  Tim Maudlin's argument for the inconsistency of Cramer's Transactional
Interpretation (TI) of quantum theory has been considered in some detail by
Joseph Berkovitz, who has provided a possible solution to this challenge at the
cost of a significant empirical lacuna on the part of TI. The present paper
proposes an alternative solution in which Maudlin's charge of inconsistency is
evaded but at no cost of empirical content on the part of TI. However,
Maudlin's argument is taken as ruling out Cramer's heuristic ``pseudotime''
explanation of the realization of one transaction out of many.
