Hurin

Nice. All the dark blue buttons just improved (no white corner fringes now) and the green highlight of the active tab up top just turned to blue. Someone's getting everything just right. I really can't say how relieved I am that someone (Shawn? Or one of the minions) is taking the time to dial everything in. After all the time I put into the original skin (together with the kite buttons by jsarclight), I was concerned that it was going to just get jettisoned during the transition. I don't come here often anymore. But I was still a bit saddened before I saw the skin make a comeback this morning, and all the tweaks happening throughout the day. THANKS!!! The skin is obviously in good hands. H

Wall of text. . . engage. . . (this is what happens when you have three days --off-and-on-- to cogitate on a single post) You're perpetuating at least two or three bizarre, out-of-the-blue theories based on nothing from the actual show (except, of course, very apparent confusion on your part and bizarre interpretation of some pretty clearly written dialog and scenes). . . indeed, your contentions actually contradict what the writers have put into the dialog and scenes for an explicit purpose. But, to make it worse, all these contentions on your part seem to emerge as a consequence of that first bizarre assertion you made that you're unwilling to just acknowledge and "walk back" in the face of more reasonable points of view based on the dialog as it actually appears in the show. Indeed, rather than just admit a mistake, you Instead you go forward with that mistake as the foundation for even stranger assertions with only hope that future, yet-unseen episodes will show you what you oddly assume now needs to have happened (eg., MIB being "reborn" in other forms instead of just changing his appearance, ya know, like he does when he turns into freakin' smoke!) But first. . . Man, it must *really* annoy you that someone found my post to be helpful and explanatory. So much so that you felt the need to respond to him in my stead and then mischaracterize the entire affair. To say nothing of how shabby it is to do so while you knew I couldn't intervene. But, now that I have the chance: Note that first (before you ever mentioned a "butterfly"), you said that the MIB had been killed and was dead. You then, in the same post, went on to demonstrate your further confusion (asking why the MIB can "keep coming back" from death multiple times). Only later did you bring up your "butterfly analogy". . . which seemed to demonstrate that your cluelessness quotient had been decreased somewhat by the discussion at that later point. Yet you still found it necessary to continue pretending as though you hadn't been confused, and in doing so, you found it necessary to keep belittling the very clarification your confusion/carelessness/misinformation made necessary. So. . . if you're going to reply to someone who's actually directly addressing me and thanking me for the explanation that you seemed to have such a problem with (because it explained away misconceptions you were perpetuating), at least do me the courtesy of not being blatantly dishonest in summarizing this affair. It's funny how you chose to skip over the entire beginning where your demonstrable (initial) confusion was most apparent. Looking back on this thread, it's a great example where you seem to have a penchant for asking obvious, ill-informed, and/or silly questions just to perpetuate discussion for discussion's sake. I mean, looking back, nearly every question you've asked either has a readily apparent answer (to those paying attention), or was downright silly at the outset. And any time you actually offer what you think is accurate information, it always seems to have some fundamental fact wrong or ill-founded assumption underpinning it. Here's one final example: Even while exposing the fact that you're confused about one topic (what happened to the MIB and whether the MIB has actually died before or since), you expose that you're fundamentally confused about yet another one: The "loophole." You say: "black smokey monster transformed itself into (un)Locke as the rules seemed to have changed at that point making it capable of leaving the island... the "loophole" as Jacob put it." Now, those paying attention immediately say: WTF? That's not the "loophole." The "loophole" refers to the ability to actually kill Jacob. The "loophole" isn't directly about leaving the island, and need not have anything to do with taking someone else's form (and how those two things --shape-shifting and leaving the island-- actually became related in your mind is a total mystery as well). How do we know that the loophole is about killing Jacob? . . because the writers do everything in their power to make this linkage pretty darn clear via dialog at the very beginning of the episode in which Jacob freakin' dies as a result of the "loophole" concept introduced in that very episode.: Setting: In front of the ruined statue -- Jacob and MIB gazing out at a ship on the ocean. MIB: Do you have any idea how badly I want to kill you. Jabob: yes. MIB: One of these days, sooner or later, I'm going to find a loophole, my friend. Jacob: When you do, I'll be right here. Later in that same episode, as the MIB enters that designated "waiting place" (the statue) with Ben. . . Jacob says: "I see you found your loophole." Now, while other interpretations are perhaps possible (or will become possible with information provided in the next few episodes), it's pretty darn clear that the "loophole" is about getting around the rule that MIB can't kill Jacob himself. While exploiting this loophole and killing Jacob might indeed be a step towards MIB's longer-term goal of getting off the island, that's not nearly the same thing as saying that assuming Locke's form suddenly "changes the rules" and makes him able to get off the island, and then calling that the loophole itself as you did. That dialog pretty clearly explains the rule that the loophole will work around (inability to kill Jacob), and then we see the loophole put into effect at the end of the episode even as it is once again referred to as the "loophole." For the life of me, I can't imagine how your managed to come to your own conclusion. And, mind you, you won't be able to actually explain it using any actual dialog or provided explanations from the show itself. What always seems to happen is that you are shown to be confused about something basic. . . and then when someone points out your confusion, you start engaging in hypothetical questions or unsubstantiated arguments that are totally at odds with what we already know, and rarely rise above the nature of: "Why didn't the Hobbits just fly Eagles to Mordor." The answer: Becaue that's not the freakin' story we're being told. . . pay attention! To illustrate, you're now asking: Well if it was just about trying to kill Jacob, why didn't he just try to have anyone do it? The answer: First, because, had MIB done that and succeeded prior, that would make the current story we're enjoying sorta difficult to tell, now, wouldn't it? It is a fictional story after all and asking questions like that (like decrying how unrealistic it was for the ship to not break apart when it hit the statue and then asserting that there must be some signifigance to such a "miracle". . . sheesh) shows an astounding blind spot in your ability to understand the nature of storytelling, its techniques, and its conceits. Second, they actually address this, in that he did freakin' try to have others kill Jacob before he succeeded in having Ben do it. You yourself point this out even while simultaneously asking why he didn't try it. In other words, Ben was perhaps only the last successful one in a (perhaps) long line of potential "loopholes." Recall (as, miraculously, you seem to do) that, after the conversation on the beach related above, MIB attempts to do exactly what you ask why he didn't do: He attempts to have Richard kill Jacob. We know this takes place after the initial "loophole" conversation because the statue is in pieces when Richard confronts Jacob (the statue having been destroyed by the ship upon which Richard arrives). So, the signifigance of taking Locke's form and having Ben do it? Why not, as you ask, just appear as anyone and ask just anyone to kill jacob? Well, if you had been paying attention, you'd realize that it's all about motivation. He tried just sending in whoever he came across, but Jacob (as we saw with Richard) was able to stop them, dissuade them, and even turn them against the MIB. He (MIB) needed someone who hated Jacob and was therefore uncommonly motivated to kill him. It also didn't hurt that he (MIB) appeared to Ben as Ben's dead daughter and ordered him (Ben) to follow "Locke's" orders. And, finally, Ben had been manipulated into believing that there was indeed something very, very special about John Locke (whom he believed he was obeying). In other words, Ben was in a unique position to be manipulated by MIB and to be successful in actually killing Jacob. Of course, because you're not paying attention, you embarrass yourself. And because you embarrass yourself, you're unwilling to accept accurate information when it is presented to you. You instead start asking these silly questions and grasping at straws rather than just accept the dialog and the direction it's taking you. Yes, plot twists happen. And dialog can intentionally mislead. But they'll generally leave subtle clues that such a thing is on the way. You're not pointing to any such clues, you just pull things out of your butt in order to grasp at any means by which your odd conclusions might still be valid. It's fine to ask people to question their assumptions and preconceived notions. . . so long as you have some valid reason for doubting them yourself. But you never provide any such reasons. Case in point: How you're now arguing that every time the MIB takes the form of another person, he's somehow being reborn. You're doing this rather than admit that you were mistaken in stating that the MIB has repeatedly "come back" from death. Seriously, there's not one other person using the phrase "reborn" in describing/discussing MIB's shape-shifting or seriously arguing that each time the MIB has taken the form of someone else that he is dying and/or being reborn. And there is absolutely nothing in the show to make you or anyone else think that the MIB has to die himself and/or be "reborn" in order to take anyone's form. You're just going through these linguistic contortions in order to retroactively support a silly contention you found yourself needing to make rather than admitting that you were confused. So, now instead of what everyone else is talking about (MIB taking the form of those who have died (though not their actual bodies), you're asking about MIB's "rebirths" as other people. . . continuing to introduce square pegs and asking us how they fit into round holes that you've pulled out of nowhere because you're just unwilling to ever admit a mistake or that you were confused. Of course, none of this would be a problem if you weren't so fundamentally hostile and unwilling to ever admit a mistake and/or accept inconvenient facts/information without also making things personal (and yes, both times --one I ignored and this one-- you immediately made it about me and carrying out your petty little vendetta from years ago rather than the substance of what I was saying). So. . . since reasoning with you is fruitless and calling you names is forbidden (but fun!), I'm left with no recourse but to just ignore you. Say whatever you want. You and I both know, despite your public assertions to the contrary, who has been confused and dishonest here. And it wasn't me. I'm sure you'll come up with some subtle (or more overt) taunt that you hope will cause me to re-engage. But it won't work. You're clearly just not worth any effort whatsoever. I'm actually embarrassed as hell that I have spent the time to write so much above in reference to you or anything you've said. >EXO<, please, for the love of God, if I ever am stupid enough to reply directly to anything that comes out of Jenius's pie-hole again, just please perma-ban me.

The links along the top border ("Main Site - www.macrossworld.com" etc.) turn nearly white-on-white when clicked/hovered over. Other than that. Looks good. Something else I had noticed just got fixed in the last few minutes. So it appears tweaking continues.

Your focus on the corpse is just. . . bizarre. Has it occurred to you that, in the context of this show, the corpse is perhaps not evidence of him dying, but instead evidence of him shedding his corporal form because he no longer needed it? Did it occur to you that the body was found in a tree quite some time and quite some distance from the cave? In which case, is the body evidence that Jacob "killed" him or that he is "dead" or just evidence that he's been transformed and no longer needed it? Indeed, perhaps he no longer wanted it. If the latter, the words "killed" and "dead" have no real meaning there. . . and they are not accurate descriptors of the what happened to him. Not in any way. Which, now pay attention. . . is probably the f'ing reason multiple characters told you that the light wouldn't kill someone put in there. Again, that's not semantics. . . that's clarifying your pre/misconceptions. Because the way you describe it, in the context of the show, would not accurately describe to someone what actually happened in that episode. Ask yourself this: If the body being left behind makes you want to say that Jacob killed the MIB. . . would you describe what happened in this episode to a friend as: "Jacob killed the MIB. The MIB is dead." Of course not. That's not nearly a description of what happened. And anyone familiar with the show would say: "I thought Jacob couldn't kill the MIB". . . and/or someone familiar with the dialog of that episode would say: "Didn't both Jacob and the mother say that the light wouldn't kill him but would instead transform them?" Which, of course, was all I said as well. . . which you deemed inappropriate. And, I'll point out that I brought it up in the larger context of some people claiming that the MIB truly died (in body, spirit, everything), and that the smoke monster assumed his form. . . and that the MIB is therefore not the smoke monster. A view I'm still not totally convinced you weren't also holding before you started to actually think things through via this discussion. Sweet Merciful Crap! That's such a blatant dodge! You're referring to the MIB taking the form of bodies brought to the island as further "coming back" from the dead on the MIB's part? And then preemptively dismissing any attempt to point out that that's horsecrap. Jeez, just admit that you were confused and have nothing there. And, btw, the "loophole" was (apparently) assuming Locke's shape in order to convince Ben to kill Jacob. Having Ben kill Jacob was the loophole. There's nothing about the MIB taking Locke's form that changes "the rules" or allows the MIB to leave the island. I just don't know where you're pulling that from. . . it seems to be just more evidence that you have no f'ing clue about even the most basic plot points of this show. But I also suspect you're desperately trying to divert attention from the fact that you can't find one single additional instance where you can reasonably claim that the MIB died again and "came back". . . so you're now just making stuff up and then preemptively saying: "But don't try to argue that this isn't "coming back." Jesus, since when do we consider the MIB taking the forms of dead people as "coming back" from the dead each and every time. Did he die and "come back" when he took Christian's form with Claire? When he impersonated Richard's wife? (if that was indeed him). Or just when he took Locke's form? You're seriously making that claim with a straight face? That is just pure, utter horseshit and you know it. It's a blatant dodge. Look, by its nature, this show is supposed to have twists and turns. It's supposed to be confusing. I don't claim to have all the answers. All I know is you seem to be way confused about even the limited number of answers we appear to have been given. And the more you say, the more confused you appear to be (if you're not just playing dumb now in an attempt to muddy the waters even further).

Though I'm sure others are still waiting to hear about all those other times the MIB died and "came back" that you assert happened. You know, before you realized that you were being a f'ing idiot, figured out what I was saying, and then adjusted your own argument so that you could play it off as though you were never really that confused. Allow me to refresh your memory. . . And that's just one of the points I brought up above that demonstrates that you're very confused by some very basic plot points. None of which you addressed. But you seem to think that if you just hang in there long enough, you'll win through attrition. Which, I guess is true since I don't really value or respect your opinion enough to carry on much longer. So you'll eventually get the last word. Face it man. . . the writers tried desperately to get it through your head that the MIB was not being killed. They failed. Because, well, let's face it, you're sorta dumb. When I pointed out (without even addressing you directly) what the writers were trying to make clear to you (via multiple statements from multiple characters) that the MIB was not being killed but instead transformed, you decided to pretend that you weren't confused and accused me of engaging in semantics. Ironically the only way you could even approach redeeming yourself was engaging in semantics yourself while pretending to have never been confused. Some of the lemmings around here might buy it if they pay about as much attention to this conversation as you apparently do while watching this show. . . But, please do get back to us about all those other times the MIB "came back" from being dead. That really seemed to trouble you and I'm sure we'd like to clarify for you and set your mind at ease. I can't promise to actually take part since your f'ing idiocy has reminded me why I don't visit these forums very often. But, surely, there's someone here who will pick up the torch and carry on trying to explain basic plot points to you and possibly even diagram out the dialog so that it's more easily grasped. One final tip: Context is important. In a fictional universe like Lost, constantly going on and on about "corspe = dead" is f'ing idiotic given what we've seen in this series. It's just unbelievable that this has to be explained to you and that you would actually accuse others of engaging in semantics while they're trying to do so. But then again, you never miss an opportunity to pick an ill-conceived fight with me. Shame on me for obliging and rising to the bait this time. I won't make the mistake again.

As I said, past a certain point, I don't argue with proven idiots. . . but I will repeat something I said prior that neatly addresses your repeated use of the word "corpse" as though it means anything in the current context:

Now, that, my moronic, hypocritical friend, is retroactively engaging in semantics in order to wiggle your way out of prior idiocy on your part. And, ironically, you only find it necessary to do so now that you start to grasp what I was saying originally. . . which you originally dismissed as mere semantics.

Who said you're incendiary? I just told you that I don't find arguing with idiots to be productive. Because not only are they unable to understand your point of view, they can't even really demonstrate that they have a cohesive understanding of their own. Though, to their credit, they do tend to realize that they are idiots on some level. But, unfortunately, that just causes them to try to salvage some semblance of a valid point by choosing some simplistic angle that might make sense were it divested from the larger context of the discussion. But since it isn't, the person just looks even more hapless. Best, H

Well, I can't tell if you're being willfully obtuse, or, well, sorry, but just dense. Because even a f'ing idiot could see that what I meant was that if you witness a person transform himself into pillars of smoke (among all the other literally incredible things, including your own resurrection, that you've seen on the island) all bets are off where "contraints of reality" are concerned. So, if you're witnessing and experiencing all these other miraculous events, is it so far-fetched to believe that someone could be returned from the dead (even as you're looking at the visage of someone who has already died, and you yourself have already died and yet are back). But wait, I'm breaking my rule again. Please see above. Heck, you're the inspiration for it (mangled quotes aside). Toodles, H

Dude. . . you're seriously unable to interpret and understand dialog. When the writers tell you something (via dialog from more than one character) several times, they're doing it for a reason. I'm sorry you find that (and so much else) so hard to comprehend. But, then again, I've come to expect no less from you. Which is why I ignored your last attempt to stir up trouble. I made a new rule long ago. . . past a certain point, I refuse to argue with proven idiots. Warmest Regards, H

Sigh. . . It's not arguing semantics. But since you're obviously confused, you're attempting to convey it as such rather than acknowledging that the writers themselves could spend a week with you explaining everything and you'd still come onto these forums and wonder aloud why Ben Linus was allowed to be a teacher after all the terrible things he did on the island. What part of him (alive) falling into the light and the smoke monster emerging from the light a moment later did you fail to comprehend as being the MIB already bing "reborn." Why are you waiting for a scene that already happened? So again, you think he died (repeatedly?). Where exactly did he die? You are aware that Locke is not the MIB and the MIB is not Locke, right? Locke did die. And he hasn't come back. So, how has the MIB (or Locke, even) "kept coming back from the dead?" This isn't arguing semantics. You're just confused and being a douche about it when someone points it out. When a character with some authority says: "the light won't kill you". . . tells you that it will transform you into something evil. . . and then the person shoving you into it tells you that he's not killing you. . . and then you fall into it and emerge transformed into a black pillar of smoke. . . guess f'ing what, you didn't die. Again, using the word "kill." Despite the writers going out of their way via several means to make it very, very clear that Jacob did not kill him. And, of course, there's that whole thing about him not being able to kill him even if he had intended to do so. Now, I'm willing to allow for the slight chance that the writers could --after the fact-- throw in some nonsense and muddy this up a bit. And you might miraculously fall butt-backwards into some semblance of being bizarrely vindicated. But if that occurs, it'll be through pure luck and arbitrarily introduced plot twists designed as "gotchas" for the audience who was actually, ya know, paying attention and understanding the clear meaning of the dialog as delivered. It won't be because you actually demonstrated that you have an unmuddled thought rolling around in that head of yours. So back to this. This is bs and you know it. You're crying "semantics" rather than just admitting that you aren't very good at figuring out what the writers are (pretty clearly) trying to tell you. Aside from bizarrely looking forward to seeing the MIB "reborn" in a future scene despite it already having been rendered unnecessary/redundant (the light in the cave already having transformed him into smokey, obviating the need for a "rebirth"), you said that Jacob killed him and puzzled over how he could then be allowed to come back to life (yet again!?!). This despite every effort on the part of the writers (via their carefully designed scenes and dialog) to stop someone like you from ever needing to wonder this by making it (they futilely hoped!) clear that Jacob did not kill the MIB and that the MIB did not die. So, stop being a douche just because you can't figure out the meaning behind directly delivered dialog. You claim the story is "convoluted". . . it is. . . but not the parts that apparently have you so baffled. You can't wonder aloud about how the writers are contradicting themselves and then cry "semantics" when someone points out that not only are they not contradicting themselves (in this case), but actually went to some pains to explain to those actually paying attention how they were not doing so. They give their characters dialog for a reason. So, what you disingenuously characterize as semantics, others would call actually paying attention. You should try it too. You might say fewer f'ing stupid things.

WTF? Why all this talk of Jacob killing the MIB, the MIB being dead, and/or the smoke monster assuming the (dead) MIB's form? This is a television show. . . with carefully chosen dialog in order to convey meaning under tight time constraints. So dialog is used as economically as possible. In other words. . . people say things for a reason. . . Jacob asked if the light would kill him. His mother said outright "no," but it would make him "worse" than dead. And judging by the effect it had as soon as the MIB fell into it, that would seem to have been borne out. Ergo, the light did not kill the MIB. So the MIB didn't simply die and his form is not just being "used" by the smoke monster. The smoke monster is the MIB transformed into his pure essence. . . distilled malevolence (as Jacob put it a few episodes ago). So, unless you're saying that Jacob killed the MIB only in the most clinical terms (heart stopped beating). . . it's pretty clear that the MIB is still on the island, can assume a corporal form, and is able to interact directly with the world and other people. . . ie, he's still alive.

Okay, first. . . Sayid didn't get into the sub knowing that Locke wasn't going to make it. So he didn't have the choice to "stay with him like Claire" since Locke only got, er, locked out of the sub when the last person at the hatch, Sawyer, saw him coming and sealed the hatch before Locke could board. Second, it's strange the way people equate not doing evil as a positive good. Sayid's decision not to commit cold-blooded murder (of Desmond) isn't a "good" act. . . it's just not being downright evil. For his decision to demonstrate him to be "coming around" or redeeming himself, he'd have to have made it in the face of known, undesirable consequences. Such as having Locke standing there with him and telling him the "deal" (for the return of Nadia) would be off if he didn't do it. Deciding that he might be able to get away with not murdering Desmond and just lying to Locke about it shows only that he won't murder his friends if it's not clearly necessary. Also, nobody seems to consider: He did leave Desmond there. What exactly did he expect would happen to Desmond? Had the sub not blown up, how exactly was Sayid expecting to get word back that there was a dude trapped in a well that might need a ladder? Why didn't he let Desmond out of the well if he was "coming around" and wasn't still willing to serve Locke/MIB? Even as a pretty evil m-fer, he may not have been willing to pull the trigger himself if he didn't believe it necessary, or would avoid it if he could. But if he was actually "coming around," you'd think he'd have also freed Desmond in addition to, ya know, not shooting him in the skull. As with saving his friends, and telling them where Desmond was. . . he only did so when he realized he was about to die, that Nadia was not going to be returned to him, and that he had nothing left to lose. It may have been his attempt at redemption in the last moment. And the results may have well been beneficial to some of his friends. But there is no getting around the fact that he played bomb boy only when he was certain not to get what he wanted by being an a-hole any further. And, in fact, he may have tried to save his friends only to spite Locke/MIB who had by now clearly betrayed him. And finally, saying that Sayid never should have believed that Nadia being returned to him was possible. . . why? Because it's unrealistic? The guy turns into a farting pillar of smoke. And, as Sayid said, he (Sayid) had been resurrected himself. At this point, given what Sayid has already seen and experienced, he had no reason to doubt that such a thing was possible. For f's sake, can we stop talking about plausibility where Lost is concerned? Sayid was one of my favorite characters. He's been handled poorly this season. First, he's a good guy struggling with demons. Then he's a zombie whom we're told is now fully evil (or headed that way). Then, he has a conversation with Desmond, decides not to murder a friend, carries a bomb to the other end of a submarine when he realizes he's going to die anyways. . . and we're supposed to consider that a good arc for the character? I'm not about to get all bent out of shape about it since other things (everything) in life is more important than how a fictional character met his end. . . but you guys are giving the writers way too much benefit of the doubt and/or credit here. That character arc was disappointing and ultimately trivializes what was once one of Lost's most compelling characters.

But, he didn't do that. He just asked him what he'd tell her should he actually get her back. How would he explain his actions? In other words, would he be worthy of actually having her and of her love for him? In other words, he awakened his conscience. The problem, however, is aside from not murdering Desmond (someone he's come to know) in cold blood, and lying to Locke (only to cover his ass), we didn't see Sayid do anything truly redemptive before he had nothing to lose by being a good guy again.

Not being willing to kill someone he's known for a while in cold blood doesn't exactly equal full redemption does it? I'm not sure I see that as "coming around". . . especially the lying to Locke part. So now, bad people can't lie? If you just disobeyed the smoke monster, and you fear him, you're now a good guy for covering your ass and lying about it? Again, his "redemption" (as some apparently want to see it) would have been more compelling if he had rejected his promised reward. . . rather than realizing he was never going to get it anyways, so he might as well stop being a dick for his last 5 seconds of life.

Sayid went out like that only after he realized that Locke had betrayed him and that he wasn't going to magically get his dead love of his life back. So, I'm not sure there was any redemption there or that Desmond had anything to do with it. He figured he might as well make the best of a bad situation. Noble, in the end, but hardly redemptive considering he was going to die anyways and only told Jack what he did and ran off with the bomb after he realized he wasn't going to get his reward. Don't feel too bad about Sun and Jin. Remember, there's the other timeline. My own personal theory is that somehow those on the island are going to trigger something that essentially transports their consciousnesses from their bodies on the island timeline into their bodies into the "island was nuked" timeline. At which point, the folks on the non-island timeline will essentially be those from the island. . . and there'll be some grand coming together where Sawyer (as a cop) helps his old pal Sayid, and Kate, get out of prison, Jack helps Locke walk, etc. . . It'll be the great big "happy ending". . . everyone is alive again and yet they're the people we grew to know on the island since their consciousness from those events is now in their bodies back in civilization. Been telling my brother this would be how it will all end up for a couple weeks now. He was skeptical. But now even he realizes that it's starting to fit. Think about it, nearly everyone's circumstances on the mainland have worked out well in the alternate timeline. And everyone whose circumstances are bad are "under the power" of one of their friends from the island. Once the "switch" is thrown and they recognize each other as dear friends from the island, we have all the ingredients in place for a nice, neat happy ending, with a baking time of about 60 minutes.

They pronounce it like the sport lacrosse. Just replace the L with an M. An abbreviated first syllable and emphasis on the latter one.

I got the impression that the "boys" that keep appearing to Locke/MIB are the same boy, at different ages. And for some reason, I figured they were Jacob somehow. There seems to be some resemblance.

Though, caveats about Jacob's nature aside, I have to say: People taking what the (apparent) villain says as gospel does indeed remind me of all the people who started calling the Jedi evil because the Emperor said so many bad things about them. When the villain of a piece of fiction is explicitly spelled out to be dishonest and manipulative, and yet you still accept what he says, visit various internet discussion forums, and make contrarian arguments based on that character's assertions. . . well, that's sort odd.

I don't think he's looking to ditch his responsibility and foist it on someone else. Rather, I think Jacob realized that the MIB would eventually succeed in finding his "loophole" and achieving his explicitly stated goal of killing him (Jacob). So, he began searching for his successor in preparation for when (if?) that eventually indeed happened. Or, of course, this is all an elaborate demonstration being orchestrated by Jacob for the benefit of the MIB as a means of finally settling their argument over the nature of humanity. In that case, Jacob being killed is actually all part of Jacob's plan. I've personally always gotten that sense.

Meh, by now the writers have made it abundantly clear that we're not supposed to give two craps about the other passengers. Or the others themselves actually. Considering by a Widmore fire mission. P.S. I'm kidding. You make a good point that Jacob seems to consider people pretty expendable.

That only goes so far. If I hijack a ship and take it to Lebanon. And then I release the passengers. . . and one of them gets hit by a drunk driver while walking the streets in Lebanon, can I really be held responsible for what the drunk driver did to that person? You might think so. . . since I was responsible for placing that person in Lebanon where he was killed. But the law generally doesn't see it that way. It would be the drunk driver's fault. For being a drunk driving a-hole.

If you know there's an afterlife. . . and seem to have some connection with it, is killing people really all that bad of a thing anymore? To Jacob, I mean? And, assuming the MIB has the same knowledge, this might also mitigate how we perceive his actions as well.

I tend to agree. I think by the end we'll have a different understanding of the MIB's nature. But only for two reasons: 1. Hollywood writers are generally a bunch of post-modernist commie pussies who don't believe in "good" or "bad". . . "hero" or "villain". . . well, they do so long as it gets you to tune in. But then once they have you, they like to then start introducing all their hippie crap. 2. Having the villain turn out to be a good guy (and vice-versa) is the patented, cheap uber-plot twist that gets morons clapping their hands with glee. Though, it's so cliched by now that I'm hoping it'll be avoided in this case.

EXO's reply aside (he seems to get it). . . for the life of me I can't figure out how this verifies/confirms anything. If the MIB can assume the shape of someone who is deceased. . . why can't someone else? Now think really, really hard. . . have we ever seen anyone else on the island that has powers/capabilities meeting or even surpassing those of the MIB? Also, last I checked, Richard didn't bring his dead wife's body with him to the island. Yet the MIB (?) took her form at least momentarily. The guy lies a lot, dude. And when someone who is known to be a liar takes time out to look you sternly in the eye and tell you something. . . and then has a flunky come up to you and conveniently repeat it to you a few minutes later. . . you best take that information with a grain of salt and wonder why it's so important to the liar that he make you believe this information.