Hi Vir, Amazing how even good wirters can devaite from the main topic & pick irrelevant issues to create a seemingly "readworthy" article. It's like setting out to write about write about food, but ending up penning down the chef's lifestyle, personal habits and sexual inclinations. I am no fan of Freddie, but a common-sense, non pseudo-intellectual approach tells me 1) had it not been for him & his onstage antics, Queen would not have the fan following it has today. 2) In most performing arts, the personality & idiosyncracies of the artiste goes a long way in creating a disruption in the marketplace & getting a fan following. e.g Madonna, who by any stretch of imagination has nothing to do with great, breahthru music, but has everything to do with average music + extra ordinary marketing of the self. 3) Music fans, worldwide, if you havent realised relish the music and they relish the persona of the group / lead singer. They are not bothered too much bothered about the sexuality and other non-relevant angles. These somehow seem to have greater interest for writers & journos only. e.g. let us assume that tomorrow Mick Jagger confesses to the unconfessible as far as his sexuality is concerned. Do you think Stones fans will run away from their music in hordes ? If Shane Warne has a decadent lifestyle, hey so be it. A cricket lover enjoys what he does on the field rather than what he does in bed. Despite the transvestive run-in, if Ronaldo comes back to roaring form with his football, followers of the game will forget this incident.So why would anyone devote a newspaper column to analysing why he invited transvestivtes to his room?? 4) Lastly, if you believe in personal life as being separate from public life, why should you and me worry about why Freddie lied about his sexuality or his country of origin, as long as we enjoyed his music ? You get the drift..in a music column if you have something interesting to say about the music, say it, otherwise....