"It was once a foible confined to the Greeks to inquire into what number of rowers Ulysses had, whether the Iliad or the Odyssey was written first, whether moreover they belong to the same author, and various other matters of this stamp, which, if you keep them to yourself, in no way pleasure your secret soul, and, if you publish them, make you seem more of a bore than a scholar."
— Seneca, "De Brevitate Vitae," published in 44 AD
(Following a possible explanation for Escape from Monkey Island's confusing retcons) So there you have it. It's not tidy, but it works. Sure, it's improbable that Stemmle and Clark actually considered, or were concerned with, all the ramifications that their plot point would have on the details of the previous games, and the above could be justifiably seen as a case of going out of one's way to rationalize sloppy writing. But that touches upon what this all really boils down to, and that's how much you like the game overall, and by extension how that influences your suspension of disbelief. If you're a fan of a game, you're going to take on the role of an apologist, and as such can contrive a rationale for anything if you're creative and persistent enough. If you simply don't like a game, then no amount of reasoning over the merits of a specific aspect is going to convince you to change your stance on the big picture. Again, this is coming from the guy who thought the whole Toothrot/Marley twist was messily executed if not a fundamentally misguided concept to begin with, but I suspect that one's general feelings toward EMI and the tolerance level for Herman's dirty little secret are correlated.
—Jason, The International House of Mojo
