So I could say "Everybody who likes Mary is a weirdo" because I don't name a person? That is just wrong.

If you are still mad at somebody for calling your post rubbish, write them a pm. Get it solved. Don't let your bitternes about that influence your posts here.

And please tell me, you personally, do you really think that comparing somebody to Moon Landing Deniers is not insulting? Maybe again, our idea of "insults" is different.

I am trying to be as clear as possible...
To  a certain extent, it is as we've said: attack the argument, not the individual.
But also.
For instance:
That is why, for example, some of us would be prepared to fight to the death, against for example, a blasphemy law.
Because sometimes you just have to be allowed to say what your really believe, knowing it will offend a lot of people.
This, for me, is the price of democracy.
I just want to be totally honest and up front as I have absolutely nothing to hide.
But in here I don't feel I can say what I really believe, because somebody will be offended by it.
It's is very difficult to constantly sugar the pill,
For me, if somebody made a generalised, controversial statement I didn't agree with: I would just counter it.
I wouldn't for instance, report the post or contact a member of staff.. I would deal with it myself,, but maybe that's me.

Raven: one could ask, is anybody above criticism?!

Last edited by besleybean (August 22, 2016 6:30 am)

I think it's fine to criticise the creators (although I'd prefer that it didn't get nasty or personal).

I do think everybody should be considerate and not attack individuals or groups of individuals here.   But I can see how the problem has arisen with this particular thing - TJLC (The Johnlock Conspiracy), has "conspiracy" right there in the name.   It seems to be setting itself up as a conspiracy theory, and proud of the fact!  So comparing it to another conspiracy theory, isn't really an insult.   I think it probably isn't the best thing to do, as conspiracy theories you don't believe in tend to sound far-fetched (until the occasional one turns out to be true!), but I think the comparism arises because TJLC is set up and named as a conspiracy (however humorous the original intention).   I know the subject of conspiracy theories has come up before, for this reason.  

I do think it's best to avoid the subject of conspiracy theories (I'm definitely not trying to fan any flames here!  Just to explain how I see it).
 

Last edited by Liberty (August 22, 2016 9:13 am)

JP wrote:

"Hmmm... how could this happen in a show co-written by gay man? Or is he a self-hating gay?"
What about self-irony? He's the man who calls himself Gay-tiss...

Self-irony?

The waterfall scene is one of the last scenes of TAB, the highest point in the narrative of that story and its denouement. As such, it gives meaning to all the scenes preceding it.
And yet instead of telling us something about the psychology of the main character in whose head the story takes place, we suddenly have a piece of needless self-irony inserted into such an important moment? Self-irony that doesn´t have any role inside the narrative but is only the kick of the author into his own orientation?
Why would it be inserted here? For me, it does not make sense... to write Victorian detective story paired with contemporary drama and instead of ending it properly, sidestepping the raised up emotional problems of the main protagonist in favour of cheap jokes and mocking the issue that didn´t need mocking in the first place?

No, I don´t think that the scene was mere irony. It makes no sense that way.
 

Last edited by nakahara (August 22, 2016 9:22 am)

besleybean wrote:

I am trying to be as clear as possible...
To  a certain extent, it is as we've said: attack the argument, not the individual.
But also.
For instance:
That is why, for example, some of us would be prepared to fight to the death, against for example, a blasphemy law.
Because sometimes you just have to be allowed to say what your really believe, knowing it will offend a lot of people.
This, for me, is the price of democracy.
I just want to be totally honest and up front as I have absolutely nothing to hide.
But in here I don't feel I can say what I really believe, because somebody will be offended by it.
It's is very difficult to constantly sugar the pill,
For me, if somebody made a generalised, controversial statement I didn't agree with: I would just counter it.
I wouldn't for instance, report the post or contact a member of staff.. I would deal with it myself,, but maybe that's me.

I agree that´s how it should be. You should talk about arguments, not about your co-members of the forum.
And so, when I (or anybody else) voice our opinions about the writing on the show or the attitude of the creators towards their fans, people should just correct our "mistaken" opinions, not label us as bashers and accuse us of being bad fans. How is this discussing the argument if you constantly police the others for the vocabulary they use, for the humour they apply, for their outlooks on things?
Yes, as a result, it really creates an atmosphere when people are unable to discuss things in fear of offending someone... and it more and more difficult to speak honestly about the things you believe. 

A few more questions.   It's very difficult not to get distracted, as some of these questions make very good starting points for extended discussions, I think!    But here we go ...

• Why does Sherlock always talk to John even when he’s not there?
He needs John.  And I think he sometimes doesn’t think too much about John’s life outside of their relationship.  He likes the idea of John always being there, and I think he uses him almost as an imaginary friend to sound off to.

• Why did Sherlock say that sex doesn’t alarm him?
He thinks he’s above all that, but also wants it known that he’s not scared of it.   

• Why did Sherlock steal an ashtray for John?
To make him laugh.   (I'm not sure if this needs a bigger explanation - it's one of the many questions where I can't understand what it has to do with Johnlock!  So if anybody wants to explain, or wants me to go into more detail ....)

• Why did Sherlock only look at Irene’s face when she was fully naked?
He can’t deduce from her clothing and is trying to deduce from her face.  However, he does look at her body (he guesses her measurements accurately).

• Why did Irene say ‘somebody loves you, if I had to punch that face, I’d avoid your nose and teeth too’ and look at John?
She has guessed what has happened and is aware of their relationship (although possibly still sussing it out a bit).  She is also complimenting Sherlock's looks.

• Why did John get annoyed and say 'I had a tea at the palace too, if anyone’s interested’?
He’s a bit of a gooseberry in that scene with these two “exotic beings” playing games together. 

• Why could Sherlock deduce John perfectly but not deduce Irene at all?
Irene is in “disguise”.  (Personally, I'm surprised at Sherlock's complete lack of deduction.   It could be because it fits the story, or could be to show how much he's thrown by Irene's trick).

• Why did Irene say that she wasn’t sure that Sherlock knew 'where to look’?
At first she wasn’t sure if he was attracted to her/women, (as opposed to John, who knew exactly where to look)  but when he guesses her measurements she thinks that he was (he did secretly look at her body, particularly bust, waist and hip area!).  

• Why did Sherlock stutter when John flirted with Irene?
Because he saw Irene’s attention being diverted to John, was flustered, and tried to attract her back to him.  (Benedict has answered this in the commentary: “I do love the only moment [Sherlock] verbally stumbles – and I sort of did it deliberately – was because [he] sensed a bit of competition in Watson starting to turn on the charm, and in trying to desperately get in there to impress you, I went, [he talks gibberish]. “  (“You” is Lara,  Martin isn’t there).   From Arianne de Vere.

tonnaree wrote:

If there's nothing else we can all agree on it's that Sherlock and John are each the most important thing in the other's lives.

This. :-)

I am very sure that the baby will not remain in the show, one way or other.

(shudders.)

SolarSystem wrote:

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

I'd like to ask this: why are the show creators exempt from criticism?  

I'm sure you already know this, but let me just remind you: Because it is their show and they can do with it whatever they like, and if you don't like what they're doing with it you can always stop watching it or write your own show.

 

So the answer is, either adore Mofftiss blindly or leave? Serious question. I'm actually a professional writer, I have to deal with critique and criticism all the time. If I couldn't handle it, I wouldn't write professionally. In any case, it's often helpful-- that's how you learn. On criticizing certain behaviors/strategies observed, well-- I feel like people are allowed to feel how they feel-- without being told to leave the fandom. I think there's more than one way to be a fan-- and one doesn't have to blindly love a show and pretend not to see any faults of the show and its creators in order to be a "good" fan.  Just my thoughts, ;-)

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (August 22, 2016 5:00 pm)