WHO IS THE REAL BIGOT?
18 08 2006
The past several days have been abuzz with blog posts and comments lambasting former Supreme Court Justice and now PDI columnist Isagani Cruz for his August 12, 2006 article entitled DON WE NOW OUR GAY APPAREL. The gays in particular were aghast at the seeming homophobia of Mr. Cruz that they couldn’t help calling the old man all sorts of names just to express their disgust over what they described as plain and simple bigotry.
In Cheche Lazaro’s show Media in Focus over at ANC last night, I saw a fuming John Silva aggressively demanding the PDI that Isagani Cruz be severely censured or if not, booted out as a columnist for his alleged scathing remarks on the gay community. He went on further to state that if PDI does not do something about it — meaning, retiring the old man — there will be a backlash from the gay population from whom the newspaper draws quite a substantial part of its revenues. In other words, he wants PDI to dismiss Cruz or face the consequences of a decrease in advertising income!
I would have no longer wanted to talk about this issue because the same has been exhaustively discussed in other blogs. However, with this latest brouhaha by a certain John Silva, I couldn’t resist the temptation to ask: WHO IS THE REAL BIGOT?
A bigot, as far as my brain cells are concerned, is simply a person who is intolerant of opinions and beliefs other than his own. Granting for the sake of argument that Justice Cruz crossed the line when he ridiculed some members of the so-called third sex, is that fact alone sufficient to engender a conclusion that he is intolerant of beliefs associated with homosexuality in general?
Homosexuality, according to Wikipedia, represents a sexual desire for others of the same sex or gender. Did Mr. Cruz question, much less oppose that fundamental need common to virtually all gay men? His distinction between those who have conducted themselves decorously, with proper regard not only for their own persons but also for the gay population in general and those vulgar members of the gay community who have degraded and scandalized their group may have bordered on the irrational and I substantially agree with MLQ3 when he underscored that obvious blunder. BUT I cannot agree that just because Mr. Cruz scoffs at the sight of SOME gays in scandalous apparel or warns of the onslaught of gays with similar tendencies, he’s already a bigot. He was not being intolerant. He was merely expressing an opinion which unfortunately has been blown out of proportion by individuals who may have been hurt with his choice of words and brutal candidness.
If you analyze closely, Justice Cruz was basically comparing how homosexuals were treated during his time and how they are being regarded now. He even acknowledged the improved status of gays when he said:
The change in the popular attitude toward homosexuals is not particular to the Philippines. It has become an international trend even in the so-called sophisticated regions with more liberal concepts than in our comparatively conservative society. Gay marriages have been legally recognized in a number of European countries and in some parts of the United States. Queer people — that’s the sarcastic term for them — have come out of the closet where before they carefully concealed their condition. The permissive belief now is that homosexuals belong to a separate third sex with equal rights as male and female persons instead of just an illicit in-between gender that is neither here nor there.
In the hope of not offending their feelings, Mr. Cruz categorically stated at the outset:
I offer abject apologies to those blameless people I may unintentionally include in my not inclusive criticisms. They have my admiration and respect.
Read in its entirety, Cruz’ column should not in any way be construed as an indictment against the entire gay population. Let us not outrightly condemn the man simply because he may have issued statements deemed offensive by some quarters. Just as there are straight people who scandalously project themselves before the public, it cannot be denied that there are gays who likewise do the same, which to me, was what Mr. Cruz wanted to point out. You may not agree with my definition of what is scandalous or not but mind you, I WILL KNOW ONE WHEN I SEE ONE.
It is ironic that some of those who condemned Cruz for his intolerance are themselves “guilty” of the same intolerance for which they are precisely outraged about. The Philippine Daily Inquirer, known for the diverse opinions of its columnists, should not allow itself to be cowed by threats masquerading as principled objections. To unceremoniously dismiss former SC Justice Isagani Cruz solely for this article is not only a curtailment of the old man’s fundamental right to free speech — it is the highest form of bigotry.
Note: You can also read other blogs that discuss the same topic. Check them out here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. (photo above courtesy of islaternura.com)
OMG, are you stupid?
The fact that he is “Justice Cruz” doesn’t excuse him for being a geriatric bigot whose morals have obviously withered with age. His utter intolerance for the ‘pansies’ he refers to is the highest form of bigotry, even worse — discrimination based on sexuality. Don’t turn this against those who disagree with him. He is just one man. Yes, a man who clearly has no love for diversity. So please stop your pathetic attempts of defending this old lemming. And you know what? What can you say about his last paragraph? Funny that you left that out.
Anonymous,
Calling me “stupid” just because I was merely trying to rationalize why Justice Cruz wrote what he wrote is an indiction that you are more bigoted than the man you are so mad about. Besides, why not call me “stupid” by showing your real name? That is, if you are MAN enough to reveal who you really are.
And did I say that being a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court exempts the old man from whatever errors he may have committed in lashing out at the gay community? Where in the world did you base that innuendo?
While I disagree with this latest article of his, I will not be as judgmental and self-righteous as you in condemning the old man.
Let me make this clear though. I’m not here to justify Mr. Cruz. He is old enough (obvious ba) to defend himself. What I’m pointing out is that there are simply others (Justice Cruz in this case) who do not hold the same values — rightly or wrongly — as you do. That is the harsh reality.
As to my reaction to Cruz’ last paragraph, can’t you not see that I also disagree with his views on homosexuality? And now you’re taking me to task just because you think I deliberately omitted discussing it?
You can always write to the PDI and demand that he be fired, stoned or cruzified but I will maintain my earlier position that if and when the PDI dismisses him solely for this article, then that would be the highest form of bigotry.
There really are bigots amongst us. They just don’t know they are!
Right you are, Jon. In their attempt to defend their interests, they have become bigots themselves without even realizing it. That should not be so. Diversity of opinions is what makes our democracy healthy.
hello bystander.
i myself find mr cruz’s excursions into those staid macho conservatisms repugnant at the same time run-of-the-mill, and hackneyed. i am of the opinion that columnists must be extra mindful of all the conceivable, real-life ramifications of writing for public consumption.
HOWEVER, as i said in one of my responses to the comments on my own take on “political tolerance,” it’s so easy sometimes to fall into the same pit of shady politcal absolutisms, when we blindly permit ourselves to succumb to the paradoxical impulse to become rashly intolerant (meaning, preemptively dismissive) even of the worst kind of intolerance. political tolerance reigns supreme when people of whatever political stripe have un-infringed access to discussion tables where they can explicate their convictions in depth and lay themselves open to direct criticism. promoting whatever comprehensive consensus is reached on whatever issue, amid a diversity of opinions and a variety of personal, historical backgrounds, is one of the hallmarks of the kind of “social justice” at work.
pillory mr cruz as you please, especially if his identity politics is being concretely brought to bear on policy-making. but if in manifesting the boldest hostility toward a marginal view people make the concerted effort to muffle an opposing voice, then people not only create an atmosphere singularly congenial to the dominant opinion –people altogether strip political contestation of its unique capacity to preserve the very dynamism within community discourse that makes change a little difficult yet possible in a society.
ADDENDUM:
i guess what makes cruz’s statements so fraught with provocative allure is that his views aren’t exactly marginal –that is, if examined within the context of mainstream cultural conventions.
Thanks for visiting.
Very well said Beatrixpg. Or should I just call you Trix?
As I’ve always stressed, some of those who were outraged by Cruz’s essay have unwittingly become bigots themselves, refusing to accept that there are others who are not in total agreement with them.
Just take a look at the first comment above by this person who dared to call me “stupid” but is not MAN enough to stand by his own declarations.
Political tolerance (thanks for giving it a name) is also the reason why I don’t censor my comment box. We learn more from those who disagree with us.
Oooohhh. Tough guy aren’t you. By the way, I’m Larissa de Ocampo, a 19-year old college student. Oh and yeah, I’m a lesbian. So here I am “man” enough to give you my real name, you chauvinistic pig. I happen to have a lot of friends who were offended by Cruz’s article. Yes, they are “those” types of gays whom Cruz “warns” about. You can’t blame them (even me) for wanting Cruz to pay for what he wrote which was nothing short of a call to arms to the supposedly elite and straight majority. I couldn’t care less what happens to this man whom you oddly care about so much. And don’t you even say you’re not trying to defend him. Give us a freakin break.
If your brain cells say that a “bigot” is someone who’s intolerant of opinions and beliefs other than his own, well, since you can’t accept the apparent outrage from the gay and lesbian community, does that make you a bigot too? And you calling us bigots, how dare you. You are just as self-righteous and judgmental as you say we are.
Erwin,
I don’t look at people as men, women or gay but as human beings. I think the outrage came not from the labeling but the apparent question of where our society is headed to. Though apologetic, his piece rose to a crescendo that overstepped the very bounderies he himself set. Bigotry takes many forms and we do tend to be one at times. But the world has evolved into a society where due recognition and respect is paramount. Cruz should have realized that. We are all humans, that is being politically correct. And this is what matters to all of us.
P.S. I hope you post pictures of Candice. I live in Metro Manila. I’m just a nameless face on an endless race against time which somehow in our country seems to be going back. The thoughts/views we both share with our readers hopefully will point them to the right direction.
Larissa,
Since you’re now man enough to reveal your name (assuming that is your true name), why not give your address and other personal circumstances as well? But nah, I won’t stoop to your juvenile antics, your statements speak for what you are and I won’t give you an opportunity for civilized disagreement.
You call me a chauvinistic pig for merely trying to rationalize what the man said? Oh, I’m so hurt. Huhuhu… And what should I call you? An insecure and confused bigot? But let’s stop this crap. I’m not good at that. Maybe you are. Feel free to pillory me with all sorts of names, if that is what makes you feel “relieved”. But that doesn’t excuse you simply because you’re a lesbian.
Did I say I can’t accept the apparent outrage of the gay community? Read closely. I was only emphasizing that SOME of those who were outraged by Cruz’s statements have become bigots themselves, which, in my opinion, should not be so because we live in a society where diversity of opinions is the hallmark of a vibrant democracy. Unfortunately, in your desperate attempt to make me sound as an “enemy” of the LGBT community, you ventured to interpret my statements as if I’m “neither here nor there”. But sorry, I won’t let you get away with it.
Well, I guess bigotry begets bigotry, Schumey.
Although I substantially agree to what you said, I cannot in conscience subscribe to the idea of some that Mr. Cruz should be dimissed as a columnist of the PDI solely for that article. And to me, that would be the highest from of bigotry. It is an affront to his constitutional right of free speech. They even went to the point of threatening the PDI with decreased revenues if they will not retire the old man. Isn’t that bigotry? Oppose and criticize Mr. Cruz if they must BUT to literally crucify him for his irrational opinion is totally uncalled for. If I had my way, what the publisher or editor of the PDI should do is afford the gay community the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY of refuting his statements, i.e. devote one whole page (for 1 week) of the newspaper and print out, if possible, all the emails condemning the old man. Or, if it still doesn’t satisfy them, they can always file whatever case they deem necessary to protect their interest — perhaps libel or a class suit for damages in a court of law.
Just like Mr. Cruz, they now try to throw all sorts of insults at my person for displaying an opinion which they think opposes theirs.
P.S.
Ya, I will post her pics very soon. I just can’t seem to activate the GPRS functionality of my old camera phone. I’m contemplating of having a separate blog solely for that.
You are right, they do not have to pressure PDI to just dismiss the man for that. Its enough that they have driven their point. What if they switch places with Cruz? Just for the sake of seeing both sides. What if the third sex was the dominant figure in society? I wonder what and how they’ll treat us.
Haha. Nice point you got there, Schumey. Indeed, what could possibly be the scenario had homosexuality been the rule and heterosexuality the exception? But as you said, we should look at persons as human beings and not as straights, gays or lesbians.
But watch out schumey. “Larissa” and “anonymous” mught just visit your blog and attack you with a barrage of insults for appearing to side with Cruz.
no mr cruz doesnt deserve to be kicked out of PDI. recent news from six feet under the ground says that the list of maggots to decompose his carcass is nearly complete and that they are eagerly awaiting his hopefully timely demise. in other news, the fag population continues to rise and live on long enough after people who had their high school education in the 30’s have turned into fungus-infested skeletal remains.
Splendid sarcastic retort thailand. Very sleek. Now, that’s better.
hello bystander.
answer to your tiny query available on my blog’s recent discussion thread. thank you.
ok. i’ll drop by your blog. thanks.
A man named Vinny dies and goes to hell.
The Devil says to him “Hey Vinny we’ve been waitin for ya!”.
Vinny smiles and walks with the Devil and the Devil says “I gotta ask you a couple questions, do you like to smoke?” Vinny answers “Ya, I love to smoke.” The Devil says “Good you’ll like Mondays we smoke everything cigarettes, cigars, weed everything.”
“Now do you like to drink?” Then Vinny says “Of course I love to drink.” The Devil replies “Great we drink everything on Tuesdays you will fit in great.”
“Do you like to have sex?” Vinny says “Hell ya sex is the best.” The Devil smiles and replies “Us guys have sex with every type of woman you could think of on Wednesdays.”
And the Devil finally says “Now, are you gay?” Vinny frowns and answers “NO I’m not gay! And the Devil looks down and finishes “Oh, man… Your gonna hate Thursdays, and Fridays, and the weekend.
So what if the Devil is also gay? That homophobia exists even in the Underworld? Is that the moral of the story?
I read and read and reread the article again and tried to see if there were indeed valid points in his article that I missed because of the migraine it initially gave me.
After the initial shock here’s what I thought: Cruz would’ve written a better article if only he did more research and analysis. He had a point somewhere… but he got carried away with his self-righteous attitude and focused on sensational statements like “My sons all of them macho!”(What a proud father he must be to have five macho sons eager to beat up a ‘pansy’ in school. No different from having your dogs trained to attack the balut vendor.)
What bothers me is that the article felt like he purposely wanted to hurt the gay community’s collective emotion and create a stir. Well, he got what he wanted.
But heavens what for? To make the gay community look into themselves and repent? Repent for what? See the ‘error’ of their ways? To mobilize straight macho men and straight graceful women so they can band together and ‘right’ the ‘wrongs’ of these “people with an insipid mix of diluted virtues?”
He could’ve candy-coated his caveman opinion with a dash of wit and humor rather than going for the worn-out “grim and determined” approach. Baka lumabas pa sana ang point niya at mas maraming pumanig sa kanya. Baka pati ako umayon sa opinyon niya (baka lang). There are other ways of criticizing or expressing your opinion without killing the spirit of the person you’re criticizing.
And what’s with the statement “I offer abject apologies to those blameless people I may unintentionally include in my not inclusive criticisms. They have my admiration and respect.” RESPECT? ADMIRATION? This is merely apologizing to them before he pees into their soup.
No. I dont agree that the PDI should kick him out of the paper because of this wretched article.
But at the same time, I won’t rally ’round the PDI office so they’ll let him keep his job. I say let him write more articles on the subject matter. I would even suggest that he makes his column exclusive to warning straight conservative people of the ‘gay threat.’
In most countries, an article like this would mean the end of one’s political career - or any career for that
matter - but then again he’s a retired associate justice so there’ no career to talk about. I’m sure
he has a nice garden at the back of his house where he spends most of his time. And I bet
there are no pansies and daisies in his lot. Puro pechay at talong lang siguro. How nice.
Ang sakit sa ulo. Tama na nga ito.
Peace!
Vince, you said:
“What a proud father he must be to have five macho sons eager to beat up a ‘pansy’ in school. No different from having your dogs trained to attack the balut vendor.)”
–Was that what Justice Cruz really meant when he said and I quote: “Walking along the University belt one day, I passed by a group of boys chattering among themselves, with one of them exclaiming seriously, “Aalis na ako. Magpapasuso pa ako!” [“I’m leaving. I still have to breastfeed!”] That pansy would have been mauled in the school where my five sons (all machos) studied during the ’70s when all the students were certifiably masculine.”?
Where can you find in the above statement that his macho boys were EAGER to beat up that pansy in school? Let’s be more accurate, Vince, before we accuse Justice Cruz of something which he didn’t say at all.
“What bothers me is that the article felt like he purposely wanted to hurt the gay community’s collective emotion and create a stir. Well, he got what he wanted.
But heavens what for? To make the gay community look into themselves and repent? Repent for what? See the ‘error’ of their ways? To mobilize straight macho men and straight graceful women so they can band together and ‘right’ the ‘wrongs’ of these “people with an insipid mix of diluted virtues?
He could’ve candy-coated his caveman opinion with a dash of wit and humor rather than going for the worn-out “grim and determined” approach. Baka lumabas pa sana ang point niya at mas maraming pumanig sa kanya. Baka pati ako umayon sa opinyon niya (baka lang). There are other ways of criticizing or expressing your opinion without killing the spirit of the person you’re criticizing.”
–What we don’t realize is that Justice Cruz was merely exercising an OPINION which you could either accept or reject. He has no obligation to temper his statements just because it may offend the sensibilities of a particular group or advocacy. You cannot fault him for exhibiting an opinion totally unacceptable to your sense of virtue. Now, I am not saying he was right, as I likewise consider his opinion on gays as archaic. But I am not about to surrender my freedom to express my right to criticize.
Further, you said:
“No. I dont agree that the PDI should kick him out of the paper because of this wretched article.
But at the same time, I won’t rally ’round the PDI office so they’ll let him keep his job. I say let him write more articles on the subject matter. I would even suggest that he makes his column exclusive to warning straight conservative people of the ‘gay threat.’”
–You are, quite sarcastically, correct. That’s the essence of freedom of expression.
“In most countries, an article like this would mean the end of one’s political career - or any career for that
matter - but then again he’s a retired associate justice so there’ no career to talk about. I’m sure
he has a nice garden at the back of his house where he spends most of his time. And I bet
there are no pansies and daisies in his lot. Puro pechay at talong lang siguro. How nice.”
–You could wish for that. That’s part of free expression . But to wish for his death or have him lynched by mob (as some bloggers did) is altogether another thing.
Hello again.
True. He had the right to say anything he wanted to. (Yun na nga lang ang libre sa bansang ito - OPINYON.) But I strongly feel he went beyond the bounds of common decency when he ridiculed a large section of our society, calling them names just because they do not conform to his religion, politics, culture and beliefs. THAT, my friend, IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE PDI’s JOURNALIST RULES AND BYLAWS. This violation made by Cruz was admitted by Ms. Tirol herself on television. Now will Isagani A. Cruz apologize to the community he’s offended? I wont hold my breath. In fact he wrote another article, further digging himself another hole. His reasons for writing another article this time? Aside from the obvious “pagtanggol sa sarili”, hell… I don’t know. But even dogs have reasons when they bark at the wrong tree.
I was personally disgusted on HOW he wrote it, not on WHY. I would have been able to understand some of his arguments (some, by the way, would prove to be interesting debate topics) but the way he said it leaves a pretty bad after-taste. The fact that he offended even those he included in his “abject-apologies-to-people-I-respect” disclaimer, proves that he wrote something malicious. Sayang. If only he re-read it one more time before printing time. Not to sanitize it, but to make his points clearer and lessen the mud-hurling.
Yes, many people are upset and some are even losing sleep over it. But at the end of the day, whether we like it or not, this provides good opportunity for us all to confront our own double standards, bigotry, hypocrisy… and stupidity.
Peace!
1. “True. He had the right to say anything he wanted to. (Yun na nga lang ang libre sa bansang ito - OPINYON.) But I strongly feel he went beyond the bounds of common decency when he ridiculed a large section of our society, calling them names just because they do not conform to his religion, politics, culture and beliefs. THAT, my friend, IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE PDI’s JOURNALIST RULES AND BYLAWS. This violation made by Cruz was admitted by Ms. Tirol herself on television.”
–You may not like it but I would like to quote Justice Cruz:
“Criticism is normal in the free society and is available to everyone right or wrong. The ideas that may be expressed under this freedom are not confined only to those that are sympathetic or acceptable, for that would make the freedom more shadow than substance. To be really meaningful, it should permit the articulation of even the unorthodox view, though it is hostile to or scorned by others. One of the purposes of this freedom, in fact, is to invite dispute.”
This is a fundamental right and may not be abridged because a certain segment of the population felt aggrieved, disgusted, revolted and outraged by his statements. After all, you and all the others have been given sufficient space and time to rebut, oppose, criticize and lambaste Justice Cruz in your blogs and newspaper columns. Some of you have even wished for the old man’s death when his only fault (assuming it was) was his remark about the possibility of that “pansy” being mauled in the school where his five macho sons studied. So what more do you want? Fire Justice Cruz from the PDI? If that happens, then freedom of expression will be more of a myth than reality.
2. “Now will Isagani A. Cruz apologize to the community he’s offended? I wont hold my breath. In fact he wrote another article, further digging himself another hole. His reasons for writing another article this time? Aside from the obvious “pagtanggol sa sarili”, hell… I don’t know. But even dogs have reasons when they bark at the wrong tree.”
–Apologize for what? Apologize for exercising his right to criticize to what he sees as scandalous behavior among some members of the gay community? I don’t think so. You can always demand for an apology but it will remain just that — a demand with no constitutional leg to stand on.
3. “I was personally disgusted on HOW he wrote it, not on WHY. I would have been able to understand some of his arguments (some, by the way, would prove to be interesting debate topics) but the way he said it leaves a pretty bad after-taste. The fact that he offended even those he included in his “abject-apologies-to-people-I-respect” disclaimer, proves that he wrote something malicious. Sayang. If only he re-read it one more time before printing time. Not to sanitize it, but to make his points clearer and lessen the mud-hurling.”
–The WHATs, WHYs and the HOWs are all included in this irritating but cannot be ignored freedom of expression. Has he gone overboard, legally speaking? Then feel free to seek redress by filing a case against him. Did he offend the sensibilities of the gay community? The feeling is mutual, I think.
4. “Yes, many people are upset and some are even losing sleep over it. But at the end of the day, whether we like it or not, this provides good opportunity for us all to confront our own double standards, bigotry, hypocrisy… and stupidity.”
–I agree.
The problem with Bystander is that he conveniently isolates certain remarks in Cruz’s essay to say that it was nothing more than a “nostalgic opinion” and that he merely dislikes “noisy” gays. And yet there are many references to gays in general: “now homosexuals are everywhere,” “gay invasion,” “Must we allow homosexuality to march unobstructed until we are converted into a nation of sexless persons,” and so on.
And for all that, he writes:
“As I’ve always stressed, some of those who were outraged by Cruz’s essay have unwittingly become bigots themselves, refusing to accept that there are others who are not in total agreement with them.”
Well, the pot called the kettle black! Apparently, those who support Cruz’s views practice freedom of speech while those who don’t are bigots.
Finally, notice how he conveniently ignores my second point, about pansy behavior being a form of self-expression.
So much for that remark about not liking what another person says or does but defending his right to do such!
When all is said and done, the crux is that ex-Justice Cruz worries for his MACHO sons!!!
—–
For 3 months, the boss persistently flirted with his brand-new secretary who has the longest pair of legs and the most seductive face he has seen in ages. Then… success!!!
After a long night of making love, the boss rolls over, looks and notices a framed picture of another man on the nightstand by the bed. Naturally, the guy begins to worry.
“Is this your husband?” he inquires nervously.
“No, silly.” she replies, snuggling up to him.
“Your boyfriend then?” he asks.
“No, not at all,” she whispers, nibbling away at his ear.
“Is it your dad or your brother?” he asks, hoping to be reassured.
“No, no, no!!!” she says.
“Well who is he then?” demands the bewildered guy.
Calmly the girl replies, “That’s me before the surgery.”
“Well, the pot called the kettle black! Apparently, those who support Cruz’s views practice freedom of speech while those who don’t are bigots.
Finally, notice how he conveniently ignores my second point, about pansy behavior being a form of self-expression.
So much for that remark about not liking what another person says or does but defending his right to do such!”
–Don’t turn the tables on me anonymous. I have always been tolerant of the opinions of others, including yours. It was and still is my observation that some of those who disagreed with Cruz have “fallen afoul to the very same intolerance the accuse him of”, to use the words of John Nery of Newsstand blog. Had I been intolerant of the opinions of others, including yours, I would have moderated my “comment box”. But you see, I did not. This is all part of “freedom of expression” my friend, whether you like it or not.
BTW anonymous, except for its entertainment value, your “brief” story above does not prove anything. Well, thanks for giving me the laugh.
That is, if you are MAN enough to reveal who you really are.
Though I believe that Mister Cruz could have stated his opinion in a more compromising way, I understand your point and agree to your observation that there are LGBT supporters who have put their stand to the border of irrationality.
However, I do wish you wouldn’t make a statement such as this. It gives the impression that you your self are prejudiced, not only against gays but to women as well — as though not being “man enough” (and this seems to make “strong, heterosexual man” in my understanding) should indeed merit ridicule from others, even intellectuals as your self.
This is just my humble, honest opinion on that bit of detail. I hope not to make an offence.