You don't like the Wombles?

Hell, go watch Monty Python's Flying Circus. It has it's moments but by and large it's just un-funny.

I actually enjoy the Downey movies. But I'm already embroiled in enough of a morass trying to demonstrate that the bleeding obvious is obvious so I let that snub slide. But well-spoken.

"And AGAIN the real story is the dancing and fencing between Sherlock-Irene Adler-Mycroft. I'm sorry that petty plot points that can be easily explained distracted you from the REAL story."

Lucky you, you on the other hand are becoming increasingly tiresome

Freedom of speech is not to be confused with freedom to insult.

Okay, here's an example of how the same problem was handled in reality:

So your response is that I have to concede that I'm dumber than a fictional character on a show written by simpletons? I don't concede that at all.

If you accept it you can keep your bonkers comments to yourself can you not?

So Watson is learning to put up with Sherlock being a complete dick because… ummm… there wouldn't be a show otherwise?

You apparently don't know what logic is. I made no logical statement in my previous post. I made a declarative statement. I did not construct a line of argument. So allow me to do so now.

I have an imagination I have used it, I have projected the consequences of this plan, the preparations it requires and the possible contingencies that need to be anticipated and there is no plausible way of doing it so it doesn't explode into shards.

I like that answer, thank you. I hope you continue enjoying the show.

The "government" doing the investigation can fake DNA tests? Which government would that be? The Briitish government, the US government, or the ICAO - the independent international body that oversees crash investigations and is not subject to governmental oversight?

It varies from person to person of course, not all gay men are tolerant of lesbians/bisexuals/transgender and vice versa. But just because someone is gay, doesn't make them immune from being held to task for saying/doing/depicting obnoxious things. It sounds like as a group they have a weakness for spouting…

A conjecture both deep and profound
Is whether the circle is round.
In a paper of Erdös
Written in Kurdish
A counterexample is found.

Note that the journal is called Psychologytoday and not empathy today. Because academic psychology is the study of mental processes and empathy is not. One is of great use in the investigation of crimes and the other is less so.

What I am saying is that the original author has a right to express her opinion without being subjected to crude personal verbal attacks.

The central point, which you have lost, is that understanding and recognising emotional states and their power is distinct from feeling empathy. In fact homicide investigators become desensitised by constant exposure to violence but they do not forget how to recognise the significance of emotion

Not exactly on-topic