Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Here, here. . .


I hate to do this, but, credit where credit is due.


  1. This is the response I submitted to S.P. If it ever makes it out of moderation limbo, I will be pleasantly surprised-- and probably 80 years old:

    "I think Ms. Ketelsen could give Toby a run for his money at sniffing great Elementary articles. The Guardian one is particularly good because it links to a well reasoned consideration of Moffat's take on Irene Adler. Brava, Ms Ketelsen!

    "And speaking of sniff, your nose-in-the-air reaction to the word "superfan" ("certainly a new way to marginalize those who don't like the show") would do an "elite devotee" proud. For the master of argumentum ad hominem to hand out such a complement to another shows a generous spirit. Especially with your "Elementary"-avoidance radar, you probably didn't read Emily Temple's article and don't know how she is using the term. I'm sure your reasoning goes, "I won't read the article because it's positive about 'Elementary'. Since it's positive about 'Elementary', the term 'superfan' must be one of derision. Since 'superfan' is a term of derision, well, right back at ya!"
    May 28, 2013 at 7:27 AM"

    I hope you'll note that while Brad complains about ad hominem attacks on haters of "Elementary", he is strangely silent on Ms. Ketelsen's ad hominem attacks on "Elementary" lovers: "Surrounded by idiots everywhere: http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2013/may/28/elementary-sherlock-holmes-pastiche?fb=native&commentpage=1"

    1. I had to delete my replies to both Brad and Silke's because I don't want to get sucked into their bad manners and poor taste in Blog etiquette. (Brad has not posted a few of my comments of late, so I know where he stands.)
      They are who they are.
      I agree with your argument.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.