Morak wasn't sure he wanted to discuss the scourge of "bisexual lighting," because he didn't want to glorify the assertion. His other contention was that it might simply be rage-bait, and he was hesitant to be baited into rage. I'm open to these ideas, certainly. Let's deal with the second one first: I think it's incredibly silly stuff. And what's more, rage-bait has a way of becoming canonized, calcified, because the revolution must always act at the edge - the frontier - where experimental rhetoric bakes into ideology. Whether it's meant authentically or not, goofball adherents have already internalized it. It's simply a premonition of some future battle. As for the first contention, that we don't want to inadvertently glorify it, well, you tell me. I'd be surprised if it did!