Re: LOST: Jumped?

In article <13so0ae8f2l1418@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, pv+usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (PV)
writes:
| ddl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Dan Lanciani) writes:
| >The suggestion that they may have used the hatch for something else
prior to
| >the alleged incident doesn't explain why they set it up to look like a
stupid
| >psychology experiment after the alleged incident.
| 
| How so? It's not like the danger of not putting in the numbers was a
bluff.

Again, the fact that it wasn't a bluff doesn't explain why anyone would
set
it up to look like a stupid psychology experiment.  The fact that the
danger
was real argues strongly *against* setting it up to look like a stupid
psychology experiment.

Assuming whoever set it up is not simply insane they must have had some
motivation.

If the real goal is to keep a dangerous physics experiment under control
you want your crew as comfortable and well-informed as possible.  You do
not torture them by forcing them to enter a fixed sequence of numbers
over and over again with a timer and loud alarms to maximize stress.  You
do not implement lock down protocols to keep them out of contact with
supply
drops.  You do not prohibit them from contacting other sites.  You do not
design an "orientation" film to deliver minimum useful information with
maximum drama and mystery.  You do provide detailed manuals that explain
how
the equipment works.

If the real goal is to run a stupid psychology experiment there is no need
to implement a genuinely dangerous physics experiment.

If someone noticed a genuinely dangerous situation and decided it would
be a great op****tunity for a stupid psychology experiment then we are
back to the insanity explanation...  which is looking better and better.

				Dan Lanciani
				ddl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]