Chapter 31 Family Ties part 1

[VEE]

It was worth listening again just to hear Riley, she must miss me.

Would the NEWS refer to them as 'The Family'? Seems a bit off to me, but news reporting is stylistically different here, so maybe.

[Bullethead]

One thing that stands out to me is this whole eye-for-an-eye retribution requirement within the Families ...
So where is the retaliation for killing Angel, a member of the Families?

My only thought is that she may have tried to cover it up as 'He didn't survive his wounds'. Tardust and Bricks are going to go along with what ever she says happened to Angel. And we know something happened to the Doctor. Perhaps the doctor was going to tell Durai about Scratch and well lets say he did not quite make it.

Thus no retaliation will be coming for the murder of a Family member because to everyone besides those 4, he died of natural causes (mostly).

Would the NEWS refer to them as 'The Family'? Seems a bit off to me, but news reporting is stylistically different here, so maybe.

I am with you in that it would seem unprofessional for the News to use the phrase 'The Family'. However if it is common knowledge, say The Family members have been in and out of high profile court hearings etc. than everyone in the area would know the name after all.

More to the point I am just left with the question WHO THE HELL IS INK!?

[Zombiphobe]

The other bullet point I'd add to yours is this: If Angel was a member of another family but Durai and Scratch are members of the same one and there are no other families around anymore....who would be there to take retribution for Angel?

This seems plausible. But it depends on how the Families are structured. It could be three families closely connected through generations of intermarriage. Or it could be three distinct families where, despite their alliance through the rings, they maintain a lot of autonomy and rivalry. In the first scenario, I would imagine any high ranking member (such as Durai) would insist upon carrying out the required rules. But if it is more like the second scenario, it would make sense that a member of the offended family would have to make the demand for such a retaliation.

My only thought is that she may have tried to cover it up as 'He didn't survive his wounds'. Tardust and Bricks are going to go along with what ever she says happened to Angel. And we know something happened to the Doctor. Perhaps the doctor was going to tell Durai about Scratch and well lets say he did not quite make it.

Wasn't Tardust still recording when Angel got shot? I'm sure Durai would want to see the footage. If the tape went missing or cut off at the end, I think it would raise a lot of suspicion. Furthermore, Scratch just offed the only doctor in a colony of hundreds of people. This is not going to sit well with Durai; he should be questioning her motives.

[Stuv]

WOW! Great episode! Been a busy week with the holiday and all and I just got a chance to listen. Forgive me if this has been brought up already I tried to read the entire thread first but I may have missed this. I feel as if this look into Scratch’s background is a red herring. I think it is even possible that she created the story of the experience for Lizzie's benefit, I think Scratch wants the baby but not for emotional reasons or because she cares. I believe she is still focused on revenge for the death of her brother. Lizzie knows nothing of the Tower collapse survivors movements and based on her conversation with Bricks and Durai Burt has been less than forthcoming (Go Burt!) She knows she could use Lizzie and the baby to draw out the Tower collapse survivors. Presuming she doesn’t know about Irwin, she would believe that the survivor are still together somewhere without any other support.

[IamPaul]

You guys know that Episode in season 1 where Lizzy and Michael are watching the Tivo recording? Interestingly enough when the reporter is talking about our ol'pal Ink, the news reporter can distinctly be heard saying "the family" during the fast forwarded moments. dun dun dun "The" family or the family... It would be super cool if that news cast is a gift that just keeps on giving.

So my wild conspiratorial perspective here is that Ink might be in "the family"

I am going to edit myself here: Holy F************************************************* ***********ck! I never once thought of that, and I just recently re listened to season 1 and 2. This can't be a coincidence. That could explain the tattoo's as well.

[Nedjema]

WOW! Great episode! Been a busy week with the holiday and all and I just got a chance to listen. Forgive me if this has been brought up already I tried to read the entire thread first but I may have missed this. I feel as if this look into Scratch’s background is a red herring. I think it is even possible that she created the story of the experience for Lizzie's benefit, I think Scratch wants the baby but not for emotional reasons or because she cares. I believe she is still focused on revenge for the death of her brother. Lizzie knows nothing of the Tower collapse survivors movements and based on her conversation with Bricks and Durai Burt has been less than forthcoming (Go Burt!) She knows she could use Lizzie and the baby to draw out the Tower collapse survivors. Presuming she doesn’t know about Irwin, she would believe that the survivor are still together somewhere without any other support.

I think everything she said about her past is true. In scratch's eyes, revealing that sort of information about herself, even of it was a lie, would make her seem weak, and scratch would NOT want to make herself seem weak in any way. Did you hear how mad she was at bricks when she thought he overheard her? I think that was real emotion.

[Eviebae]

As a point of clarification. A person's DNA/genes/genetic code is essentially fixed from conception; it is NOT an open book waiting to be formed from some environmental stimilus. What I think you are bringing up is the whole debate over Nature vs. Nurture. Are someone's actions and behaviour the result of some genetic predisposition from birth or are they a result of their upbringing and environment? Following your dog analogy, could a dog be overly agressive because they belong to a certain breed with a genetic predisposition toward agresssion or was it raised in such a way that resulted in this agressive behavior? Both factors can influence who we are and how we behave, but they are not the same thing.

While I agree that the environment that Scratch grew up in and the events in her past most definitely had a hand in the person she has become, her environment growing up did not alter her on a genetic level.

*ahem*
::stands up behind lectern::
Epigenetics research is showing that environment can cause change on a chromosomal level--specifically by causing the suppression or expression of certain genes. And, these genetic changes can be passed on to children.

[wh33t]

*ahem*
::stands up behind lectern::
Epigenetics research is showing that environment can cause change on a chromosomal level--specifically by causing the suppression or expression of certain genes. And, these genetic changes can be passed on to children.

Awesome. Thanks for chiming that in. Now we can almost be certain Scratch is a psychopath on the genetic level haha.

[Zombiphobe]

The very definition of epigenics, is that the changes do not alter the DNA sequence or the genes themselves.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epigenetic

[Eviebae]

Everyone else may wanna skip this one...unless you don't...cuz I'm going to geek the &*$# out...

The very definition of epigenics, is that the changes do not alter the DNA sequence or the genes themselves.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epigenetic

Yes, very true. I never meant to say they do--and frankly think I didn't. I said they cause change at the LEVEL of the chromosome by changing HOW the genes are expressed. Because of evolution; DNA is sort of messy string code and part of how genes are expressed are these para-chromosomal chemicals/proteins that can turn the expression of genes (and thus the traits they express) on and off. In Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, for example, the thinking is constant stress results in changes to chromosomal expression that result in some of the long term behaviors associated (besides and beyond having a predisposition) --like hypervigilance. It's like how in a house some lights are on and some are off; but they are all there being lights and if you don't want to use a light long term you can unscrew the lightbulb.