True , and the real reason I don't trust Locke , is , ( like you ) I am a Charley fan . and that time Charley had that dream or hallucination (a lot like like he did with Boone and that plane ) , about Aaron being in danger and needed to be Baptised , Locke was totally out of line to treat Charley the way he did . Sure , Charley should not have taken AAron into the water , but he was ,in his mind doing what he thought was Right , And don't forget Echo suggested it and Claire did get Aaron baptised afterall. Point : a lot of them have had those odd dreams or hallucinations , and after all Charley did for Claire and Aaron including being hung only inches from his own death , and the fact that he is still clean from the heroin , should have earned him some respect . Don't forget too that Locke is the one who saved the heroin in the hatch in the end of that ordeal , Not Charley , what for ? ....... Plus throughout Charley's flashbacks he always returns to his strong Faith in God .... and is the only one if I recall correctly that has prayed ( with Rose ) for something that we know of ..... I know he helped Sawyer when they kidnapped Sun , but he is human too , and reallly just wanted Locke to pay some how ... anyway , as you can see I get into the characters more than the technical stuff , but another side note : what if Libby is an other and they wanted Claire to remember that stuff for another reason and are her memories even real ?

Sorry guys , I know that last post probably belongs somewhere else , but I haven't figured out how that works when one subject leads to another .

[quote=katobe]True , and the real reason I don't trust Locke , is , ( like you ) I am a Charley fan .QUOTE]


Bzzzzztt! Hee Hee Hee! Wrong assumption! My name is really Charlie (or Charles, anyway).

And it's an amusing story. I am named after my father, whose name is Carl.
"Carl?" you say. Yep. My grandparents escaped from the USSR in 1920 or 1921. They became Canadian citizens and the immigrated to the US (they were denied admittance in New York, but were grant political asylum in Canada).

When my dad was born, my grandparents could only speak Russian and German. A German pastor was called in to translate and when asked what he wanted to name my dad, my grandfather (who had been trying to master English) announced, "Charles," the only problem being, with his accent, it sounded like "Carl."

All my dad's school records, in fact, everything official, has his name as Charles (nobody bothered to look at the birth certificate, I guess) until the government sent him a draft notice for WWII. That's when the name discrepancy surfaced, and in the ensuing bureaucratic chaos, my father enlisted in the Navy and became a cook stationed at a New Jersey base for the duration of the war.

So, when I was born (1st male child and all that), I had to be named, "Charles." So I was --and no nick name derivatives of Charles, either, because those were my dad's names! So the charlie98210 name is kind of an in-joke.

So, actually I'm a Terry O'Quinn fan and find his character protrayal of Locke both fascinating and spooky. I remember the look he gave Charley the third time he asked for the heroin back. Total disgust. Then, as Charley threw it into the fire, the expression morphed into a squinty kind of admiration.

__________________
charlie98210
"Whoa!" she said. "Cry 'Havoc!' And let loose the dogs of war!"
And, like Banquo's ghost, they just won't go away.

I thought that may be the case , your name and all after I sent the post . What a fascinating story . A similar thing happened to our name Oberste when both sets of grandparents came from Germany , it got changed in the translation .....I just think there is something sinister about Locke , I know most people here think he is really awesome , and he is very interesting , but I think eventually we will see .... and it really was not fair the way he treated Charlie . Locke did hide a few of those heroin statues in the locked room at the hatch at the end of one episode .....

Actually, I think Locke got all the statues Charley stashed. I recall seeing them set up four deep on the shelf.

And I think "Henry" hit one of Locke's weak points when he wanted to know why Jack was making decisions without asking Locke. I think Locke believes that he (meaning himself, Locke) is best equipped to lead the group, but he lacks the charisma of Jack. I think the writers might play with this a little. After all, we almost had an open fight between Locke and Jack when Sawyer got Locke to empty the armory without telling Jack.

Jack also has a sinister side. He can't stand it when someone disagrees with him. When they went after Michael, it seemed like Jack was trying, deliberately, to tick off Locke and Sawyer. And when Jack attacks, he goes after his opponent's integrity, always implying that their motives are less pure than his own.

As Hurley said to Jack, "Ya know that bedside manner thing all doctors are supposed to have? Well, your's sucks."

But, back to Locke. Did anyone think it odd when he started teaching Walt how to throw great big bowie knives? Or when he taught Michael how to shoot that rifle? You can't tell me that it did not occur to him that Michael only wanted to learn to shoot so he could take a gun and go after Walt.

__________________
charlie98210
"Whoa!" she said. "Cry 'Havoc!' And let loose the dogs of war!"
And, like Banquo's ghost, they just won't go away.

I think if I knew someone whose son had been kidnapped, and no one was doing anything to help him get him back, I would teach him to shoot, too. (That is, if I actually knew how to shoot, myself.)

__________________
"Not all who wander are lost." - J. R. R. Tolkien

"You cannot live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you." - John Wooden

But Locke didn't tell them he'd been teaching Michael to shoot. When they found him knocked out in the armory, I think Locke said something about Michael surprising him, knocking him out, and taking a rifle.

Am I remembering that part correctly?

If so, that seems like Locke was doing a little double-dealing with the truth, Sawyer style.

__________________
charlie98210
"Whoa!" she said. "Cry 'Havoc!' And let loose the dogs of war!"
And, like Banquo's ghost, they just won't go away.

I think Locke knew that the rest of the Losties would disapprove, so he taught him in secret. Honestly, so far I really cannot find any malice in Locke. In each circumstance, I think he truly believes he is doing what is best for everyone, even when it turns out he's wrong.

__________________
"Not all who wander are lost." - J. R. R. Tolkien

"You cannot live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you." - John Wooden

Okay, I'll agree that he does believe he is doing what's best for the group.

But an argument could be made that destroying the transceiver was not a good move. Finding the power source, or, at least, the transmitter, would help benefit the group. Of course, since the Others have control of it (according to the french lady) that would have precipitated a clash with Zeke a lot earlier--while the group was less organized and under no real leadership (look at with happened to the tailies (who, I think, were located much closer to Zeke's group).

But Locke was operating under the belief that they'd all been brought there for a higher purpose and they should waste time trying to get off the island.

Not exactly in the real best interests of the group.

Same thing with Walt. He knew about the animosity between Walt and Michael. So he starts teaching Walt to throw knives. A talent you could use to kill someone from afar.

Back to Michael and the gun. Locke continually suggests turning back; of letting Michael face the consequences of his quest alone (noble quest, but against very bad odds, the guys who took Walt firebombed the raft and shot Sawyer). Wouldn't you want to try and catch up with Michael and help him out? Instead of arguing, "It's what he wants, Jack." It was more than an argument about making Michael come back to the camp.

So, even though he believes he's making these decisions for the greater good, I think he might, operating under bad assumptions, be dangerous.

I think that's what I was trying to convey. The writers have taken great pains to make each character good and bad, light and dark, capable of great things or (through the fault of their own natures) capable of horrible mistakes.

__________________
charlie98210
"Whoa!" she said. "Cry 'Havoc!' And let loose the dogs of war!"
And, like Banquo's ghost, they just won't go away.

Right on ! that is true . Each character has shown the good/bad thing ..... but , I am not at all convinced Locke has been making decisions for the greater good , I believe he is precise in his actions and has a definate reason for each and every action and manipulation , in others words caculated ...but to what end ? That I'm not sure of .....