I am not sure how one blogger out there can continually. . .

complain about the membership requirements of the BSI and yet so readily almost pander to another group which states, ". . . are an all-female group of Sherlock Holmes fans dedicated to approaching the fandom from a female point of view, as well as engaging in fun, lively conversations about the canon, film and television adaptations of Arthur Conan Doyle’s work, and associated topics...

Now I am okay with the requirements that both societies have set. If you want to be in an all female group that doesn't allow males, well that's up to you.
But if you want to be a member of another group that also limits it's membership for what ever reasons it chooses, that's fine also.

If you don't like how either one does it, don't support them, or don't accept the invitation to join (or sent back your shilling, get the divorce).

If said bloggers goes along with the saying "all Sherlockiana is good Sherlockiana", well lets just say he would have half as many posts.

Holmes and Watson. What a waste of time and talent.

I really tried to go into it with an open mind.
I like most of what John C. Reilly does, especially lately.
And some of what Will Ferrell does.

But this film really let both of them down, again, especially John C. Reilly.

There was no real story, just an hour and a half or so (seemed much longer) of really bad jokes and prat-falls.

I am not even going to compare it to Without a Clue, it come no where near that wonderful comedy.

Lots of great talent Holmes and Watson, but I am sure most of them are sorry to have to put this one on their resume.

Once again he is onto his favorite subject -The BSI

Come on Sherlock Peoria, give back your shilling, take off your armor and become the serf you claim you really are.

You are starting to sound like you did for the first eight years of Elementary, and a broken record.

To me it just makes you sound like you are wanting to fit in with what is popular at the moment.

If all Sherlockian is good Sherlockian, move on!

I just noticed this on one of my least favorite blogs. . . . .

"I don't go on much about being a member of the Baker Street Irregulars. I don't attach those three letters to my name in correspondence or Sherlockian resumes. And occasionally I bitch about the group's membership policy. All of this begins thirty years ago."

I think it is kind of funny that in his not going on much about being a member, he seems to almost always go on about being a member of a group that he doesn't even really like that much and is always complaining about.

Even, in his least blog post,  going on about not wanting much of the credit for helping change a membership policy while making a point of telling us how much credit he should get for that.

He doesn't occasionally go on about the groups membership policy, but instead does it fairly often.

Again I must ask, "if you don't want to be a positive force for change within the group, positive being the key word, give back your membership."

Once again the BSI is in someones crosshairs.

It always astounds me when a group that is so hated by a certain individual is always be taken to task by that same individual.

My family once had a friend, my brother's friend, who always liked to compare England to just about every place else, usually trying to get to my very English dad.
"Well England may have done this, but such-n-such did this, which seemed better than anything England could have done.."

I would never participate in these discussions cause I never could get the point, except maybe to make one's self look better. I always had more respect for the more humble people who didn't seem to need to make someone else look bad for them to look good.

A certain Illinois blogger is once again making noise about the BSI, and just like his constant complaint about 'Elementary' I have to think; "If you think so little of it, why do you spend so much time trying to pull it down or make it look bad?"

In the case of the BSI, why doesn't he just turn in his investiture and prove to everyone that he doesn't think it is so important. Or better yet, if you do like it, but want to change things. . .  GET INVOLVED!

Another non-inclusive society has also started taking aim at the BSI because they didn't agree with an editing decision.

Most of us realize that for whatever reason we will never get invited into the BSI. Sad, but true.
But most of also realize that that is because we are not all that great at writing a very scholarly paper.
Try as I may, I am not deft enough with the pen to make that leap.

Oh, well. He got his recognition, and I guess he thinks that puts him above the rest of us and that we may all think more about his opinion.

Well, Illinois is cold this winter, but what can you expect.

Sherlock Gnomes - I liked it.

I hadn't expected to.

We first started watching it when we were snowed in out at our cabin last weekend.

Late at night, after being outside all day.
In our bunks by the fire, daughter and I started watching it.

Between my bad hearing (and the fact that the portable DVD player doesn't get very loud anyway) and being out in the cold a lot, I kept falling asleep through it.




So, last week, when I got back home I found time to watch it free on Amazon Prime.

And it was a lot better than I expected.

Holmes, voiced by Johnny Depp, was played very much to how we could expect the Canonical Holmes to be; driven by his trade, aloft, focused and seemingly oblivious to how others feel.
Watson, voiced by Chiwetel Ejiofor, was played more like side-kick than silent partner (which ended up being the plot of the story. Perhaps a little more Jude's Watson than Bruce's.

The animation was well done.

One did not have to have seen any of the other Gnome movies to enjoy this one. It stood very well on its own.

Although fairly well done, the Moriarty character was a little to close the bad guy in the first 'The Incredibles' movie for me, Some of his one-liners were very funny however.

There were some fun pearls buried in the story that kept one looking.

The plot needed a little more fleshing out, but overall I thought the film fun.

James!

Thanks for stopping by, as always.

Google is not let me sign in to reply, so I thought I would say thanks here.

BSI and their journal are in hot water again.

Yea, here we go again.
The BSI is in hot water again. Or more specifically the Baker St. Journal.
That's because they didn't print a piece by Lyndsay Faye. And to be fair, she did write a very good piece.
But the Baker St. Babes didn't like the fact that the BSJ didn't publish it.
They gave it good reviews, matter-of-fact, a great review. They said she did a great job. But thought it too 'Timely'. And they have that right.


But I guess the Babes have become so self-absorbed that they think they should have a say in everything and that everyone should listen.

And because the BSJ didn't except this one piece, we go back to the name calling and insulting.
They are, "but apparently there are still ancient pockets filled with dinosaurs".

I bet Lyndsay won't give back her investiture into the BSI. Now that would really convince me she was serious about her stance.

I read her piece. I was very well written. And had some very worthy discussion points. But to compare Holmes behavior in CHAR to Weinsteins behavior is just silly. 

You can argue these points from a playing the game angle or from a 'let's just view this in its context' angle.

If you don't think the BSI should be held in such high regard, then why do you think it is so important to have your work published there?

Why do you need ancient dinosaurs to approve your work?

Most people like me wish we could write as well as Lyndsay and her crew. And a lot of those writers are already riding on the coat tales of someone else's creation. 

Give it a break.

Rest on your own laurels and don't worry about what the BSJ thinks. Even when they say nice things about you.