Some valid points Dagoo, and totally valid, but personally, I don't happen to feel the same. Though I realize I'm surely the minority in this regard, I don't read Mieville for a different reason at all than I read more typical medieval-ish fantasy, and I don't think the goals of Mieville are necessarily all that…

Have to second the China Mieville recommendation; in fact I'm surprised I had to scan this far down to find one. If you've got a soft-spot for borderline D&D-level monsters and worldbuilding, but actually value some literary quality and find it annoying that non-Earthly fantasy worlds only seem to emulate the middle…

New to Doc
Managed to watch a lot of the previous seasons in non-chronological order. Looking forward to following the Doc along with everyone else.

No, I'm pretty sure he's a Scientologist. I read it on the internet people, it must be true!

Re: Phillipe v. Witherspoon
Never really cared for either one, but to be fair, Phillipe is a Scientologist, so I give her more credit for the marriage ending. Who wants to raise their children in that?

Mmmm…bacoj…

timeline, Jacob/Smokey/Locke theory
From the events of this episode, it appears my theory on Smokey/Jacob may look more plausible. Here we go.

Thanks, I was going to make the same comment, and with yours being the first, I didn't have to slog through all the comments to make sure I wasn't repeating anyone.

Furthermore, I think Jacob and Smocke are ALSO the same person, just from alternate timelines. But only 1 person gets a body at a time in 1 timeline, hence Jacob took Smokey's body, like old Smokey told Alpert last episode.

Oh, I never doubted that. My argument was that Hurley's dead people are real dead people, while the dead people everyone else sees is Smocke trying to manipulate them.

Still not convinced on the dead people aren't Smokey theories. Not saying you're definitely not correct (could easily go that way), but so far practically every appearance of a dead person (that anyone other than Hurley can see at least) falls perfectly in line with an attempt at manipulation by Smokey. E.g.…

True maybe, but that doesn't mean it wasn't
"funnier than any SNL sketch in recent memory."

Of course my main contention being that its not really a good vs. evil issue, since validly by your criteria both Jacob and Smokey are evil (and really, is killing all the dharma people really MORE evil than Smokey goin all smokey on everybody who isn't on his side?) The main conflict is more on Faith vs. Non-Faith…

Maybe, or it could be a leader who was tricked by Smokey he was working for Jacob (like Ben). Widmore maybe? Explains the split between Widmore and Hawking.

In other words, Ben is a (borderline?) psychopath. Just because a person claims to be doing something in "God's" name, but actually for his own ends, does that mean that the "God" is responsible for the guy's actions?

Personally, that seems to be a non issue to me because I see all of Ben's actions "in the name of Jacob" as being actually either at the coercion of Smokey or all an act of Ben's own personal grasp of power (I go back and forth on which). I'm sure you have a rebuttal (and perfectly valid-seriously), but as a I see…

But is it evil if some one gives you a choice to be a jaded person or not, and you choose to go with jaded? Maybe, but is there no taking responsibility for your own actions, so maybe its still your own fault if you turn out to be an ass? All I'm saying is that maybe its not so cut and dry that Jacob is EVIL like…

My two cents regarding the good/evil, theological arguments
Sorry, I lost track of the discussion where I wanted to make this point, so I'll just say it here.

Why is it cancelled?

Probably reiterating some comments, but…
while I respect the craftsmanship and don't necessarily disagree with most of the points made in the article, I have to disagree with the ultimate designation of greatness for this movie (though of course if you enjoy it that much, your opinion is of course still valid). …