Revising history

My goodness, some people have poles up their butts. How exactly do you get standing to sue on behalf of Alexander the Great, anyway?

One thing I learned in PR is that when you have to deny something or refute allegations, you have to reject the original premise and recast the language. The reason for this? When you say "It's not about the money," or "It's not about the price of a gallon of gas," or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman ...", nobody hears the 'not', at least not in any lasting way. So what they're left with is "It's about the money," "It's about the price of a gallon of gas," and "I had sexual relations with that woman ..."

In that light then, ponder this quote from the lead lawyer in the case: " 'We are not saying that we are against gays,' Yannis Varnakos, the lawyer leading the campaign, is reported as saying. 'But we are saying that the production company should make it clear that the film is pure fiction and not a true depiction of the life of Alexander.'"

Um, is there anyone based in reality who can deny, with a straight face [pardon the pun] that Alexander had a thing for the boys? I mean, come on! It was a normal part of Greek society at that time. What's so fricking scandalous about complying with societal norms?