Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

[ShardsofGlass]

No. According to canon (i.e. what is shown on screen) Carter and Mitchell are co-leaders since Carter's return. They take command of different missions and each reports directly to Landry. He is the direct CO to both of them.

Yeah, I know what canon is, but perhaps you don't. Not once has anyone on screen ever said that Mitchell and Carter share command. The only time command has been mentioned was when Landry told Mitchell he had command in Avalon I. In fact, Jack was behind Mitchell getting command in the first place, and Carter congratulated him on getting command. THe only time Carter had command in Stronghold was when Mitchell was on personal leave.

That is canon.

[Kas]

If we all think that Carter should lead SG.1(including me) and not Mitchell why than does he lead anyway? Why wont TPTB check out our opinions and do something about the show? FCOL let the woman lead the team !

Basically because not everyone thinks that way (including me). I'm sure that the channels conduct market research and believe me, the 300 fans who have just voted here are not entirely representative of the millions that watch each Friday night, (or in my case Tuesdays).

Why do I stick to the threads I enjoy? Basically for the reasons Shards of Glass put so succinctly. I do not see the point in seeing the same old arguments rehashed and rehashed. I'm only posting now, to add that I'm enjoying the character of Mitchell and Ben's portrayal. I'm enjoying season 9 and that is sufficient for me personally.

[DEM]

I'm sure that the channels conduct market research and believe me, the 300 fans who have just voted here are not entirely representative of the millions that watch each Friday night, (or in my case Tuesdays).

How would you know that? Though the two are related, representativeness, in the statistical sense, is not synonymous with sample size.

[Deejay435]

He's the guy Jack chose for the position. I want him to lead for that reason at the very least.

Totally OT but I love your signature.

[Lightsabre]

Ohh but I do. You seem to have the problem with acceptance as you seem to feel the need to shove your so called 'facts' down our throats.



There is no possibly. You are not argueing facts, facts are objective and exist independant of opinion. Your truth does not exist independant of opinion, it is biased.

So yes, some are argueing there own truths, but some are also argueing cannon; which is in tv fact.



I challenge you to find one post on this entire forum where I have stated Mitchell lied, simply because I have never said it. Personally I think you need to stop countering 'arguements' and learn the art of debate. This will get you further in discussion.



There is no other way to take your stance of Carter not leading personally because the same arguement you are making for why Carter shouldn't lead could be equally true of Jack. Add to that you seem to hate her character, I don't see how else people can read your opinion.



It is advanced that Mitchell shouldn't lead for many reasons, sure. Say once you disagree, state your opinions but don't dig into anyone who refutes your statements.

Carter has done a lot of things in her time, but most of the things you classify as insubordination is her voicing why (insert instance here) isn't a good idea. Alien influences not withstanding.

If you are seriously presenting the arguement that Carter shouldn't lead because she has done the same things as Mitchell; that means Mitchell shouldn't lead. How does this dichotomy get rectified in your mind? Or do feel it doesn't even need too?



Covering Carter? No, I don't really see that. I see rationalisations and explainations and basically pointing out flaws in a arguement. But there is no covering, because no one has addmited Carter is perfect. But neither is she as inept as you like to identify her.

And what tone are you talking about?? Uber and Dancer back up their opinions with reasoned and well thought out discussion points. They do not feel the need to change someones mind. The thing is they acknowledge other opinions. It's a good thing.



Lt. Col. Carter *is* a different person since she was as a green captian in s1 and 2... Lets analyse what has happened to her. She gets infested with a goa'uld, mets the tokra, sent her dad to them, discovered she could use gou'ald technology, used a hand device to kill one, used a healing device to save cronos, has her memory stamped, got asked to blow up a planet, was ordered to create a bomb to blow up a planet (I assume that was another example of her inepitude as a soilder and leader), lost jack on endora, broke a few laws of physics to bring him back, got taken over by another alien entity.

She went to hell to save her dad and got to rellive not only her own painful memories but those of jolinar, her CO got Goa'ulded and then was de-goa'ulded, she got taken over by a computer entity, killed Martoff, had to watch jack admit her feeling to her under duress, had to admit something under duress aswell, had teal'c get re-programed to hate them, had to watch him suffer without his symbiote, got kidnapped, almost lost Cassie, had her team not trust her and had her home ransacked, she lost Daniel.

Then she got to know Jonas and care about him to almost loose him too, almost died from an alien virus, convinced Jack to take a Tok'ra, go another goa'uld, lost jack to the tok'ra - he came back tortured, lost Jack again with Maybourne, Almost lost Teal'c and Bra'tac then she finds out that veryone but her saw Daniel, Daniel barely acknowledges her, Abydos gets blown up, they think they have lost Daniel again.

Daniel comes back, Janet dies, Jacob dies etc etc etc... So many more, but I think I have provided enough examples. So explain to me how you believe these things cannot change a person.

Do you honestly believe life experience doesn't intrinsicly change us and our perceptions of the world? Would you have me believe that you are the same person now as you were at 10, 13, 18? Because that is not possible.

Jack has a history of insubordination. Maybe we shouldn't have let him lead SG-1 or the SGC? Maybe he shouldn't be in any position of power, because his insubordination is a telling point of his leadership skills. Is this what you are offering as a discussion point? The past acts of insubordination make bad leaders?



Right, because interchangeing the word 'good' with 'gifted' really helps explain things. Thanks for clearing that up for me.



Yes, but once again your point is that Sam shouldn't lead because Mitchell has made the same mistakes just is illogical and difficult to follow. One or the other or both are there to lead. You have managed to discount them both, which is interesting.



Whereas it tells me that they are tired of trying to explain anything to you because you can't seem to understand or follow what they are saying. Once again, perception. Whose is right? Well, lets ask the random person who said it, they are the only ones who knows what they meant.




I am not defending anyone. I am trying to make you understand the flaws in your arguement and the style you present it in, but once again it seems that you either will not or cannot fathom anyone challenging your opinion or disagreeing with it.

But just as a tip, I have read earlier posts, actually the whole thread. I make sure I am informed before spouting any opinion.



By pointing out the flaws in your arguement I am not 'attacking', I am pointing out the flaws. Disagreement with presentation and information does not in any way define the verb attack. That is what is at the heart of the broad inaction of 'debate'.

And I don't think I ever denied your right for opinion; but if I did I would like some evidence to back it up. Something factual and not in the subjective notion of 'feelings'. I ask this simply because I believe everyone is intitled to opinion and no one has the right to take it from them, and to my knowledge I have yet to do this.

And considering I have disagreed with many people here in the past, I am hoping they would agree with me here.

Deevil.
Considering your last posts are only vaugely to do with the topic and mainly seem to center around your opinion of me, I"m not replying to you anymore.
Try actually arguing agaisnt some of my arguments or reading the damn thread.
I"ve posted many times about WHY I post some of the arguments I do.
I'm not doing so again and I'm not defending arguing my side, which is something I am entitled to do.
IF you want to argue the topic at hand, fine.
OTherwise, your nasty little posts will be ignored.

[Uber]

Well that's the rub right now for his character, unfortunately.

I saw the note posted earlier from someone who said they were defending Mitchell because he had so few defenders in this thread (underdogs-R-US - so to speak), but one must ask the question why Mitchell has so few defenders in this thread. Could it be because he's actually not portrayed in canon as an effectual leader?

mg

I think he has more defenders than are posting on this thread of course, but I think you're right. At least from my limited perspective, my friends and family who are definitely considered casual viewers (none of them know or care about online fandom at all), think that Mitchell is a joke and don't understand why he's there.

They've pretty much lost interest in the series altogether because of Mitchell and the lack of that natural team bond despite my urging them to hold on.

[warmbeachbrat]

Yet quite clearly it does not, so employing such hyperbole served only to convey a false impression. That is why I asked for an example which justified your take on the argument.

No one arguing for Sam to be in command has come out and said that Sam is perfect, but every single attempt to point out imperfect command decisions or previous actions that do not reflect well on the character have been rebutted ad nauseum (except for my recent example of The Fifth Man). The overall effect comes close to the same thing. At the same time no one arguing that Cam should not be in command has come out and said that Mitchell is a total screw up, but not one person so mentioned has one good thing to say about him and brings up his faults and mistakes (that are by no means settled as mistakes in my mind) also ad nauseum. With the same resulting overall effect. I was employing hyperbole to that effect in order to avoid writing this paragraph and making a long post even longer. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

And do let me be clear. I am NOT bashing Sam, against Sam, belittling Sam, saying she is not a good officer or not a good commander. I am NOT saying that Mitchell has not made mistakes and can not learn from Sam. I am trying to be fair to both characters. Sam has ample champions on this thread, as Mitchell does not.

Did you miss these two paragraphs in my later post? On the continuum of Sam/perfect, Cam/screw-up to both characters have their good and bad points, the overwhelming impression I come away with tends toward the former. Perhaps my opinion is not as valid as I am not an overwhelming fan of either Cam or Sam (I'm a fan of the interaction between each and all members of SG-1, but my heart belongs to Dr. Lee), but seriously, that is how this thread feels to me.

[warmbeachbrat]

My interpretation of this scene was that Carter realized Mitchell was highly energized (due to being in a "bad mood", as he put it, over his friend's imminent death), and directed him to the best possible place - inside to take it out on the Jaffa holding Teal'c. It was a sound tactical decision on her part - he was better deployed on the offensive while she and Daniel secured their position and protected their retreat. Her comment "Can I stop you?" was a recognition of this after he asked "Are you sure?" when she ordered him inside.

I liked the scene a lot.

Hmmm--that makes a lot of sense. I like your interpretation of the scene, and, given the way the episode played out, I'll go with that from here on out.

[minigeek]

Did you miss these two paragraphs in my later post? On the continuum of Sam/perfect, Cam/screw-up to both characters have their good and bad points, the overwhelming impression I come away with tends toward the former.

That's because the majority of people posting in this thread feel Sam Carter is a superior choice for leading SG-1. It's not a "fairness" contest where we each need to make sure we only take ten minutes with a favorite toy. This is simply a matter of opinion, and clearly Carter has more supporters for leadership than Mitchell does. That's primarily a product of the writing this season. Whether Mitchell "deserves it" or not, he's not portrayed as an effectual commander. Carter has been. Hence the greater number of people who support her leadership of SG-1.

mg

[GhostPoet]

I think Cam should because i'm a pig-headed Egotistic.

[minigeek]

I think Cam should because i'm a pig-headed Egotistic.

LOL! That is by far the best argument for Cameron I've seen posted yet!

[scarimor]

Yeah, I know what canon is, but perhaps you don't. Not once has anyone on screen ever said that Mitchell and Carter share command.

repeat: canon is what is portrayed on screen. Not what you assume to be the case because you haven't been given a scene in which the writers wrote: "By the way, in case anyone's not noticed, Carter and Mitchell are sharing command."

The only time command has been mentioned was when Landry told Mitchell he had command in Avalon I.

And then the situation changed when Carter resumed her place in SG-1 with equal rank to Mitchell.

THe only time Carter had command in Stronghold was when Mitchell was on personal leave.

Carter commanded the rescue mission in Stronghold right from the point of departure, when Mitchell was present. There is no way she could have done that if Mitchell were her permanent CO. It is impossible.

At no point since Ex Deus Machina has there been a single moment showing Mitchell as Carter's superior. If he were her permanent team CO, she would call him "Sir" regardless of rank, which she never has. He has not once given her a direct order (the only time when he has suggested to her that she do something was in Prototype, and it did not sound like much of an order; even if it were, she has given him more clearly direct orders in Stronghold). On every occasion that a superior officer - Landry, Hammond or Pendergast - has addressed the team command, he has addressed them both when they're present and not just Mitchell (in contrast to the way a team CO like O'Neill was addressed). That's all canon.

You should not need to have something so obvious spelled out for you with a specially written scene to get it, but regardless of whether you do get it or not, there is no escaping the blatant on-screen character-dynamics, mission structures and dialogue. So far, Mitchell just isn't Carter''s CO. There has not been a single incident demonstrating that he is, while there have been numerous incidents and interactions which show that he isn't. Drama "shows", not "tells".

(Aside from on-screen canon showing them as equals in every sense, there are also a few points of logic to consider: e.g. Carter and Mitchell are both Lt. Colonels, therefore Mitchell can not do Carter's performance appraisals and therefore can not logically be her CO. Her only CO must be General Landry.)

Regardless, this is not what the poll is about. If we had to choose one of the four SG-1 members to be the leader, which would we prefer? Most people are going for Carter so far. By a huge margin. It is irrational to presume that people are voting one way out of the four because they are unhappy for whatever reason. There is no such cause-and-effect. We just vote because the poll is there and have the options to make this simple choice.

[warmbeachbrat]

How would you know that? Though the two are related, representativeness, in the statistical sense, is not synonymous with sample size.

Isn't that what he just said?

[scarimor]

Did you miss these two paragraphs in my later post?

No. I just asked for a specific example.

I did not accuse you of bashing Sam.

Do you have an example?

[DEM]

Isn't that what he just said?

No. In fact, Kas implied exactly the opposite.