Quote:
*stares dumbly at Irish's post, in complete and utter awe*
There's really nothing for me to add...just wow Irish! The only tidbit perhaps is the dichotomy of Bass being conflicted about the brand, which I would think to be natural for him, fighting his shame, but also his grasping/needy nature.
Tossing Connor into the story really served no purpose and just screwed a lot of things up for no reason, as he had little actionable impact on the show. It was just an awful writer insertion, that really served no purpose. He also got in the way of Bass's redemption and eliminated room for further Charloe scenes, platonic or otherwise.
Your post was just beautiful! Good night Irish... 
Good night Michelle -- sorry about the internet issues! See you next week... 
Definitely looking forward to your updates Icicle!
You have summed up everything about the madness of the timeline. I honestly think the writers shifted things around and rewrote so much of the show on whims of fancy, not paying attention to simple things like COMMON SENSE at all.
The entire story of sending Connor to Mexico is utterly nonsensical. It makes no sense for Emma to contact the man she cheated on (and who was then known as the Butcher of Baltimore) to hide her one-night-stand kid from the crazy baby daddy when neither of the men even knew the kid existed. How would she even get a letter through to General Matheson anyways? And neither Miles or Bass were models of morality and sane choices. Besides, wouldn't Bass have noticed Miles taking off for MONTHS and MONTHS on end to go get the kid and sneak him into Mexico and make his way back to Philly again? It's just so awful, hence why I pretty much ignore the Connor-crap, as it makes so little sense.
BTW, why is it never mentioned that Gene blames Rachel for her part in rendering the world back to the dark ages? As a doctor you would think he'd hate the way the world is. Also, does he blame her at all for his wife's death? She likely would not have died had it not been for the blackout. It's not solely Rachel's fault, but she had a hand in it and I found it odd that Gene never voiced even a hint of displeasure at what his daughter had helped create and unleash on the world.
Completely understandable if you want to go to bed Your Iciness! Just let me know when you want to go make a date with the Nyquil dreams. |
Yes, I think Gene just lets his daughter off the hook, cause like the rest of the Porter family, he has a way of seeing what he wants to see when he wants to see it.
And yes, sending Connor to Mexico (when he's already at least 14) with the Butcher of Baltimore, who I didn't think had anything against Bass and what he was doing with the militia at this time, is dumber than dumb.
First off, how about this...IF, and that's a big if, Miles or Bass come sniffing around Jasper for anything, lie about the kids age and say he's a year younger and that he was from a fling she had after they had both enlisted and were away. But back to the big if...it seemed Emma was no longer a blip on either of their radars, so why the hell would Miles or Bass even bother with looking her up...until she contacts Miles, they had NO clue that kid existed. So as a mother, she takes a chance with her ex-boyfriend, who is not the dad, to send her kid away to keep him safe...really? What if Miles had betrayed her to the militia and turned the kid over to Bass.
Actually, I would buy the Miles from that time turning that kid over to Bass WAAAYYYY before I'd ever see him hiding that kid away from him. I mean, he held Rachel prisoner for years! And she was the big love of his life, supposedly. So they want me to believe he'd protect Emma's kid and yet kidnap Rachel and not allow her to go home to her family?
Whatever...
BTW, I've been meaning to ask you...where exactly are you in the US? Just curious.