One of these days I will go find a good book to teach me the basics. Or I could keep talking to you. :) So what happens to the positron? : Does the rock exist in two places at the same time? Sure, why not; my arm : exists in two places at the same time. I occupy a whole bunch of : different, mostly adjacent points in space. This time-travelling rock just : does so in a weird way; it extends into the future and then back into the : past again, so the two parts of it aren't spatially continuous. But then, : on certain 2D planes my arm is not continuous with my torso, either. Right. That is how I see it. : I was using change in two different senses, hence the one in quotes. Sorry : for the confusion. I was saying that it changes along the spacial axes but : doesn't "really change" (if change is to be understood in terms : of timelike motion, which I thought you meant) in time. Oh. Okay. : I'm not denying that change occurs; I'm just saying that the concept of : "change" only make sense relative to some axis. A mountain : changes it's diameter along the vertical axis; it's smaller at the top and : "gets" wider at the bottom, even though it's not changing (much) : over time. So if something changes it's position in time, i.e. what point : in time it is located at, you have to ask "over what other axis is : that change occurring?" If you just say "an axis of space", : then all you're saying is that the object is moving; "at x=7, : t=7", instead of "at t=7, x=7". Right, that is exactly what I am saying. The difference is that you can now show something moving along the axis. I consider the question to have been answered. The math gets messy, but that is because we are always moving all over the place. Between that and how I see the relative and global positions, it makes sense to me. Do I have something messed up? : That's pretty much what I was trying to say. Oh. Good. :) : We have all the data because we exist in 3D space; we can see outside the 2D : plane of the comic and see other such planes. Maybe a flip-book is a : better analogy, since it's 2D planes are nicely stacked along a third axis : already. But the data does not necessitate 3D space. The 2D comic does not imply a 3D space. Just because we use three dimensions to view the data does not mean that it has to be that way. If you wanted, you can show each individual page next to each other on one giant page and then dictate the path. It makes it easier for us to see things in 3D space because the comic is 3D: two space, one temporal. The data of a comic book does not provide a proof of 3D space. I see our world the same way: the data contained in 4D space does not necessitate a hyper-time. Hyper-time makes it easier for the time-god to see it, but you could show all of the data in 4D. It just gets annoying trying to do so. But we have the ability. We can plot 4D space-time in 3D space. : That's about all I mean. To say that the past exists is to say that : such-and-such page in the flipbook exists, and if you could choose which : page of the flipbook to look at (which you can't do if you're a character : in it), you could see what's there. To say that something exists in the : past is to say that if you could look back to that earlier page, you would : see that thing. Mmkay. That makes sense. : [snip] : This whole scenario is possible in my model as well; and the problem about : occupying the same place at the same time is why I was saying you couldn't : just change your "speed" in time, and go into reverse; you'd : have to somehow turn around, moving through space or some other dimension : to do it. Sense all that needs to occur to avoid a collision is any difference in any dimension, all the time-traveler would have to do is find a way to avoid things. If every point in space is "full" at a given "time", just push your way through. Yeah, it messes with everything, but it is possible. We have to do the same thing to move around in space as it is: we are always pushing everything around. The only real problem is the amount of objects in a given space-time "slice" would theoretically change. But even this is not really a problem. At least, not that I can see. : I think this flipbook analogy works really well. There can be things that : move forward and backward in time as you describe; as I've already said, : particle-antiparticle reactions can be accurately described this way, with : the annihilation event being the turn-around point in the single (4D) : object's path. But if you (a character in the book) get to page 50 and : there's not some backward-moving anti-you there to annihilate with, : there's no way for you to turn around and go back in unilinear time, : because if you could do that, then anti-you WOULD have existed. Since he : doesn't, you can't. If you were going to move backward like that at all, : you'd have to somehow create an alternate version of page 49, and 48, and : 47, and so on back, drawing yourself into the world where you never : existed. In this sense, of actually changing the past (not just having : some reverse causal effect), like overwriting the pages of the flipbook, : our outside-the-flipbook time becomes like hypertime to the people in the : flipbook. Ohh, okay, that makes sense. Another light-bulb went on. That, of course, is the problem of trying to invent time-travel. I have to take an assumption and pretend there is a way to change one's velocity in time. If that assumption is denied, my model of time-travel would break. So... is there a problem with that assumption (other than it being an assumption)? The way I look at it, one would have to explain how to travel through hyper-time anyway. And once in hyper-time, one would still have to travel along the temporal axis. So I do not see how hyper-time solves this problem. Would it not make it worse? : But, you could also have the story tell a loop; where the page after the last : page is the first page. Or similarly, you could have a story where Future : Bob magically appears on page 25 to meet his younger self, Original Bob, : and then Original Bob later invents a time machine and vanishes on page : 50, and so if you want to read the book in the order that Original Bob : experiences it, you read pages 1-50 and then flip back to page 25 and read : on. "The reader" here is the mysterious subject-of-experiences, : whatever the heck that is. Well, yeah, but I think that is lame. It really does not solve anything anyway, and I really have trouble considering that time-travel. If you cannot plot the movement, it is not movement. : You could also have a story where Bob goes along from pages 1 to 50 and then : invents a time machine and vanishes from the rest of the book (which : continues on without him); and then, there are alternate pages from 25 and : on where Future Bob magically appears on page 25 and kills Original Bob, : and then lives life in his place, differently, for the rest of the book. Sure. Hence your hyper-time. : But you'll note that all of this invokes some sort of "magical" : teleportation, which is why I was saying, way back in the beginning of : this thread, that time travel stories really don't work in the first : place. The whole premise of talking about time loops, multiple timelines : and so on is that IF it were possible to do this weird magical : temporal-teleportation, then it would have to work like I've been saying; : world loops or branching timelines. Right. Which is why time-travel is still a sub-genre of science fiction and not a field of science. I, however, am not talking about such a magical jump. I am talking about a fictional way of reversing one's flow through time. It is just another fictional assumption, but I think it makes more sense in relation to the way that this world works. : You seem to be talking just about : backward causation, which isn't really "time travel" in the : sense of changing the past, somehow making it other than what it was. : Backward causation is a normal part of physics and it happens all the : time. It's not actually changing the past, though; you couldn't go back in : time to a time where there wasn't originally some sort of anti-you. Even : if you jumped into a vat of antimatter, all you'd be "sending back in : time" was a scattering of particles, which we already recorded in our : history as a bunch of antiparticles with opposite velocities. You'd have : changed nothing of the past. Assuming that the only way for backward causation to occur, sure. I think part of the problem may be the difference between the time-loop scenario and the model I am describing. In the time-loop model there is nothing more than one real system of events and these events are self-causing and require a magical jump. In my model (again, I am not taking credit for this, I assume that someone else out there thought of it first), the backwards causation can be traced but due to the way that it will actually change everything there is no "old" time. Everything will change. The only evidence for it would be in the minds of those doing the changing or some time-god who knows everything. Since the time-god is hypothetical, it cannot be used in a proof of hyper-time. All of the data can be plotted without a problem, but it could not be seen by analyzing the current state of space-time. It would look like a time-loop, but that is only because everything changed. There was no magical "jump", there was a magical "change in temporal velocity". There is a big difference. In my mental exercises, I kept everything intact by maintaining cause and effect chains that could be shown as a series of events. They required a time-stamp of sorts, which was achieved by using the time-traveler's relative temporal position which was nothing more than how long the traveler had been experiencing things. In other words, age. Since there was this temporal register, I could construct a self-contained, fictional universe that was easily displayed in two bogus dimensions: the universe and relative time. Each point graphed was a "state of the universe", which was the data of every point in space-time, and the graph showed the changes in the universe over relative time. The data of all that happened during the travels was now available. Comparing two points would show exactly what changed between them as caused by the domino effect started by the traveler. (In truth, the "universe" dimension is nothing more than shorthand for all of 4D space-time. It is a heck of a lot data, and since I have no interest in exactly what changed, I just think of it as a state.) Once all of the data was known, I could look at the very end of the graph where the traveler ceased traveling and look at the state of the universe. That ending state would be the current state of the universe. The traveler would no longer be traveling through time mucking about with the universe and things would go on changing like they once did. Taking a snapshot of the universe, the time-god would only see the final state unless there was a hyper-time. Hyper-time could be used to show all of the changes, but it is not necessary. To return to the comic book example, the data of the comic book does not imply that our 4D world exists. Our 4D world does not imply that the world of the time-god exists. Yeah, it makes things easier to understand, but it can be explained without it. One could see my relative time as a sort of fifth dimension, but it is nothing more than a controlled subset of events from 4D space-time. Since we have a unique identity that has a unique perception of the universe, we can plot things from that perspective. The big problem with this is finding such an identity. Since the identity changes, it is sort of hard to use it to show the changes in everything else. Hence, my identity problem. So... yeah. : So I think that's maybe where we got off track. From what I can tell what : you're describing is accurate to how the world actually works (though I'm : still not entirely sure we're on the same page regarding things : "moving" through time). There's just a bunch of infinitesimal : particles in the 4D continuum of spacetime (or, taking quantum physics : into account, a smear of infinite different 4D continuums with different : arrangements of infinitesimal particles), and we group them into : "objects" with "extension" and "duration" : for our convenience. But there's no time-travel involved there, even when : there is "backward causation"; that's just a U-bend in a 4D : "object". Well, yeah, but that where I take some artistic freedom. Assuming that some old, cooky scientist accidentally discovers something that can alter its temporal velocity, my model works. (I think.) I find that less of a jump than a magic temporal teleporter. : Where I was going with multiple timelines and such was just the : counterfactual conditional that IF it were possible to magically teleport : to the past ("stepping outside of time"), then either that would : have already happened in the past of the time that you came from (the : scenario of "unilinear time with loops"), or if not, then what : you'd have just done would be a change of the past, in which case you'd : have to specify along which axis that change occurred, which would have to : be some sort of hypertime (the scenario of "multilinear time with : branches"). The style of "mental time travel" as in : Marathon Infinity or The Butterfly Effect is still in essence this sort of : magic teleportation; you are somehow, mysteriously, altering the : brain-state of your past self. Thus the same sort of logic applies (either : your past self already had that mysterious change of brain state and so : nothing changes, it's just a loop; or if not, you've changes the past and : thus there must be branches). Oh. Okay. Well, yeah, in that case I agree with you. If you are using a magic time-jumper, the results must be hyper-time or time-loops. And the latter is just playing with people's assumptions about causality and identity. : But you can't magically teleport into the past. So the whole question is : moot. Well, I can't yet. ;) Again, all of my thoughts on this are quirky. I sort of have this feeling that there is some obvious thing I am missing...

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ] Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

	The Garden of Forking Paths	Document	11/29/06 8:50 p.m.
	Re: The Garden of Forking Paths	Forrest of B.org	11/29/06 10:11 p.m.
	*sniff* Duality *sniff *NM*	treellama	11/30/06 2:51 a.m.
	That's not fair.	RyokoTK	11/30/06 5:26 a.m.
	Re: That's not fair.	McNutcase	11/30/06 5:40 a.m.
	Re: That's not fair.	RyokoTK	11/30/06 8:51 a.m.
	Re: That's not fair.	McNutcase	11/30/06 9:25 a.m.
	Re: That's not fair.	RyokoTK	11/30/06 9:59 a.m.
	Re: That's not fair.	D-M.A.	11/30/06 10:05 a.m.
	Re: That's not fair.	RyokoTK	11/30/06 10:22 a.m.
	Ahaa, I see what you mean now, point taken. *NM*	D-M.A.	11/30/06 10:33 a.m.
	define "well"	MrHen	11/30/06 10:24 a.m.
	Re: define "well"	RyokoTK	11/30/06 11:31 a.m.
	Re: define "well"	Aaron Sikes	11/30/06 12:19 p.m.
	Re: define "well"	Forrest of B.org	11/30/06 1:26 p.m.
	Re: define "well"	Aaron Sikes	12/1/06 6:01 a.m.
	Mmm... House of Leaves	MrHen	11/30/06 8:00 a.m.
	Re: The Garden of Forking Paths	Vid Boi	11/30/06 8:13 a.m.
	Re: The Garden of Forking Paths	sdwoodchuck	11/30/06 12:39 p.m.
	So, what was your conclusion? *NM*	Frungi	11/30/06 3:57 p.m.
	Re: So, what was your conclusion?	sdwoodchuck	11/30/06 6:18 p.m.
	in your theory, the dreams...	MrHen	12/1/06 4:44 a.m.
	Re: in your theory, the dreams...	thermoplyae	12/1/06 6:42 a.m.
	Re: So, what was your conclusion?	Frungi	12/4/06 6:31 p.m.
	Re: So, what was your conclusion?	Forrest of B.org	12/4/06 9:07 p.m.
	Time Travel and the Psychology of Gods	Forrest of B.org	12/4/06 9:25 p.m.
	Re: Time Travel and the Psychology of Gods	Frungi	12/5/06 8:46 a.m.
	Re: Time Travel and the Psychology of Gods	Forrest of B.org	12/5/06 4:29 p.m.
	heck, I would buy 'em	MrHen	12/5/06 6:39 p.m.
	Philosophy anyone?	Icarus	12/6/06 8:29 a.m.
	Re: Philosophy anyone?	Forrest of B.org	12/6/06 10:46 a.m.
	Re: The Garden of Forking Paths *LINK*	Hamish Sinclair	12/2/06 5:06 a.m.
	Re: The Garden of Forking Paths	Document	12/2/06 6:17 p.m.
	Re: The Garden of Forking Paths	Document	12/4/06 7:03 p.m.
	Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/7/06 7:00 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Bob-B-Q	12/7/06 10:14 a.m.
	Define "all"	MrHen	12/7/06 10:20 a.m.
	Re: Define "all"	Document	12/7/06 4:20 p.m.
	Re: Define "all"	Document	12/7/06 4:21 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/11/06 10:28 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/11/06 12:00 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/11/06 12:03 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	MrHen	12/11/06 1:45 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon? *LINK*	Frungi	12/11/06 3:22 p.m.
	uh, thanks...	MrHen	12/11/06 6:01 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/11/06 9:44 p.m.
	I like being confused...	MrHen	12/12/06 5:13 a.m.
	Re: I like being confused...	Forrest of B.org	12/12/06 3:53 p.m.
	Re: I like being confused...	Frungi	12/12/06 5:51 p.m.
	Re: I like being confused...	Forrest of B.org	12/12/06 9:42 p.m.
	timelines and their glory	MrHen	12/13/06 5:14 a.m.
	Re: timelines and their glory	Forrest of B.org	12/13/06 8:05 a.m.
	Mmm... trippy...	MrHen	12/13/06 8:20 a.m.
	Re: timelines and their glory	Frungi	12/13/06 1:43 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/12/06 12:37 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/12/06 4:02 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/12/06 4:43 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/12/06 9:52 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/13/06 4:17 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/13/06 6:06 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/16/06 5:42 p.m.
	what? why?	MrHen	12/16/06 5:47 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	kyjel	12/16/06 6:40 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/17/06 4:13 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/18/06 5:09 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/18/06 8:47 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/18/06 9:22 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/22/06 9:58 a.m.
	questions and answers	MrHen	12/22/06 12:44 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/22/06 1:24 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/18/06 10:21 p.m.
	rabbit trail, sorry...	MrHen	12/13/06 5:23 a.m.
	Re: rabbit trail, sorry...	Chris Biberstein	12/13/06 4:29 p.m.
	and the problem was... where?	MrHen	12/13/06 7:06 p.m.
	Re: and the problem was... where?	Forrest of B.org	12/13/06 9:13 p.m.
	ah, my bad. I understand. :) *NM*	MrHen	12/14/06 4:54 a.m.
	Re: ah, my bad. I understand. :)	Forrest of B.org	12/14/06 1:22 p.m.
	I am the same way. ;)	MrHen	12/15/06 5:18 a.m.
	Re: I am the same way. ;)	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 7:27 a.m.
	Branching	MrHen	12/15/06 9:46 a.m.
	Re: Branching	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 11:04 a.m.
	Actually, I think I did understand.	MrHen	12/15/06 4:32 p.m.
	Re: Actually, I think I did understand.	Forrest of B.org	12/17/06 11:55 a.m.
	Oh, okay, then we do disagree.	MrHen	12/17/06 6:50 p.m.
	Re: Oh, okay, then we do disagree.	Forrest of B.org	12/17/06 10:08 p.m.
	so where do you get hyper-time?	MrHen	12/18/06 5:13 a.m.
	Re: so where do you get hyper-time?	Forrest of B.org	12/18/06 8:20 a.m.
	whoops... no... that is not what I meant.	MrHen	12/18/06 9:49 a.m.
	Re: whoops... no... that is not what I meant.	Forrest of B.org	12/18/06 1:58 p.m.
	right, yeah, that is the identity problem	MrHen	12/18/06 4:41 p.m.
	Re: right, yeah, that is the identity problem	Forrest of B.org	12/18/06 9:55 p.m.
	ohhh...	MrHen	12/19/06 5:44 a.m.
	Re: ohhh...	Forrest of B.org	12/19/06 9:20 a.m.
	back to the math ;)	MrHen	12/19/06 11:07 a.m.
	Re: back to the math ;)	Forrest of B.org	12/19/06 1:36 p.m.
	wait, so my model is too... real? ;)	MrHen	12/22/06 1:57 p.m.
	Sort of.	Forrest of B.org	12/22/06 3:22 p.m.
	and the light turns on...	MrHen	1/7/07 4:41 p.m.
	Re: and the light turns on...	Forrest of B.org	1/8/07 8:12 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/13/06 8:11 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/13/06 4:34 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/14/06 8:01 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/15/06 8:02 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 8:51 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/15/06 9:22 a.m.
	hehe, Infinity	MrHen	12/15/06 9:51 a.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 11:16 a.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	treellama	12/15/06 12:18 p.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 1:15 p.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	treellama	12/15/06 2:09 p.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 3:15 p.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	treellama	12/15/06 4:12 p.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	Frungi	12/15/06 6:34 p.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	treellama	12/16/06 3:38 a.m.
	So... do I have this right?	MrHen	12/16/06 6:35 a.m.
	Re: So... do I have this right?	treellama	12/16/06 11:25 a.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	treellama	12/15/06 2:21 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	treellama	12/15/06 9:55 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	McNutcase	12/15/06 11:12 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 1:20 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	McNutcase	12/15/06 9:32 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	MrHen	12/15/06 9:49 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	treellama	12/15/06 9:56 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	McNutcase	12/15/06 11:09 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 1:34 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 1:39 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	ukimalefu	12/15/06 6:29 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	McNutcase	12/15/06 10:23 p.m.
	awesome, thanks! *NM*	MrHen	12/16/06 6:49 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/16/06 5:51 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	kyjel	12/16/06 7:08 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/18/06 8:36 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/18/06 9:48 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/22/06 10:00 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/22/06 10:19 a.m.
	what he said	MrHen	12/22/06 12:38 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/18/06 10:23 p.m.
	*sigh*	MrHen	12/17/06 5:08 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/11/06 3:35 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/12/06 12:23 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/13/06 7:56 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/13/06 8:32 a.m.
	another example (albeit overused)	MrHen	12/13/06 8:57 a.m.
	Re: The Garden of Forking Paths *LINK*	irons	2/23/18 1:11 a.m.
	LOKE *NM*	W'rkncacnter	2/23/18 4:06 p.m.
	Re: LOKE *NM* *LINK*	irons	2/23/18 4:14 p.m.
	LOKE *NM* *NM* *NM* *NM* *NM* *LINK*	W'rkncacnter	2/23/18 11:09 p.m.
	Re: LOKE *NM* *LINK*	irons	2/24/18 3:31 a.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ] Pre-2004 Posts