I'm not sure if this was yet another failed attempt to make me see The Others as the "good guys", but Tom's little metaphor when Jack reminds him why exactly they can never be the good guys irritated me.

To set things straight... the losties did absolutely NOTHING to Ben's people at any point BEFORE they kidnapped a pregnant girl (they were ready to kill Claire once they cut Aaron out of her). Eko and Ana were on the other side of the island, so no, that doesn't count, imo.

I found this scene interesting for another reason. Tom knocked on the glass with his ring, the ring that was very visible in the Sawyer / Karl cage escape scene.
What's up with Tom's ring?

Exactly.

Whatever the losties had done--on the Island, or in their pre-Island lives, it does not excuse the Others for what they have done, on the Island, or in their pre-Island lives!

Pot calling the kettle black, here! :nono:

The proverb isn't about moral equivalencies, though it is often (mis-)interpreted that way. Here is what i dug up:

PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES - "Those who are vulnerable should not attack others. The proverb has been traced back to Geoffrey Chaucer's 'Troilus and Criseyde' (1385). George Herbert wrote in 1651: 'Whose house is of glass, must not throw stones at another.' This saying is first cited in the United States in 'William & Mary College Quarterly' (1710). Twenty-six later Benjamin Franklin wrote, 'Don't throw stones at your neighbors', if your own windows are glass.' 'To live in a glass house' is used as a figure of speech referring to vulnerability." From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" (1996) by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996).

Agreed. The Others are just full of it whenever they're talking about our Losties being the bad guys. Everything the Losties have done that is bad was directly provoked by the Others.

Even if you are counting Ana and Eko, I think that's still the case. It's not like Eko randomly decided to just kill some people who just happened to be strolling by. I miss Eko....

I don't feel like we're actually supposed to buy that metaphor, that our guys are the bad guys.

I don't feel like we're actually supposed to buy that metaphor, that our guys are the bad guys.
I'm not so sure that's the implication. Ben said, "we're the good guys, Michael", and didn't rule out another group as the bad guys. We don't know their relationship to DHARMA, to interests outside the island, to other potential hostiles/others on the island. I've kind of assumed there was a worse "bad guy" lurking out there.

Of course, it's still frustrating. I think to myself... if a plane crashed in my backyard, what would I do... Go get help? Offer aid and assistance? Nah, I'll kidnap the little ones and then terrorize and torture the surviving adults. Maybe have them build my new garage... ;) I mean, you can't blame the guy on the plane for crashing into your backyard. There's something more to this.

I just think we don't see the big picture yet, and at some point--likely not until the end of the series--we'll get some massive change in perspective and for the first time will see the forest, when for years all they've shown us were the trees.

[QUOTE=one7;1392374]I think he meant the "glass houses" remark more as, those in a fragile situation should be careful what they do. Especially poignant, with Jack being held in an aquarium. The proverb isn't about moral equivalencies, though I think it is easily interpreted that way. Here is what i dug up:

I don't. I think it was meant to be taken as most of us use the metaphor today - don't be pointing out our faults when you have plenty of your own. Which is ludicrous but the Others are quite certain they're the "good guys" and the writers are going to drive it home any chance they get. Frankly, I find the premise a :deadhorse:

I'm not sure if this was yet another failed attempt to make me see The Others as the "good guys", but Tom's little metaphor when Jack reminds him why exactly they can never be the good guys irritated me. To set things straight... the losties did absolutely NOTHING to Ben's people at any point BEFORE they kidnapped a pregnant girl (they were ready to kill Claire once they cut Aaron out of her). Eko and Ana were on the other side of the island, so no, that doesn't count, imo.

I interpreted this exchange of words a bit differently: Jack begins the "debate" with Tom by listing the many random bad things the Others have done in an effort to illustrate his own negative image of them as a whole.

Tom's immediate response is to simply acknowledge that Jack's holding cell is sectioned by glass.. and then suggests stones for Jack. Tom's mention of stones while citing Jack "lives in a glass house;" this seemed to me an accusation of hypocrisy on Jack's part... I may be looking into this too much (forgive me--it is Lost, afterall), but I took this as a subtle nod to the possibility that there are much more darker aspects of Jack's character than has been revealed thus far. tThe question is, what has Jack done??Remember: we've been led to believe that the Others have Jack's entire history on file, down to the intricate details (even the fact that he graduated a year early). I can think of several instances when Jack's past has been hinted at as possibly something darker:
1. The Moth, Season 1 - while trapped with Charlie in the cave-in, just before Charlie notices the moth and subsequent escape route, he comments that the place he and Jack are trapped in "feels a bit like confession," and then tells Jack he's done some bad things (he may have even offered to tell, I don't remember). Jack responds with: "Hey, I'm no saint myself," (misquote?) a mere moment before Charlie discovers the opening, effectively ending any response from Charlie inquiring about such a statement.

2. Pilot 2?, Season 1 - Just before Kate, Jack and Charlie head out for a hike, Jack and Kate can be heard almost inaudibly (closed caption, yippee) discussing Jack's tattoos, during which Jack refuses to reveal anything about them to Kate. Kate ends up commenting, "it's just that you--and your tattoos-- don't add up."

3. I Do, Season 3 - There is supposedly a list of good and bad people... in this episode, we hear Pickett mutter, "Shephard wasn't even on Jacob's list." This is, of course, speculation that Jacob's list would include the "good" people. Pickett clearly objected to Jack's reliability or trustworthiness as a result of NOT being on that list.

4. Stranger in a Strange Land, Season 3 - What on earth was an American spinal surgeon during in Thailand, anyway? Whatever his "gifted" lady-friend "saw" in him clearly freaked her out, enough to the point of having other men rough him up and order him to leave the country after marking him.There are more, but I can't think of any of the top of my head. Jack is arguably the lead of the show and I believe the most powerful way the writers can impact his effect on the story is to either have Jack die (which I, of course, DO NOT want), or drop some huge bombshell about our "shepherd" leader that will absolutely make jaws drop. From what I've read on other threads examining the character of Jack, I'm not the only one who feels this is a definite possibility.

I'm curious as to what others think, Jack fans or not.

I don't feel like we're actually supposed to buy that metaphor, that our guys are the bad guys.


I don't think we are either... because I don't think that was what was being said.

Tom says to Jack, "how bout I get you some stones?"

How does this mean that Jack's the bad guy? I don't feel like that's what he was trying to say at all.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Tom saying he'd get Jack some stones makes it seem like he wants Jack to throw stones.

My very simple translation:

Tom to Jack: Hey Jack, what aren't you supposed to do? ...Well maybe you should think about trying it.

This would mean Tom is trying to tell Jack to do something that would help his cause.

I don't. I think it was meant to be taken as most of us use the metaphor today - don't be pointing out our faults when you have plenty of your own.
That would be the one that goes something like, "don't tell me about the splinter in my eye..." Or maybe, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."

To misinterpret the metaphoras you suggest (and obviously, many people do), it loses its meaning. Think about it...you're in a glass house. Throwing a stone destroys YOUR house before the other persons. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face... you sustain the damage before your target. It's not moral equivalency, it's about being in a position of frailty--a glass house.


If they're trying to express what you say, he wouldn't have used that metaphor. If it's comparing one's faults with another's faults... well, where's the glass come into play?

Again, PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES - "Those who are vulnerable should not attack others. (Random House, New York, 1996). That is the modern usage. 1996.

The others are the good guys.

There are other OTHERS that did all that stuff.

That would be the one that goes something like, "don't tell me about the splinter in my eye..." Or maybe, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."

To misinterpret the metaphoras you suggest (and obviously, many people do), it loses its meaning. Think about it...you're in a glass house. Throwing a stone destroys YOUR house before the other persons. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face... you sustain the damage before your target. It's not moral equivalency, it's about being in a position of frailty--a glass house.


If they're trying to express what you say, he wouldn't have used that metaphor. If it's comparing one's faults with another's faults... well, where's the glass come into play?

Again, PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES - "Those who are vulnerable should not attack others. (Random House, New York, 1996). That is the modern usage. 1996.


I think you and most other people are ignoring that Tom says........ "How bout I give you some stones?"


We all know what "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" means. The catch is in Tom telling Jack maybe he should give him some stones... Jack shouldn't throw stones. Tom says, LOOK, maybe you SHOULD.

He wants Jack to do something that is seemingly dumb, but on the contrary, it really isn't.

Tom IS being the "good guy" here, he's trying to help Jack out.

The others are the good guys.

There are other OTHERS that did all that stuff.

Nope. Ethan was most definitely one of them. Tom definitely kidnapped Walt. And if the Others were innocent of Jacks charges then why didn't Tom deny it and protest?

The Others are totally guilty.

I'm not so sure that's the implication. Ben said, "we're the good guys, Michael", and didn't rule out another group as the bad guys. We don't know their relationship to DHARMA, to interests outside the island, to other potential hostiles/others on the island. I've kind of assumed there was a worse "bad guy" lurking out there.

Of course, it's still frustrating. I think to myself... if a plane crashed in my backyard, what would I do... Go get help? Offer aid and assistance? Nah, I'll kidnap the little ones and then terrorize and torture the surviving adults. Maybe have them build my new garage... ;) I mean, you can't blame the guy on the plane for crashing into your backyard. There's something more to this.

I just think we don't see the big picture yet, and at some point--likely not until the end of the series--we'll get some massive change in perspective and for the first time will see the forest, when for years all they've shown us were the trees.

GREAT post...and I heartily agree!

I think you and most other people are ignoring that Tom says........ "How bout I give you some stones?"
I just saw it as clever phrasing. And poignant considering they were in an aquarium. Effectively telling him to shut up and back off before he says something he regrets.


We all know what "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" means.
Based on many of the posts (here and in last week's preview discussions) it's clear that no, not everyone knows what it means. I was trying to shed some light on the meaning of the proverb itself.


The catch is in Tom telling Jack maybe he should give him some stones... Jack shouldn't throw stones. Tom says, LOOK, maybe you SHOULD.

He wants Jack to do something that is seemingly dumb, but on the contrary, it really isn't.

Tom IS being the "good guy" here, he's trying to help Jack out.
That is a perspective I had not considered... very interesting! That really makes you wonder... :confused:
100%
And if the Others were innocent of Jacks charges then why didn't Tom deny it and protest?
But... but that means somebody would be giving a direct answer! Isn't that against island policy? ;) Along with asking a direct question? Or having a conversation of any consequence? (ie, has Hurley told *anybody* on the island how Michael betrayed them? Has anybody even asked where Michael is? I may have missed it...)

they were ready to kill Claire once they cut Aaron out of her). Eko and Ana were on the other side of the island, so no, that doesn't count, imo.

There is really no proof that the others had planned on killing Claire, besides Alex's words. Alex might have assume that they would kill Claire, considering what stories she have been told about her mother,and what happen to her. (I assume that Alex was told that her mother died, after giving birth, or something like that) cutting a baby out, do not mean a death sentence. it's called a c-section, which is probably what they intended to do.


!'m not so sure that's the implication. Ben said, "we're the good guys, Michael", and didn't rule out another group as the bad guys. We don't know their relationship to DHARMA, to interests outside the island, to other potential hostiles/others on the island. I've kind of assumed there was a worse "bad guy" lurking out there.

I agree. I too assume that Ben might have meant that they are the good guys, in compared to another group of others/hostile that might be lurking around the island. Consider what have been said about the others.


Danielle Rousseau claim to have "never" seen the others ,only heard them, yet we know that she saw Ethan,and the others searching for Claire when they showed Claire's flashback in 'Maternity Leave".

Eko told Jin that the others do not leave tracks/footprints, yet Locke was able to track Ethan in "All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues"

Ana stated that the others were unusually fast. It was also noted that they didn't were shoes. Yet, Ben's group do not seem like they are usually fast,and they were shoes. I think there must be a second set of others.


Of course, it's still frustrating. I think to myself... if a plane crashed in my backyard, what would I do... Go get help? Offer aid and assistance? Nah, I'll kidnap the little ones and then terrorize and torture the surviving adults. Maybe have them build my new garage... I mean, you can't blame the guy on the plane for crashing into your backyard. There's something more to this.

I just think we don't see the big picture yet, and at some point--likely not until the end of the series--we'll get some massive change in perspective and for the first time will see the forest, when for years all they've shown us were the trees.

I agree.The whole thing on rather they are good, or bad depends on each persons perspective.The others might think they are saving Jack,kate and Sawyer, and from their perspective,they might be right. think about it, When Locked knock out Sayid, it seem like it was a evil think to do, but from Locke prospective, he was saving Sayid , and the others from going to the black rock and getting killed. From another perspective,Michael is a cold blooded killer, who killed Ana, and Libby...but from Michael perspective he's doing what he had to , in order to save his son. Note: the others never order Michael to kill anyone. He was only told to release Ben,and bring back Kate, Sawyer, Jack and Hurley. If Ben's group are aware of the Jack,and company back story, they might view them as killers, considering that Ana,Eko, Sawyer and Kate, are all cold blooded killers.

There is really no proof that the others had planned on killing Claire, besides Alex's words. Alex might have assume that they would kill Claire, considering what stories she have been told about her mother,and what happen to her. (I assume that Alex was told that her mother died, after giving birth, or something like that) cutting a baby out, do not mean a death sentence. it's called a c-section, which is probably what they intended to do.

Whether they were planning on killing Claire or not why the hell were they going to cut her baby out of her anyway? There was no medical reason to - Claire had a very unproblematic childbirth a few weeks later. All I can think is that they wanted to get the baby so they could steal him from his parent quicker. So even without the murder of Claire what the Others were doing was still appalling.

The Others don't get off the hook for what Michael did either. Michael was a decent human being before they kidnapped his son. Klugh dangled his child in front of him and then threatened to never let him see Walt again. That is ruthless emotional torture. By the time that Michael killed Ana and Libby he was a madman - the Others drove him crazy.

Wow, I saw that phrase in a totally different light. I understood the connection to the popular phrase but yet I also saw it as a kind of challenge from Tom to Jack.

Sawyer has often referred to certain male body parts as "stones" and uses them as a measure of courage, as in "If you had the stones, you would ...."

To me, Tom was mocking Jack and basically telling him he is all talk. Then he asks Jack to be moved easily, without a problem. Tom's theory that Jack doesn't have any "stones" was proven when Jack placidly let himself be led away in handcuffs instead of putting up a fight. If he really thought he was being led to execution, he should have fought like a beast. By not resisting it just proved Tom right, that (in Christian's words) he just "doesn't have what it takes."

:undecide:

No, I think Tom was definitely trying to draw the parallel that both sides have commited bad acts. That may be true but it in no way excuses the fact that the Others were the first to commit them against the Losties. They act like the Losties were an invading military force, not plane crash victims. They didn't choose to come to the island and when they arrived they could have used some help. Instead they get kidnapped, murdered and tortured. There is absolutely nothing the Others could show me at this point that could justify that.

And even if you use smoke and mirrors to make it seem as though there is some other group of bad guys out there doing some of these things, we have seen enough with our own eyes (killing Nathan, kidnapping Claire, threatening to kill a camp member every day, blowing up the raft, taking Walt, shooting Sawyer) to know the Others are responsible.

To me, Tom was mocking Jack and basically telling him he is all talk. Then he asks Jack to be moved easily, without a problem. Tom's theory that Jack doesn't have any "stones" was proven when Jack placidly let himself be led away in handcuffs instead of putting up a fight.

I agree with this. Tom never says anything about glass houses; he taps on the glass to call the guards.

I agree with this. Tom never says anything about glass houses; he taps on the glass to call the guards.

No he doesn't. He taps the glass and says "You see this glass house you're living in Jack? How about I get you some stones?" He was clearly making the point that Jack was in no position to judge them.

I think that what we were supposed to take from Tom's comment was that both the Losties and the Others have committed crimes at this point, neither group understands the motivations of the other side, and has major doubts about the character of the other side. Everyone THINKS they know why the other side does things and so they have judged the actions of the other side. However, both the Losties and the Others believe that their own actions can be justified and have good explanations. The Others don't trust or respect the Losties any more that the Losties trust or respect the Others.

And I wouldn't get too hung up on the exact meaning of the expression about glass houses. The writers will go with the popular understanding of the phrase--otherwise the reference has no meaning. They've done this before, in fact, when Locke's mother says he was an Immaculate Conception. 'Immaculate Conception' ACTUALLY refers to the conception of Mary without the stain of original sin, NOT the fact that she became pregnant with Jesus without having had sex. The pregnancy is the Virgin Birth. So obviously the writers aren't sticklers for the true meaning of commonly used expressions--they're going for the way the public uses them (however mistakenly they use them).

No, I think Tom was definitely trying to draw the parallel that both sides have commited bad acts. That may be true but it in no way excuses the fact that the Others were the first to commit them against the Losties. They act like the Losties were an invading military force, not plane crash victims. They didn't choose to come to the island and when they arrived they could have used some help. Instead they get kidnapped, murdered and tortured. There is absolutely nothing the Others could show me at this point that could justify that.

And even if you use smoke and mirrors to make it seem as though there is some other group of bad guys out there doing some of these things, we have seen enough with our own eyes (killing Nathan, kidnapping Claire, threatening to kill a camp member every day, blowing up the raft, taking Walt, shooting Sawyer) to know the Others are responsible.


Where you draw this conclusion about the statement is beyond me. You aren't the only one who thinks this, but there is just nothing that would even hint at that meaning. What, exactly, about Tom saying, "You see this glass house you're living in? How bout I give you some stones?" makes it seem like he's trying to say they have both committed bad acts? Nothing he says has anything to do with who's good or who's bad.

The metaphor is used as means to get a message to Jack, without being blatant. Why would Tom not want to just directly tell Jack? Because he's trying to help Jack. He's trying to send him a message and he doesn't want it to be obvious to anyone listening. So, the metaphor's meaning is pointless here. It was just something Tom knew Jack would know the meaning behind. What aren't you supposed to do in glass houses? Throw stones. Tom then says 'how bout I give you some stones?" Why would he say that? Not because he wants to make sure Jack doesn't throw stones. He's going to give him stones to throw! Because he wants Jack to throw stones. Because he wants Jack to do what he doesn't think he's supposed to.
The entire glass house metaphor was simply used because it fit the setting. It made sense to mention it, but it wasn't obvious what Tom was telling Jack.

The same message could have been delivered if Tom said, "See your chicken eggs here? How bout I give you a pen and paper to start tallying them?" 'You know you aren't supposed to... but LISTEN, why would I be wanting to give you the pen and paper???? I'm trying to tell you that I want you to do what you're not supposed to.' Except he didn't use this metaphor because it would have been out of nowhere and raised some ears. By using the glass house metaphor, no one immediately realizes he's sending Jack a message.
100%
No he doesn't. He taps the glass and says "You see this glass house you're living in Jack? How about I get you some stones?" He was clearly making the point that Jack was in no position to judge them.


If he was clearly making the point that Jack was in no position to judge them, he would have said, "You see this glass house you're living in Jack? DON'T THROW STONES." But he obviously didn't say that, because that's not what he was trying to say. He says, "How bout I give you some stones,- so that you can do what you are not supposed to."

Interesting theory, kevn (and thanks, pace, I missed that part for some reason).

Neither side believes what they've done is "bad", either. What they've done all along are things where they believe the end justifies the means.

I wonder if what Tom said has anything to do with Juliet's impending (at that point) execution? Perhaps they stone their criminals to death and Tom was laying the blame for it directly at Jack's feet?

In other words, "your actions caused Juliet's death, how about I get you some stones so you can help finish the job?"

If he was clearly making the point that Jack was in no position to judge them, he would have said, "You see this glass house you're living in Jack? DON'T THROW STONES." But he obviously didn't say that, because that's not what he was trying to say. He says, "How bout I give you some stones,- so that you can do what you are not supposed to."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. "How about I get you some stones" was said sarcastically. Tom was being facetious. Tom ("What kind of people do you think we are Jack?") thinks his people are not better or worse than the Losties. Which of course avoids the whole issue of responsibility.

So glad other people picked up on this! My hubby thought it was said threateningly to Jack warning him he was in a fragile situation. I saw it said sarcastically and was refering to the fact that as bad as Jack sees the Others, he is no better.

I just have this strong feeling that they are going to try at some point to shift the entire perspective the audience has of the situation (The Others are really the good guys!!) and reveal some dirt on the Losties to show that they are the bad guys.

There is a problem though. I for one, can't switch my feelings about a group that has done some pretty mean stuff to the Losties for the sake of the shock value. I don't know HOW they will be able to do this sucessfully.

For me, you could tell me that every one of the Others had been dragged to the island and forced to do everything they have done and I still would never forgive them. Why? Because of the expressions on their faces when they did it. Because of their pompous attitude around the Losties. Because I care more about the Losties than I do the Others, and because they are innocent people thrown on this island by a plane crash that TPTB have said was a random act. Of course they could be lying as much as they were when they promised no Time Travel......

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. "How about I get you some stones" was said sarcastically. Tom was being facetious.



See, I've tried saying this phrase in my head a hundred different ways, and it all comes out sarcastically. "Why don't I give you some stones then, huh?" "Here's some stones, go nuts," etc. But- the fact that Tom says it articulately and in a very serious manner, says he actually means it. If it was a sarcastic remark, any number of other ways would have made that clear, but the fact that he said it the way that he did - slow and with certain eye contact - tells me that he was being anything BUT facetious.


He really thinks Jack should start throwing stones.

Sorry, I'm with Tom on this. There is nothing the Others have done which is worse than something one or more Losties have done at some point. Whether in flashbacks or on the island-- this fact is incontravertible. The Losties have murdered, tortured, beaten, imprisoned, and kidnapped. They are no better than the Others in any way, shape or form.

As for the "the Others were the first agressors" argument, remember that the Losties are on THEIR island. Tom said in season two that if they stayed on their side of the island, they wouldn't have anything to fear. And since we do not know the full story behind them yet, we aren't in a position to judge whether the kidnapping of Walt and the other kids was a morally objectionable act. Carl said they were giving them "a better life."

I think Tom's statement was meant exactly how the phrase is usually interpreted. Acting like the Others are evil because they have commited bad acts when Jack and the Losties have done the exact same things makes him a big, fat, honking hypocrite.

I think the "glass houses" remark WAS meant to suggest a moral equivalency, but that's not the part that jumped out at me. What I couldn't believe is when Tom said "What kind of people do you think we are?"

Whether they think they're justified or not, after all the killing the Others have done, tried to do and threatened to do, saying something like that was just absurd.

I hate that they always forget about Scott's murder when speaking about The Others' wrongdoings. THE MAN WAS MURDERED, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! I think that's worth bringing up if you're gonna criticize The Others-

Sorry, I'm with Tom on this. There is nothing the Others have done which is worse than something one or more Losties have done at some point. Whether in flashbacks or on the island-- this fact is incontravertible. The Losties have murdered, tortured, beaten, imprisoned, and kidnapped. They are no better than the Others in any way, shape or form.

As for the "the Others were the first agressors" argument, remember that the Losties are on THEIR island. Tom said in season two that if they stayed on their side of the island, they wouldn't have anything to fear. And since we do not know the full story behind them yet, we aren't in a position to judge whether the kidnapping of Walt and the other kids was a morally objectionable act. Carl said they were giving them "a better life."

I think Tom's statement was meant exactly how the phrase is usually interpreted. Acting like the Others are evil because they have commited bad acts when Jack and the Losties have done the exact same things makes him a big, fat, honking hypocrite.

1) Pickett was going to murder Sawyer because SUN killed his wife IN SELF DEFENSE.

2) Ethan threatened to kill one Lostie a day until Claire was returned. Do you think he was bluffing? A day had passed. Do you think someone else killed Scott/Steve?

3) Do you think the real Henry Gale just died accidentally?

4) Does the possibility of Goodwin's discovery justify the murder of Nathan?

5) Was the attempted murder of Charlie justified?

6) They already had Walt. Was blowing up the raft with three men on it in shark-infested waters justified?

7) Do you think Tom was bluffing or justified when he had a gun to Kate's neck?

8) Do you think Juliet was bluffing or justified when she had a gun on Kate?


Sawyer and Kate have killed somebody. Do you think Charlie has? Jin? Had Michael when they blew up the raft? Do you think Nathan was a murderer and Goodwin knew that? Was Henry Gale a murderer? If so, how did they know?

And apparently crash-landing in an airplane make you an aggressor now. But the Fuselage people welcomed the Tailies and helped them as much as they could, even though Ana Lucia accidentally killed Shannon. The Others kidnapped and murdered them. Where's the equivalency there?

And the Losties DID stay on their side of the Island, but that didn't stop Ethan from taking and drugging Claire, trying to take Aaron, trying to kill Charlie, threatening to kill as many of them as it took to get Claire back and by all appearances killing Scott/Steve. That wasn't an initiation of aggression?

Finally, how is it that you're holding Jack and all the Losties responsible for anything any of them has ever done when the first time they met was on a plane flight? The Others are acting as a group under the orders of Ben. What have the Losties done to the Others that wasn't self defense?

Sorry, I'm with Tom on this. There is nothing the Others have done which is worse than something one or more Losties have done at some point. Whether in flashbacks or on the island-- this fact is incontravertible. The Losties have murdered, tortured, beaten, imprisoned, and kidnapped. They are no better than the Others in any way, shape or form.

As for the "the Others were the first agressors" argument, remember that the Losties are on THEIR island. Tom said in season two that if they stayed on their side of the island, they wouldn't have anything to fear. And since we do not know the full story behind them yet, we aren't in a position to judge whether the kidnapping of Walt and the other kids was a morally objectionable act. Carl said they were giving them "a better life."

I think Tom's statement was meant exactly how the phrase is usually interpreted. Acting like the Others are evil because they have commited bad acts when Jack and the Losties have done the exact same things makes him a big, fat, honking hypocrite.

1) Pickett was going to murder Sawyer because SUN killed his wife IN SELF DEFENSE.

2) Ethan threatened to kill one Lostie a day until Claire was returned. Do you think he was bluffing? A day had passed. Do you think someone else killed Scott/Steve?

3) Do you think the real Henry Gale just died accidentally?

4) Does the possibility of Goodwin's discovery justify the murder of Nathan?

5) Was the attempted murder of Charlie justified?

6) They already had Walt. Was blowing up the raft with three men on it in shark-infested waters justified?

7) Do you think Tom was bluffing or justified when he had a gun to Kate's neck?

8) Do you think Juliet was bluffing or justified when she had a gun on Kate?


Sawyer and Kate have killed somebody. Do you think Charlie has? Jin? Had Michael when they blew up the raft? Do you think Nathan was a murderer and Goodwin knew that? Was Henry Gale a murderer? If so, how did they know?

And apparently crash-landing in an airplane make you an aggressor now. But the Fuselage people welcomed the Tailies and helped them as much as they could, even though Ana Lucia accidentally killed Shannon. The Others kidnapped and murdered them. Where's the equivalency there?

And the Losties DID stay on their side of the Island, but that didn't stop Ethan from taking and drugging Claire, trying to take Aaron, trying to kill Charlie, threatening to kill as many of them as it took to get Claire back and by all appearances killing Scott/Steve. That wasn't an initiation of aggression?

Finally, how is it that you're holding Jack and all the Losties responsible for anything any of them has ever done when the first time they met was on a plane flight? The Others are acting as a group under the orders of Ben. What have the Losties done to the Others that wasn't self defense?

I was going to respond to Rodimus, wtec, but you did it so beautifully I have nothing more to say except WORD.

Sorry, I'm with Tom on this. There is nothing the Others have done which is worse than something one or more Losties have done at some point. Whether in flashbacks or on the island-- this fact is incontravertible. The Losties have murdered, tortured, beaten, imprisoned, and kidnapped. They are no better than the Others in any way, shape or form.

Whom of the Others have the Fuselage Losties murdered, tortured, beaten, imprisoned or kidnapped prior to Ethan kidnapping Claire and trying to kill Charlie?

Whom of the Others have the Tailies murdered, tortured, beaten, imprisoned or kidnapped prior to the attack during the first night?

It's not like, say, Jack deliberately hurting a man in South Africa would justify the Others beating up Michael in return, or something.

As for the "the Others were the first agressors" argument, remember that the Losties are on THEIR island. Tom said in season two that if they stayed on their side of the island, they wouldn't have anything to fear.

Is that why Ethan kidnapped Claire and tried to kill Charlie?

And since we do not know the full story behind them yet, we aren't in a position to judge whether the kidnapping of Walt and the other kids was a morally objectionable act.

Riiiiiight.

Carl said they were giving them "a better life."

And they can't do this by approaching the Losties in a civil manner? They have to abduct them by force? Hey, I'm giving you a better life on another planet. Unfortunately I have to abduct you in your sleep without any warning in advance, hope you don't mind.

I think Tom's statement was meant exactly how the phrase is usually interpreted. Acting like the Others are evil because they have commited bad acts when Jack and the Losties have done the exact same things makes him a big, fat, honking hypocrite.

Again: When did the Losties murder, torture, beat, imprison or kidnap any of the Others prior to the Others attacking first?

Kill the Others. Kill them all.

I think I get what he was saying to Jack..

He was telling him that THEY are the reason he's still alive... This goes along with the way Desmond has been saving Charlie. Diverting the airplane to the Island was part of the plan to save these few people who are important to saving the world. The last three episodes have been hinting at this very strongly.

Somehow, Dharma, or whoever they are have managed to find a way to change the course of the Universe...the question is, have they been able to keep it from course correcting itself? Maybe the black smoke is the universe trying to course correct itself...etc.

How does no one else agree that Tom is trying to tell Jack something without saying it directly? This has nothing to do with Tom trying to justify himself or make a point to Jack. He's trying to tell Jack something that he shouldn't be telling him. The next scene with them is also reminiscent of it. When Jack asks why they're moving Juliet into his room. Tom says, "Because.... she's in trouble, Jack" in a very similar tone to how he made the stones comment. I cannot help but notice that Tom is trying to get a message across to Jack here without being caught. He changes his tone for the rest of their conversation. Now don't try anything stupid to get out! You stay in your cage now! But he slows his speech down, and makes eye contact when he makes the comment about Juliet being in trouble.

When you're talking to someone and you suddenly change tones, you are purposely raising a flag. You want the person you're talking to to "take note on what I'm saying here." Ben does this both when he says "how bout I get you some stones?" and "because she's in trouble, Jack."

He wants Jack to do something. And he wants Jack to figure it out. He is acting much like Ben would. Jack: If you can get off this island then why are you still here? Ben: Yes, Jack, why are we here???? They want Jack to push the envelope. Jack doesn't know what's going on. These comments are telling Jack, hey, think outside the box.

How does no one else agree that Tom is trying to tell Jack something without saying it directly? This has nothing to do with Tom trying to justify himself or make a point to Jack. He's trying to tell Jack something that he shouldn't be telling him.

You don't need to keep explaining it. We understand what you're saying, we just don't agree with your read on the scene. :chillpill:

The proverb isn't about moral equivalencies, though it is often (mis-)interpreted that way. Here is what i dug up:

PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES - "Those who are vulnerable should not attack others. The proverb has been traced back to Geoffrey Chaucer's 'Troilus and Criseyde' (1385). George Herbert wrote in 1651: 'Whose house is of glass, must not throw stones at another.' This saying is first cited in the United States in 'William & Mary College Quarterly' (1710). Twenty-six later Benjamin Franklin wrote, 'Don't throw stones at your neighbors', if your own windows are glass.' 'To live in a glass house' is used as a figure of speech referring to vulnerability." From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" (1996) by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996).

That's a very interesting way to look at it... while I don't think that's the case here, I can see how it might be.

No, I think Tom was definitely trying to draw the parallel that both sides have commited bad acts. That may be true but it in no way excuses the fact that the Others were the first to commit them against the Losties. They act like the Losties were an invading military force, not plane crash victims. They didn't choose to come to the island and when they arrived they could have used some help. Instead they get kidnapped, murdered and tortured. There is absolutely nothing the Others could show me at this point that could justify that.

And even if you use smoke and mirrors to make it seem as though there is some other group of bad guys out there doing some of these things, we have seen enough with our own eyes (killing Nathan, kidnapping Claire, threatening to kill a camp member every day, blowing up the raft, taking Walt, shooting Sawyer) to know the Others are responsible.

Sorry, I'm with Tom on this. There is nothing the Others have done which is worse than something one or more Losties have done at some point. Whether in flashbacks or on the island-- this fact is incontravertible. .

I was going to respond to Rodimus, wtec, but you did it so beautifully I have nothing more to say except WORD.


I think that you guys should read Rodimus' point again. What he said (that I agree with) is that if we look in the Losties' PAST we would see that they are murders, con men, hitmen, etc. Their Past... not just on the island.

This episode demonstrated to us that they believe that Anyone who kills should be put to death themselves... it's what they were going to do to Juliet.

And NO the point of that scene did not seem to be about trying to get us to think that they are "good guys" but one of the purposes of the entire Episode is to show us that They think that they are, and they're willing to put anyone to death if they don't consider them to be a "good" person. In their eyes, killing Nathan, Scott and attemtping to kill Charlie is Justified because the Losties that were not kidnapped are "bad people" with checkered pasts.

If an inmate is on death row for murders and gets stabbed to death by another inmate then how many tears are shed over him...? That's how the Others see things.

OK, I'll play. These points have been discussed over and over again, and I've done a thread on why I think Maternity Leave shows the Others were trying to save Claire's life.

Remember, these are just possibilities. They might not all be correct.

1) Pickett was going to murder Sawyer because SUN killed his wife IN SELF DEFENSE.Colleen was trying to defuse the situation and calm Sun, not kill or harm her. Her team only wanted the boat, they did not want to hurt anyone. They didn't know Sun was on the boat.

2) Ethan threatened to kill one Lostie a day until Claire was returned. Ethan's threat was empty, made in his panic about Claire; perhaps as a surgeon he thought a pregnant woman should be under medical care. Or perhaps, as I've speculatd in another thread, the entire ML ward was a charade set up to protect Claire and Aaron, to save them from Smoky. Regardless, we don't know who killed Sceve.

3) Do you think the real Henry Gale just died accidentally?We don't know who killed Gale; presumably it was Goodwin. Even so, we don't know Gale's actions, motives, or alliance.

4) Does the possibility of Goodwin's discovery justify the murder of Nathan?We don't know why Goodwin killed Nathan, nor do we know Nathan's actions, motives, or alliance. He and/or Gale could be truly bad guys.

5) Was the attempted murder of Charlie justified?We don't know who hung Charlie.

6) They already had Walt. Was blowing up the raft with three men on it in shark-infested waters justified?Sawyer fired first.

7) Do you think Tom was bluffing or justified when he had a gun to Kate's neck?Yes, he was bluffing. It was a charade.

8) Do you think Juliet was bluffing or justified when she had a gun on Kate?Juliet seems to have her own agenda,separate from Ben & Co. We don't know what she's about yet.

:undecide: It's funny how people interpret these vague/subtle little moments so differently!:undecide:

To me, there was a clear implication from Tom that he's going to help Jack out by giving him some stones to throw at the "glass house" that is his imprisonment.

I immediately started thinking that maybe he's in cahoots with Juliet - remember in her cue card video she says something like "There are some of us that want a different life" or something like that suggesting that there's a sub-faction amongst the Others.

I've actually been wondering if Tom was in on this - given his ambiguous reactions to Jack's accusation of Juliet in the O.R., and his being painted of late in a more friendly light - think about him contrasted with Pickett - Tom offered Kate antiseptic for her wrists, jokes around with Sawyer, never gets violent with anyone, helped Jack in the O.R. and even got a little comic treatment there with the fear of blood thing, then asked Jack in a sort of curious (read not threatening or threatened) way about Juliet's plot.

Folks, we may be getting set up here :eek2: :biggrin:

The Others are definitely bad guys...the original sin was failure to give assistance and call for help after the crash. They must have some way to communicate with the outside world or else they couldn't get supplies, gasoline, personnel, etc.

Let me just say this -

These people who crashed on this Island need to be allowed to carry out their destinies. Why do people seem to completely ignore the most important themes we've been presented in the last three episodes.

The path everyone has in the universe...and how if you try to change that path, the universe corrects itself.

So, these people are brought to this Island...except the others really cant tell them why they're here or who they really are because that would screw up these people's intended paths that will ultimately save the world. Scott? He wasn't part of this...just someone who happened to survive along with the key people. Ethan screwed up and it was important for him to get the universe "back on track" or else the entire world could end. So if that meant the sacrifice of one person, then so be it.

So the Others basically are doing things..acting like bumpers in a pinball machine. They do weird things required to keep these people who crashed on a path. I believe that they are also fighting a course correcting universe with some of this...and maybe thats why they randomly kidnap people...to interrupt the universe and to keep them alive. This is similar to how Desmond has been saving Charlie. Before we knew what he was up to, he was acting weird...but it all made sense after we learned of his motive.

I believe the Others are good guys...but unfortunately they can't meddle too much and have to accept the sacrifices of their own because they know that some of these sacrifices are just part of the important path these key survivors are walking along.

I think this is why Tom has been very ambiguous because these people cant be allowed to know their purpose or it could ultimately affect this path they are on if they consciously try to steer it.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. "How about I get you some stones" was said sarcastically. Tom was being facetious. Tom ("What kind of people do you think we are Jack?") thinks his people are not better or worse than the Losties. Which of course avoids the whole issue of responsibility.This state my own opinion well enough that I will just quote it instead of dreaming up my own wording.;)

As for the "the Others were the first agressors" argument, remember that the Losties are on THEIR island. LOL that makes it sound like the Lostees are invaders instead of crash victims. They are not on the island by choice. The first agressors argument is valid even if we assume that the Others have a valid claim on ownership of the island.
Colleen was trying to defuse the situation and calm Sun, not kill or harm her. Her team only wanted the boat, they did not want to hurt anyone. They didn't know Sun was on the boat.Coleen was an armed intruder trying to steal a boat when she ran into an armed occupant who had the drop on her. Of course she tried to talk her way out of it. If Coleen did not anticipate violence might be neccessary to complete the theft, why was she armed?
Ethan's threat was empty, made in his panic about Claire;LOL nice one. He was just one sweet innocent guy trying to help by using abductions, threats and drugs but he never really hurt anyone.
Sawyer fired first.Sawyer drew first in an attempt to stop an armed group from abducting a child - Talk to the police about this. In most places he would get a handshake while the police went after the child stealling criminals.

This is very easy guys. I think many of the things in lost are easy for me because Im used to the bible> let me explain..haha. The Bible is very difficult to interpret but once you learn that it interpets itself in later passages, it gets easier

Lost uses the same techinque in almost every episode

So here it is

Jack is protrayed as a drunk looking to find himself in the flashback..he's told he's alone, affraid, and angry. The real world is portrayed as violent as Jack gets beat up. He having sex with someone he just met and she is real wild---all about just having fun

Jack points out how bad the others are--and they are. But Tom knows the real world too. Jacks house is made of glass too so there is no point in throwing stones--jack house is made of glass too.

Then Lost, again, interpets Jack and Toms scene--when Kate and saywer make the same accusation to Karl about stealing the kids. What does Karl say--we give them a better life---better than what? YOUR LIFE

Its identical to the Jack and Toms scene. They do this a lot in Lost.

its as simple as that guys. Its not a mystery..its a theme. If you search my posts..there is also a leader theme, a star theme, and a few more.

But most of us already guessed the uptopia theme--that the others believed in the Ends justify the means. Obviously..we dont agree.

I totally, immediately read Tom's statement as something of a double entendre...Living in glass houses, AND, "Here, Jack, lemme get you some stones..." As in, Jack lacks the "stones" he needs right now. I actually laughed out loud when Tom said that, but maybe it was just me. I think it was all in the snarky delivery.

*hiccup*

You don't need to keep explaining it. We understand what you're saying, we just don't agree with your read on the scene. :chillpill:


You said Tom was being sarcastic about giving Jack stones. I gave you every reason why he was not being sarcastic. Sure, you don't agree with my read of what Tom meant, but please tell me what the heck makes you think he was being sarcastic. All you say is 'tom was just joking around.' So yeah, I'm repeating my point because I think you are reading his delivery wrong. There is nothing there that would hint at Tom being facetious.

You said Tom was being sarcastic about giving Jack stones. I gave you every reason why he was not being sarcastic. Sure, you don't agree with my read of what Tom meant, but please tell me what the heck makes you think he was being sarcastic. All you say is 'tom was just joking around.' So yeah, I'm repeating my point because I think you are reading his delivery wrong. There is nothing there that would hint at Tom being facetious.

kevn, I just don't see a way to translate it the way that you saw it... but rather than debate that here, I suggest posing the question to Gregg Nations at his forum. It sounds like one he'd actually answer, and if you end up being right then you get the big "Told You So" and we all move on. Really this is all about interpretation, and otherwise it could go on forever...

Do you think someone else killed Scott/Steve?Actually... I think Smokey killed him and maybe we'll see it in the "Pikki" flashback!

My Momma always told me 2 wrongs don't make a right, so none of these arguements are really holding up. :shrug:

I do think Kevn has a point that I never even considered when I watched the episode but am thinking something may come of it. Esspecially since seeing the promo pics with Tom & Jack buddying up & playing football together...

kevn, I just don't see a way to translate it the way that you saw it... but rather than debate that here, I suggest posing the question to Gregg Nations at his forum. It sounds like one he'd actually answer, and if you end up being right then you get the big "Told You So" and we all move on. Really this is all about interpretation, and otherwise it could go on forever...Please, please, please ask Gregg!!! And post a link here, I'm very interested in his response.

I agree John Burger (by the way, I really like your posts!).

I don't think the writers are trying to convince us the Others are good, but taht they actually believe they are good. I think the writers want us to question more deeply, why are they doing the things they are doing, instead of assuming it is because they are simply evil.

I agree John Burger (by the way, I really like your posts!).

I don't think the writers are trying to convince us the Others are good, but taht they actually believe they are good. I think the writers want us to question more deeply, why are they doing the things they are doing, instead of assuming it is because they are simply evil.

That's exactly how I see it also.

Jack is protrayed as a drunk looking to find himself in the flashback..


I understand and agree with your point about a thematic approach. I'm wondering, though, where you get the impression that Jack was a drunk in Phuket?
I've only viewed SIASL once so far, and I may have missed that part, it's a serious question.

I thought Tom was only tapping on the glass to bolster his opinion that the aquarium cell wasn't at all desirable compared to a real, brick and mortar house (let's get some stones), which he would be moved into.

Then he got put in a cage, and there went that theory.

Nah, jk. :biggrin:

OK, I'll play. These points have been discussed over and over again, and I've done a thread on why I think Maternity Leave shows the Others were trying to save Claire's life.

And to do that they had to abduct and drug her? They couldn't just openly approach the Losties and offer help?

Colleen was trying to defuse the situation and calm Sun, not kill or harm her. Her team only wanted the boat, they did not want to hurt anyone. They didn't know Sun was on the boat.

If they didn't want to hurt anyone, why were they armed?

Ethan's threat was empty, made in his panic about Claire; perhaps as a surgeon he thought a pregnant woman should be under medical care.

And of course surgeons are well-known for making empty threats about killing random people just to make sure a pregnant woman gets medical care, but never bother to actually explain the situation.

Or perhaps, as I've speculatd in another thread, the entire ML ward was a charade set up to protect Claire and Aaron, to save them from Smoky. Regardless, we don't know who killed Sceve.

And again, Ethan couldn't explain this, or anything. He absolutey has to threaten killing random people.

We don't know why Goodwin killed Nathan, nor do we know Nathan's actions, motives, or alliance. He and/or Gale could be truly bad guys.

"If you had cut off his finger and he still told you he was on the plane, I think maybe you would have started to believe you had the wrong guy."

There you have it, straight out of Goodwin's mouth.

We don't know who hung Charlie.

Hum, how about the guy who beat up Jack and said "If you do not stop following me, I will kill one of them"? Too far-fetched?

Ethan repeatedly threatened to kill people, but it was ALWAYS just an empty threat and COINCIDENTALLY someome stil ends up dead, or near-dead shortly afterwards regardless?

Sawyer fired first.

Unless you count the flare, Sawyer got shot before he could fire a single shot himself. And he was just trying to protect Walt. Seriously. He was trying to prevent a group of strangers from stealing a ten-year-old kid from his father.

Yes, he was bluffing. It was a charade.

I like how you Others-defenders always take the Others at verbatim whenever it suits your point ("Ben said they're not killers!"), but have no problem with them lying or bluffing whenever they may have a very good reason.

Hello. I'm new here. This newness should not indicate that I am unfamiliar with threaded boards, internet communuties, or this show. Please, please, please, ignore my extremely low post count and lack of history within thefuselage. I am capable of competent discussion on this topic. Thank you for reading my disclaimer; yes I realize it wasn't labeled as such and you may or may not feel tricked. :) I write bluntly and with disregard for sensitive feelings. You may be offended if you read on.


Ok, on with the post-

Every single keystroke about moral equivalency and what each side did to the other....was a complete waste of time. You uber-geeks will google the modern day context of a simple euphamism, yet ignore the overt context clues that are present in the footage. THE SHOW IS THE SHOW. YOU ARE NOT THE SHOW. STOP PRETENDING THAT YOU'RE THE SHOW. Discuss what happened, and how you interpreted it in the context of a human conversation. Google need not be referenced here guys.

I saw this clip on ABC.com the day before it aired during the episode, and even in that tiny, tiny segment....less than two minutes in length...it was crystal clear to me that Tom was suggesting Jack do what he shouldn't. When I saw the scene in wednesday's episode...it was only further cemented that Tom wants Jack to do something.

Some of the posters in this thread have already posted this idea, so I do not claim ownership of it, however, I want to hopefully shed some light on the situation.

Admittedly, 'stones' is an ambigous reference, when 'stones' is occasionally used to refer to male genitalia. This certainly is not the case in this instance. If it were, he wouldn't need to make reference to a glass house. He doesn't think that, and he didn't say that. The fact that some even put forth the idea that the 'stones' remark was to suggest that Jack would be stoning Juliet is also, completely ridiculous.

When Jack asks Tom to be honest and just say the others are about to kill him, Tom looks...almost hurt. He is quiet though, and lets Jack finish his little speech, pensively considering his response. When he delivers the line, it is smooth and perfect, no bitterness, no hate, no animosity. He just says, "You see this glass house you're living in Jack? Let's get you some stones." He basically is saying "think outside the box". Though, as Kevn pointed out, had he simply said 'think outside the box', Tom could be be seen as a saboteur to Ben, similar to Juliet.

Without question, Tom's remark about stones and glass houses was only to suggest to Jack that he do what he thinks he's not supposed to. Watch it again if you have to; it might hurt your pride to reconsider your position if you're on the other side of this issue, but quite honestly, there is no other reasonable way of interpreting what happened. I almost feel bad for the writers...if they had to read this thread....they must have been looking for sharp objects to stab their eyes so they wouldn't have to read anymore preposterous
**MOD edited again. **

-thecoerce

Ethan repeatedly threatened to kill people, but it was ALWAYS just an empty threat and COINCIDENTALLY someome stil ends up dead, or near-dead shortly afterwards regardless?

Exactly. Ethan would have to be extremely lucky to make an empty threat about killing somebody and then randomly have a dead/almost dead body show up exactly as he said it would. Why would Scott randomly be killed on THAT particular night by Smokey when every other night on the island Smokey has allowed all the Beachies to live?

Ethan NOT hanging Charlie would have involve Ethan inexplicably letting one of his hostages go after threatening to kill one of them, followed by somebody else capturing Charlie and hanging him for no apparent reason. Thats seriously far fetched.

Besides Tom wasn't denying the Charlie hanging and we know Tom was involved with the Claire kidnap since we saw him at the Staff. I think if Tom was innocent of the things Jack accused him of he would have said so - he didn't.

thecoerce,

Calling other posters names and insulting their ideas are against our rules. Reading our FAQ section would a good idea, so that you can find out our rules and requirements.

Kitten_kath.

Why would Scott randomly be killed on THAT particular night by Smokey when every other night on the island Smokey has allowed all the Beachies to live?Maybe Scott failed Smokey's test, like Eko did. :shrug: But its always been strange that all (most? a bunch?) of Scott's (Steve's?) bones were broken when he was killed but no one heard a thing. Time will tell...

Maybe Scott failed Smokey's test, like Eko did. :shrug: But its always been strange that all (most? a bunch?) of Scott's (Steve's?) bones were broken when he was killed but no one heard a thing. Time will tell...

Well Smokey sure doesn't kill people quietly and we have never seen Smokey at the beach. I think Smokey patrols the jungle and the beach is outside its security zone. If Goodwin managed to quietly break Nathans neck in the night then why couldn't Ethan do the same to Sceve? It's not hard to believe that Ethan could do some serious bare-handed damage considering how he easily lifted Charlie off the ground with one hand.

Well Smokey sure doesn't kill people quietly and we have never seen Smokey at the beach. I think Smokey patrols the jungle and the beach is outside its security zone. If Goodwin managed to quietly break Nathans neck in the night then why couldn't Ethan do the same to Sceve? It's not hard to believe that Ethan could do some serious bare-handed damage considering how he easily lifted Charlie off the ground with one hand.Well, we're far off topic now, but as I mentioned before, time will tell...

The point still stands that Ethan threatened to kill someone twice; and once the person in question was clinically dead and had to be reanimated, while the second time the person WAS dead. And he DEFINITELY beat up Jack. Unless you're telling me that was Smokey disguising as Ethan...

When Jack asks Tom to be honest and just say the others are about to kill him, Tom looks...almost hurt. He is quiet though, and lets Jack finish his little speech, pensively considering his response. When he delivers the line, it is smooth and perfect, no bitterness, no hate, no animosity. He just says, "You see this glass house you're living in Jack? Let's get you some stones." He basically is saying "think outside the box". Though, as Kevn pointed out, had he simply said 'think outside the box', Tom could be be seen as a saboteur to Ben, similar to Juliet.

Without question, Tom's remark about stones and glass houses was only to suggest to Jack that he do what he thinks he's not supposed to. Watch it again if you have to; it might hurt your pride to reconsider your position if you're on the other side of this issue, but quite honestly, there is no other reasonable way of interpreting what happened. I almost feel bad for the writers...if they had to read this thread....they must have been looking for sharp objects to stab their eyes so they wouldn't have to read anymore preposterous
**MOD edited again. **

-thecoerce

This is needlessly complicated and an obtuse way of saying "think outside the box". The writers are well aware of euphemisms, and wouldn't simply provide Tom with the dialogue of "see this glass house" if it didn't pertain to an easily recognizable allusion. I see no purpose in using the word house to refer to boxed thinking when using that word would so easily be mistaken, simply by the fact that it is such a popular and well-known word phrase, "glass houses", combined with throwing stones, contained in a saying about hypocrisy.

The fact is, is that some of the Losties have done some horrible stuff before they reached the island, and we all have seen that the Others have a file on at least Jack. Having a list also alludes to the fact that they know more about the Losties than just what they have encountered first hand. In reality, they probably have files on each person, and are well aware of some of the "evils" they have committed for whatever reasons. That's why the Others can be dubious as to the ethics of the Losties when being compared with their own.

And he DEFINITELY beat up Jack. Unless you're telling me that was Smokey disguising as Ethan..

If you rewatch the the episode, when Jack "first" encounter Ethan . You will notice ( as someone point out to me,on other boards) that while Ethan and Jack was fighting, Ethan had put his bloody boot on Jack's shirt, yet when Kate discover Jack, not only did she not see Ethan, but Jack didn't have mud on his shirt. Kate noted that Jack must have bump his head when he fell. Kate stated that she was right behind Jack,and she didn't see anything, nor hear anything. So either Kate was lying, or it didn't happen. and Jack did fall and bump his head as Kate stated.

I'm not sure I wanna post here some of the arguments are so conveluted... but having gone to the trouble of having read through the thread - my interpretation was as follows: a genuinly hurt and very fed up Tom conveys to me ~

"Jack will you please SHUT UP! the rightous indignation schtick is so effing tired! Do you forget we know what you are?"

But I have watched it only once - and the encripted 'where are your stones man?' idea is enticing.

Tom not as loyal to Ben as he appears eh? ...well I still adore the big ol' bear. :biggrin: Warm, funny, and sarcastic... the man'll have me eating out of his hand before long.

I think a lot of the posts in this thread are looking way too deeply into what's being said in the scene.

Jack thinks Tom has come to take him to his death, Tom asks why would they kill him and makes a flippant comment about "What kind of people do you think we are?". Jack thinking he's a dead man anyway runs off a whole list of terrible acts carried out by the Others that show they have little to no regard for the lives of the losties. Tom can't defend himself, they did everything that Jack said and he doesn't deny it(or maybe he just can't defend The Others without giving away too much about what they are really up to on the island). So I think the whole "Glass house" and "Stones" business was and indirect way of saying, "Yes, we did all of those things and now you're our prisoner, so I'd be a little more careful about what you say about us".

It seemed like a pretty straight forward scene to me.