Describing a comment as fatuous is very different from describing the person who made it as fatuous.

To clarify: "I shun Sherlock" is not the same as "I have never seen Sherlock" I watched a significant amount of the show before coming to the conclusion that there wasn't anything for me to enjoy about this show.

Read through my posts above. At any stage in any of those did I make any observations about your character? No? So why is it open season for you to start in on mine?

Can you please refrain from generalising about fans of Elementary, I prefer Elementary because the stories in Sherlock are flat out stupid and leavened with a liberal dose of racism, sexism and general insensitivity.

I watch Elementary and I shun Sherlock, just as you suggest. I will however react to any assertion of intellectual supremacy of the latter over the former. It's not true, I can prove it's not true. You may like it better, fine, that's a matter of opinion. No contest. But if you want calm to return drop the fatuous…

I wasn't the person who brought up suicide. Nor was I the person who started talking about how they had witnessed other people driven to suicide and Watson was definitely that sort of character. That was all you.

You're projecting.

I don't think it's appropriate to bring up other people's suicides in support of your critique of a fictional character. That is someone else's death you're talking about, it deserves greater respect than to be used as ammunition to justify your dislike of a character who reminds you of your ex-wife.

1) You are entitled to your opinion that you don't like Elementary. You are entitled to your opinion you don't like Joan Watson.

You can resort to insults all you like. That doesn't invalidate any of my other responses that you have singularly failed to even address much less refute.

This is a public forum for the exchange of opinions and ideas. Someone expressing an opinion different from yours should not be met with direct insults, that's not how discourse works.

And you are entitled to your opinion, I strongly disagree with it, but you're entitled to it. Some of your assertions are flat out wrong, in particular "nobody this bright is that clueless". That is old ground and has previously been soundly refuted. You told me I was right. Were you lying? That could actually explain…

I'm beginning to get that impression too :)

How should I parse "Her physical personal"?

Sherlock is certainly unexpected. I expect the mysteries to make a modicum of sense. Skipping quickly over the occasional fine detail is fine, and par for the course I think, but having the pillars of your story based on total rubbish is more than I can bear.

I missed the part in the original stories involving the plane full of dead people, or the password guessing by inspiration, or the lame-ass tried (see Eleventy-one's earlier post about WMLAT) or any of the other blatantly stupid plot elements that characterise Sherlock.

This discourse will be shaped by what we each consider to be the essential elements of Holmes as a character and what we regard as non-essential and might validly be altered in an adaptation.

And you yours. May you forever remain oblivious, it's a state that obviously agrees with you.

I am not suggesting that Elementary is perfect, nor am I trying to assert that all of its plots are plausible and realistic. Indeed, I'm not looking for that in a Holmes story. I don't think anyone in this thread has attempted to assert any of these things.

The only way I can sit through Sherlock's immensely silly plots is by disassociating. Once that happens I really can't engage with the characters, their interactions and their motivations because my brain is trying to ignore the dozens of nonsensical aspects of what has occurred.