I'm glad to have found this older post (heh heh, only on internet forums would two months ago be considered older).

One of my biggest gripes is with the scene in HoB, when Sherlock guesses what's-his-name's password, just because he realizes he likes Margaret Thatcher. "Maggie" certainly is a reasonable guess, but so would be "Thatch" or "ironlady". What if the password required numbers or characters? Since the whole discover of the meaning of H.O.U.N.D. depended on Sherlock being right, I'm just not buying it. Weak.

And all the little instant deductions that he has, shown by words on the screen. That was a great idea by the writers, and I enjoy those moments. But, think about when Sherlock looks at Watson, after not being able to read Irene's face. "New toothbrush", "out late last night"? Nope. Not convinced.

Also it is worth bearing in mind that when these deductions appear on people sometimes they are not to be taken entirely seriously. The classic is the scene in the Palace in SiB where they appear on the equerry and one of them says 'half-Welsh'. If you get the DVDs with commentary you hear that the writers think this is hilarious.

I was surprised that Maggies was even admissible as a password - fewer than 8 characters, no figures...

Regarding the deductions: I was bothered by the ring in ASiP as well, but maybe some married users could chime in here. I would have thought that a wedding ring doesn't need special cleaning because it gets washed and polished every time you wash your hands. The only ring I wear occasionally is made from brass, and it certainly looks better at the end of the day than when I put it on (after it had been quietly oxydizing  in its box for a few weeks).

Do flightcases even cause a splash patterns up one's leg? That would mean one had to change after walking through the rain with one... Frankly, I have my doubts... (but not the right trolley to test )

Another thing, and here I'm sure: It's absolutely unfair to deduct "psychosomatic limp" when the limper does not ask for a chair when standing. It's perfectly possible to have a mobility problem that does not bother one when one's standing still (like my father). Or maybe one doesn't want to draw special attention to one's handicap (like me, on occasion). Or maybe sitting down and getting up is just more trouble than it's worth for a talk that won't take very long.

I'd say quite a lot of the time Sherlock is simply jumping to conclusions, which are mostly correct because the script writer was on his side. Which is why I love that Harry stands for Harriet
 

Oh I do accept that Sherlock Holmes had exceptional powers of observation and could make logical deductions from them. I just don't think that all of what we see in the show is a convincing representation of Sherlock's ability!
And I have absolutely no idea who or what Peter Pan is...

nakahara wrote:

the audience must accept this special gift or ability of the main protagonist, if it wants to enjoy the story, because in this case it is a pole around which the universe of this fictional world oscillates. Take it away and it collapses into nothing. What good does it to watch the series about the detective of Sherlock´s type, if the spectator cannot accept the basic premise of this fictive universe?
 

I agree that there's always a pact between an audience and a fiction. We could not accept any fiction as sustainable otherwise.
But, there's a difference between noticing something inconsistent at first sight and looking for inconsistent details after. that's the difference between sustainable and "beyond reproach"
I don't care about "beyond reproach" , but I need the sustainablet to fully enjoy.
The "maggie" password did disturb me because, as soon as Sherlock Holmes found it, I thought " how a military classified computer account can be allowed to have such a simple password?"
Did I not enjoy the show because of it?... not, but it stayed in my mind as a flaw.
Then,  I'm not sure looking for little missing or inconsistent details breaks the magic, when you love a work . After all, it's been a holmesian game for more than 100 years. Most of the time, i didn't notice what Conan Doyle had messed up in the adventures, and found it hilarious when readers were pointing messed up details and were looking for theories squaring the circle ( hilarious, but not in a ironic way) .

I realize my last post could be misunderstood, so I want to make it clear that I don't put opposite the show which would contain " disturbing flaws" to the original adventures which would only contains "small inconsistent details"
No, I do like and enjoy the show, as it is,as much as the original adventures (well, maybe not "as much" because it's a lifetime love story between Conan Doyle books ans me, but still, i do like the show very much).
Btw, there's no mistake in the way Sherlock Holmes deduces the password, but the choice of the password itself by the writers is a mistake

Hmmm and this is how would it look if laws of our real world applied comcerning Sherlock´s deductive ability. It would be a short show, certainly. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKQOk5UlQSc

Oh my god! That was pretty funny.
I guess this Mike Stamford does't go out drinking with John.

I usually don't gete the chargers plugged in immediately, either, but it doesn't scratch because I don't go at it really hard.  I can see why I drunk's hand might, though.