Re: Dead SwatKats.

From: Edo Andromedo <>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 08:59:39 +0700

Simon reply to my message:
>On Mon, 8 Jan 1996, Edo Andromedo wrote:
>> This lead the conclusion that all the timeline end in the same way.
> ... I'm not quite sure I get what you mean ... care to clarify?

DJ said that every timeline has all the characters, and I think that every
timeline will finaly end in the sameway, of course all the events is
different for each timeline.

>> I think that DJ mean that every characters in the kats universe exist in
>> every timeline, although the situation that happen to them maybe different in
>> every timeline.
> ... which doesn't make sense. If every timeline necessarily represents
>every possible situation, then there must be at least one time line in
>which one of those situations result in the SWATKats death, if not an
>extremely huge number.

Just like I said, unless somebody got _killed_ first.

>The mathematical possibility of the SWATKats NOT
>existing in one particular timeline out of a set of all possible
>timelines is far greater than that of them existing in one. Hence, the
>assumption that every character must exist in every timeline cannot hold.

Every character does exist in every timeline, but what _happen_ to them is

(Simon little possibility.)
>> Unless there is my theory on what happen next, there is an unknown SwatKats
>> who masked themself as T-Bone and Razor to protect the city, and this
>> mysterious SwatKats is defending the city by the name of T-Bone and Razor.
>> This is a serious thing, what if there is someone that took their place
>> while they are gone?
>Uh ... that little possibility I brought up was to illustrate the
>dangerous implications of DJ's idea.

A dangerous thing that could destroyed the entire series (And probaly the
whole kats universe.), maybe this is Ted alternate plans for the SwatKats.
:) any comments?

>If the future changes in response to a change resulting from time travel
>in the present, then there really is no telling what is possible or not ... all
>bets are off.

Hey, this are the SwatKats universe, anything is possible, even the impossible.

(My opinion on the Pastmaster.)
>I have no idea what this means. Come again?

The Pastmaster is a stupid guy for not just throwing the SwatKats into the
vortex and close the vortex so they cann't get back to MegaKat again. The
Pastmaster almost make it on elimanating the SwatKats in "The Pastmaster
always rings twice", fortunately he let them come back again by not closing
the vortex.

(My idea of the possibilities of DJ theory.)
>No, the point is that DJ postulated a big loophole in the story, but for
>her loophole to exist, her assumption must first be true: that the
>Metallikat's success in the future was a direct result of the SWATKats
>temporal absence in the present.

That episode tell us that the SwatKats were destroyed in the future, but we
only see _a TurboKat_ crashed (Just like Matt said.), could it be that
there is _another TurboKat_? another one that been use to defend the city
_on the name of T-Bone and Razor_ while they are gone? the Metallikats (And
the people of MegaKat city.) could _think_ that it was _the SwatKats that
was destroyed, and _not_ the other TurboKat.

>Secondly, the loophole requires her mode
>of time travel to be true, which doesn't seem likely.

Most time travel story doesn't use this theory, because like what you said,
this theory could mess up a lot of thing.

>It is NOT a loophole because her idea does not rely on an
>oversight inherent in the plot itself.

Her time travel theory is not acceptable in most time travel story, but if
you bring the _"another TurboKat"_ theory, I think that her theory could be
a possible thing in "A Bright and Shiny Future".

>Simon Leet <> :)

My words doesn't make any sense at all, even Simon says that my story (If I
were the one who wrote it.) will be almost be impossible to understand by
the readers. Hope that my style will change so that I can be more clear on
what I'm saying to you guys, then again, you probaly doesn't understand on
what I'm saying right now. :-)

Received on Mon Jan 08 1996 - 22:26:47 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Feb 22 2016 - 19:57:25 PST