This discussion nails what's been bugging me — that Sherlock isn't coming across as super-intelligent. I watched one the other night, where it hinged on a time date stamp being hacked into to provide an alibi. It was just lame that they never got it till the last minute — and it was Joan who got it.

What's wrong with a little compare and contrast? It's a valid exercise, a lot of the buzz before it started was that Elementary would get bulldozed by Sherlock.

What about the "no second chances" rule for 10? Where he offered an out for whoever the enemy was but only once. Was that a bridge, maybe, from 9 to 10?

Thanks for the love for Christopher Ecclestone. He was my introduction to Doctor Who.

Wow. I love Paul McGann as the Doctor.

Oy, don't invoke the spectre of House. I loved the first season, maybe the second but eventually I found it unwatchable, despite my love for Hugh Laurie. Right around the time they brought a whole bunch of new actors in. I thought it was a mean thing to do to the regulars and anyway I was longing to see Laurie in a…

It's just that sometimes it's hard to see what's so brilliant about Sherlock, when the mystery and its solution are kind of — eh. So I think it is important, though I agree really the character/psychological stuff is what brings you back.

Way to make lemons out of lemonade, Myles (the lost eight minutes inspiring an extended observation). According to the comments below, they were the best eight minutes ever, too.

"Heal" by Tom Odell.

"Peter took that from her, I think." Please.

Finally I was surprised by something Sherlock deduced that I didn't see coming, i.e. Mycroft and Joan. Very Sherlockian. The writers should really work on their skills in mystery plotting. I don't think it's just the name actors that give it away. A long time ago I realized the murderer is nearly always the 2nd or 3rd…

To get rid of the homeless. More parks are born out of that kind of motivation than people want to know.

Isn't being escorted out by security standard procedure when you're fired?

I don't really see Alicia as ethical. At best her ethics are confused. I know they tried to get that across early on, or at least that she was the guppy lawyer being schooled in the harsh ways of the law, but since then she seems mostly about what works. I have to admit, I find her incredibly unlikable, because…

Does that actually happen in New York? A shutdown like that, especially for that length of time?

I think you just illustrated how many ducks have to line up to grab slippery Peter on this one. A grass-roots movement to tax the internet? Really?

The opening scenes reminded me of The Tudors, I guess because of the defend-the-palace-from-the-coup atmosphere. Except in The Tudors they'd be lopping off heads or other grisly types of executions.

Maybe that's why Alicia mentioned to Robin that their interactions would be scrutinized in a deposition/court. She might have been thinking of the financial implications, not anticipating Will's move for a restraining order. Will mentioned "fiduciary obligations". Partners probably have a contract spelling out terms…

Kalinda and Will have some kind of bond that was suggested a long time ago, when they promised each other they had each other's backs. So I'm not surprised she stayed with Will. I wish they'd fill that background in a little, though.

Oh. There's a Miles explaining Myles' review?