you should pay attention to the end of my Star Trek episode review videos, I tell you when the next videos are coming out. But it's tomorrow

@@Enchantmentofeternity Ok. I’ll watch the end of your last episode review right now

Will the “Ranking each Episode of TNG Season 5” video be out this Thursday (24) or next Thursday (31)?

Thursday the 24th

according to the show's own logic, Gwyn started phasing out of time because Dal changed future events so that the protostar never went back in the past, so if the protostar never went back in the past the Diviner never went back to the past in order to create her, so if they changed events so the Diviner never went back to the past shouldn't that have the same effect? Also if we're saying the Diviner should still exist in the past because he's from an alt future, much like alt Tasha Yar (which I agree would be consistent with Star Trek) then shouldn't the same be true for the Protostar? As the entire plot of the season is based on a time paradox that was created because the protostar never traveled to the past and changed everything, but if we're following the logic as stated above, there should be an alt protostar from alt future and events would have played out exactly has they did in season 1, hence no paradox, hence Gywn is fine, no phasing. So I'm sorry it does shatter it, because these two theories (1. Dal making it so the protostar not traveling back in time creates a paradox) and (2. The timeline is fine because there's an alt Diviner from an alt future in the past) contradict each other and use different forms of time travel logic. Hence, some of the worse time travel logic I've seen.

@@Enchantmentofeternity Point 1: When they made it so that the Diviner and Acensia never turned evil, they did not change events so that the Diviner never went back in the past. Alt. Timeline Diviner still went back in the past. That didn't change. Just like restoring the timeline in Yesterday's Enterprise did not change the fact that alt Yar went back in the past. So no it wouldn't have the same effect. It's a different beast. Point 2: No the same would not be true of the Protostar. Because they traveled to the future point (52 years in the future) in which the Protostar travels to the past in the first place and changed THAT. That also would have changed the Diviner going back into the past to create Gwyn. However, once that is restored, the timeline is restored. Now what they have changed is in the present, not in that future point in which the protostar or the diviner went into the past, so that alt timeline can still exist. The time travel logic is confusing, but sound. So I respeectflly agree to disagree

okay so I think I'm getting the distinction you're making between the two changes in the timeline. Your reasoning is, one is going into the future via rift to change the past, and two is changing how the future plays out from the present. And perhaps that is the distinction the show is making as well, but I still don't think it really makes much of a difference. So let's agree that alt. Diviner should still exist in the past like alt. Tasha Yar, we're agreed on that it seems. Where we disagree is that there wouldn't be an alt. protostar in the past because Dal travels to the future to change to the past. And also if there's an alt. Diviner in the one instance, there should also be one in the other. I don't see how Dal traveling to the future would change that anymore in Gwyn changing how the future unfolds. In both cases it's the same; the original futures never happens. The methodology of how that occurs would to me appear to be irrelevant, whether it's through rift or just changing how the future unfolds the end result is the same: that future no longer exists. And therefore the result of there being an alt. Diviner from a now nonexistent future should still apply even after Dal changes the future, there should still be an alt Protostar and alt Diviner still there from a timeline that no longer exists. So I stand by these two pieces of time travel logic contradicts itself.

The difference is one is directly preventing the time travel from ever having happening in the first place, and the other is a longer term more natural change in the timeline (instead of the Diviner and Ascencia growing to be evil, this doesn't happen in the prime timeline). Let's say in Back to the Future, when Marty McFly goes back to 1985 and sees himself a few minutes early, let's say he prevents himself from ever getting in the delorian in the first place. But how did he did he travel in the delorian to prevent himself from getting in the delorian if he never got in the delorian? This is a paradox. With the protostar crew the series of events are little further apart, and yet the concept remains the same. If Dal stops the protostar ever going back into time in the first place, then how did he ever find it, and how did he get to the point where he could travel in time to prevent the protostar from traveling back in time if never traveled back in time? This is a paradox. Whereas making the Diviner and Ascencia good has no direct connection to the actual time travel that took place. That time travel still took place in an alternate timeline. It's a subtle but distinct difference. I know you will still not agree and still hate the time travel logic. And that's fine. I'm just saying, for me, this isn't bad time travel logic because in my head I can connect the dots and make it work. You know me, I hate bad time travel logic if I can't connect the dots. Here, it's confusing and overlly complicated, and yet I can connect the dots. So for me personally, the time travel logic works.

I also might point out that Gwyn left for Solom at the end of Season 1 in order to try to prevent that civil war from happening, the civil war that led to her existance. So I don't know if she read temporal mechanics 101 before she left, but her entire objective was to change the timeline so that Solom can be saved.

I've seen it a couple of times as a kid but did not watch it regularly, as I said I don't really like those types of shows

@@Enchantmentofeternity I don’t remember you saying that. When did you say that?

All my videos blend together for me, but I think it was my review for "Cost of Living" I was talking about how I never liked kid shows that weren't cartoons, like Mr. Rogers or Pee Wee's Playhouse, I avoided those kinds of shows. And this also includes live action movies like Mary Poppins, as I kid I only liked cartoons, typically.

because it's not relevant to what we're talking about. If there's a general live chat with no specific topic then we welcome random questions, but when it's about a specific topic like House of the Dragon, we prefer comments or questions be about House of the Dragon, and even so if someone makes a comment about something else in HOTD that we're not currently talking about we might wait until we do talk about that particular topic, or ignore it altogether. We don't always address every comment or question put to us, otherwise the discussion would go on for too long and get derailed to often. And this also applies to comments on videos, if you ask me a question about Star Trek on a HOTD video I am most likely going to ignore it. In fact I would prefer comments address the video the comment is commenting on because I put a lot of efforts in making my videos, so I think it's respectful to acknowledge the video in comments on that video

@@EnchantmentofeternityI’ve asked you questions that have nothing to do with the video and you’ve answered them. A few weeks ago, you answered several questions about your cats even though that had nothing to do with the video (although they frequently show up in the background).

yeah sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I'm always willing to talk about my cats

that's because Comic Con SD is happening yeah?

Yeah probably Endgame would be #1 and Dark Frontier would be #2, and then probably Unimatrix Zero would be #3, hmmmm I think I'm noticing a pattern

@@EnchantmentofeternityI don’t think you understand what I’m trying to say. What is the worst plot hole in Star Trek. That could make a good video. The Top 10 Worst Plot Holes in Star Trek

well you first asked me specifically about Voyager, and so I was responding about that Voyager, and I named the episodes with the most plot holes, because if I were to name the specific plot holes, then Endgame and Dark Frontier would domincate the whole list. But if you were to say I had to limit one plot hole per an episode, than I gave you my top 3 of which episodes the plot holes would be from. As per naming the specific plot holes that would take time and energy more than I'm willing to commit to at the moment. Same with listing the top 10 worst plot holes in all of Trek, I'm just too busy at the moment

@@Enchantmentofeternity Do you agree that the Top 10 Worst Plot Holes in Star Trek could make a good video?

Maybe, maybe not. But as I mentioned I only take video requests from Patreon members at the $10 level as I mainly just want to get through those Star Trek episode reviews as I have a lot to get through

"A Klingon WARRIOR does not have Imaginary friends..." 😏😂

shout out to Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, I was wondering how many people would get that reference

that's Lillian who jumped on the bookshelf, then Holden who jumped on my chair

oh okay, thanks. It's hard to get all these dragon names straight

episodes 1 - 10 review will be out this Tuesday, and 11 - 20 the following Tuesday

I believe Alyssa had come out when I recorded that video, maybe not publicly but at least to me, or maybe not hard to remember that was right around the time she came out. You seem to like a lot of the episodes I hate, so not too surprised you were okay with it. I did give Chrissy to my dad before I got Lillian. And Lillian was the name she came with from the shelter and I didn't see any reason to change it since she was 2 years old when I got her and already used to the name. Holden and Naomi were kittens when I got them so I didn't mind changing their names which were originally Homer and Marge (and the other 2 kittens in their litter were named Bart and Lisa) although I'm a Simpsons fan I didn't think those names fit them, so chose a different TV show, Holden is at least similar to Homer. As for Blue, his original name was Boo and I HATED that name, so changed it to Blue because it was similar. And Blue was named after a Smashing Pumpkins' song and the main character from Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Oh and that was Lillian meowing in the background