This topic needs to be rewritten, maybe even from scratch. If it was on Wikipedia, Id sticky it with the bias tag ;) Thats clearly written by somebody holding a rather low opinion of the topic - for one thing, the butterfly effect notr eally controversional but mostly accepted, and second, the article only lists points why teh butterfly effect is bad, and not what speaks for it. -Susano, 07.03.08
I wrote that - I think it's fair, as in my opinion there are far more AH works that take the liberal approach (or ignore it altogether) than those that take the hardline approach on the butterfly effect. Therefore I think it is correct to regard the fundamentalist approach as a minority and controversial opinion. - Thande
Perhaps the other extreme could be mentioned. You know, the type where the long lasting Byzantine Empire joins the allies in an otherwise identical WWII. I think the “liberal” position is really more of a moderate position - though it's a range that can tilt either way perhaps. - Jasen777
Fair enough, if anyone wants to add that to make it more balanced - Thande.
*chuckles* You know, your opinion exactly shwos why it isnt controversional, Thande. You take the butterfly effect for that granted, that you think its about the moderate or the hardline approach. But about wthere there should be one or not, there is no controversy anymore - forum consensus pretty much is that the butterfly effetc has to be taken into account. And as said, it needs a new explanation. As it currently is, just saying “Uhm… chaos theory” does not explain how the butterfly effect comes to pass. Oh well, I will rewrite it, then we can discuss wether the rewritten version is okay ;) -Susano, 08.03.08