Episode 3.2, "The Sign of Three"

[Arcadia]

They call it 'The Johnlock Conspiracy' ............

"They" whom? The "Johnlock" fans, you mean? Y'know, they could be right........

[Slithytove]

I've read a very interesting meta on the Johnlock Conspiracy, which was very detailed and almost had me convinced...almost...But I can't really believe they are going to have a gay romance at the heart of a very popular ( and very profitable) mainstream show, particularly with one centred around a character as iconic as Sherlock Holmes. As a Johnlocker myself, I would like it to be otherwise, because I feel they ought to be together - but, on the other hand, it might rob the storyline of all it's tension, as this often happens when characters finally declare their love.

 

Of course, I realise that a lot of people find Johnlock incomprehensible, but my personal feeling is that Sherlock does love John in his own strange, repressed way. Not sure if it is entirely reciprocated, but It does always seem that John "doth protest too much" when people think he and Sherlock are a couple.

[jesskayding]

 

 

I know what you mean ... I was pretty open to the "Johnlock" possibility in the first two seasons, but with a couple of exceptions it seemed to me S3 pretty much slammed the door on that idea ... imagine my surprise when more people than ever insisted it's real!

They call it 'The Johnlock Conspiracy', or TJLC for short, wherein the basic logic is Sherlock and John have always meant to be together. Always. From the original ACD to the black-and-white silent movies to color TV to the present. Always.

 

From what I've seen, they're all geared up and ready to party when S4 comes, because they think they'll finally get the chance to scream I TOLD YOU SO!! when Sherlock and John finally kiss.

 

 

I'm sorry, but if that happens I will no longer watch the show. You know it's one thing to have a show with that premise, like Will & Grace or Viscious or Modern Family or whatever... Which before anyone accuses me of being anti-gay, I am a fan of all those shows & somewhere recorded on this forum is a rejected proposal to Fox.

 

I'm just so tired of same sex people not being able to be inseparable friends without people speculating about their sexuality. RUDE!!! I just went thru this with a roommate 1 year ago. Also I distinctly remember the time this transformation in society throughout the US happened. Some of you nay remember, around the year 1998 I was walking arm & arm with one of my best girl friends, that's when it happened, people thought we were a couple.

 

My goodness! Mark & Steve ride the train together on a near daily basis & are apparently like the best of friends, oh maybe Steve will leave his wife & Mark will leave his man, so that they can get together!?!??!!

 

This show is based off a real genuine friendship between two straight men. Men can have a friendship as deep as theirs without it being sexualized. I hate how I have to be so conscientious about my friendships with women for the past 16 years now. Can't people just be friends!!!!

 

Sorry, the Johnlocked group kind of hits a really frail nerve for me. Uhggggggh!!!! I mean why? Really??? Why!? Just why???

[jesskayding]

That's my rant for the day.

[T.o.b.y]

 

 

I know what you mean ... I was pretty open to the "Johnlock" possibility in the first two seasons, but with a couple of exceptions it seemed to me S3 pretty much slammed the door on that idea ... imagine my surprise when more people than ever insisted it's real!

They call it 'The Johnlock Conspiracy', or TJLC for short, wherein the basic logic is Sherlock and John have always meant to be together. Always. From the original ACD to the black-and-white silent movies to color TV to the present. Always.

 

From what I've seen, they're all geared up and ready to party when S4 comes, because they think they'll finally get the chance to scream I TOLD YOU SO!! when Sherlock and John finally kiss.

 

 

I'm sorry, but if that happens I will no longer watch the show. You know it's one thing to have a show with that premise, like Will & Grace or Viscious or Modern Family or whatever... Which before anyone accuses me of being anti-gay, I am a fan of all those shows & somewhere recorded on this forum is a rejected proposal to Fox.

 

I'm just so tired of same sex people not being able to be inseparable friends without people speculating about their sexuality. RUDE!!! I just went thru this with a roommate 1 year ago. Also I distinctly remember the time this transformation in society throughout the US happened. Some of you nay remember, around the year 1998 I was walking arm & arm with one of my best girl friends, that's when it happened, people thought we were a couple.

 

My goodness! Mark & Steve ride the train together on a near daily basis & are apparently like the best of friends, oh maybe Steve will leave his wife & Mark will leave his man, so that they can get together!?!??!!

 

This show is based off a real genuine friendship between two straight men. Men can have a friendship as deep as theirs without it being sexualized. I hate how I have to be so conscientious about my friendships with women for the past 16 years now. Can't people just be friends!!!!

 

Sorry, the Johnlocked group kind of hits a really frail nerve for me. Uhggggggh!!!! I mean why? Really??? Why!? Just why???

 

 

Sorry, I can't tell you why.

 

I think I kind of know what you mean. My best friend is gay. And we were thought to be a couple all the time. Because people couldn't imagine we could be close (and we were very close - still are, in spirit, although adult life took us to different cities) without having sex. It was... a bit tiresome. I really, really did not mind being thought of as gay myself. I did not, like John, yell "I am not gay" at anyone who would listen. But it bothered me that people stubbornly believed something that was simply untrue. At some point, we just stopped denying anything. People will believe whatever they want to and there is nothing you can do about it except stop caring.

 

Strangely enough, I don't see the Sherlock and John issue quite your way, though.

 

On the one hand, I fully agree that it is kind of sad how every kind of love gets sexualized. I mean, I love my parents, and nobody expects me to sleep with them, right? Sex is great and everything, but it is overrated. And I'd much rather see a story about a unique, not quite definable friendship than yet another love yarn with kissing and marrying and so on and so forth. Besides, sexual attraction would be way too simple an explanation for why the boys like each other's company, and it would also kind of cheapen their affection. So no, I am not in favor of them becoming a "proper" couple at all. And I don't think the writers are, either, let alone the actors.

 

On the other hand, as I watched The Sign of Three, something went click inside my mind, and I could suddenly totally see what the "shippers" were getting at. And what surprised me even more is that it didn't bother me one bit. On the contrary, I went hey, wow, I'd never have believed it, but this could actually work, you know!

 

So I'm happy either way, really. I think the question is highly hypothetical anyway, because I'd be very, very surprised if they'd ever hook the men up for real. But if, hypothetical if, they did, I don't think at this point that I'd mind. And I can really understand the appeal that particular pairing has.

 

For me, it's all fine.

 

[jesskayding]

I don't know. I guess it ends up being so political. Let's make a black version of Sherlock. How about a handicapped version. Let's make Dr. Watson a woman... Oh wait a minute... It's just ridiculous.

[Janie]

 

I'm sorry, but if that happens I will no longer watch the show. You know it's one thing to have a show with that premise, like Will & Grace or Viscious or Modern Family or whatever... Which before anyone accuses me of being anti-gay, I am a fan of all those shows & somewhere recorded on this forum is a rejected proposal to Fox.

 

I'm just so tired of same sex people not being able to be inseparable friends without people speculating about their sexuality. RUDE!!! I just went thru this with a roommate 1 year ago. Also I distinctly remember the time this transformation in society throughout the US happened. Some of you nay remember, around the year 1998 I was walking arm & arm with one of my best girl friends, that's when it happened, people thought we were a couple.

 

My goodness! Mark & Steve ride the train together on a near daily basis & are apparently like the best of friends, oh maybe Steve will leave his wife & Mark will leave his man, so that they can get together!?!??!!

 

This show is based off a real genuine friendship between two straight men. Men can have a friendship as deep as theirs without it being sexualized. I hate how I have to be so conscientious about my friendships with women for the past 16 years now. Can't people just be friends!!!!

 

Sorry, the Johnlocked group kind of hits a really frail nerve for me. Uhggggggh!!!! I mean why? Really??? Why!? Just why???

 

 

I totally agree with you, Jess. I see Sherlock and John as best friends but nothing more. I just don't see the sexual (or romantic) attraction there at all, not even in this episode. I have nothing against gay people but I just don't want Sherlock and John to become a couple and I've always been tired of all these gay jokes in Sherlock. That's actually one of the very few things I don't like in this show.

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

I wouldn't say that all Johnlock shippers just want to see them going at it, you know? And not all romantic attraction also entails sexual attraction. It would actually be a little boring, though, if John and Sherlock did become boyfriends, because then that's that. No more interesting developments to their relationship. No more man-to-man bantering and sass-offs.

[T.o.b.y]

I wouldn't say that all Johnlock shippers just want to see them going at it, you know? And not all romantic attraction also entails sexual attraction. It would actually be a little boring, though, if John and Sherlock did become boyfriends, because then that's that. No more interesting developments to their relationship. No more man-to-man bantering and sass-offs.

 

You think so? I don't. Actually, I don't think they'd be any different with each other at all. They already act like an old couple most of the time. The only thing that'd change would be bedroom stuff, and I wouldn't want to see that anyway, no matter who Sherlock slept with (okay, I would not say no entirely to a few discreet glimpses at whatever Sherlock got or will get up to with Irene because they are both so damn attractive, but ahem, lets move on).

[jesskayding]

I feel that the writers would have an aweful lot of explaining to do. The characters they've developed doesn't fit with being gay. What then?- make them a bisexual pairing?!? You can't tell me that wouldn't completely change the dynamic between them that we've grown to love.

 

The attraction John has for women is unmistakeable! If he was putting on a front, he would only hit on women while others are looking. You can tell he wants to be with women. Womanly affections make him happy. Sherlock obviously could care less, he would most likely be the one they could make gay if that would help the story, but the way that man responded to Mrs. Adler, I think not.

 

By the way Toby, what you said above about Sherlock & John is exactly what was said about me & my x-roommate. A coupling of us would be everything but natural.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'm just so tired of same sex people not being able to be inseparable friends without people speculating about their sexuality. RUDE!!!

Or for that matter, why can't two opposite-sex people be good friends without people assuming they're a "couple"? Does everything have to be about sex? (Well, judging by what seems to be on TV these days, the answer is apparently "Yes!")

 

I figure whatever Sherlock and John may feel for each other is their own damn business, so unless and until they decide to play True Confessions, I'll continue to assume that they've already told us the truth.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Speaking from experience it is very difficult for two people of the same sex to share an apartment and not be seen as gay. It happened to me in-Idaho. To try and stop the rumors Eunice started bringing a guy in. They eventral got married. Didn't do anything for my reputation though. So John and Sherlock are in the same boat. John protests and gets a girlfriend but he's just in denial. Sherlock says little so therefore he must be. It's a no win situation.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Don't young adults have apartment mates any more?  If not, how do they afford the rent?

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Maybe they have learned to turn a deaf ear to all the rumor mongering. They have to. No one seemed to notice that I didn't run out and get a new apartment or another "girlfriend". That me and Eunice still shared the apartment until I had to come back to Maine.

 

I think the back biting bothered her more then it bothered me. I knew we weren't sharing a bed or any other physical relationship and that's all that mattered.But then it was her home town, not mine.

 

Sherlock is right, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks or says. As long as you know the truth about yourself the rest of world can take a long walk off a short pier.

[T.o.b.y]

Don't young adults have apartment mates any more?  If not, how do they afford the rent?

 

It's certainly very common to share apartments where I live, especially for students and other young single people living in the larger cities. My husband shared for years with another woman when he was already engaged to me, who also had a steady boyfriend who lived further away, and nobody believed them to be a couple. It worked out fine for all of us, I liked her very much.

 

I guess it's different depending on where you are.

 

[Arcadia]

I'm just so tired of same sex people not being able to be inseparable friends without people speculating about their sexuality. RUDE!!!

Exactly. And the same with opposite sex friends. Or, for the matter of that, gossip in general. I do find it genuinely distressing when I learn people have been talking about me; especially when they draw conclusions about what I'm like. They don't know me! It's rather creepy, actually.

 

......... I've always been tired of all these gay jokes in Sherlock.....

Yeah, I do think Sherlock at times treads a thin line on "gay-baiting". The "two single guys living together so they must be gay" joke worked the first time or two -- judging by how hard it made me laugh -- but over time it's become something other than a joke. Now, I think, by being such teases about it, they are perilously close to implying there is something wrong with being gay. Otherwise, why be so coy about it?

 

Or for that matter, why can't two opposite-sex people be good friends without people assuming they're a "couple"? Does everything have to be about sex? (Well, judging by what seems to be on TV these days, the answer is apparently "Yes!")

Again, exactly.

 

I figure whatever Sherlock and John may feel for each other is their own damn business, so unless and until they decide to play True Confessions, I'll continue to assume that they've already told us the truth.

Here, I think, it gets a little trickier. If it's their own damn business, then why does it matter whether they've told the truth or not? And also I'm not sure what truth they've told us? John's stated emphatically that's he's not gay but many people insist his body language intentionally says otherwise. And Sherlock's never brought the subject up, as far as I can recall.

 

I don't know; I see the justice in them not having to be clear one way or the other. That attitude makes sense to me. On the other hand, I feel like I'm being jerked around; that I'm being told one thing but shown another, then being laughed at for being gullible, no matter what I choose to believe (or not believe). I like to laugh at the show, but I don't appreciate having the show-makers laughing at me, if you see what I mean.

 

*sigh* I hate being annoyed with Moftiss, when they've brought me such a beautiful present. But I also hate being played for a fool, and sometimes that's how I feel, and not just on this issue, either. I guess the solution is get a life and not think so much about Sherlock; but darn it, where's the fun in that? I'd rather just growl at Moftiss.

[sfmpco]

Do I think John loves Sherlock?  Yes.  In a friendship/platonic way.  Do I think Sherlock loves John?  Yes.  In a friendship/platonic way.  John is clearly not gay, never has been gay, doesn't swing that way and hasn't from the pilot.  I don't understand the obsession over the John and Sherlock being involved as gay lovers.  That's not going to happen.  That just has to stay head canon.  We all have our own head canon.  That's what fan fiction is for.

 

I agree with Jess that if this got turned into some sort of homosexual thing I would have to stop watching.  That would ruin it for me.  These two characters do not need to be together that way.  Men can and do have totally platonic and deep friendships.  They have best friends of the same sex.  

 

I don't think Sherlock is gay or has gay tendencies.  He's a bit of a drama queen, but I think by HLV he has gotten a lot of that former childishness out of his system.  John has helped him to grow up. The wedding has helped him grow up.  Like ET and Elliot separating.  It's not that he's asexual.  Irene Adler would tell you he's not gay - just inexperienced.  At the start of HLV he's been back on his own for a month.  His relationship with John has changed and rightfully so.  He's not pining John.  He's moved on.

 

If there comes a day when John moves back into 221B Baker Street, it will be due to some sort of tragedy with Mary and the baby, but even then that doesn't mean John will go back to 221B.  John has moved on from his need to have Sherlock as a roommate because that need has been replaced by a genuine and deep friendship--something which John didn't have before.  They don't ever need to live together again for that to continue to be realized.

 

 

 

 

[T.o.b.y]

Guys! Guys! Why do you always start talking about stuff I feel I need to reply to just when I have to leave the house in a hurry?

 

First of all, a warning / disclaimer: I cannot be neutral and level-headed on the subject of being gay. I've had way too many way too personal experiences in that area, and I feel strongly about it. So sorry if my perspective is even less objective than usual here... (For the curious out there: Nope, I'm not gay. I'm happily married to a guy. But I don't think I'm 100% straight, either. It's all very hypothetical, anyway, because I'm married and my husband is very traditional about what that means, so as far as I'm concerned, there's only one person to have sex with anyway, and there never was anybody else, so the whole sex question is probably as little relevant for me at the moment as it is for Sherlock. But I've been thought of as gay for a long while, and I've had all the annoyance of being discriminated against on those grounds without the fun of a love life to go with it, and I've been and am very close to someone who is gay, and so of course it's a matter that's close to my heart.)

 

 

Yeah, I do think Sherlock at times treads a thin line on "gay-baiting". The "two single guys living together so they must be gay" joke worked the first time or two -- judging by how hard it made me laugh -- but over time it's become something other than a joke. Now, I think, by being such teases about it, they are perilously close to implying there is something wrong with being gay. Otherwise, why be so coy about it?

 

Wow. That needs a much longer and detailed answer than I have time for at the moment. Okay, short version: I look at Sherlock mostly in the light of an adaptation. Of a late Victorian character. In the old Doyle stories, there is, in my reading, a definite undercurrent of something. Something bordering on romantic interest / attraction / love what you will, between Mr Holmes and his faithful assistant. I don't for one moment believe Doyle meant to write it in (I am pretty sure that if he'd been aware of it, he'd written it out), but it's there, and I noticed it when first reading the books as a teen, unprompted by anything or anybody. Maybe my brain just projected it. In any case, for me, it is there. And I find it amusing. It makes me giggle that a respectable old gentleman like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote someone like Dr Watson and his "thrills" and flowery descriptions.

 

Besides, if Dolye had wanted to make the men a couple, he wouldn't have written them any differently. He couldn't have. So when doing a modern version, I think you do have to make a choice about what to do with this whole subject. You could of course just ignore it. You could declare them gay. Or you could do what Sherlock does, and come as close to capturing the spirit of the original as you can, where they're not meant to be gay, but give off that impression often enough in spite of themselves. I prefer the last version, because I think it's the cleverest and does the most justice to the text.

 

Now, just one word about why be coy about it in our days. I know it's not supposed to be a problem any more. Our society is so pluralistic and so liberal and it's all so normal and okay. Yeah, right. That is simply not entirely true. Of course we've come a long way. It's no longer illegal to sleep with a person of the same sex in my country, that's good. Hurray. And people are becoming more accepting. But it's still a big deal. There are still very good reasons to choose not to make your sexual orientation public.

 

So when it comes to portraying gay couples on TV, I am torn. On the one hand, it would be good to not make a fuss about it, and show them the way we'd like it to be in real life. On the other hand, that wouldn't really resonate with many real gay people's experiences, sadly. It's an old question: Do I want to see the world in fiction the way I'd like it to be or the way it is?

 

What I want is what I consider a good story, and characters I can believe in and relate to. I don't care too much about political correctness.

 

Now, I think it makes a huge amount of sense that John would have issues with being gay. He must be in his forties, so he definitely grew up in a time when it was much worse than nowadays, and he probably got first hand experience of exactly how bad you can have it with his sister (Harry won't be an alcoholic for nothing). Then, he was in the military, and you can't tell me the military has a totally unproblematic attitude towards homosexuality. Of course a man like John would yell "I am not gay" at anybody who will listen. Not that I think he is, by the way. I think he isn't. But it just fits his characterization that this is important to him. And it also fits his characterization that on some level, maybe he is a teeny, weeny bit attracted to Sherlock after all. Just enough to make him flirty when he's drunk, you know. Just enough to make the "accusations" that they're together even more annoying. Who knows. It's a question I don't need answered. I just think it's interesting.

 

It is completely possible to be attracted to someone of the same sex without identifying as gay, by the way. And vice versa.

 

 

  

If there comes a day when John moves back into 221B Baker Street, it will be due to some sort of tragedy with Mary and the baby, but even then that doesn't mean John will go back to 221B.  John has moved on from his need to have Sherlock as a roommate because that need has been replaced by a genuine and deep friendship--something which John didn't have before.  They don't ever need to live together again for that to continue to be realized.

 

Probably not, but I must admit I'd love to see what happens at the beginning of "The Norwood Builder" on the show some day. I can't say any more now, because I really, really need to get going...

[Arcadia]

Guys! Guys! Why do you always start talking about stuff I feel I need to reply to just when I have to leave the house in a hurry?

Because we're trying to torment you! We're all in on it; we set it up last week. Is it working?

 

 

Yeah, I do think Sherlock at times treads a thin line on "gay-baiting". Etc etc. blah di blah ............. Otherwise, why be so coy about it?

Wow. That needs a much longer and detailed answer than I have time for at the moment. Okay, short version: I look at Sherlock mostly in the light of an adaptation. Of a late Victorian character. In the old Doyle stories, there is, in my reading, a definite undercurrent of something. Something bordering on romantic interest / attraction / love what you will, between Mr Holmes and his faithful assistant. I don't for one moment believe Doyle meant to write it in (I am pretty sure that if he'd been aware of it, he'd written it out), but it's there, and I noticed it when first reading the books as a teen, unprompted by anything or anybody. Maybe my brain just projected it. In any case, for me, it is there. And I find it amusing. It makes me giggle that a respectable old gentleman like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote someone like Dr Watson and his "thrills" and flowery descriptions.

 

There, we will have to agree to disagree. When I'm reading something that old, I prefer to be aware of the author's intent, and the sensibilities of the era s/he lived in, and not impose my modern sensibilities on it. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to read “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”, arguably one of the greatest American novels ever written; and arguably offensive to a modern audience.

 

Besides, if Dolye had wanted to make the men a couple, he wouldn't have written them any differently. He couldn't have. So when doing a modern version, I think you do have to make a choice about what to do with this whole subject. You could of course just ignore it. You could declare them gay. Or you could do what Sherlock does, and come as close to capturing the spirit of the original as you can, where they're not meant to be gay, but give off that impression often enough in spite of themselves. I prefer the last version, because I think it's the cleverest and does the most justice to the text.

But it's not “in spite of themselves,” is it, in the modern version? It's quite deliberately written in, with the modern sensibility in mind. Not only is it written in, but they keep pointing to it to make sure we don't miss it. This is far different from what Doyle did, imo.

 

Now, just one word about why be coy about it in our days. I know it's not supposed to be a problem any more. Our society is so pluralistic and so liberal and it's all so normal and okay. Yeah, right. That is simply not entirely true. Of course we've come a long way. It's no longer illegal to sleep with a person of the same sex in my country, that's good. Hurray. And people are becoming more accepting. But it's still a big deal. There are still very good reasons to choose not to make your sexual orientation public.

 

So when it comes to portraying gay couples on TV, I am torn. On the one hand, it would be good to not make a fuss about it, and show them the way we'd like it to be in real life. On the other hand, that wouldn't really resonate with many real gay people's experiences, sadly. It's an old question: Do I want to see the world in fiction the way I'd like it to be or the way it is?...........

Hmmm, this may require more thought than I have time for, but let me have a go at it. I guess I would say …. that I don't think Sherlock is that kind of show. If this were a gritty, realistic drama like, say, Hill Street Blues (sorry, can't think of a more recent reference because I no longer watch gritty dramas) then I would, I suspect, agree … the characters might be expected to behave in a manner we consider more “realistic.” There's a reason social barriers on TV are frequently broken down in sci fi first; it's easier for people to open up to an idea when it's obviously removed from “the real world.”

 

And although I still grumble when I think Sherlock isn't realistic (shooting Sherlock is surgery? Really?) I've come around to (mostly ) agree with those who say it doesn't need to be. It takes place in Sherlock World, not ours: and when it's not busy breaking your heart, Sherlock World is busy being flamboyant, amusing and a little bit insane. In that context, does it need to reflect real gay people's experiences, or real anyone's experiences?

 

On the other hand … it's in a rare position, due to it's popularity, to influence people's thinking about issues. That can be quite a responsibility, if accepted as such. So I don't know; should they be more realistic about the human experience, or not? Like a true Perceiver, I can see it both ways. At which point I will sneak out the back door without answering the question.

[jesskayding]

Speaking from experience it is very difficult for two people of the same sex to share an apartment and not be seen as gay. It happened to me in-Idaho. To try and stop the rumors Eunice started bringing a guy in. They eventral got married. Didn't do anything for my reputation though. So John and Sherlock are in the same boat. John protests and gets a girlfriend but he's just in denial. Sherlock says little so therefore he must be. It's a no win situation.

 

 

Well put Fox. That's exactly what I experienced while rooming with Emily. I did protest very much.... I truly am not gay. I wanted to say something else but it would be a little to vulgar/inappropriate for forum talk.

[jesskayding]

Don't young adults have apartment mates any more?  If not, how do they afford the rent?

 

 

 

You either have to move in with the opposite sex or live with your parents. See that's why people assuming things is so RUDE! People have dirty minds. But if you live with the opposite sex, it will  also be assumed that you're sleeping together, but you don't have to prove you're heterosexual... So it really is a no win situation. That's the problem when everything is Sex sex sex all the time. Our societies are so perverted! No one can think about human relations without including sex in thought somewhere. I really don't get it. I'd prefer to meet people & get their actual story, versus fantasizing about what's going on in their lives.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I do have to say that I feel a little bit bad about turning this into a rant of sort but the whole thing was hitting so close to home that I just couldn't let it go any more. I suppose I should have taken it to "Speedy's" but oh well.

[jesskayding]

Fox are you able to move convos like Carol does... You could move the rants over to Speedys.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I could try.

[Carol the Dabbler]

The actual moving is easy enough -- it's the deciding which posts to move and which to leave that's the tricky part.  Unfortunately, I've never found a way to copy a post (other than quoting it), so two threads can't share a post.  This discussion is sufficiently related to the episode that it could stay, though of course it could be moved or split off into its own thread.  I kind of favor splitting it off.  What do you think, Fox?