# Walking Dead - Inmates - S04E10 - OAD 2/16/14



## BradJW (Jun 9, 2008)

Judith is Alive. Carol is back. Lots of stuff happened tonight.

Maggie seemed like she didn't try to hide her accent at all.

One of the best episodes in awhile.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

After last week, I was afraid they were going to roll out the survivors a couple each episode. Thankfully, they sped up the pace a little. 

I wonder who the guy at the end is. There are a few candidates from the comics. I hope it's not


Spoiler



Negan; too soon, I'd say.





BradJW said:


> Maggie seemed like she didn't try to hide her accent at all.


The only impression I got was that she was overdoing the Southern at times. Didn't hear any British, although I wasn't listening for it...


----------



## Crobinzine (Dec 29, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> After last week, I was afraid they were going to roll out the survivors a couple each episode. Thankfully, they sped up the pace a little.
> 
> I wonder who the guy at the end is. There are a few candidates from the comics. I hope it's not
> 
> ...





Spoiler



I think its Abraham


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Is everyone accounted for? Except for maybe Tara's sister. I think that's it, right?


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

Guys and your guesses... remember there were three people that showed up at the end. If you pay attention to that it will tell you guys who the mustache guy was.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

SnakeEyes said:


> Guys and your guesses... remember there were three people that showed up at the end. If you pay attention to that it will tell you guys who the mustache guy was.


It's obviously


Spoiler



Abraham, Eugene and Rosita
http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/w...d--introduce-sgt--abraham-ford-225000186.html


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

SnakeEyes said:


> Guys and your guesses... remember there were three people that showed up at the end. If you pay attention to that it will tell you guys who the mustache guy was.


They say who they are on The Talking Dead but I won't spoil.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Another good episode. I loved Carol's reaction to Ty.


----------



## stark (Dec 31, 2003)

gossamer88 said:


> Is everyone accounted for? Except for maybe Tara's sister. I think that's it, right?


Tara said that her sister was swarmed. I'm pretty sure she's gone.


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

I am confused by the fate of the bus. Maggie was able to catch up to it in a day or so. That means it couldn't have been very far from the prison. I doubt they pulled over and let a walker on board, so that means someone turned.

But one person turning couldn't have caused all that death, and we have seen that turning doesn't happen quickly. There should have been time for most everyone to get off the bus. But there it was sealed, with about a dozen walkers. 

The bus looked full when it left the prison, so there should be a lot more people somewhere.

I think they went for a cool scene, that didn't really make much sense.


----------



## Crobinzine (Dec 29, 2005)

Well, I guess we sort of know who was dissecting the rats that Tyreese found in the prison?


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

stark said:


> Tara said that her sister was swarmed. I'm pretty sure she's gone.


Oh wow! Did not catch that!


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

gossamer88 said:


> Oh wow! Did not catch that!


Me too. All I remember is Tara saying she saw her sister in the field.

The last time we saw her she was finishing off the Governor.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

There were a bunch of unarmed, elderly & infirm on the bus. When the bus was riddled with bullets a few were probably killed, turned and overwhelmed the rest.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Crobinzine said:


> Well, I guess we sort of know who was dissecting the rats that Tyreese found in the prison?


Yeah, that is one seriously disturbed girl. She almost killed Judith.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> After last week, I was afraid they were going to roll out the survivors a couple each episode. Thankfully, they sped up the pace a little.
> 
> I wonder who the guy at the end is.


Do you watch the "scenes from next week" part? He comes right out and introduces himself (though I don't read the books so the name meant nothing to me and is forgotten already).


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

bobcarn said:


> Yeah, that is one seriously disturbed girl. She almost killed Judith.


I knew we were supposed to be seeing something on that old log in the wood, so I kept rewinding and still never could tell what it was. I had no idea it was dead baby bunnies until much later.

I was seriously worried for a minute that baby Judith was about to die.

Anyone else get the feeling that Tyrese doesn't know much about taking care of babies. Talk about a fish out of water. Lol. I was so very glad to see Carol show up, for the sake of the baby.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Vendikarr said:


> I am confused by the fate of the bus. Maggie was able to catch up to it in a day or so. That means it couldn't have been very far from the prison. I doubt they pulled over and let a walker on board, so that means someone turned.
> 
> But one person turning couldn't have caused all that death, and we have seen that turning doesn't happen quickly. There should have been time for most everyone to get off the bus. But there it was sealed, with about a dozen walkers.
> 
> ...


My theory is that the bus was swamed. So they coaxed the walkers in through one door and some of them got out through another door. Maybe the bus broke down or something and it became useless (?).

Of course, as it turns out, Glenn had exited the bus before it even left the prison so now we know that.

This was a pretty good episode. I like that lots of stuff happened/revealed.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Jstkiddn said:


> I knew we were supposed to be seeing something on that old log in the wood, so I kept rewinding and still never could tell what it was. I had no idea it was dead baby bunnies until much later.
> 
> I was seriously worried for a minute that baby Judith was about to die.
> 
> Anyone else get the feeling that Tyrese doesn't know much about taking care of babies. Talk about a fish out of water. Lol. I was so very glad to see Carol show up, for the sake of the baby.


I didn't get that part right away (about the bunnies) either. But then any time an animal is in peril I block the shot so I don't see it.

Man, I thought crazy kid was going to kill the baby for sure! I didn't really realize the stuff about the bunnies (since I hid my face from the screen) until TD, when the scene was mentioned.

I think one of the main reasons Tyrese was so glad to see Carol was to pawn the kid/s off on her. I think he needed to be able to use all his energy to keep them alive and the baby was definitely an obstacle - in more ways than one. I was beginning to see a Viet Nam-type scene where they end up having to kill the baby to shut it up and not put themselves at peril.

Of course, Carol didn't know yet that Tyrese was unaware that she was the one who had to take out those two at the prison, so she was apprehensive at first. Then she seemed to relax and go with the flow, most likely hoping that he wouldn't find out - or at least for now.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

I contend that if you want to survive a zombie apocalypse, watch the show for research and then do everything the opposite they do. It's not like these shufflers do a single thing to hide themselves, yet they always seem to appear out of nowhere _behind_ someone. It's surprising these people survived as long as they did.

Someone explain the bunnies thing to me. I didn't make out what was in the log, and now I can't remember the context of the scene and the significance of dead bunnies and what's implied.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I thought Maggie and Glenn got off the bus together. I must not remember it correctly.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

bobcarn said:


> I contend that if you want to survive a zombie apocalypse, watch the show for research and then do everything the opposite they do. It's not like these shufflers do a single thing to hide themselves, yet they always seem to appear out of nowhere behind someone. It's surprising these people survived as long as they did. Someone explain the bunnies thing to me. I didn't make out what was in the log, and now I can't remember the context of the scene and the significance of dead bunnies and what's implied.


We first saw something on the log as Darryl and the girl walked by.

Later in a flashback to the group of tyre se and the two little girls, we see the creepy girl sitting on the same log with a knife in her hand. She looks down and sees baby bunnies in a hole in the log and she reaches down with the knife and kills them.

The dead bunnies are what we saw earlier on the log.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

They never showed Glenn get off the bus. 

Never shown: A swine-flu-addled Glenn making his way through a war zone and horde of zombies to get up to his perch to take a nap.

I think the bus-walkers were former residents of the prison, not trapped random walkers that swarmed the bus. Bob said something like "they were all good people" as if he recognized them all.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

MacThor said:


> I think the bus-walkers were former residents of the prison, not trapped random walkers that swarmed the bus. Bob said something like "they were all good people" as if he recognized them all.


Yes, I was definitely under the impression they knew them, which is why Maggie felt she had to see every single one in order to be sure about a Glen being one of them.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Jstkiddn said:


> We first saw something on the log as Darryl and the girl walked by.
> 
> Later in a flashback to the group of tyre se and the two little girls, we see the creepy girl sitting on the same log with a knife in her hand. She looks down and sees baby bunnies in a hole in the log and she reaches down with the knife and kills them.
> 
> The dead bunnies are what we saw earlier on the log.


I missed a bunch of that from multitasking. That girl is scarier than the zombies.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Boy, you aren't kidding!! She *is* scarier than the zombies. There is not much that is creepier than an evil child. Maybe clowns, but not much else.


Edit to add : good lord, I just had a thought. What if there are zombie clowns?


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

So, in the zombie apocalypse, bunnies, a prey animal, have no fight or flight instinct, and not only don't run away from people, they just sit still and stay quiet while being cut to pieces.
Plus, it's just wasting food.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I LOVED that they kept showing Daryll retreiving his crossbow arrows!


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I wonder who the guy at the end is.





bobcarn said:


> Do you watch the "scenes from next week" part?


1st, If he watched that he wouldn't be wondering who it is.
2nd, what happens in the previews needs to be spoilerized or not mentioned at all because it's not part of this episode.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Jstkiddn said:


> The dead bunnies are what we saw earlier on the log.


The *live* bunnies are what we saw earlier in the log.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> The *live* bunnies are what we saw earlier in the log.


Early in the show, there were dead bunnies when Darryl went by.

Later in the show (earlier chronologically), psycho-girl came by and slaughtered the bunnies.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> So, in the zombie apocalypse, bunnies, a prey animal, have no fight or flight instinct, and not only don't run away from people, they just sit still and stay quiet while being cut to pieces. Plus, it's just wasting food.


Some baby animals stay frozen as a defense mechanism....hopes the predator won't see them and will pass on by. Newborn baby deer are this way which us why I hate bush hogging (mowing pastures with the tractor) during fawn season. They will be laying in the tall grass and even with the tractor driving all around they will not move and they are eventually run over by the mower. Happens all the time.

That said, I think those baby bunnies were a little on the unrealistic side. Too old for one thing. They would be on their own by the time they were that big.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

scandia101 said:


> So, in the zombie apocalypse, bunnies, a prey animal, have no fight or flight instinct, and not only don't run away from people, they just sit still and stay quiet while being cut to pieces.
> Plus, it's just wasting food.


I'll have to re-watch. I had interpreted it that it WAS bunny dinner and the heads were just the remnants for the psycho-girl's pleasure.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

Beryl said:


> I'll have to re-watch. I had interpreted it that it WAS bunny dinner and the heads were just the remnants for the psycho-girl's pleasure.


Nope, they got up and left that clearing moments after she slaughtered the bunnies.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

stark said:


> Tara said that her sister was swarmed. I'm pretty sure she's gone.


Well she did shoot the Gov and gunfire draws the walkers.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

pmyers said:


> I thought Maggie and Glenn got off the bus together. I must not remember it correctly.


Glenn was still on the bus and, IIRC, Maggie left looking for her sister. He looked pretty messed up. I don't clearly recall if it were because he was still getting over the flu thing or what.

What we know now, but didn't see then, was that Glenn ended up leaving the bus at some point after that.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

The scene with the Mica holding Judith and trying to keep her quiet gave me flashbacks to the final episode of M*A*S*H.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Craigbob said:


> The scene with the Mica holding Judith and trying to keep her quiet gave me flashbacks to the final episode of M*A*S*H.


yup, first thing I thought of.

Kind of a weird segue there, where they went right from that to them all being fine with Carol.

Maybe would have liked her to at least hear a sound or something.

-smak-


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Craigbob said:


> The scene with the Mica holding Judith and trying to keep her quiet gave me flashbacks to the final episode of M*A*S*H.


Ditto, although I never for a moment thought Judith was in peril. Nasty as this show can be, I just don't think they would go there.

By the way, the last (?) SHIELD episode had a similar structure to this one, but here it was done subtly and artistically, and there it was just blunt and obvious. With different characters' POVs telling overlapping parts of the story.

I didn't object to the SHIELD version, which was...serviceable, but this is how it's done.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

Craigbob said:


> The scene with the Mica holding Judith and trying to keep her quiet gave me flashbacks to the final episode of M*A*S*H.


Scary girl's name is actually Lizzie. Mika is the runner.


smak said:


> Kind of a weird segue there, where they went right from that to them all being fine with Carol.
> 
> Maybe would have liked her to at least hear a sound or something.
> 
> -smak-


I was under the impression that Carol found the girls after Mika took a shot at the walkers. I'm guessing Carol showed up and cleaned up that mess and it just wasn't shown.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> Scary girl's name is actually Lizzie. Myka is the runner.


The runner's name is actually Mika


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Funny how they hold the shot of the tree trunk, but don't make it obvious enough what they want you to see. Maybe trying to downplay the grossness of it, but then it is a zombie show, so that ship has sailed.....

I wonder if Mika knows how crazy Lizzie is? She should have a better idea than anyone. When he told her not to run from her sister, I'm thinking that's bad advice most of the time. 

It almost seems like staying hidden in the prison wouldn't have been the worst idea--at least Glen had some good supplies. Everyone else was empty handed except for baby supplies and weapons. I'm surprised they had diapers. And they couldn't have had much ammo.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Amazing to me the people in this thread who are repulsed by animals being killed but don't seem to mind humans being ripped apart...


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> By the way, the last (?) SHIELD episode had a similar structure to this one, but here it was done subtly and artistically, and there it was just blunt and obvious. With different characters' POVs telling overlapping parts of the story.
> 
> I didn't object to the SHIELD version, which was...serviceable, but this is how it's done.


Yes, I agree 100%! I didn't really care for the way they did it in SHIELD as it was too in-your-face and somewhat jarring. But here it was subtle and done much better and enjoyable.

This was a good episode!

Gerry


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

scandia101 said:


> The runner's name is actually Mika


Corrected - went to tv.com to check the spelling and looked at their front page WD article instead of looking at the cast list. Looked wrong to me, but it was on the internet, so it must be right, right???


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

Bierboy said:


> Amazing to me the people in this thread who are repulsed by animals being killed but don't seem to mind humans being ripped apart...


People are evil. Bunnies and piggies are innocent - but delicious!

Ha this was my post 666. See what I did there?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Johnny Dancing said:


> People are evil. Bunnies and piggies are innocent - but delicious!
> 
> Ha this was my post 666. See what I did there?





Buffy the Vampire Slayer said:


> (Anya)
> I've got a theory it could be bunnies!...............
> 
> (Tara)
> ...


Perhaps Anya was right, and those are evil bunnies, and that little girl saved them all.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ereth said:


> Perhaps Anya was right, and those are evil bunnies, and that little girl saved them all.


Or maybe midgets.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Maybe when she grows up she will graduate from bunnies to squirrels. She can be like Amy the highwayman: "I hate them, with their long tails and their stupid twitchy noses!"


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

john4200 said:


> Maybe when she grows up she will graduate from bunnies to squirrels. She can be like Amy the highwayman: "I hate them, with their long tails and their stupid twitchy noses!"


Very cunning!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pmyers said:


> I LOVED that they kept showing Daryll retreiving his crossbow arrows!


And that scene just highlighted what a stupid weapon the crossbow is in the zombie apocalypse. He got off one shot, then had to fight hand to hand for the rest of the time until there was enough of a break for him to load a new bolt and retrieve his old one.

He should at least affix a bayonet to the end of it. That would make it much more serviceable.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> And that scene just highlighted what a stupid weapon the crossbow is in the zombie apocalypse. He got off one shot, then had to fight hand to hand for the rest of the time until there was enough of a break for him to load a new bolt and retrieve his old one.
> 
> He should at least affix a bayonet to the end of it. That would make it much more serviceable.


But in terms of distance weapons it's one of the better ones.
No noise, "unlimited" ammo, light weight


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

MikeMar said:


> But in terms of distance weapons it's one of the better ones.
> No noise, "unlimited" ammo, light weight


The crossbows I have shot (limited experience) were neither quiet, light weight, or very accurate from a distance. Of course they are quieter than a gun but still pretty loud when you fire. They certainly weigh more than most rifles.

I'd much prefer to have a .22 semi-auto rifle than a crossbow.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

pmyers said:


> The crossbows I have shot (limited experience) were neither quiet, light weight, or very accurate from a distance. Of course they are quieter than a gun but still pretty loud when you fire. They certainly weigh more than most rifles.
> 
> I'd much prefer to have a .22 semi-auto rifle than a crossbow.


That's as may be, but you can't pull the bullets out of the bodies and reuse them!


----------



## dcushing (Sep 25, 2001)

The psycho little girl reminds me of (from the comics):



Spoiler



Ben and Billy, the boys that were taken in by Dale and Andrea. Ben had been killing animals and finally kills his brother Billy, saying that he didn't hurt his brain so he will come back. Carl ends up shooting him when no one else could. We know that the show has taken the comic events and changed them around a little, they could be setting up the same kind of scenario with the two girls instead.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> And that scene just highlighted what a stupid weapon the crossbow is in the zombie apocalypse. He got off one shot, then had to fight hand to hand for the rest of the time until there was enough of a break for him to load a new bolt and retrieve his old one.
> 
> He should at least affix a bayonet to the end of it. That would make it much more serviceable.


That one shot he got off was one less Zombie to fight hand to hand.

I have no problem with the crossbow except when they had guns at the prison and he still went with the crossbow.


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

dcushing said:


> The psycho little girl reminds me of (from the comics):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think that's exactly where they're going with Lizzy & Mika.


----------



## n548gxg (Mar 7, 2003)

Why are those groups sleeping in the woods? 

It seems to me that would be the worst place to sleep. You must post a guard while you sleep so that if zombies appear, you are ready. The ground is hard and uncomfortable.

There must be thousands of empty houses. Just clear one and sleep in a comfortable bed, safe and sound.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

n548gxg said:


> Why are those groups sleeping in the woods?
> 
> It seems to me that would be the worst place to sleep. You must post a guard while you sleep so that if zombies appear, you are ready. The ground is hard and uncomfortable.
> 
> There must be thousands of empty houses. Just clear one and sleep in a comfortable bed, safe and sound.


Exactly.

I wondered too how they can be so spread out.

I would think that since they knew they might have to cut and run when the Governor came that they would have a plan of action for where to eventually meet.

What happened to Carol's car with supplies? How did she happen to just stumble on the group in the woods. 

Had then never seen the railroad tracks before?

Could they build a fire? does fire attract zombies? A large fire as a signal for the others to meet up.

Of course, if they did all that then there would not be the drama there is now.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Carol said she got to the prison just as everything was ending, so she was close.

Car probably ran out of gas, or who knows


----------



## TBDigital (Mar 14, 2002)

I could have sworn we saw a child's sized hiking boot when Beth and Daryll came upon the aftermath of the chaos by the railroad track, and thought that it was possibly Mika or Lizzie's. I figured that was why Beth burst into tears. Turns out it wasn't, and maybe I need to go back and re-watch that part, cause I haven't seen anyone else mention the child's shoe.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

I'm really disliking the "little girl gutting the animals" storyline. Don't see any point to it, and it doesn't really dovetail with other plotlines (other than knifing zombie heads). It's got a certain "ick" factor when it involves the younger ones that I don't think really fits with WD...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

MikeMar said:


> Carol said she got to the prison just as everything was ending, so she was close.
> 
> Car probably ran out of gas, or who knows


Well, she'd basically become a mother figure to Lizzy and Mika, so when she saw them run into the woods, she followed them. She had to abandon her car at that point in order to follow them. Given that the car is near the prison, and the prison is now crawling with walkers, it probably doesn't make sense to go back to the car. There probably wasn't anything in there that wasn't replaceable.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TBDigital said:


> I could have sworn we saw a child's sized hiking boot when Beth and Daryll came upon the aftermath of the chaos by the railroad track, and thought that it was possibly Mika or Lizzie's. I figured that was why Beth burst into tears. Turns out it wasn't, and maybe I need to go back and re-watch that part, cause I haven't seen anyone else mention the child's shoe.


We saw a boot, but we had no context to determine what the size was. I didn't think it was a kid's boot. In fact, at that point of the episode, I hadn't even thought about the kids. I just figured Daryl and Beth were trying to find Rick/Michonne/Carl/Glenn/Maggie etc. and that when the saw the walkers eating a fresh kill, they assumed it was one (or more) of them.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

betts4 said:


> ...Could they build a fire? does fire attract zombies? A large fire as a signal for the others to meet up.
> 
> Of course, if they did all that then there would not be the drama there is now.


Thanks for reminding me....I was surprised that the zombies were attracted to Glenn's fireball he threw at the car.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

betts4 said:


> How did she happen to just stumble on the group in the woods.


Hadn't Mika fired the gun? If Carol were anywhere close, she would have been able to hear the shot. Would have helped lead her to them.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

MikeMar said:


> But in terms of distance weapons it's one of the better ones.
> No noise, "unlimited" ammo, light weight


No, it is not. A decent compound bow is much better than a crossbow in most walker situations. For hunting deer, a crossbow could be a good choice. But for walkers, where you often have several attacking you at once, a compound bow is much better, since the rate of fire is two or three times that of a crossbow, or infinitely more in the case where you do not have the opportunity to put the crossbow down and use the footstrap to recock it.

Of course, a spear or short sword or long knife would all be better choices than any kind of bow if you are surrounded. A handgun is more versatile than a bow in that regard -- you can use it from medium distances or close up.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

pmyers said:


> Thanks for reminding me....I was surprised that the zombies were attracted to Glenn's fireball he threw at the car.


:up: That's right!



Jstkiddn said:


> Hadn't Mika fired the gun? If Carol were anywhere close, she would have been able to hear the shot. Would have helped lead her to them.


That's a good answer. She was close to the prison when the chaos erupted. Where is her car with supplies!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

betts4 said:


> That's a good answer. She was close to the prison when the chaos erupted. Where is her car with supplies!


As I said above, Carol told them that she parked near the prison and witnessed the end of the battle with the Guv's troops. She then saw Lizzy and Mika run into the woods and she left her car and followed them, because she had become their mother figure and wanted to make sure they were protected. Tyrese asked about going back to her car, and she said it would be too risky given how close it is to the prison and the number of walkers around the prison.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

A compound bow or compound crossbow (the kind Daryl uses, apparently) are both poor choices due to the maintenance requirements. But then again, so is a katana. Weapons in TWD seem to have infinite durability.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

I don't think it's that easy to determine the direction a gunshot is coming from in the woods, what with all the trees, echos, etc.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> As I said above, Carol told them that she parked near the prison and witnessed the end of the battle with the Guv's troops. She then saw Lizzy and Mika run into the woods and she left her car and followed them, because she had become their mother figure and wanted to make sure they were protected. Tyrese asked about going back to her car, and she said it would be too risky given how close it is to the prison and the number of walkers around the prison.


You did say that above. Sorry I skimmed past that.

Please excuse my questions. I was watching this episode at a hotel bar tv normally geared for sports stuff. I was huddled around it with some other friends because the hotel tv service did not get amc. I need to rewatch it tonight at home on my TiVo.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

I think Carol was following them, and I think she was probably pretty close, but she didn't know that Tyreese didn't know that she killed Karen. So she was staying hidden, but once the girls were in danger, she saved them. At that point they had seen Carol, so she had to show herself to Tyreese.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> I don't think it's that easy to determine the direction a gunshot is coming from in the woods, what with all the trees, echos, etc.


From personal experience, it's fairly easy to know the general direction. I've been dragged into the "deer woods" more than once in my lifetime. I always knew where the other hunters were and you always knew who shot from the direction the sound came from.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> As I said above, Carol told them that she parked near the prison and witnessed the end of the battle with the Guv's troops. She then saw Lizzy and Mika run into the woods and she left her car and followed them, because she had become their mother figure and wanted to make sure they were protected. Tyrese asked about going back to her car, and she said it would be too risky given how close it is to the prison and the number of walkers around the prison.


Well wouldn't that have that been interesting....Let's say the Gov stuff doesn't happen and Carol comes back to the prison....what would have happened. Interesting.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TAsunder said:


> A compound bow or compound crossbow (the kind Daryl uses, apparently) are both poor choices due to the maintenance requirements. But then again, so is a katana. Weapons in TWD seem to have infinite durability.


All weapons require maintenance. I do not see how a compound bow would be significantly more (or less) difficult to maintain in working condition than other weapons (wood bows also require maintenance).

Any firearm has the issue of obtaining or making ammunition, which we should probably say makes them harder to maintain. Although bows requires arrows, of course, which are hard to make or obtain, but at least arrows can often be reused, unlike bullets.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

TBDigital said:


> I could have sworn we saw a child's sized hiking boot when Beth and Daryll came upon the aftermath of the chaos by the railroad track, and thought that it was possibly Mika or Lizzie's. I figured that was why Beth burst into tears. Turns out it wasn't, and maybe I need to go back and re-watch that part, cause I haven't seen anyone else mention the child's shoe.


I thought the same thing. Turned out to be a red herring, or just bad camera work.


----------



## BlueMerle (Jan 10, 2007)

TBDigital said:


> I could have sworn we saw a child's sized hiking boot when Beth and Daryll came upon the aftermath of the chaos by the railroad track, and thought that it was possibly Mika or Lizzie's. I figured that was why Beth burst into tears. Turns out it wasn't, and maybe I need to go back and re-watch that part, cause I haven't seen anyone else mention the child's shoe.


There was a black child's shoe/boot in that scene. I remember it because I was sure it was foreshadowing some bad news.

It was either a red herring or I missed any connection to it going forward.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

john4200 said:


> All weapons require maintenance. I do not see how a compound bow would be significantly more (or less) difficult to maintain in working condition than other weapons (wood bows also require maintenance).
> 
> Any firearm has the issue of obtaining or making ammunition, which we should probably say makes them harder to maintain. Although bows requires arrows, of course, which are hard to make or obtain, but at least arrows can often be reused, unlike bullets.


Compound bows and crossbows require a lot more effort to restring. Plus any type of bow or crossbow used as often as Daryl uses his requires a lot of regular maintenance to keep it in good working condition.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Jstkiddn said:


> From personal experience, it's fairly easy to know the general direction. I've been dragged into the "deer woods" more than once in my lifetime. I always knew where the other hunters were and you always knew who shot from the direction the sound came from.


Ah, thanks. I've never actually been in the woods when a gun went off, but I've heard other loud noises, and it was difficult for me to tell the exact direction. Probably my bad hearing...


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

BlueMerle said:


> There was a black child's shoe/boot in that scene. I remember it because I was sure it was foreshadowing some bad news.
> 
> It was either a red herring or I missed any connection to it going forward.


The group at the bar saw it and thought it was Carl's. Then remembered that his was lost in the house. Wonder if he ever went back for it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TAsunder said:


> Compound bows and crossbows require a lot more effort to restring. Plus any type of bow or crossbow used as often as Daryl uses his requires a lot of regular maintenance to keep it in good working condition.


Oh no! Effort and maintenance!


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

And Yes, Yes I did --


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Oh no! Effort and maintenance!


Not just any effort and maintenance... a lot more effort and maintenance than anyone would reasonably want to undertake when fighting zombies almost daily. Lubrication requirements alone would make his current crossbow impractical - its manufacturer specifies it should happen after every ~5 shots IIRC.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TAsunder said:


> Lubrication requirements alone would make his current crossbow impractical


Oh no!  Lubrication!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

betts4 said:


> And Yes, Yes I did --


I groaned....plot line would be much better off without the baby...


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Oh no!  Lubrication!


Oh well. I've made my case. That you are physically incapable of acknowledging a point someone else makes that tangentially disagrees with one you make is just par for the course here.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TAsunder said:


> I've made my case.


Such as it is (and followed by a personal attack, well done).

I'm sure all the wise people will avoid using any weapons in the zombie apocalypse that require effort, maintenance, or lubrication! 

Maybe they should just use rocks...except that takes effort to pick them up...


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Can we all just agree that the maintenance of ANY weapon isn't really shown on this show

That along with bathroom uses and everything they eat.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

The wise people will choose weapons with minimal maintenance requirements rather than ones with fairly substantial maintenance requirements. A rock would be better than a crossbow that has been shot 500 times and never waxed or lubricated.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

MikeMar said:


> Can we all just agree that the maintenance of ANY weapon isn't really shown on this show
> 
> That along with bathroom uses and everything they eat.


They do OCCASIONALLY show gun maintenance, at least.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TAsunder said:


> A rock would be better than a crossbow that has been shot 500 times and never waxed or lubricated.


I'll take the crossbow over the rock every time (and take care of it every night). But as I said before, the crossbow would be well down on the list of weapons I would choose.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> The wise people will choose weapons with minimal maintenance requirements rather than ones with fairly substantial maintenance requirements. A rock would be better than a crossbow that has been shot 500 times and never waxed or lubricated.


Not to mention a crossbow that, in addition to being fired 500 times, has also been used repeatedly as a club to smash walkers heads in.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> Not to mention a crossbow that, in addition to being fired 500 times, has also been used repeatedly as a club to smash walkers heads in.


Well their heads ARE made of butter, so I'd say no wear there


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

MikeMar said:


> Well their heads ARE made of butter, so I'd say no wear there


Wait a second... perhaps this is the key. Their brains are providing the waxing and lubrication effects he needs every few dozen shots.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I don't have a crossbow, but I have a takedown recurve bow. We bought it in the 1970s. It's has fiberglass limbs. It still works perfectly. I've had to replace the strings a couple of times. In the Zombie Apocalypse I would most certainly find some archery stores so I could have supplies of arrows and strings.

I would much prefer to shoot the zombies from a distance and recover and clean the arrows after, than to get hand-to-hand. 

It's a 60" bow with a 50# draw weight and I could slaughter zombies with it. Drawtime on a traditional bow is a lot faster than a crossbow, though I need more space to use it. Would have to have some sort of backup weapon for close in. 

If you were a serious archer, you could make your own arrows and strings, but that is not a skill I possess.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

TAsunder said:


> The wise people will choose weapons with minimal maintenance requirements rather than ones with fairly substantial maintenance requirements.


People will use what's available.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

So silly. You could carry 500 rounds of .22 LR and not even notice it's in your pack. Plus, there will be a box or two or three of ammo somewhere in half the homes in America. Gimme a Bushmaster and a half dozen 30+ round magazines, and I'd feel a lot better than with some dumb crossbow or 6-shooter.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Michone has one of the best weapons in the show. I watched one of those "How they make that" shows, and it was about katanas. There's a special way they forge the metal where they put alternating strips of mud down the blade before the final firing. This gives it a combination of hard and slightly softer steel that can slice and dice repeatedly without breaking, and also rarely needs sharpening. It's also one of the few blades that can easily slice off a leg if wielded properly. Heads can be sliced off pretty much like you see her doing it on the show.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

The boot was definitely a red herring. Almost immediately after Beth breaks down and they show the boot, they showed Mika hiking through the woods in very similar looking boots.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

bobcarn said:


> Michone has one of the best weapons in the show. I watched one of those "How they make that" shows, and it was about katanas. There's a special way they forge the metal where they put alternating strips of mud down the blade before the final firing. This gives it a combination of hard and slightly softer steel that can slice and dice repeatedly without breaking, and also rarely needs sharpening. It's also one of the few blades that can easily slice off a leg if wielded properly. Heads can be sliced off pretty much like you see her doing it on the show.


The only problem is that most katanas nowadays are fakes and aren't made to those standards. You'd have a hard time finding one of that quality.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

heySkippy said:


> So silly. You could carry 500 rounds of .22 LR and not even notice it's in your pack. Plus, there will be a box or two or three of ammo somewhere in half the homes in America. Gimme a Bushmaster and a half dozen 30+ round magazines, and I'd feel a lot better than with some dumb crossbow or 6-shooter.


I agree. I think my "Ultimate zombie survival gear" would be a .22LR semi-auto rifle, a Katana, and hand gun (probably more for human protection), and some pieces of body armor like Glenn has...especially the forearms and lower leg pieces where you're most likely to take a random bite. And a big knife.

I think that would cover most scenarios.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

After seeing the totally realistic "Kill Bill" Volume 1 and 2 movies, I'm quite certain a Masamune sword could be acquired that will do the job. 

I would need a lot of training to avoid cutting off my own limbs, however.

Seriously, I agree with putting on body armor -- even makeshift body armor. I don't care how fast you can run with minimal attire, you need to avoid getting bit.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Despite how they depict things in the show, it can't be that important to run super fast when the zombies can barely walk at all. A brisk walk in body armor would be enough most of the time, zombies who mysteriously teleport into an open field notwithstanding.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

TAsunder said:


> Despite how they depict things in the show, it can't be that important to run super fast when the zombies can barely walk at all. A brisk walk in body armor would be enough most of the time, zombies who mysteriously teleport into an open field notwithstanding.


Problem is you have to brisk walk forever (or until you find cover)

Zombies superpower has always been just like the Terminator. They keep coming and coming at you


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

betts4 said:


> And Yes, Yes I did --


Yup - me too!


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

MacThor said:


> I think the bus-walkers were former residents of the prison, not trapped random walkers that swarmed the bus. Bob said something like "they were all good people" as if he recognized them all.


I would've liked to see a little more emotion about their dead colleagues, even if none were Glenn. At least "Awww, they got Fred and Ethel." Redshirts all.



stellie93 said:


> I wonder if Mika knows how crazy Lizzie is? She should have a better idea than anyone.


There was a scene after Mika ran and before Tyreese left them that made me think Mika does know. Something like
Lizzie: She doesn't understand the walkers.
Mika: SHE doesn't understand the walkers!!!!

I think she's scared of Lizzie.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

MacThor said:


> The boot was definitely a red herring. Almost immediately after Beth breaks down and they show the boot, they showed Mika hiking through the woods in very similar looking boots.


That's not why we know it was a probable red herring. Those scenes were not in chronological order. Tyreese and the girls were at that site a few hours before Daryl and Beth. The wounded man that told Tyreese's group about the safe place up the tracks is the walker that attacked Beth in the woods. We don't know the shoe was a probable red herring until we see that nothing happened to Mika at that site.

I say probable because as it stands, there is nothing yet that says that Mika didn't go back to that site and get eaten by walkers or (just lose a shoe) after her group first left it and before Daryl and Beth first get there.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

People were really surprised that Judith (aka BamBam) was still alive ?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

JohnB1000 said:


> People were really surprised that Judith (aka BamBam) was still alive ?


More like disappointed...


----------



## BlueMerle (Jan 10, 2007)

scandia101 said:


> That's not why we know it was a probable red herring. Those scenes were not in chronological order. Tyreese and the girls were at that site a few hours before Daryl and Beth. *The wounded man that told Tyreese's group about the safe place up the tracks is the walker that attacked Beth in the woods.* We don't know the shoe was a probable red herring until we see that nothing happened to Mika at that site.
> 
> I say probable because as it stands, there is nothing yet that says that Mika didn't go back to that site and get eaten by walkers or (just lose a shoe) after her group first left it and before Daryl and Beth first get there.


For the life of me I can't understand why they just walked away from him knowing that he would shortly turn.

Even if they didn't want to shot a 'human', or he didn't want them to, they could have waited a bit and shot him when he turned. Or better yet just shoot him anyway even if no one likes it.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Weren't there other kids with Lizzie and Mika?
Names something like Luke and Molly?

I thought that's whose shoe it was implied to be and why the tears when it was spotted.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Cearbhaill said:


> Weren't there other kids with Lizzie and Mika?
> Names something like Luke and Molly?


With them where and when?


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

BlueMerle said:


> For the life of me I can't understand why they just walked away from him knowing that he would shortly turn.


That seemed odd/wrong to me too.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

BlueMerle said:


> For the life of me I can't understand why they just walked away from him knowing that he would shortly turn.
> 
> Even if they didn't want to shot a 'human', or he didn't want them to, they could have waited a bit and shot him when he turned. Or better yet just shoot him anyway even if no one likes it.


We thought that also.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

BlueMerle said:


> ....Even if they didn't want to shoot a 'human', or he didn't want them to, they could have waited a bit and shot him when he turned. Or better yet just shoot him anyway even if no one likes it.


They've done this before (shoot someone before they turned, after they'd been attacked), so there has been a precedent set...


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

JohnB1000 said:


> People were really surprised that Judith (aka BamBam) was still alive ?


Not surprised exactly, but pleased. And there was always a small chance they would be twisted about this.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

pmyers said:


> I think my "Ultimate zombie survival gear" would be a .22LR semi-auto rifle, a Katana, and hand gun (probably more for human protection), and some pieces of body armor like Glenn has...especially the forearms and lower leg pieces where you're most likely to take a random bite. And a big knife.
> 
> I think that would cover most scenarios.


What about a scenario where you need to quietly kill from a distance?

I'd want at least one person in my group to have a bow (not crossbow) and be good at using it. A bow is not as useful as the other weapons you mention, but it can occasionally be indispensable.

Note that a "silenced" gun or rifle is not really silent. It sounds kind of like slamming a book down on a desk.


----------



## BlueMerle (Jan 10, 2007)

Bierboy said:


> They've done this before (shoot someone before they turned, after they'd been attacked), so there has been a precedent set...


Yes, exactly. That just makes it all the more perplexing imo.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

BlueMerle said:


> For the life of me I can't understand why they just walked away from him knowing that he would shortly turn.
> 
> Even if they didn't want to shot a 'human', or he didn't want them to, they could have waited a bit and shot him when he turned. Or better yet just shoot him anyway even if no one likes it.


I guess they weren't part of the "code" that Rick and Co had made. /shrug


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Cearbhaill said:


> Weren't there other kids with Lizzie and Mika?
> Names something like Luke and Molly?
> 
> I thought that's whose shoe it was implied to be and why the tears when it was spotted.





scandia101 said:


> With them where and when?


Back at the prison- they were separated in the melee.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

BlueMerle said:


> For the life of me I can't understand why they just walked away from him knowing that he would shortly turn.
> Even if they didn't want to shot a 'human', or he didn't want them to, they could have waited a bit and shot him when he turned. Or better yet just shoot him anyway even if no one likes it.





scandia101 said:


> That seemed odd/wrong to me too.





JohnB1000 said:


> We thought that also.





Bierboy said:


> They've done this before (shoot someone before they turned, after they'd been attacked), so there has been a precedent set...





BlueMerle said:


> Yes, exactly. That just makes it all the more perplexing imo.





pmyers said:


> I guess they weren't part of the "code" that Rick and Co had made. /shrug


I thought about that, too, for a second then realized it was Tyreese and I just can't see him killing a living human even if there was no hope for him. Lizzie, I could see, but not Tyreese. And I can't see a scenario where they would want to wait until he turns and not just skedaddle right away - especially if there a safe haven close.

Now, Carol could have done it, but the last time she did something like that (killed someone before they died and actually turned) it didn't bode well for her. And with the first meet up with Tyreese since that happened - and being apprehensive over not being sure if he knew - fresh in her mind, I can see her not doing it there, either, though it WAS someone they had never even met before.

And, of course, I could have my time lines all wrong and just be speaking out of my arse.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

john4200 said:


> What about a scenario where you need to quietly kill from a distance?
> 
> I'd want at least one person in my group to have a bow (not crossbow) and be good at using it. A bow is not as useful as the other weapons you mention, but it can occasionally be indispensable.
> 
> Note that a "silenced" gun or rifle is not really silent. It sounds kind of like slamming a book down on a desk.


Ereth has nominated himself in the TCF group. And it's a recurve bow so it meets all of our combined criteria.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Tyrese has now taken Michone's place as my most overated new cast member. I don't read the comics but I remember it being a big deal to people that he was on the show (like Michone), but he just hasn't done anything for me.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> I thought about that, too, for a second then realized it was Tyreese


That's it. It was Tyreese, and I forgot he can often be so pusillanimous.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

pmyers said:


> Tyrese has now taken Michone's place as my most overated new cast member. I don't read the comics but I remember it being a big deal to people that he was on the show (like Michone), but he just hasn't done anything for me.


I came to that conclusion about Tyreese very quickly.
It seems people are excited to see some of these characters just because they are familiar and not because they are even the least bit interesting.


----------



## BlueMerle (Jan 10, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> I thought about that, too, for a second then realized it was Tyreese and I just can't see him killing a living human even if there was no hope for him. Lizzie, I could see, but not Tyreese. And I can't see a scenario where they would want to wait until he turns and not just skedaddle right away - especially if there a safe haven close.
> 
> Now, Carol could have done it, but the last time she did something like that (killed someone before they died and actually turned) it didn't bode well for her. And with the first meet up with Tyreese since that happened - and being apprehensive over not being sure if he knew - fresh in her mind, I can see her not doing it there, either, though it WAS someone they had never even met before.
> 
> And, of course, I could have my time lines all wrong and just be speaking out of my arse.


Good points all.

I'd understand their actions better if they were still living in the prison with a safe place to sleep and a nice garden. Now that they're back to living on the run and sleeping in the woods I guess I expect a 'harder' sensibility ... at least among survivors.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

BlueMerle said:


> For the life of me I can't understand why they just walked away from him knowing that he would shortly turn.
> 
> Even if they didn't want to shot a 'human', or he didn't want them to, they could have waited a bit and shot him when he turned. Or better yet just shoot him anyway even if no one likes it.


I was surprised by all of that, but even more surprised that the dying guy didn't plead with them to put him out of his misery so he wouldn't turn. Why would he be OK with them just leaving him there to die?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

heySkippy said:


> So silly. You could carry 500 rounds of .22 LR and not even notice it's in your pack. Plus, there will be a box or two or three of ammo somewhere in half the homes in America. Gimme a Bushmaster and a half dozen 30+ round magazines, and I'd feel a lot better than with some dumb crossbow or 6-shooter.


Can you GET 500 rounds of .22 LR these days? I know my brother-in-law has alerts now for when ammo is in stock, and often by the time he gets to the store, they are sold out.

I'm not a gun guy, but I've been hearing from people that ammo is in serious short supply for a while now. I don't know why.

(the advantage, of course, to bows/crossbows is that they aren't likely to cause additional walkers to come towards you, like a gunshot would).


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

scandia101 said:


> It seems people are excited to see some of these characters just because they are familiar and not because they are even the least bit interesting.


We were excited to see these characters because they were great in the comics. We are just as disappointed as other viewers (probably more so) in their tepid television incarnations.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

TAsunder said:


> Ereth has nominated himself in the TCF group. And it's a recurve bow so it meets all of our combined criteria.


The biggest problem with my bow is that it takes strength to pull it. It's not a compound, and it has a 50# draw weight. I've had neighbor kids and even a few adults fail to be able to draw it. So it makes a lousy weapon if someone kills me, because few others could pick it up and continue (Tyreese would have no problem). In fact, now that I'm older, and not as strong as I used to be, I was worried that I couldn't pull it, but apparently there are still some advantages to being 6'5 and I pull it easily. 

I used to have about 4 others, of reduced strengths (40#, 20#) but I never used them so I gradually gave them away to people who would use them more than I.

The 40# would be perfect for just about anybody, also being a recurve (though not a takedown). I was never a fan of compounds, which meant that all my bows were low maintenance. Arrows, on the other hand, need replacing.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> Why would he be OK with them just leaving him there to die?


I wouldn't expect everyone to prefer a bullet in the head over becoming a walker.


----------



## BlueMerle (Jan 10, 2007)

scandia101 said:


> I wouldn't expect everyone to prefer a bullet in the head over becoming a walker.


I don't follow the timelines all that closely so I'm not really sure how much time has elapsed since Rick woke up alone in the hospital. I'm guessing it's ~ 18 - 24 months based on baby Judith.

I can certainly understand someone not wanting a bullet in the head within the first few weeks/months of the ZA. But after witnessing almost 2 years of this I just can't imagine anyone that would let themselves be turned.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Ereth said:


> Can you GET 500 rounds of .22 LR these days? I know my brother-in-law has alerts now for when ammo is in stock, and often by the time he gets to the store, they are sold out.
> 
> I'm not a gun guy, but I've been hearing from people that ammo is in serious short supply for a while now. I don't know why.


Sure you can get it in people's homes like skippy said 

I've got 10k rounds in the basement, bring on the zombies!


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

BlueMerle said:


> I don't follow the timelines all that closely so I'm not really sure how much time has elapsed since Rick woke up alone in the hospital. I'm guessing it's ~ 18 - 24 months based on baby Judith.
> 
> I can certainly understand someone not wanting a bullet in the head within the first few weeks/months of the ZA. But after witnessing almost 2 years of this I just can't imagine anyone that would let themselves be turned.


Some people don't actually give a crap about what happens to them after they die. Human nature is not always about sunshine and rainbows for the greater good.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

scandia101 said:


> Some people don't actually give a crap about what happens to them after they die. Human nature is not always about sunshine and rainbows for the greater good.


Who knows, that might be the 15 minutes when they come up with a cure!


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> Some people don't actually give a crap about what happens to them after they die. Human nature is not always about sunshine and rainbows for the greater good.


Well at least you "unlive" on and get to eat now and then and of course hand around with lots of friends.


----------



## BlueMerle (Jan 10, 2007)

scandia101 said:


> Some people don't actually give a crap about what happens to them after they die. Human nature is not always about sunshine and rainbows for the greater good.


Yeah, it's a moot discussion. I'd have killed the poor sob so problem solved.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> That's not why we know it was a probable red herring. Those scenes were not in chronological order. Tyreese and the girls were at that site a few hours before Daryl and Beth. The wounded man that told Tyreese's group about the safe place up the tracks is the walker that attacked Beth in the woods. We don't know the shoe was a probable red herring until we see that nothing happened to Mika at that site.


I'm aware they were not in chronological order, but they made a point of showing Mika's black boots in the very next scene _aired_. I thought it a little too obvious, and wasn't surprised when Mika didn't die. I found myself looking for a black boot on the ground after Tyreese, Carol and the girls headed off for Terminus.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

BlueMerle said:


> Yes, exactly. That just makes it all the more perplexing imo.


For sure...don't understand it...


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

zordude said:


> Sure you can get it in people's homes like skippy said
> 
> I've got 10k rounds in the basement, bring on the zombies!


This.


BlueMerle said:


> Yeah, it's a moot discussion. I'd have killed the poor sob so problem solved.


And this.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

zordude said:


> Sure you can get it in people's homes like skippy said
> 
> I've got 10k rounds in the basement, bring on the zombies!


I would expect that people with that level of ammo in their homes would use it up before abandoning said homes, and that people scrounging afterwards won't find it, because it's either been fired, or taken with the original owners.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Ereth said:


> I would expect that people with that level of ammo in their homes would use it up before abandoning said homes, and that people scrounging afterwards won't find it, because it's either been fired, or taken with the original owners.


But most of them would have turned at the onset of the outbreak and the ammo would sit in their homes unused, right?

what is the range of a bow? it can't be as accurate as a rifle or have the same range. I expect the arrow to be affected by wind after a relatively short distance.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Anubys said:


> But most of them would have turned at the onset of the outbreak and the ammo would sit in their homes unused, right?


I think that's an unusual surmise. Why would you think that? You only turn if you die. People with large quantities of ammo seem to me to be the ones who would survive the initial outbreak rather handily, only leaving their homes when overwhelmed. And they'd take that ammo with them, because they'd know how critical it is.



> what is the range of a bow? it can't be as accurate as a rifle or have the same range. I expect the arrow to be affected by wind after a relatively short distance.


Of course it doesn't have the same range, at least with accuracy. If your only concern is "kill from a distance" a rifle is clearly superior (as is, I must point out, an aircraft armed with missiles or bombs). If you also add "don't make any noise while doing so", the bow/crossbow become viable.

If one shot will take one walker and turn him into 100, because all the nearby walkers will now converge, unless you have a Gatling Gun, you are probably going to be overwhelmed, where a bowman could take out that lone walker (or 6) without summoning all the other walkers in the nearest half mile.

Tactically, you use the weapon that makes the most sense for the situation. They have different roles. The bow/crossbow has two useful advantages - quiet and you can reuse your projectiles. The rifle/gun has the advantages of range and rapid fire, but has the downside of alerting other walkers, and also having ammo that cannot be reused.

Given the squishiness of walkers heads, I actually think a strong slingshot might be viable. In a normal scenario it would never penetrate the skull, but they've shown skulls to be very soft after turning, so you could conceivably use a slingshot and rocks/spent shells, even, gaining even greater speed and a nearly unlimited ammo supply (rocks, acorns, etc, being plentiful).

I wasn't in any way trying to suggest the bow was superior to the rifle in any situation other than one that calls for quiet.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Ereth said:


> Given the squishiness of walkers heads, I actually think a strong slingshot might be viable. In a normal scenario it would never penetrate the skull, but they've shown skulls to be very soft after turning, so you could conceivably use a slingshot and rocks/spent shells, even, gaining even greater speed and a nearly unlimited ammo supply (rocks, acorns, etc, being plentiful).


Good idea! :up:


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Ereth said:


> I think that's an unusual surmise. Why would you think that? You only turn if you die. People with large quantities of ammo seem to me to be the ones who would survive the initial outbreak rather handily, only leaving their homes when overwhelmed. And they'd take that ammo with them, because they'd know how critical it is.


I don't agree. It seems to me that the vast majority of people turned fairly quickly. Most people were at work or outside their home and would not have gotten to their ammo before biting the bullet (see what I did there? comedic genius, I say!). But just playing the percentages, if half the people were home and half were not, that's an awful lot of unused ammo


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

I'll bet there are hundreds of millions of .22 LR rounds stashed away in American homes. And I agree that it seems like most of the walkers were created in the initial plague. When Sheriff Rick woke up at the beginning of the series the walkers already outnumbered the living by a gigantic margin.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Anubys said:


> what is the range of a bow? it can't be as accurate as a rifle or have the same range. I expect the arrow to be affected by wind after a relatively short distance.


And let's not forget that learning to accurately shoot a bow is much more difficult than learning to accurately shoot a rifle. Given that you have to hit the walkers in the heads to have any real effect, I'd say that except for a very accomplished archer, the effective range of a bow is only about 20-40 yards.



Ereth said:


> I think that's an unusual surmise. Why would you think that? You only turn if you die. People with large quantities of ammo seem to me to be the ones who would survive the initial outbreak rather handily, only leaving their homes when overwhelmed. And they'd take that ammo with them, because they'd know how critical it is.


Hasn't it been established that well over 90% of the population died off within the first week or two of the outbreak? I thought the initial outbreak caused a fever that killed off nearly everyone, and the people that are survivors were immune to the virus that killed nearly immediately, but they still carry the underlying zombie virus that will cause them to turn when they die.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> And let's not forget that learning to accurately shoot a bow is much more difficult than learning to accurately shoot a rifle.


Although crossbows are a lot easier to use effectively. When they were introduced in the Middle Ages, they were scorned because any peasant could use them, as opposed to the longbow which took a lot of time to master (time that peasants, of course, didn't have).

The fact that a crossbow could also punch through armor also made them seriously uncool, at least among the (armored) nobility. I guess, in short, they didn't approve of a weapon that any peasant with minimal training could use to kill, well, them.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Ereth said:


> Given the squishiness of walkers heads, I actually think a strong slingshot might be viable. In a normal scenario it would never penetrate the skull, but they've shown skulls to be very soft after turning, so you could conceivably use a slingshot and rocks/spent shells, even, gaining even greater speed and a nearly unlimited ammo supply (rocks, acorns, etc, being plentiful).


Okay- somebody get Carl a slingshot _stat_.
That would be _killer_ good fun.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Anubys said:


> I don't agree. It seems to me that the vast majority of people turned fairly quickly. Most people were at work or outside their home and would not have gotten to their ammo before biting the bullet (see what I did there? comedic genius, I say!). But just playing the percentages, if half the people were home and half were not, that's an awful lot of unused ammo


Yeah, I agree with this. Most people probably were not at home when the outbreak happened. You just have to hope you were taking a "sick day" on that day! lol


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Zevida said:


> I think Carol was following them, and I think she was probably pretty close, but she didn't know that Tyreese didn't know that she killed Karen. So she was staying hidden, but once the girls were in danger, she saved them. At that point they had seen Carol, so she had to show herself to Tyreese.


I still think that Carol only admitted that to Rick in order to protect Lizzie, Karen's real killer. Carol's character is not that of a psycho ... her nature is to nurture.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

getreal said:


> I still think that Carol only admitted that to Rick in order to protect Lizzie, Karen's real killer. Carol's character is not that of a psycho ... her nature is to nurture.


This is exactly what I think; Lizzie killed them, and then Carol discovered it and drug the bodies outside and burned them to deflect suspicion away from Lizzie.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

getreal said:


> I still think that Carol only admitted that to Rick in order to protect Lizzie, Karen's real killer. Carol's character is not that of a psycho ... her nature is to nurture.


I've been thinking this way for a long time.


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

BlueMerle said:


> There was a black child's shoe/boot in that scene.


Have there even been any black children in this show?


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

goblue97 said:


> Have there even been any black children in this show?


Yes, Morgan's son comes to mind right away.

If this was just a play on the post you quoted, then never mind.


----------



## BlueMerle (Jan 10, 2007)

goblue97 said:


> Have there even been any black children in this show?


----------



## voripteth (Apr 9, 2003)

I'm surprised no one is using spears. They are easy to make and require relatively little training.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

voripteth said:


> I'm surprised no one is using spears. They are easy to make and require relatively little training.


Well they had all those spears around the prison to catch a bunch of them. But yeah, easy to make no matter where you are, carry them around, and even if you just leave it stuck it someone, who cares


----------



## Demandred (Mar 6, 2001)

goblue97 said:


> Have there even been any black children in this show?


Yeah the black kid with the Transformers toy.

Or am I mixing up my zombie shows again?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

getreal said:


> I still think that Carol only admitted that to Rick in order to protect Lizzie, Karen's real killer. Carol's character is not that of a psycho ... her nature is to nurture.


I'm sure that is where they are going to go with the storyline....however I think its totally stupid. First, what are they really going to do to a kid? Second, what good is Carol to these kids if she gets exiled? It just doesn't make any logical sense.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

pmyers said:


> Second, what good is Carol to these kids if she gets exiled? It just doesn't make any logical sense.


I had not looked at it from this angle. Good point.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

If, and it's a big if, Lizzie did kill them, then Carol MUST have been implicated anyway. There's no way Lizzie could have dragged those bodies on her own.

I like the theory, though, and if it plays out, I'm sure Lizzie would get caught up and killed by walkers, at which time Carol would be free to tell the truth.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

pmyers said:


> It just doesn't make any logical sense.


And the showrunners and writers are _all_ about making logical sense


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Cearbhaill said:


> And the showrunners and writers are _all_ about making logical sense


Oh and I know....LOL that's why I'm sure that is exactly where they are going with it.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

pmyers said:


> Second, what good is Carol to these kids if she gets exiled? It just doesn't make any logical sense.





Jstkiddn said:


> I had not looked at it from this angle. Good point.


Why is Carol required to be of benefit to the kids?


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Ereth said:


> I would expect that people with that level of ammo in their homes would use it up before abandoning said homes, and that people scrounging afterwards won't find it, because it's either been fired, or taken with the original owners.


There are a lot of people I know who have stashes of ammo somewhere in their house, but then even out here in the country there are a lot of houses with no ammo in them at all. So unless you know which houses to look in, you could spend a lot of time emptying houses of zombies, and then searching for hiding places....


----------



## trnsfrguy (Apr 28, 2005)

Demandred said:


> Yeah the black kid with the Transformers toy.
> 
> Or am I mixing up my zombie shows again?


Sounds familiar, but it may be from The Walking Dead video game.


----------



## trnsfrguy (Apr 28, 2005)

pmyers said:


> Yeah, I agree with this. Most people probably were not at home when the outbreak happened. You just have to hope you were taking a "sick day" on that day! lol


The show has never given any indication of time or date of the zombie outbreak. So, what makes you think people wouldn't be home ?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

trnsfrguy said:


> The show has never given any indication of time or date of the zombie outbreak. So, what makes you think people wouldn't be home ?


Well I'm sure it happened at different times in different areas, but considering most people spend more time away from home, than at home...it isn't a big leap.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> Why is Carol required to be of benefit to the kids?


She had taken them under her wing and has stepped in as the role of the mother figure, so it would make sense she would attempt to do things to benefit them.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Jstkiddn said:


> She had taken them under her wing and has stepped in as the role of the mother figure, so it would make sense she would attempt to do things to benefit them.


Not only that, but she had promised to do so.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

pmyers said:


> Well I'm sure it happened at different times in different areas, but considering most people spend more time away from home, than at home...it isn't a big leap.


I would not say that. I'd say for most people it is close to 50 / 50, if you include sleeping and weekends / holidays. Probably tilts towards more time at home than away, once you include housewives and retired people.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

john4200 said:


> I would not say that. I'd say for most people it is close to 50 / 50, if you include sleeping and weekends / holidays. Probably tilts towards more time at home than away, once you include housewives and retired people.


And I suspect when a terrible unknown plague is sweeping the land, the percentage of people who stay home goes up dramatically...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I don't think it really matters whether people were at home or not. The point is that most people turned without ever having to fend off hoardes of walkers. So even if they were at home when the outbreak hit, they likely got sick, died, and turned into walkers before they ever had a chance to use much of their ammo, if any.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think it really matters whether people were at home or not. The point is that most people turned without ever having to fend off hoardes of walkers. So even if they were at home when the outbreak hit, they likely got sick, died, and turned into walkers before they ever had a chance to use much of their ammo, if any.


Someone said that there was a plague that killed the majority of people. I don't remember that being mentioned in the show, but if that is the case, then your explanation makes sense (if we assume there was a long incubation time...otherwise, the people at home would not be likely to catch a communicable disease while at home). But if we are supposed to believe that walkers somehow multiplied quickly enough to kill the majority of the people, then that explanation does not seem so plausible. Of course, if it was daytime when most of the people died in the US, then even if less than half of them died away from home, I would expect there to be plenty of ammo to be scavenged from the minority of homes that were empty. Even 30% of 100 million households should make for good ammo scavenging.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

> > pmyers said:
> >
> >
> > > Second, what good is Carol to these kids if she gets exiled? It just doesn't make any logical sense.
> ...





Jstkiddn said:


> She had taken them under her wing and has stepped in as the role of the mother figure, so it would make sense she would attempt to do things to benefit them.


That doesn't even come remotely close to answering the question I asked.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

scandia101 said:


> That doesn't even come remotely close to answering the question I asked.


Then you need to better explain your question, because the logic makes sense.

If Carol wanted to do something to help the children, then she needs to be there to help the children, not exiled or imprisoned. As someone said, it would make more sense for Carol to help Lizzie by letting Lizzie take the rap (if Lizzie killed them) since Lizzie would not be exiled or imprisoned for it. Then Carol would be around to help Lizzie.

I do not believe anyone said Carol was "required" to help the children. But she certainly seems to want to.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

pmyers said:


> Second, what good is Carol to these kids if she gets exiled? It just doesn't make any logical sense.


She wouldn't be doing the kids any good if she were exiled. So what? Her relationship to the kids is not necessary. If she were absent (exile, death, or otherwise), life would go on just has it always has.

I'm questioning why you think she has to be there. Not why she chooses to be there.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

john4200 said:


> Then you need to better explain your question, because the logic makes sense.


No, it doesn't.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> She wouldn't be doing the kids any good if she were exiled. So what? Her relationship to the kids is not necessary. If she were absent (exile, death, or otherwise), life would go on just has it always has.
> 
> I'm questioning why you think she has to be there. Not why she chooses to be there.


The point isn't whether Carol wants to be there or needs to be there. The point is that some people are speculating that Lizzie killed those two people and then Carol covered up for her. But that speculation means that Carol cares about Lizzie and wants to help her (which we know to be true), and getting herself exiled doesn't do that. So it makes no logical sense that Carol, who wants to be in a position to protect Lizzie, would just lie down and accept Rick banishing her if the reason he was banishing her was a lie.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

scandia101 said:


> No, it doesn't.


I can see how it would not make sense to someone who is inventing straw men. No one said that Carol is "required" to help the kids. Who would enforce such a requirement?

Once you let go of your straw man, you will see that the logic makes perfect sense.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> So it makes no logical sense that Carol, who wants to be in a position to protect Lizzie, would just lie down and accept Rick banishing her if the reason he was banishing her was a lie.


You're right, it wouldn't make sense for her to just lie down and accept it. That, however, is not what this is about.

pmyers said 


> what good is Carol to these kids if she gets exiled? It just doesn't make any logical sense.


That statement is about her being exiled, not about what she does about it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> You're right, it wouldn't make sense for her to just lie down and accept it.
> 
> That, however, is not what this is about. pmyers said That statement is about her being exiled, not about what she does about it.


OK, looks like we have to back up and establish some facts on which all these speculations are based. Do you remember when Lizzie's father got bit by a walker and Carol had to kill him? At that time, she promised to take care of Lizzie and Mika as if they were her own. So with that fact as your basis, you then understand that Carol would do anything to help the girls. So accepting a banishment makes no sense because it doesn't allow her to take care of the girls.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> OK, looks like we have to back up and establish some facts on which all these speculations are based. Do you remember when Lizzie's father got bit by a walker and Carol had to kill him? At that time, she promised to take care of Lizzie and Mika as if they were her own. So with that fact as your basis, you then understand that Carol would do anything to help the girls. So accepting a banishment makes no sense because it doesn't allow her to take care of the girls.


Thanks. She made a "pact" and now has to live up to it. What she did by complacintly being exiled, goes 100% against that pact.


----------



## Jagman_sl (Mar 14, 2001)

pmyers said:


> Thanks. She made a "pact" and now has to live up to it. What she did by complacintly being exiled, goes 100% against that pact.


Except at the time she took the blame for the killings she didn't expect to be exiled, that caught her completely off guard when she and Rick went out together and he sent her away. Her only alternative at that point would have been to throw Lizzie under the bus, and that definitely doesn't fall under the umbrella of "protecting" her.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

getreal said:


> I still think that Carol only admitted that to Rick in order to protect Lizzie, Karen's real killer. Carol's character is not that of a psycho ... her nature is to nurture.


Definitely this.



Jstkiddn said:


> She had taken them under her wing and has stepped in as the role of the mother figure, so it would make sense she would attempt to do things to benefit them.


And this.

I can see this as her reason for allowing herself to be exiled and also for coming back. She didn't really put up a fight with Rick about it.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Jagman_sl said:


> Except at the time she took the blame for the killings she didn't expect to be exiled, that caught her completely off guard when she and Rick went out together and he sent her away. Her only alternative at that point would have been to throw Lizzie under the bus, and that definitely doesn't fall under the umbrella of "protecting" her.


This is also my thinking.

Another thing I think is that we may be applying a LOT more logic in these threads than the writers sometimes do on the show.


----------



## BlueMerle (Jan 10, 2007)

john4200 said:


> Someone said that there was a plague that killed the majority of people. I don't remember that being mentioned in the show, but if that is the case, then your explanation makes sense (if we assume there was a long incubation time...otherwise, the people at home would not be likely to catch a communicable disease while at home). But if we are supposed to believe that walkers somehow multiplied quickly enough to kill the majority of the people, then that explanation does not seem so plausible. Of course, if it was daytime when most of the people died in the US, then even if less than half of them died away from home, I would expect there to be plenty of ammo to be scavenged from the minority of homes that were empty. *Even 30% of 100 million households should make for good ammo scavenging.*


That's my understanding of what happened, and I believe it was specifically discussed in ep.1 or shortly thereafter. Virus hits, most get sick, high fever then die and become Zs. Some small number are immune but have been exposed and will turn when they die as a result of that exposure.

As for the bolded. I agree that 30% would make for good scavenging, I just don't agree that you'll be in a position to get to even 0.005% of those homes.

Anyone that stays in or near large population centers will very significantly lower their chances of survival... very significantly lower. There will be some that manage to, but they will be the exception.

The majority of survivors will come from those that live in very rural areas or those that managed to get to very rural areas. Given that, you're simply not going to have very many opportunities to scavenge ammo.

As I said in the thread for the previous ep., you need to save your ammo for the living and not burn it on Zs.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Jagman_sl said:


> Her only alternative at that point would have been to throw Lizzie under the bus, and that definitely doesn't fall under the umbrella of "protecting" her.


No. "Throwing Lizzie under the bus" would be to tell everyone what Lizzie did, then to say that Lizzie is a psycho who will continue to kill people in the group and betray them to their enemies, and to then proceed to advocate for exile or imprisonment of the girl.

The reasonable alternative is for Carol to tell a few people in leadership what Lizzie did, explain that Lizzie is troubled (but mostly means well) and Carol is doing everything she can to help her. Carol could say that she will keep an even closer eye on Lizzie, trying to teach her right from wrong, and will be responsible for her in the future. If anyone advocates harsher punishment for Lizzie, Carol would stand up for her and protect her.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Jagman_sl said:


> Except at the time she took the blame for the killings she didn't expect to be exiled, that caught her completely off guard when she and Rick went out together and he sent her away. Her only alternative at that point would have been to throw Lizzie under the bus, and that definitely doesn't fall under the umbrella of "protecting" her.


That's fair enough. I agree with the first part but just don't agree with the last. Once Rick decides to exile her, now is the time to fight and lay out all the cards. With her gone, there really isn't anybody that is going to take a special watch over those particular girls more than any other survivor.

So let's say Rick tells her to leave after she takes the blame....and then Carol tells Rick that she was just protecting her by taking the blame? Does Rick still exile her? I would lean towards no. Does he exile the little girl? I would lean towards no.

I also agree with the other poster that said we are applying way to much logic to it. I'm 99% certain this is exactly where they are going with the storyline and they just had to find a semi-logical way to get there.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

BlueMerle said:


> That's my understanding of what happened, and I believe it was specifically discussed in ep.1 or shortly thereafter. Virus hits, most get sick, high fever then die and become Zs. Some small number are immune but have been exposed and will turn when they die as a result of that exposure.
> 
> As for the bolded. I agree that 30% would make for good scavenging, I just don't agree that you'll be in a position to get to even 0.005% of those homes.
> 
> ...


Two big problems with this argument.

First, you pulled that 0.005% out of your ass. Even so, 0.005% of 100 million is 5000. That would still make for decent ammo scavenging.

Second, the biggest flaw in that argument is that people can scavenge vehicles, then travel hundreds of miles to areas where there is better ammo scavenging. There is no reason to assume that people are limited to staying in one rural area forever.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

pmyers said:


> I'm 99% certain this is exactly where they are going with the storyline and they just had to find a semi-logical way to get there.


Just so you know, 99% certain means that if you made a similar prediction 100 times (in 100 different but similar situations), you would be right 99 of those times.

Personally, I would go with 50 / 50 here. The writers of this show are not very predictable with following (or not following) logical or plausible reasoning. Sometimes they seem to do a good job, and sometimes a terrible job. I am very hesitant to make a prediction such as you just did.


----------



## Jagman_sl (Mar 14, 2001)

pmyers said:


> That's fair enough. I agree with the first part but just don't agree with the last. Once Rick decides to exile her, now is the time to fight and lay out all the cards. With her gone, there really isn't anybody that is going to take a special watch over those particular girls more than any other survivor.
> 
> So let's say Rick tells her to leave after she takes the blame....and then Carol tells Rick that she was just protecting her by taking the blame? Does Rick still exile her? I would lean towards no. Does he exile the little girl? I would lean towards no.
> 
> I also agree with the other poster that said we are applying way to much logic to it. I'm 99% certain this is exactly where they are going with the storyline and they just had to find a semi-logical way to get there.


Well, she did have to make a snap decision when Rick was sending her away, and there's no telling what alternatives she was weighing in her mind at the time. Also, she admitted to returning to the prison in time to see it sacked by the Governor, so she may still have been trying to act as a protector but didn't get the chance.

But the obvious explanation is this is the choice that must have been made for the writers to drum up as much drama as possible to keep the viewing audience engaged in the show.


----------



## BlueMerle (Jan 10, 2007)

john4200 said:


> Two big problems with this argument.
> 
> First, you pulled that 0.005% out of your ass. Even so, 0.005% of 100 million is 5000. That would still make for decent ammo scavenging.
> 
> Second, the biggest flaw in that argument is that people can scavenge vehicles, then travel hundreds of miles to areas where there is better ammo scavenging. There is no reason to assume that people are limited to staying in one rural area forever.


Almost everything here is false.

First, of course I pulled that 0.005% out of my ass, just like you pulled the 30% figure out of your ass. 5000 homes spread out across an entire country, hell even one state does not make for good scavenging. Only a fool would head back into the suburbs to scavenge.

Second, now you're pulling gas out of your ass. You're not going to be able to use anything with an internal combustion engine within a few months of the outbreak... that part of the show is pure fiction. And why would you want to? Nothing announces "I've got resources" more than tooling around in a vehicle.... something that would be trivial to disable or could break down thus stranding you 100s of miles from your base of operations.

I get the feeling that you think a ZA would be a kind and gentle apocalypse.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

BlueMerle said:


> First, of course I pulled that 0.005% out of my ass, just like you pulled the 30% figure out of your ass. 5000 homes spread out across an entire country, hell even one state does not make for good scavenging. Only a fool would head back into the suburbs to scavenge.
> 
> Second, now you're pulling gas out of your ass. You're not going to be able to use anything with an internal combustion engine within a few months of the outbreak... that part of the show is pure fiction. And why would you want to? Nothing announces "I've got resources" more than tooling around in a vehicle.... something that would be trivial to disable or could break down thus stranding you 100s of miles from your base of operations.


False and false.

The 0.005% number you made up is not like the 30% number that I estimated and provided justification for. I explained how 50% or perhaps a bit less of the households would likely not have people in them when the outbreak hit (if it was sudden). You made up an absurd number.

And of course you can find vehicles with working engines and find gasoline. It is a myth that gasoline will be unusable (or not to be found) after a few months.


----------



## BlueMerle (Jan 10, 2007)

john4200 said:


> False and false.
> 
> The 0.005% number you made up is not like the 30% number that I estimated and provided justification for. I explained how 50% or perhaps a bit less of the households would likely not have people in them when the outbreak hit (if it was sudden). You made up an absurd number.
> 
> And of course you can find vehicles with working engines and find gasoline. It is a myth that gasoline will be unusable (or not to be found) after a few months.


lol...

Of course my numbers are absurd and yours are perfectly reasonable. lol.

You can explain all you want. You're not going to survive long if you're anywhere near a large enough number of homes to make scavenging ammo a realistic option.

Of course you can find vehicles with working engines and gas..... the problem is going to be finding open road. Unless you're way out in the country.... then you'll find lots of open road but only a few vehicles. See how this works?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

BlueMerle said:


> lol...
> 
> Of course my numbers are absurd and yours are perfectly reasonable. lol.
> 
> ...


the problem with your argument is that I think rural homes are more likely to have ammo, and lots of it. So being out where there are less homes might actually be a plus for ammo scavenging, not a minus.


----------



## BlueMerle (Jan 10, 2007)

Anubys said:


> the problem with your argument is that I think rural homes are more likely to have ammo, and lots of it. So being out where there are less homes might actually be a plus for ammo scavenging, not a minus.


Perhaps. Even if we concede that that is in fact the case, the issue of density still comes into play. Not to mention finding the right caliber ammo.

In a rural area you're going to have a very small number of homes within a one mile radius of your base. It won't take long to search those houses and even if you find the right ammo in one it's still a finite number of rounds. Thus forcing you to go farther and farther to find more ammo, incurring more and greater risk.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to find ammo by scavenging, just that it's going to be much harder and require more risk than some seem to think. It won't be the trivial matter that it's being portrayed to be.

Counting on your ability to scavenge ammo is a losing proposition imo.

Conserving your ammo by not using it on Zs, unless absolutely necessary, and hoping to find more is your best bet imo.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

How much of a hot zone are the Bass Pro shops and ammo stores going to be?!?!?!

Could be worth using a ton of ammo to clear that whole area and then beyond load up. That is if others haven't done so already.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> OK, looks like we have to back up and establish some facts on which all these speculations are based. Do you remember when Lizzie's father got bit by a walker and Carol had to kill him? At that time, she promised to take care of Lizzie and Mika as if they were her own. So with that fact as your basis, you then understand that Carol would do anything to help the girls. So accepting a banishment makes no sense because it doesn't allow her to take care of the girls.


This aspect has already been covered (post #179)
Choosing to be there is not at all the same as her having to be there as pmeyers implied when he said "what good is Carol to these kids if she gets exiled? It just doesn't make any logical sense."


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

pmyers said:


> Thanks. She made a "pact" and now has to live up to it. What she did by complacintly being exiled, goes 100% against that pact.


How is returning to the prison despite being exiled being complacent?
Not arguing with Rick about it is not being complacent. If she were being complacent, she wouldn't have returned to the prison.

and your statement is just plain wrong. 
"what good is Carol to these kids if she gets exiled? It just doesn't make any logical sense. "
That's probably why you can't defend it.

It's wrong because she was exiled and yet there she is with the girls. There is no lack of logic. There also wouldn't be a lack of logic if she had accepted being exiled and was never seen from again.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

scandia101 said:


> How is returning to the prison despite being exiled being complacent?
> Not arguing with Rick about it is not being complacent. If she were being complacent, she wouldn't have returned to the prison.
> 
> and your statement is just plain wrong.
> ...


It's pmyers. Thanks

I'm sorry you are the only person that can't figure it out. I really don't know what to say to you so I'll just agree to disagree. Perhaps you and John should debate. It might be fun to watch (although I'll only be able to see your side).


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

john4200 said:


> The reasonable alternative is for Carol to tell a few people in leadership what Lizzie did, explain that Lizzie is troubled (but mostly means well) and Carol is doing everything she can to help her. Carol could say that she will keep an even closer eye on Lizzie, trying to teach her right from wrong, and will be responsible for her in the future. If anyone advocates harsher punishment for Lizzie, Carol would stand up for her and protect her.


This seems like what you would expect someone like Carol to do. There are 2 issues with Lizzie--first she seems to think the zombies are still human in some way. Second is the killing of bunnies just for fun. We don't know if Carol knows about that. She may just think it's about convincing her of the danger of those who are turned. If she really knows how crazy Lizzie is, I wouldn't think she would want to leave her there with little supervision for the sake of her sister and the others. After all, her promise to their Dad was to protect both girls.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

MikeMar said:


> How much of a hot zone are the Bass Pro shops and ammo stores going to be?!?!?!
> 
> Could be worth using a ton of ammo to clear that whole area and then beyond load up. That is if others haven't done so already.


I think we can safely assume that these types of stores were cleaned out within the the first few days or a week after the outbreak. No chance there's anything of value left there now.



scandia101 said:


> How is returning to the prison despite being exiled being complacent?
> Not arguing with Rick about it is not being complacent. If she were being complacent, she wouldn't have returned to the prison.
> 
> and your statement is just plain wrong.
> ...


You keep trying to claim that there's something wrong with the line:


> "what good is Carol to these kids if she gets exiled? It just doesn't make any logical sense."


yet you don't articulate any specific reason why anything there is wrong.

So I'll try one last time. Carol swore to protect the girls. She can't do that if they're in the prison and she's banished on the outside. Thus "what good is Carol to these kids if she gets exiled?"

As for the rest of the quote, "It just doesn't make any logical sense," that follows pretty clearly from the previous sentence. If Carol has sworn to protect the girls, and lies to Rick about who killed those people in order to protect Lizzie, that makes sense. But when that lie then led to her being banished from the prison, and she just accepts it and doesn't speak up, thus separating herself from Lizzie and Mika for an indefinite period of time, that doesn't make any sense.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Did she really accept her exile? She ended up coming back to the prison.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

BlueMerle said:


> You can explain all you want. You're not going to survive long if you're anywhere near a large enough number of homes to make scavenging ammo a realistic option.
> 
> Of course you can find vehicles with working engines and gas..... the problem is going to be finding open road. Unless you're way out in the country.... then you'll find lots of open road but only a few vehicles. See how this works?


You might not survive long, but I would be fine. Whenever my group settled down for a while, I would make sure it was in a relatively safe area but within scavenging distance (i.e., within a few days travel) of an area that would have needed supplies (food, ammo, gas, etc.). A team would be sent out to scavenge every few weeks, or as needed.

"Open road" is obviously not a serious problem. My team would be equipped with 4 wheel drive vehicles that are capable of going off-road, and I would stick to the surface roads unless the freeway was relatively open (i.e., no barriers or choke points preventing going off-road to avoid stopped vehicles). I'd probably also have a couple of scouts on motorcycles (modern ones that are relatively quiet). If necessary it should be possible to travel 500 miles (each way), scavenge for a day or two, and be back in less than a week. But in most cases the base camp would be much closer than 500 miles to an area with good scavenging.


----------



## BlueMerle (Jan 10, 2007)

ok


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

john4200 said:


> You might not survive long, but I would be fine. Whenever my group settled down for a while, I would make sure it was in a relatively safe area but within scavenging distance (i.e., within a few days travel) of an area that would have needed supplies (food, ammo, gas, etc.). A team would be sent out to scavenge every few weeks, or as needed.
> 
> "Open road" is obviously not a serious problem. My team would be equipped with 4 wheel drive vehicles that are capable of going off-road, and I would stick to the surface roads unless the freeway was relatively open (i.e., no barriers or choke points preventing going off-road to avoid stopped vehicles). I'd probably also have a couple of scouts on motorcycles (modern ones that are relatively quiet). If necessary it should be possible to travel 500 miles (each way), scavenge for a day or two, and be back in less than a week. But in most cases the base camp would be much closer than 500 miles to an area with good scavenging.


Assuming another militant like group doesn't come in clean you out.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

zalusky said:


> Assuming another militant like group doesn't come in clean you out.


I thought it went without saying that the scavenging team would be heavily armed and know how to protect themselves.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Survival past the first few months should be extremely easy...the U.S. is a really big place. There are many towns that are far away from everything and anything. Hit a small town in West Virginia and you will have all the tools, land, ammo, guns that you need to survive. Almost everyone would die of old age after killing off the zombies of the small town.

They don't do that because that would be one boring show!


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

One thing to remember... nobody but the audience, and Ricks crew got the information from CDC that we all carry it and that anybody who dies will turn, regardless of how they died. Most people may still think that the only way to turn is to be bitten. If so, they may not take sufficient precautions with those who die from other causes, and so they'll have repeated outbreaks.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Ereth said:


> One thing to remember... nobody but the audience, and Ricks crew got the information from CDC that we all carry it and that anybody who dies will turn, regardless of how they died. Most people may still think that the only way to turn is to be bitten. If so, they may not take sufficient precautions with those who die from other causes, and so they'll have repeated outbreaks.


All it takes is one or two people dying and turning in a situation where it is obvious they were not bitten for people to figure out the mechanism.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

john4200 said:


> All it takes is one or two people dying and turning in a situation where it is obvious they were not bitten for people to figure out the mechanism.


Yeah, that ship has no doubt sailed for most people.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> You keep trying to claim that there's something wrong with the line:
> 
> yet you don't articulate any specific reason why anything there is wrong.


I did explain it right in the post you quoted. Pmeyers saying that it makes no logical sense is wrong because there is no lack of logic to Carol being exiled.



> So I'll try one last time. Carol swore to protect the girls. She can't do that if they're in the prison and she's banished on the outside. Thus "what good is Carol to these kids if she gets exiled?"
> 
> As for the rest of the quote, "It just doesn't make any logical sense," that follows pretty clearly from the previous sentence. If Carol has sworn to protect the girls, and lies to Rick about who killed those people in order to protect Lizzie, that makes sense. But when that lie then led to her being banished from the prison, and she just accepts it and doesn't speak up, thus separating herself from Lizzie and Mika for an indefinite period of time, that doesn't make any sense.


Why do you insist on repeatedly explaining why Carol chooses to take care of the girls (which has never been in question) rather than explain why her absence due to the choices/actions of others would not be logical?


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

pmyers said:


> It's pmyers. Thanks
> 
> I'm sorry you are the only person that can't figure it out. I really don't know what to say to you so I'll just agree to disagree. Perhaps you and John should debate. It might be fun to watch (although I'll only be able to see your side).


I think I'm the only one that does understand your statement. You obviously don't because you can't even explain or defend it and so far, neither can anyone else.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> I did explain it right in the post you quoted. Pmeyers saying that it makes no logical sense is wrong because there is no lack of logic to Carol being exiled.
> 
> Why do you insist on repeatedly explaining why Carol chooses to take care of the girls (which has never been in question) rather than explain why her absence due to the choices/actions of others would not be logical?


Sigh. Really? Nobody is questioning whether Rick's decision to exile Carol makes logical sense. That's not at issue here. Of course it makes sense.

What we are all discussing (and which you apparently haven't grasped), is whether it makes logical sense for Carol to accept Rick's banishment if she wasn't actually the one that killed those two people, and instead lied about this to protect Lizzie. At that point, her sworn oath to protect Lizzie has hit a major snag, as Carol now will no longer be allowed close to Lizzie to protect her. So it wouldn't make logical sense for her to stick by her story that that she (Carol) killed the two people, if she only did so in order to protect Lizzie, and now that lie has backfired making it impossible for her to protect Lizzie.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> Sigh. Really? Nobody is questioning whether Rick's decision to exile Carol makes logical sense. That's not at issue here. Of course it makes sense.


There's your mistake because that is exactly what this is about.
The discussion is about whether or not being exiled was logical, it is not about her reaction to it. Although you keep trying to twist it around that way.
Pmyers statement says nothing about Carol accepting or not accepting being exiled. 


> what good is Carol to these kids if she gets exiled? It just doesn't make any logical sense.


Where does that even remotely imply anything about Carol's choices?



> What we are all discussing (and which you apparently haven't grasped), is whether it makes logical sense for Carol to accept Rick's banishment if she wasn't actually the one that killed those two people, and instead lied about this to protect Lizzie. At that point, her sworn oath to protect Lizzie has hit a major snag, as Carol now will no longer be allowed close to Lizzie to protect her. So it wouldn't make logical sense for her to stick by her story that that she (Carol) killed the two people, if she only did so in order to protect Lizzie, and now that lie has backfired making it impossible for her to protect Lizzie.


Why is it that everytime I say that Carol's choices are not being questioned, your response is to explain Carol's choices? Exactly how many more times will I have to tell you that Carol's choices are not being questioned?

The statement does not say "if Carol accepts being exiled" it says "if Carol gets exiled." Those are very different things. Being exiled isn't Carols choice, it's a choice made by someone else, it's beyond her control. Her choosing to accept it or not is not relevant to the fact that she had been exiled.

and the most ridiculous thing about the statement is that he made the statement about "if she gets exiled" after she had already been exiled so there is no "if" about it. It happened. Not only did it happen, there was nothing illogical about it or the choices Carol made regarding it.

My initial question in regards to the statement was:
"Why is Carol required to be of benefit to the kids?"
Because the statement implies that she has to be there for the kids. She does not. She chooses it. The only thing being exiled did in regard to Carol, is that it gave her a different set of options to choose from which is not illogical.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> What we are all discussing (and which you apparently haven't grasped), is whether it makes logical sense for Carol to accept Rick's banishment if she wasn't actually the one that killed those two people, and instead lied about this to protect Lizzie.


Furthermore, one could assume that had Lizzie done it, and had she been punished by Rick and friends, that her punishment would have been something less than banishment. She's just a kid. Carol, being an adult, receives a much more severe punishment.

I don't doubt that Tyreese would have killed Carol, had he known and had she returned. I doubt he would have physically harmed Lizzie.

The whole 'Carol lied to protect Lizzie' motivation makes little sense to me. Regardless, it's just a television show, so anything is possible.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

scandia101, at least now I understand why we're having this miscommunication. You are talking about something completely different than the rest of us, and expecting way too much precision in language.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

While I don't think Lizzy killed the 2 people, it's certainly plausible. It's also very plausible that Carol found out and then helped her burn the bodies (or did the burning by herself).

She covers up for Lizzy with Rick and is surprised to get exiled. Telling the truth at that point would seem pathetic. Rick wouldn't believe her. And if he did, that would put Lizzy in even more danger. Would Rick exile Lizzy? Carol can do nothing but go along with Rick's plan at that point.

She then doubles back as soon as she can to get Lizzy and her sister.

It's not far-fetched. Everything that happened can easily fit that narrative.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> scandia101, at least now I understand why we're having this miscommunication. You are talking about something completely different than the rest of us, and expecting way too much precision in language.


You're right, I am talking about something completely different. I'm talking about pmeyers' statement and everyone else, including pmyers, is talking about what jstkidn misinterpreted my question to be. Everyone just ran with that because what Jstkidn said was true. Nobody bothered to take into account that while that response was true, it wasn't relevant to my question - even after repeatedly being told so.

I'm not expecting precision of language. I just expect a working knowledge of what you're talking about. Do you expect any different? But I'll give you credit for coming up with a new self-serving deflective excuse for being so far off the mark.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> You're right, I am talking about something completely different. I'm talking about pmeyers' statement and everyone else, including pmyers, is talking about what jstkidn misinterpreted my question to be. Everyone just ran with that because what Jstkidn said was true. Nobody bothered to take into account that while that response was true, it wasn't relevant to my question - even after repeatedly being told so.
> 
> I'm not expecting precision of language. I just expect a working knowledge of what you're talking about. Do you expect any different? But I'll give you credit for coming up with a new self-serving deflective excuse for being so far off the mark.


Now I feel like you're just trolling for fun.

We're all talking about one thing: whether Carol lied to protect Lizzie, and if so, whether it makes sense for her to accept Rick's banishment. You seem to be the only one talking about something completely different, but inserting your out-of-left-field comments as replies to our discussion, which makes it seem as if you're trying to discuss the same thing the rest of us are.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Anubys said:


> She covers up for Lizzy with Rick and is surprised to get exiled. Telling the truth at that point would seem pathetic. Rick wouldn't believe her. And if he did, that would put Lizzy in even more danger. Would Rick exile Lizzy? Carol can do nothing but go along with Rick's plan at that point.


That is where your narrative goes wrong. It is indeed hard to believe that Carol would not tell the truth at that point. It is quite likely that Rick would believe Carol, especially if they asked Lizzie if she killed the people (whatever she replied, the way she said it would likely give her away). If Rick believed that Lizzie did it, but Carol stood up for Lizzie and promised to watch her carefully, that would certainly not put Lizzie in "even more danger" than if Carol were exiled. Rick would certainly not exile a child. Not a chance.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yay! New episode tonight! New thread tonight!

YAY!!


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yay! New episode tonight! New thread tonight!


The new thread will probably be about Carol and Lizzie.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I wonder if Rick would have let Carol take the girls with her when she left if she had asked him. They were basically given to her by their Dad. I doubt if the writers gave this nearly as much thought as we did.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

stellie93 said:


> I doubt if the writers gave this nearly as much thought as we did.


Truth!!


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Now I feel like you're just trolling for fun.


I think he just earned a spot to join a couple others on The List.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Now I feel like you're just trolling for fun.
> 
> We're all talking about one thing: whether Carol lied to protect Lizzie, and if so, whether it makes sense for her to accept Rick's banishment. You seem to be the only one talking about something completely different, but inserting your out-of-left-field comments as replies to our discussion, which makes it seem as if you're trying to discuss the same thing the rest of us are.


I think John4200 has multiplied. Now I have 2 people on ignore.


----------



## tonestert (Nov 15, 2007)

I can not believe how stupid Tyreese was to leave 2 little girls and a baby alone in the woods with walkers around. If not for Carol showing up all three would have ended up eaten or turned. Imagine a baby walker


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

john4200 said:


> That is where your narrative goes wrong. It is indeed hard to believe that Carol would not tell the truth at that point. It is quite likely that Rick would believe Carol, especially if they asked Lizzie if she killed the people (whatever she replied, the way she said it would likely give her away). If Rick believed that Lizzie did it, but Carol stood up for Lizzie and promised to watch her carefully, that would certainly not put Lizzie in "even more danger" than if Carol were exiled. Rick would certainly not exile a child. Not a chance.


Wrong? how can my narrative be "wrong"? it is plausible and that is all that matters. You may disagree with how the writers hypothetically would have done or wanted to do. You may want them to do things differently. Things may very well be very different, this is - after all - a theory. It's a hypothetical spot where you can make any person do any number of things depending on the writer's whim. So it's impossible for you to say that my plausible scenario is wrong!

Yet, you did call it "wrong". Amazing.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Anubys said:


> Yet, you did call it "wrong". Amazing.


Just let him have the last word. He's like a walker, won't stop until he gets it.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

tonestert said:


> ... Imagine a baby walker


Babies don't walk.....not until their toddlers....


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Anubys said:


> Wrong? how can my narrative be "wrong"? it is plausible and that is all that matters.


Wrong. Implausible. Amazing that you cannot understand that, when I already explained why it does not work.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

john4200 said:


> Wrong. Implausible. Amazing that you cannot understand that, when I already explained why it does not work.


Ah, I see the problem. So let me explain it to you in simple words that even you might understand.

You did not explain to me why it does not work. You proposed a different narrative on how things might go differently. Your narrative is perfectly plausible. Just as plausible as my narrative, in fact.

It does not make your narrative "right". Different? absolutely. You think yours is more likely? good for you.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Anubys said:


> You did not explain to me why it does not work. You proposed a different narrative on how things might go differently. Your narrative is perfectly plausible. Just as plausible as my narrative, in fact.


Wrong, and wrong. I did indeed explain why your "narrative" is not at all plausible.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

john4200 said:


> Wrong, and wrong. I did indeed explain why your "narrative" is not at all plausible.


Did not.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Now, boys....


----------



## Timbeau (May 31, 2002)

john4200 said:


> That is where your narrative goes wrong. It is indeed hard to believe that Carol would not tell the truth at that point. It is quite likely that Rick would believe Carol, especially if they asked Lizzie if she killed the people (whatever she replied, the way she said it would likely give her away). If Rick believed that Lizzie did it, but Carol stood up for Lizzie and promised to watch her carefully, that would certainly not put Lizzie in "even more danger" than if Carol were exiled. Rick would certainly not exile a child. Not a chance.


You're basing this on an incorrect analysis of the environment. In Real World, Carol would know that a child would be in no danger of being exiled, but in Walking Dead World, people act differently. They make decisions based on the worst possible scenario happening and seem to have no automatic mechanism to know when their thoughts make no sense. In Real World Carol might have thought, "I can't tell Rick about Lizzie because he'll exile her". Then in a microsecond she would have thought, "No, that's silly, no one would exile a child, we protect and teach our children". In Walking Dead World, Carol thinks "I can't tell Rick about Lizzie because he'll exile her" and in the next instant decides to accept exile.



Anubys said:


> While I don't think Lizzy killed the 2 people, it's certainly plausible. It's also very plausible that Carol found out and then helped her burn the bodies (or did the burning by herself).
> 
> She covers up for Lizzy with Rick and is surprised to get exiled. Telling the truth at that point would seem pathetic. Rick wouldn't believe her. And if he did, that would put Lizzy in even more danger. Would Rick exile Lizzy? Carol can do nothing but go along with Rick's plan at that point.


That makes perfect sense to me. :up:


----------



## timr_42 (Oct 14, 2001)

Anubys said:


> While I don't think Lizzy killed the 2 people, it's certainly plausible. It's also very plausible that Carol found out and then helped her burn the bodies (or did the burning by herself).
> 
> She covers up for Lizzy with Rick and is surprised to get exiled. Telling the truth at that point would seem pathetic. Rick wouldn't believe her. And if he did, that would put Lizzy in even more danger. Would Rick exile Lizzy? Carol can do nothing but go along with Rick's plan at that point.
> 
> ...


I kinda agree with you. I do think Lizzie killed them. After Rick exiled Carol, there couldn't have been too many days in there. She left and I think she had worked a plan to come get the girls. The Gov's attack messed that up and she started following the girls to get them. That is the only reason I think she would have met up with them, if she had almost been watching the girls since her exile.


----------

