Young has psychologically crumbled and needs be removed from command.

[KEK]

Telford is the one who was meant to lead the expedition. So at least one of them was meant to be there, now at least.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

As I have said before you and I obviously have very different ideas of how a competent and psychologically stable commander are likely and expected to behave. And you still haven’t addressed a possible dramatic reason for the inclusion of both scenes. Every minute of a TV show is very valuable and limited. Why did the writers feel it necessary to include both of these scenes? How does it further the story?

I've addressed it several times, Blackstone, so don;t be all disingenuous now
You`ll also note, by use of the RED TEXT, that I was specifically targeting your use of the word hysterical, so, to add to being disingenuous, you`re now moving the goalposts. Yelling at the scientists? He was pissed off and didn't want a bunch of excuses for why someone can't do something - he wanted them to DO IT. Being pissed at Rush for saying - yet again - something callous? That's not hysterical either. Young's got his problems, no argument there, but you are going to near-ridiculous lengths to assert that he's hysterical. Your OWN DEFINITION of hysteria - excessive or uncontrolled emotion? By your own definition, it doesn't fit, as he wasn't excessive (it didn't go on past a yell and he wasn't shrieking or crying or having a panic attack, or you, know, like the one occassion where we HAVE seen hysteria in this show, falling unconscious) nor uncontrolled (he had no problem going on calmly to talk about the pulsar and had no problem at all not yelling when Park told him not to yell.)

Okay, that just sounds ignorant. May I ask you to explain as to why Young ist rational and under control?

Young has been this way ever since they got to Destiny. May it be that he tries to kill the lead cientist or fails to make the right decision eventhough he had no problem with doing the same thing before.(Letting Telford sufficate)

The writers obviously want to show that what Young said in the beginning "This are the wrong People in the wrong place" doesnt just apply for the civilians. Young himself is also portrayed as the wrong person for the Job. Question is if the writers can find a way to turn his character around without making him the Hero.

No one is the right person, and yes, even Young says he's one of those 'not the right people'. What's your point? Please feel free to point out any actual ignorance there

[tomstone]

No.
I don't see it as either excessive nor uncontrolled. I don't see it as hysteria no matter how often the word gets brought up.

Okay, that just sounds ignorant. May I ask you to explain as to why Young ist rational and under control?

Young has been this way ever since they got to Destiny. May it be that he tries to kill the lead cientist or fails to make the right decision eventhough he had no problem with doing the same thing before.(Letting Telford sufficate)

The writers obviously want to show that what Young said in the beginning "This are the wrong People in the wrong place" doesnt just apply for the civilians. Young himself is also portrayed as the wrong person for the Job. Question is if the writers can find a way to turn his character around without making him the Hero.

[Blackhole]

No.
I don't see it as either excessive nor uncontrolled. I don't see it as hysteria no matter how often the word gets brought up.

As I have said before you and I obviously have very different ideas of how a competent and psychologically stable commander are likely and expected to behave. And you still haven’t addressed a possible dramatic reason for the inclusion of both scenes. Every minute of a TV show is very valuable and limited. Why did the writers feel it necessary to include both of these scenes? How does it further the story?

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

...
I used the word hysterical for a moment to describe his outburst. The definition of hysterical is: marked by excessive or uncontrollable emotion. You don’t think the exchange with Park and the others and attempting to attack Rush wasn’t clearly marked by excessive or uncontrolled emotion on Young’s part? In my mind Young was very angry and frustrated and reacted excessively and irrationally to Park and the others. How would you describe it? When have you seen another unprovoked scene of emotional outburst and attempted assault by Young before in a command crisis situation? Are these the actions of a psychologically stable commander?...

No.
I don't see it as either excessive nor uncontrolled. I don't see it as hysteria no matter how often the word gets brought up.

[Blackhole]

True , Young could have taken the time out to explain to them..

Still. Technically speaking his actions were not illegal which is the main point. As for his pychologically crumbeling that is really an assumption. I have seen no actual facts leading to this. Maybe its the wording that seems wrong?
None the less I see no proof of this or reason for his removal...

No facts, how about:

1. He was livid when he stormed into the command room and yelled and screamed at Park and others and tried to assault Rush. I can understand being upset over the death of one of his men but do you consider this emotional outburst appropriate to a commander in a crisis situation. A psychologically stable commander isn’t going to loose it in the middle of a crisis situation. They are supposed to stay clam and set an example and not go to pieces even if it was only for a short time.

The transcript follows to refresh your memory.

CONTROL INTERFACE ROOM. Young storms in and glares at Rush, Brody, Dale Volker and Lisa Park.

YOUNG: What the hell just happened?

VOLKER: We still don't know.

PARK: We're just getting systems back online, then maybe we can analyse ...

YOUNG (furiously): Screw analyse. Fix it!

BRODY: We've gotta know what's broken first.

YOUNG (loudly, sternly): Do it now.

(The others stare at him, waiting for him to calm down. He turns away, breathing rapidly and fighting his fury. After a few seconds, he turns back to them, still visibly upset.)

YOUNG: Rivers is dead.

PARK (appalled): What?!

(Brody looks down, shocked. Rush also lowers his gaze.)

RUSH (calmly): Well, it was gonna be someone.

(Young looks at him for a moment, then starts to step towards him but soon breaks into a run and tries to throw himself at him. Brody and Volker grab him and try to hold him back, knowing that he'll beat Rush to a pulp if he gets his hands on him.)

VOLKER: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!

(Rush looks at Young, unafraid.)

RUSH: Or would you prefer it was Chloe, or Eli? Lieutenant Johansen, perhaps?

(Young stills, glaring at him. The other men release him. Rush points at him angrily.)

RUSH: Don't bloody tell me you weren't thinking the same thing.

(Young steps towards him again. Brody grabs his jacket just in case. Young points angrily back at Rush.)

YOUNG: I want you to figure out what's wrong with this ship and fix it. Fix it now.

(Tetchily Rush slams his notebook onto the console. Young turns his gaze to Brody, who lifts his hands clear of his jacket and steps away. Unnoticed by any of the men, Lisa is still taking in the news of death of Rivers, who was one of her many sources of “reading material”. Young glowers at Brody and Volker for a moment, then leaves the room. Rush watches him go.)

I used the word hysterical for a moment to describe his outburst. The definition of hysterical is: marked by excessive or uncontrollable emotion. You don’t think the exchange with Park and the others and attempting to attack Rush wasn’t clearly marked by excessive or uncontrolled emotion on Young’s part? In my mind Young was very angry and frustrated and reacted excessively and irrationally to Park and the others. How would you describe it? When have you seen another unprovoked scene of emotional outburst and attempted assault by Young before in a command crisis situation? Are these the actions of a psychologically stable commander?

2. Every scene in a TV show is there for a reason. Why were the scenes where Sam has to depart to save her ship and sacrifices the two 302 pilots (to show she can make the ultimate decision); and where Young’s decision to not evacuate the gate room is criticized by General O’Neil and he threatens him with replacement and asks: “Are you up for this, Everett?”; included in the episode if not to cast doubt on his judgment and psychological state of mind? How else can this question be interpreted?

The transcript for the O’Neill scene follows to refresh your memory:

YOUNG: I need to speak to General O'Neill.

Not long afterwards, Young is sitting opposite Jack in his office.

O'NEILL: Second-guessing a decision is a waste of time.

(Young looks down, embarrassed. Jack stares at him sternly.)

O'NEILL: I'm not there ... but I'm starting to wonder if maybe I should be.

YOUNG: I-I can't speak to that, sir.

O'NEILL: This should be done, Colonel - over.

YOUNG: Yes, sir. At the time, I believed that venting the Gateroom would kill both Doctor Rush and Colonel Telford. They deserved a chance.

O'NEILL: We lost two 302 pilots sent to stop the attack.

YOUNG: I'm sorry.

O'NEILL: Colonel Carter knew she'd lose her ship if she tried to save them, but it was the right decision.

YOUNG (in a whisper): Yes, sir.

(He lowers his head again, sighing.)

O'NEILL: Are you up for this, Everett?

(Young raises his head and gets to his feet.)

YOUNG: Yes, sir.

O'NEILL: Because somebody'll take your place if you're not.

YOUNG: I'm not gonna let anybody take that ship, sir.

O'NEILL: Then get your ass back there.

(Nodding, Young leaves the room.)

You don’t think it is possible that we are witnessing the deterioration of Young portrayed by the show? Imo his excessive and uncontrolled emotional outburst to Park and the others and his attempt to attack Rush; coupled with the inclusion of the scenes where Sam has to depart to save her ship and sacrifices the two 302 pilots (to show she can make the ultimate decision); and where General O’Neill’s criticizes his decision and asks “Are you up for this, Everett?”; are compelling evidence that he is having a psychological breakdown and that it is an intended part of the show's storyline.

What alternative explanation do you offer to explain his emotional outburst and attempted assault of Rush and the dramatic reason for the inclusion of the two aforementioned scenes?

[PG15]

But the undeniable fact is if Young had vented the gateroom as soon as the LA arrived only Telford was at risk of dying.

Indeed.

I'm not disagreeing with the argument that Young can't make hard decisions - he obviously has a bee in his bonnet with regards to losing people - I just have a problem with the interpretations of that specific decision (the failed ambush). Basically, I put forward that even the best commander would've done what Young did given the circumstances, because it was the right thing to do for that specific mission, which was to rescue the hostages AND take out the LA, not just the latter.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

and replaced with telford?

I sincerely hope not!

I think if Telford survies he would be good as the 'leader' of the Destiny witch could be likley as he was supposed lead expedition in first and O'neill would think he is better than Young. That would lead to Young being able act like O'neill to Telfords Hammand and could bring 'Drama' as they are both the same rank. Telford would work well with Wray and I think Young would work with him as his eariler actions were as a result of brainwashing wasn't it.

I disagree. His mission at the time was to rescue the hostages, and thus doing anything that would result in their massacre would be going against that mission and would thus count as a failure. He still thinks they are rescue-able while, had Young did what you did based on your rationale (hostages may die, it'd be over, everyone'd be safe - all assumptions, by the way; how do we know it'd be that easy?), it would seem like he's put them in the "acceptable losses" bin. That's not who Young is, and if I were a hostage, I'd be glad of that.

You really think Young would've been hailed as a hero if he went through with it and all the hostages died? People would just say he used his gun before he used his brain or something. He can't win.

Not on these forums, anyway.

As far as "Young had to realize" - let me just say that I place very little value on those arguments now that we're looking back with hindsight. It's far too easy to think something is obvious and should be foreseen when it's already happened, since whether it's obvious or not is highly subjective. For example, I can say that Young didn't go through with the plan because he foresaw the LA pulling some other surprise out of their sleeves after they kill the hostages and thus riding themselves of their only bargaining chip - after all, why would they do that if, afterward, Young could just kill them all by venting the atmosphere in the gateroom? Nah, they must have a contingency plan, maybe.

I also place very little value in the "because of what he did, this horrible thing happened" argument when its value rests on the "Young had to realize" argument (i.e. he should've realized that someone would be killed if he didn't go through with it), because it's meaningless to where the character was at the time when he made that decision.

But the undeniable fact is if Young had vented the gateroom as soon as the LA arrived only Telford was at risk of dying.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

I disagree. His mission at the time was to rescue the hostages, and thus doing anything that would result in their massacre would be going against that mission and would thus count as a failure. He still thinks they are rescue-able while, had Young did what you did based on your rationale (hostages may die, it'd be over, everyone'd be safe - all assumptions, by the way; how do we know it'd be that easy?), it would seem like he's put them in the "acceptable losses" bin. That's not who Young is, and if I were a hostage, I'd be glad of that.

I think that a lot of people that are making these types of arguments are doing so from a belief in what THEY would do, knowing everything that we, the viewer, knows. I don't think it's done so much from a "what would YOUNG do", knowing what he knows (which is a lot less than what we the viewer sees).

You really think Young would've been hailed as a hero if he went through with it and all the hostages died? People would just say he used his gun before he used his brain or something. He can't win.

Not on these forums, anyway.

There's a lot of truth there. I don't think it would have mattered what he would have done; he'd be condemned in any case.

As far as "Young had to realize" - let me just say that I place very little value on those arguments now that we're looking back with hindsight. It's far too easy to think something is obvious and should be foreseen when it's already happened, since whether it's obvious or not is highly subjective. For example, I can say that Young didn't go through with the plan because he foresaw the LA pulling some other surprise out of their sleeves after they kill the hostages and thus riding themselves of their only bargaining chip - after all, why would they do that if, afterward, Young could just kill them all by venting the atmosphere in the gateroom? Nah, they must have a contingency plan, maybe.

The "Young had to realize" rests on the "I would have realized" idea, and we're a)not Young and b) we have access to all the information about what is going on. Young doesn't have that information.

I also place very little value in the "because of what he did, this horrible thing happened" argument when its value rests on the "Young had to realize" argument (i.e. he should've realized that someone would be killed if he didn't go through with it), because it's meaningless to where the character was at the time when he made that decision.

Horrible things happen and I think it's just easier to blame Young than accept that horrible things happen. It is tied to the "Young had to realize" which relies on the fact that we, the viewer, have the luxury of a) seeing everything at once and b) not having Young's psychological makeup where losing people isn't acceptable.

We can be cavalier with lives because they're not ours to care about, they're not on our conscience. We can be cavalier because we see everything at once and so, knowing more, we can say if something will work or not. Would I have done things differently? Sure, we all would do things according to our own information at the time and what makes us tick.

[PG15]

I disagree. His mission at the time was to rescue the hostages, and thus doing anything that would result in their massacre would be going against that mission and would thus count as a failure. He still thinks they are rescue-able while, had Young did what you did based on your rationale (hostages may die, it'd be over, everyone'd be safe - all assumptions, by the way; how do we know it'd be that easy?), it would seem like he's put them in the "acceptable losses" bin. That's not who Young is, and if I were a hostage, I'd be glad of that.

You really think Young would've been hailed as a hero if he went through with it and all the hostages died? People would just say he used his gun before he used his brain or something. He can't win.

Not on these forums, anyway.

As far as "Young had to realize" - let me just say that I place very little value on those arguments now that we're looking back with hindsight. It's far too easy to think something is obvious and should be foreseen when it's already happened, since whether it's obvious or not is highly subjective. For example, I can say that Young didn't go through with the plan because he foresaw the LA pulling some other surprise out of their sleeves after they kill the hostages and thus riding themselves of their only bargaining chip - after all, why would they do that if, afterward, Young could just kill them all by venting the atmosphere in the gateroom? Nah, they must have a contingency plan, maybe.

I also place very little value in the "because of what he did, this horrible thing happened" argument when its value rests on the "Young had to realize" argument (i.e. he should've realized that someone would be killed if he didn't go through with it), because it's meaningless to where the character was at the time when he made that decision.

[Kaiphantom]

But as Kiva said, if she's harmed, then all the hostages are going to be killed.

Young had to realize that would be a likely scenario when you put together the plans for the ambush and planned to go through with it. Like I said, someone killed with nothing to show for it. If he had made the tough call and gone through with it, sure, the other hostages *might* have died, but it would be over and everyone else would be safe.

Just another instance when he couldn't go through with a tough call. When the time came, he crumbled.

[Tuvok]

Whether the order came from O'Neill or Telford, as far as Scott was aware, he had the responsibility to question any order that was potentially illegal.

Point.

I think that most people back Young, besides being Young fans. Is a question of competence. Scott to me lacks the right to ask questions about right and wrong the moment he deserted his post back in Faith, and defended said desertion with a mystical belief that Young was wrong to leave the planet because they were meant to stay there.

Should Scott question an illiegal order. Yup.

Should Young have advised Scott that he had been given the all clear to go Black? ie Black Operational .'

Yup.

Was he obligated to take whiny Scott aside to make him feel better and ease his concerns while the clock was ticking.

Nope.

Was he obliged to have an open debate with Wray regarding his methods while the clock was ticking.

Um..yeah about that one I'm fifty on. It could have eased friction on her part, but seriously with the LA knocking on the door did he have time to go into detail etc etc and her demanding different tactics.

[EllieVee]

Yes, but firing a gun in battle is different to watching someone being deprived of air for a reason that is unclear.

[Azzers]

Whether the order came from O'Neill or Telford, as far as Scott was aware, he had the responsibility to question any order that was potentially illegal.

However, the very word "potentially" is the problem. At risk of going in circles here, if we accept that most soldiers are trained to fire an automatic weapon into a house that may result in collateral damage, we have to accept that soldiers are trained to execute orders that may have dubious consequences. Scott is beginning to question his CO, but much like life, it is possible that he is human and unsure if Young knows something he doesn't. It's that doubt that often allows questionable orders to be followed and in fact very natural.

Trust is a double edged sword. Without it, most military units would probably get killed pretty quickly due to indecisiveness. With it, some pretty dark stuff can tend to happen.

[EllieVee]

I would agree with your interpretation the most. Although the whole illegal order train of thought is really moot imo. If Telford/Rush had died and everything went south having a 3 Star General in the room immediately before he vented it is as much a de facto sanctioning as is possible regardless of what O'Neill later said he had authorized. I don't think Young was particularly too worried about illegal orders. But if someone was held accountable I think it would be Young's head on the chopping block not anyone else's.

Whether the order came from O'Neill or Telford, as far as Scott was aware, he had the responsibility to question any order that was potentially illegal.