Let's argue about diversity in comics and what censorship is here

[Prince Namor]

I'm not telling you to not be outraged or annoyed or whatever the hell you guys are. But to take a step back, think critically about the subject and not try to wave the wand of "PC Police" over things. That doesn't help anything and makes you look scared and out of touch.

 

Especially +1

 

I'm at a loss to understand this belief in 'PC Police', and even more so shocked at the number of apparently otherwise intelligent people who actually believe in it.

 

A company like Disney, who owns Marvel, spends $60+ MILLION a year on lobbyists (which is separate from what they spend on campaign finance) to influence government and try and control policy. On top of that they own nearly 1/3 of TV and Radio media in this country. This is a company that honestly, could play a huge part in determining if our nation goes to WAR, with the influence and power they have.

 

And they're afraid of some blogger or newspaper writer?

 

I just find that baffling that someone would think that.

 

I realize that in this day and age, you can't stand around the office and make snide comments about some co-workers boobs, or call a handicapped person a 'crippled' or whatever, but holy moly - to believe that's some kind of 'censorship' and we're living in some sort of '1984' storyline is way off base.

 

I see this new way of treating each other almost like an update in societal norms... at one time people didn't shower everyday or wear deodorant and now, in a professional setting, if you didn't do that it'd be considered a faux pas, why is that any different than the guy in the office who says, "Hey Carol! Nice TaTa's!" It's just not behavior becoming of a civilized society. People are still free to talk like that in private or around their friends, or go home and watch a Judd Apatow comedy and learn more clever ways to say crude things (usually in a Universal Film, NOT owned by Disney, but one of the other big monster corporations that owns most of the media - NBCUniversal.).

 

But I guess those corporations have done a great job at convincing people that 'opinions in the media', usually through PRIVATE media ownership is EVIL. That's genius really, if you think about it:

The huge corporations who own most of the media (and prefer you just keep your mouth shut and just BUY BUY BUY) have convinced a large number of people that dissenting opinions are BAD.

Doesn't anyone see the inherent danger in that?

The huge corporation has discovered that - there's no need to censor dissent - let people believe they still have the freedom to speak out - but create a web of paranoia that discredit's it - so that the corporation is forever protected by the numbskulls it takes advantage of the most....

My god that's so evil it's brilliant.

 

Bloggers, and the news media - influence NOTHING in regards to policy.

 

NOTHING.

 

Look at all the things that pass through Congress that polls show the American People DON'T want. This isn't something NEW... it's been going on for decades.

 

The media might stir up some conversation, but policy isn't dictated by the PEOPLE. Not by a long shot. Certainly not in my lifetime. It's dictated by the people you control and influence Congress. Lobbyists hired by Corporations.

 

Corporation LOBBYISTS have wrote nearly EVERY piece of legislative LAW since 9/11.

 

NOT bloggers/news media - CORPORATION LOBBYISTS.

 

Think about that.... who REALLY is making decisions in this country?

 

And yet, a large number of, otherwise intelligent people actually believe these 'PC Police' are changing things and bullying business' and creating this scary world where it's going to be against the law to tell an off-color joke ... when really, the people who've convinced you of this are writing more legislation to protect THEMSELVES from YOU or ANYONE that would dare question them.

 

How can people not see through that?

[Prince Namor]

I don't have the patience to parse quotes.

 

Of course not, that would be answering the questions directly, which you can't do.

 

Instead you'll try and turn this around and pretend it's ME avoiding the facts.

 

Nothing in my reply has changed. I have am not hiding anything about my politics in here. I AM discussing LOGIC and philosophy. Diversity is a SUBJECTIVE concept. It's ethereal. No 2 people can agree on exactly what IS diverse and what is NOT diverse.

 

You're right about one thing here.. you're NOT hiding anything about your politics.

 

You also don't seem to grasp that there's a direct parallel at the moment between the PC culture police

 

Who are the PC Police?

 

Seriously, answer this question (Question 1):

 

What have the PC Police done? Who have they stopped from expressing themselves? Give me an example.

 

 

that pervade both media and social media & what is making money at the moment. That some people might see the correlation between them while you aren't... well.. I don't know what to tell you. That's what's selling & it's a pandering PR tool at the same time. Win-Win for a company. "You mean we can stay on the nice side of the militant lunatics that pervade the internet at the moment & make money? Awesome. Done and done"

 

Question 2:

 

So if Ms. Marvel starts selling 12,000 copies a month, Marvel will keep it going? yes or no?

 

 

You haven't exposed the "inadequacy" of anything. You've done some name-calling and yelling but still haven't formed a single cogent argument, but OK. Keep going on that. I am still discussing & sticking with a topic of trying to view a SUBJECTIVE concept through the lens of an OBJECTIVE reality. You're yapping about Marvel & DC.

 

See! Nice try, but I just laid it out a few posts ago:

 

A. One side is claiming that Marvel becoming more diverse is because of either political pressure or fan pressure to make it happen - while the other is saying Marvel is trying to expand their market to reach more people, because all they care about is making more money.

 

B. One side is saying that it's 'censorship' that Manara's Spiderwoman spread booty variant cover wasn't printed by Marvel due to fan complaints and the other is saying it was a smart business move by Marvel to not put out a cover that offended people and that it's NOT censorship, because the piece is readily available and can be sold as a print by Manara or published in a collection if HE chooses to do so.

 

C. One side saying that asking for quotas on the number of 'diverse' characters (i.e. non-white non-male superheroes) ISN'T racist and the other side is saying it most definitely IS. ESPECIALLY if they believe the latter part of 'A'.

 

I realize most of what you say wasn't discovered through critical reasoning skills, but rather learned through listening to talk radio and the like, but really, if you're going to try and manipulate what has gone on in the conversation, you may want to a) wait a few more pages before trying to lie about what was said and b) pick someone less clever than me.

 

Question 3: What name did I call you? Show me.

 

And I have no damn clue what you've been saying for 10 pages. Especially since this is only a 4-page thread that I jumped into like 1 page back. All I know is that you called someone who asked a question a racist to deflect from the fact that your answer was nothing more than "I'll know it when I see it".

 

Lie.

 

Question 4: Show me where my answer was "I'll know it when I see it" or anything close to that. Now you're just making stuff up.

 

I pointed out what you were doing, which is deflecting by means of using name-calling to discredit the question & questioner to avoid answering it because "I'll know it when I see it" is a pretty weak argument.

 

I've never deflected. Ask me a question straight out and I'll answer it. YOU are the one who has avoided direct questions, which why you skipped the nesting. Why are you trying to turn this around? It's clever, I guess to some, but highly transparent.

 

And I even explained why. I even did so without saying or insinuating a single negative thing about either your statement or person (weird that you don't seem to be able to do the same thing)

 

Oh no, 'weak argument' and 'name calling' (I never called anyone specifically a name), 'discredit', added to the discussion.

 

And you're welcome to keep putting words in my mouth,

 

Question 5: When did I do that? Show me.

 

but I haven't changed my opinion on any of this yet. I still think that using terms like "racist" or "sexist" to essentially "shout down"

 

And I think crying 'censorship!' when no one is actually being censored is hyperbole.

 

And 'shout'... how do you 'shout' on a message board?

 

I get it, you're 'out-debated' and playing the victim. Nice angle, but again, highly transparent. I've been debating guys like you for 30 years. It's always the same thing. You must all use the same debate handbook or something.

 

any opposition or questioning by those that might not sagree with your opinion to be both juvenile & a sign of weakness of argument, but keep doing it. I'm sure it'll do well for you to get a bunch of Facebook likes. Won't really help win any arguments, but you'll get the smug satisfaction of name-calling & shouting down someone that disagrees with you. Cause we all know silencing the opposition by shouting them down is a totally valid method of arguing in the 21st century.

 

Uh hunh. So's revisionist history.

 

Just answer the 5 questions.

 

You WON'T because you can't.

 

This is where you say, "I'm done with this!" because you're being called to the carpet to prove what you've been saying.

 

Go.

 

Still not bothering to parse quote because it's a waste of time. You're welcome to keep taking the time to add in the HTML code, but I'm not bothering.

 

I'll answer your questions, because this is moderately amusing to me

 

1. The PC culture police are as ethereal as diversity is. It's a general term for the faceless mob that pervades both the media & social media whenever someone voices an opinion outside of the acceptable range. Those faceless persons on the internet & on media that blow minor comments into major firestorms by contributing to making something viral in a negative way, that "just happen to know that guy & oh wait, here's their personal information. But you know, don't call their boss or anything" that attempt to tear down those whose opinions they disagree with by making themselves as anonymous as possibly by being part of a large group. Oh yeah, you're trying to play the "you can't name this group to a person so they don't exist" game? I'm not playing that game.

 

Oh... you want an example? A Nobel winning scientists made a poor comment about women in science like a week ago. The resulting firestorm on social media got him fired & essentially discredited and semi-blackballed from getting work just the other day.

 

Yeah I looked it up:

 

University College London said that the 72- year old Hunt had resigned from his UNPAID, NON-TEACHING position as HONORARY professor with the UCL Faculty of Life Sciences.

 

 

And yeah.... say something like that, and people just might not take you as serious....

 

So... he WASN'T fired, and he DIDN'T lose any money, and...well... you were wrong.

 

And seriously... if a Congressmen, or a CEO of a company or anyone important says something like THAT, of COURSE the media is going to report it!

 

The media will ALWAYS report acts of STUPIDITY by people.

 

2. Marvel will print whatever makes them money. I have no goddamned clue what you're trying to prove here since it's not a question relating to my statement. You're still ignoring the DIRECT CORRELATION between the militant lunatics pervading the world these days & what is selling. Please start to actually read what I'm writing.

 

By not answering the question YOU are ignoring the DIRECT CORRELATION with the REAL reason.

 

If Ms. Marvel DOESN'T sell, they CANCEL it.

 

You're 'DIRECT CORRELATION' is WRONG. If they published it for the reasons you SAY, sales wouldn't matter.

 

But they do matter. So you're wrong.

 

3. Show me where I said you called ME a name. I said that "all you've done is some name calling and yelling". Not one place in my statement did I state that you've name-called me. blah, blah, blah...

 

Ok. I didn't name call YOU. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

Who did I call a name?

 

4. You deflected from answering the question. Because that was what your answer would have been. You didn't need to say "I'll know it when I see it" because it was obvious by your deflection using terms like "racist". Unless you didn't realize that those were obviously rhetorical questions. In which case, you might want to go back & look this thread over with an eye on that.

 

You're correct, you didn't specifically say "I'll know it when I see it", but that was the obvious implication of your deflection & non-answer. And if it wouldn't have been your answer, then answer the questions initially posed without deflecting with another round of calling them racist and/or ignorant.

 

No. It wasn't. I never implied any such thing. And you still haven't showed I did.

 

You're wrong again.

 

 

5. Oh, you didn't put words in my mouth? Like for instance: "Oh I don't really care... I'm much too cool... I'm above it all.... blah..blah...blah..."; "Which is my defense mechanism before I give yet another opinion I know you'll see through..." I'm pretty sure since I didn't say a single one of those things, you're putting words in my mouth.

 

That was 'flair' for people getting bored of reading all of this.

 

But you're not wrong.

 

Now how about you answer some questions, boss?

 

Could you give an example of something you find sufficiently diverse?

 

Ocean life.

 

2. What happens when your example isn't diverse enough for me? Whose definition is right then?

 

Mine.

 

3. If a significant portion of people have X opinion on a subject and entertainment forms that also appear to share X opinion are outselling entertainment forms that show Y opinion, and the producer releases more product portraying X opinion and less product portraying Y opinion, is there a correlation between supply & demand? And if the fans of X-opinion entertainment go out of their way to shame & defame those that buy/agree with/produce Y-opinion product, would it not be a win-win for the producer to release more and more X-opinion product and less & less Y-opinion product?

 

Opinion is not the same as sales. A corporation could care less what 'opinion' is out there, if the sales ARE. Howard Stern doesn't fall in line with the conventional thought process of your 'PC' world, but he sells and thus he has a place in the market. Doesn't matter what any one 'thinks' of what he says and does, mostly he's been demonized by the media through the years, he's always found a corporate source (that isn't offended, usually) to present his 'comedy' and he makes him and his bosses money.

 

4. Do you reply to all questions that make you uncomfortable with value-judgments on the merits of the question to avoid answering them? Is a question about a female characters relative merits automatically sexist & therefor you don't need to answer it?

 

There are no questions that make me uncomfortable, no I don't make ' value-judgments on the merits of the question to avoid answering them'. Show me where I did that or re-ask the question.

[Mr 9.8]

Can you two please just go get a room already?

The back and forth of the wall of texts is boring me.

[Doktor]

Oh, I'm done with this. Sorry for the walls of text. This has gotten precariously close to a directly political discussion and I have no interest in that today or any day really.

 

So I'm bowing out of this & just blocking. Kinda tired of beating my head against a wall.

[Prince Namor]

Ok, let's review:

 

 

A. One side is claiming that Marvel becoming more diverse is because of either political pressure or fan pressure to make it happen - while the other is saying Marvel is trying to expand their market to reach more people, because all they care about is making more money.

 

Since the former hasn't proven (or even addressed) the idea that falling sales would cancel the title regardless of any political bent, it's proven that the latter is correct.

 

If sales of Ms. Marvel fall below a reasonable amount the book would be cancelled, thus the reason for it's existence is SALES, and NOT political philosophy/pressure.

 

Wanting to reach a wider market is not proof that the 'wider market' is taking over policy, it's an example of a business trying to pry every dollar out of every breathing individuals hand they can.

 

So the latter is correct.

 

B. One side is saying that it's 'censorship' that Manara's Spiderwoman spread booty variant cover wasn't printed by Marvel due to fan complaints and the other is saying it was a smart business move by Marvel to not put out a cover that offended people and that it's NOT censorship, because the piece is readily available and can be sold as a print by Manara or published in a collection if HE chooses to do so.

 

Since a) the piece isn't censored, it can be clearly viewed at any time, b) Manara got paid for the work and was never forced to alter it, c) Marvel choosing to not publish isn't censorship, and the weak argument of 'self-censorship' is easily dismissed by 'educated editorial', and d) the work is not prevented from being published elsewhere... it's NOT censorship. So the latter is correct.

 

C. One side saying that asking for quotas on the number of 'diverse' characters (i.e. non-white non-male superheroes) ISN'T racist and the other side is saying it most definitely IS. ESPECIALLY if they believe the latter part of 'A'.

 

ESPECIALLY, in a situation where there is NO forced agenda, asking for quotas on the number of non-white/non-males is RACIST.

 

Look at it like this. You're picking teams to play softball in the park with a bunch of random people. After you choose a white guy and a black guy, you announce, "Hey, I have to be careful here... I don't want to choose too many black guys for my team. I'm going to limit myself to only 2 of the 9 I pick. OK?"

 

That's racist. Even asking if you should do that is at the very least 'culturally ignorant' and borderline racist.

 

So the latter is correct.

[Prince Namor]

Oh, I'm done with this. Sorry for the walls of text. This has gotten precariously close to a directly political discussion and I have no interest in that today or any day really.

 

So I'm bowing out of this & just blocking. Kinda tired of beating my head against a wall.

 

Let's be clear, YOU and natevegas made it political with all of this silly PC Police talk.

 

I have no politics. I hate all politicians and have no affiliation or empathy for any of those scum. I wished they'd all fall off the planet.

 

 

[eyeofhorus777]

Oh, I'm done with this. Sorry for the walls of text. This has gotten precariously close to a directly political discussion and I have no interest in that today or any day really.

 

So I'm bowing out of this & just blocking. Kinda tired of beating my head against a wall.

 

Let's be clear, YOU and natevegas made it political with all of this silly PC Police talk.

 

I have no politics. I hate all politicians and have no affiliation or empathy for any of those scum. I wished they'd all fall off the planet.

 

 

Easy there Jesus get off your cross you had a hand in making this thread the turd in the punchbowl.

[Prince Namor]

Oh, I'm done with this. Sorry for the walls of text. This has gotten precariously close to a directly political discussion and I have no interest in that today or any day really.

 

So I'm bowing out of this & just blocking. Kinda tired of beating my head against a wall.

 

Let's be clear, YOU and natevegas made it political with all of this silly PC Police talk.

 

I have no politics. I hate all politicians and have no affiliation or empathy for any of those scum. I wished they'd all fall off the planet.

 

 

Easy there Jesus get off your cross you had a hand in making this thread the turd in the punchbowl.

 

I thought it was informative.

[Prince Namor]

Oh, I'm done with this. Sorry for the walls of text. This has gotten precariously close to a directly political discussion and I have no interest in that today or any day really.

 

So I'm bowing out of this & just blocking. Kinda tired of beating my head against a wall.

 

Let's be clear, YOU and natevegas made it political with all of this silly PC Police talk.

 

I have no politics. I hate all politicians and have no affiliation or empathy for any of those scum. I wished they'd all fall off the planet.

 

 

Easy there Jesus get off your cross you had a hand in making this thread the turd in the punchbowl.

 

And I realize you're fairly new here, but POLITICS is against the rules... I mean like HARDCORE against the rules....

 

And this 'PC Police' BS, which is clearly a propaganda device made up by blah, blah blah.... it's VEILED POLITICS and I'm getting tired of hearing about it.

 

Rather than hit the notify button and explain why it's veiled politics, I try and show how whatever topic is being discussed doesn't NEED to bring any of that into it, to still be able to discuss it, and yet some of these people continue to try and weave it into their narrative.

 

So I call them out on it.

 

If that offends you, or bothers you, or you don't agree with it... sorry...put me on ignore. Because I'll keep calling it out when I see it.

 

It's unnecessary and unwelcome here and against the rules.

 

And until the mods address it, I'm calling it out.

[Comicopolis]

Can you two please just go get a room already?

The back and forth of the wall of texts is boring me.

 

Are the PC Police making you read this thread?

[Comicopolis]

I don't know if some ya'll are interested in art or art history, but I think there are some relatable parallels that are happening in the current state of comics that have been happening in the art world for decades.

 

I've seen many of you say, "Just make original characters and don't mess with established story lore." Of course, I'm paraphrasing but that's about the it.

 

That's also what's said about appropriation in art. Very often by people who either are ignorant to history, not visually-literate, or simply don't understand art and how it moves (Classic, Modern, and Contemporary.)

 

For example, Warhol was essentially dismissed and sometimes outright hated by the general public and by some critics when he was doing the Monroe's and Mao's. The Campbell's soup can was laughed at and generally mocked by millions. Even Campbell's rejected it. "he's just copying" "Make something original." was common.

 

Before him, Duchamp was HATED for Fountain. "That's not art." "Anyone can do that." "Make something original." Again...same thing

 

I'm going to skip the hundreds of others that have been given the same criticism and focus on a contemporary one: Richard Prince (look it up if you don't know him. It'll either be interesting to you or you'll fall into the category of dismissers.)

 

Same thing, again. "Make something original."

 

The point? This isn't a new thing that's suddenly being perpetrated by the PC police (I hate that name). When people don't like an establishment being challenged or questioned, they lash out...often in a really ignorant way. That ignorant way in his caseand many others is the cry of "Make something original."

 

Having a character be original is essentially irrelevant. It's cool when it happens, but it's not necessary to tell a good story.

 

I get that we feel attached to these stupid comics but they're not ours. We have no say so (except with our wallets, to a certain extent), and with a whole lot of you, they're not written for YOU anymore.

 

I'm not telling you to not be outraged or annoyed or whatever the hell you guys are. But to take a step back, think critically about the subject and not try to wave the wand of "PC Police" over things. That doesn't help anything and makes you look scared and out of touch.

 

EDIT: It did just strike me...I'm not comparing a master work such as Fountain to a comic book with a Muslim Ms. Marvel or Thor as a meat popsicle. I'm trying to illustrate that things change, people (writers, in this case) try to uproot established ideas to TRY to make things better or as a criticism of what is.

 

It might be good or it might age out and be forgotten.

 

Genius post.

[Comicopolis]

What is it exactly that people are upset about now in the world of funny books?

[Mr 9.8]

What is it exactly that people are upset about now in the world of funny books?

I'm trying to figure that out too, that's why I came here, but instead I'm seeing two people bicker.

[Comicopolis]

What is it exactly that people are upset about now in the world of funny books?

I'm trying to figure that out too, that's why I came here, but instead I'm seeing two people bicker.

 

It'a all informative.

[Prince Namor]

What is it exactly that people are upset about now in the world of funny books?

I'm trying to figure that out too, that's why I came here, but instead I'm seeing two people bicker.

 

I just laid it all out like 5 posts ago:

 

 

A. One side is claiming that Marvel becoming more diverse is because of either political pressure or fan pressure to make it happen - while the other is saying Marvel is trying to expand their market to reach more people, because all they care about is making more money.

 

Since the former hasn't proven (or even addressed) the idea that falling sales would cancel the title regardless of any political bent, it's proven that the latter is correct.

 

If sales of Ms. Marvel fall below a reasonable amount the book would be cancelled, thus the reason for it's existence is SALES, and NOT political philosophy/pressure.

 

Wanting to reach a wider market is not proof that the 'wider market' is taking over policy, it's an example of a business trying to pry every dollar out of every breathing individuals hand they can.

 

So the latter is correct.

 

B. One side is saying that it's 'censorship' that Manara's Spiderwoman spread booty variant cover wasn't printed by Marvel due to fan complaints and the other is saying it was a smart business move by Marvel to not put out a cover that offended people and that it's NOT censorship, because the piece is readily available and can be sold as a print by Manara or published in a collection if HE chooses to do so.

 

Since a) the piece isn't censored, it can be clearly viewed at any time, b) Manara got paid for the work and was never forced to alter it, c) Marvel choosing to not publish isn't censorship, and the weak argument of 'self-censorship' is easily dismissed by 'educated editorial', and d) the work is not prevented from being published elsewhere... it's NOT censorship. So the latter is correct.

 

C. One side saying that asking for quotas on the number of 'diverse' characters (i.e. non-white non-male superheroes) ISN'T racist and the other side is saying it most definitely IS. ESPECIALLY if they believe the latter part of 'A'.

 

ESPECIALLY, in a situation where there is NO forced agenda, asking for quotas on the number of non-white/non-males is RACIST.

 

Look at it like this. You're picking teams to play softball in the park with a bunch of random people. After you choose a white guy and a black guy, you announce, "Hey, I have to be careful here... I don't want to choose too many black guys for my team. I'm going to limit myself to only 2 of the 9 I pick. OK?"

 

That's racist. Even asking if you should do that is at the very least 'culturally ignorant' and borderline racist.

 

So the latter is correct.

[Comicopolis]

So we can keep the other threads on-topic.

 

Which other threads?

[UltraMaximus]

So can I be mad that I am getting older and none of my favorite super hero's have aged (Except Steve Rogers by a fluke Story)?

 

So that means the Geriatric Avengers will be the next book?

[revat]

Can you two please just go get a room already?

The back and forth of the wall of texts is boring me.

 

Are the PC Police making you read this thread?

 

The PC Police made me a salad. It had tuna, but not enough lemon, if you catch my drift....

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

Still not bothering to parse quote because it's a waste of time. You're welcome to keep taking the time to add in the HTML code, but I'm not bothering.

 

I'll answer your questions, because this is moderately amusing to me

 

1. The PC culture police are as ethereal as diversity is. It's a general term for the faceless mob that pervades both the media & social media whenever someone voices an opinion outside of the acceptable range. Those faceless persons on the internet & on media that blow minor comments into major firestorms by contributing to making something viral in a negative way, that "just happen to know that guy & oh wait, here's their personal information. But you know, don't call their boss or anything" that attempt to tear down those whose opinions they disagree with by making themselves as anonymous as possibly by being part of a large group. Oh yeah, you're trying to play the "you can't name this group to a person so they don't exist" game? I'm not playing that game.

 

Oh... you want an example? A Nobel winning scientists made a poor comment about women in science like a week ago. The resulting firestorm on social media got him fired & essentially discredited and semi-blackballed from getting work just the other day. It was a cover story on Yahoo yesterday. You're welcome to go look it up. Oh, you're going to say that he wasn't censored? Yeah... I guess he's still able to speak his mind but in exchange for being able to be employed. Instead, his only viable option is to shut the %*#( up for a few months or a year, live on his savings, wait for the internet to forget about it, maybe find a job & never open his mouth again or do anything of importance without fear of the next headline being "Sexist Nobel winning scientist discovers..." where everything after the Sexist Nobel winning scientist part doesn't really matter.

You're referring to the male scientist who told a room full of female scientists that they should be segregated in the workplace because *he* can't control himself? F that guy. They aren't the problem. He is. If he was fired, he deserved it for his sexist comments. If I made similar statements in a professional capacity (he made the statement at a conference), my employer would be well within their rights to let me go. Free speech means you can't be legally prosecuted for what you say. It doesn't mean there are no other consequences for what you say.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

So we can keep the other threads on-topic.

 

Which other threads?

This is a spill-over from the Moderns Heating Up thread.