History Headscratchers / NCIS

14th Jan '16 10:49:11 PM laserviking42
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
**** This mischaracterizes what abuse and harassment actually are. They are ''unwanted'' advances, and completely independent of what the giver 'intended'. If I were to slap an employee, it would matter fuck all what my 'intentions'. Telling the victim to take it as a compliment, is highly demeaning, because you're telling them they have no say in how they are treated. In several episodes the characters tell DiNozzo and Gibbs that they do not appreciate that, yet its still portrayed as some loving gesture.
14th Jan '16 10:41:44 PM laserviking42
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
** Gibbs has been shown to not really care about what he does. At a few points Gibbs is praying for a crime (i.e. ''someone to die'') in order to get out of going to sexual harassment training.

Added DiffLines:
** His harassment of McGee is also really bad, as he breaks into him computer to read anything that might be embarassing, at one point forces himself into his home to check things out and generally be a dick. As a man, I've worked with the types who want to insert themselves in the middle of my private life to learn who I am or am not sleeping with and all the details, and since this is supposed to be a crack investigation team there is no way that behavior promotes anything near cooperation.
16th Dec '15 11:35:22 AM Morbuss
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
** In later seasons Palmer has been shown to perform autopsies himself, its just a matter of seniority between him and Ducky.
10th Dec '15 4:15:52 PM SSJMagus
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
** A bigger issue in that episode was that they ask the British suspect (before discovering his true identity) if he owns a Webley revolver (one was the murder weapon in the case) and he says it's in his London town house. Private ownership of handguns is illegal in Britain, even for an [=MI6=] agent.
11th Nov '15 3:35:52 PM SSJMagus
Is there an issue? Send a Message
**** Abby wanted to take the dog, but her apartment doesn't allow pets. That's the whole reason she had [=McGee=] take Jethro instead.
to:
**** Abby wanted to take the dog, but her apartment doesn't allow pets. That's why she was crying at the end of the episode, and that's the whole reason she had [=McGee=] take Jethro instead.instead. And given that we've later seen a picture of Jethro with [=McGee=] on his computer, it presumably worked out well enough.
1st Oct '15 10:46:22 PM SSJMagus
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
**** Abby wanted to take the dog, but her apartment doesn't allow pets. That's the whole reason she had [=McGee=] take Jethro instead.
6th Sep '15 9:40:01 AM Julia1984
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
** Tony's unsanctioned interview and the guy's fatal heart attack did not happen in the same scene or, apparently, within a very close time frame. There's no indication in the episode that Tony questioning him and the man's death were connected.
26th Aug '15 2:21:19 PM Julia1984
Is there an issue? Send a Message
** #1 seems to be what the writers had in mind... except fingerprints don't work like that. Whorls, arches, and loops aren't the components of a single print; they're the 3 major different types of prints. Before the Computer Age, prints were classified as consisting of whorls, arches, or loops to narrow down the pool of possible matches you would need to compare a print to. Naturally, there were more specific levels below those 3 major categories and a numbering system depending on which finger of the hand consisted of what type of print. Abby's wording makes no sense, especially for a forensic scientist -- since they start with one big pile, it ''does'' sound like she's telling them to look at specific components common to all the prints, not look at different prints based on their type. If they knew from the beginning what types of prints they were looking at, even with the computers down, they would have ''started'' with 3 piles, and Abby would have assigned them each a pile of whorls, arches, or loops to look at, not an empty bin. If, with the computers down, they had no way of knowing that from the start, then they would have used the bins to divide them up as they determined whether the prints were whorls, arches, or loops... but that's a job you can't divide by person at that stage. Was Abby saying, "[=DiNozzo=], as you examine prints, it you find one that consists of whorls, throw it in the bin for whorls; if not, don't throw it in its designated bin, just leave it on the pile for someone else to examine again. David, if you find one that consists of arches, throw it in the bin; if not, leave it for someone else to examine again..."? No, you'd just say, "Whorls go in this bin, arches in this one, loops in this one." Anybody with a deeper knowledge of forensic technology understand know what "[=DiNozzo=], you're whorls. David, arches. [=McGee=], loops" could have meant that makes sense given the one big general pile and 3 empty bins they start with?
to:
** #1 seems to be what the writers had in mind... except fingerprints don't work like that. Whorls, arches, and loops aren't the components of a single print; they're the 3 major different types of prints. Before the Computer Age, prints were classified as consisting of whorls, arches, or loops to narrow down the pool of possible matches you would need to compare a print to. Naturally, there were more specific levels below those 3 major categories and a numbering system depending on which finger of the hand consisted of what type of print. Abby's wording makes no sense, especially for a forensic scientist -- since they start with one big pile, it ''does'' sound like she's telling them to look at specific components common to all the prints, not look at different prints based on their type. If they knew from the beginning what types of prints they were looking at, even with the computers down, they would have ''started'' with 3 piles, and Abby would have assigned them each a pile of whorls, arches, or loops to look at, not an empty bin. If, with the computers down, they had no way of knowing that from the start, then they would have used the bins to divide them up as they determined whether the prints were whorls, arches, or loops... but that's a job you can't divide by person at that stage. Was Abby saying, "[=DiNozzo=], as you examine prints, it you find one that consists of whorls, throw it in the bin for whorls; if not, don't throw it in its designated bin, just leave it on the pile for someone else to examine again. David, if you find one that consists of arches, throw it in the bin; if not, leave it for someone else to examine again..."? No, you'd just say, "Whorls go in this bin, arches in this one, loops in this one." Anybody with a deeper knowledge of forensic technology understand know what "[=DiNozzo=], you're whorls. David, arches. [=McGee=], loops" could have meant that makes sense given the one big general pile and 3 empty bins they start with?
26th Aug '15 2:20:21 PM Julia1984
Is there an issue? Send a Message
** #1 seems to be what the writers had in mind... except fingerprints don't work like that. Whorls, arches, and loops aren't the components of a single print; they're the 3 major different types of prints. Before the Computer Age, prints were classified as consisting of whorls, arches, or loops to narrow down the pool of possible matches you would need to compare a print to. Naturally, there were more specific levels below those 3 major categories and a numbering system depending on which finger of the hand consisted of what type of print. Abby's wording makes no sense, especially for a forensic scientist -- since they start with one big pile, it ''does'' sound like she's telling them to look at specific components common to all the prints, not look at different prints based on their type. If from the beginning what types of prints they were looking at, even with the computers down, they would have ''started'' with 3 piles, and Abby would have assigned them each a pile of whorls, arches, or loops to look at, not an empty bin. If, with the computers down, they had no way of knowing that from the start, then they would have used the bins to divide them up as they determined whether the prints were whorls, arches, or loops... but that's a job you can't divide by person at that stage. Was Abby saying, "[=DiNozzo=], as you examine prints, it you find one that consists of whorls, throw it in the bin for whorls; if not, don't throw it in its designated bin, just leave it on the pile for someone else to examine again. David, if you find one that consists of arches, throw it in the bin; if not, leave it for someone else to examine again..."? No, you'd just say, "Whorls go in this bin, arches in this one, loops in this one." Anybody with a deeper knowledge of forensic technology understand know what "[=DiNozzo=], you're whorls. David, arches. [=McGee=], loops" could have meant that makes sense given the one big general pile and 3 empty bins they start with?
to:
** #1 seems to be what the writers had in mind... except fingerprints don't work like that. Whorls, arches, and loops aren't the components of a single print; they're the 3 major different types of prints. Before the Computer Age, prints were classified as consisting of whorls, arches, or loops to narrow down the pool of possible matches you would need to compare a print to. Naturally, there were more specific levels below those 3 major categories and a numbering system depending on which finger of the hand consisted of what type of print. Abby's wording makes no sense, especially for a forensic scientist -- since they start with one big pile, it ''does'' sound like she's telling them to look at specific components common to all the prints, not look at different prints based on their type. If they knew from the beginning what types of prints they were looking at, even with the computers down, they would have ''started'' with 3 piles, and Abby would have assigned them each a pile of whorls, arches, or loops to look at, not an empty bin. If, with the computers down, they had no way of knowing that from the start, then they would have used the bins to divide them up as they determined whether the prints were whorls, arches, or loops... but that's a job you can't divide by person at that stage. Was Abby saying, "[=DiNozzo=], as you examine prints, it you find one that consists of whorls, throw it in the bin for whorls; if not, don't throw it in its designated bin, just leave it on the pile for someone else to examine again. David, if you find one that consists of arches, throw it in the bin; if not, leave it for someone else to examine again..."? No, you'd just say, "Whorls go in this bin, arches in this one, loops in this one." Anybody with a deeper knowledge of forensic technology understand know what "[=DiNozzo=], you're whorls. David, arches. [=McGee=], loops" could have meant that makes sense given the one big general pile and 3 empty bins they start with?
26th Aug '15 2:19:28 PM Julia1984
Is there an issue? Send a Message
** #1 seems to be what the writers had in mind... except fingerprints don't work like that. Whorls, arches, and loops aren't the components of a single print; they're the 3 major different types of prints. Before the Computer Age, prints were classified as consisting of whorls, arches, or loops to narrow down the pool of possible matches you would need to compare a print to. I know nothing about how fingerprint-matching has changed due to forensic technology -- are prints still classified that way? Abby's words suggest, yes, but her ''wording'' makes no sense -- since they start with one big pile, it ''does'' sound like she's telling them to look for specific components of all the prints, not look at different prints based on their type. What would have made sense would be if she said that fingerprints from the pile consisting of whorls go in one bin, arches in another, etc., but you couldn't assign that based on person.
to:
** #1 seems to be what the writers had in mind... except fingerprints don't work like that. Whorls, arches, and loops aren't the components of a single print; they're the 3 major different types of prints. Before the Computer Age, prints were classified as consisting of whorls, arches, or loops to narrow down the pool of possible matches you would need to compare a print to. I know nothing about how fingerprint-matching has changed due to Naturally, there were more specific levels below those 3 major categories and a numbering system depending on which finger of the hand consisted of what type of print. Abby's wording makes no sense, especially for a forensic technology -- are prints still classified that way? Abby's words suggest, yes, but her ''wording'' makes no sense scientist -- since they start with one big pile, it ''does'' sound like she's telling them to look for at specific components of common to all the prints, not look at different prints based on their type. What If from the beginning what types of prints they were looking at, even with the computers down, they would have made sense ''started'' with 3 piles, and Abby would be if she said have assigned them each a pile of whorls, arches, or loops to look at, not an empty bin. If, with the computers down, they had no way of knowing that fingerprints from the start, then they would have used the bins to divide them up as they determined whether the prints were whorls, arches, or loops... but that's a job you can't divide by person at that stage. Was Abby saying, "[=DiNozzo=], as you examine prints, it you find one that consists of whorls, throw it in the bin for whorls; if not, don't throw it in its designated bin, just leave it on the pile consisting for someone else to examine again. David, if you find one that consists of whorls arches, throw it in the bin; if not, leave it for someone else to examine again..."? No, you'd just say, "Whorls go in one this bin, arches in another, etc., but you couldn't assign this one, loops in this one." Anybody with a deeper knowledge of forensic technology understand know what "[=DiNozzo=], you're whorls. David, arches. [=McGee=], loops" could have meant that based on person.makes sense given the one big general pile and 3 empty bins they start with?
This list shows the last 10 events of 131. Show all.