I trust that those who have written these letters will thrice forgive me.  First, I have printed their letters sometimes without their permission; if any thought our correspondence secret or personal, I may have violated a trust of which I was unaware, and for this I am sorry.  Second, I have not printed all letters in their entirety--I deleted materials I thought unrelated to the subject at hand, and even left out letters which were part of the correspondence but which I deemed unimportant to the matter.  Similarly, I left out e-mail addresses of the authors.  I trust they don't mind my editorial hand as I present their views on my web site.  Third, I have left their errors intact.  There were some whose errors were minor typos, and perhaps I could easily have glossed these--but others are not native speakers of the English language, and reconstructing their sentences would have involved me in a rewrite which apart from being time consuming for me would have been unfair to them.  And equally unfair would it be for me to correct the pages with minor errors but not those with more significant problems.  Thus, apart from my aforementioned editing of less important matters, the material appears as I received it.

I want to acknowledge Chuck Buckley, who gave me this idea--several of my letters to him are installed on his web site (and more recently on mine), along with his answers.  More recent posts on other sites have led me to include these as part of the index here.

I am endeavoring to index the pages here, giving you some idea of what they are about.  Each of those in the "Letters" section includes a single letter to me and my reply.  Those in the "Not Letters" section contain only my responses, but are linked to the original questions (assuming these still exist and have not moved without my knowledge).

It should also be mentioned that at least the first dozen or so of these letters were written without the benefit of the information in the other letters--thus sometimes the same questions are asked and answered in similar ways.  (That was one reason for putting the correspondence here--not that I don't enjoy receiving your letters and writing my replies, but that it may save you time if your question is already here.)

Chuck Buckley's Time Travel Problem:  First Response:  Chuck created some time travel problems on his site which I addressed by e-mail to him and he posted.  On this first response I cover such questions as whether the message will change the messenger if you give yourself the winning lottery numbers, some objections to standard theories of diverging dimensions, and free will.

Chuck Buckley's Time Travel Problem:  Second Response:  The conversation continues with comments on destroying the original history, destroying time, the problem with the concept of infinity, the problem of good, and the assumptions of science.

Chuck Buckley's Time Travel Problem:  Third Response:  The question of actual change as opposed to recognized change opens this entry, along with some discussion of divorcing linear causality from linear temporality, precognitive dreams, nested universes, and the significance of instant gratification to choice.

Chuck Buckley's Time Travel Problem:  Fourth Response:  The last piece of this conversation talks about whether drastic changes are necessarily recognizable, problems with parallel universes, precognition, changing history, and more on the path of least resistance and instant gratification.

Vazor's Time Travel Questions:  First Response:  Vazor found my site and raised some significant questions via his blog.  I answered here on the site, because my response was going to prove too complex for a blog post.  The discussion ranges from N-Jumps and the destruction of the future to problems with parallel dimension theory and fixed time theory.

Doctor TOC, 1998 March 17, wrote to assert that 12 Monkeys was intended to defend the fixed timeline theory.  I challenge whether that is correct, but explain why it doesn't particularly matter.

Doctor TOC, 1998 March 19, wrote back to pursue his previous point, and becomes the first person to suggest that my interpretation of the woman on the plane is incorrect.  I continue to defend my positions, and the paradox of becoming your own grandfather is presented and resolved.

JKrapf007, 1998 May 22, wrote concerning Army of Darkness, claiming that Evil Dead 2 is not a remake of Evil Dead as I had been told, and arguing that Ash was always the fulfillment of prophecy.  I explain the theory, and why Ash cannot have gone back in time until time had reached the moment of his birth, and therefore he could not have appeared in the past of the original timeline.

Nathro, 1998 May 23, also wrote to inform me that Evil Dead 2 was a sequel, not a remake, and to encourage me to view it.

JKrapf007, 1998 May 23, wrote back to clarify a few points on which he was confused, including whether it was possible to travel to a moment before your own birth.  My answer includes two paradoxes and an explanation of why an original timeline must exist in order for an altered timeline to spring from it.

Nathro, 1998 May 23, wrote back to provide more information about the Evil Dead films.

Sauce96, 1998 May 25, wrote about Terminator and Star Trek Generations.  Concerning the former, he defended a fixed time theory in which Cyberdyne always had created SkyNet from terminator parts brought from the future.  The latter he in essence agreed with my position.  I maintain that if John Conner cannot be born unless he is born, then he will not be born, again showing how an original timeline must exist before it can be changed.

Sauce96, 1998 May 27, wrote again, presenting a story of his own.  I found a hidden flaw in his resolution of an unusual paradox.

Sauce96, 1998 June 10, attempted to defend the existence of temporal paradox by analogizing it to linguistic paradox, and so suggesting that John Conner could always have been the son of the man he sent from the future.  I counter that linguistic paradoxes are a wonderful aspect of language, that we can describe things that are impossible, but that reality must follow rules, and time is part of that.

Muhammed, 1998 August 7, finds a confusing statement in 12 Monkeys.  I offer an explanation for the statement, but suggest that it must be a mistake in the script, assuming an impossibility.

Holger Thiemann, 1998 September 22, wrote the first of several excellent letters exploring the nuances of my theory.  In this note, he defends the notion that 12 Monkeys is a defense of fixed time theory, and that paradoxes might be explained by parallel dimension theory.  I argue that fixed time theory does not adequately explain the film or solve the paradoxes, and that my theory does both.

Chad Hadsell, 1998 September 29, took issue with whether an infinity loop would affect the entire universe or only the person who created it.  I explained why it would be universal.

Chad Hadsell, 1998 September 29, wrote back to suggest that time is an abstraction, not a reality; I explain how distance and time are both realities, and only the measurements we use for them are abstractions.

Holger Thiemann, 1998 September 30, wrote back to test the theory on several fronts, including free will, and the concept of point D.

Chad Hadsell, 1998 September 30, wrote back to suggest that travel to the future was a problem.  I explained why travel to the future is only a problem if it is accompanied by travel to the past.

Chad Hadsell, 1998 October 2, brought up a very important point, that travelers to the future would not find their future selves in the AB timeline.

Holger Thiemann, 1998 October 16, wrote again to examine the problem of the temporal duplicate, and raised Stephen Hawking's theories.

Gecko, 1998 October 21, wrote to say that my 12 Monkeys analysis is entirely incorrect, and that Einstein was also mistaken about time dilation.

Jason Seiler, 1998 October 22, wrote to insist that 12 Monkeys presents the static timeline, which, he claims, supports the grandfather paradox.  I explain what the site's purpose is, and why the static timeline doesn't support the paradox.

Jason Seiler, 1998 October 23, wrote again to inform me that the site had become part of the curriculum at his college, and to provide a couple interesting links.

Etienne Rouette, 1998 October 24, brings back the question of the woman on the plane in 12 Monkeys, which I consider in some detail, holding to my original position.

Matthew Potts, 1998 December 20, also raises the question of the woman on the plane, to which I expand my answer.

Bart, 1999 January 12, presents and defends a version of the parallel universe theory.  I explain my problems with this theory.

Bart, 1999 January 12, attempts to clarify his position, and again I explain my problems.

I continue to answer questions about these pages, receiving several letters each week.  I don't post them anymore, as it takes more time to post them than to answer them, and I find myself writing the same answers over and over (which is why I added the theory section, so you might want to see if your answer is there first).  But feel free to Write to me about anything on this site, or any time problems bothering you.