Surelock

The problem with that scene is that Mary was standing next to Sherlock and was telling him that he was going to far by egging her on: http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/88515.html SHERLOCK: Can’t have been easy all those years, sitting in the back keeping your mouth shut when you knew you were cleverer than most of the people in the room. VIVIAN: I didn’t do this out of jealousy! SHERLOCK: No? Same old drudge, day in, day out, never getting out there where all the excitement was. Just back to your little flat on Wigmore Street. (Vivian gapes.) SHERLOCK: They’ve taken up the pavement outside the Post Office there. The local clay on your shoes is very distinctive. (Close-up of Vivian’s dusty shoes.) SHERLOCK: Yes, your little flat. VIVIAN: How do you know? SHERLOCK (quick fire): Well, on your salary it would have to be modest and you spent all the money on that cottage, didn’t you, and what are you, widowed or divorced? (He focuses in on a plain gold band on the index finger of her left hand.) Wedding ring’s at least thirty years old and you’ve moved it to another finger. That means you’re sentimentally attached to it but you’re not still married. I favour widowed, given the number of cats you share your life with. MARY (nervously, watching Vivian closely): Sherlock ... SHERLOCK: Two Burmese and a tortoiseshell, judging by the cat hairs on your cardigan. (Close-up of those hairs.) SHERLOCK (quick fire): A divorcee’s more likely to look for a new partner; a widow to fill the void left by her dead husband. MARY: Sherlock, don’t. SHERLOCK (quick fire, his voice rising as he gets fully into his stride): Pets do that, or so I’m told, and there’s clearly no-one new in your life, otherwise you wouldn’t be spending your Friday nights in an aquarium. That probably accounts for the drink problem, too: the slight tremor in your hand ... (there’s a close-up of her slightly shaking gun hand, then a close-up of her mouth) ... the red wine stain ghosting your top lip. So yes. I say jealousy was your motive after all – to prove how good you are ... (Vivian’s gaze turns to look towards the entrance as Mycroft walks in.) SHERLOCK: ... to make up for the inadequacies of your little life. Yet Sherlock still continued. This is what I mean by Sherlock's social knowledge being massively inconsistent. He can work out Norbury's entire life story but he can't work out that teasing her about it would cause her to fire her gun even when Mary is standing right next to him, warning him. I've heard the theory about Sherlock egging Norbury on because he wanted to draw attention towards himself and away from Mary but I don't think that's how we were supposed to interpret that scene. I mean look at what Sherlock said to Mrs. Hudson at the end of the episode: SHERLOCK: If you ever think I’m becoming a bit ... (he pauses and swallows) ... full of myself, cocky or ... (he pulls in a breath) ... over-confident ... MRS HUDSON: Yes? SHERLOCK (turning on his seat to face her): ... would you just say the word ‘Norbury’ to me, would you? Sherlock implies that he egged Norbury on out of arrogance rather than because of a self-sacrificing plan. But even if Sherlock was planning to try and draw Norbury's rage at himself and away from Mary then why did he not expect Mary to take a bullet for him? Even I could have deduced that. The smartest thing for Sherlock to do in that situation was to keep his mouth shut but he didn't do that and that's why the whole scene felt extremely convoluted.

I think the biggest problem with how Sherlock is portrayed is that it's never made clear how much about human nature he is aware of or vice versa. I think a good example of this would be Norbury. How did Sherlock not know that humiliating her was not going to enrage her enough to fire her gun? He understand how Norbury felt like being an secretary all those years but he didn't know what egging her on about it would do? I mean it's not like Sherlock hasn't been in similar situations before. In The Great Game, when Moriarty had all his snipers pointed at Sherlock and John, Sherlock tried to keep his mouth shut. He knew that wasn't the right time to be a smart aleck. I think Moffatiss never really came to a solid decision on how much social knowledge they wanted Sherlock to have. They wanted him to be lacking in some areas but they also wanted him to be really good in some areas so Sherlock could use them in his deductions. However they couldn't figure out the exact level so they end up writing Sherlock with inconsistent social knowledge. Sometimes he's very good and sometimes he's very bad. It's really random and inconsistent.

But that was when Dumbledore was a kid right? Didn't Dumbledore become more humble after he lost his sister? Also have any of you read the Cormoran Strike series? It's a series of detective novels that were written by J.K. Rowling under the pseudonym, Robert Galbraith. There are three books out so far with a fourth one being written atm. There's also a TV series in the works that's going to be released some time later this year.

Well when Trump was addressing the CIA, he did say:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-100days-idUSKBN17U0CA President Donald Trump on Thursday reflected on his first 100 days in office with a wistful look at his life before the White House. "I loved my previous life. I had so many things going," Trump told Reuters in an interview. "This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier." Poor Trump. Who knew that becoming the President of the United States would be harder than being a reality TV star?

This is what happens whenever I try to argue with Trump supporters:

Both of them (said in Mrs Hudson's voice) I'm suspicious about the morgues scene in ASIB, because there is still the possibility Sherlock knew Irene was alive. :P I honestly don't see how Irene could have fooled Sherlock into thinking another body was her's when Sherlock had already completely seen her body. Then again, Sherlock did seem upset after Irene's alleged death so I'm not sure what to make of that.

I'm not sure about Europe but this isn't necessarily true with Turkey. Turkey hasn't traditionally been an open, liberal society. It's been theocratic for most of its history. It only established a secular government less than a hundred years ago. However it was done in a very hasty manner. The secular Turkish government tried a lot to to get rid of religion in the public sphere. This included them making controversial decisions like instating a headscarf ban that I believe was only repealed in recent years. A lot of the religious parties in Turkey felt alienated by how quickly the country changed and have probably wanted to seize power sooner or later. They chose to do that with Erdogan. I think many of the religious people in Turkey idolise Erdogan because they think he's the first leader of their modern government to have a high regard for religion. Of course it's possible that Erdogan isn't religious and is simply pretending to be religious to appeal to all the alienated religious people. Such behaviours are actually quite common among Middle-Eastern leaders. For example, Benjamin Netanyahyu isn't considered a religious Jew but he does put on a religious act in order to get the Israeli right to support him.

You mean, repeating itself?We have everything to learn from history, we just don't. Especially in the U.S. You know a CNN guest was discussing Donald Trump with an African American woman. The African American woman was going on about how the U.S. can't trust Trump but the CNN guest decided to appeal to that accusation. He said that Donald Trump was the Martin Luther King of Healthcare: I bet he mentioned Martin Luther King because African Americans value Martin Luther King a lot and he wanted to convince the African American woman that Trump can be trusted. I'm starting to think Trump's fanbase are a bigger threat than Trump himself. Forget illegal immigrants. If anyone is to be deported from the country it should be them.

This makes me wonder why Trump's fans seem to believe that Trump actually cares about them. They seem oblivious to the fact that Trump is just conning them all for his own self-gain.

It's amazing how prophetic Trump's old tweets are. He was referring to Obama in them but now all of them can apply to him as well: I think when Trump is trying to make presidential decisions, he turns to his old tweets as a source of guidance. That can explain the self-fulfilling prophecy.

As Sherlock would say 'stupid, stupid, stupid': So the majority of Americans support the strikes on Syria. Only a third oppose them and the rest are just undecided lol. I don't understand how 83% of Trump voters support strikes on Syria. Didn't they vote in Trump because of his anti-interventionist stance? Didn't Trump say he wasn't going to go after Assad?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-korea-idUSKBN17A0V5 So Trump is now sending warships to North Korea as a 'show of force': A U.S. Navy strike group will be moving toward the western Pacific Ocean near the Korean peninsula as a show of force, a U.S. official told Reuters on Saturday, as concerns grow about North Korea's advancing weapons program. I'm sure sending warships will convince North Korea to abandon their weapons program. Who cares about developing weapons when you have hostile warships docked at your bay?

Tbh the most likely reason why Trump bombed Assad's forces is because he wanted to prove that he wasn't Putin's puppet. Recently there have been a lot of allegations of Trump's connections with Russia. Regardless of how true they all are, a wannabe strong man like Trump would want to prove that he's strong and independent and takes orders from nobody. So he needs to defy Putin in some way. Thus Trump decides to bomb Assad's airbase to do so. I think the attack was more symbolic than anything else. It should be noted that these attacks did achieve the above mentioned political effect. If you look around on the news, there are a lot of politicians, that had previously criticised Trump for his ties to Russia, are now praising him for being tough on Assad. The only problem is that I can see attacks like that (if Trump continues to do them) escalate into a full blown war. You shouldn't play with fire but I don't think Trump understands that.

So Trump just started bombing Assad's airbase in Syria in response for Assad's recent chemical attacks in Idlib. Trump just declared war on Syria, a sovereign state. :o Hello World War III. Looks like we'll be experiencing World War III under Trump. Can't get any better than this.

So CNN interviewed a bunch of Trump supporters and got them to grade Trump's presidency so far: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ5LsWWNG8Q Surprisingly almost all of them gave Trump an A (probably the first A that Trump has ever received in his life).

I'm breaking my self-imposed ban on commenting on politics in this forum, but I think the Twitter account you referenced above is a parody account. I know but there's no difference between parody and reality atm. That's why I keep referencing a parody account. Why have you have a self-imposed ban on the politics thread? Nowadays politics is a new form of black comedy. I think this meme summed it up best:

So today the White House welcomed President Sisi of Egypt; the guy who overthrew the first democratically elected government of Egypt and then became a dictator. Sounds like our President got a lot of ideas on how to run the country from Sisi. I can't wait until America is great again... whatever that even means. Seriously what does 'Make America Great Again?' even mean? What previous point in history is it even referring to?

Season 3 didn't feel as rushed and still had enough moments of levity and humanity that Sherlock is known for.

I was recently checking the credits for Sherlock episodes and I think I discovered why The Lying Detective has the same aesthetic as in the previous seasons, unlike the other two episodes in Season 4. To put it simply, I think it's because of the director. The director has a large role to play in the aesthetic of the film. In The Lying Detective, Moffatiss used Nick Hurran as the director. Hurran was one of the directors that had previously directed a Sherlock episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sherlock_episodes Nick Hurran had previously directed His Last Vow so he already had a good idea of the aesthetic for Sherlock. That's why he was able to maintain this aesthetic in The Lying Detective. However The Six Thatchers and The Final Problem were directed by Rachel Talalay and Benjamin Caron respectively. These two were newcomers to the Sherlock crew that had never previously directed any Sherlock episodes. Talalay and Caron probably weren't sure of the kind of vision that Sherlock was supposed to have. Maybe they asked Moffatiss about it and Moffatiss didn't communicate effectively with them? I think it's possible that Moffatiss may have said something like, 'We want this season to be darker and edgier' (That 'darkness' of Season 4 is what Moffatiss kept going on about in their pre-release interviews). Talalay and Caron may have taken those words as a cue to change the aesthetic of the show.

Looks like what I had for lunch today.

Makes sense but I still don't know why you thought this was too easy. I never even heard of the word 'agritourism' before. Maybe it's because I just don't go out much.

So big boy Donald finally got to play in the truck today: https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/844995773838315520 Isn't it cute how he honks the horn? We're so proud of him!

This is just a more polite version of Moffatiss saying:

What about my earlier guess of it being a public BBQ/cooking hut located in a park? Why did you say earlier that you weren't sure if it was private or commercial? Now you sound pretty certain it was commercial. Anyway is this place usually clean in the west as well?