Fine.

Except she lost the fortune she would have kept had she not botched her phone security.

1.Not a win
2. Not a good win, since Sherlock beat her later. And certainly not something that demonstrates cleverness.
3. Only because Sherlock lied for her. Again, relying on a man.
4. So it took him more than two attempts. He solved it. Not even remotely a win.
5.She relied on Moriarty to do it.
6. She lost on her money…

Wow, she was 'tamed' by marrying a man she loved? You sound like Rush Limbaugh.

That is some hilarious literary revisionism right there.

Disagree. Your meltdown has been hilarious.

I might have agreed if if Sherlock had come out after, or even at the same time as elementary. Producing at a snail's pace is not really a good excuse, especially when you can't keep the quality level high.

While I find this post to be mildly hyperbolic and overly-insulting, it's telling that Sherlock fans haven't called him out on it.

He's not talking about the Elementary version, he's pointing out how terrible and anit-canon the BBC version's was.

"she loses because Sherlock is manipulative and will do seemingly anything to gather information"

No it isn't. This is why I laugh whenever anyone tells me Sherlock is a smart show. It's plots never make sense, but fans will swallow anything.

Hahaha, no.

There's a bomb with an off switch that would disagree with you on intellectual story telling.

The original ACD stories are extremely procedural. I don't know what you're talking about.

Calling the queer-baiting on Sherlock humorous was all we needed to know you aren't worth listening to.

Except ACD fully intended to kill him.

Nothing more cerebral than a bomb with off switch, right?

You are just trying to be laughed at, aren't you?

Thanks for the recommendation. Last time I followed the suggestions from someone the elementary boards I ended up reading all of sandman in a month.

She knew who wrote the episode. She also knows who the showrunner is. Do you?