Paradoxical History at It's Finest

I have an absolute fascination with time. Time is like that little bit of reality that we insist is real even though the perception of it is all that we have. I enjoy the posibility of playing with time and all the facets that come with being able to form a rather deceptive reality with it. So I was reading an article online that was about one of my most favorite peices of time anomolies: The Paradox.

Temporal Paradoxes are probobly one of the most strange and unpredictable things in literature. The whole reason behind them is complex enough that I could write for hours and still not be able to explain it all. Thus I shall use my character Amaretto to describe some major point in paradox. As a matter of fact, ther eare several paradoxes that are already occuring.

The first is an example of simple time twisted logic. When Amaretto first get's the hourglass, she is transported all over time, in the same place, within only a matter of a few hours. The paradoxical loop that I have set up is very often much like a Time line protection hypothesis. There is no way to stop this enevitable self from twirling this over and over again. As she moves forwards through time to hit herself and thus manages to hear the instructions that she is going to see in the future and theu in the past as well.

There was no real paradox when she went to the Second Great British Empire, but when she arrived in teh Country of Pesok, she realized that there was a bootstrap paradox involving items (for those of you who have not read it, I shall not reveal the plot line as I do not want to ruin it for you. I can however, give you an idea of what the principle is mentioning for you, that is to say, if you take an object back in time it can perpatuate itself as it's own reality and thus it's own creation, so that in fact, the item that you were taking back is the same item you were looking at before you took it back, thus perpetuating a massive causality loop (or a predestination paradox) that is never going to stop.

An nice simple example is this:

A man in the future owns the last apple tree. Another man, right before the tree dies, tries to perpetuate the future of the apples from going extinct, so he grabs the last seeds and hands them to the first child on the first farm he can find before he dies. That child winds up planting the seends and in teh future winds up owning the last apple tree all over again.

Okay, maybe that was not as simple as I would have liked it to be, but in all reality, paradoxes are a little hard to explain without a visual representation.

Now, I'm gonna go send this email to myself so that I know in about 20 minutes to read the article that percipitated this whole thing...