In the original camp, we see the backstories of what 10 people (just a round number)? What about the other 40 some odd people? You can't tell me NONE of those people are 'good' by the standards of the others. So why aren't they being taken. It would go down the same way - we would never have to know them as characters. Someone would just come in the night and steal them away. But that hasn't happened.

What gives?
People keep bringing up the lostzilla may be protecting them. But 1. Lostzilla ATE the pilot and 2. Ethan did manage to both invade camp and cause a ton of trouble.

Are we gonna chalk this up to insufficient numbers of others? Or limited space in their base? Speaking of which, do they even have a base? Seems to me they're living in the trees...everywhere and nowhere at once.

Interesting questions. I also wondered why the others never took any of the lostaways (besides Charlie and Claire). Perhaps they were after the smaller group first? Perhaps Ethan only reported to take pregnant Claire? Perhaps they didn't want any of them after Ethan was killed? Hard to say really. Too many possibilities, but a valid question.

In the original camp, we see the backstories of what 10 people (just a round number)? What about the other 40 some odd people? You can't tell me NONE of those people are 'good' by the standards of the others. So why aren't they being taken. It would go down the same way - we would never have to know them as characters. Someone would just come in the night and steal them away. But that hasn't happened.

What gives?
People keep bringing up the lostzilla may be protecting them. But 1. Lostzilla ATE the pilot and 2. Ethan did manage to both invade camp and cause a ton of trouble.

Are we gonna chalk this up to insufficient numbers of others? Or limited space in their base? Speaking of which, do they even have a base? Seems to me they're living in the trees...everywhere and nowhere at once.

You assuming Ethan is with Goodwin's/Kidnapping Others group. He may not be. I believe he is part of another group, possibly with Nathan. Maybe nobody got taken because the kidnapping group didn't know about the original lost aways. Notice the following:

-Kidnappers didn't hurt anybody until Goodwin killed Nathan, Ethan launched right into killing as soon as he didn't get what he wanted.

-Ethan could have called for bare-footed backup at any time if he was part of that group. He seems to be acting alone, why not get help if he could?

-Ethan didn't want lots of people, just Claire, seems distinctly different from the motives of the Kidnapping Others/Goodwin.

Just some things to ponder:biggrin:

i guess what ties them together for me is the kids. ethan wanted a kid. the people last night wanted the kids. gordon's fishermen wanted the kid. we're calling them all 'others.' how many different groups of others can there be?

unless ethan had a falling out with his original group and he knew that getting a kid would get him back in their good graces. but then why let claire go?

The others may not live in close proximity to our original lostaways. The tailies may have been easier prey.

You assuming Ethan is with Goodwin's/Kidnapping Others group. He may not be. I believe he is part of another group, possibly with Nathan. Maybe nobody got taken because the kidnapping group didn't know about the original lost aways. Notice the following:

-Kidnappers didn't hurt anybody until Goodwin killed Nathan, Ethan launched right into killing as soon as he didn't get what he wanted.

-Ethan could have called for bare-footed backup at any time if he was part of that group. He seems to be acting alone, why not get help if he could?

-Ethan didn't want lots of people, just Claire, seems distinctly different from the motives of the Kidnapping Others/Goodwin.

Just some things to ponder:biggrin:

Excellent points. Another question I have is why did both Ethan and Nathan say they were from Canada? And did Kate say something about Canada as well? I know the actress is Canadian, but I can't recall if Kate is. And also, are they in some way connected to Hurley's factory that caught fire in Canada? I'm Canadian, so I know how large the country is, but it just seems to me that there has got to be a connection if they all mention Canada.

Excellent points. Another question I have is why did both Ethan and Nathan say they were from Canada? And did Kate say something about Canada as well? I know the actress is Canadian, but I can't recall if Kate is. And also, are they in some way connected to Hurley's factory that caught fire in Canada? I'm Canadian, so I know how large the country is, but it just seems to me that there has got to be a connection if they all mention Canada.

To me the Canada response seemed automated from both Nathan and Ethan. It seems like something they were told to say. Give an English speaking country where the majority of people are caucasion (which ethan and nathan both are), and isn't America. Seem like the ideal place to say you are from to get people to stop asking. That's just my thoughts. Whether or not that will play into the other Canada avenues I have no idea.

Good point. Most people don't know enough about Canada to ask anything further. Their culture is nearly identical to ours, but we usually don't know their geography, political/government systems, etc. So saying one is from Canada would pretty much forestall any further questions of origin.

Excellent points. And did Kate say something about Canada as well? I know the actress is Canadian, but I can't recall if Kate is.

...That guy in Australia (can't think of his name right now), the one who found Kate sleeping in his barn and then she stays for a little while and then he turns her in because he needs the money... Kate told him her name was "Annie" and that she was from Canada, but I'm pretty sure that was just a lie... Isn't she from Iowa?

The Canada connection seems to have one thing in common: that being it is a universal cover for origin. Somehow all of the people are tied together (Hurley's box company will, I believe, factor in at some point). The fact that the Others have a list of the names of the passengers bothers me. When Goodwin says, "Nathan wasn't a good person. That's why he wasn't on the list." What does 'good' mean? I am not convinced that it is moral good, but rather good for some purpose as this island seems (Darma Project) to have a, albeit a twisted one, purpose. Additionally, AL says to Goodwin, "You ran out of the jungle 10 minutes after the crash. You weren't even wet." All good, but these statements all apply to Jack too, don't they? Finally, the Noseies are greater in number, so a bigger problem for direct attack (infiltration seems the only solution).

Good call. I hadn't thought of it as being an automated response for a cover.

...That guy in Australia (can't think of his name right now), the one who found Kate sleeping in his barn and then she stays for a little while and then he turns her in because he needs the money... Kate told him her name was "Annie" and that she was from Canada, but I'm pretty sure that was just a lie... Isn't she from Iowa?

Thanks. I didn't remember that, since I only saw that episode once. I really don't remember if she's from Iowa. But, didn't she say a while ago that her dad was in the military or something? They could have moved around a lot.

I'm personally all for the idea that the "monster" that terrorizes the fusies is actually protecting them from the others, who don't want to go near it. So if there are good people amoungst their ranks, they are safe for now.

Besides, we don't know what he means by "good" yet. It may not mean a morally good person.

it's bad enough that we're stuck with useless backstories of people like charlie, sun, and jin...you want to hear about 40 more people?

The "Good" arguement is so vague and can be taken in so many ways. I would like to point out that Goodwin doesn't say BAD. So, maybe it's not that they are "Good" maybe it's that they are "Good" for something? Maybe they are to be used for something. I think that seems more plausible than moral good.

The "Good" arguement is so vague and can be taken in so many ways. I would like to point out that Goodwin doesn't say BAD. So, maybe it's not that they are "Good" maybe it's that they are "Good" for something? Maybe they are to be used for something. I think that seems more plausible than moral good.

I believe at one time refers to Nathan as a bad person, I think in reference to why he wasn't taken? Anybody remember this?

Good or Bad could imply either not good for our purposes or bad for our purposes with no moral question involved. What if Goodwin's group is trying to expand. They can use forced labor i.e. strong adults who can be controlled and children who can be fostered into the group. Thus they would not be interested in older adults like Bernard or strong willed adults like Ana. Notice Eko was not on the list and they did not make a second try for him. Under that guise Nathan would be perhaps like Ana & Eko, someone not willing to allow others to control him - not a could candidate for slave labor.

AL says to Goodwin, "You ran out of the jungle 10 minutes after the crash. You weren't even wet." All good, but these statements all apply to Jack too, don't they?Well yeah but the forward section landed on the beach not in the water and Jack like Bernard landed further inland. No reason for Jack or most of the forward section to be wet. Kate was also in the jungle in dry clothes.

Why didn’t they attack the forward section? Ethan, the ‘Other’s’ lookout on the forward section part of the island, was killed before he reported back to the main group. So only Ethan not the rest of the ‘Other’s’ attacked the forward section group. The main group didn't neccessarily know about the forward section survivors.

The "Good" arguement is so vague and can be taken in so many ways. I would like to point out that Goodwin doesn't say BAD. So, maybe it's not that they are "Good" maybe it's that they are "Good" for something? Maybe they are to be used for something. I think that seems more plausible than moral good.

I agree completely.

Now, we don't know much about Rose and Bernard, but from what we have seen, both of them seem like morally good people. I'm not saying they can't have skeletons in their closet like everybody else, but so far, Rose has been a symbol of redemption in many ways. When Charlie was in crisis, and later Hurley, Rose came along and helped them pick up the pieces in a way that others could not manage. Whatever her past was, it seems like here, on the island, she is good.

Now, children may be considered inherently innocent. However, this is just a social construct like everything else. Yes, children have a less complicated view of the world and therefore are less capable of distinguishing right from wrong in themselves and others, but this does this make them morally good? Surely we've all met eight your old terrors.

We have no idea what Goodwin meant when he said "Nathan was not a good person" -- well, for all when know that means that Nathan wasn't a good person because he wasn't a good canidate for whatever. This is just another mystery.

Now, why weren't our original losties ever taken?

Again, another mystery. As everyone has said, it could have a lot to do with Ethan. It could also have a lot to do with the fact that they seemed to become more organized more quickly than the tailies. It could be that they had supplies, and therefore had means to defend themselves. It could be that they have Hurley, who may or may not have been an indirect cause of the plane crash, or Walt, with his undefined powers, or Locke, with his mysteriously restored legs and seemingly boundless faith in the island.

It could be that the Others intended, somehow, for the tailies to unit with the other Lost ones all along, and that by making their experience so drestically different they were trying (and seem to be succeeding) in creating discord. Maybe they wanted to establish a society so that they could rip it apart.

I know lots of people find it infuriating that almost everything that's said on this show can be taken twelve hundred different ways, but I am really anjoying the mystery. Damon & co. have my permission to make this show plenty more confusing before resolving everything in season 9 or whenever they plan to do so.

In the mean time, I look forward to the recovery of Sawyer (he and Jin are my favorites right now -- both have the best hair, conicidently) and, hopefully finding out what Kate did.

2nd thoughts after reading what Arcadia said. Speculation re why the forward section was not attacked:
The tail section could be the experimental group and forward section the control group, although that does not explain Ethan.
OR It could be that the majority of the children were with the tail section, so they became the primary target?
OR The others may not have the manpower to go after both groups at the same time so they went after the smaller less organized group first?
OR Different sets of others control different parts of the island?