PA> BN> Exactly -- that's why I make the comment I occasionally do that the
PA> BN> "W10=unreachable" was an external limit, not an internal one.  It
PA> BN> was a fence put around TNG from the *out*side by GR when he created
PA> To me, that sounds like someone saying the Grand Unified Theory shouldn't
PA>affect our ideas because, although God knows what it is, no person has 
ver
PA>stated it.
Except for the fact that we're real & the characters in Trek are
fictional constructs.  Like pieces in a chess game, they're simply
instruments, & their movements have to follow the rules of the game,
not any whims of their own.
On a related note, I watched "The Big Goodbye" again the other night
(which I personally happen to think is a GREAT episode, BTW. ).
At the end there's a scene between Dix & his cop buddy in which the
cop becomes aware that the entire scenario is fiction & asks what
will happen to *him* once it's turned off. Picard's reply is that
he honestly doesn't know.  While it makes good theatrical play
(award-winning, as it ultimately turned out), it doesn't make sense
from a strictly logical POV unless we accept the premise that
holodeck characters can be intuitive & interactive on a full &
complete basis (see also "Ship in a Bottle"). I have no problem with
*that* sort of possibility for a character perspective, but in the
case of our original premise it's a totally different carton of eggs.
:)
For there to be internal consistency & sensibility in a fictional
setting, there have to be some things the characters _can't_ have
control over.  Would we say that Picard et cie. could have the
Enterprise as their ship one week & the Hood or Brattain the next?
Welll, don't quite think so.   It's a concrete given for
the series, so that the whole thing doesn't come off as Completely
Ludicrous. :)
---
 * OLXWin 1.00b * "If winning is not important, why keep score?" -- Worf
 * wcGATE 4.1 = FidoNet: The Right Note! 502-452-1453 Music Oriented BBS
--- GEcho/32 1.20/Pro
---------------