jesskayding

See. The wins may get us a theater preview of the Christmas special.

Yup! Okay Jana, dazzle us!

Ok, do y'all think my style' would make good Sherlock fan art. To the left is a gouche of Farah Faucet & the one to the right is an ink sketch like drawing of one of Bob Marley's sons. I forget which one he is??

Good one! 3 R's... Also I gave a few hints in my last response. "A/_ _ _ e/_ _ r d e r./ T h a t'l l/_ h e e r/_ _ _/_ _."

I'm sorry guys. Thought this one would be easy! Hmmm, kind of nice it turned out to be challenging. One D. "A/_ _ _ e/_ _ _ d e _./ T h a t'l l/_ h e e _/_ _ _/_ _."

He could be like Ludacris ( a US gangsta rapper ) & have ho's in every area/postal code.

I think it's simpler than that. I think we're meant to understand it's basically in John's nature to give people second chances. Look how much he's put up with from Sherlock. Up til now this may have seemed an admirable trait but, again, it's suddenly given a dark twist. Suddenly he's one of the "psychopaths." There's logic in several interpretations of that forgiveness scene. My personal interpretation is that John is throwing away the memory stick, because he wants to leave her past behind them. He loves her and honestly believes that she is worthy of his love. At the same time, he knows it will hurt if he should find out horrible things about her. He'd rather not know. And he doesn't expect it to become a problem in their future, so... Yeah, SJ, I got you.

Well, that certainly seems to be what they were trying to tell us in this episode! Ugh. Not enough data yet..... I come up with this stuff on my own. I'm not always up to date with whatever Steve and Mark are saying about season 4. Hmmm maybe we're on the same page. Oh no! Maybe the last episode of season 4 will end with John pointing a gun @ Sherlock's head.

The writers kept saying he wasn't really a villain. I'm like he has to be one of the creepiest villains of all time! He even beats out Disney villains, like Ursula & Scar!!

2 L's "A/_ _ _ e/_ _ _ _ e _./ T h a t'l l/_ h e e _/_ _ _/_ _."

Sorry, dear. Why would John consider Sherlock a psychopath, hmmm.... this is a man who claims to be his (best) friend, yet who has admittedly tried out chemicals on him, used him for a harrowing horror experiment involving a hitherto unknown and possibly lethal drug in an army research facility and finally jumped off a building in front of his very eyes, watched him cry at his grave, and then returned two years later expecting this last little feat to be treated as a hilarious prank. No, I really cannot fathom where John gets the idea... I don't know what you're talking about. Well, I did continue to talk about Sherlock's disappearance act, which was the point I was trying to make, clearly not very well. Yes, Sherlock is insane, but there's a huge difference between the absurd things Sherlock does in everyday life, and him pretending to be dead for two years. Equally, there's a long way to go from those everyday absurdities to Mary shooting Sherlock and hiding her past as an assasin. It's "psychopath" on a different level, or with a different meaning. That's what I find interesting about John's statement - that he compares what he has now discovered about Mary to what he knows about Sherlock. I think he is more comparing Sherlock's behavior in connection with his fall and return to Mary's, rather than comparing them in general. But, of course, that's just my interpretation, and I perfectly understand that Sherlock is generally out of his mind, and John could be referring to anything. "Psychopath", though, is a strong word, and I suppose I connect it with someone very bad. Like Moriarty. He's a psychopath. A villain and out of his mind. Sherlock is just a man/hero and out of his mind. Sherlock calls himself a sociopath in that conversation with Molly, actually. Of course John thinks Sherlock is crazy, but I'm differing again between "crazy" and "psychopath" - hence my above explanation. Although the saying goes..." Birds of a feather flock together ". So John could be a psychopath himself. Maybe that'll be revealed in season 4.

Sorry... No S.

Wish I had heterochromia.

Yeah... That's pretty hot!! Which episode was this?

Yay Arcadia! You got it right! You start the next one!!!

Hairy Hound! Bonus!!

Ok... Interesting... Study In Pink is definitely my favorite in series one & I love how it was tied into TGG. Now why did SO3 seem weak to you?

Fox, did you just like your own statement.

Fox, you better start training now. You know that old Adage, "Once you learn to ride a bike, you'll never forget". LIES!!!! I tell ya! LIES!! Bike riding ain't no joke! And now I'm older... It just takes serious discipline, gotta build endurance. I hope you can join sfmpco in that ride. Y'all go ahead with your bad selves!

Really?!??? I think the Cumberbatch is openly crass! He has one of the worst potty mouths in the business! F this, F'n that! Here an F, there an F, everywhere an F, F!!

Although I don't know if this forum is ready for a bunch of extroverts. We'd be starting Truth or Dare threads, maybe live chat beer bong games, we'd do it under the guise of Stag night fandom. Oooooooooo y'all would hate us! We'd show up to see the forum has been moved to a non disclosed location.

I know right! So excited!! Although if I end up getting @ home friends that become as obsessed as me, I could see my notifications piling up on the forum. My friend Daniel was like I better like it. Like I'm a writer for the show or something.

Well, no, I wouldn't. But we now have two examples of Sherlock doing precisely that sort of thing -- Mary and the Camden Garroter. Sherlock, yes. His values are unbelievably skewed. ( His childhood must have been very peculiar. I suspect that nice Mummy & Daddy, and maybe Mycroft as he got older, have a lot to answer for.). But not John. He wouldn't vote for the Camden Garroter, any more than he would be morbidly fascinated by Irene or Jim. His "normal", common sense morality exists to throw Sherlock's eccentricity into even sharper relief. And most of us wouldn't admire the Camden Garroter either, nor would we be able to shrug off a devastating bullet wound, to ourselves or a loved one. I agree that Moftiss seem to expect us to swallow the bullet-as-surgery/determination-will-bring-you-back-to-life/Mary-is-okay/it's-wonderful-that-John-forgave-her scenario but their writing is obviously open to many interpretations. If not, we wouldn't be arguing about it nine months later! To be honest, I don't worry too much about Moftiss's intentions. Even if they want us to accept the bullet-as-surgery idea, for example, that doesn't mean we can't question it. When something is in the public domain, it belongs legally to its creators but they don't own, and can't dictate, the audience's responses. For example, you might create a character whom you see as noble and restrained, but if some of your readers consider him prim and priggish, you can't say they are wrong. All you can say is that your writing wasn't meant to convey that particular response. Even if your work is as clear and precise as possible, people will read and interpret it according to their own values and their own experience. The same applies to fictional worlds. Maybe a different morality prevails in Sherlock's world, as some of you have suggested - though I think it is meant to reflect our own, otherwise it wouldn't be entertaining when he goes against our expectations - but we still judge it by our own ethics. That's how fiction works. To give an extreme example, suppose you read a book set in a world where it is normal practice for parents to kill their own children if they show signs of being sickly or disabled. These killings are so much a part of their culture that they are commonplace. Let's say that resources are limited and are not allowed to be " wasted" on the weak. One parent, motivated by love, cannot kill their child but flees with him, pursued by the authorities. According to the morality of this fictional world, the parent is a criminal. We can understand this morality but, to us, the parent is a hero, because child murder is abhorrent to us and we see the fictional world through the filter of our own ethics. So, in Sherlock-world, it may be okay to shoot your friends and expect forgiveness, just as it may be okay to gloss over your best friend's near death and your wife's criminal past, but we are not obliged to find those things acceptable. We have our own value systems which the writers can't dictate. Sorry. Not trying to be pedantic, but I do feel that there is a two-way connection between writer and viewer (or reader, listener, etc.). As the audience, we bring something to the table too. The You tell us Slithytove!

Ohhhhhh, interesting - the cabby

That's not @ all what I'm saying. It just seems that HLV has struck a cord, in particular with the American audience that the others hadn't. It must have jumped the shark exceptionally well. Also I wasn't just referring to the shows wins of Emmy's. I believe, but I could be mistaken, that its won several other accolades... No? I'm just giving props to the HLV success. I'm really proud of Sherlock. Last night I was with some friends of mine, who just thought they wouldn't like BBC Sherlock, they now want to watch it, per the wins, they feel that there must be something to it. They are now really curious. I plan on showing them one show per week to catch them up.