"Congratulations on your first post and thanks for sharing your opinions! You picked a good thread to start with.

I see what you're saying, that teaching John Henry the value of all life is a way of teaching him to value his own existance. But I think the problem is that he values his existance too greatly right now. He doesn't understand that his actions affect others. Killing the psychologist was just a side effect of protecting himself. He didn't understand that hurting others is wrong. I think Cameron is farther along in this respect than John Henry right now. While she'll still beat up people who interfere with her mission, at least if she was mistaken, she flips them over so they can crawl away. :)"

"Right now, that would actually be a piece of evidence against John Henry becoming Skynet. According to T2, Skynet decided to wipe out humanity because humans tried to kill it when it became self aware, which shows that Skynet did value its own existence. Or it just has to learn to value its own existence first, in which case this is a moot point."

"I agree that the evidence seems to support that, that Weaver is on our side and is good. I just find it hard to believe that the T-1000 would not be an adversary! C'mon, no showdown with Cameron? And whats with all the gratuitous killing if Weaver isn't evil?

Its why she is such a mystery. Being good, or being evil, just doesn't seem to fit entirely.

"

"Wow, so you already decided she is working against Skynet!

I'm just holding off on her right now, I need more info. She is weird."

"To me the theory is a hope for a neat way to resolve the series (in a few years). I agree there is no solid evidence but a lot to speculate on.

Which brings me to another point that will be glady hidden 5 pages deep in a more adult thread. These discussions have been real interesting in displaying practical epistemology (–noun a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge). Some of the arguments/discussions went nowhere. In other cases opponents have agreed to settle on "dialogue" plus "interviews" as the only reliable basis. There can be interpretations but stretched speculation is called out. This is parallel to bible studies allowing only stripture as authority. It's interesting to see the common denominator of a specific canon of recorded information as authoritive.

But this is a TV show. I think that dialogue and interviews can dependably be supplemented by facial expressions, body language and the cameraman's emphasis. I think they are all vlid for interpreting the intent of the show."

"OK. after seeing all levels of discussion on these boards I would like to bring up how we know "something for sure" about the show.

It is obvious we can depend on the straight dialogue and what the acots and directors and writers say outside the show. But there are other powerful and I believe authoritative things in the show. They are not black and white and they affect different people in different ways.

I see people are still arguing about Riley not being from the future. We saw her taken from the future by Jesse for her scheme. This is beyond dialogue. This is the power of the camera.

A few episodes ago we say Riley go off on her foster parents about JD. This was not a kid influenced by a clever teacher. This was someone who saw it all! It was in her voice. It was in her eyes. I was in her frantic body language. This was ALL FROM THE DIRECTOR! It amazes me that anyone could doubt she was from the future after this intense display. I was 100% convinced then that Riley is from the future. I was 90% convinced when she made the "mirrors in this world" comment.

My wife was convinced Riley was from the future in the first Riley episode. Riley knew John Conners cat thing. Riley mentioned "scratching post". Riley drew him a "spooky robot". What is the likelihood of that in an early boyfriend conversation? Riley was already fishing for clues about Cameron.

That's one example of the writers and director giving us clues that are later fleshed out and revealed. There are so many "open issues" in the series but the writers & directors have been dependably feeding us straight stuff and not just fluff.



"

"OK. after seeing all levels of discussion on these boards I would like to bring up how we know "something for sure" about the show.

It is obvious we can depend on the straight dialogue and what the acots and directors and writers say outside the show. But there are other powerful and I believe authoritative things in the show. They are not black and white and they affect different people in different ways.

That's one example of the writers and director giving us clues that are later fleshed out and revealed. There are so many "open issues" in the series but the writers & directors have been dependably feeding us straight stuff and not just fluff.
"

"I think I might have to find a new place to discuss Terminator. I want to discuss deep philosophical implications of the storyline, but this clearly isn't the place to do it. "

"It seems that each show is getting further away from the fact that we were led to believe from T1. Kyle was sent back and then the time displacement equipment was destroyed so no one could follow. This is kind of like the "Exceeding warp nine in Star Trek"


Some days I am so confussed!"