Originally posted by EllieVee
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
how's Eli going to cope
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by DigiFluid View PostI suspect Eli won't delete the video, and will find himself in something of a position of power over Young.
Comment
-
Originally posted by havishanta View PostI think that Eli will be FORCED to take over Rush's position, and I'm curious as to how the writers will play that up. As to how Eli will cope, I'm not sure. Rush really WAS a mentor and friend, despite their often opposing views. But they got to know each other pretty well, connect with each other. Rush had a soft spot for the kid.
As for Eli being a "yes man" I think he's just an all around lovable guy. I think the ship needed someone on everyone's good side. : )
Comment
-
Originally posted by LeviathanZr6 View PostRush and Eli are friends. Eli is the only one on Destiny that actually likes Rush, and Rush respects Eli's intelligence and even trusts him above anyone else on the ship.
I think the next couple of episodes would show how essential Rush is to Destiny. Eli would be overwhelmed and pretty close to a break-down before Rush gets back.
He may be Math-Boy but he is a beginner on Ancient Tech.
Comment
-
Originally posted by EllieVee View PostShriekingly obvious from Eli's comments in Justice when watching Rush's testimony and from actively taking Young's side that Eli doesn't particularly care about Rush. He doesn't hate him, he doesn't consider him an enemy but they're not friends.Last edited by Blackhole; 15 December 2009, 01:42 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Misfits View PostAgain, why does everyone conveniently forget that Eli LIED to everyone present for Sgt. Spencer's KINO viewing?
WALLACE: "The Kino kept recording but the file must have gotten corrupted in the transfer. This is all I could get."
Eli, obviously, was helping Col. Young's deception. As Sgt. Spencer shot himself, you can see Col. Young give a stare at Dr. Rush. A clear indication that regardless of Eli's statement about the rest of the Kino footage, Col. Young knows something more.
I did wonder why Scott hadn’t seen it. He was watching the recording when he called Young and told him of its existence. Maybe it an accident or Eli was following Young’s orders not to tell anyone else about that portion of the recording. You could extrapolate that Young was planning in advance to maroon Rush but that doesn’t follow because why would he have asked him on the planet are ‘we done yet”? If he had already made his decision to strand him he would have just beaten him unconscious and left him why bother with the question? That implies that Young made his decision when Rush refused to cow.
Imo I think keeping Scott in the dark was a dramatic contrivance. If he had seen the recording he would be duty bound to question Young’s story of what happened on the planet. He would know that Young at the time had a direct motive to want to hurt Rush, without seeing it he has no direct evidence and reason to suspect he didn’t tell the truth.Last edited by Blackhole; 31 December 2009, 12:09 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Blackhole View PostWhat 'shrieking obvious' comments are you referring to? I don't think Eli took either side he just unearthed the facts and presented them. He did say to Franklin that "if Rush thought the chair was safe he would be sitting in it. Rush has already demonstrated at least in my eyes that he is very self-serving and Eli was just stating the obvious. Even if you don’t think Rush is self-serving the clear fact remains that Rush is the Ancient technology expert on Destiny and wants desperately to gain more information; if he thought the chair was safe he would have sat in it right away, and he didn't - you connect the dots.
Comment
-
Originally posted by EllieVee View PostThat was another scene ... I was talking about Rush's testimony.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Blackhole View PostThe comments I believe you are referring too, Eli insightfully realized that Rush was trying to appear to be defending Young when he really intended to state the points that Wray was hoping to maneuver him into saying to make Young look guilty in the eyes of the audience.. I agree with you that Eli is not fooled by Rush's subterfuge or attempts at manipulation and probably doesn’t regard him as a friend. I do think that Rush regards Eli better than he does most others. He probably recognizes that Eli’s genius is a very valuable commodity and wants to secure his cooperation.
Originally Posted by EllieVee
Shriekingly obvious from Eli's comments in Justice when watching Rush's testimony and from actively taking Young's side that Eli doesn't particularly care about Rush. He doesn't hate him, he doesn't consider him an enemy but they're not friends.
Comment
-
Originally posted by EllieVee View PostNice attempt at pretending that I meant to reflect any of your thoughts. I did not and you are simply being rude here. I know you dislike those who defend Rush and for some reason are focused on my posts for particular vitriol but I suggest you refer back to my post. In fact, I'll post it again for you.
The comment I am referencing was the one made by Eli to Scott after watching a recording of Rush’s testimony at the hearing: “It didn’t stop him from saying it out loud did it.”.
Your contention that the comment made it “shriekingly obvious that he was taking Young’s side" is a generalization I don’t agree with at all. Imo Eli’s comment was a fair assessment of the meaning and intent of Rush’s testimony. Wray was promoting her own agenda to discredit Young to force him to step aside and not trying to get to the truth of whether Young had anything to do with Spencer’s murder. All the other people who were testifying were trying to be careful and only introduce facts. “She asked Franklin if he ever saw Young “attack” Spencer. Franklin said I never saw him “attack” him. “Attack” is an emotionally charged word. Wray used the word to try to color Franklin’s response and bias the audience against Young rather than trying find out what he knew.
Rush in his testimony with Wray expressed without prompting exactly what she was hoping to lead him to say, that Young had a rationale and motive for committing Spencer's murder. He knew despite his denial to the contrary that he would have no part in speculation, that his statement would plant doubt and increase suspicion of guilt in the eyes of the audience. If Rush really intended to be fair to Young he would have stuck to the facts and not presented his speculation as he did. Eli’s comment was confirmation that he wasn't fooled and knew that Rush’s action was an attempt at subterfuge and manipulation of the audience against Young.
As to your assertion that “I know you dislike those who defend Rush and for some reason are focused on my posts for particular vitriol”. I don’t dislike people who defend Rush. I enjoy anyone who presents well reasoned arguments whether I agree with their points or not. As a matter of fact I significantly softened my views on the ‘evilness’ of Rush after reading Daro’s post on utilitarianism that provided an understanding of how Rush may perceive the "greater good" and from comments I read about the character made by Wright and Cooper. Show me prior instances when I have shown dislike to those I disagree with?
I haven’t singled you out for a “particular vitriol at all”. I have disagreed with your generalizations on several occasions. I have put forth my detailed arguments usually without any supported counter responses from you.Last edited by Blackhole; 16 December 2009, 06:27 PM.
Comment
-
Blackhole, I have previously posted on utilitarianism and what I got from you was extremely unpleasant, as are most of your posts in response to me. In fact, you have been extremely unpleasant since I started posting in defence of Rush, whether I present a well developed argument or not. So in response to your posts, I cannot be bothered given your responses are the same. Your response is disingenuous to say the least.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Blackhole View PostI am sorry. My phrasing did come across that you agreed with the other points I was putting forth. I should have been clearer. The only part of your comment that I meant to say I thought we agreed on was that one could conclude from Eli’s comments after watching Rush’s testimony “that Eli doesn't particularly care about Rush”. My other contentions as to the meaning of Eli’s comment were my own and not put forth by you.
The comment I am referencing was the one made by Eli to Scott after watching a recording of Rush’s testimony at the hearing: “It didn’t stop him from saying it out loud did it.”.
Your contention that the comment made it “shriekingly obvious that he was taking Young’s side" is a generalization I don’t agree with at all. Imo Eli’s comment was a fair assessment of the meaning and intent of Rush’s testimony. Wray was promoting her own agenda to discredit Young to force him to step aside and not trying to get to the truth of whether Young had anything to do with Spencer’s murder. All the other people who were testifying were trying to be careful and only introduce facts. “She asked Franklin if he ever saw Young “attack” Spencer. Franklin said I never saw him “attack” him. “Attack” is an emotionally charged word. Wray used the word to try to color Franklin’s response and bias the audience against Young rather than trying find out what he knew.
Rush in his conversation with Wray stated directly what he knew she was hoping to maneuver him into saying to give Young a rationale and motive for Spencer’s murder. He knew that even though he said it was speculation and would have no part of it, it would still make Young look guilty in the eyes of the audience. If Rush really wanted to have been fair to Young he would have stuck to the facts and not presented speculation as he did. Eli’s comment was confirmation that he was aware of Rush’s attempt at subterfuge and was really attempting to manipulate the audience at the hearing against Young.
As to your assertion that “I know you dislike those who defend Rush and for some reason are focused on my posts for particular vitriol”. I don’t dislike people who defend Rush. I enjoy anyone who presents well reasoned arguments whether I agree with their points or not. As a matter of fact I significantly softened my views on the ‘evilness’ of Rush after reading Daro’s post on utilitarianism that provided an understanding of how Rush may perceive the "greater good" and from comments I read about the character made by Wright and Cooper. Show me prior instances when I have shown dislike to those I disagree with?
I haven’t singled you out for a “particular vitriol at all”. I have disagreed with your generalizations on several occasions. I have put forth my detailed arguments usually without any supported counter response from you.
I hate to see the bickering. I personally think your arguments are typically well put together, at least the debates you and I have had. Argument wouldn't be the word to use, really. Debate. Much healthier, much more productive, and much more intellectually satisfying.
As far as Rush's speculation when giving his testimony, I think that, providing everything we're led to believe about what occurred in this episode is exactly what it appears to be, then he most certainly did make that clever comment to try and deflect any suspicion that there might be on him, and at the same time to manipulate those who heard him into at least thinking about the phrases he used.
Comment
Comment