mrshouse wrote:

@nakahara, please don't leave.
We need to have different opinions in a discussion forum. And everybody has doubts from time to time. I certainly do if I'm being very honest. And sometimes you write down things that gnaw at me but I can't put a finger on it till I see a post you wrote. We should be careful with negativity and polarization though. I think that got a bit out of hand yesterday. But I would miss your contributions.

I never intended to leave, mrshouse. (But thank you for your concern, dear.)
I just shup up about a theme that obviously grated on others nerves. Because it was pointed up to me during weekend that my posts may sound overly negative to some members, I tried to apologise in advance that I might sound bitchy when posting these - but even that came out wrong, for obviously it sounded like some veiled salty sneer at others.
So I considered it wiser to stop adding more petrol to the fire in the situation and stop for the moment.
I´ll certainly try to be more careful with my words in the future, but of course, I can´t always predict how my post will sound to others, so please, indulge with me. I just like to discuss problems, but personal attacks and infighting are really not my thing, so if somewhat sounds overly sarcastic to you, please, point it out to me right away, so that I can avoid it.

nakahara wrote:

I just shup up about a theme that obviously grated on others nerves. Because it was pointed up to me during weekend that my posts may sound overly negative to some members, I tried to apologise in advance that I might sound bitchy when posting these - but even that came out wrong, for obviously it sounded like some veiled salty sneer at others.
So I considered it wiser to stop adding more petrol to the fire in the situation and stop for the moment.
I´ll certainly try to be more careful with my words in the future, but of course, I can´t always predict how my post will sound to others, so please, indulge with me. I just like to discuss problems, but personal attacks and infighting are really not my thing, so if somewhat sounds overly sarcastic to you, please, point it out to me right away, so that I can avoid it.

It's ok, nakahara, thanks for this 
 

I just found a very interesting meta that toys with the theory of Mary being Magnussen´s accomplice and maybe a real Moriarty. Many things from that could be plausible from what we had seen in HLV:

https://monikakrasnorada.tumblr.com/post/142645505632/who-told-us-that-magnussen-was-blackmailing-mary

What has always struck me is that apart from being amused no one seems to be interested in the telegram. If Sherlock hated Magnus sen so much, he at least should have become suspicious. And what about John? Would a husband not wonder about the word poppet and the allusion to May's family? Plot hole or intent?

Will be interesting to see if that telegram returns in some form.

I wouldn't mind if Mary turned about ot a villain, working for Moriarty. However, I would mind if she turned out to be Moriarty. I don't know, I like Andrew Scott's Moriarty so much, it would feel wrong if Mary was the "true one", in a sense.

We only had the bumbling amateurs till now, didn't we? 

Just one thought: Would you all really say that Moriarty was capable of leading a worldwide criminal network? Someone like Magnussen or Mycroft to me seems far more capable of that. This is why I am not adverse to the idea discussed elsewhere that Moriarty indeed was used to lure Sherlock into the game while someone else was pulling the strings in the background. He is brilliant and fascinating, but not necessarily a criminal mastermind. And in the 21st it could indeed be a woman who is behind all that. Just some random thoughts. 

Yes, good point. The Moran we got was just a sort of placeholder in order to get the name into the return episode.  

It could even be the other way round: Mary (if she turns out to be evil Mary) could have used him.   Or Moriarty, was a consulting criminal, after all ... Mary could have used his services.   She could have been a client of both Moriary and Sherlock.  It would be kind of ironic that of the two, she ended up using Sherlock to do the assassinating. 

Magnussen is different, I think.  I don't think he really had any desire to be a criminal mastermind - I think he got a kick out of being mainstream and untouchable, manipulating the government and never getting his hands dirty.  He didn't need a criminal network, just information gatherers. 

Mycroft: I don't think given what we've seen that he'd lead a criminal network (although I'm sure he might oversee some dodgy stuff at times).   I think his adoration of the Queen is genuine, and also I don't know if he could be bothered.   However, there may still be more to find out about Mycroft!

Perhaps Irene is more likely: clearly brilliant and manipulative, and on the wrong side of the government.  She also appeared to be a client of Moriarty's .. perhaps she had more power than was obvious.   But I do think her story is a one-off and I also think that we (viewers) need to have some sympathy for her watching ASIB or it doesn't work so well.

Mary ... I think it really depends where they're taking the character, and if the big reveal was in HLV and she's going to be on "our" side now, or if they want to do a double twist and have her masterminding something much bigger all along.  But there is definitely some unsovled mystery with Mary ... something's got to happen.

nakahara wrote:

Or Mary could be Moriarty´s more level-headed right hand. Colonel Sebastian Moran in female form.

I have always like the idea of Mary as Moran too. 
Although it can't happen because the fandom has already cast Michael Fassbender in the role. 


No seriously.  I would much prefer this to Mary being Moriarty.