Horace isn't such a great leader I think. I don't think he even is the true leader (he seemed sincerely horrified about Radzynski maybe calling Ann Arbor). I mean, when Sawyer doesn't go with the groupmentality he doesn't question him why. Instead he more or less forced him to make the vote unanymous...
And so far I like Jack taking the backseat finally. He didn't did that since S01E01. No wonder he got stressed out! I hope his character will be more likable now :)
Tinythebodyguard - 15 years ago
I say Jack cause he seems to be letting things run their course and not control everything, thats progress for him. And I cant say Horace as I dont think deciding to kill a prisoner is much of a quality of good leadership. Doesnt jive with the whole Peace/Love thing they have going on the DI there.
My vote for Jack is simply so that I don't have to vote for Horace. Jack simply seems resigned at this point....so no real feeling of good character there. And Horace for all his wanting to be a fair leader caved to Amy and Radzinsky so quickly I'm surprised his glasses didn't shatter! The only reason he seemed to want a unanimous vote was to assuage his own conscience.
On second thought.....I think Hurley should get this week's award!
Jackie - 15 years ago
My Jack vote is mainly an anti-Horace vote. In my view Horace was a terrible leader in this episode. He correctly thought that Sayid should not be killed. One of his underlings threatens to call his boss in Ann Arbor, and his wolf-in-sheeps clothing wife starts whining. The pressure from the other people make Horace cave-in and switch over to the other side. A true leader would get his people to see the wisdom in his position, or he would continue with the right decision for the safety of his people even if the lynch mob is shouting otherwise.
I see no virtue in consensus when the consensus is clearly wrong. Even from a selfish position, killing Sayid when he has identified himself as a Hostile puts the DI in a more dangerous postion and violates the truce. Horace is a wimp and not a good leader.
Horace isn't such a great leader I think. I don't think he even is the true leader (he seemed sincerely horrified about Radzynski maybe calling Ann Arbor). I mean, when Sawyer doesn't go with the groupmentality he doesn't question him why. Instead he more or less forced him to make the vote unanymous...
And so far I like Jack taking the backseat finally. He didn't did that since S01E01. No wonder he got stressed out! I hope his character will be more likable now :)
I say Jack cause he seems to be letting things run their course and not control everything, thats progress for him. And I cant say Horace as I dont think deciding to kill a prisoner is much of a quality of good leadership. Doesnt jive with the whole Peace/Love thing they have going on the DI there.
My vote for Jack is simply so that I don't have to vote for Horace. Jack simply seems resigned at this point....so no real feeling of good character there. And Horace for all his wanting to be a fair leader caved to Amy and Radzinsky so quickly I'm surprised his glasses didn't shatter! The only reason he seemed to want a unanimous vote was to assuage his own conscience.
On second thought.....I think Hurley should get this week's award!
My Jack vote is mainly an anti-Horace vote. In my view Horace was a terrible leader in this episode. He correctly thought that Sayid should not be killed. One of his underlings threatens to call his boss in Ann Arbor, and his wolf-in-sheeps clothing wife starts whining. The pressure from the other people make Horace cave-in and switch over to the other side. A true leader would get his people to see the wisdom in his position, or he would continue with the right decision for the safety of his people even if the lynch mob is shouting otherwise.
I see no virtue in consensus when the consensus is clearly wrong. Even from a selfish position, killing Sayid when he has identified himself as a Hostile puts the DI in a more dangerous postion and violates the truce. Horace is a wimp and not a good leader.