Re: Addendum: More on your unfair underestimation of Scott -- 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: 02:46:05 05/19/02 Sun
Author: Hobsonphile
Subject: Re: Addendum: More on your unfair underestimation of Scott
In reply to: Wakener 's message, "Re: Addendum: More on your unfair underestimation of Scott" on 23:28:21 05/18/02 Sat

>>>>How do you explain his unwillingness to take advantage of the situation when Harvey asked him point-blank if he should quit?<<<<

>>That question was within the context of school business, not personal business. School-sponsored spine applies.<<

I disagree. The question was asked within Scott's office, but that doesn't mean that Harvey's question- or Scott's answer- was purely professional. To me, Harvey's inquiry had personal undertones. And Scott has made it perfectly clear in other situations what his opinion of Harvey is- he even CAMPAIGNED FOR HARVEY'S DISMISSAL- all in the professional setting (remember the showdown he had with Harvey in "Chapter 9"). So why did he hesitate at this moment? This was a show of mercy that has no specific support in the handbook.

>>>> Or, to go way, way back, how do you explain the fact that he was the first one after Marla to stand in Steven's defense in front of the school board, despite the fact that their values are different and they often disagree?<<<<

>>The question was not whether Steven had erred, but whether he had erred sufficiently to justify his removal from the school. Scott could easily come to the conclusion that *by the book,* Steven's actions did not warrant this.<<

Oh? So you believe it is entirely realistic that a principal who shoves a student against a locker would be allowed to keep his job "by the book"? Nope, this was pure loyalty.

>>Are you saying that people *NOT* driven by internal values (and I gather from the context that you mean positive ones) are *less* able to stretch the boundaries???<<

What I'm saying is that if Scott were completely dependent on the rule book and not by larger values, he would show zero willingness to examine the policies that he is following. I believe that he DOES examine policy and tries to implement it in a way that is reasonable and just. His actions have a rationale beyond "The rules say so."

>>But the fact that these issues are in the same book from which Scott draws his spine doesn't really prove anything about how he interacts with others on a personal, non-school-related level.<<

And how much of this personal interaction have we actually seen? The only extended relationships we have witnessed outside of school grounds are the relationships with Meredith and Steven. And I think there is plenty in both relationships to show that he is an honest, kind and supportive person. Yes, Steven has a sturdier temperament, but Scott has shown a willingness to listen to and support Steven as a friend in return. (The previews suggest we will be seeing more of this in the finale)

>>By the way...when Marla was laying down the case against Danny last week...I thought Scott was gonna have a big "O" right there in the Principal's office. GREAT expression on his face. Good job by Heald.<<

LOL. And you've hit upon another reason why Scott and Steven are my top two characters. Chi McBride and Anthony Heald are superior actors. The way they play off of each other is expecially noteworthy. Their scenes in the last episode just blew me away.

>>Oh...those are the Horse Thieves. They're several steps below weak men. When I take over the world nyah ha ha, I'm going to have them all shot.<<

LOL. The world wouldn't be half bad under your control. ;) You think you could shoot the facists, communists and totalitarians out there while you're at it? ;)

Steph

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