We don't exactly know why their timelines are going in precisely opposite directions.
Just that they are.
Doctor Who... Page 661
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 26 2011, 11:14 AM BSTAs I said, you could argue it's contrived, but there's nothing illogical about the fact that it keeps happening. Surely it's something new to explore about a character who travels in time, dropping in on a character, but not in the right order.
It would be interesting if the writer took some time to show us this clearly, but he hasn't. It's just an ill thought out and poorly executed idea.
Quote: Steve Sunshine @ April 26 2011, 11:17 AM BSTWe don't exactly know why their timelines are going in precisely opposite directions.
Just that they are.
Are they going in EXACTLY opposite directions, though? Mmm?
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 26 2011, 11:14 AM BSTAs I said, you could argue it's contrived, but there's nothing illogical about the fact that it keeps happening.
Nobody said it was. The point you keep deftly ignoring is that she knows it is going to keep happening and where is the logic that has set this sequence in motion AND KEEPING it as a sequence. Riddle me that! 
Quote: chipolata @ April 26 2011, 11:17 AM BSTIt would be interesting if the writer took some time to show us this clearly, but he hasn't. It's just an ill thought out and poorly executed idea.
To some, clearly; but I've been able to understand it, so he explained it clearly enough for me.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 26 2011, 11:18 AM BSTTo some, clearly; but I've been able to understand it, so he explained it clearly enough for me.
You haven't understood it enough to explain it though Matthew.
Quote: Marc P @ April 26 2011, 11:18 AM BSTNobody said it was. The point you keep deftly ignoring is that she knows it is going to keep happening and where is the logic that has set this sequence in motion AND KEEPING it as a sequence. Riddle me that!
It'll all be explained with the season ending DEM, Mark.
River is the Doctor's mother/lover/half-brother/the Master and has been stuck in a wibbly wobbly time vortex up Steven Moffat's arsehole for ...etc.
Quote: Marc P @ April 26 2011, 11:18 AM BSTNobody said it was. The point you keep deftly ignoring is that she knows it is going to keep happening and where is the logic that has set this sequence in motion AND KEEPING it as a sequence. Riddle me that!
Oh yeah, like I said, it is somewhat contrived, there's no reason why it HAS to keep happening like that, other than the fact that it's obviously more interesting dramatically and as a character journey.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 26 2011, 11:21 AM BSTOh yeah, like I said, it is somewhat contrived, there's no reason why it HAS to keep happening like that, other than the fact that it's obviously more interesting dramatically and as a character journey.
LOL.
I worry that they are making a lot of sound and fury, building something up that will just be tied up ever so neatly with a bit of frippery. And fearful that JL is right in his predictions. We'll see I guess. Bring back the Time Lords and reboot everything I say, and get back to the elements of WHO narrative that are dramatic of themselves!
Quote: john lucas 101 @ April 26 2011, 11:18 AM BSTAre they going in EXACTLY opposite dircetions, though? Mmm?
No, because they obviously both go through time in the same direction when they are together. If they were going in exactly opposite directions, his speech would appear to be backwards to her.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 26 2011, 11:21 AM BSTOh yeah, like I said, it is somewhat contrived, there's no reason why it HAS to keep happening like that, other than the fact that it's obviously more interesting dramatically and as a character journey.
It fails dramatically because you spend all your time thinking, "This is bloody nonsense. What is Moffat faffing at!"
Quote: Nogget @ April 26 2011, 11:26 AM BSTNo, because they obviously both go through time in the same direction when they are together. If they were going in exactly opposite directions, his speech would appear to be backwards to her.
It does to me 
Are we talking ALWAYS HAS or ALWAYS WILL? Or are talking not entirely sure but she definitly said ALWAYS, as I said before I've missed the ALWAYS part of this (maybe too subtle for me).
Anyway it makes sense to me and I am at peace with it, and I hope others find the samw as the series goes on.
Quote: Marc P @ April 26 2011, 11:27 AM BSTIt does to me
Yllaer?
Quote: chipolata @ April 26 2011, 11:26 AM BSTIt fails me dramatically because I spend all my time thinking, "This is bloody nonsense. What is Moffat faffing at!"
A slight edit to your post for my point!
It maybe has failed YOU because YOU spend all the time thinking that (And I'm not suggesting that you are by any means the only one) but at the same time clearly it hasn't failed others because I for one have never thought anything like the above.