I guess we'll see, won't we? I still believe you're dead wrong -- Boston Public Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:48:50 05/19/02 Sun
Author: Hobsonphile
Subject: I guess we'll see, won't we? I still believe you're dead wrong
In reply to: Wakener 's message, "Re: I perceived "What is wrong with you?" as an attack and responded in kind (SOME SPOILERS AT END)" on 23:02:57 05/18/02 Sat

>>Like it or not, it's in the character's history now, and can't be brushed off so lightly.<<

Indeed. So let's look at the history of the other characters, shall we? A quick summary reveals quite a bit of human frailty.

Steven Harper: assaulted a student; severely castigated an innocent teacher who unknowingly engaged in an online relationship with a student, yet felt guilty about firing a teacher who covered up the actions of another who KNOWINGLY engaged in a relationship with a student; essentially bribed a teacher to raise the grade of an undeserving student so that student could get into Harvard; took no disciplinary action against Harry Senate (aside from a stern scolding) when Harry covered up a student's murder, yet suspended Lauren for pulling a gun on her stalker.

Harry Senate: played cover-up with two homicides; brought a weapon onto school property and fired it in class; managed to put off two women with his complete ineptitude in the romance department; is generally mouthy and disrespectful to his superiors.

Danny Hanson: counseled students on how to test drugs at raves; told his class that he fantasized about the female students; threw a phone at his fiance's lover, knocking him unconscious; is also mouthy and disrespectful to his superiors.

Ronnie Cook: abandoned all common sense and gave money to a KNOWN drug user, precipitating an overdose.

Marla Hendricks: abandoned her class of at-risk students because of her own emotional issues.

Harvey Lipschultz: calls students names; forgets where his classroom is; makes questionable racial remarks.

ALL of the characters have less than attractive moments in their histories- some are even technically criminal. ALL of them are flawed. And yet, these characters are loved by many. Steven and Marla are also favorite characters of mine. Perfection is not the standard I use to decide whom to like. Every human being in the world has bad days, says things he or she shouldn't say, does things he or she shouldn't do. I like Scott, Steven, and Marla because I understand and sympathize with their motivations and their points of view, even if I don't ALWAYS agree with what they do.

>>Which, if you ask me, was not a wise thing to do. For the BRAT to even be put in a position to show him up...what's that? Oh...you didn't ask me.<<

Okay, who put Lisa in charge of the Shakespeare class? And who put Scott in there with her, even though Scott pointed out that his schedule was extremely booked up and he probably wouldn't have time to prepare? Think real hard. The responsibility for that situation DOES NOT fall entirely on Scott's shoulders. Try to be fair.

>>Well, you know...first of all, I didn't say that.<<

You listed his fainting among other incidents as evidence of Scott being weak. So forgive me if I interpreted that to mean that socially awkward = weak.

>>Finished? Good. When have you seen *ME* defend any of this? Finished? Good. By the way...guys like Harry" can do no wrong" because they're seen as "cool?" Puh-leeeeez! If it were up to me, Harry would never have been in Chapter 2.<<

I've never seen any posts from you that declare that Harry shouldn't be liked or admired by his fans (of which there are many). And the tone of your posts suggests that you find something uniquely horrible in Scott's flaws. So forgive me again if I perceive a double-standard.

>>I'm not "small." Nothing anyone says can grind me down
and make me that way.<<

Congratulations for making it to this stage. It is my hope that my brother will one day come to this realization as well. But I don't withhold my compassion for somebody because they haven't "made it" yet.

>>I didn't say the objection was negated. I'm just saying that it was delivered in a weak manner by a weak individual. I feel the same way about a woman who "fake numbers" a person, rather than saying, "Not interested," or "Take a hike." The objection is there in any case--but strength of character? Only in two of 'em.<<

To be blunt, that's a piss-poor analogy for the situation. A better one would be to compare a woman who mumbles "Not interested" and walks away versus a woman who looks a guy right in the eye and says "Not interested." The first shows a little less confidence, but the character is still there. Watch the scene again. When pressed, Scott told her exactly why he was going home alone- and, by the way, he looked her right in the eye as he delivered his assessment of what happened with Jeremy and Brooke. He only turned away after that assessment had been made. Yes, there was some hesitance, but in the end he was completely honest with Meredith. He didn't "fake number" her- "fake numbering" implies dishonesty. And in the entire relationship, I can think of no instance when Scott didn't tell Meredith exactly what he thought.

>>Once again, you attribute an attitude to me which I have not expressed. In precisely which characters do I "assume" better motivations...and when do I do so?<<

All right, my mistake. But you certainly assume a great deal about what drives Scott Guber. You suggest that he values the rules because they are a convenient crutch. He is certainly more confident when he has rules and authority on his side, but I think everybody's more confident when they have that back-up. The fact that he appears stronger and more confident at school does not mean that he has no deeper value system beyond school policy, or that he wouldn't stand up for those values when called to do so outside of the school setting.

Tell me, what specific policy was Scott leaning on when he defended Harvey Lipschultz's negative recommendation? It seems ridiculous to me that "You must defend your teachers' right to honesty" would be written in Scott's handbook. No, it was a higher principle that Scott was defending before that lawyer.

Tell me, what specific policy was Scott leaning on when he changed his mind about "It's Our Town Too" and defended it forcefully before the Shoe Lady?

Tell me, what specific policy was Scott leaning on when he defended Anthony Ward? That was him acting on empathy and gut feelings, not on policy. Policy dictated that the police be notified.

Tell me, what specific policy was Scott leaning on when he invited Kevin Jackson to join his debate team? What policy was it that drove him to push Kevin relentlessly, even after his disasterous showing in competition (remember his scenes with Kevin in last year's finale)? No, it wasn't policy, but a desire to awaken the raw talent in a student that motivated him.

"I am a teacher- it's not about budgets at the end of the day with me, it's about those kids." "There has to be a medium, Steven. Teachers can get lost too, you know." Those are his words, spoken honestly. Scott believes he is acting in the best interest of the students, the teachers, and the school. His good, principled motivations seem blatantly obvious to me.

>>Argument from silence. We haven't seen this played out yet. Now who is "assuming?"<<

I made an educated guess based on what we've seen on the show so far- a guess, by the way, that makes even more sense given what some of the characters said in the last episode. "When you start in on this mumbo-jumbo (referring to policy), I stop listening." "You're idea of direction is to give marching orders." A lot of people don't think he can fill this role. We shall see. Personally, I'm waiting for everyone's faulty assumptions to be blown right out of the water!

Steph

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: I guess we'll see, won't we? I still believe you're dead wrong -- Wakener, 20:38:53 05/23/02 Thu
- Scott's difficult to stuff into a neat box -- Hobsonphile, 23:24:23 05/23/02 Thu
  - Re: Scott's difficult to stuff into a neat box -- Wakener, 14:51:06 05/26/02 Sun