They killed off Ethan relatively early on. I don't remember how long Goodwin stuck around, but it was several weeks. If anyone remembers what day he died, let me know. But he had plenty of time to get to know people. He helped out, got in the thick of things, and built relationships. The only thing I remember about Ethan was the he was always alone in the woods chopping wood or some such thing, not fellowshiping with people.

And people if you want to talk about good vs evil and who is eligible to be taken, Ethan was definately not in the slightest good, he was quite evil. So, good is a relative term here.

I agree I don't think "good" and "bad" people here means what we think it means. I think it has more to do with who is fit for the studies going on. Ethan dies about three weeks in and Goodwin about 4-5 weeks. Not a huge difference but I don't think they were from the same groups of Others, I think they had different intentions.

What came to my mind with the whole, why hasn't the midsection group been raided like this, was when goodwin was talking about why nathan wasn't taken and he said because "he wasn't a good person" That one really floored me.

THen i thought about it for a while and think about the first camp and how if you go back through their camp while everyone was a good person, everyone had kinda a black mark on their past lives.

This could also explain their obsession with children because its widely felt that children are born good then corrupted by the world. I know some psychologist had a whole theory about this but my high school psychology escapes me at the moment

What came to my mind with the whole, why hasn't the midsection group been raided like this, was when goodwin was talking about why nathan wasn't taken and he said because "he wasn't a good person" That one really floored me.

THen i thought about it for a while and think about the first camp and how if you go back through their camp while everyone was a good person, everyone had kinda a black mark on their past lives.

This could also explain their obsession with children because its widely felt that children are born good then corrupted by the world. I know some psychologist had a whole theory about this but my high school psychology escapes me at the moment

Exactly what I thought.

What came to my mind with the whole, why hasn't the midsection group been raided like this, was when goodwin was talking about why nathan wasn't taken and he said because "he wasn't a good person" That one really floored me.

When he described Nathan that way the first thing that came to my mind was when Claire asked about Ethan and Charlie said "Ethan's the bad guy". Significant?

I guess the easy answer to this question is that everyone at the main camp is bad, except of course Claire

But what does it mean to be "bad"? Bad soul, unfit physically, mentally, genetically for some purpose?

Rose is bad? Sun is bad? She lied to her husband about knowing English because she thought he had turned into some kind of enforcer...that is 'bad'? When you get down to it..is Jin 'bad'? He was caught up in a bad situation but was he himself..bad? Would Charlie be 'bad' without the drugs? Jack is intense and over emotional but is he bad? For turning in his drunk father and stopping him from being drunk in the OR again?

What kind of standards do these people use if they is they are speaking in 'moral' terms????

I thought the reason the main camp hasn't been attacked was because of the "security system". Maybe it's keeping the others out.

Everyone has a black mark on their lives somewhere. That's what makes a person human. I think it has something more to do with the children. Ethan only took claire because she was pregnant.

Rose is bad? Sun is bad? She lied to her husband about knowing English because she thought he had turned into some kind of enforcer...that is 'bad'? When you get down to it..is Jin 'bad'? He was caught up in a bad situation but was he himself..bad? Would Charlie be 'bad' without the drugs? Jack is intense and over emotional but is he bad? For turning in his drunk father and stopping him from being drunk in the OR again?

What kind of standards do these people use if they is they are speaking in 'moral' terms????

That's exactly why I don't think they are speaking in moral terms.

It is all perspective...trash is treasure to some...I love steak...my wife hates it...she loves seafood I hate it...I think Bruce Springsteen is a deity she fell asleep at his last show we went too.

All depends on the frame of mind of the person and how they see things.

Now...am I good because I like all those things or am I bad for disagreeing with her??

I think everyone is reading into it too much. I think GOOD and BAD are in terms of their needs. They need certain kinds of people who are able to do certain kinds of things. We don't know exactly what those are yet, but I am sure that it will come out eventually. I am wondering still how Claire escaped or was released and why her memory is gone. That still makes no sense to me because it seems that everyone else who was taken never came back...

This could also explain their obsession with children because its widely felt that children are born good then corrupted by the world. I know some psychologist had a whole theory about this but my high school psychology escapes me at the moment

The belief that every baby is born pure is the theory of philosopher John Locke.

How is Michael Bad? His back story is just him wating his son. Michael has not shown us he is bad and/or Locke.

I am not sure about that theory, I just think that Ethan was like Goodwin and was in the camp for a reason but Ethan probably never got back to the others to give them the info back.

They are days a part from eachother.

I thought the reason the main camp hasn't been attacked was because of the "security system". Maybe it's keeping the others out.

how can we be sure that the main camp has not been attacked? they did not take a head count until several weeks in. in all the confusion and commotion, maybe there have been some unaccounted for folks taken ....

I think people are reading way too much into this. It definitely seems to be more of a location thing than anything else. The people arguing the good/bad thing are making one major oversight, and that is the fact that the midsection camp is not just the 14 (well, now 12) main characters, but actually 40+ people.

I'm no mathematician, but I can tell you that the odds of 12 out of the 17 tail enders being "good", and only 1 out of the 40+ midsectioners being "good" is beyond remote, no matter what the definition of "good" is.

I thought the reason the main camp hasn't been attacked was because of the "security system". Maybe it's keeping the others out.
Jackpot. I agree with this.

Everyone has a black mark on their lives somewhere. That's what makes a person human. I think it has something more to do with the children. Ethan only took claire because she was pregnant.

I should probably watch the episode again before I post this, so sorry if there's some really obvious clue that stops this theory dead, but maybe Ethan took Claire because she was 'good' (in some sort of spiritual way, according to her psychic) and not because she was pregnant.

Ethan waited until he thought she was in labour before abducting her, having known from the start that she was heavily pregnant. If they wanted her baby, why wouldn't the others (or Ethan's gang, whoever) take her away as soon as they could, and wait for her to give birth at their place?

Why wait until she's actually expelling the bubba? The psychic said great danger surrounds the child - perhaps they weren't after the child, but only Claire minus baby. Maybe the whole thing with Alex's baby being taken is making us assume that its just children they want. And the fact that they took grown up tailies supports this.

What do you think?

Jackpot. I agree with this.

Same here. The tailies never heard the security system on their side, at least as far as we've seen - and I think they would have showed us that during the last episode, that's a pretty important clue.

I think everytime we hear/see the security system, it is actually after one of the jungle dwelling Others that are in the area, close to our survivors. From our point of view, it's attacking them, but in actuality it is after the sneaky jungle folks.

That's why Locke wasn't killed I think. It came down close and decided he wasn't one of the jungle guys and moved on.

They killed off Ethan relatively early on. I don't remember how long Goodwin stuck around, but it was several weeks. If anyone remembers what day he died, let me know. But he had plenty of time to get to know people. He helped out, got in the thick of things, and built relationships. The only thing I remember about Ethan was the he was always alone in the woods chopping wood or some such thing, not fellowshiping with people.

And people if you want to talk about good vs evil and who is eligible to be taken, Ethan was definately not in the slightest good, he was quite evil. So, good is a relative term here.

I'm pretty sure that Ethan and Goodwin were killed on the same day.
http://tviv.org/wiki/Lost/Timeline

What came to my mind with the whole, why hasn't the midsection group been raided like this, was when goodwin was talking about why nathan wasn't taken and he said because "he wasn't a good person" That one really floored me.

THen i thought about it for a while and think about the first camp and how if you go back through their camp while everyone was a good person, everyone had kinda a black mark on their past lives.

This could also explain their obsession with children because its widely felt that children are born good then corrupted by the world. I know some psychologist had a whole theory about this but my high school psychology escapes me at the moment

The belief that every baby is born pure is the theory of philosopher John Locke.




Isn't that called Tabula Rasa? Blank slate... BF Skinner, THE behaviorist psychologist subscribed to this theory and even said:Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select--doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even a beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. The only thing I remember about Ethan was the he was always alone in the woods chopping wood or some such thing, not fellowshiping with people.

Locke and Ethan went hunting a few times.
S1E11
Locke: This was my fault.
Jack: What?
Locke: I hunted with Ethan. I spent time with him. I never sensed anything off. But for everything that I know about hunting, tracking. . . whoever he is, he knows more. If we catch up with him, I don't want anything to happen to the only trained physician on the island. So go back, be the doctor. Let me be the hunter.

I think the reason the main camp hasn't been attacked much is because a fight featuring guys with guns vs. unarmed guys is a little one-sided. Even if they all had knives, they'd lose.

If the Others try to attack the camp now that the tailies moved in I'm hoping for some Locke/Eko tag team action just owning all the others that get close. Locke with an assault rifle from the hatch gunning down Others would really be something to see. :twisted:

Excuse me if I sound evil, but I'm just hoping for a climactic battle with the Others. It seems like there's been a lull in the action.

They killed off Ethan relatively early on. I don't remember how long Goodwin stuck around, but it was several weeks. If anyone remembers what day he died, let me know. But he had plenty of time to get to know people. He helped out, got in the thick of things, and built relationships. The only thing I remember about Ethan was the he was always alone in the woods chopping wood or some such thing, not fellowshiping with people.

And people if you want to talk about good vs evil and who is eligible to be taken, Ethan was definately not in the slightest good, he was quite evil. So, good is a relative term here.
That's what I think. Ethan was not good by the standard definition of the word. Perhaps he's a rebel ... broken off from the main Others group. Maybe he was doing his own thing?
I agree I don't think "good" and "bad" people here means what we think it means. I think it has more to do with who is fit for the studies going on. Ethan dies about three weeks in and Goodwin about 4-5 weeks. Not a huge difference but I don't think they were from the same groups of Others, I think they had different intentions.
I think it has to do with what they view as good or bad. They don't live like normal people so it would make sense that their values are different and their needs are different.
What came to my mind with the whole, why hasn't the midsection group been raided like this, was when goodwin was talking about why nathan wasn't taken and he said because "he wasn't a good person" That one really floored me.

THen i thought about it for a while and think about the first camp and how if you go back through their camp while everyone was a good person, everyone had kinda a black mark on their past lives.

This could also explain their obsession with children because its widely felt that children are born good then corrupted by the world. I know some psychologist had a whole theory about this but my high school psychology escapes me at the moment
They all must have some kind of mark against them in their past. No one is without some kind of "error" along the way. Taking the children could be because of their innocence but they took adults, too.
But what does it mean to be "bad"? Bad soul, unfit physically, mentally, genetically for some purpose?
Exactly!
I thought the reason the main camp hasn't been attacked was because of the "security system". Maybe it's keeping the others out.
I don't know about that. Ethan got in. If he could, why couldn't some others get in?
It is all perspective...trash is treasure to some...I love steak...my wife hates it...she loves seafood I hate it...I think Bruce Springsteen is a deity she fell asleep at his last show we went too.

All depends on the frame of mind of the person and how they see things.

Now...am I good because I like all those things or am I bad for disagreeing with her??
That was a rhetorical question I hope? ;)
I think everyone is reading into it too much. I think GOOD and BAD are in terms of their needs. They need certain kinds of people who are able to do certain kinds of things. We don't know exactly what those are yet, but I am sure that it will come out eventually. I am wondering still how Claire escaped or was released and why her memory is gone. That still makes no sense to me because it seems that everyone else who was taken never came back...
It could have been what she was injected with. We don't know if it was the same stuff Desmond was taking or something totally different.
I should probably watch the episode again before I post this, so sorry if there's some really obvious clue that stops this theory dead, but maybe Ethan took Claire because she was 'good' (in some sort of spiritual way, according to her psychic) and not because she was pregnant.

Ethan waited until he thought she was in labour before abducting her, having known from the start that she was heavily pregnant. If they wanted her baby, why wouldn't the others (or Ethan's gang, whoever) take her away as soon as they could, and wait for her to give birth at their place?

Why wait until she's actually expelling the bubba? The psychic said great danger surrounds the child - perhaps they weren't after the child, but only Claire minus baby. Maybe the whole thing with Alex's baby being taken is making us assume that its just children they want. And the fact that they took grown up tailies supports this.

What do you think?
Ethan didn't take Claire when she was in labor. He was long dead when she went into labor. She went into labor on the day/night that Boone was brought to Jack after his fall.
Same here. The tailies never heard the security system on their side, at least as far as we've seen - and I think they would have showed us that during the last episode, that's a pretty important clue.

I think everytime we hear/see the security system, it is actually after one of the jungle dwelling Others that are in the area, close to our survivors. From our point of view, it's attacking them, but in actuality it is after the sneaky jungle folks.

That's why Locke wasn't killed I think. It came down close and decided he wasn't one of the jungle guys and moved on.
Except that it tried to pull Locke down the hole and had it not been for Jack ... it would have succeeded. I don't think it picks who to attack and who not to. I think there are 2 different systems. One is bad ... the one that killed the pilot, tried to take Locke down the hole and one that's good ... the one that Locke saw and said was "beautiful."

Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select--doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even a beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors.


Actually, that was John B. Watson who said that. But I can see why you thought Skinner said that because the both worked in behaviorism. Check out Watson here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Watson

Maybe by "bad" they mean smell.........except Kate that would be everyone wouldn't it? lol

Same here. The tailies never heard the security system on their side, at least as far as we've seen - and I think they would have showed us that during the last episode, that's a pretty important clue.


I think they actually do, I accidentally deleted the episode from my TiVo (:mad:
but while they're on the beach you do hear the security system.

One reason the main camp may not have been attacked is that they are far more organized. They have a manifest, and basically took attendance. So any additional infiltration is not going to work. Obviously, Goodwin reported the tailies to his buddies, they had a list and inside info. They knew what they were doing. Ethan may not have been able to communciate wiht his buddies, assuming he is in the same gang. (The Jets? Cuz when you're a jet you're a jet for life! Sorry. :rolleyes: )

They are also pretty well armed. For example, you have guns, (courtesy of the marshal)
you have knives (courtesy of Locke) and you just have more people. And from what we've seen, no children besides Walt and Turniphead.

It is all perspective...trash is treasure to some...I love steak...my wife hates it...she loves seafood I hate it...I think Bruce Springsteen is a deity she fell asleep at his last show we went too.

All depends on the frame of mind of the person and how they see things.

Now...am I good because I like all those things or am I bad for disagreeing with her??

Well of course she's wrong for not thinking he's a diety! :hammer: I do love reading your posts!

I'm not sure how "official" the diary is on the ABC Lost page, but the last entry by Janelle, the original author, clearly indicates that she and several others broke away from the rest of the group and subsequently were attacked - and presumably taken. The diary was found by someone else, half buried. The rest of the group apparently hasn't noticed the fact that these people are missing.

Actually, that was John B. Watson who said that. But I can see why you thought Skinner said that because the both worked in behaviorism. Check out Watson here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Watson

Johnny B Good

I think that there is a couple of reasons that the main camp hasnt been attacked as much.
1. i think location of were they landed played a big role in their attacks. The tailes landed in a more dangerous area and the main camp landed further away from the dangerous others.
2. i think the size of the main camps survivers might have detered the others from attack more quickly. they wanted to observe them longer to find out who to take. Claires baby was a given because it was a new born and considered good. Ethan needed to figure out who to take, but was found out before he could report.
3. i dont think that Ethan is associated with the others that are after the tailies, i think that there is more groups that play a role then just the straight others, there is probably at least two diffrent groups.

I'm pretty sure that Ethan and Goodwin were killed on the same day.
http://tviv.org/wiki/Lost/Timeline


Wow, that is a scary coincidence - thanks for noticing that!:)

IMHO, The main camp hasn't been attacked as much because of their numbers. They have always had more people within their group.

Ethan didn't take Claire when she was in labor. He was long dead when she went into labor. She went into labor on the day/night that Boone was brought to Jack after his fall.



Ethan 'thought' Claire was in labor when he took her. Remember Charlie ran over to him and told him to go get Jack becasue Claire was having contractions...it turned out to be stress induced false labor but Ethan didn't know that at the time...so he took her.

That's interesting. I never realized that it was her false labor that may have been the precipitating event to her abduction. I wondered why Ethan decided to make a move at that time when he was observing them for a while and had plenty of other opportunities. But that begs the question: did Ethan want Claire or the baby? Charlie claims, "all they wanted was Claire". The psychic describes Claire as the one with "goodness" and says it is her goodness that has to influence the baby. If the Others want good ones, is it Clair or the baby that they consider good?

Isn't that called Tabula Rasa? Blank slate... BF Skinner, THE behaviorist psychologist subscribed to this theory and even said:Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select--doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even a beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors.



A-HA! You've found the Answer, by God.
I thought Skinner's theories would come into play, I just wasn't sure how. But this quote fits so many of the island mysteries so well.

Actually, that was John B. Watson who said that. But I can see why you thought Skinner said that because the both worked in behaviorism. Check out Watson here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Watson

Oops! I think this may negate my last post. :-) Oh well. I still think the quote about children fits the show, even if it means the Skinner Box theory that I like is wrong.
It's all in fun (to me) any way.

Rose is bad? Sun is bad? She lied to her husband about knowing English because she thought he had turned into some kind of enforcer...that is 'bad'? When you get down to it..is Jin 'bad'? He was caught up in a bad situation but was he himself..bad? Would Charlie be 'bad' without the drugs? Jack is intense and over emotional but is he bad? For turning in his drunk father and stopping him from being drunk in the OR again?

What kind of standards do these people use if they is they are speaking in 'moral' terms????

haha... all i can is......

'you been doin' wrrrrong! you been doin wrong.

'who's bad? heee heee! acha-hoo!'

I'm a fan of the Skinner theory. Read Walden Two if you get a chance. The kids are taken away and raised by 'others' and made to fit into a mold were 'negative' emotions are purged. I personally think the experiment was taken to the extreme in this case.

I think that they wanted Claire's goodness, and that when they took her and somehow realised that the baby was bad (or dangerous, not 'good', whatever) they sent her back.

I think the reason they didn't try to kill her is that they wanted to send her back, let her give birth, and then take her again minus the baby. Or maybe now they will feel she's been tainted by the baby and not bother. But I wouldn't be surprised if they try to take her again.

I think that the whole Skinner/idealism/children theme is a red herring to make us think it was only the kids they want. I think that the fact that adult tailies have been taken is a clue to this. Especially considering the hatch (and therefore the orientation video) was an afterthought on the part of the writers, I don't think this is necessarily the key to everything. Not that it's not important, though (and still the most intriguing part of the show).

I should probably watch the episode again before I post this, so sorry if there's some really obvious clue that stops this theory dead, but maybe Ethan took Claire because she was 'good' (in some sort of spiritual way, according to her psychic) and not because she was pregnant.

Ethan waited until he thought she was in labour before abducting her, having known from the start that she was heavily pregnant. If they wanted her baby, why wouldn't the others (or Ethan's gang, whoever) take her away as soon as they could, and wait for her to give birth at their place?

Why wait until she's actually expelling the bubba? The psychic said great danger surrounds the child - perhaps they weren't after the child, but only Claire minus baby. Maybe the whole thing with Alex's baby being taken is making us assume that its just children they want. And the fact that they took grown up tailies supports this.

What do you think?

I think if the others were evil and 'capable of anything' and wanted the baby bad enough, they would have sliced claire open , extracted the baby and left her for dead.

I agree. I think they took claire back to their place, found out her baby was *spiritually undesirable* and didn't want anything to do with it. I think they're waiting to get claire alone, without the baby.

If this is right, then the reason they didn't slice claire open in the jungle is because before they examined her, they assumed that the baby would be good like her.

I still maintain that they were attracted by her goodness, not the innocence of the baby.

I thought the reason the main camp hasn't been attacked was because of the "security system". Maybe it's keeping the others out.

this sounds like a really good explanation of why they haven't been attacked...it is a possibility. and now since there hasn't been any sightings of the "security system" monster maybe we will start seeing the "others" attacking at the main camp...:undecide:

this sounds like a really good explanation of why they haven't been attacked...it is a possibility. and now since there hasn't been any sightings of the "security system" monster maybe we will start seeing the "others" attacking at the main camp...:undecide: It's only been four days since the Black Rock expedition for the dynamite. While it might have been several months since you last heard the monster, it wasn't all that long ago for them. :p

Heck, Boone's only been dead about a week.