FLM films - My Webpage

1999-01-02 00:00:00 - IN Between - (darsy <darsy@pathfindermail.com>)


I was watching IN BETWEEN last night(I've been having my own marathon this week<g>)and what got me was, Operations knew Charles Sand was alive, why didn't he have him cancelled long ago? Darsy

1999-01-02 00:00:00 - Re: IN Between - (catknsn@aol.comnospam)


>I was watching IN BETWEEN last night(I've been having my own marathon >this week<g>)and what got me was, Operations knew Charles Sand was >alive, why didn't he have him cancelled long ago? *sigh* Don't get me started, this episode ranks #1 on my list of "what were they *thinking* when they wrote that?" To begin with, I still want to know why Charles was waiting for someone to take him back to Section when Nikita, who is by no means a Rhodes Scholar, manages to find it by herself each and every week. What, did he get confused if Madeline failed to leave a trail of bread crumbs out for him? Secondly, the *script* of Adrian's Garden has Madeline telling Operations that every decision he made regarding Charles had been the right one, and she would have done the same thing. Yet, this was cut from the aired version and we still have not been provided with so much as a hint of backstory to explain the entire episode. This is an example of LFN crossing the line and becoming *too* ambiguous. As to your specific question, it's been stated that Operations can't cancel anyone above level 1 without the consent of Oversight, and Charles was (argh, more ambiguity) a "first tier" op which I'm assuming is synonymous with level 5? (my head hurts now). However, *grumble grumble continuity*, Operations didn't seem to be too concerned with that rule when he was going to have Michael killed in Mandatory Refusal, when he was going to leave Michael in Klodno in Rescue, etc. etc. etc. Cathy The unofficial Alberta Watson Home Page http://www.albertawatson.com The Ops' Recruits Home Page http://members.aol.com/CATKNSN/opsrecruits.html Queen of the Twisted Hopeless Romantics AA #12, HH #16, WW #51

1999-01-02 00:00:00 - Re: IN Between - (darsy <darsy@pathfindermail.com>)


CATKNSN wrote: > As to your specific question, it's been stated that Operations can't cancel > anyone above level 1 without the consent of Oversight, and Charles was (argh, > more ambiguity) a "first tier" op which I'm assuming is synonymous with level > 5? (my head hurts now). However, *grumble grumble continuity*, Operations > didn't seem to be too concerned with that rule when he was going to have > Michael killed in Mandatory Refusal, when he was going to leave Michael in > Klodno in Rescue, etc. etc. etc. > Ah, yes, it goes back to over looking continuity............ That explains it...... darsy

1999-01-02 00:00:00 - Re: IN Between - (Suzita <sugeo@att.net>)


CATKNSN wrote in message >As to your specific question, it's been stated that Operations can't cancel >anyone above level 1 without the consent of Oversight, and Charles was (argh, >more ambiguity) a "first tier" op which I'm assuming is synonymous with level >5? (my head hurts now). However, *grumble grumble continuity*, Operations >didn't seem to be too concerned with that rule when he was going to have >Michael killed in Mandatory Refusal, when he was going to leave Michael in >Klodno in Rescue, etc. etc. etc. > >Cathy Could be plausible that Michael's demise in Mandatory Refusal could easily be assumed to be a failing on Michael's part to successfully complete the mission...in other words, the enemy *could* have been credited with his death. As with Rescue, he had not made it back with the team...hence another plausible excuse for his demise. Both those scenarios were apparently within the framework of how Section would handle breaks in mission parameters. As to Ops ordering Michael's death in Mandatory Refusal, I seriously doubt anyone (except our fair Nikita) would have squealed on him about the Mandatory Refusal mandate. :-) Suzita

1999-01-02 00:00:00 - Re: IN Between - (catknsn@aol.comnospam)


>As to Ops ordering Michael's death in Mandatory >Refusal, I seriously doubt anyone (except our fair Nikita) would have >squealed on him about the Mandatory Refusal mandate. :-) > So how does he get squealed on... LOL never mind, I'm spoiled, I'll zip my lip til the episode airs :-) Cathy The unofficial Alberta Watson Home Page http://www.albertawatson.com The Ops' Recruits Home Page http://members.aol.com/CATKNSN/opsrecruits.html Queen of the Twisted Hopeless Romantics AA #12, HH #16, WW #51

1999-01-04 00:00:00 - Re: IN Between - (bridpa@wwc.edu)


Leaving an agent in the field when tactics say he'll be killed isn't signing his warrent of execution. It's merely a procedural diffence no question since the end result is the same. But procedure keeps blood of the hands of many an unawakened soul. -fo fum In article <19990102114422.08218.00006217@ng-fb1.aol.com>, catknsn@aol.comnospam (CATKNSN) wrote: > >I was watching IN BETWEEN last night(I've been having my own marathon > >this week<g>)and what got me was, Operations knew Charles Sand was > >alive, why didn't he have him cancelled long ago? > > *sigh* Don't get me started, this episode ranks #1 on my list of "what were > they *thinking* when they wrote that?" To begin with, I still want to know > why Charles was waiting for someone to take him back to Section when Nikita, > who is by no means a Rhodes Scholar, manages to find it by herself each and > every week. What, did he get confused if Madeline failed to leave a trail of > bread crumbs out for him? > > Secondly, the *script* of Adrian's Garden has Madeline telling Operations that > every decision he made regarding Charles had been the right one, and she would > have done the same thing. Yet, this was cut from the aired version and we > still have not been provided with so much as a hint of backstory to explain the > entire episode. This is an example of LFN crossing the line and becoming *too* > ambiguous. > > As to your specific question, it's been stated that Operations can't cancel > anyone above level 1 without the consent of Oversight, and Charles was (argh, > more ambiguity) a "first tier" op which I'm assuming is synonymous with level > 5? (my head hurts now). However, *grumble grumble continuity*, Operations > didn't seem to be too concerned with that rule when he was going to have > Michael killed in Mandatory Refusal, when he was going to leave Michael in > Klodno in Rescue, etc. etc. etc. > > Cathy > The unofficial Alberta Watson Home Page > http://www.albertawatson.com > The Ops' Recruits Home Page > http://members.aol.com/CATKNSN/opsrecruits.html > Queen of the Twisted Hopeless Romantics > AA #12, HH #16, WW #51 > -- "The sheriff arrived with his bathrobe on the confrontation was a tense one...." -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own