Brilliant, in that the older and wiser Mulder thinks he can now see through fraternity pranks or publicity stunts. He' s a middle-aged man able to put aside childish ways such as sasquatches, mothmen, and jackalopes. But when Scully notes that "this case has monsters," he falters.

??? Huh? Of course there are large numbers of people resistant to reason, and they are largely consolidated in a handful of southern states. This is why our Constitution enumerates certain inalienable rights, and defines separate branches of government. Are you still hung up on the "everyone has to agree with me"…

Would that be Neil deGrasse Tyson's nephew?

By all means we should be fighting discrimination in those states in which it is still legal. In many of these states, the laws will never change, but I expect that such laws will ultimately be overturned judicially. Reasonably soon, especially if a Democrat is elected President (and within two years if the Senate…

The "scare quotes" are reasonable in the sense that they indicate that the crazy-ass gay-hating "de-programming" nutjobs are not typical Christians. Just as the extremist terrorist Jihadists are not typical Muslims. Are you OK with the Republican Party's sweeping condemnations of all Islam, based on the bad actions of…

OK, I will grant the example of LGBT kids stuck in a "Christian" environment as a valid counterpoint (the only one I have seen here yet). This is not a case of ancient history or current politics, but an actual example of a "church" causing actual, extra-legal harm to real people.

Again, I don't see how this evil is…

Huh? So it's the fact that there are people that disagree with you that is the problem? And you think that crushing them with mockery is somehow going to result in them abandoning their "beliefs," leading to enlightened sunshine?

That is not how the world progresses. Believe it or not, there are still folks that…

No, of course it is very easy to be nice about it. With regard to marriage equality, for example, you make the case that reason and decency require us to allow it. It has nothing to do with the crusades, or slavery, or whatever ancient Christian sins you dig up. It doesn't require mockery or condemnation of religion.…

Not sure how old you are, but you really remind me of my younger self. I hear you. But I encourage you to continue studying the history of art, literature, philosophy, and especially science. No, civilization would not be what it is today without the profound contributions of Christianity. Of course the great…

Goodness, son, lighten up. If you look at the "debate" as it stands today, we aren't in too much danger of modern science screeching to a halt due to middle school textbook debates in Alabama. Yes, be vigilante, but realize that your side has already won. Don't get too worked up over the dying gasps of a 2000 year old…

Oh, goodness, of course not. Who would ever suggest such a thing? That is why we have discussions and debates. But the "religious nut" that suggests that "human beings have dignity" shouldn't be shouted down ignorantly as "ANTI-SCIENCE." Rather, in order to move forward, we engage the valid point.

The point is that in the real world, there is never "perfect knowledge" or "unbiased teaching." As noted above, the "science" side of the 1920s debate was characterized by eugenic philosophy. The "good guys" are rarely all good, and the "bad guys" are rarely without valid points worthy of discussion.

It's a monkey! Baby monkey! Monkey see, monkey do. Baby fish mouth!

Science clearly proves that nonsexual friendship between the sexes is non-adaptive.

Anybody catching the debates raging from Mother Jones to NRO over Thomas Leonard’s Illiberal Reformers? Seems the real-life progressives of the story were generally eugenicists, and the real William Jennings Bryant's arguments were actually far less moronic than the Bible-thumping by which he is remembered. Not that…

Hey, slightly unfair. That guy on Axe's staff who is a jerk is Gale Boetticher. So there are four named characters, even if one of them was named five years ago on a different, much better show.

"I know some poems too, you know! Now let's play Stump the Host!"

No, Arnold would have thought carefully before selling out to the insect overlords, and would have extracted a better price.

If I were to get on the show and miraculously win a decent string, my anecdotes of plans to spend the money would be the least tedious of the year. Wine tour of Tuscany, vodka tour of the russias, and on-site samplings of every single malt available in bonnie Scotland.

As a recent returnee to Jeopardyworld, I am still just becoming accustomed to the current culture. Please educate me.

In the last Jeopardy Corner thread, I lamented at length about my competitive "disability" of Age + Booze, despite the fact that the previous champion probably had a few years on me. I chalked it up to Fred's most-likely vegan, alcohol-free Zen lifestyle. But Chris very clearly has a few years on me, and very clearly…