Re: Sawyer Theories--Your Deletions Edit

The theories that were accidentally deleted were a glitch in the system and not on purpose. It was also when I was brand new to LP, and was sure what I was doing. My edits at James "Sawyer" Ford/Theories today were intentional. Can you please advise what your specific theory was? That is the only way I can tell you why I deleted it.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  17:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but I would think that if you took the time to edit theories, you could check the history to see what you deleted. I signed my message, so all you have to do is figure out what I posted that you deleted. If you don't have a specific reason why you deleted the theory, then please undo your deletion or I will simply re-post. Thank you. --Dh0501 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

1st of all, you are being rude. While you were typing the above message, I was posting the below message. 2) You don't sign Theory page's so, you're theory wasn't signed. I cleaned up that page today and edited multiple theories, so it was not my burden to find your actual posts. That said, I went back and did so anyways to help you. Had I read your your above, rude comment before I did that, I probably wouldn't have.

Ok, I just went back in the history page for James and saw your edits on May 12th. If that is the theory you are talking about, then here is why I deleted it. Not only do you have no evidence to support it, but they timeline is way off. Sawyer was born in 1968. That would make him 40 years old when in 1977(his present). That would mean that James(aka:Tom) would be 67 years old when we 1st meet him in 2004. It would also mean that he knowingly went to his own death when Hurley ran him over with the DHARMA van. None of that makes any sence, and without any evidence, shouldn't be on a Theory page. Please see LP:TP if you have any questions as to what constitues a theory. Your edits to LP are greatly appreciated, but they must be based on evidence when on a Theory page. Hope that helps. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave me another message on my talk page.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  18:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is no need to be so agressive. No one is intimidated, and I assure you that things are done much easier here when done politely. I know this from experience. I'm still a fairly new user and still learning. Thanks again for your edits. Also, thank you for asking me for a reason, instead of getting into an edit war.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  18:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I did not mean to be rude, but after these responses, my intent has changed. First, I believe that if you delete someone's theory post without any explanation, it is your burden to figure out what you deleted and why when asked. Second, your "support" for deleting my theory is unconvincing and, I believe, violative of the Lostpedia policies. Your facts are not even correct-for example, Tom was not run over by Hurley, he was shot by Sawyer. Who are you to say that it doesn't make sense (or, according to you, "sence")? I have just as much right to post a theory as you do, and I intend to re-post mine, as you do not appear to be willing to undo your deletion. If you are a newer user (as I am), then please take the time to think about the fact that deleting other people's posts based on only your interpretation of what makes sense not only violates the policies of this forum, but the spirit of it, as well. Dh0501 18:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Being new (as I once was) to LP, I will let you know that it is not the editors responsibilty to give a reason for deletion. If you look at my contributions you will notice that even though I don't have to, I almost always leave a reason for cleanup of a theory in the summary field. You are correct that I spelled a word incorrectly, and I remembered that Tom was killed by Hurley driving the van when he was really shot by Sawyer. That doesn't change the facts, and even helps them as we know Sawyer would never antagonize his own self to the point of wanting to kill him. I am sorry that you don't like that one of your 1st theories was deleted, but at a very minimum it lacked evidence as required by LP:TP. That is a growing pain of LP. As you have read my talk page, you can see that I have had the same thing done to me. I learned my lessons. If you wish to get the opinion of other users, that is fine. I would talk with a sysop, like Robert KS, or Sam McPherson, or even seasoned editors like Jim in Georgia. They will give you experianced answers as well.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  19:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you are on a bit of a power trip. I won't even begin to discuss your spelling and grammar, or the inevitable conclusions one may draw from them about your skill as an editor. The main problem with your reasoning is that you state "we know Sawyer would never antagonize his own self....". How do "we" know any such thing? I stand by my theory, it is valid despite your stated misgivings, and it should not have been deleted. Period. When I re-post it, I shall be happy to include more supporting details, and if you have thoughts about them, I look forward to the discussion. Thank you. Dh0501 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You havce fallen into a hole by criticizing another editor (I won't even begin to discuss your spelling and grammar, or the inevitable conclusions one may draw from them about your skill as an editor.) instead of criticizing his work. I'm looking forward to your re-posted theories complete with premises leading to conclusions. I did not see much of that in previous entries. I'm particularly interested in the evidence supporting the concept that Sawyer is Mr. Friendly, to include explaining away their differences in sexual orientation.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, albeit unsolicited. Frankly, I'm beginning to see why other Lost fans have left this site and tried to steer me away. While the spirited discussion is interesting, there seem to be some overzealous folks who want to control the content-and I'm just not into fascism. Interesting point, though-I would recommend re-watching the scene where Tom is in Manhattan, that supposedly indicated he was gay. I think you may find those gay references to be rather ambiguous--the result, I would argue, of the writers' intentional misdirection. Remember, the producers only confirmed that a character was gay, not which specific character it was. There are many other similarities between Sawyer and Tom: the age is about right, the hair is similar, the accent and mannerisms are similar, and Tom initially wore a beard when encountering the Losties (including Sawyer) because he was concerned about being recognized by someone. Then there is the name, with Tom being an obvious connection to Sawyer, as in the literary character. And the poetic irony of young Sawyer killing his older self is apros pos of the writing on the show. I look forward to any thoughts you may have on the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dh0501 (talk • contribs) .

Jim in Georgia's comment wasn't unsolicited. I asked his opinion as well as other's to get unbiased thoughts on this. I offered you to do the same, but you chose not to. He is a seasoned editor (especially on Theory pages), and has never been shy to disagree with myself or anyone else if he feels it merited. I am willing to concede that my opinion on any evidence you can provide if irrelevant. The point is, you must provide evidence and your 1st post didn't do so. I have read your 2nd post and, my opinion aside, you give evidence that leads to a conclusion and have now created a theory and not speculation. We all look forward to more of your theories.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  12:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)