In August 2007 the MAGIC team caused controversy by posting a paper on arxiv that http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2889 1. reported they thought they might have observed a 4 minute delay of the more energetic gammaray photons, compared with less energetic, from an Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) flare some 500 million lightyears away. 2. suggesting that the delay, while it might have occurred at the source, might also have a QG explanation----that the very energetic (2 - 10 TeV) photons might conceivably experience a slightly different spacetime geometry and, in effect, have farther to go or travel more slowly than light of lower, more familiar energy. The MAGIC telescope is a Imaging Atmospheric-Cherenkov Telescope (IACT) on San Juan in the Canary Islands. The MAGIC team got some prominent theorist/phenomenologists such as John Ellis and Nick Mavromatos to co-author with them making the suggestion of a possible QG cause of the delay more visible. We aren't even sure the delay really happened, might have been an artifact, and if it happened it might have been caused by some other mechanism at the source. But IF it is real and replicable and does NOT originate at the source then there is this nagging idea that it might have a QG explanation. There was audible irritation in the science community that MAGIC raised this issue, with Ellis and Mavromatos help, in such a noticeable way, back in August. So now the idea has appeared again, but in a more SUBMERGED WAY. ON PAGE 16 OF A WONDERFUL 20 PAGE REVIEW PAPER that everybody interested in high energy and very high energy (VHE) astronomy should read. some new types of orbital and groundbase telescopes have recently come into use and a revolution is underway. This paper is a good brief overview with lots of photos, graphs, data, and references to the literature. It is by de Angelis, Mansutti and Persic. http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0315 Anyway the discussion of the controversial delay is modestly submerged down at page 16 by the careful authors dA, M, and P. And they give a nice one-page presentation! What is more, they bring in OTHER SUPPORTING OBSERVATIONS, where according to them the data could be interpreted as containing a proportionately similar delay from one or more other sources. In particular they mention data from another IACT, called HESS, taken in 2005 and discussed in Aharonian et al http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506593 Aharonian et al did not SAY they had an energy-dependent delay but somebody has delved into their data and dA,M,P assert that there is this possible interpretation supportive of what MAGIC said. They calculate some numbers which are consistent.