Re: LOST: Jumped?

and thus Dan Lanciani inscribed ... 
> 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.

Negative feedback. If they don't do the experiment, they get the jolt. And
maybe the experiment was also to see how long they would do it. And if it
did come to critical failure, the guys watching the number punchers would
notify someone who would do the numbers from another end. Or replace the
number punchers.

Though I understand your point as to how elaborate they did make it.
-- 
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at
the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
  --till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>