-- Response to John's FDK - Cont.
He has told her a very major part of his past. Still, he needs to tell her lots more.
CLARK: There's no winning here, is there? Do I even get a point for mentioning Lana? Well, not by name, but that really wasn't necessary...
Yep, he really hit her from left field.
Er... no, it was the 800 lbs gorilla.
I am really glad that Lois is keeping focused on her goal.
Lois can be focused when she applies herself.
Clark looked at her and a word formed on his lips,
Was he about to say "you showed up" or mention Superman. Hmm, I wish he had mentioned Superman.
2 points for being close-enough. Actually, the word was "you".
![[Linked Image]](http://cosgan.de/images/midi/froehlich/d025.gif)
Well, yes, her and a new dimension to save, and that new houseplant to water. Oh, shucks, he left that in the other dimension. He'd have to mention it to Wells next time he popped in and tell him to go water it for him. <<ducking>>
Yes, this creates an unanswerable problem.
![[Linked Image]](http://cosgan.de/images/smilie/frech/e015.gif)
Don't worry, answers will come, whether or not they are the correct answers though...
now they both know the other loves them. They just need to figure out what to do about it.
Um... No, Clark knows that Lois WANTS him sexually, but not that she loves him.
Well, he could want to wait until marriage. OK, that would not quite make his agreeing to make love to her when they were at the Metro Club make sense, but it could explain his actions so far, in theory, mostly. Assuming he also thought her last attempts were just a result of being drugged.
Hmmmm. Yes, how will he explain his previous actions?
On the other hand, she is right. There is lots he is not telling her about lots of things.
CLARK: One little thing or two, really.
I think she is using the right tactic by asking amorphous questions. Direct questions would put him on gaurd.
Good thing she's a professional interviewer then.
Anyway, what would he benefit from making up an insanely long engagement. Also, she didn't even ask him a time frame, so he is willingly opening up.
Good point.
She is mostly right, although her math is off because Clark has not told her one crucial detail. The marriage was meant to be in Febuary of 1996.
Hence the "if he was born in 1966" disclaimer to this theory.
Yes, this is a tough subject for him. Maybe he should have told her he is SM first.
She is right about that. CLark has avoided mentioning another reason why that try did not really work. I am slightly surprised Lois has not pressed to learn the name of his ex-fiancee.
Her name really isn't necessary at the moment and more likely to clam up.
Clark: Plus, it happened in a different dimension, so I try not bringing it up at all.
Right, that too.
Ah, why did that happen. Lois was making so much progress in this discussion.
Darn A Plot.
I love how Clark actually made a sensible response here.
I always thought Clark's response was lame-o and should have clued Lois in. Who else can't see through lead? Duh!
Again, Lois fails to notice what he looks like with his glasses down.
Nope, she only catches him pushing them back up.
Oh no, she is going to try sneaking over there.
Well, how else are they going to solve the A Plot? Clark goes?
Lois: At least he is sorry about this.
LOIS: Gee, Clark's apologizing. What a shocker. Please note sarcasm.
Wait I though he had said he had sex but it was not making love because it was not with her. How exactly was that wishy washy?
His initial response was:
Clark blushed at her assumption and directness, and enveloped her with his arms, kissing the top of her head. “No… well, yes… but, no.”
That's what she meant by "wishy-washy".
This entire scene was included in the first break up of parts. But when I shortened the extra long parts to reasonable lengths again, I had to break up this scene, so I picked this spot. Sorry about any confusion.
