… and GOD is an anagram of DOG!!!
Notice how you never see Hurley and the dog in the same shot? Hmmmm??? Think about it…
new WAG.
At the start of the first episode, we see Jack walking along the beach alone and then all of the sudden there are others.
Jack is a multiple!
All the rest are merely his other personalities!
Hurley is the part of him that wants to eat all the time, Sawyer is the evil part of him, Charlie is that part of him that’s addicted to drugs, Claire is the part of him that’s pregnant. wait…
That all could’ve been before a coming out, though. Maybe he tried the straight and narrow path expected of him, but realised he wasn’t wired that way. Could be the reason he and his dad are on the outs…
Just sayin’…
I think the whole “Jack is gay” thing is about as big of a ludicrous stretch as the whole “the psychic was a baby salesman” thing.
And Rousseau is the part of him that says “Ladyfingers… they taste just like ladyfingers!” 
Uh, the psychic did act as a broker for rather suspect adoption, though. That kind of makes him a baby broker by definition. While it’s within the realm of possibility (as far as the story is concerned) that:[ul][li]There really was no couple waiting at LAX[]Malkin invented them and gave Claire six thousand dollars of his own money to get her on the plane[/li][li]because the fate of the baby was important enough to him personally[/li][li]and he really knew that if she boarded that flight it would crash on a mysterious island and she and her baby would be unharmed in the crash[/li][li] but his prescience didn’t extend far enough to foresee that someone else on the island would have designs on the baby.[/ul]…but I don’t think we’ve been told anything that makes the alternate theory, that:[ul][]Malkin was posing as a psychic in order to manipulate gullible and vulnerable people for profit, and…[*]…he took advantage of Claire by steering her into a black market adoption in order to collect a “finder’s fee,”[/ul]…a possibility that can be dismissed as “ludicrous.”[/li]
Of course, if there was an episode where Jack told Sawyer in no uncertain terms that he’d really like to work on developing some physical intimacy between them, but some other characters, under extreme emotional stress, attributed his behaviour to the influence of a lewd spirit, then yeah, I guess both theories are equally ridiculous. 
Not if he was lying.
Rich Man: I finally got it! Yes, Hurley says “R-O-M?”. What’s interesting is that Ethan answered “Yeah” as if he would have agreed to any spelling Hurley put out there.
Did anyone else notice that Claire seemed to be lying when Jack asked her about her gynocologist? She seemed like she just wanted to placate Jack and move on. At the very least, I think we can assume that she didn’t get an OK to travel given her due date.
I thought the same thing about Claire–she didn’t want to admit that she decided on basically no notice to fly to L.A.
Good thing she had her passport ready…
That’s exactly the sort of thing a con artist would do. You don’t take $200 from someone and then say, right off the bat, “You must give your baby up for adoption - I know a great couple in Los Angeles.” How would that play? “Cha, right.”
You have to work to cultivate your mark. “I saw something terrible, take your money back,” piques interest and suggests altruistic motives. Trust building.
Same with saying “You must raise this baby yourself.” A basic scamming technique is to emulate the motivations your target is acting from, to build affinity. “I am very concerned about your baby and want to make sure it comes to no harm. You are the only one that can protect her.” Guaranteed 100% agreement from expectant mommy. It also makes sense to banish any thought of involving the father any further.
Once you’ve established trust, and have them convinced that the baby’s interests are paramount in your mind, then you give them the hook. “There may be… just maybe… a way… It’s hard, but the only way to protect your baby is to give it up – and only to this particular couple. Otherwise, it’s doomed. Dooomed.”
You cynically misrepresent actual circumstances in such a way that your target’s overriding motives work to further your own goals. It’s like judo.
Okay, that assumes his motivation to lie was simply to put her on the plane. He couldn’t think of a more attractive lie to that end? Why “Hurry up and hand your baby over to these people in LA, no time to think!” when “If your baby is on this flight to LA, you’ll escape the evil influence” would have worked just as well, and been a lot easier to put over?
Anyway, this is all probably moot, since this particular point is unlikely to ever be resolved one way or another. Claire’s on the island, and it could be that she’s there because a psychic deliberately manipulated events to put her there, or it could be that he just wanted to facilitate an adoption for his own monetary gain, and the plane crash was merely an unforseen circumstance that put a crimp in his plans. They’re probably not going to go back to elaborate, and ultimately it doesn’t matter how we got to this point.
Maybe Ethan got it from an Ontario tourist board brochure that washed up on the beach.
C’mon! If anyone is gay, it’s Boone.
I’m going to try to get a definitive answer on the whole “baby-broker” thing. I personally think there is no chance that was what the writers intended, and I am willing to wager the life of my neighbor’s Chia Pet that the “baby broker” theory is nonsense.
OK, I got the scoop right from one of the writers of the show, Javier Grillo-Marxuach on The Fuselage.com message board. Says “Javi”: “i don’t think that the “baby broker/con man” theory holds water at all. it was made very clear in the eppie that he put claire on the plane precisely because he knew it would keep her and her child together - not exactly the work of a con artist - unless he is the kind of con artist who actively likes to part with his cash!”
I’d just like to add that I put it in a spoiler box even though I personally don’t count it as a spoiler, since the policy of the writers who respond to questions as that site is that they won’t reveal anything “spoilerish” but will clarify things that may be confusing to viewers or answer questions that don’t reveal future plot points.
Now can you ask them to debunk the whole “Jack is gay” thing?
I find it amusing that everyone who thinks the psychic wasn’t a baby-stealer knew the plane was going to crash and assumes Claire and baby would survive. If I knew about the forthcoming birth of the antiChrist, I’d put Momma on a plane that would crash in the middle of the ocean because, you know, people don’t survive that kind of thing…
And as for Ethan-- nobody says they’re from “Ontario, Canada” unless they’re very used to talking to ignorant Americans. And you only get that used to talking to ignorant Americans if you live in the States-- in which case Ethan wouldn’t be from Ontario.
Not true. When my mum flew to Australia years ago, she had pitstops in Vancouver and Honolulu. And when my cousin flew to Australia from Norway 18 months ago, he stopped in Vancouver too.
RikWriter:
Someone already asked that on the board, and the answer from writer David Fury was:
[spoiler]"Jack’s not gay!!!
There, I said it.
He is, however, bi-curious."[/spoiler]
I get the feeling that he was being a little bit ‘playful’ with that answer, and maybe he was just amused by the recurring “Jack is gay” rumors and wanted to keep some of that speculation alive. But it seems from his answer and the fact that Jack mentioned an ex-girlfriend that Jack at least so far has been a Straight Shooter, so to speak.
Could “Ethan” be a descendant (child/grandchild) of Adam and Eve?
We still don’t know who they were, perhaps that group was originally from Canada?
Also, anyone able to link the plot of Watership Down to the series?
Not that I am refuting anything that comes from the writer’s MB, but does anyone accept everything they say as fact? Misinformation and misdirection campaigns are not uncommon.
I really don’t like that type of interaction with the writers anyway. Not that I care about their clarification, I just think people should explain their creative work. Put it out there and leave it alone. It stinks of narcisism!
Yet, I read the spoilers posted anyway… :smack:
No, if anyone is gay it would be Scott and Steve.
I understand what you’re saying, but I would hope that the zeitgeist about “misinformation” campaigns from writers is that they are bad form.
Particularly zealous watchers of some shows don’t appreciate being lied to, especially when it’s coming from people whose names are “officially” connected to the show.
I understand being coy (a good example in this thread is [omg I love him so much] David Fury’s quote about Jack), or giving non-answers. Even a little anonymous shitstirring in newsgroups and on messageboards is good fun for writers et al, and that’s fair play. But deliberately misleading is not cool and not fair play. That creates backlash, and it loses the audience. An example with which I am intimately familiar is Mutant Enemy’s choice to lie about writing Amber Benson out of Buffy The Vampire Slayer. I would hope that David wouldn’t want to go through that train wreck again. It lost ME a chunk of audience and, more importantly, some revenue.