imsorryandthankyou

I really just have to summarize Thomas's entire life:

He was in a committed relationship with a male swan named Henry for 18-24 years before a female swan named Henrietta showed up and mated with Henry.

Thomas was initially jealous of the pair and attacked them, breaking 2 of the 5 eggs Henrietta had laid. However, once the remaining eggs hatched, Thomas warmed up to them and helped raise them.

Henry couldn't fly because of an injured wing, so Thomas taught the cygnets how to fly.

When they needed to reduce the goose population in the pond where Thomas and the swans lived, they dyed Thomas's feathers red so he wouldn't be separated from Henry.

Henry, Henrietta, and Thomas remained in their happy throuple for years and raised 68 cygnets before Henry died in 2009. After Henry's death, Henrietta found another swan and flew away, leaving Thomas alone.

Thomas finally met and mated with a female goose in 2011 and had his own babies. However, another goose named George stole them and raised them himself.

As Thomas grew elderly and blind, he was relocated to a wildlife center where he raised orphaned cygnets.

His caretaker at the center described him as "pretty high maintenance."

Thomas died in 2018 at the age of around 40. He had a funeral that included a small coffin and a procession that was led by a bagpiper. He was buried under the stone where Henry was buried, the two finally reunited in death.

Someone on reddit asked about it. And it turns out there’s a logical-ish reason:

all of the other players pair off with their man to prevent anyone else entering into the fight … so it’s a form of self policing. 

[…] The players basically want to prevent 2 on 1, etc. fights and by finding a “hugging” partner so there’s no ganging up on one guy, even on accident. They do it because it’s fair. And it’s kind of cute sometimes.

the step frank is on—step 9—has been called his ‘apology tour,’ but that fundamentally misconstrues the purpose of this stage: in recovery, there is a huge distinction between an apology and making amends—the latter being the proper language of step 9. an apology is often just words; an amend is ownership of past harm, a willingness to repair, and, most importantly, respect for the other person’s readiness.

step 9 even includes an 'except' clause: you don't clear your conscience at the expense of someone else's wellbeing. you can't force someone to forgive you, nor can you force them to listen. this clause is the ultimate safety valve of the program.

in the rooftop scene, frank is seeking absolution, but the steps ask for restitution. by effectively cornering robby—who has been sidestepping him all day—frank is prioritizing his own relief over robby’s comfort. even sober, the pattern lingers: the impulse to shape the situation until it produces emotional relief. almost like he wants the ‘high’ of being forgiven—or at least to be acknowledged by robby, more than he has been this shift so far.

real amends require consent. if the other person isn’t ready, the ‘amend’ is to respect that boundary—even if that means distance or silence—not to force a confrontation. apologizing while they were on that roof—trapped by the arrival of a patient—turns accountability into pressure. robby physically couldn’t rush off, making the moment all about frank, negating the very purpose of an amend: to return agency to the person harmed, to center their needs. if frank were truly focused on making amends to the ER—to robby—he would realize the best way to 'make right' his past is to stay sober, focused, and dependable—letting his actions speak louder than his words, especially when robby has already turned his words away several times this shift. instead, he added to the emotional pressure, forcing robby to react on frank’s timeline rather than his own, and making the act of accountability feel like an ambush rather than a meaningful amend.

robby’s response is a perfectly healthy boundary. what frank did is more than a simple apology can fix. as the attending—the chief!—it is literally robby's job to be on top of things; he is in charge of—and responsible for—the residents, their work, and the safety of every patient.

for a man who believes he should be omnipresent and all-seeing, missing frank’s struggle must have felt like a massive personal failure. robby isn't in the mindset to hear frank out because he’s still metabolizing the betrayal. amongst other things! trust isn't something you regain just because you’ve stopped the behavior; it’s something you earn back through consistency. in a job that requires an extraordinary amount of having each other's backs, robby has every right to say that bridge is still down. that it may never fully be rebuilt.

moreover, frank is likely caught in a kind of 'recovery urgency'—the breathless need to make things right as quickly as possible. he's clouded by his own desperation, especially when it comes to someone like robby, who has not only been his mentor, but arguably the person he looked up to the most. that history intensifies the pressure: frank wants recognition, validation, some amount of closure, and he feels a limited window what with robby leaving for sabbatical. in his mind, time is running out to 'fix' things, and that sense of frantic necessity can override judgement, making him push forward even when the other person isn't ready. i don't think frank is being malicious—he's just being impatient, and self-focused—which isn't how the spirit of the steps work. he's so busy trying to feel forgiven, to ease his own conscience in some way, that he's completely disregarding the actual point of the amend: that it belongs to robby, not him. the reality of it is that robby doesn't even owe him a conversation.

step 9 isn’t a negotiation for forgiveness. it’s a statement of fact—(e.g.: 'i endangered our patients, i lied to you, what i did was wrong.')—followed by an acceptance of the consequences. if the consequence is never speaking to that person again, being kept at a professional distance, or accepting that you are no longer 'the favorite,' then that is the amend. the response belongs to robby in this case, not frank.

the only time he's ever looked more in love was when this happened

Steve needed the “it’s okay if your crush doesn’t like you back” arc, not Will.

Mike needed the “you’re braver than you think” arc, not Holly.

Mileven needed the “shared trauma doesn’t mean we’re compatible” breakup, not Jancy.

Byler needed the “I just needed you” resolution, not Lumax.

Either Willel or Elmax needed the “you understand me better than anyone” resolution, not Mileven.

What was the purpose of the scene about queer signals, if Will was never going to receive queer signals? Why was the question concerned with the obviousness of signals, and not the mere presence of them? Why use the term "shared looks" when that was a known call and response on set for Noah and Finn?

What was the meaning of the snowball and avalanche metaphor? Why include that scene at all? Where was the payoff?

You're going to write an entire meta scene on queer signals of attraction, include examples that we have already observed, indicate an eventual pay off... and not let it pay off? Why? To be malicious?

You tell the audience through Will that Mike was just his Tammy this entire time and expect us to believe it? Was Tammy in Robin's video tape? Did Robin know Tammy since she was five? Did Tammy run after her in the rain or recognize her breathing over the radio?