Who/What was the Cause of the War between the Tower and Mallers

[Osiris]

This is a conversation pulled from the 28-1 discussion thread. It should really be on its own. We've gone on these tangents before, but somehow we never dedicated a thread to it and if we did, I'm too busy at work to actually search for it and I'll merge them later. But for the here and now....we pick up our conversation where it essentially began with Osiris' comment based off Ray's rant

-nikvoodoo



I don't care what Kalani's motivations were, he got what he deserved. He should have suffered for what he did, saving everyone by flying the helicopter into the rig coming at the tower was nobile, but he deserved to die. He's completely responsible for everyone that died in the tower since the Mallers showed up. Everyone's blood is on his and Bill's hands. Bill deserved to die as well, had their treachery been known before now I would have shot them both. Shoved them out the door and shot them in the back. In my mind, they neither can ever be forgiven for what they did. Kalani had the audacity to insult and belittle everyone, especially the main three, over how things were playing out in the tower. He even compared them to the place he came from and if I remember correctly, they were all dead and the Tower guys had the exact same thing happen to them and they all survived the encounter with only one death. They were MUCH less fortified than the place Kalani came from and still came out smelling like a rose. The only, ONLY, reason they fell and most were killed was because of Kalani and Bill. Screw them both, it's just a shame they weren't turned and the Tower residents didn't get to fill them full of holes. They killed almost 30 people because of paranoia and selfishness. I can't wait to hear the rest of this chapter!

You're still glossing over the fact that the first shot was fired by Burt. Keeping your head in the sand to the facts does NOT make your argument correct or valid. Bash Kalani all you like, he's the reason the remainder of the residents escaped to Ft. Whatsamacallit.

[nikvoodoo]

You're still glossing over the fact that the first shot was fired by Burt. Keeping your head in the sand to the facts does NOT make your argument correct or valid. Bash Kalani all you like, he's the reason the remainder of the residents escaped to Ft. Whatsamacallit.

And you still gloss over the fact that the first aggressive act in that exchange was Scratch pointing a gun in Lizzie's face. You can argue all you want about the theft or Burt shooting first. scratch is the one who set the tone for all future interactions between the tower and Mallers.

[Osiris]

And you still gloss over the fact that the first aggressive act in that exchange was Scratch pointing a gun in Lizzie's face. You can argue all you want about the theft or Burt shooting first. scratch is the one who set the tone for all future interactions between the tower and Mallers.

Negative. First aggressive act resides on the side of the Tower residents. You hide behind Scratch being aggressive in the exchange over the tanker truck, but the simple fact is the tanker truck was stolen from territory the Mallers had claimed as their own. Protect what is yours in crisis or lose it. It's a simple matter of someone defending their resources against looters, which is exactly what was transpiring in that episode. You're looking at the events with blinders. Take em off and see the bigger picture.

If the tanker truck hadn't been stolen from Maller territory things could have gone a LOT different. That's a fact you cannot argue. Doing so takes away the need for the 'heroes' to face the consequences of their actions--which has been a major theme from episode one. Without that piece of the puzzle the entire story falls apart and all the subterfuge and collusion is entirely meaningless. I've argued this point with you before and we go in circles. You refuse to see the story from any vantage point other than it being Tower-centric. I see it in a broader scope, enjoying it as a a conversation about people in struggle. Not people getting the short end of the stick.

Still. It doesn't make you right.

[Grognaurd]

Wow, you believe that?. A couple of hundred people left alive where there used to be 15 million a couple of days ago and your willing to kill over a truck? You also believe that the mallers can call dibs on the greater LA county?

Are you calling Burt for the first shot because he shot a mirror? That should have been their hint gtfo, because they are out classed.

Scratch is a psycopath and a sociopath before the Outbreak. She is a menace. Damn, man, she is worse than TOWTM. They both play with their victims before killing them. But, Paul has the decency to eat what he kills instead of inflicting pain just for fun.

[Osiris]

Wow, you believe that?. A couple of hundred people left alive where there used to be 15 million a couple of days ago and your willing to kill over a truck? You also believe that the mallers can call dibs on the greater LA county?

Are you calling Burt for the first shot because he shot a mirror? That should have been their hint gtfo, because they are out classed.

Scratch is a psycopath and a sociopath before the Outbreak. She is a menace. Damn, man, she is worse than TOWTM. They both play with their victims before killing them. But, Paul has the decency to eat what he kills instead of inflicting pain just for fun.

The sad truth here is you'd all be singing a VERY different tune if the Mallers had tried to steal something that the Tower had lay claim upon. In a time of crisis, when the majority of the city is dead, resources are up for grabs. It's just the way it is. First come, first serve. The Mallers had a need for those tankers--which we later learn was to blow the holy fuck out of the horde at the Arena--so taking one of them would be no different than Scratch sneaking into the tower and taking Shirley. If you can't see that simple, logical fact then there is no hope to continue the conversation on that point. Protect what is yours. What's yours is what keeps you alive. Simple survival. Did the Mallers lay claim to all of L.A.? No. It's obvious that they didn't. They claimed what they needed to survive. It's no different than Angel and the Badman looting Burt's store. Taking what they needed to survive. Burt just wasn't in a strong enough position to deny the assistance they could offer him or I can almost guarantee that he would have shot both of them for their crime.

I'm going to call out that entire mission as being the cause for the war. It's not Scratch's 'aggression' that caused it. No steal. No interaction until much later and who knows how that would have gone. This is super, super simple. If the Tower doesn't steal resources of another group, there is no confrontation between the two that leads to Burt pissing as high as he can on the nearest tree. If there is no pissing contest, Scratch doesn't come calling. Scratch doesn't come calling, Latch doesn't get shot. Latch doesn't get shot, Scratch doesn't lay fucking waste to the bastards that killed her only family.

Ignorance of those facts does not validate an argument based on the events.

As far as Scratch being worse than TOWTM, that's based on the bias that we experience through the way the story is told to us. It's perspective is slanted in favour of The Tower being the good guys and The Mallers being the bad guys. It's too subjective to say with certainty.

[nikvoodoo]

If they wanted to actually destroy the Arena, then Scratch obviously had other things in mind when she defied her orders and saved one tanker for the Tower. Not to mention they already lost some tankers in the attack by TOWTM but even still...she decided to save one to destroy the Tower. So despite the theft of one tanker by the Tower, Tardust still had enough to effectively destroy the Arena before they were attacked. He said so. So the theft was such a big deal that they couldn't eradicate the zombies.....except....they still could up until they were funneled into an ambush.

You can't expect an open fueling depot full of abandoned Tanker trucks to be claimed by one group or another. If they truly wanted to stake a claim to it, then guard it. 24/7. If this mission was so important, put your base there. Protect your most precious resource. Protect your weapons. At the end of society, yes the rules are gone because there's no one to enforce it but you. You're sticking to the fact that they staked an invisible claim to a material possession. It's the same concept of finding a new land and placing a flag on it. If you land 100 miles North of me, and I place a flag in the same land you claim for yourself how am I supposed to know? If you guard it, I know. If it's there for the taking, I'm taking it. You said so yourself: First come, first serve. Unless you are there to protect it, it's still first come first serve because you haven't made it clear it's yours.

And your comparison to the Tankers and Shirley is completely asinine. One is a vehicle in an abandoned depot. One is in the possession of someone at all times. Can you see how those things are different? There is no logical comparison between the two. One is ownerless. The other is most decidedly owned by someone. And you can try to claim the Mallers have ownership of the Tanker. But prove it to me before they took the tanker where the Tower members would know that. Was there a sign? A Sentry posted at the gate? The Tower members were obviously there for a while because they took so long filling the tank.....why weren't they caught by a security sweep?

If they laid claim to the Tankers, then they should be protecting them better than they did. If you want to talk about Blinders, you have on one of the biggest pair of them when it comes to anything Maller and especially Scratch related. And I am not one that labels her as a sociopath or psycho. I understand that every person in this story has motivations and does what they do for a reason and I'm glad you defend her and try to make others see the story from her point of view. But you defend her to a fault because you don't or refuse to see the obvious flaws in her personality that lead to aggressive behavior, vindictiveness, putting others around her at great personal risk for her own gain (See both Tower Attacks). I don't need to have her backstory to understand why she does what she does. The simple fact is: She Does. Its her personality that has caused the greatest conflict in this story.

Since you refuse to accept that Scratch's aggression is what lit the powder keg, I'll say the lack of security of their possessions allowed the theft that caused the war. And if you can't see that, then there's obviously no reason to continue to talk to you about this subject either.

[Eviebae]

Scratch is a psycopath and a sociopath before the Outbreak. She is a menace. Damn, man, she is worse than TOWTM. They both play with their victims before killing them. But, Paul has the decency to eat what he kills instead of inflicting pain just for fun.

I don't think it's that cut and dried. Sociopaths/psychopaths don't have empathy for others and just don't feel things very deeply at all. In the absence of emotions or empathy to guide their ethical behavior; they trick and attempt to manipulate in order to control their world. They also tend to be self aggrandizing--think Idi Amin, or The Gate Keeper (they love to enforce rules). It's like they are the only human in the equation, any one else is a prop in the the movie of their life.

Scratch had a very developed sense of loyalty to her brother. She risked her life to release him from jail. She's in a precarious position between inmate-people who are scary and zombies who are scarier. Her reaction to the "liberating" of the tanker seems way more reasonable if you consider she expected the punishment for losing it was death. If not her's, then someone's.

[Osiris]

If they wanted to actually destroy the Arena, then Scratch obviously had other things in mind when she defied her orders and saved one tanker for the Tower. Not to mention they already lost some tankers in the attack by TOWTM but even still...she decided to save one to destroy the Tower. So despite the theft of one tanker by the Tower, Tardust still had enough to effectively destroy the Arena before they were attacked. He said so. So the theft was such a big deal that they couldn't eradicate the zombies.....except....they still could up until they were funneled into an ambush.

The tanker was saved to destroy the tower AFTER the conflict had risen between the two parties. So that argument flies out the window. You're basing it on Scratch going out of her way to save a tanker to attack a group she didn't know existed. Clearly that plan was made after the incident and would not have occurred otherwise. The fact that she decided to go out of her way to attack the tower with it... well... hey man, I didn't shoot her brother. Argument: Invalid.


You can't expect an open fueling depot full of abandoned Tanker trucks to be claimed by one group or another. If they truly wanted to stake a claim to it, then guard it. 24/7. If this mission was so important, put your base there. Protect your most precious resource. Protect your weapons. At the end of society, yes the rules are gone because there's no one to enforce it but you. You're sticking to the fact that they staked an invisible claim to a material possession. It's the same concept of finding a new land and placing a flag on it. If you land 100 miles North of me, and I place a flag in the same land you claim for yourself how am I supposed to know? If you guard it, I know. If it's there for the taking, I'm taking it. You said so yourself: First come, first serve. Unless you are there to protect it, it's still first come first serve because you haven't made it clear it's yours.

Yes, the first thing I do after society falls is to put up a big old flag that says "I need these, please don't touch." This argument is based on ignorance of territory. Run that tactic with Russian border patrol and let me know how the Gulag was. Argument: Invalid.


And your comparison to the Tankers and Shirley is completely asinine. One is a vehicle in an abandoned depot. One is in the possession of someone at all times. Can you see how those things are different? There is no logical comparison between the two. One is ownerless. The other is most decidedly owned by someone. And you can try to claim the Mallers have ownership of the Tanker. But prove it to me before they took the tanker where the Tower members would know that. Was there a sign? A Sentry posted at the gate? The Tower members were obviously there for a while because they took so long filling the tank.....why weren't they caught by a security sweep?

Arguing that the tanker is akin to Shirley is not at all asinine. One is NOT 'ownerless' when you consider that it is in territory staked out by one party. Both are weapons--as the tankers were intended as bombs to attack the Arena. Again, ask Russia and let me know. Ignorance of borders is ignorance. Plain and simple. If you want to ignore that, fine. You can argue that there was no signage reading MALLERS TURF but the fact is Scratch and Latch knew about the tankers, followed the thieves and confronted them. You can say that isn't a 'security sweep', but show me definitive proof that Latch and Scratch were merely out for a joyride and simply happened upon the group stealing property their chief had already earmarked for use. Argument: Invalid.


If they laid claim to the Tankers, then they should be protecting them better than they did. If you want to talk about Blinders, you have on one of the biggest pair of them when it comes to anything Maller and especially Scratch related. And I am not one that labels her as a sociopath or psycho. I understand that every person in this story has motivations and does what they do for a reason and I'm glad you defend her and try to make others see the story from her point of view. But you defend her to a fault because you don't or refuse to see the obvious flaws in her personality that lead to aggressive behavior, vindictiveness, putting others around her at great personal risk for her own gain (See both Tower Attacks). I don't need to have her backstory to understand why she does what she does. The simple fact is: She Does. Its her personality that has caused the greatest conflict in this story.

Again this argument is based on clear definition of borders and how one group chooses to protect what they have claimed as theirs. I just told you why that argument doesn't hold water. As for 'my' blinders with regard to Scratch? Fair enough. I am a fan of the character and I make no claim otherwise. You can bring up the other tower attack, but considering it was overrun and NOT attacked by The Mallers, that argument doesn't hold water either. You can argue that there was intent to attack it, but we'll never know for sure what would have happened there. So that argument flies out the window as well. As far as Scratch causing the greatest conflict in the story, that's about as true as saying Lizzy is completely innocent of causing mayhem. Now, I'm not saying that Lizzy is just as crazy as Scratch, I'm just saying you're only throwing rocks at a mountain. I'm not saying she's an angel, so don't think I'm defending her to a fault. She absolutely has issues, and I'm not at all disregarding that. I'm just saying that the situation would not have escalated or in fact happened at all had the tanker not been stolen and Burt not tried to play Alpha male. Those decisions, those two actions are the direct cause of the animosity between the two factions.


Since you refuse to accept that Scratch's aggression is what lit the powder keg, I'll say the lack of security of their possessions allowed the theft that caused the war. And if you can't see that, then there's obviously no reason to continue to talk to you about this subject either.

And you're staunch refusal to that the Tower residents are as much to blame for what befell them is reason enough for you to stop being engaged in the argument. I admit that Scratch has problems, likes to be a little vicious and is very, very dangerous. Product of environment, man. Did she react a little harsh during the first encounter? No. They were out numbered and trying to reclaim what was theirs. In a land without order, security and little to no chance of help on the horizon? I would have pulled my piece as well. Was it necessary for Burt to engage in a pissing contest with someone--by your accounts--they obviously should have known was unbalanced? No. No that was about the stupidest thing he could have done, and the price they paid was utter destruction.

[Osiris]

As immensely enjoyable as this discussion is... I think we have strayed from the topic a little far. Though it is fun as fuck.

[Osiris]

Man, so bummed I couldn't post prior to the episode on Monday. I got a little bored over the weekend and listened to some older episodes after reading something in one of the theory threads. That it had to of been more than one person, more than just Kalani. He had told Angel to grab the journal from BILL'S desk and it all hit me. He must have been working with Bill! Although as the episode proves it was more by accident and wasn't a trusting partnership at all.

Anywho! Great episode! Great because I was right! Pssh... grey area to being a rat. There's no accidents there, you either make the decision or your don't. But that's enough of that, kind of glad it's finally tied off and we can move on! :)

Osiris man! You're crazy! Lol! I think regardless of the Tower snagging one of their tankers the Mallers would have pursued them in some violent way once they noticed other people. They were going bonkers trying to access CJs tower for no other reason that I can figure, I'm sure they weren't being aggressive towards the Mallers. They pick up three plane crash survivors only to sabotage them for this insane need to get in to CJs Tower. They're a violent group of criminals, they'll stop at nothing to make sure they're on top, even it means squashing oter human lives... well then, they're going to cross some lines with no reason or rhyme.

And the whole Datu thing... Let me give you an example of how much the rest of the world doesn't exist in a car with loud music. I used to drive to and from California at least once a month, one time while heading back to Arizona I had my music blasted as usual. Due to living in a small world, a co-worker of mine was heading back from California the exact SAME time and spotted me on the highway (darn those bright orange decals). I guess at some point she pulled up next to me and honked... and honked... and laid on her horn. She even had her kids waving their hands. I didn't even notice.

At work the next day she told me and I was AMAZED that I didn't realize. So! I think it's pretty cut and dry there, Datu didn't notice. He jammed out, waiting on Kalani to let Micheal know they were leaving, of course Micheal can back that up... because Kalani told him they were leaving. Seeing as how Datu didn't realize the alarm and Micheal assuming the Kalani hoofed it to the vehicle pronto and leaving before anything happened... it just made sense to believe the entire scam. I highly doubt our sweet, doofy Datu is some sort of double agent. Lol!

That's basing everything on the assumption that the Mallers just wanted to watch the world burn (damn you, Alfred). We really have zero idea what CJ or any of the other members of that group did to the Mallers. It's not out of the realm of possibility that the Mallers simply needed to assess a potentially dangerous threat near enough to them to become a concern. Or maybe, JUST maybe, Durai really does want to pull a Joker and cause nothing but chaos. That only fits if you remove their plan to destroy TOWTM and the rest of the zombies at the Arena. But we can't do that, because it happened. To say they were going bonkers to get in? Do we have definitive proof that they were stopping at nothing to do so? No, we don't. However, that doesn't make it untrue. It just leaves it as an unanswered question that will have to remain a subjective point. If you're Pro-Tower? Yeah, those psychos wanted in bad. If you're Pro-Maller? No man, they just wanted to know who was near their hood. If you're trying to remain objective? We really can't say for certain as the opportunity for either side to act never came to pass. We're then left to speculate the reasons and intentions of a group we only experience through second hand information and sketchy recollections. You know... hearsay.

As for Datu in the car... well I mean, during this event on the freeway, were you in the midst of a zombie apocalypse? No? I totally get what you're saying though. Yeah, I can understand someone gapping out behind the wheel and cruising on auto-pilot. But I can't believe that someone could relax to the point of being totally oblivious in a situation as fraught with immediate physical danger at any moment as that. Not to say that hurtling down the road at 120 k/hr isn't packed with its own inherent set of dangers. I'm just saying in this world of second chances due to the miracle of modern medicine... well, Datu and company are not afforded that luxury. You get bit, you get dead. There's no real second chances there. You would assume--one would hope--that a modicum of mental alertness would be present and at the forefront of everyone's mind.

All the same, I like the direction you went.

[VidjaGamez]

That's basing everything on the assumption that the Mallers just wanted to watch the world burn (damn you, Alfred). We really have zero idea what CJ or any of the other members of that group did to the Mallers. It's not out of the realm of possibility that the Mallers simply needed to assess a potentially dangerous threat near enough to them to become a concern. Or maybe, JUST maybe, Durai really does want to pull a Joker and cause nothing but chaos. That only fits if you remove their plan to destroy TOWTM and the rest of the zombies at the Arena. But we can't do that, because it happened. To say they were going bonkers to get in? Do we have definitive proof that they were stopping at nothing to do so? No, we don't. However, that doesn't make it untrue. It just leaves it as an unanswered question that will have to remain a subjective point. If you're Pro-Tower? Yeah, those psychos wanted in bad. If you're Pro-Maller? No man, they just wanted to know who was near their hood. If you're trying to remain objective? We really can't say for certain as the opportunity for either side to act never came to pass. We're then left to speculate the reasons and intentions of a group we only experience through second hand information and sketchy recollections. You know... hearsay.

As for Datu in the car... well I mean, during this event on the freeway, were you in the midst of a zombie apocalypse? No? I totally get what you're saying though. Yeah, I can understand someone gapping out behind the wheel and cruising on auto-pilot. But I can't believe that someone could relax to the point of being totally oblivious in a situation as fraught with immediate physical danger at any moment as that. Not to say that hurtling down the road at 120 k/hr isn't packed with its own inherent set of dangers. I'm just saying in this world of second chances due to the miracle of modern medicine... well, Datu and company are not afforded that luxury. You get bit, you get dead. There's no real second chances there. You would assume--one would hope--that a modicum of mental alertness would be present and at the forefront of everyone's mind.

All the same, I like the direction you went.


I wouldn't say the Mallers were hell bent on watching the world burn... more so, hell bent on making sure to take out the competition at any cost. They've been locked up for reasons they may have felt were justified, the man was keeping them down, now it's their time to shine, their chance to make the rules. But, the thought of the Mallers causing chaos for no reason, now that would be entertaining, if only!
Don't get me wrong though, I love to hate on Scratch, she's a great character. Never want to see the end of Scratch. But Scracth and Durai were desperate for that address from Kalani. I could be wrong and maybe they just wanted to know so they could make a mark on the map... But I feel their intentions or more survival of the fittest. They want to make sure others around them are in check, if they don't yield, well, you can suffer the fury of the Mallers!

Let me throw another example out there, I left work at 8 the other night, I was the only one there and my car was stupidly parked out in the middle of the lot. The second I left the door I was watching every direction, paranoid out of my mind. I jumped in my car, locked the doors and relaxed, whew! But I'm not safe, at any point if someone really wanted to get a hold of me they could have busted open the window. I wasn't safe, but I relaxed regardless.
You can't be paranoid at all times, you'll drive yourself crazy! I think it's safe to say that Datu felt safe, he trusted in the building, the security measures and the people around him. And like I mentioned before, he's just so gosh darn doofy at times, I honestly believe he just didn't realize.

Some people are just like that, they trust to a fault. Some people let their guard down far more easily then others. I think Datu is this type of person, Kalani was lucky to have the opportunity. If it had been anyone else in that car... Burt, Micheal, Angel... You bet they would have noticed what was going on right from the get go.

[Osiris]

I wouldn't say the Mallers were hell bent on watching the world burn... more so, hell bent on making sure to take out the competition at any cost. They've been locked up for reasons they may have felt were justified, the man was keeping them down, now it's their time to shine, their chance to make the rules. But, the thought of the Mallers causing chaos for no reason, now that would be entertaining, if only!
Don't get me wrong though, I love to hate on Scratch, she's a great character. Never want to see the end of Scratch. But Scracth and Durai were desperate for that address from Kalani. I could be wrong and maybe they just wanted to know so they could make a mark on the map... But I feel their intentions or more survival of the fittest. They want to make sure others around them are in check, if they don't yield, well, you can suffer the fury of the Mallers!

Let me throw another example out there, I left work at 8 the other night, I was the only one there and my car was stupidly parked out in the middle of the lot. The second I left the door I was watching every direction, paranoid out of my mind. I jumped in my car, locked the doors and relaxed, whew! But I'm not safe, at any point if someone really wanted to get a hold of me they could have busted open the window. I wasn't safe, but I relaxed regardless.
You can't be paranoid at all times, you'll drive yourself crazy! I think it's safe to say that Datu felt safe, he trusted in the building, the security measures and the people around him. And like I mentioned before, he's just so gosh darn doofy at times, I honestly believe he just didn't realize.

Some people are just like that, they trust to a fault. Some people let their guard down far more easily then others. I think Datu is this type of person, Kalani was lucky to have the opportunity. If it had been anyone else in that car... Burt, Micheal, Angel... You bet they would have noticed what was going on right from the get go.

Again, there is the safety net of having the amenities of the world around us that breeds that sort of complacency. I understand what you're saying, but my point is we're trying to instill rational behaviour traits into an irrational scenario in a world that is far more dangerous than the one we live in. Would you be as complacent with your actions in an environment less forgiving? Space for example. Doubtful.

Product of the environment. Datu either grew lax due to false sense of security--given all that had happened to that point, it's doubtful--or had prior knowledge. Perhaps, it isn't the least hole filled theory that could be presented. I just can't forgive being that irresponsible to the collective thereby allowing harm to come to the people you're supposed to be keeping safe. Make no mistake, in a situation like that it's everyone's responsibility to be vigilant and aware of what is going on around them. Nobody says you have to be paranoid, merely paying attention to what's happening around you. There is a difference.

[Grognaurd]

Nah, she is still psychotic. The only one she has shown of soft side for is her brother. Just about every time she interacts with a person it is physically violent.

She cuts up Charlie. That was just for fun, it was not a clean kill

She beat the shit out of Pippin.

To disciplin tar, she cuts him

She picks up Kalani etal. She immediately breaks a family unit. She gets Kalani to the other tower just as a sleeper agent. Kalani has no direction or objective.

OPINION
I do not think Duri wanted a shooting at the tower. That is all scratch. She has Kalani fire to ensure it goes south.

Duri may want the the tower. But, shit, it is not like that is the only tower in LA. Hell the other tower is pretty available. Her orders are to take the tower intact. But she starts lobbing pipe bombs and molotovs. Even when she is told not to do so by someone, she says that was somebody elses dream not mine.

She sends Puck on a kamakazi mission even though Puck is unaware that his is a one way ticket.

I do notbthink the second strike on the tower is all her, not Durai a person I believe she is planning to kill so she can have full control

This is LA. I am damn sure that there are more than 10 tankers. But instead of taking a day or two to find a few more, She leverages it for hate. At the end of season 2 they are light on tankers to blow the arena. But, she holds one in reserve for her own plans.


No, she is just whacked much much more than just having a few off days.

[reaper239]

osiris, you said earlier that we'd be singing a different tune if the mallers had stolen from the tower, and you're right, but that's because the tower had clearly defined boundaries. the tower residents took an interest in what happened in their surroundings, but they only laid a solid claim on what was in their tower. they didn't arbitrarily lay claim to half of LA. the mallers just picked an area and said "mine" without any way of notifying anyone else and without caring. if scratch had approached them rationally and not with aggression things could've been different, but she didn't. that's on her. it's the same as if i'm going through the desert and i come upon an oasis, so i take a drink. there's nothing posted saying that it belongs to you so i figure it's just an oasis on the middle of the desert. as i'm leaving you come up and try to crush my skull with a club, so i respond with counterveiling force. you say "you stole my water" at which point i'm very inclined to tell you to fuck off because you attacked me without warning or provocation. i wasn't acting aggressive, i saw something that i needed that wasn't secured against outsiders and hd nothing saying that someone owned it, so i took some and you come up and attack me. who's at fault there?

[loydmilligan]

Osiris, i am pretty sure you are just being contrary. Clearly it is possible Scratch and gang are not behaving badly, but most of the evidence points the other way. scratch killed an innocent man to cover up the losing of the tanker. The Mallers have slaves. Scratch is almost always aggresive and argumentative.

I mean, you could make the case that the emperor in Star Wars was just trying to provide a ton of jobs for all the storm troopers...

Yeah its possible scratch is just misunderstood and she is really a great person, but after hearing the story if you think that I do not know what to tell you. What could Scratch do to make you change your opinion of her?

[Osiris]

osiris, you said earlier that we'd be singing a different tune if the mallers had stolen from the tower, and you're right, but that's because the tower had clearly defined boundaries. the tower residents took an interest in what happened in their surroundings, but they only laid a solid claim on what was in their tower. they didn't arbitrarily lay claim to half of LA. the mallers just picked an area and said "mine" without any way of notifying anyone else and without caring. if scratch had approached them rationally and not with aggression things could've been different, but she didn't. that's on her. it's the same as if i'm going through the desert and i come upon an oasis, so i take a drink. there's nothing posted saying that it belongs to you so i figure it's just an oasis on the middle of the desert. as i'm leaving you come up and try to crush my skull with a club, so i respond with counterveiling force. you say "you stole my water" at which point i'm very inclined to tell you to fuck off because you attacked me without warning or provocation. i wasn't acting aggressive, i saw something that i needed that wasn't secured against outsiders and hd nothing saying that someone owned it, so i took some and you come up and attack me. who's at fault there?

Again, ignorance of property line is no excuse. Nobody said they laid claim to 'half of L.A.' but the fact is, if they wanted it and they believed they had the power to hold it then why the hell not? I can walk along sections of the Canadian/U.S. border and not see a line painted on the ground or even signage for MILES. I know. I've done it. The fact that there isn't a clearly visible dividing line on the ground or in the air does NOT excuse me from wandering across. If you're going to argue that point as valid then we have to throw everything we know out the window.

[Osiris]

Osiris, i am pretty sure you are just being contrary. Clearly it is possible Scratch and gang are not behaving badly, but most of the evidence points the other way. scratch killed an innocent man to cover up the losing of the tanker. The Mallers have slaves. Scratch is almost always aggresive and argumentative.

I mean, you could make the case that the emperor in Star Wars was just trying to provide a ton of jobs for all the storm troopers...

Yeah its possible scratch is just misunderstood and she is really a great person, but after hearing the story if you think that I do not know what to tell you. What could Scratch do to make you change your opinion of her?

You'd think that I was just being contrary... but you'd be very wrong. I believe everything I say. Like I said before, Scratch is the product of her environment. No different than Angel or Saul. Just different environment, that's all. As for what she could do to change my opinion of her? I don't know. Hadn't really thought about it.

[reaper239]

Again, ignorance of property line is no excuse. Nobody said they laid claim to 'half of L.A.' but the fact is, if they wanted it and they believed they had the power to hold it then why the hell not? I can walk along sections of the Canadian/U.S. border and not see a line painted on the ground or even signage for MILES. I know. I've done it. The fact that there isn't a clearly visible dividing line on the ground or in the air does NOT excuse me from wandering across. If you're going to argue that point as valid then we have to throw everything we know out the window.

but you've made the argument yourself that the same rules that apply today, would not necesarrily apply in this situation, therefore your own argument is invalid. true, in todays environment ignorance of property is no excuse, but when everything is up for grabs because everyone else is dead, it seems kind of silly to say "i am ruler of all i survey, hey don't touch that thing... waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy over there, it's mine. because i said so, that's why." if you lay claim on something that is no longer owned by anyone else, you move it to where you can maintain positive control over it, like the tower residents did, or else don't complain when someone comes along while you're not there and says, "hey, i need one of those." and takes it. of course, if that does happen, the way to handle it is probably not to go and approach them like some rabid ape.

i just thought of something else: property lines are agreed upon societal contrsucts. in other words, if i buy a plot of land, society has agreed that that is my land and that is where my property lines fall. you can't just arbitrarily say, "this is my property, and that is my property, and so is that over there, and all that in that direction too." and expect people to know or honor that, once society has broken down. realistically, the only property lines that matter with the dissoloution of society as we know it, are the ones you can enforce. clearly they were claiming beyond their reach and they should have moved their property where they could effectively lay claim.

[nikvoodoo]

Everyone has a charged opinion right about now....let's put it all here instead of all over the place!

[loydmilligan]

You'd think that I was just being contrary... but you'd be very wrong. I believe everything I say. Like I said before, Scratch is the product of her environment. No different than Angel or Saul. Just different environment, that's all. As for what she could do to change my opinion of her? I don't know. Hadn't really thought about it.

I guess your main point is that the war is not Scratch's fault. What if it turns out, as I think it will, that she had Kalani fire on her own people to incite the war...will that be enough for you to blame it on her?

[Eviebae]

Simply put, it's all context. In psychology, it's called the Fundamental Attribution Error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimology#Fundamental_attribution_error). Basically, we see our actions as being the result of situations we are in; but explain the actions of others as being the result of who or what they are. We take something because it's for our people and they need it. They take something because they are a bunch of thugs. Like stocking up on things before the hoarders get 'em.

[Adventureless_Hero]

This is an interesting topic and everyone has a very charged opinion because the situation relates to one we find in politics. The blame game and finger pointing never seems to have an end result...

[Eviebae]

This shit about arguing over should they have taken the tanker or not is pointless. The theft of the tanker wasn't the motive behind the war; the occupation of the tower was.

Very true.
Durai seems all about taking the buildings and defenses of others. Can't build his own, why? Guess ex prisoners with impulse control and slaves don't make the best labor force.

BTW if you found out that Charlie was a pedophile rapist/murderer could you understand why she was okay with throwing him under the bus?

[Adventureless_Hero]

if you found out that Charlie was a pedophile rapist/murderer could you understand why she was okay with throwing him under the bus?

Yeah, that wouldn't surprise me at all. Hell, if he was a pedophile I'd throw him under a bus full of sumo wrestlers! But even if he was the Pope, I still think Scratch wouldn't have cared. Charlie got on her nerves when he radioed her and he was the one supposed to be guarding the tankers that night (the night after Saul's Prius incident) so it was easy to place the blame on him. They forced a confession from him that they knew those in earshot could hear thus clearing herself and her brother of any blame for the missing tanker.

As for the tanker Puck was driving in Chapter 24, Scratch may have intentionally saved one from the assault on the Arena, but it is much more likely that after attacking the Arena, they went back to the site of the ambush and picked up one of their previously lost tankers.

One way the war could have been avoided; let the Mallers over run your tower and be a major kiss ass in the hopes they don't kill you, be their slave, or rebel and likely get killed.

[reaper239]

yeah, i can agree to that. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
but what about scratch's wrap sheet? we know her brother went to jail for her, so what did she do? was she just as bad or worse than charlie? so, maybe she had a bad...

[nikvoodoo]

Throwing back to what you (Osiris) were saying about Russia and the Gulags: The reason borders exist is because a country and government is there to define it. When those go away, so do the rules that governed them. If I willingly cross a border illegally, I should expect punishment. If I cross a border that is never defined by a group I don't know exists: sorry. Can't be blamed for that.

And just to clarify: By both Tower attacks I mean the War in chapter 12 and the assault in chapter 24. I'm not talking about CJ's tower.

[Grognaurd]

AH. I do not think they went back. I will have to go back to the tanker talk. Tar says not enough, but when he cites the numbers they do not add up. Instead of retaking the one she has designated for the tower, she keeps it. She screws the pooch on that one. Tar tells it is not enough. She fails to destroy The Arena completely and let's our buddy TOWTM to be able to get away. All for revenge.

Latch and Scratch would have served the mallers much better if they reconned a few more towers rather than trying on fancy clothes. The outbreak was in very early May. The war is July. That is two months where they could improve their own situation rather than blowing smoke up each others ass talking about how can we kill the few others left in LA that are not "us"

What Scratch displays is classic bully behavior. It is all about breaking the spirit of others to establish dominance. She holds Kalani's daughter hostage virtually at gunpoint so Kalani can spy. She see something near her place and she has the guards throw down kill over a tanker truck even though the other party offered to barter. That fuel depot is nit the only place that has tankers. Shit, they took a Fire Truck that was full of water.

One tanker is not worth a life.

Scratch needs some decaf and a few consecutive nights of multiple big Os.

She is nuts.

The outbreak occurred two months before the war

She cuts up Charlie for fun

There are many tankers available

But most of all she exhibited this behavior before the outbreak.

[Eviebae]

and a few consecutive nights of multiple big Os.


Really?

Too far man, too far.

[Eviebae]

Saul, CJ and Victor is a milder example of the same dynamic. Everybody needed to calm down and stop throwing names and labels around.

Doesn't the real problem come when you understand why they do what they do, see them as people etc, but they can't/won't do the same for you. I think it all comes down to being the one to decide how you will react given that, not leaving it up to them to "ask" for a certain behavior given the worst outcome. Where's the balance between surviving no matter what; or dying according to principles that the other side may find laughable.

[Osiris]

but you've made the argument yourself that the same rules that apply today, would not necesarrily apply in this situation, therefore your own argument is invalid. true, in todays environment ignorance of property is no excuse, but when everything is up for grabs because everyone else is dead, it seems kind of silly to say "i am ruler of all i survey, hey don't touch that thing... waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy over there, it's mine. because i said so, that's why." if you lay claim on something that is no longer owned by anyone else, you move it to where you can maintain positive control over it, like the tower residents did, or else don't complain when someone comes along while you're not there and says, "hey, i need one of those." and takes it. of course, if that does happen, the way to handle it is probably not to go and approach them like some rabid ape.

i just thought of something else: property lines are agreed upon societal contrsucts. in other words, if i buy a plot of land, society has agreed that that is my land and that is where my property lines fall. you can't just arbitrarily say, "this is my property, and that is my property, and so is that over there, and all that in that direction too." and expect people to know or honor that, once society has broken down. realistically, the only property lines that matter with the dissoloution of society as we know it, are the ones you can enforce. clearly they were claiming beyond their reach and they should have moved their property where they could effectively lay claim.

So... what you're saying the history of civilization is meaningless in the context of this argument. I believe European historians would disagree with your theory about how land is claimed. If you've claimed land, that which rests upon the land is yours. Conquering civilizations have done it since... when? The dawn of man. From forests to oil. This isn't a new concept and it is one that has been proven again and again throughout the history of the world. Your argument has no strength. The simple fact that there are no municipalities governing the division of land and resources means it is up to the people within the communities to protect what they have claimed.

It's really no different than... say... the gold rush. You live in the middle of buttfuck nowhere, leave your home and head into the hills to work a plot of land or section of river. The only difference is--as I've said before--lack of an official government sanctioned title or deed. So you're out in the middle of nowhere, working away just happy as a clam and you return home, cash in and head back for more. When you get there you find someone jacking your goods. You pull your gun and protect what is yours. Since there is no way of obtaining a title or deed in this particular situation. So it comes down to my stick is bigger, therefore I make the rules. That rule is: All this shit over here is mine. All that shit over there is yours. Try and take it and I'll beat you to death with my stick.

Again, I'll bring up a remote section of wilderness that has no clearly defined borders, as that suits the situation of lawlessness. You cross into a remote section of Siberia and start pillaging resources. A group of soldiers happen upon your group and tell you to drop what you've taken and hoof it. You refuse, arguing that since there was no sign up saying 'Welcome to Siberia, Please Don't Take Our Shit' that any resources on the land are fair game. This ends with you taking a trip to le Gulag where you toil until you die. Does this make your actions right or wrong?

There are aspects of society that you simply cannot rely upon to still function as you've always known them simply because that's how they've always been. Thinking like that will only end in you on the wrong end of a rifle.

[Osiris]

I guess your main point is that the war is not Scratch's fault. What if it turns out, as I think it will, that she had Kalani fire on her own people to incite the war...will that be enough for you to blame it on her?

I guess your main point in all of this is that the war only started because someone fired a shot during Durai's visit to the tower. It negates the actions that lead Durai to the tower in the first place. Therefore, the argument doesn't hold up.

[Osiris]

Simply put, it's all context. In psychology, it's called the Fundamental Attribution Error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimology#Fundamental_attribution_error). Basically, we see our actions as being the result of situations we are in; but explain the actions of others as being the result of who or what they are. We take something because it's for our people and they need it. They take something because they are a bunch of thugs. Like stocking up on things before the hoarders get 'em.

Considering it was fuel that was needed to attack the common enemy... it isn't hoarding. Had they left the tankers where they were and never used them in any capacity other than providing a source of power for their own people (which isn't hoarding either) then we could factor that into the equation. Since that simply isn't true...

[Osiris]

Throwing back to what you (Osiris) were saying about Russia and the Gulags: The reason borders exist is because a country and government is there to define it. When those go away, so do the rules that governed them. If I willingly cross a border illegally, I should expect punishment. If I cross a border that is never defined by a group I don't know exists: sorry. Can't be blamed for that.

And just to clarify: By both Tower attacks I mean the War in chapter 12 and the assault in chapter 24. I'm not talking about CJ's tower.

The point is that one group tried to take power through force. It's happened before all throughout history. There is no more government, no police, no law. We'll make the rules. They were acting as their own governing body and their own law enforcement (I wrote lawn ornament twice). Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's a point that cannot be argued. It doesn't matter if you even know what country you are in. Governing bodies make the rules. That is fact. The Mallers believed themselves to be the power in that region and as such became the governing body with in the borders they declared to be in place. That's all there is to it.

[Osiris]

In the end, none of it would have happened if Kalani hadn't flown into L.A. in the first place. Not saying he was the direct cause of the war but his presence was most certainly the catalyst which caused certain events to unfold.

[Grognaurd]

Gold Rush... You are wrong. There was some of what you describe but many many more respected "claims".

Let me say his again. Most likely there are more 100 tankers in 10 square miles. A life is worth more than a Tanker. I have no doubt that they could pick up a spare between early May and Late July. This drives my opinion that they are parasites on society. Burt etal had now way to know what they did would be considered stealing. Although dubious of the claim, they still try to broker a trade. Their actions show it is not about the tanker. It is bullying behavior.


Scratch is a Greek Tragedy. We may empathize with her. It is her choice to continue deeper into the abyss or she can choose to turn to good and start working her way out.

[yarri]

Gold Rush... You are wrong. There was some of what you describe but many many more respected "claims".

Let me say his again. Most likely there are more 100 tankers in 10 square miles. A life is worth more than a Tanker. I have no doubt that they could pick up a spare between early May and Late July. This drives my opinion that they are parasites on society. Burt etal had now way to know what they did would be considered stealing. Although dubious of the claim, they still try to broker a trade. Their actions show it is not about the tanker. It is bullying behavior.


Scratch is a Greek Tragedy. We may empathize with her. It is her choice to continue deeper into the abyss or she can choose to turn to good and start working her way out.


Might I also add to this that Scratch's actions could also be considered a need to be in control. From a medical/psychological standpoint, the bully was often bullied themselves and lack the emotional maturity and intelligence to see a different path other then bully. I'd really love to know more about her back story. I believe she is one of the most tragic characters.

[Osiris]

Gold Rush... You are wrong. There was some of what you describe but many many more respected "claims".

Let me say his again. Most likely there are more 100 tankers in 10 square miles. A life is worth more than a Tanker. I have no doubt that they could pick up a spare between early May and Late July. This drives my opinion that they are parasites on society. Burt etal had now way to know what they did would be considered stealing. Although dubious of the claim, they still try to broker a trade. Their actions show it is not about the tanker. It is bullying behavior.


Scratch is a Greek Tragedy. We may empathize with her. It is her choice to continue deeper into the abyss or she can choose to turn to good and start working her way out.

The analogy stands with regard to the context of the situation. Simply to say that '[many many more] respected claims' disregards the actions of every other group of survivors in the story. Not everyone is stealing each other's shit. It is also applied to the idea of an area of lawlessness and the point that in those situations, where law is not a simple phone call away, you need to defend what is yours from predators and humans alike. If you have a better example, please... feel free to expunge upon it.

As for there probably being 100 tankers within 10 miles of each other, great. Burt should have acknowledged that and walked away. According to the Wiki, the refuelling station and tankers were in Maller territory. I didn't write the Wiki--apparently that was 'Contributors: GD_Elite (http://www.zombiepodcast.com/forum/member.php?1184-GD_Elite), nikvoodoo (http://www.zombiepodcast.com/forum/member.php?114-nikvoodoo)'.

It's old information that is being ignored simply because it reflects negatively on the good guy image of the Tower's residents (ibthatshitiswrong), and having defined the territory as Maller serves to justify the actions of those protecting what is theirs. The fact that there are 'no doubt 100s of tankers laying around' completely changes the context of Burt, Saul, and Lizzy's actions. Now, knowing that there are, and that Burt and Co. could simply have walked away, it is now a situation where the one who believes himself to be holding all the cards, bullies the party in the weaker position to 'walk away' while their resources are being stolen. Your own arguments lends credence to my own. I'm beginning to agree with your theory about the Tower being parasites on society.

[reaper239]

So... what you're saying the history of civilization is meaningless in the context of this argument. I believe European historians would disagree with your theory about how land is claimed. If you've claimed land, that which rests upon the land is yours. Conquering civilizations have done it since... when? The dawn of man. From forests to oil. This isn't a new concept and it is one that has been proven again and again throughout the history of the world. Your argument has no strength. The simple fact that there are no municipalities governing the division of land and resources means it is up to the people within the communities to protect what they have claimed.

It's really no different than... say... the gold rush. You live in the middle of buttfuck nowhere, leave your home and head into the hills to work a plot of land or section of river. The only difference is--as I've said before--lack of an official government sanctioned title or deed. So you're out in the middle of nowhere, working away just happy as a clam and you return home, cash in and head back for more. When you get there you find someone jacking your goods. You pull your gun and protect what is yours. Since there is no way of obtaining a title or deed in this particular situation. So it comes down to my stick is bigger, therefore I make the rules. That rule is: All this shit over here is mine. All that shit over there is yours. Try and take it and I'll beat you to death with my stick.

Again, I'll bring up a remote section of wilderness that has no clearly defined borders, as that suits the situation of lawlessness. You cross into a remote section of Siberia and start pillaging resources. A group of soldiers happen upon your group and tell you to drop what you've taken and hoof it. You refuse, arguing that since there was no sign up saying 'Welcome to Siberia, Please Don't Take Our Shit' that any resources on the land are fair game. This ends with you taking a trip to le Gulag where you toil until you die. Does this make your actions right or wrong?

There are aspects of society that you simply cannot rely upon to still function as you've always known them simply because that's how they've always been. Thinking like that will only end in you on the wrong end of a rifle.

you said the exact same damn thing that i said, the only property lines that matter are the ones you can enforce. except of course that i made the point that in situations of extreme violence the only way to secure property you claim is to move it to where you can maintain positive control.

[Osiris]

you said the exact same damn thing that i said, the only property lines that matter are the ones you can enforce. except of course that i made the point that in situations of extreme violence the only way to secure property you claim is to move it to where you can maintain positive control.

But you're completely ignoring the Maller's use of force to protect what is theirs. You are contradicting yourself by citing that fact. They were clearly attempting to protect their borders. Don't argue to support a point you are contradicting by disregarding the actions you are arguing against.

[HorrorHiro]

People are still arguing on this thread?

[Osiris]

Powerful contrubution.

[Grognaurd]

Wow, Osiris, I just read your .sig. I could have saved myself a lot of time if I did it earlier. You are delusional. You can setup any logical argument you want and build a squad of straw men. If you identify with a character like scratch, get some professional help. Soon your vicarious experience with Scratch will not be enough and you will need something even more violent.

Feel free to have whatever last word you want. I am done here

[Osiris]

Wow, Osiris, I just read your .sig. I could have saved myself a lot of time if I did it earlier. You are delusional. You can setup any logical argument you want and build a squad of straw men. If you identify with a character like scratch, get some professional help. Soon your vicarious experience with Scratch will not be enough and you will need something even more violent.

Feel free to have whatever last word you want. I am done here

Take your armchair psychiatry a little further and feel free to turn the fact that I love the character into me needing 'help' and allude to 'future violence'. Makes you look far too judgmental, not to mention entirely unable to argue a point without resorting to 'you're obviously mentally unstable'. Good to know that about you. I enjoyed reading your professional assessment of my mental health. :hsugh:

[reaper239]

But you're completely ignoring the Maller's use of force to protect what is theirs. You are contradicting yourself by citing that fact. They were clearly attempting to protect their borders. Don't argue to support a point you are contradicting by disregarding the actions you are arguing against.

no what the mallers did was retaliation, senseless, and unnecessary. considering everything in the city that they could "claim" for them to go looking for a war with the tower, which is what they did when scratch ordered kalani to fire the first shot, is not only unreasonable but ignorant.

[Osiris]

Granted, the all-out war with the tower may be considered unreasonable, it still doesn't change the catalyst for the event itself. <br />
<br />
You steal a truck from my yard. <br />
I try and stop you. <br />
You pull...

[nikvoodoo]

The person it lies most comfortably with is Scratch. Scratch is the one who had Kalani fire the shot that (most directly....I'm not starting in on that BS with you again since we're never going to...

[Osiris]

The person it lies most comfortably with is Scratch. Scratch is the one who had Kalani fire the shot that (most directly....I'm not starting in on that BS with you again since we're never going to agree), and she's the one who defied orders to destroy the arena by saving a tanker for the tower. Place blame where it's due, and it's not on Durai.

He's the leader. Scratch is merely a pawn in his game with Ink. Who is to say that Durai didn't instruct Scratch to do what she did? Saving the tanker to destroy the Tower is the result of Latch being shot down in cold blood by... hmm... Scratch? No, can't blame her for that... Durai? No... that doesn't work either... who... could... have... done it!? :hsugh: Blame still rest on the shoulders of the guy who wanted the power in the first place. Durai.

The fact is we're guessing at the behind the scenes actions of the Mallers, since our only concrete knowledge of them comes through their interactions with the folks in the tower. Well, what's left of it, anyway. We can speculate on their motives, but it's still just speculation. Until there's a moment in the story when Durai comes down on Scratch and reams her out for causing all of the chaos on her own, it will remain as such.

But that's cool, man. Don't let it get you down.

[nikvoodoo]

I'll take the psychologist's analysis and Scratch's reaction from chapter 24 over your assessment any day. Or because it came from Lizzy does that mean it doesn't count because it's being told by a tower member and thus contradicts your bias point of view?

[Osiris]

I'll take the psychologist's analysis and Scratch's reaction from chapter 24 over your assessment any day. Or because it came from Lizzy does that mean it doesn't count because it's being told by a tower member and thus contradicts your bias point of view?

Yeaaaaaaaah... let's ignore the world as a whole in that case. Lizzy's already biased, so why would it be logical for me to hold that up as canon? The fact that she's involved on a personal level makes her opinion bias by default and as a result I have to chuck it out. Might as well have Burt analyze her.

Point stands. Sorry, broseph.

[Osiris]

Maybe your next jab will be less 'confrontational'.

[nikvoodoo]

Maybe your next jab will be less 'confrontational'.

Don't let it get you down.

[Osiris]

Don't let it get you down.

Aggressive posturing. Why does it not surprise me you would adopt that stance?

[HorrorHiro]

Wow, Osiris, I just read your .sig. I could have saved myself a lot of time if I did it earlier. You are delusional. You can setup any logical argument you want and build a squad of straw men. If you identify with a character like scratch, get some professional help. Soon your vicarious experience with Scratch will not be enough and you will need something even more violent.

Feel free to have whatever last word you want. I am done here
Scratch/Mallers FO' LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!1
1735

[Osiris]

Scratch/Mallers FO' LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!1
1735

ROFL. Holy shit I almost pissed myself.

[HorrorHiro]

ROFL. Holy shit I almost pissed myself.

Glad I could bring that little bit of joy to your life Osiris :)

[Osiris]

Glad I could bring that little bit of joy to your life Osiris :)

:melt: I love you man.

[HorrorHiro]

@Osiris

...got bored...made this because of this thread, thought you might enjoy it...
1736
1737
1738

And there was a Conspiracy Keanu one about how WA is really just a way for KC to recruit an army of scumbags and scene girls...tried to post link, didn't work...I think KC is watching me.

[Osiris]

K now you're just getting weird, man.

[nikvoodoo]

Aggressive posturing. Why does it not surprise me you would adopt that stance?

Just pointing out how your consistently condescending attitude isn't appreciated. It's funny how it's aggressive posturing when I said it.... What exactly was it when you used that exact phrase two posts earlier? Ironic wit?

[Luna Guardian]

Aggressive posturing. Why does it not surprise me you would adopt that stance?
This from the man who's modus operandi is aggressive posturing? The man who actively goes after certain members and openly disrespects the rules of the forum and the wellbeing of the community? Maybe you should follow your own sig and just go home? If everything on the board aggravates you so much and you're not contributing anything positive to the community, you'd probably be happier in your own little world where you are the sad little king of the sad little hill.

[7oddisdead]

Well this is falling off topic..getting personal

Lemme pull it back to the subject at hand..

I've refrained from comment because this has seemed osiris against the forum..but I must admit he had points in his favor..

Here's the way I look at it..all this boils down to the interaction between our three tower folk and latch/scratch. Scratch pulling a gun on Lizzie and subsequently burt/saul was threatened power..burt actually firing off a shot, regardless of where or at what is displayed power..in my mind burts actions were more threatening than scratches...while scratch did actually point a weapon at a person. Burt was the one to actually pull the trigger....does that make the extent all this went right? No...but. It is what it is..just my opinion

[yarri]

Well this is falling off topic..getting personal

Lemme pull it back to the subject at hand..

I've refrained from comment because this has seemed osiris against the forum..but I must admit he had points in his favor..

Here's the way I look at it..all this boils down to the interaction between our three tower folk and latch/scratch. Scratch pulling a gun on Lizzie and subsequently burt/saul was threatened power..burt actually firing off a shot, regardless of where or at what is displayed power..in my mind burts actions were more threatening than scratches...while scratch did actually point a weapon at a person. Burt was the one to actually pull the trigger....does that make the extent all this went right? No...but. It is what it is..just my opinion


You fail to remember the only reason Scratch didn't pull the trigger was they had no bullets. She's not the most diplomatic of people. She has proven time and again she's a grade "A" physical and emotional sadist. She enjoys the pain of other people. It floats her boat so to say....:)

[7oddisdead]

Nah...i remember..just because she couldn't pull the trigger doesn't mean she would..well, who am I kidding...she probly would...but that doesn't matter really. Regardless of the circumstances, she didn't..that is all :)

[yarri]

Nah...i remember..just because she couldn't pull the trigger doesn't mean she would..well, who am I kidding...she probly would...but that doesn't matter really. Regardless of the situation, she didn't..that is all :)

Only cause there weren't any bullets. Scratch is a practical psychopath... Best to take care of a potential problem then spin it so it makes you look awesome!

You have to admit she is the mistress of spin doctoring

[HorrorHiro]

This thread has already descended beyond the point of theoretical's and what if's, so now its pretty much just bickering over who/what people prefer...

So can we just sum this thread up with

"FUCK YOU AND FUCK EVERYBODY WHO DISAGREES WITH ME!!!11111!!!!1"

Because I think this thread is 2 or 3 posts away from people personally attacking each other.

[yarri]

This thread has already descended beyond the point of theoretical's and what if's, so now its pretty much just bickering over who/what people prefer...

So can we just sum this thread up with

"FUCK YOU AND FUCK EVERYBODY WHO DISAGREES WITH ME!!!11111!!!!1"

Because I think this thread is 2 or 3 posts away from people personally attacking each other.

I know and it saddens me.

[Osiris]

Just pointing out how your consistently condescending attitude isn't appreciated. It's funny how it's aggressive posturing when I said it.... What exactly was it when you used that exact phrase two posts earlier? Ironic wit?

Yeah, it's awesome how that works, huh? :yay:Now tell me I'm pretty and let's hug it out.

[Osiris]

This from the man who's modus operandi is aggressive posturing? The man who actively goes after certain members and openly disrespects the rules of the forum and the wellbeing of the community? Maybe you should follow your own sig and just go home? If everything on the board aggravates you so much and you're not contributing anything positive to the community, you'd probably be happier in your own little world where you are the sad little king of the sad little hill.

Never went after any member. As for 'openly disrespecting the rules'... well... I give what I get. The only thing that aggravates me here is you. And talk about not contributing anything positive... Jesus, I pose a question and suddenly it's all negative, simply because you disagree with my point of view. Deal. With. It. Stop being a waste of bandwidth.

[nikvoodoo]

*with a tennessean drawl*

Why osiris, if you ain't the prettiest sight I have ever beheld. *squish!*

[Osiris]

Well this is falling off topic..getting personal

Lemme pull it back to the subject at hand..

I've refrained from comment because this has seemed osiris against the forum..but I must admit he had points in his favor..

Here's the way I look at it..all this boils down to the interaction between our three tower folk and latch/scratch. Scratch pulling a gun on Lizzie and subsequently burt/saul was threatened power..burt actually firing off a shot, regardless of where or at what is displayed power..in my mind burts actions were more threatening than scratches...while scratch did actually point a weapon at a person. Burt was the one to actually pull the trigger....does that make the extent all this went right? No...but. It is what it is..just my opinion


Lol! Nah, bro... this shit's just funny to me. It really amazes me how quickly SOMEBODY fell down the 'Imma call you names cuz I'm not winning this argument brolybutthurt.gif' well. P.S. Don't ever share your opinion here... nobody wants to hear it.

Though it is interesting to take into consideration Burt's actions as being threatening. I actually hadn't considered the hostility of his act, focusing instead on the act itself. Seems the intention behind it was really just 'hey look at how big my shit is', honestly though, I don't see Scratch as feeling threatened by it. Just pissed off.

[Osiris]

*with a tennessean drawl*

Why osiris, if you ain't the prettiest sight I have ever beheld. *squish!*

Don't squeeze me too hard... these tits aren't real. Or mine.

[7oddisdead]

Lol! Nah, bro... this shit's just funny to me. It really amazes me how quickly SOMEBODY fell down the 'Imma call you names cuz I'm not winning this argument brolybutthurt.gif' well. P.S. Don't ever share your opinion here... nobody wants to hear it.

Though it is interesting to take into consideration Burt's actions as being threatening. I actually hadn't considered the hostility of his act, focusing instead on the act itself. Seems the intention behind it was really just 'hey look at how big my shit is', honestly though, I don't see Scratch as feeling threatened by it. Just pissed off.

clearly. Doubtless it pissed her off on multiple levels.. A:old man showing off "how big his shit" is. B: she had no ammo to retaliate. Many here would assume that if she had, the situation never would have reached a point were Burt had the opportunity to do what he did. I'd rather not speculate on the ifs of that, simply take what we saw and knew at the time...not the evidence that followed. To me Burt showed more hostility in that action than scratch did...but because of the situation, she was the one who walked away with the hostility still within her...love him, But burt struck the first match in my mind.

[yarri]

clearly. Doubtless it pissed her off on multiple levels.. A:old man showing off "how big his shit" is. B: she had no ammo to retaliate. Many here would assume that if she had, the situation never would have reached a point were Burt had the opportunity to do what he did. I'd rather not speculate on the ifs of that, simply take what we saw and knew at the time...not the evidence that followed. To me Burt showed more hostility in that action than scratch did...but because of the situation, she was the one who walked away with the hostility still within her...love him, But burt struck the first match in my mind.

Blessed be the peace makers for they shall yada yada, I still don't know why Burt and crew didn't cap her and her brother right there and call it a day. The pointing of the first gun at Lizzy Should have been the last gun. Yes yes I know it could have gotten her shot but I'm of the saying.. the good of the many out weight the good of the one or the few. (yes I know star trek nerd). They needed the fuel and the swift and immediate removal of Scratch and Latch would have most likely ended a lot of things right there..

[Osiris]

clearly. Doubtless it pissed her off on multiple levels.. A:old man showing off "how big his shit" is. B: she had no ammo to retaliate. Many here would assume that if she had, the situation never would have reached a point were Burt had the opportunity to do what he did. I'd rather not speculate on the ifs of that, simply take what we saw and knew at the time...not the evidence that followed. To me Burt showed more hostility in that action than scratch did...but because of the situation, she was the one who walked away with the hostility still within her...love him, But burt struck the first match in my mind.

This is the kind of thinking that has me praying Burt survived and is being held by Scratch & Co. I'd love to hear the two of them pick at each other! I honestly feel that Scratch and Burt are the two most 'alike' characters. Neither is ever really willing to back down. Plus--and this is just my personal opinion--they're the two best voice talents on the podcast. Not to say that everyone else isn't keeping up, but that those two are the most instantly recognizable. Even 'at a distance' you can always pick out either of them. I can't say the same for the rest of the cast. With the exception of Lady.

[Osiris]

Blessed be the peace makers for they shall yada yada, I still don't know why Burt and crew didn't cap her and her brother right there and call it a day. The pointing of the first gun at Lizzy Should have been the last gun. Yes yes I know it could have gotten her shot but I'm of the saying.. the good of the many out weight the good of the one or the few. (yes I know star trek nerd). They needed the fuel and the swift and immediate removal of Scratch and Latch would have most likely ended a lot of things right there..

Probably because Burt isn't a murderer. If he had this would be a very different show. Burt would forever be that guy and I don't think his character would have remained as beloved as it has. Look at what happened to Kalani. He was slowly winning the fans over and then... we find out he did some fucked up shit. Now he's hated. Again. Like me! Only fatter and more intense.

[7oddisdead]

Blessed be the peace makers for they shall yada yada, I still don't know why Burt and crew didn't cap her and her brother right there and call it a day. The pointing of the first gun at Lizzy Should have been the last gun. Yes yes I know it could have gotten her shot but I'm of the saying.. the good of the many out weight the good of the one or the few. (yes I know star trek nerd). They needed the fuel and the swift and immediate removal of Scratch and Latch would have most likely ended a lot of things right there..

Heh..agree with all this. But even looking at it that way..the fault would still lie on Burt. And I'm not overlooking your comments about scratch..just taking things as we knew them at the time. And at that time all we knew was she had a gun..nothing more. But yup...a lot less death would have came from just two deaths.

[yarri]

Heh..agree with all this. But even looking at it that way..the fault would still lie on Burt. And I'm not overlooking your comments about scratch..just taking things as we knew them at the time. And at that time all we knew was she had a gun..nothing more. But yup...a lot less death would have came from just two deaths.

At this point I agree with your assessment of the situation. It's logical, and presented in such a fashion that it does provoked excellent communication and interaction between us. Burt was trying to be the peacemaker and the stance he took was wrong. He should have seen see Scratch for exactly what she was a psychopath. Shot her in the face in the face and then put a few in Latch for good measure. I love Burt. But a majority of all these situations could have been delayed (I don't see much to be honest of the things that happen eventually being avoided the tower was going to be found in time it was inevitable) But Scratch and Latch's immediate execution would have changed alot of it.

[Osiris]

So you're ok with Burt being a murderer? Shooting someone down in cold blood just because you 'think' they're 'psychotic' makes you... a murderer.

[yarri]

Probably because Burt isn't a murderer. If he had this would be a very different show. Burt would forever be that guy and I don't think his character would have remained as beloved as it has. Look at what happened to Kalani. He was slowly winning the fans over and then... we find out he did some fucked up shit. Now he's hated. Again. Like me! Only fatter and more intense.

There is a different logic here that I would like to address, in war its not murder its doing what you need to get the mission done. Scratch for as much as I've learned to admire her and as much as I respect and delight in the actress that gave her life. This situation is war a war on survival. You do what you need to do to protect the ones you love. (You brought that up before in the thread about Kalani in fact I repped you for it) Burt was a Viet Nam vet. He knew what hate was when he came home and was most likely called baby killer etc, murder would have been nothing and a month or two of the hate also would have been nothing . Shooting one psychopath that had pointed a weapon be it unloaded at the time at Lizzy would have been an act of removing a potential threat (like a mercy killing of a rabid dog) . His biggest flaw was he was no longer "that guy" to quote you and that is where the mistake lay.

[yarri]

So you're ok with Burt being a murderer? Shooting someone down in cold blood just because you 'think' they're 'psychotic' makes you... a murderer.

Pointing a gun at my family even unloaded is an aggressive act no where in Scratch's mind set has she done anything sane. She's a sadist, manipulative, cold calculating, and psychotic. (and I like the little hell spawn) I'd have pulled the trigger same as I would on anyone pointing a gun at any person I gave a shit about. Its not murder its survival. In short. Yep I'm ok with it.

[GeneTwo]

Scratch = Bad

[yarri]

Scratch = Bad


She's not bad she's just written that way. Love the Scratch love her and her bad self

[Osiris]

There is a different logic here that I would like to address, in war its not murder its doing what you need to get the mission done. Scratch for as much as I've learned to admire her and as much as I respect and delight in the actress that gave her life. This situation is war a war on survival. You do what you need to do to protect the ones you love. (You brought that up before in the thread about Kalani in fact I repped you for it) Burt was a Viet Nam vet. He knew what hate was when he came home and was most likely called baby killer etc, murder would have been nothing and a month or two of the hate also would have been nothing . Shooting one psychopath that had pointed a weapon be it unloaded at the time at Lizzy would have been an act of removing a potential threat (like a mercy killing of a rabid dog) . His biggest flaw was he was no longer "that guy" to quote you and that is where the mistake lay.

Well that really justifies an act of murder, but it justifies Scratch, Latch and Durai's actions as a whole. War is war, as you said--and I completely agree with that. That said, it can be argued--and it has, ad nauseam--that it is exactly what The Mallers were doing. Doing what they feel they have to in order to, not only survive, but to eventually thrive in the new world. Elimination of a potential threat. It places a bias of knowledge after the fact with regard to the intentions of Scartch and Latch because they turned out to be... not on aligned with the Tower.


Pointing a gun at my family even unloaded is an aggressive act no where in Scratch's mind set has she done anything sane. She's a sadist, manipulative, cold calculating, and psychotic. (and I like the little hell spawn) I'd have pulled the trigger same as I would on anyone pointing a gun at any person I gave a shit about. Its not murder its survival. In short. Yep I'm ok with it.

I'll disagree, but this is ground I've already covered, in depth, as to why.

Civility. It's in you to give.

[Osiris]

Scratch = Bad

She's not bad. She's just confused.

[Hellbringer]

She's not bad. She's just confused.


I'll agree... to a point.

She's not Bad. She's got to Beat It because this is Thriller!

Cue Vincent Price.

[yarri]

[COLOR=#008080]I'll disagree, but this is ground I've already covered, in depth, as to why.

Civility. It's in you to give.



When I'm not tired off my ass and heading to work I'll go find your post where you discussed it in well written depth on how Kalani was correct to do what ever it was he needed to do to protect his child...(I've repped you twice so I remember them very well) You're contraindicating yourself and to me civility is bullshit when anyone has a weapon pointed at someone I care about. I won't use hug therapy and "lets talk about it" with a gun pointed at a child, woman, man etc that I care about. If that's your thing that's cool more power to you I give you respect for it whatever but its not my thing.

[Osiris]

I'll agree... to a point.

She's not Bad. She's got to Beat It because this is Thriller!

Cue Vincent Price.

I'll admit... I laughed pretty hard at that.

[Osiris]

When I'm not tired off my ass and heading to work I'll go find your post where you discussed it in well written depth on how Kalani was correct to do what ever it was he needed to do to protect his child...(I've repped you twice so I remember them very well) You're contraindicating yourself and to me civility is bullshit when anyone has a weapon pointed at someone I care about. I won't use hug therapy and "lets talk about it" with a gun pointed at a child, woman, man etc that I care about. If that's your thing that's cool more power to you I give you respect for it whatever but its not my thing.

I was actually referencing the civility you and I were showing each other... so no. I don't believe I am contradicting myself, I'm further enforcing the valid point of the argument. Doing what you have to in order to survive: It is what it is, neither good nor bad.

[yarri]

I was actually referencing the civility you and I were showing each other... so no. I don't believe I am contradicting myself, I'm further enforcing the valid point of the argument. Doing what you have to in order to survive: It is what it is, neither good nor bad.

You gave it so I returned it... and like I said I'm seriously tired off my ass which is LOL most of the time.

[Osiris]

That happens from time to time.

[yarri]

That happens from time to time.


So how did it feel?

[GeneTwo]

I get the feeling she will be humanized in future episodes when she interacts with Lizzy... But that just makes her a bad human. Bam!

But seriously I think we will get some back story on Scratch.

[Osiris]

I get the feeling she will be humanized in future episodes when she interacts with Lizzy... But that just makes her a bad human. Bam!

But seriously I think we will get some back story on Scratch.

All right... I'll bite.

How does that make her a 'bad human'?

[Osiris]

So how did it feel?


Like the first time?

[reaper239]

i ceded the point early on in this thread that mistakes were made on both sides. let's look at a slightly more accurate version of events though: <br />
<br />
i take a truck that i have no way of knowing is...

[yarri]

Like the first time?


If we are to continue to be civil I must attempt to treat you as any other person on this site so.... Osiris I have to answer this post like this and hope you get it in the fashion its meant.

:D "So you're saying you felt awkward and unsure of yourself?"

[Osiris]

i ceded the point early on in this thread that mistakes were made on both sides. let's look at a slightly more accurate version of events though:

i take a truck that i have no way of knowing is yours. despite that, it is still stealing. (resources are a valuable thing and the loss of any can be detrimental. even if i don't think the tower folk were necessarily wrong, that doesn't mean they were right either.)
you find me and confront me with extreme hostility. (opening with hostility in an already violent situation can only lead to more hostility, and more intense confrontation)
your hostility makes me hostile, and so to end this confrontation, i pull a gun and use it to make you leave. (this is the more hostility. had cooler heads been present on my side, perhaps something could still have been worked out, but cooler heads were present on neither.)
you follow me home and burn down my house. (unreasonable, agreed.)

now let me lay out an alternate version in which much of these problems can be avoided:

i steal your truck, not knowing that it was your truck. (we start with the same mistake)
you approach me and calmly explain that i have just stolen your truck. (from here, any hostility on my end would be seen as unjustified, but without the initial hostility we have a much better chance of ending this peacefully)
i realize my mistake and try to work out a trade. we are both reasonable in our offers, so an arrangement is made. (the reasonableness of the offers is crucial here. weapons and ammo being a rare commodity, those would likely be off the table, as would be people. they tried to barter in the real timeline, but scratch was asking for things that she had to know would be viewed as unreasonable and that she was very unlikely to get.)
we both go home happy.


But you see, Scratch and Latch did not approach with open hostility.

At about 7:47 in part one of Chapter 6, Burt acknowledges--with a laugh too sly to find the situation comical, rather it feels like a laugh of superiority--that they had them 'out-maned and out-gunned'. The following conversation between Burt and Latch--and I use the word loosely--was quite cordial and in those moments everything was OK. Two parties, getting a feel for each other. Obviously, mixed feelings on both sides as to what to think of the other. Now, remember that Burt's reactions and observations of these new people are all made well after the encounter and are coloured as a result. They are not at all unbiased.

Everything is going smooth until around the 9 minute mark when Lizzy completely ignores Burt and Saul's warnings to NOT approach the two strangers. As Scratch says 'she moved on us'. Pissing contest ensues as each side tries to take control of the situation. Saul references Bill's similar behaviour and Burt's potential to do the same when they found him, which Burt confirms.

Scratch and Burt then go at each other. The most aggression in that scene--and I urge you to go back and re-listen--comes from Burt. Burt justified Scratch's initial reaction mere moments after it happened with his response to Saul's comment. So, it is laid out clear that the first aggressive act rests on Liz, the retaliatory act on Scratch's shoulders and the overbearing aggressive behaviour in the scene sits on Burt's shoulders.

Scratch spends most of the time pleading and arguing with her brother. Burt then flat out says 'let me just shoot them and be done with this.' That would more aggression, not necessarily acted toward either Scratch and Latch in that moment, however it shows intent (which was something argued earlier, 'Scratch's intent to kill everyone right from the start'). The barganing begins, Scratch makes a snide remark at either Liz or Saul (exactly which is unclear from the recording, she may have been looking at Saul when she said it, or even Burt for that matter). Burt tells her to fuck her brother.

Latch tells them, at roughly the 3:17 mark to 'come back when you have something worthwhile'. This clearly shows they are reasonable and willing to trade for a tanker when something other than 'nothing' can be offered in exchange. For the next few minutes, Burt proceeds to taunt them. A very aggressive act which he continues after he's 'made his point'. He not only boasts about his actions, but he takes great pleasure in it. Then contradicts everything he said earlier about everything being free the first taker by instructing Saul to follow the 'cockroaches' back to their home because they did exactly what he, Saul and Liz were doing. Taking something that was up for grabs.

Another, very aggressive move on the Tower's behalf. Now, I totally agree with you that cooler heads would have made the situation very, very different. It's just a little distressing that very few people seem willing to acknowledge the differences between the first aggressive act (Liz moving on an out-numbered group of people trying to reclaim stolen property), the subsequent reaction to that (which everyone seems to see as the first act of aggression simply because they're the 'bad guys') and the actions of Burt, from his overbearing king of bullets behaviour to the shot that pushed it all past the point of no return.

[Osiris]

If we are to continue to be civil I must attempt to treat you as any other person on this site so.... Osiris I have to answer this post like this and hope you get it in the fashion its meant.

:D "So you're saying you felt awkward and unsure of yourself?"

Based off what I know--not having a vagina of my own to give a first-hand account--it hurt and there was a little blood.

[yarri]

Based off what I know--not having a vagina of my own to give a first-hand account--it hurt and there was a little blood.


I'll be easy with you and I promise it won't hurt so bad next time. Heck you might even like it.

[HaveCrowBarWillTravel]

I was actually referencing the civility you and I were showing each other... so no. I don't believe I am contradicting myself, I'm further enforcing the valid point of the argument. Doing what you have to in order to survive: It is what it is, neither good nor bad.

Osiris,
actually that is an incorrect statement. There is and will always be a moral standard. Just doing what you're told and doing what you need to survive has resulted in many people facing whatever law finally comes back. Kinda why they still hunt Nazi and soldiers get tried for killing civilians during "war". Many people got away with that in Nam. off entire villages just because they "may" have Vietcong in them or they just couldn't trust them. End the

There is no moral ground to stand on for slavery nor murder.

This convo reminds me about the reason the "Walking Dead's" creator wrote the differences between Rick and Shane's personalities on the show. You ever read "Lord of the Flies"?

I will agree with Yarri in that normally if you point a gun at someone, you've shown Intent, Capability and Opportunity to use deadly force, so DF is justified in response. In Scratches defense though, she reacted to dumbo's advancement towards them.

[Osiris]

Osiris,
actually that is an incorrect statement. There is and will always be a moral standard. Just doing what you're told and doing what you need to survive has resulted in many people facing whatever law finally comes back. Kinda why they still hunt Nazi and soldiers get tried for killing civilians during "war". Many people got away with that in Nam. off entire villages just because they "may" have Vietcong in them or they just couldn't trust them. End the

There is no moral ground to stand on for slavery nor murder.

This convo reminds me about the reason the "Walking Dead's" creator wrote the differences between Rick and Shane's personalities on the show. You ever read "Lord of the Flies"?

I will agree with Yarri in that normally if you point a gun at someone, you've shown Intent, Capability and Opportunity to use deadly force, so DF is justified in response. In Scratches defense though, she reacted to dumbo's advancement towards them.

Nobody's asking him to rape babies or kill Jews. Moral compass is subjective (apparently). Apply the same set of moral standards to animals. That's essentially what we're dealing with right here with regard to survival. It is clear that Kalani was doing what he was doing to ensure the survival of his child. It is entirely possible Scratch and Latch were doing the same.

Knowing what we do about Burt in that scenario, justifying him simply turning and shooting two strangers, that had--under the circumstances. We have to apply the same compass to all characters and when we do we find that some are just as misaligned as others. Burt was more than willing to shoot someone in the back for defending their property. We wouldn't want to do that, though.

As for the 'slavery & murder', there are two things that need to be considered: Durai is the leader of that group, the choice of using 'slaves' rests with him. Enforcement may fall on others. As for murder, there is always punishment for crimes, though killing to ensure your safety in a lawless world is survival. And yes, I have read Lord of the Flies. It was far better than the movie.

[Ray]

But you see, Scratch and Latch did not approach with open hostility.


Lizzy was completely unarmed and L&S could clearly see that. They are murderous criminals, of course they are going to be agressive and use anything they can to justify violence on other people. Lizzy ignoring their advice was dumb, but the first agressive/violent move was from the Mallers and it continued to be that way. They obviously weren't rational, one truck wasn't that big of a deal and there was no way for the Tower guys to know it was theirs. As they said, there was one right down the street that could take it's place. Scratch was completely hell bent on killing Pegs because Pegs killed Latch in self defense. Whether or not she believed it to be self-defense doesn't matter, the Tower residents were defending their home against agressors. The Mallers are completely in the wrong in ever way and every situation where the two have clashed. It's as simple as that. Morality isn't a moving target, it's what your society is willing to let go. Killing, maiming, stealing, backstabbery are al universally thought of as bad. You just have to stand up for what's right and wrong. Scratch may not see her actions as wrong, but they are. She's clearly a homicidal maniac and mentally disturbed, but that doesn't make what she's doing or how she's acting right in any way.

There is no reason for them to be so agressive about demanding something in exchange for that tanker. Especially after drawing weapons on someone that was clearly not making an agressive move on them. Scratch and Latch weren't being considerate, nice, accommodating or anything of the sort. They were saying "leave the tanker and come back later with something in return." What were they going to do if the Tower group didn't listen? Pitch a fit? Call their mommies? Of course not. They were going to shoot, as demonstrated by Scratch yelling a Lizzy to back up at the point of her gun. Latch was accommodating if anything, and he even knew they were in no position to make demands. It was a simple misunderstanding punctuated by a pissing contest L&S got the Tower guys roped up in topped of with a threatening gesture made towards Lizzy because of her non-agressive move. They are both homicidal maniacs, I don't see how their actions can be justified in any way.

[Osiris]

Lizzy was completely unarmed and L&S could clearly see that. They are murderous criminals, of course they are going to be agressive and use anything they can to justify violence on other people. Lizzy ignoring their advice was dumb, but the first agressive/violent move was from the Mallers and it continued to be that way. They obviously weren't rational, one truck wasn't that big of a deal and there was no way for the Tower guys to know it was theirs. As they said, there was one right down the street that could take it's place. Scratch was completely hell bent on killing Pegs because Pegs killed Latch in self defense. Whether or not she believed it to be self-defense doesn't matter, the Tower residents were defending their home against agressors. The Mallers are completely in the wrong in ever way and every situation where the two have clashed. It's as simple as that. Morality isn't a moving target, it's what your society is willing to let go. Killing, maiming, stealing, backstabbery are al universally thought of as bad. You just have to stand up for what's right and wrong. Scratch may not see her actions as wrong, but they are. She's clearly a homicidal maniac and mentally disturbed, but that doesn't make what she's doing or how she's acting right in any way.

There is no reason for them to be so agressive about demanding something in exchange for that tanker. Especially after drawing weapons on someone that was clearly not making an agressive move on them. Scratch and Latch weren't being considerate, nice, accommodating or anything of the sort. They were saying "leave the tanker and come back later with something in return." What were they going to do if the Tower group didn't listen? Pitch a fit? Call their mommies? Of course not. They were going to shoot, as demonstrated by Scratch yelling a Lizzy to back up at the point of her gun. Latch was accommodating if anything, and he even knew they were in no position to make demands. It was a simple misunderstanding punctuated by a pissing contest L&S got the Tower guys roped up in topped of with a threatening gesture made towards Lizzy because of her non-agressive move. They are both homicidal maniacs, I don't see how their actions can be justified in any way.

You need to go back, re-listen and re-read, like I did as I wrote that, though you've completely disregarded the evidence presented after those words. Simply stating that Scratch and Latch 'are both homicidal maniacs' does not make it true. Doing that we must also consider Burt's glee at the thought of shooting two people in the back and Lizzy squealing and clapping with joy and excitement at hitting a pair of slaves. Or was that Pegs? I forget, but I'm certain it was a resident of the tower. Talk about psychotic behaviour. You're really just digging a hole for yourself with that argument. Not only has it already been shot down (and you're running in circles), but it is also grossly misinformed.

[Ray]

Here's another go at your post then. Seems that you have no qualms insulting me about my take on it without provocation, so I'll give you a reason.


At about 7:47 in part one of Chapter 6, Burt acknowledges--with a laugh too sly to find the situation comical, rather it feels like a laugh of superiority--that they had them 'out-maned and out-gunned'.

That doesn't matter. Considering that he had said not 10 seconds before that they shouldn't point thier guns at them since S&L weren't either. Not exactly an agressive move. Being out there without seeing any other people, other than the guys slaughtered in the cars beforehand, it wasn't an agressive or stupid thing to say.


The following conversation between Burt and Latch--and I use the word loosely--was quite cordial and in those moments everything was OK. Two parties, getting a feel for each other. Obviously, mixed feelings on both sides as to what to think of the other. Now, remember that Burt's reactions and observations of these new people are all made well after the encounter and are coloured as a result. They are not at all unbiased.

This is true, but as Latch said to Scratch they drew down first on Lizzy. Who wasn't being agressive in any way. No gun pointed, no yelled threats. Unlike the two Mallers. Also, Latch was never really talking to Burt, he was in conversation with Saul.


Everything is going smooth until around the 9 minute mark when Lizzy completely ignores Burt and Saul's warnings to NOT approach the two strangers. As Scratch says 'she moved on us'.

Which is immediately followed by Scratch saying "they're dangerous" despite the fact that the agressor was Scratch in pointing her gun at Lizzy. So no, the agressors weren't the Tower guys, it was the Mallers. Burt and Saul warned her ONCE, and they reacted by threatening to shoot her. Who's the agressor again? Lizzy was clearly unarmed.


Pissing contest ensues as each side tries to take control of the situation. Saul references Bill's similar behaviour and Burt's potential to do the same when they found him, which Burt confirms.

Yet he wasn't agressive, they saved his life and he never drew down on them. If anyone was agressive it was Angel stating "get out of our stuff" which Burt replies that it "used to be my stuff." Scratch continues to antagonize the two negotiating (Saul and Latch) by rushing up on them despite the agreement to lower their weapons and talk it out. She then insults Burt with the "old man" comment.


Scratch and Burt then go at each other. The most aggression in that scene--and I urge you to go back and re-listen--comes from Burt. Burt justified Scratch's initial reaction mere moments after it happened with his response to Saul's comment. So, it is laid out clear that the first aggressive act rests on Liz, the retaliatory act on Scratch's shoulders and the overbearing aggressive behaviour in the scene sits on Burt's shoulders.

Which is false. Scratch antagonized the situation by rushing up on Saul and Latch demanding their "shit" back. Which Burt reacts to this by asking who's to say it's theirs. Which is a valid point considering that they went to great lengths to get the tanker without seeing any indication that anyone was in the area, much less in ownership of anything within sight. Despite Latch trying to diffuse the agressive acts and language by Scratch, she continues to get into a verbal throwdown with Burt, even going to far as to confirm that she had already stolen guns from Burt's store. ("Let's just say I'm locked, and loaded") Burt reacts with an insult, but not one that isn't justified. So already Scratch is blatantly guilty of doing what she was being aggressive towards the Tower guys for. Pot calling kettle black.


Scratch spends most of the time pleading and arguing with her brother.

No she does not, she continues to argue about taking over the situation and Latch had already scolded her for her agression and tried to get her to back down. She only wants to take over to intimidate the Tower guys into relenting despite the fact that she's already stolen from Burt.



Burt then flat out says 'let me just shoot them and be done with this.' That would more aggression, not necessarily acted toward either Scratch and Latch in that moment, however it shows intent (which was something argued earlier, 'Scratch's intent to kill everyone right from the start'). The bargaining begins, Scratch makes a snide remark at either Liz or Saul (exactly which is unclear from the recording, she may have been looking at Saul when she said it, or even Burt for that matter). Burt tells her to fuck her brother. Latch tells them, at roughly the 3:17 mark to 'come back when you have something worthwhile'. This clearly shows they are reasonable and willing to trade for a tanker when something other than 'nothing' can be offered in exchange.

And Saul offers to bring them another rig back, neither Scratch and Latch are willing to do that. They are unrelenting until Saul logically explains what's going on to him and showing his willingness to trade now and in the future. Scratch says "you can't do that." Again, the agressor is Scratch.


Latch tells them, at roughly the 3:17 mark to 'come back when you have something worthwhile'. This clearly shows they are reasonable and willing to trade for a tanker when something other than 'nothing' can be offered in exchange. For the next few minutes, Burt proceeds to taunt them. A very aggressive act which he continues after he's 'made his point'. He not only boasts about his actions, but he takes great pleasure in it. Then contradicts everything he said earlier about everything being free the first taker by instructing Saul to follow the 'cockroaches' back to their home because they did exactly what he, Saul and Liz were doing. Taking something that was up for grabs.

Another, very aggressive move on the Tower's behalf. Now, I totally agree with you that cooler heads would have made the situation very, very different. It's just a little distressing that very few people seem willing to acknowledge the differences between the first aggressive act (Liz moving on an out-numbered group of people trying to reclaim stolen property), the subsequent reaction to that (which everyone seems to see as the first act of aggression simply because they're the 'bad guys') and the actions of Burt, from his overbearing king of bullets behaviour to the shot that pushed it all past the point of no return.
[/COLOR]

You act as though the "stolen property" was clearly marked and guarded. They hadn't seen a single person for the few days leading up to the encounter, seeing someone roll up and tell you to piss off and leave their stuff alone after what you had gone through to get it is completely unreasonable. They then ask for Lizzy to do an unnamed act, how exactly would you react after they threatened to shoot her for merely approaching them unarmed. I wouldn't act any different, if someone came up to me and said that unmarked and unguarded truck you worked so hard to get can't be taken because I said so, insulted me, threatened to shoot someone with me for a non-agressive action I'd respond with the same agression. Following them wouldn't be a bad idea either, they've already claimed to have carved out territory due to irrational reasoning and Saul wasn't going to follow them to steal from them, more to learn about them and their situation. We already know they stole from Burt's shop and trying to recover what was stolen from him is in what way different from what Scratch and Latch were trying to do? I'm using circular logic?


Doing that we must also consider Burt's glee at the thought of shooting two people in the back and Lizzy squealing and clapping with joy and excitement at hitting a pair of slaves. Or was that Pegs? I forget, but I'm certain it was a resident of the tower. Talk about psychotic behaviour. You're really just digging a hole for yourself with that argument. Not only has it already been shot down (and you're running in circles), but it is also grossly misinformed.

Your air of superiority matters nothing to me, it's actually quite humorous. I've said nothing that was untrue and ignored nothing, not even in my original post. You are digging a hole with your argument because you're a pot calling the kettle black. What the Tower guys did was no different than what Scratch and Latch did. The two Mallers were agressive first and were trying to recover what they considered was stolen. They saw the destroyed car at the depot, then took the time and risk to try and track them down to get it back. At that point, it's no longer worth the trouble and just like Burt pointed out, there was one right down the street. They weren't using the rigs, they weren't secured, they weren't under guard. The guns and ammo they stole from Burt's gun store were under lock and key (guarded) and agreed that everything in sight was up for grabs. You can't hold someone to a standard you don't hold yourself to. They stole from someone and then tried to act like the Tower guys were in the wrong for "stealing" from them. Exactly how are the Tower guys in the wrong more than Scratch and Latch? They are merely confirming what the Mallers had adhered to all along. You think they'd willingly give back the guns they stole because Burt laid claim to them? Please. Also, you're going to have to have a citation for this "Lizzy squealing and clapping with joy and excitement at hitting a pair of slaves. Or was that Pegs? I forget, but I'm certain it was a resident of the tower." Pegs has NEVER acted that way throughout the entire story unless that person had wronged her first. She couldn't even sleep at night after defending herself and Michael from the twins, who by that time we had already learned were vicious criminals and unrepentant murderers. Not to mention that is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand, you presented this opinion about the situation concerning the truck, not what happened earlier, later, or with different characters.

[yarri]

I will agree with Yarri in that normally if you point a gun at someone, you've shown Intent, Capability and Opportunity to use deadly force, so DF is justified in response. In Scratches defense though, she reacted to dumbo's advancement towards them.

I always thought Scratch was sort of scared when Lizzy advanced. Listening to her at that time she sounded scared. I don't know if I'm making it clear but the voice inflection Jenna used sounded not angry but terrified to me. I felt really sorry for Scratch. I still want to know what happened to her. I want to know her back story.

[GeneTwo]

I think if Osiris puts a poll in this thread it would make everything simpler. Y/N did the Mallers start the war. Simple. I really don't get the whole "original sin" arguments.

[Osiris]

I think if Osiris puts a poll in this thread it would make everything simpler. Y/N did the Mallers start the war. Simple. I really don't get the whole "original sin" arguments.

This thread was split from another in which the subject came up during a barely related conversation. I didn't start it, I believe it was split by Nik.

[Osiris]

Here's another go at your post then. Seems that you have no qualms insulting me about my take on it without provocation, so I'll give you a reason.

Oh! Hi! Are you here to troll? :hsugh:


That doesn't matter. Considering that he had said not 10 seconds before that they shouldn't point thier guns at them since S&L weren't either. Not exactly an agressive move. Being out there without seeing any other people, other than the guys slaughtered in the cars beforehand, it wasn't an agressive or stupid thing to say.

I think you need to go back and listen again and if you pay close attention you'll hear Burt tell you why you are wrong and why it matters.


This is true, but as Latch said to Scratch they drew down first on Lizzy. Who wasn't being agressive in any way. No gun pointed, no yelled threats. Unlike the two Mallers. Also, Latch was never really talking to Burt, he was in conversation with Saul.

What part of the Mallers stepping out of their vehicle--which they parked a respectable distance away from an unknown group of people who were armed--and standing well back, offering a clear area of neutrality, would you consider to be hostile? Was it the fact that they were armed? Saul and Burt were armed. Your logic here defeats you. NEXT.


Which is immediately followed by Scratch saying "they're dangerous" despite the fact that the agressor was Scratch in pointing her gun at Lizzy. So no, the agressors weren't the Tower guys, it was the Mallers. Burt and Saul warned her ONCE, and they reacted by threatening to shoot her. Who's the agressor again? Lizzy was clearly unarmed.

Wrong. Pay closer attention to the order of events and you will see the first aggressive act was Liz crossing into the neutral space AGAINST the plea of her companions. Clearly your logic must admit that the act of intent is there. You'll note that a very short time later Saul and Latch agree that one person from each group should step forward to talk. Doing so without agreement in any potentially volatile negotiation is considered to be 'aggressive behaviour'. I'm amazed that a therapist would not have made that recognition before acting. BUT... we move on.


Yet he wasn't agressive, they saved his life and he never drew down on them. If anyone was agressive it was Angel stating "get out of our stuff" which Burt replies that it "used to be my stuff." Scratch continues to antagonize the two negotiating (Saul and Latch) by rushing up on them despite the agreement to lower their weapons and talk it out. She then insults Burt with the "old man" comment.

Ignoring Burt's quote does not make it disappear into the ether.



Which is false. Scratch antagonized the situation by rushing up on Saul and Latch demanding their "shit" back.

A defensive posture brought on as a result of a very tense situation in which the two were outnumbered. Knowing the difference between the two is important. An aggressive stance would have been attempting to dominate the entire conversation. Burt's name-calling occurs before Latch and Saul were interrupted by Scratch. To be completely fair, the conversation was between Latch and Saul. Burt was the first to interject, thereby opening the floor to others.


Which Burt reacts to this by asking who's to say it's theirs. Which is a valid point considering that they went to great lengths to get the tanker without seeing any indication that anyone was in the area, much less in ownership of anything within sight. Despite Latch trying to diffuse the agressive acts and language by Scratch, she continues to get into a verbal throwdown with Burt, even going to far as to confirm that she had already stolen guns from Burt's store. ("Let's just say I'm locked, and loaded") Burt reacts with an insult, but not one that isn't justified. So already Scratch is blatantly guilty of doing what she was being aggressive towards the Tower guys for. Pot calling kettle black.

The mere fact that you're ignoring the scene as a whole, invalidates your point.



No she does not, she continues to argue about taking over the situation and Latch had already scolded her for her agression and tried to get her to back down. She only wants to take over to intimidate the Tower guys into relenting despite the fact that she's already stolen from Burt.

You're injecting an opinion of what you believe Scratch plans to do. I'll inject my own into Burt: he continues his tirade on Scratch in an attempt to force her hand, to push her to 'making him shoot her'. Talk about aggressive!


And Saul offers to bring them another rig back, neither Scratch and Latch are willing to do that. They are unrelenting until Saul logically explains what's going on to him and showing his willingness to trade now and in the future. Scratch says "you can't do that." Again, the agressor is Scratch.

Hey, you're taking a bunch of my shit!
Oh, I'll bring you something back later.

You know that you wouldn't agree to that. I know you wouldn't agree to that. Let's not pretend that anyone else would.


You act as though the "stolen property" was clearly marked and guarded. They hadn't seen a single person for the few days leading up to the encounter, seeing someone roll up and tell you to piss off and leave their stuff alone after what you had gone through to get it is completely unreasonable. They then ask for Lizzy to do an unnamed act, how exactly would you react after they threatened to shoot her for merely approaching them unarmed. I wouldn't act any different, if someone came up to me and said that unmarked and unguarded truck you worked so hard to get can't be taken because I said so, insulted me, threatened to shoot someone with me for a non-agressive action I'd respond with the same agression. Following them wouldn't be a bad idea either, they've already claimed to have carved out territory due to irrational reasoning and Saul wasn't going to follow them to steal from them, more to learn about them and their situation. We already know they stole from Burt's shop and trying to recover what was stolen from him is in what way different from what Scratch and Latch were trying to do? I'm using circular logic?

Do you read what you write? I'm glad you see the point.



Your air of superiority matters nothing to me, it's actually quite humorous. I've said nothing that was untrue and ignored nothing, not even in my original post. You are digging a hole with your argument because you're a pot calling the kettle black. What the Tower guys did was no different than what Scratch and Latch did. The two Mallers were agressive first and were trying to recover what they considered was stolen. They saw the destroyed car at the depot, then took the time and risk to try and track them down to get it back. At that point, it's no longer worth the trouble and just like Burt pointed out, there was one right down the street. They weren't using the rigs, they weren't secured, they weren't under guard. The guns and ammo they stole from Burt's gun store were under lock and key (guarded) and agreed that everything in sight was up for grabs. You can't hold someone to a standard you don't hold yourself to. They stole from someone and then tried to act like the Tower guys were in the wrong for "stealing" from them. Exactly how are the Tower guys in the wrong more than Scratch and Latch? They are merely confirming what the Mallers had adhered to all along. You think they'd willingly give back the guns they stole because Burt laid claim to them? Please.

Were they caught in the act? No. Had they been, who's to say how that would have turned out. In any event, we've already established--and the wiki concurs--the possession of the tankers.


Also, you're going to have to have a citation for this "Lizzy squealing and clapping with joy and excitement at hitting a pair of slaves. Or was that Pegs? I forget, but I'm certain it was a resident of the tower." Pegs has NEVER acted that way throughout the entire story unless that person had wronged her first.

Sure! But, I'm not going to do all of your homework for you! As it turns out, it was Lizzy, which you would have known had you paid attention to the episode you're arguing about. Chapter 12: The War: Part Two: 5:25 approx.
Lizzy
(clapping)
Got two on my first try!


I'll grant you that there is no 'squeal of glee', but there is a definite sense satisfaction (if not joy) in her voice. She must have been looking forward to setting someone on fire for a long, long time. And let's not gloss over Burt's enthusiastic killing of men simply following orders. Like Pippin. He was just following orders, yet he was murdered! Hmmm... the semantics are strong with you.




She couldn't even sleep at night after defending herself and Michael from the twins, who by that time we had already learned were vicious criminals and unrepentant murderers. Not to mention that is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand, you presented this opinion about the situation concerning the truck, not what happened earlier, later, or with different characters.

You seem so steadfast. Neglecting the caveat that I wasn't 100% positive, you base your statement on one point of contention. Good for you! As far as presenting an opinion based on information you didn't learn until well after the fact and not the immediate situation. Why shouldn't I be given the same luxury?

In conclusion:

You have failed to convince me with your argument through simple disregard for the established chronology of events leading up to the events. Your need to cite knowledge that is not gained for another two seasons lends credence to my contention that your opinions have been coloured by the information we learned after the fact, holding it up as though it was 'so obvious'. You have trolled, somewhat sucessfully as you have managed to keep me reading, yet still have not proven your point beyond your own opinion. Stop ignoring the chain of events until it serves your argument.

If I failed to touch upon a point that you feel validates the whole of your argument, feel free to carry on. If all you've got say is 'blah blah only an idiot couldn't see blah blah' or 'oh look, more superior drivel' feel free to turn off your computer, step outside and get some air. Your response will be dismissed.

*Drops the mic*

[GeneTwo]

*Drops the mic*

So everyone has an image in their minds of who the mallers are. What do you see Osiris. What is so appealing about the mallers.

[Osiris]

So everyone has an image in their minds of who the mallers are. What do you see Osiris. What is so appealing about the mallers.

It isn't a matter of appealing versus unappealing. It's a simple matter of not wanting to vilify everyone whose motives diametrically oppose how we perceive the Tower's. I'm a big fan of Scratch--which should be obvious by this point. I feel that her character is far more complex than we want to believe and that eventually things events will paint her in a very different light than we are willing to see (myself included). If it turns out that she's simply a lunatic and has no rhyme or reason for anything she does other than a desire to 'watch the world burn', I'll admit it. No problem there. If it turns out there is something more to her, well... we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

[GeneTwo]

So everyone has an image in their minds of who the mallers are. What do you see Osiris.

[Osiris]

As a whole? I see them as a group of miscreants and thugs--average max security prison folk--that are too afraid of the man in charge to say no. If Durai was able to worry Scratch... well... if...

[HorrorHiro]

I don't necessarily agree with Osiris, but I do prefer the Mallers over every other group in WA.

[HaveCrowBarWillTravel]

[QUOTE=Osiris;37636][COLOR=#008080]Nobody's asking him to rape babies or kill Jews. Moral compass is subjective (apparently). Apply the same set of moral standards to animals. That's essentially what we're dealing with right here with regard to survival. It is clear that Kalani was doing what he was doing to ensure the survival of his child. It is entirely possible Scratch and Latch were doing the same.

LOL. "apply the same set of moral standards to animals.."
well, I'm moving on after that bit of logic.

Crowbar out!

[yarri]

I don't necessarily agree with Osiris, but I do prefer the Mallers over every other group in WA.

I don't always either but he's made some valid points

[Osiris]

[QUOTE=Osiris;37636][COLOR=#008080]Nobody's asking him to rape babies or kill Jews. Moral compass is subjective (apparently). Apply the same set of moral standards to animals. That's essentially what we're dealing with right here with regard to survival. It is clear that Kalani was doing what he was doing to ensure the survival of his child. It is entirely possible Scratch and Latch were doing the same.

LOL. "apply the same set of moral standards to animals.."
well, I'm moving on after that bit of logic.

Crowbar out!

The point is, you can't. It's a matter of survival, pure and simple. Sometimes morals have to be chucked out the window for a while to keep yourself breathing.

[Osiris]

I don't necessarily agree with Osiris, but I do prefer the Mallers over every other group in WA.

I don't know if I would go that far. lulz.


I don't always either but he's made some valid points

I think a lot of valid points have been raised in this thread--from a lot of people. All in all, enjoyable.

[Ray]

I'm tired of you Osiris. We both stick to our guns, you however are a condescending prick about it. I haven't ignored anything and you've said nothing other than "mind the chain of events" so it's pointless to argue with you. You're sticking to absolutes, black and white, "they did this" without looking at context. Call me a troll all you want, I'm sorry I lost your dick measuring contest in concern to who's been here longer and has more posts. I've listened to the entire series about 5 times and I get the overall picture, you however look at each exchange as separate events that don't have an effect on what happens next in conversation or major plot points. You have no concept of context, emotions conveyed in speech and setting, and you can't come anywhere near close to seeing the overall picture. You're pointless to talk to because of your condescending attitude and your false sense of better understanding of the situations as they are presented. I'll ask you what you asked me. Do you read what you write? Because you obviously don't or you don't understand the basics of English. You also strive so hard to look at things logically (though you aren't very good at it) that you forget human emotion, context of settings and events and basic common sense. You can defend who you want, and I'll defend who I want, but I'm tired of your attitude. Drop the mic all you want, you're still wrong in many ways. Cute internet humor and a condescending attitude must get you really far in life.

[reaper239]

[QUOTE=HaveCrowBarWillTravel;37726]

The point is, you can't. It's a matter of survival, pure and simple. Sometimes morals have to be chucked out the window for a while to keep yourself breathing.

not true, i'd rather eat a bullet than sacrifice my own moral standings.

[reaper239]

I'm tired of you Osiris. We both stick to our guns, you however are a condescending prick about it. I haven't ignored anything and you've said nothing other than "mind the chain of events" so it's pointless to argue with you. You're sticking to absolutes, black and white, "they did this" without looking at context. Call me a troll all you want, I'm sorry I lost your dick measuring contest in concern to who's been here longer and has more posts. I've listened to the entire series about 5 times and I get the overall picture, you however look at each exchange as separate events that don't have an effect on what happens next in conversation or major plot points. You have no concept of context, emotions conveyed in speech and setting, and you can't come anywhere near close to seeing the overall picture. You're pointless to talk to because of your condescending attitude and your false sense of better understanding of the situations as they are presented. I'll ask you what you asked me. Do you read what you write? Because you obviously don't or you don't understand the basics of English. You also strive so hard to look at things logically (though you aren't very good at it) that you forget human emotion, context of settings and events and basic common sense. You can defend who you want, and I'll defend who I want, but I'm tired of your attitude. Drop the mic all you want, you're still wrong in many ways. Cute internet humor and a condescending attitude must get you really far in life.

now tell him how you really feel! :D

[Osiris]

I'm tired of you Osiris. We both stick to our guns, you however are a condescending prick about it. I haven't ignored anything and you've said nothing other than "mind the chain of events" so it's pointless to argue with you. You're sticking to absolutes, black and white, "they did this" without looking at context. Call me a troll all you want, I'm sorry I lost your dick measuring contest in concern to who's been here longer and has more posts. I've listened to the entire series about 5 times and I get the overall picture, you however look at each exchange as separate events that don't have an effect on what happens next in conversation or major plot points. You have no concept of context, emotions conveyed in speech and setting, and you can't come anywhere near close to seeing the overall picture. You're pointless to talk to because of your condescending attitude and your false sense of better understanding of the situations as they are presented. I'll ask you what you asked me. Do you read what you write? Because you obviously don't or you don't understand the basics of English. You also strive so hard to look at things logically (though you aren't very good at it) that you forget human emotion, context of settings and events and basic common sense. You can defend who you want, and I'll defend who I want, but I'm tired of your attitude. Drop the mic all you want, you're still wrong in many ways. Cute internet humor and a condescending attitude must get you really far in life.

I stopped reading after this point. Sorry you got all butthurt because you got shut down, dude. No need to go that route, that's just poor sportsmanship.

QFC.
QFT.

[Ray]

Well, I put forth my opinion and got called a deaf, daft idiot. How else am I supposed to respond? I have very good points based in logic, common sense, and human emotion yet I'm wrong because I apparently "don't listen." Whatever, I'm done. Those are my opinions on how things went down and I stupidly let someone bait me into an argument. The old "wrestle with a pig in shit..." saying.

[Osiris]

not true, i'd rather eat a bullet than sacrifice my own moral standings.

It really depends. I think there are situations when you can overlook certain aspects of morality (i.e. selling out strangers to protect yourself and your own). Like I said, it's not like anyone's raping babies. They aren't pushing old people down elevator shafts either. I know that I would go to any length to protect my family. Shit, I'd have burned down the building in the middle of the night if they'd asked me to. I guess it really depends on what's more important to you. The life of your child or the life of some fuck in a hat you've never met in your life and have absolutely no responsibility to.

[Ray]

I stopped reading after this point. Sorry you got all butthurt because you got shut down, dude. No need to go that route, that's just poor sportsmanship.

QFC.
QFT.

Shut down? Not hardly. No, I got talked down to like a child. No need to be condescending either, but you're pretty damn good at that.

[Osiris]

Well, I put forth my opinion and got called a deaf, daft idiot. How else am I supposed to respond? I have very good points based in logic, common sense, and human emotion yet I'm wrong because I apparently "don't listen." Whatever, I'm done. Those are my opinions on how things went down and I stupidly let someone bait me into an argument. The old "wrestle with a pig in shit..." saying.

It's almost like you're angry about being wrong.

[Ray]

It really depends. I think there are situations when you can overlook certain aspects of morality (i.e. selling out strangers to protect yourself and your own). Like I said, it's not like anyone's raping babies. They aren't pushing old people down elevator shafts either. I know that I would go to any length to protect my family. Shit, I'd have burned down the building in the middle of the night if they'd asked me to. I guess it really depends on what's more important to you. The life of your child or the life of some fuck in a hat you've never met in your life and have absolutely no responsibility to.

See, that's what I don't understand and why I wrote everything I have. You say that, but if you step back and look at it the Mallers were never going to uphold the end of the deal. They're rapists and murderers. Kalani ingored that fact or was too stupid to see it and it got alot of people killed. That's my whole point. He was an idiot that pushed along a war he was never going to win. We've seen this in some form in every movie and tv show ever made. Make a deal with the devil and you're always going to lose. Charlie Daniels aside. If I had 30 people with much better guns and more ammo, I wouldn't burn their house down to save my kid. That's cutting off your nose in spite of your face. It makes no sense.

[reaper239]

alright, how's this: osiris, quit being a dick, ray, ignore osiris he's only trying to bait you. i fell for it once and i will not do it again.

[reaper239]

the grim reaper is OUT!

[TCM Revolver]

Shut down? Not hardly. No, I got talked down to like a child. No need to be condescending either, but you're pretty damn good at that.

The phrase shut down refers to this thread! I hope to never see this petty stuff again.