Ana outranks Locke?

[Hooting Heck]

Originally Posted by TheDharmaShark,Aug 26 2006, 22:54 PM

The Long Con - He had the right intentions when wanting to move the guns so that Mr. Rush Of Blood To The Head Shephard couldn't supply Jin with a gun. And Jin at that point, was the last person who should have being handling a gun.

In The Long Con, Locke believes what Sawyer tells him, that Jack is coming to take the guns (Jin can't get them without the combination to the armoury from Jack or Locke). Did Locke question Sawyer's motivation for warning him? Sawyer manipulated him the same way 'Henry Gale' does.

When Jack says to Locke (about the guns), "We had an agreement", Locke replies, "An agreement you were about to break". Did Locke KNOW Jack was going to break the agreement? Locke accuses Jack of INTENDING to break an agreement, but Locke ACTUALLY broke it! Why make the agreement in the first place, if you aren't willing to honour it?

Why would Locke necessarily disagree with everyone else using the guns anyway? (Yeah, I know, "Because we'd likely shoot each other&quot. His main motivation is the superiority thing with Jack; and in the end, all Locke did was lose the guns (for everyone) to Sawyer! "Mr. Rush Of Blood To The Head Shephard is a subjective judgement - Jack's actions haven't created half as much trouble as Mr. Anything So Long As I Feel Big That Always Comes First Locke!

And, where did the heroine go? Sawyer's got that too, but why did Locke move the heroine as well as the guns? (And I lost track of how the medicines got into sawyer's hands).

Before asking Ana Lucia to talk to 'Henry Gale', I'd say that the last thing Locke got right was deciding to keep entering the numbers. But that's only because I'm sure they actually do something (and the main reason I'm convinced is for 'dramatic' effect).
What I mean is, in that instance, Locke made the right decision (imo) for the wrong reasons. In The Long Con, he got it totally wrong, even if it was with the right intentions, as you say - but I don't agree with that either!

[Mantis Zero]

Ana has no right to tell Locke what he can and cant do regardless if hes made mistakes HH, especially when none of those mistakes would result in Henry escaping.

It wasnt just Locke that was conned in TLC either, it was Kate, Jack, Jin, Sun, Ana, everyone. And Locke had every reason to believe Sawyer, lets not forget moment earlier Jack and Ana had a conversation about how now they have the code they can remove the guns and laughing about how Locke was an idiot for telling Jack the combo in the first place.

Locke had no idea Sawyer was a con artist and he is a trusting man (unlike Jack) which is no a bad thing. Also Henry would have fooled Ana with his balloon trick if it wasnt for Sayid, shes not infallible and is certainly no more trustworthy.

[Hooting Heck]

Aye to all of that.
But it just means neither does Locke have any right to decide what anyone else can or can't do, or tell them!
Or if you prefer, Ana Lucia has as much right to decide that she outranks Locke, as Locke does to decide he outranks anyone.

It's all there in (philosopher) John Locke's social contract: everyone has equal right to rebel against the authority of government and take the law into their own hands. If (island) Locke sees fit to behave that way, who is he to complain when somebody else does it to him?!

[kirsty290182]

But the only reason he moved the guns is because Sawyer put the idea into his head...i think if Jack had of turned up without any warning then he would have given him the guns.

[Mantis Zero]

Originally Posted by Hooting Heck,Aug 27 2006, 2:39 AM

Aye to all of that.
But it just means neither does Locke have any right to decide what anyone else can or can't do, or tell them!
Or if you prefer, Ana Lucia has as much right to decide that she outranks Locke, as Locke does to decide he outranks anyone.

It's all there in (philosopher) John Locke's social contract: everyone has equal right to rebel against the authority of government and take the law into their own hands. If (island) Locke sees fit to behave that way, who is he to complain when somebody else does it to him?!

The only time Locke has ever pulled rank is with Charlie and he was completely out of character throughout that entire episode. He prefers to force people to make choices via actions rather than talk down to them like Ana does. The fact that he chose to smack Sayid over the head with a big stick rather than talk to him about the signal speaks volumes for how little confidence he actually has in being able to tell people what to do and have them listen.

Locke brought Ana into the loop in the first place, she acts is af it were the other way round.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Mantis Zero,Aug 25 2006, 21:44 PM

But didnt you blast Charlie for keeping the drug statues? Ana's addiction to guns is much the same but with Ana one pull on a trigger is all it takes to relapse and is a lot more dangerous to those around her than Charlie reverting to his pre-moth persona.

Michael did hold up Jack yes but he never took a shot at him and threatened the computer rather than him personally. I'm not so sure Michael even knew what he was doing and was acting under instruction from "Walt" anyway, he'd quite clearly become a broken man since Jin shacked back up with Sun and Sawyer decided he was too cool to talk to him anymore. Ana is supposedly trained to deal with situations like that and I'm quite sure firing shots past the heads of unarmed civilian's isnt part of the curriculum.

Jack wore the key round his neck to show everyone that he was in charge, he wanted it on display. It was like a leadership symbol to him.

Sayid believes there is nothing wrong in what he did to Henry, I wouldnt think he would have any problem holding onto a gun so Ana couldnt have it. In his mind he thinks he is right to shoot Henry at that moment, he is currently a very unhinged man and not the honourable Sayid we used to know.

The difference between Charlie keeping the drug statues and Ana keeping hold of a gun is that Ana didnt lie to people who placed trust in her, like Charlie did with Locke and Claire for example ..i thik Charlie's lies were his downfall. Ana, is just straight up..she doesnt fabricate. Also i disagree that Ana having a gun is potentially more dangerus than Charlie's battle with addiction - we have seen Charlie put Aarons life at risk recently and this was down in large part to his lust for drugs [although i accept that the island had a part to play].

Although Mike threatened the computer, he still threatened Jack at first...this is in effect the same thing that Ana did with Mike..she threatened him and then she fired the gun into open space..so technically Mike has gone on to do an exact replica of what Ana did to him. I guess there not that different then.. ..also it is common procedure in the states for a cop to fire a warning shot past someone who is not complying to their wishes..we also have to remember that now theyre in an even owrse environment - 'The Wild'.

I agree that the key around Jack's neck was a leadership symbol..but i stand by the fact that wearing the key in this manner was also an anology to a religious reference..showing that living by the gun had become Jack's new religion or belief system.

I agree that Sayid isnt the honourable man that we once knew and even loved. His decline into the man he thinks he was born to become greatly disturbs me.

[Hooting Heck]

Mantis Zero,



All you're telling me is you don't like Ana and you do like Locke. Everything else is justifying that opinion. You're calling one thing 'good' when Locke does it, and 'bad' when Ana Lucia does it.

I don't think much of Locke. Don't think that much of Ana either, but I do lean towards the characters who are honest with themselves and "look in the mirror" once in a while. Off the top of my head I'd list Ana Lucia, Mr.Eko, even Sawyer. But not Locke.



You and I ain't done Zero!

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Hooting Heck,Aug 26 2006, 23:44 PM

Look at it this way: when was the last time Locke got something right?

Last one I can think of was when he asked ANA LUCIA to have a word with 'Henry Gale'. Before that? Well, I'm stumped.

The man's a liability! You know it, I know it, we all know it, the Losties know it, and 'Henry Gale' knows it!

Jeez, even Locke would know it if he wasn't so far up himself.

I agree with Ana Lucia being the watch guard for Henry..but i dont agree that Locke is a liability..if it wasnt for Locke then they wouldnt even have this hatch and they'd be even more clueless than they already are..

[Mantis Zero]

Originally Posted by Hooting Heck,Aug 27 2006, 13:05 PM

Mantis Zero,



All you're telling me is you don't like Ana and you do like Locke. Everything else is justifying that opinion. You're calling one thing 'good' when Locke does it, and 'bad' when Ana Lucia does it.

I don't think much of Locke. Don't think that much of Ana either, but I do lean towards the characters who are honest with themselves and "look in the mirror" once in a while. Off the top of my head I'd list Ana Lucia, Mr.Eko, even Sawyer. But not Locke.



You and I ain't done Zero!

I never said it was ok when Locke did it, quite the opposite in fact. I thought his treatment of Charlie was disgraceful and attacking Sayid and Boone was uncalled for.

If this is your point HH I could just argue that all your saying is you like Ana and dislike Locke.

Your last point I wouldnt say was true at all, Locke knows exactly what is, his whole life has been one failure after another, and thats why he tries to be the leader and wants people to like him.

Eko and Sawyer are just as selfish as Locke is, especially Sawyer who hurts everyone around him just to make him feel better (or should I say worse?) about himself. Everyone (with the exception of Jin) is selfish at the moment and are only looking out for their own best interests rather than the groups. Live together or die alone seems to have been long forgotten.

[Hooting Heck]

Originally Posted by kirsty290182,Aug 27 2006, 6:45 AM

But the only reason he moved the guns is because Sawyer put the idea into his head...i think if Jack had of turned up without any warning then he would have given him the guns.

Sure, Sawyer conned him, no shame in that. But whether or not Sawyer was telling the truth, it doesn't make any sense for Locke to hide the guns.

Look at the possibilities.

(1) Locke waits for Jack. Locke agrees with Jack taking the guns. Jack takes the guns.
(2) Locke waits for Jack. Locke disagrees with Jack taking the guns. Jack doesn't take the guns.
(3) Locke waits for Jack. Locke disagrees with Jack taking the guns. Jack somehow takes the guns anyway.
(4) Locke doesn't wait for Jack, he hides the guns. Jack doesn't take the guns.

With (1) and (2), nobody has a problem with.

With (4) Locke breaks their agreemant and hides the guns. This situation is identical to having the guns locked in the armoury and only Locke knows the combination. In other words, if Locke wasn't prepared to honour the original agreement with Jack, what was the point in making it?

With (3) Jack breaks their agreement and takes the guns. It is fear of this that makes Locke choose option (4). That fear is based on one, some or all of: [a] Locke doesn't agree with jack's reasons for getting to the guns; [b] Locke doesn't want Jack taking control of the guns; [c] Locke doesn't want Jack making decisions without Locke's say-so (breaking their agreement).

We can rule out [a], based on your post (Locke would have let Jack get the guns). That leaves [b] an[c]. Ultimately, Locke's justification is, "An agreement you were about to break, Jack". That suggest [c] was the reason behind Locke's decision.

In other words, Locke hasn't made a decision about the guns, he's made a decision about Jack. You can offer up the excuse that Sawyer conned him, but that's just an admission that Sawyer took advantage of Locke's issues with Jack.

It's also out of character for Locke to go along with what Sawyer (or anyone) said. If Jack had told Locke that so-and-so was coming to take the guns, Locke would have replied, "How do you know that, Jack?". Wouldn't he?

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Hooting Heck,Aug 27 2006, 3:39 AM

Aye to all of that.
But it just means neither does Locke have any right to decide what anyone else can or can't do, or tell them!
Or if you prefer, Ana Lucia has as much right to decide that she outranks Locke, as Locke does to decide he outranks anyone.

It's all there in (philosopher) John Locke's social contract: everyone has equal right to rebel against the authority of government and take the law into their own hands. If (island) Locke sees fit to behave that way, who is he to complain when somebody else does it to him?!

And in that lies one of the social messages of the show - in the Wild there is no law..and there is no government, except the ones that the individual/s impose. Therefore i certainly agree/understand why Ana had every right to out-rank Locke for this reason and whatsmore she deserved it after extracting the map from Henry.

I think that these past 6 or 7 episodes has shown that Jack has been out-smarted and out-foxed [pardon the pun] due to his short-sightedness and also that the same fate is befalling Locke. People are beginning to out-ranked them..and take matters into their own hands. This is an illustration that government and authority can only truley work if the people are taken into consideration. Otherwise you get rebellion and revolution. This is even more apparent when in the wild since there are no laws in the wild..unless of course everyone brings their own moral compass with them..which doesnt seem to be the case with the likes of Sawyer, Sayid and Jack etc over recent weeks.

[Hooting Heck]

They're all getting some things right and some things wrong. Most of the time they act according to some desire or fear, rather than what makes sense.

Hurley seems to make the best decisions. Jack and Ana Lucia seem the most responsible - trying to make decisions that are best for everyone. But they're all making bizarre mistakes.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Hooting Heck,Aug 27 2006, 15:09 PM

Hurley seems to make the best decisions.

Like [attempting to] blow up the hatch with dynamite? hoarding the food for himself? and crossing the fragile rope bridge in 'Numbers'? to name but a few. ..Not so sure about Hurley being the best decision maker..

But i agree that they all make mistakes at times..

[Hooting Heck]

I thought he decided not to blow up the pantry!

I mean things like the golf course, checking the flight manifest, having the feast. Those things that benefitted everyone have been among the best decisions.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Hooting Heck,Aug 27 2006, 16:59 PM

I thought he decided not to blow up the pantry!

I mean things like the golf course, checking the flight manifest, having the feast. Those things that benefitted everyone have been among the best decisions.

Yeah but he was going to blow it up until Rose talked him out of it ..also, despite the fact that he held the feast he still hoarded loads of the food for himself.. not the best decisions in the world.

Ive got nothing at all against Hurley, i just dont have that much faith in his decision making.