The only thing incorrect about his reasoning was the time it was written - which, as I've argued in response to another comment (probably the one below you,) could have different meanings to the artists behind them depending on creation and release time. It didn't invalidate his argument on the choice of words used…

His argument was never invalidated: AGAIN, look at when the song was released. He may have written it because of that lady, BUT it was released after Nirvana's rise to fame - why reconsider putting the song out if it wasn't good enough for the first album? It's easy to write songs because one cause, but to have it…

The thing bothering me is how the interviewer's trying to invalidate his opinion after raising that fact, as if to say his opinion is meaningless because of something he didn't know. You ask someone to reveal a song they hate and why, then try to tell them they're full of shit? I'd have told him to fuck off as soon…

You sign up to be on a show (the type of which has been reported to completely manufacture shit) were the title implies exactly what the show is about - and then you sue because they did EXACTLY what their title claims? Just how stupid is this woman?

1. Cade Yaeger was an inventor, not a scientist. While I understand the reasoning, the distinction's worth noting.
2. Arnold was Perfectly cast as Mr. Freeze - his cold, monotonic, merciless character is just a smarter, more human version of his "Terminator" character. The fact that it was written and directed…

Sometimes it doesn't matter if it's real or not, both stories had me cracking up…