Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

"I Am Murloc" - irresponsible?

13

Posts

  • FalloutFallout GIRL'S DAY EVERY DAYRegistered User regular
    Blizzard is not in any position of authority.

    But yes, they are collectively deriding all homosexuals because they called aquaman a queen in a joke song about fish-things that go HULAGUAGLAHGLUAGHUGGHGUGH.

    :ROOOOOOOOOLLLL:

    xcomsig.png
  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User
    delroland wrote: »
    Let me add a point on perspective:

    There is a HUGE difference between, say, your neighbor telling you to stop being gay and a senator telling people in general to stop being gay. People in authority have a responsibility to at least try to not offend those they have authority over. I don't think Blizzard even took this into account, which is why I am disturbed.

    Also, just looking at this thread it shows I was not the only person concerned with this, so evidence exists that the lyric is offensive to some people. Thus Blizzard owed it to those people to be more responsible in their actions.

    When you are a multi-billion dollar industry with millions of customers, it hoists that responsibility on you, to be quite a bit more tactful.

    The lyric means Aquaman is lame because he is a "queen". Therefore "queens" are lame. So what does this mean exactly? That gay people are lame? Or crossdressers? Or metrosexuals? Does it matter? Does it make this any less inappropriate?

    Anyways, it's not like this is the end of the world; people will forget about this song within a couple of weeks.

    Your two points contradict each other. Blizzard let the song slide because, seriously, it's going to be forgotten in a couple of weeks.

    This is the same kind of logic that leads to thoughts like "Gay books in the library will turn my straight kids gay!"

    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • MittenMitten Registered User
    The song was obviously tongue-in-cheek, and were it not I'd think it more sexist than homophobic.

  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Registered User regular
    Until I saw this thread again, I'd already forgotten about it.

  • delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    This is the same kind of logic that leads to thoughts like "Gay books in the library will turn my straight kids gay!"

    Uh, no. That's actually the exact opposite type of logic. I'm arguing Blizzard shouldn't make fun of the gay community. Those nutjobs are arguing that we should discriminate against the gay community because they are out to convert us.

    And I know my points contradict. I made the last statement demonstrating myself throwing my arms up and saying, "Well, I guess there isn't much point in getting TOO worked up over it, since it will go away on its own." That doesn't invalidate anything I have posted prior.

    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User
    Gayest thread ever.

  • NarianNarian Registered User
    The video + song made me laugh. I laughed even more at the "Not a Queen like Aquaman" part than normally because of all the people crying about it.

    Narian.gif
  • FalloutFallout GIRL'S DAY EVERY DAYRegistered User regular
    Maybe Blizzard was thinking that people would recognize their jab at aquaman with a completely negligible reference to him being a fag as

    oh i dunno

    a joke

    xcomsig.png
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    Fallout wrote: »
    Maybe Blizzard was thinking that people would recognize their jab at aquaman with a completely negligible reference to him being a fag as

    oh i dunno

    a joke

    Yeah, as long as it's a joke it's totally not offensive.



    Edit: That was meant to be sarcastic.

    I'd love to see how the reaction would be different if Aquaman was disparaged for being black instead of female/gay.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    I'm sorry, but I really have to ask why people think this was a joke about Aquaman being a homosexual?

    I mean, Aquaman is royalty, right? I don't see how this can be interpreted any other way except as an "olol ur a girl" joke. The word "queen" was used because King Murloc is a king and Aquaman is either a prince or a king or what the fuck ever and King Murloc was trying to knock a royal rival by suggesting that Aquaman is a girl.

    The joke may be sexist for suggesting or joking that girls are inferior to men, but in no way, shape or form did the joke have anything to do with calling Aquaman a homosexual. This whole perspective is just absurd to me.

    steam_sig.png
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Registered User regular
    This thread is retarded, and I'd kinda like to take it out back and put a shotgun to its head.

  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    Drez wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I really have to ask why people think this was a joke about Aquaman being a homosexual?

    I mean, Aquaman is royalty, right? I don't see how this can be interpreted any other way except as an "olol ur a girl" joke. The word "queen" was used because King Murloc is a king and Aquaman is either a prince or a king or what the fuck ever and King Murloc was trying to knock a royal rival by suggesting that Aquaman is a girl.

    The joke may be sexist for suggesting or joking that girls are inferior to men, but in no way, shape or form did the joke have anything to do with calling Aquaman a homosexual. This whole perspective is just absurd to me.

    "Queen" is a negative term for gay male.

    Yes, it's often reclaimed by gay men and used by them as a non-pejorative, but without a clearer context of the video's authors' intentions I think it's safe to go with the more commonplace negative connotations of the word.

  • WerrickWerrick Registered User
    Some people aren't happy unless they can find a reason to be offended about something, even if that means they have to be offended by proxy about something that has nothing to do with them.

    "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

    -Robert E. Howard
    Tower of the Elephant
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Registered User regular
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I really have to ask why people think this was a joke about Aquaman being a homosexual?

    I mean, Aquaman is royalty, right? I don't see how this can be interpreted any other way except as an "olol ur a girl" joke. The word "queen" was used because King Murloc is a king and Aquaman is either a prince or a king or what the fuck ever and King Murloc was trying to knock a royal rival by suggesting that Aquaman is a girl.

    The joke may be sexist for suggesting or joking that girls are inferior to men, but in no way, shape or form did the joke have anything to do with calling Aquaman a homosexual. This whole perspective is just absurd to me.

    "Queen" is a negative term for gay male.

    Yes, it's often reclaimed by gay men and used by them as a non-pejorative, but without a clearer context of the video's authors' intentions I think it's safe to go with the more commonplace negative connotations of the word.

    How is it "safer" to assume deliberate malice on the part of a game company publishing a video related to their largely cartoonish videogame? I think it's safer to assume you're blowing this out of proportion, and should chill the fuck out about it.

  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    Werrick wrote: »
    Some people aren't happy unless they can find a reason to be offended about something, even if that means they have to be offended by proxy about something that has nothing to do with them.

    Perhaps, but just because you're not directly affected by someone's actions doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to react to those actions.
    How is it "safer" to assume deliberate malice on the part of a game company publishing a video related to their largely cartoonish videogame? I think it's safer to assume you're blowing this out of proportion, and should chill the fuck out about it.

    Because there was absolutely no requirement for Blizzard to use "queen" in their song, tongue-in-cheek or not. And the commonly accepted connotation of the word is what implies the malice, just as a certain n-word is automatically malicious.

    Also, please note that I've not once suggested that Blizzard was "irresponsible" for having created this video; I'm just disappointed that the majority reaction here is that anti-gay slurs are somehow less damaging than anti-women or racist slurs.

  • NORNOR Registered User
    This is easily the best thing that has anything to do with WoW ever.

    Swehehehehehahahahahahahahahawhawhawhaw
  • WerrickWerrick Registered User
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Werrick wrote: »
    Some people aren't happy unless they can find a reason to be offended about something, even if that means they have to be offended by proxy about something that has nothing to do with them.

    Perhaps, but just because you're not directly affected by someone's actions doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to react to those actions.

    You can say and do what you like. If you were offended by a thing for your own sake, and you said something about it then I would assume that the appropriate response would be to discuss the issue and make amends.

    But if you think I'm going to put up with a little lecture on morality and political correctness from someone completely uninvolved and unaffected then you have another thing coming. It's one thing to support a person who says "That's offensive to me" and another thing altogether to say "that's offensive to them" in a vaccuum.

    "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

    -Robert E. Howard
    Tower of the Elephant
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    Werrick wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Werrick wrote: »
    Some people aren't happy unless they can find a reason to be offended about something, even if that means they have to be offended by proxy about something that has nothing to do with them.

    Perhaps, but just because you're not directly affected by someone's actions doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to react to those actions.

    You can say and do what you like. If you were offended by a thing for your own sake, and you said something about it then I would assume that the appropriate response would be to discuss the issue and make amends.

    But if you think I'm going to put up with a little lecture on morality and political correctness from someone completely uninvolved and unaffected then you have another thing coming. It's one thing to support a person who says "That's offensive to me" and another thing altogether to say "that's offensive to them" in a vaccuum.

    Ehhh, you're right in that we have to be careful not to restrict people's agency in the name of countering discrimination against them, but just because no gay men come out and say "this is offensive to me" doesn't negate the fact that it's derogatory towards gay men.

    Or, put another way: it's a little offensive to me as a straight male that they're using a term offensive to people I know,

  • The_LightbringerThe_Lightbringer Registered User
    The only responsibility this music video has neglected, is the lack of a melody. Seriously.

    LuciferSig.jpg
  • NarianNarian Registered User
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I really have to ask why people think this was a joke about Aquaman being a homosexual?

    I mean, Aquaman is royalty, right? I don't see how this can be interpreted any other way except as an "olol ur a girl" joke. The word "queen" was used because King Murloc is a king and Aquaman is either a prince or a king or what the fuck ever and King Murloc was trying to knock a royal rival by suggesting that Aquaman is a girl.

    The joke may be sexist for suggesting or joking that girls are inferior to men, but in no way, shape or form did the joke have anything to do with calling Aquaman a homosexual. This whole perspective is just absurd to me.

    "Queen" is a negative term for gay male.

    Yes, it's often reclaimed by gay men and used by them as a non-pejorative, but without a clearer context of the video's authors' intentions I think it's safe to go with the more commonplace negative connotations of the word.

    It's safer to assume you're grasping at straws.

    Narian.gif
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Registered User regular
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Werrick wrote: »
    Some people aren't happy unless they can find a reason to be offended about something, even if that means they have to be offended by proxy about something that has nothing to do with them.

    Perhaps, but just because you're not directly affected by someone's actions doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to react to those actions.
    How is it "safer" to assume deliberate malice on the part of a game company publishing a video related to their largely cartoonish videogame? I think it's safer to assume you're blowing this out of proportion, and should chill the fuck out about it.

    Because there was absolutely no requirement for Blizzard to use "queen" in their song, tongue-in-cheek or not. And the commonly accepted connotation of the word is what implies the malice, just as a certain n-word is automatically malicious.

    Also, please note that I've not once suggested that Blizzard was "irresponsible" for having created this video; I'm just disappointed that the majority reaction here is that anti-gay slurs are somehow less damaging than anti-women or racist slurs.

    I'm not even sure how to reply to this level of hyperbolic idiocy.

  • visiblehowlvisiblehowl Registered User regular
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Because there was absolutely no requirement for Blizzard to use "queen" in their song, tongue-in-cheek or not. And the commonly accepted connotation of the word is what implies the malice, just as a certain n-word is automatically malicious.
    Queen is also a female analog to a King. Why is your definition more likely than Drez's definition?
    I'm just disappointed that the majority reaction here is that anti-gay slurs are somehow less damaging than anti-women or racist slurs.

    Wha-huh? Where the fuck did that come from?

    "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it."

    "Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    I'm not even sure how to reply to this level of hyperbolic idiocy.

    Nice.

    Tell me, then, how is the use of "queen" in this song any different than its hypothetical replacement with "[n-word]"?

  • NarianNarian Registered User
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    I'm not even sure how to reply to this level of hyperbolic idiocy.

    Nice.

    Tell me, then, how is the use of "queen" in this song any different than its hypothetical replacement with "[n-word]"?

    Because the word "Queen" was used to describe someone of royalty? Not anything to do with gay people or gay or anything at all like that.

    Narian.gif
  • visiblehowlvisiblehowl Registered User regular
    Narian wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    I'm not even sure how to reply to this level of hyperbolic idiocy.

    Nice.

    Tell me, then, how is the use of "queen" in this song any different than its hypothetical replacement with "[n-word]"?

    Because the word "Queen" was used to describe someone of royalty? Not anything to do with gay people or gay or anything at all like that.

    Oh man, I hope he's never listened to Bohemian Rhapsody...

    "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it."

    "Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Because there was absolutely no requirement for Blizzard to use "queen" in their song, tongue-in-cheek or not. And the commonly accepted connotation of the word is what implies the malice, just as a certain n-word is automatically malicious.
    Queen is also a female analog to a King. Why is your definition more likely than Drez's definition?
    I'm just disappointed that the majority reaction here is that anti-gay slurs are somehow less damaging than anti-women or racist slurs.

    Wha-huh? Where the fuck did that come from?

    Okay, maybe it's not the majority reaction here, on this board, but it's the case in the public at large, which sucks.

    As for "queen vs. king": one way or another, the character's trying to disparage Aquaman, right? Either Aquaman is a "queen" because he's a gay male, or he's a "queen" because he's female. Which sucks, because neither quality should have anything to do with why anyone is less in comparison to someone else.

    ...and please note, I don't think the "royalty" aspect is important, because there are royal titles that are other royal/noble titles that could be used.

  • WerrickWerrick Registered User
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Werrick wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Werrick wrote: »
    Some people aren't happy unless they can find a reason to be offended about something, even if that means they have to be offended by proxy about something that has nothing to do with them.

    Perhaps, but just because you're not directly affected by someone's actions doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to react to those actions.

    You can say and do what you like. If you were offended by a thing for your own sake, and you said something about it then I would assume that the appropriate response would be to discuss the issue and make amends.

    But if you think I'm going to put up with a little lecture on morality and political correctness from someone completely uninvolved and unaffected then you have another thing coming. It's one thing to support a person who says "That's offensive to me" and another thing altogether to say "that's offensive to them" in a vaccuum.

    Ehhh, you're right in that we have to be careful not to restrict people's agency in the name of countering discrimination against them, but just because no gay men come out and say "this is offensive to me" doesn't negate the fact that it's derogatory towards gay men.

    Or, put another way: it's a little offensive to me as a straight male that they're using a term offensive to people I know,

    If it's offensive to you for whatever reason, then fine.

    However, I would be very careful to use absolutes. In my experience this would be offensive to a fairly small group of people so trying to argue that somethign liek this, in this particular instance is "Offensive" in an absolute way would be pretty difficult.

    But make sure it's offensive to you for your sake, not because you think it might be offensive to someone else, maybe... possibly.

    "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

    -Robert E. Howard
    Tower of the Elephant
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Registered User regular
    I don't think you understand how humor works.

  • NarianNarian Registered User
    Aquaman is a "Queen" because THE MURLOC IS THE KING.

    Can you have two Kings? No. Aquaman, formerly royalty of the sea, is demoted from his Kingship to a queen. Sure, not fair the women that they're lower than men, but it's not like they even thought about Women or Gays. They wanted to make a music video about Murlocs.

    Narian.gif
  • FalloutFallout GIRL'S DAY EVERY DAYRegistered User regular
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    Maybe Blizzard was thinking that people would recognize their jab at aquaman with a completely negligible reference to him being a fag as

    oh i dunno

    a joke

    Yeah, as long as it's a joke it's totally not offensive.

    Edit: That was meant to be sarcastic.

    I'd love to see how the reaction would be different if Aquaman was disparaged for being black instead of female/gay.

    A joking jab at a superhero should be less offensive than a serious attack on homosexuals, yes.
    Drez wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I really have to ask why people think this was a joke about Aquaman being a homosexual?

    I mean, Aquaman is royalty, right? I don't see how this can be interpreted any other way except as an "olol ur a girl" joke. The word "queen" was used because King Murloc is a king and Aquaman is either a prince or a king or what the fuck ever and King Murloc was trying to knock a royal rival by suggesting that Aquaman is a girl.

    The joke may be sexist for suggesting or joking that girls are inferior to men, but in no way, shape or form did the joke have anything to do with calling Aquaman a homosexual. This whole perspective is just absurd to me.

    I didn't think anyone could make this thread any stupider but you've done it, Drez. Congratulations.

    xcomsig.png
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    I don't think you understand how humor works.

    I'm pretty sure I do, I have a remarkably unsophisticated sense of humor (in that I laugh at the stupidest things). What I don't laugh at, or at least try not to laugh at, however, are sexism, racism, and "heterosexism" (for lack of a better term).

    FYI, here's a recap of the song that I'm basing everything I'm saying on:
    Spoiler:

    Again, I assert that Murloc is either disparaging women or gay men, which sucks, and I wish Blizzard didn't think this was funny.

  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Registered User regular
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    I don't think you understand how humor works.

    I'm pretty sure I do, I have a remarkably unsophisticated sense of humor (in that I laugh at the stupidest things). What I don't laugh at, or at least try not to laugh at, however, are sexism, racism, and "heterosexism" (for lack of a better term).

    FYI, here's a recap of the song that I'm basing everything I'm saying on:
    Spoiler:

    Again, I assert that Murloc is either disparaging women or gay men, which sucks, and I wish Blizzard didn't think this was funny.

    Most good humor involves someone being the butt of the joke. I'm fine with that. If today it's a song that's mocking gays or women, what of it?

    Everything is automatically funnier as soon as someone is overreacting and getting offended.

  • geckahngeckahn Registered User
    Dude, this is like the most harmful poke fun at thing ever.

    It's not like theyre saying . . . Not a fag like aquaman!

    Jesus Christ. I cant believe this thread even exists.

  • WerrickWerrick Registered User
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    I don't think you understand how humor works.

    I'm pretty sure I do, I have a remarkably unsophisticated sense of humor (in that I laugh at the stupidest things). What I don't laugh at, or at least try not to laugh at, however, are sexism, racism, and "heterosexism" (for lack of a better term).

    FYI, here's a recap of the song that I'm basing everything I'm saying on:
    Spoiler:

    Again, I assert that Murloc is either disparaging women or gay men, which sucks, and I wish Blizzard didn't think this was funny.

    Are you a woman?

    Are you a gay man?

    If you are one of those two then it's probaby worth discussing it with you. I'd be willing to hear why you think it's offensive because I think that woudl be really over-sensitive to consider it so. Taht being said your feelings are your own and assuming they're genuine and not affected they're worth discussing and considering, regardless of how justified I happen to think them to be.

    If you are not one of those two groups then I'm really not interested in anything you ahve to say on the matter because it doesn't... matter. If you say something that soeone else finds offensive you don't get to decide that they didn't find it offensive just because you didn't mean it to be. Likewise, if someone says something you don't get to decide that someone else will be offended by it, they do.

    "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

    -Robert E. Howard
    Tower of the Elephant
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    Most good humor involves someone being the butt of the joke. I'm fine with that. If today it's a song that's mocking gays or women, what of it?

    Everything is automatically funnier as soon as someone is overreacting and getting offended.

    It's your right, I guess, but I strongly disagree that jokes at the expense of groups that are still largely oppressed in American society are funny.

    There's plenty of stuff out there to crack jokes about, and it's too bad that Blizzard didn't try a little harder.
    Werrick wrote: »
    If you are not one of those two groups then I'm really not interested in anything you ahve to say on the matter because it doesn't... matter. If you say something that soeone else finds offensive you don't get to decide that they didn't find it offensive just because you didn't mean it to be. Likewise, if someone says something you don't get to decide that someone else will be offended by it, they do.

    Sorry, but I don't buy that. Jokes disparaging women disparage the women I know; jokes disparaging gay men disparage the gay men I know. You're not suggesting that I should remain silent if someone publicly disparages one of my friends or family members, are you?

    ...Yes, this does sound hyperbolic: Murloc calling Aquaman a "queen" is nowhere near equivalent to threatening all gay men everywhere with violence. Of course it isn't. But that doesn't make it squeaky-clean, either.

  • visiblehowlvisiblehowl Registered User regular
    geckahn wrote: »
    Jesus Christ. I cant believe this thread even exists.

    "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it."

    "Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
  • WerrickWerrick Registered User
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Most good humor involves someone being the butt of the joke. I'm fine with that. If today it's a song that's mocking gays or women, what of it?

    Everything is automatically funnier as soon as someone is overreacting and getting offended.

    It's your right, I guess, but I strongly disagree that jokes at the expense of groups that are still largely oppressed in American society are funny.

    There's plenty of stuff out there to crack jokes about, and it's too bad that Blizzard didn't try a little harder.

    As far as I know Blizzard didnt' make the joke. That's a fan-made machinima, to the best of my information.

    "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

    -Robert E. Howard
    Tower of the Elephant
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    Werrick wrote: »
    As far as I know Blizzard didnt' make the joke. That's a fan-made machinima, to the best of my information.

    Okay. I buy that. I'm was just going by what the OP said.

  • WerrickWerrick Registered User
    Zalbinion wrote: »

    Sorry, but I don't buy that. Jokes disparaging women disparage the women I know; jokes disparaging gay men disparage the gay men I know. You're not suggesting that I should remain silent if someone publicly disparages one of my friends or family members, are you?

    I don't care. What if next week it was decided by the North American gay community at large that "Queen" was perfectly acceptable. Would you continue to be offended by it or would you drop it? I bet you'd drop it... proving my point that you're not actually offended, you're offended by proxy.

    Did they call your family members by name? Did they say "Aquaman's a big queen, just like Zalbinion's familiy members and friends, they're all a bunch of fags!"?

    No... they didn't. So, if your family members are offended by this video and they say something about it then I'd expect you to stand up and say "Hell yah" about it, but you don't get to lead the charge, it's not your issue.

    "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

    -Robert E. Howard
    Tower of the Elephant
  • visiblehowlvisiblehowl Registered User regular
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Sorry, but I don't buy that. Jokes disparaging women disparage the women I know; jokes disparaging gay men disparage the gay men I know. You're not suggesting that I should remain silent if someone publicly disparages one of my friends or family members, are you?

    ...Yes, this does sound hyperbolic: Murloc calling Aquaman a "queen" is nowhere near equivalent to threatening all gay men everywhere with violence. Of course it isn't. But that doesn't make it squeaky-clean, either.

    Dude, even Cat isn't offended by this. You don't have a leg to stand on.

    "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it."

    "Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
This discussion has been closed.