Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TameFarrar
    replied
    Since it has become apparent that the ACTUAL TOPIC of *Who SHOULD lead* can not be followed and instead this thread continually degenerates instead into the Sam versus Cam and who DOES lead it is being closed.

    Numerous Moderator directives have been disregarded in this and rather than spend more time attempting to once again move this thread back onto the TOPIC. We invite you to do a search and continue the Sam vs Cam debate in the ongoing threads that ALREADY EXSIST just for that topic.

    We expend our thanks to those that tried to keep to the topic and disappointment that those who were enjoying the more whimsical debate and the real topic of this thread will not be able to continue.

    Thank You
    TameFarrar
    GateWorld Moderator

    Leave a comment:


  • Deevil
    replied
    Originally posted by Lightsabre
    Agian, you don't make sense. Carter was the most experienced.
    You were all for her being promoted to Colonel to get over the rank thing, so why did they not just promote her to Lt Col and let her lead?
    Because she just got promoted to Major in that very season. In Shades of Gray it wouldn't have been prudent, not only from a military perspective (because many people wouldn't have bought it), but from a writing, plot and character development perspective to promote her.

    Now, 6 years on, many things have changed. It would make sense for another promotion to happen. She is more qualified in leading a galactic front line team then Mitchell (but Reynolds would be more qualified then her because he has been doing it longer). She does have the seniority of position, if not seniority of rank (ie: who was promoted first).

    I am really not sure what you are presenting here, and why, as I personally am not sure it does anything to prove or disprove who is/should be leading, and any reasons for it (assuming that's what your intention is. If you are not trying to present this argument with any evidence that's fine also. I don't want to be caught in a miscommunication again. They tend to get messy).

    Leave a comment:


  • Deevil
    replied
    Ya know, it's not on the list... but the more I think about it, I think Vala should lead. Afterall, she seems to have a lot more power, not afraid to buck the system, not afraid to make a decision, and has an intrinsic knowledge on how the galaxy works and how to stay alive. Aren't they the core of the arguements on both why Sam&Mitchell should and shouldn't lead? Doesn't she embody them shamelessly?

    Add to that, she has great hair. (yes, it's about the hair).

    Leave a comment:


  • Bootbinder
    replied
    I voted for Samantha Carter to lead. She has a lot more experience of being on a SG team and of leading a SG team. I have seen all of season 9 and she is much more competent than Mitchell. Maybe he will get better in season 10 if he realises what he should be doing by then. He has a lot to learn from her.

    He isn't doing the leading so far anyway which is a good thing in my opinion. I'm glad that Gen Landry didn't put him in charge of Carter and Tealc and Daniel because he isn't qualified. But at the end of season 9 it looked as if he might be learning a bit. He might make it to be Carter's equal if he keeps at it and then he can lead a new team when she moves on. Maybe he can lead Vala and two other officers.

    Leave a comment:


  • RealmOfX
    replied
    Originally posted by Lightsabre
    I'm nto doing that, but last time I checked, I wasn't forcing you to post here.
    [mod snip].

    There is a difference between disobeying orders and questioning orders.
    It's not just that, I said she didn't show a willingness to fight for command. And I didn't actually say it made her a bad leader, I said it was part of her character.
    it's funny what you pick up when you read, RealmofX, rather than just assume and then attack.

    I fail to see your point.
    I was explaining a point I had made. Don't see what exactly you are on about myself.

    [mod snip]

    Of course, I couldn't have made a stupid mistake, and then when I was corrected, acknowledged it. No, that would be downright logical.

    In your opinion. not in mine.

    [mod snip]

    Uh huh, yep, kinda figured that was the direction you’d take.

    Okey dokey – how about we go back to the point I was challenging?

    Lightsabre
    She didn't protest a new colonel being put in, despite the fact that Major was a high enough rank to lead the team and she had 4+ years experience on it.
    RealmOfX
    Someone's back to repeating incorrect things again.

    It is canon that a Major was not considered of high enough rank for the position.

    It was correct military ettiquette to not contradict a general on the subject, Majors do not whinge to Generals when more experienced and qualified Colonels are appointed over them.

    Just like Lt Colonels shouldn't whinge to Generals about not being in control
    RealmOfX
    This is ground that has already been covered, repeatedly and yet you still bring it up as Sam acting inappropriately when it was the correct thing to do.
    Lightsabre
    In your opinion. not in mine.
    Yes Lightsabre you are entitled to your opinion, I haven’t said that you aren’t. However you are claiming fact when it is not.

    It is canon that Sam wasn’t considered appropriate for the position of leading SG-1 in that scene in Shades of Grey. It was inappropriate for Sam to protest that a more qualified and more experienced senior officer be appointed to the position.

    Now this isn’t opinion, it is fact as in canon and in military etiquette. You wish to go against that and maintain it is fact that she could have had that position and should have objected, then go ahead and maintain that opinion. Just remember every time you bring it up, I or someone else is going to point out the facts.

    To me, it says she's not willing to buck the system to fight for what she wants.
    And I think that's a trait SG-1 leader needs.
    Are you saying that a trait SG-1 leader needs is to be selfish and stupid?

    Where do I get selfish and stupid from? Well you seem to think that an officer should buck the system for a selfish reason even though it is unreasonable (selfish in this case because it is only in regard to her advancing her military career). To argue with a general is never good (but sometimes you can and should) but to protest a good and reasonable decision in military appointment of personnel is career suicide (hence the stupidity).

    Leave a comment:


  • Uber
    replied
    Originally posted by Lightsabre
    Yes, and if the flagship team had to hve the best, most experienced leadership possible, why was a mere captain allowed even temp control
    Because it was temporary and they felt she could handle it.
    Originally posted by Lightsabre
    Unsuprisingly, I understand this. However, it does not answer the question.

    Agian, you don't make sense. Carter was the most experienced.
    You were all for her being promoted to Colonel to get over the rank thing, so why did they not just promote her to Lt Col and let her lead?
    I'm really not sure what you're not getting here.

    Regardless of how many times you say it was Carter, In Shades of Grey, the most qualified person to lead SG-1 was Colonel Makepeace. He had been leading an SG team for 3 years. Sam was just made into a Major and had only led a few missions when necessary. Makepeace...higher rank, more experience. Carter...lower rank, less experience.

    Leave a comment:


  • roseblue
    replied
    I think Cameron should lead sg-1.

    Take season 6 episode "Allegiance", carter was working on the generator to alter the generator to generate a high-frequency burst, which was to excite the Ashrak's phased body enough to make him partially visible. The Ashrak manages to disengage the generator and then sam had to bring it back on line again. Jack, who was the team leader, well you know why he was in the spotlight, he was commanding everyone to watch for the ashrak. And carter wasn't. If sam should be the leader of sg-1, then she should have some one else work on what she normaly does when they're off world so that she can command while in a combat/commanding situtation.

    If she can shoe a horse when she's needed to command a group of people while she's in the middle of a military situation, then I guess she can do it. Right?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lightsabre
    replied
    Originally posted by ÜberSG-1Fan
    Well, like I said, CAPTAIN Carter led the team for a couple missions.
    Yes, and if the flagship team had to hve the best, most experienced leadership possible, why was a mere captain allowed even temp control
    Originally posted by ÜberSG-1Fan
    She was not placed in the slot permanently. Subbing vs. Permanent installment.
    Unsuprisingly, I understand this. However, it does not answer the question.
    Originally posted by ÜberSG-1Fan
    Majors DO lead SG teams. But not SG-1. Hammond made a point of that. The FLAGSHIP TEAM required the best of the best/most experienced/highest ranking offworld team leader etc. and yadda.
    Agian, you don't make sense. Carter was the most experienced.
    You were all for her being promoted to Colonel to get over the rank thing, so why did they not just promote her to Lt Col and let her lead?

    Leave a comment:


  • DEM
    replied
    Originally posted by RealmOfX
    It depends on the context actually, we do use the phrase "a far cry from" but we also have a really cool old phrase "Not within cooee".
    Aussie is so charming.

    I just wondered whether 'a far cry from' means 'far away from'/ 'not even close' / 'not in the same league' / 'not even in the ballpark', etc. the same way it does here. From what I can tell, 'a far cry from' is the same as 'not within cooee'. Thankee.

    Leave a comment:


  • Uber
    replied
    Originally posted by Lightsabre
    Then why does CAPTAIN Carter lead SG-1? If Major is too junior a rank, then surely captain must be.
    Why do majors lead other teams?
    Well, like I said, CAPTAIN Carter led the team for a couple missions. She was not placed in the slot permanently. Subbing vs. Permanent installment.
    Originally posted by Lightsabre
    Yes, occasionally serving as the leader is a far cry from being perment leader. However, this does not mean that a major cannot lead an SG team.
    Majors DO lead SG teams. But not SG-1. Hammond made a point of that. The FLAGSHIP TEAM required the best of the best/most experienced/highest ranking offworld team leader etc. and yadda.
    HAMMOND: Since SG-1 is considered the flagship unit it falls on me to assure you have the strongest possible leadership. Therefore I'm reassigning the most senior officer we have in the field as your new commanding officer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lightsabre
    replied
    Originally posted by ÜberSG-1Fan
    Well, not particularly.

    Again, Hammond only wanted the best, most qualified, highest ranking gate veteran to lead the flagship team. That was Makepeace, not Sam. Her rank made quite a difference.

    And to paraphrase General Hammond, occasionally subbing as the leader is a far cry from permanently holding the position.
    Then why does CAPTAIN Carter lead SG-1? If Major is too junior a rank, then surely captain must be.
    Why do majors lead other teams?

    Yes, occasionally serving as the leader is a far cry from being perment leader. However, this does not mean that a major cannot lead an SG team.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lightsabre
    replied
    Originally posted by RealmOfX
    The reason this thread goes round and round in circles is because some people, check the thread to see who, keep bringing up the same things without introducing any new or further enlightening facts or opinions. They then take part of an answer and move the discussion slightly off the original topic again and again and again until we aren't even discussing the same point. This then goes on ad infinitum and eventually we complete the circle. All this ensures is that the original point is never resolved or the parties agree to disagree thereby finishing with that particular point and moving on to new ground.
    I'm nto doing that, but last time I checked, I wasn't forcing you to post here.
    [mod snip].
    Originally posted by RealmOfX
    Case in point :

    Lightsabre you continually argue that Carter isn't fit to lead because she is insubordinate and disobeys orders; you also argue that Carter isn't fit to lead because she doesn't show the willingness to question orders.
    There is a difference between disobeying orders and questioning orders.
    It's not just that, I said she didn't show a willingness to fight for command. And I didn't actually say it made her a bad leader, I said it was part of her character.
    it's funny what you pick up when you read, RealmofX, rather than just assume and then attack.
    Originally posted by RealmOfX
    Now, now before you go off claiming that isn't what you said and I'm putting words in your mouth this is the post I was replying to :

    http://forum.gateworld.net/showpost....postcount=5584
    I fail to see your point.
    I was explaining a point I had made. Don't see what exactly you are on about myself.
    Originally posted by RealmOfX
    Now I simply chose the first example you used so as to limit the room for you to move off the topic.[mod snip]
    [mod snip]
    Originally posted by RealmOfX
    Everyone knows that Shades of Grey is episode 318 so there was no way Sam had 4+ years of experience on SG-1 (I believe a later post of yours had it up to 5 years) –
    Of course, I couldn't have made a stupid mistake, and then when I was corrected, acknowledged it. No, that would be downright logical.
    Originally posted by RealmOfX
    This is ground that has already been covered, repeatedly and yet you still bring it up as Sam acting inappropriately when it was the correct thing to do.
    In your opinion. not in mine.
    Originally posted by RealmOfX
    Want to try again? I’m really curious where you’ll attempt to lead the discussion next.
    [mod snip]
    Last edited by Madeleine; 08 August 2006, 09:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • RealmOfX
    replied
    Originally posted by DEM
    RoX, do you have the idiom 'a far cry from' in AUS English? Want to be sure we're all on the same page.
    It depends on the context actually, we do use the phrase "a far cry from" but we also have a really cool old phrase "Not within cooee".

    Now "cooee" is an extended word that is shouted out loud when searching in the bush for people, it is an old practice that sees less use these days. It is a sound that carries quite a distance but you would need a demonstration to really understand. Basically when some says "you're not within cooee of it" it means you are not within shouting distance, that is you are not even close.

    So if you are trying to tell an Australian that they aren't even close to a particular point then saying that you're not within cooee of it, is a valid saying. I've been tempted to use it before in my posts here but seeing as it requires such a long explaination I have resisted it.

    Is this what you are after?

    Leave a comment:


  • DEM
    replied
    RoX, do you have the idiom 'a far cry from' in AUS English? Want to be sure we're all on the same page.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dani347
    replied
    Originally posted by TameFarrar

    I think Cam should lead for a variety of reasons, the least of which is because his hair obeys orders.

    I think Sam should lead because well lets face it, she has the best stupid ideas. just ask the Asgard.

    I think Daniel should lead because he wears glasses and everyone KNOWS that people with glasses have super genius powers (yes I wear glasses )

    I think Teal'c should lead because he is older and wiser than all of them put together and he has that cool Gold emblem on his head.

    Very good reasons for all, and right on about the glasses. Yes, I wear them, too.

    There are no winners here and there is no prize even if TPTB do end up saying one day who leads.

    No prizes??? You mean, I've been posting in this thread for nothing? I thought I was going to get a nice shiny tiara out of it. *grumbles* Not even a tin foil one?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X