To me, it didn't really seem to add up right. I guess it comes down to the fact that Angel thought that he knew that Lindsey wouldn't be on the side of good for very long following what went down.
Me neither. I had a few thoughts, but am still not sure which one I'm going to settle on. First off, in the grand scheme of things, Lindsey is just a little fish - even if he were to go for the double-cross later - and Angel knows this. Why waste the time (not to mention a trusted friend's already fragile emotions) to dispose of him once he'd done his part? It seemed very cold of Angel to plan, and really not all that necessary in my eyes. (At least not now, when there are other things to worry about.)
Then again, Lindsey's last words insisted that Angel was supposed to be the one who finally kills him (rather than Lorne, the supposed "flunky"). With those words (a dying man's Freudian slip?), perhaps he was revealing his own plan to turn on Angel later. Otherwise, why would he see (or admit to) Angel needing to kill him?
no subject
Me neither. I had a few thoughts, but am still not sure which one I'm going to settle on. First off, in the grand scheme of things, Lindsey is just a little fish - even if he were to go for the double-cross later - and Angel knows this. Why waste the time (not to mention a trusted friend's already fragile emotions) to dispose of him once he'd done his part? It seemed very cold of Angel to plan, and really not all that necessary in my eyes. (At least not now, when there are other things to worry about.)
Then again, Lindsey's last words insisted that Angel was supposed to be the one who finally kills him (rather than Lorne, the supposed "flunky"). With those words (a dying man's Freudian slip?), perhaps he was revealing his own plan to turn on Angel later. Otherwise, why would he see (or admit to) Angel needing to kill him?
*sigh* So many theories! *VBG*