Fellow Losties,
given last Tuesday's episode the Cliffside Cave Theories are naturally a current, hot topic. Experiencing erasures on the theory section, may I humbly point out a couple of issues to consider:
1) Most of the vital information we are receiving comes from Flocke. It has already been established that he is even a bigger deceiver than Benjamin Linus, thus ANY information coming from this guy should be taken with tons of salt grains (don't hold me responsible for salt poisoning) unless objectively proven to be correct (at this time we do not have all the necessary information). He has an obvious and desperate agenda to get off the island and will do or say anything to accomplish that. He pretends to be buddy-buddy with Sawyer but mysterious boy warns him not to kill "him" (I'm aware that there is some speculation in regard to interpret "him", but I'm confident Carlton and Damon intended that reference towards Sawyer - they got to keep the general viewers in mind, who are probably already enough confused as it is...).
2) There is some understandable irritation why Kate Austen is not on this list. It has been suggested that this is because she is "flawed", which the recent erasure (in my view mutilation) just emphasized. Though it is usually not my intention to step on anybody's toes (not that you end up loosing one and turn to stone), I feel that such a view completely ignores what one of the core issues of LOST is about: regret, repentence and second chances. Nothing is written in stone (pun intended). Given Damon's appreciation for the original Star Wars Trilogy, Kate - like Princess Leia - might be the secret "other hope", deliberately kept from the radar of the antagonist (Men in Black aka Darth Vader). And everybody else written in stone has equally come with a noticable set of "flaws".
Thanx for listening--SokratesOne 16:52, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for making your point clear on talk page SokratesOne. I was responsible for the deletation of a few theories on this page, and I'm sure that according to the theory policy, the changes I made were to clarify the content and the quality of the page. People were adding phrases and arguments in form of discussion, which is not the point of a theory page. I do agree that I did removed a significant portion of the text, specially on Kate's topic, but I did according to the policy, if you look closely, most of what was written there is repetitive and reponses in form of personal opnions to such theories, which is not the correct format for this kind of page. Please, feel free to modify any of my changes, but I think that lately many theory pages have been filled with way too much discussion on them, which is not the point. Anyway, sorry if I erased any information that seems relevant, I'm just trying to keep theory pages clearer and with more quality than quantity. Illuminatuz 18:16, February 20, 2010 (UTC)