That would be the one where you used the word "truer". Tell me what is the objective measure of "truer"?

Because no female character does anything of note in Sherlock aside from Adler who transforms from the only person to beat Holmes to getting thorough trounced by him. You have not defended the charges of racism or sexual intolerance.

I see, so, you're conceding that ftss's posts were intolerant and that I was right to hold him to task?

Truer to the books?

I am trying to establish where my burden of proof ends before I begin. Do I need to prove that a plane full of 300 corpses is idiotic? Do I need to show that a criminal mastermind who has to shoot himself as part of his plan is actually an idiot? D I need to show that following a detective around in hopes he will lead…

Sherlock is casually sexist, sexually intolerant and racist - proof by direct observation

Yes, that is what objective means. And for the third time. That is not possible since the comparison implicitly involves applying relative values between independent qualities.

Reason 1) Sherlock having stupid plots is a direct observable. Are you disputing that that is true?

Let me quote directly from my own posts:

Ok, notice how in my posts I refrained from insulting anyone? Notice how in your posts there are four separate direct insults? I don't need lessons in the etiquette of discourse from people who think that a torrent of personal abuse will make up for intellectual content.

You're very confused.

Go to this web-page:

No, in fact I've done the exact opposite of that. I have differentiated between what is opinion and observable. Opinions carry equal weight, observables are based in fact. Where other people have divergent opinions I have conceded the validity of those opinions, where people contradict observable fact I hold them to…

I have made a total of four posts. The original, to which you responded three times, and three responses. This post is the third of those responses and is an aside. It is a minor point inserted to supplement the arguments made in my other posts. It does not constitute the bulk of my reasoning so attacking it on that…

As an aside, plenty of people have watched the third season of Sherlock and come to the conclusion that the problems are worse now than in seasons one and two. Their comments are in the preceding thread, read it through.

Ok, here is how this works.

Let me re-state my case:

First of all. When you read an opinion piece you are likely to encounter the opinions of the author. If you are uninterested in their opinion don't read the column. But what you really uninterested in seem to be opinions that are different from your own. Then stay off the internet because it's going to happen.

You can make that assertion but it is pointless. Since reality is as it is and is not otherwise we cannot test the accuracy of your claim. I can make counter claims but since they would be equally unverifiable I shall refrain and instead return to what can be directly observed.

I think Elementary treats Sherlock's treatment as something other than a comic theme which is a fundamental difference.