Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

[Lightsabre]

The thing is you cannot logically compare the actions of a subordinate Capt/Major while she is under the command in the field by a Col. To the actions of a Lt. Col. in command.

That is the problem. That is where the logic is faulty.

Just as you cannot compare the actions of a 10 year old to that of a 20 year old. Experience, evironment and education make a difference and Carter is not the same green Captain she was.

I can. I have.
Basically, these people are arguing that Mitchell commiting one offence means he cannot lead.
By that logic, Carter should NEVER have led. Therefore, she would never have led in S8,.
THAT is what they are saying.
I am attempting to get them to see the hypocrisy of their own statements and redefine what they mean.

[the dancer of spaz]

If Mitchell cannot lead because of them, neither can sam

Ah! Here's an on-topic statement! Now this is good. I'd really like to see how you connect the dots on this, please.

Here are the comments that have been made about Mitchell, and why he shouldn't lead. If I've forgotten any, someone please let me know.

1.) He didn't know when to shut up in uncharted territory, even after being told several times by the one most familiar with said uncharted territory. Babylon

2.) He messed with alien technology with which he's not familiar. Let out Anubis Jr. Prototype

3.) He went off on his own to fraternize with someone offworld, without telling anyone from his team where he was going. Got framed for murder. Collateral Damage

4.) He didn't follow orders by the CO of the mission to save Teal'c, and could've gotten himself and all three members of his team killed. Stronghold

5.) He didn't follow orders that were laid out by his CO, General Landry, to "stay under the radar"; even went so far as to embellish his OTT plan on the fly, despite what he told his team members prior to enacting said plan - this is after, of course, they expressed their concern about the validity of said plan. The results almost got them all killed when a wrench was thrown in their escape plan. Off The Grid

Now, what do four out of five of these issues have in common? They all could've been prevented.

In Prototype, no matter what the excuses, Khalek could've remained a popsicle until the end of time, had Cameron not deliberately gone messing with things he had no business messing with.

In Collateral Damage, he wouldn't have been framed for murder, if he'd been thinking with the head that contains his brains, because he wouldn't have been at her house, ALONE, and he wouldn't have placed his team in a situation where they could not vouch for his behavior or whereabouts.

In Stronghold, he could've waited for back-up, and then suggested to Sam that he go in the rings up alone. There would've been no putting all four of them at risk, and Cameron still could've saved the day, all fine and dandy.

In Off The Grid, he could've stayed under the radar, SG-1 could've checked the planet out and reported to the SGC as scheduled with their gathered intel, instead of sending SG-1 on some four-hour long, wild goose chase so HE could look cool by posing as some OTT veggie drug dealer.

Please, please, please explain how any of these mistakes were mere duplications of Sam's, because I'm dying to know how that works.

[Deevil]

No, you cannot point out the hypocasy of their statements by bring up the actions of someone who wasn't leading at the time. It makes. No. Sense. Mitchell was leading. You can judge his abilities as a leader when he leads. You cannot judge someones ability as a leader when they take orders. Following?

Sam was Jack's second on SG-1. He and Hammond vetoed pretty much everything she done. When she disagreed with something, she told them. That isn't insubordination; that's explaination.

[Lightsabre]

Ah! Here's an on-topic statement! Now this is good. I'd really like to see how you connect the dots on this, please.

Here are the comments that have been made about Mitchell, and why he shouldn't lead. If I've forgotten any, someone please let me know.

1.) He didn't know when to shut up in uncharted territory, even after being told several times by the one most familiar with said uncharted territory. Babylon

2.) He messed with alien technology with which he's not familiar. Let out Anubis Jr. Prototype

3.) He went off on his own to fraternize with someone offworld, without telling anyone from his team where he was going. Got framed for murder. Collateral Damage

4.) He didn't follow orders by the CO of the mission to save Teal'c, and could've gotten himself and all three members of his team killed. Stronghold

5.) He didn't follow orders that were laid out by his CO, General Landry, to "stay under the radar"; even went so far as to embellish his OTT plan on the fly, despite what he told his team members prior to enacting said plan - this is after, of course, they expressed their concern about the validity of said plan. The results almost got them all killed when a wrench was thrown in their escape plan. Off The Grid

Now, what do four out of five of these issues have in common? They all could've been prevented.

In Prototype, no matter what the excuses, Khalek could've remained a popsicle until the end of time, had Cameron not gone messing with things he had no business messing with.

In Collateral Damage, he wouldn't have been framed for murder, if he'd been thinking with the head that contains his brains, because he wouldn't have been at her house, ALONE, and he wouldn't have placed his team in a situation where they could not vouch for his behavior or whereabouts.

In Stronghold, he could've waited for back-up, and then suggested to Sam that he go up alone. There would've been no putting all four of them at risk, and Cameron still could've saved the day, all fine and dandy.

In Off The Grid, he could've stayed under the radar, SG-1 could've checked the planet out and reported to the SGC as scheduled with their gathered intel, instead of sending SG-1 on some four-hour long, wild goose chase so HE could look cool by posing as some OTT veggie drug dealer.

Please, please, please explain how any of these mistakes were mere duplications of Sam's, because I'm dying to know how that works.

This will require some research as I want to get facts right.
I will get back to you.

[Deevil]

dancer - Carter has never made those mistakes. Why? Because the mistakes she made she wasn't responsible for the team, she was a subordinate in the team. A huge difference that some people refuse to acknowledge.

Whether or not this is because there is hate for Sam or not, I don't know. But I do know that the arguements being presented make no sense.

[Lightsabre]

No, you cannot point out the hypocasy of their statements by bring up the actions of someone who wasn't leading at the time. It makes. No. Sense. Mitchell was leading. You can judge his abilities as a leader when he leads. You cannot judge someones ability as a leader when they take orders. Following?

She did what he did.
Mitchell messed with alien tech?
So did Carter.
Mitchell disobeyed?
So did Carter
Mitchell got captured?
So did Carter.
If you say Mitchell cannot lead because of these things, neither can Carter.

Sam was Jack's second on SG-1. He and Hammond vetoed pretty much everything she done. When she disagreed with something, she told them. That isn't insubordination; that's explaination.

Re-watch the first commandment.

[the dancer of spaz]

The next person who accuses me of hating Sam will be very, very sorry.

What? Are you gonna use the force on them or something?

[Lightsabre]

What? Are you gonna use the force on them or something?

LOL
Tempting. It was a post made in anger cause I'm sick of the accusation.
How would you (or Deevil) like it if I brushed your support for Sam off simply as hate for Cam?

[Deevil]

She did what he did.
Mitchell messed with alien tech?
So did Carter.
Mitchell disobeyed?
So did Carter
Mitchell got captured?
So did Carter.
If you say Mitchell cannot lead because of these things, neither can Carter.

So, you're not following. The actions of someone taking orders are different to those giving orders, right? Can you fathom this?

Re-watch the first commandment.

Here is the transcript of the convo

O'NEILL: Carter? (Jack and Carter go to the side to talk. Conner starts to bury what's left of Franks.) I want you to take Conner back through the Stargate, report to General Hammond what's happened here.

CARTER: No, sir.

O'NEILL: No, Sir?

CARTER: If you are going after Captain Hanson, I should go with you, I can get to him.

O'NEILL: Look, Captain, either were bringing him back to face a court- marshal, or not. I think we both no what the 'not' means.

CARTER: I know him, Colonel.

O'NEILL: Yeah, that would be the problem.

CARTER: I gave him back the ring because I know him. I know how he thinks, how he operates.

O'NEILL: How he likes to play god?

CARTER: Look, I don't understand how that could happen, any more then you do, but if SG-1 is going after him then I am going with you.


Point out where she disobyed a direct order? Tell me where she did, because if he really wanted to order her it would have been more then the mere suggestion of "I want you to go..." it would have been "return to the SCG". If she said no he would have said "That's an order capt., not up for discussion."

So why didn't he, it wasn't an order and he conceeded her point. That's what teams do, work together.

Now do you follow?

Ohh an Lightsabre, never said it was you who hated Sam. But if you are defensive about it.... That's not my problem.

[the dancer of spaz]

Re-watch the first commandment.

But you said, based on your illustration of your own work environment, that you thought it was different if someone of lower status simply makes a suggestion that happens to be logical. You said that it's not taking charge or making a call, and that the CO of the mission (in this case, O'Neill; in your argument, Cameron) can still make the call as s/he sees fit.

In The First Commandment, BOTH times that Carter does something that disobeys a direct order or questions command, Jack concedes because it's logical.

Or does that only work for this season and in this case against Mitchell?

[Lightsabre]

So, you're not following. The actions of someone taking orders are different to those giving orders, right? Can you fathom this?

Re-watch the first commandment.[/QUOTE]

Here is the transcript of the convo

O'NEILL: Carter? (Jack and Carter go to the side to talk. Conner starts to bury what's left of Franks.) I want you to take Conner back through the Stargate, report to General Hammond what's happened here.

CARTER: No, sir.

O'NEILL: No, Sir?

CARTER: If you are going after Captain Hanson, I should go with you, I can get to him.

O'NEILL: Look, Captain, either were bringing him back to face a court- marshal, or not. I think we both no what the 'not' means.

CARTER: I know him, Colonel.

O'NEILL: Yeah, that would be the problem.

CARTER: I gave him back the ring because I know him. I know how he thinks, how he operates.

O'NEILL: How he likes to play god?

CARTER: Look, I don't understand how that could happen, any more then you do, but if SG-1 is going after him then I am going with you.


Point out where she disobyed a direct order? Tell me where she did, because if he really wanted to order her it would have been more then the mere suggestion of "I want you to go..." it would have been "return to the SCG". If she said no he would have said "That's an order capt., not up for discussion."

So why didn't he, it wasn't an order and he conceeded her point. That's what teams do, work together.

Now do you follow?[/QUOTE]
OK then
How about this bit:


CARTER: No, sir.

O'NEILL: No, Sir?


He expresses suprise at her answer, he expected aknowldedgement.
That he let her explain and accepted it doesn't mean it wasn't an order.
He didn't ask for opinion.
He was giving an order.
As I've said before, his ONLY other option was to take his entire team back and have her and Conner charged.
Now do YOU follow?

[the dancer of spaz]

LOL
Tempting. It was a post made in anger cause I'm sick of the accusation.
How would you (or Deevil) like it if I brushed your support for Sam off simply as hate for Cam?

Ha. I would say, "Have at it." In all of my posts, I've explained WHY I don't think Cameron should lead. I've used EVIDENCE from EPISODES.

You, on the other hand, were singing his praises and holding his torch way back in June of 2005 - before anyone had even seen the guy yet. Something tells me he could accidentally blow up Colorado Springs, and you'd say it was because Daniel, Teal'c and Sam were being insubordinate. Then you'd promptly suggest he be elected Governor.

[Cherriey]

It is a rare thing on Stargate for there to be a character who HASN'T broken an order for one reason or another. They haven't always made things better either.

[Deevil]

Ohh no, his option was to inform her it *was* an order! He didn't, he conceeded. It happens, they work in a team. Do you understand what a team is? How they work? How they work *together*?

She pointed out why she should stay, he conceeded. Yes, he wanted her to leave, but there was many more things her could ahve done to iinsure it then taking her back to the gate.

your first commandment arguement in illogical in this case anyway because she was a subordinate. She was not giving orders are responsible for the saftey of the team. Mitchell has been.

To compare Mitchell and Sam you have to compare instances that have the same stake in them. You are not.

[Lightsabre]

But you said, based on your illustration of your own work environment, that you thought it was different if someone of lower status simply makes a suggestion that happens to be logical. You said that it's not taking charge or making a call, and that the CO of the mission (in this case, O'Neill, in your argument, Cameron) can still make the call as s/he sees fit.

In both cases, (RE and my work)there had not been a clear instruction to the contrary.
It was not Carter countermanding Mitchell in RE and I did not have instructions ot the contrary.
I simply said, we shold do this and they agreed.
In 'First Commandment', Carter tells O'Niell she will NOT comply with his order.

In The First Commandment, BOTH times that Carter does something that disobeys a direct order or questions command, Jack concedes because it's logical.

Yes, but as I illustrated above, he also has no choice.
Also, being right does not excuse insubordination. Carter WAS insubordinate, I think we can all agree on that.
She was also right. The two are not mutually exclusive and one is not an excuse for the other.

Or does that only work for this season and in this case against Mitchell?

No, it works, but the situations are different.