Thompson Blames Penny Arcade For Canceling Debate That He Wouldn't Agree To... Huh?

June 5, 2007 -
As reported by GamePolitics, a proposed Jack Thompson debate at PAX 07 nows seems unlikely given the anti-game attorney's refusal to agree to terms set forth by the event sponsor, Penny Arcade.

The primary bone of contention was Penny Arcade's desire to keep Thompson's appearance a closely-held secret, revealing it just prior to the actual debate in late August at PAX.

The volatile Thompson, however, blew that possibility sky-high late last week by revealing the ongoing debate negotiations to several media outlets. Kotaku was first to run with the story on Friday evening.

Having declined the terms of the debate, Thompson now says he blames Penny Arcade. In an e-mail to GP this morning he wrote:
I have repeatedly emailed... Penny Arcade and told them of my willingness, from the start and now, to engage in the debate.  They are the ones who canceled the debate, not I.
 
Their concern about "security" is absurd and a contrivance.  All they have to do is limit the number of admitees to 6000...  This is not rocket science. This is not going to be like the Stones at Altamonte, for Heaven's sake.  Real security, not Hell's Angels will be providing security.
 
What GamePolitics or others need to do is get to the bottom of why they really wanted to announce the debate one hour before it occurrs.  Now THAT would cause a stampede that would not allow them to have passes in the hands of those who want to go. 

I'm surprised, Dennis, frankly, that you have so naively taking this dodge.  I believe what happened is that they thought I would never accept the debate offer, and they planned to use that for p.r. purposes.

GP: As I said to Thompson in a reply to his e-mail, his contention doesn't hold water. How could Penny Arcade be using the debate for P.R. when it was their intent to keep it secret right up until PAX? What's more, Thompson was the one who revealed the debate proposal to the world, not PA.

As we wrote on Saturday, the anti-game activist missed a huge opportunity here. Despite all of the negative history between the embattled Miami lawyer and Penny Arcade (which includes Thompson's 2005 attempt to get the Seattle P.D. and F.B.I. after PA), the PA crew was ready to afford near-rock star (oh, the irony...) treatment to Thompson to make this debate a reality.

Sounds like there may be someone here who doesn’t want to debate but still craves the publicity. However, we don't think it's Penny Arcade.

GP POLL RESULTS: Despite its apparent demise, GP readers overwhelmingly would like to see a Thompson debate. Of more than 1,100 respondents to our recent poll, 74% favored a Thompson-Penny Arcade debate. 20% said no, and 6% were undecided.

Digg!

Comments

Because Jack is a hypocritical cheapskate that would only ever actually DEBATE anything if he was allowed to spit out lies that would come on print.

Well said Dennis

thompson is on crack.

It's scary how wacked up a guy can get in a professional position.

Jes is right. He'll only talk and appear places usually when it's him and just him doing the talking.

It pretty much boils down to this: They offered him to debate but requested a few formalities for security and other reasons. Thompson agreed...then realized that he would have to actually be accountable publically for the crap he spews...so he immediately went to the news where they print his every whim and never check it to make sure that it is even CLOSE to true or not. I would have loved to have seen the debate to see if he could hold up an honesy intelligent conversation (he had to have become a lawyer SOMEHOW), but his fear of being questioned killed the whole thing.

Sounds like there may be someone here who doesn’t want to debate but still craves the publicity. However, we don’t think it’s Penny Arcade.

Exactly, making Thompson a wussy, in the words of Ken Titus.

Thompson knows that if he had debated PA, he would have lost.

Like I said in the other article, where Thompson first turned it down: "Media w@#$%"

Their concern about “security” is absurd and a contrivance. All they have to do is limit the number of admitees to 6000…

Ummmmm. Hate to break it to you, Jack, but last year's PAX attendance was nearly 20,000, and it's supposed to be much, much bigger this year.

Making completely impossible demands and then taking your ball and going home when they're not met? If you didn't want to debate, just say so.

Like a typical bully, Thompson only wants to debate those who know nothing about the issues he faces. This would put Thompson on even ground, I guess.

Go back to chasing massacres, Jack. It's the only thing you're good at.

I should point out he's backed out of debates with knowledgeable opponents in the past with similar flimsy excuses.

It's also funny that Penny Arcade, who are "using this for PR," haven't even MENTIONED this dustup on their website. Why is that, Jack?

I once saw Jack on a debate, exept it wasn't really a debate, as he wouldn't let anyone else talk. The person defending video games would say a few words, then be interupted by Thompson who would then speak uniterupted for five minutes. And when others tried to interupt him he either ignored them or told them not to interupt him... Hipocracy?

Maybe he's still confuse... confusing his rights with terms.

Jack Thompson is a coward. It's so completely obvious now. I mean how many debates has he been invited to take part in recently? I mean, debates that have actual intelligent, knowledgeable, gaming industry representatives rather than Fox news broadcasters to challenge him and call him on all his bullshit with facts and rather than sit back little to him prattle on about shit he doesn't really know anything about? I don't know the exact number, but I remember a few of them being reported here and all of them he declined as well. It's bullshit, and he just makes more and more excuses to back out of these debates because he knows he'd be torn apart by these people who actually know what they're talking about and can truly expose him for the ambulance chaser he really is.

Thompson is one of those people who thinks that he can NEVER fail at ANYTHING. Whatever he does, he spins it into some crazy fairy tale in which the other party is at fault. Fortunately, it's really easy to see through these, since although he like to spin things, he's insanely bad at it.

There are mainly two reasons for this withdrawal.

1. As has been stated, he is a coward and does not want his falsehoods exposed in public.

2. He had hoped that this would be a big anouncement and when he made it to the debate, a video game player would have brought a gun and followed through with the threats on his life. Whether he lived or died he would have been a marter and would have proved his point about video games making kids violent.

The first point has already been addressed. The second was thrown out the window when PA wanted to keep his participation a secret until the last minute. If they had done that then no one other than an associate of Thompson would have know he was going to be there and there would not have been anyone with a gun to follow through on said threats.

He is loony and I would not put such a scenario beyond him. But of course, he could be just a huge media whore and want all the publicity he can get.

Look, Dennis brings up good rebuttals to Thompson's specious claims, but Thompson has a point.

Why the secrecy? The 'security' reason is either a PR sham, or deeply disturbing. Does Jack need protection from gamers or something? Are we really that violent that we can't watch a debate without mauling someone or some such nonsense? Like I said, that kind of idea coming from a bastion of gamers, is very disturbing to me. Or is the security excuse just a PR trick? Despite what many posters here have asserted, PR isn't just about what a company says, or how they say it - it's also largely about timing, too. So, an event of this magnitude, timed in PA's interests, is a PR agent's wet-dream.

In the interest of true debate, this event should have been transparent to the public, with terms agreed to by both parties openly, and moderated by a neutral agent.

Too bad: PA's desire for a suprise media frenzy, and Jack's desire to sink this ship before it sails once again aborts any attempt at rational discussion. If any could be had with Jack's involvment.

Like I've said in the other article, I'm personally glad this didn't happen - I don't want a thin red dime of gamer-money going to line Jack's pockets. He doesn't debate for free, and that is 100% well-documented.

I would have loved to go to a debate with him, even if i was just watching it. The man needs to be put in his place intellectually, and the world needs to know that the hot air in his head needs to go and now.

" I have repeatedly emailed… Penny Arcade and told them of my willingness, from the start and now, to engage in the debate. They are the ones who canceled the debate, not I.

Their concern about “security” is absurd and a contrivance. All they have to do is limit the number of admitees to 6000… This is not rocket science. This is not going to be like the Stones at Altamonte, for Heaven’s sake. Real security, not Hell’s Angels will be providing security.

What GamePolitics or others need to do is get to the bottom of why they really wanted to announce the debate one hour before it occurrs. Now THAT would cause a stampede that would not allow them to have passes in the hands of those who want to go.

I’m surprised, Dennis, frankly, that you have so naively taking this dodge. I believe what happened is that they thought I would never accept the debate offer, and they planned to use that for p.r. purposes."

You are contradicting your words, Jack Thompson. You brought this upon yourself, you are the one who rejects Penny Arcade's PAX argument offer and you are now blaming them right now? The only thing I hate in this world is liars and cheaters.

BEWARE fellow gamers, don't listen to this freak, if you agree with him, YOU ARE IN BIGGER TROUBLE, JUDGE YOURSELVES PLEASE!

@the1jeffy
Why the secrecy? The ’security’ reason is either a PR sham, or deeply disturbing. Does Jack need protection from gamers or something?

No. But this would have been the biggest event to completely destroy Jack Thompson credibility. He knew this so he backed out. Thompson cannot handle himself in a debate with knowledgeable people from the gaming industry. And every person attending PAX knows this would love to see this happen. Security would be a concern... I don’t know if PAX would be able to accommodate such a huge attendance for a debate.

@~the1jeffy

"Does Jack need protection from gamers or something? Are we really that violent that we can’t watch a debate without mauling someone or some such nonsense?"

There is a saying that goes like this:

"There is a nut in every crowd."....Jack is the nut of the laywer crowd...and I'll be damned if one of our nuts pop him on stage.

I don't like him...dispite everything cruel that's been said by him...I really don't want to see the guy hurt by one of our nuts. If that happens.....as everyone says he'll become a marytar.....and I fear for us all if that happens.....because there is so much fact ingoring these days (Ex: V-Tech and the media playing the blame game...it's something's fault something had to influnece Cho....no one in the media Expect John Steward can't seem to accept the fact that the kid was plain nuts."...it's a scary world.)

It could very well give Jack more power even if he was to be fatally injured by said nutcase. Things will still be bad for us without his mouth to shoot of lies...or even worse...

I also doubt the security issue is one that was as significant as Thomposn or others would have us believe. I've said before that I find it highly doubtful that Thompson could be seen as a martyr for anything. As someone else said in another thread, he's afraid of getting even a paper cut. And there's nothing he's implied outside of his posting his office address and phone number tha he wants someone to go after him.

And even if he got killed, what would that accomplish? He's alienated any allies with any influence they might have had (David Walsh, etc.) and any others are either fringe groups (The Eagle Forum) or too small and disorganized (The Peaceoholics) to have any kind of effect. His credibility has substantially eroded; most recent appearances on TV have begun to expose him as a fraud, showing the MSM aren't even taking him as seriously as they used to.

Also, who would take his place and take up his cause? I don't really see anyone else standing in line that would be as eager to hog the spotlight as he is. Even David Grossman has been pretty low profile, re-emerging only briefly after VT, but that's par for the course with him. So far, there hasn't been any other anti-gaming critic out there I've seen who's been as determined to get as much attention as possible as Thompson.

Thompson has made many enemies, and he isn't very well-liked by even his peers in the legal profession. If something were to happen to him, it would most likely be seen as something he brought upon himself and not a validation of his wild claims. The only person who could stand to gain anything would be him, and unless he's got some sort of plan that would be set in motion after his death (and I don't even think he thinks that far ahead), I don't see how he could exploit such an incident if he were no longer alive.

As much as he makes himself out to be the standard-bearer in this so -called war against video games, he's not as important as he makes himself out to be. Otherwise his opinions would be taken more seriously, but they aren't. So if he were somehow removed, it wouldn't have much of an effect. If anything, the discussion would probably move forward and be much more rational, and lawyers everywhere would probably breathe a sigh of relief as they would no longer have to worry about his antics further tarnishing the bad reputation they have already. ;)

Yeah, it's not like John Bruce has been offered to debate before. I mean, he wouldn't want a debate to happen, then just back out. Nor would John Bruce lie to or deceive others to push his agenda.

Oh...
Uh...
Wait...


Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
:: Now mopping up the massive amounts of dripping sarcasm I've just spilled all over GP's nice clean floor. ::

To Black Manta,

Even so, Jack Thompson still has the power to sue Take Two and other companies he chooses to hate. Even if his lawyer license have been revoked (which I hope will happen to this freak of nature), they are not able to get rid of him completely as who knows? He could be planning his secret attack he has hidden in his sleeve for many years.

Haha, Jack Thompson, always thinking that everything is always as it seemed, get real, Jack!

@the1jeffy: Good points, well said.

I think JT wins this round. I've tried to consider the motivations of the parties involved.

PA wants a newsworthy event at PAX this year, to entertain attendees and raise the show's profile for future years. JT wants more exposure, even if just to the "pixelante" crowd. His career is fed by his celebrity, but I don't think it matters whether that celebrity comes from "friends" on Fox News or "enemies" who play games.

PA bolstered JT's celebrity (and maybe even his credibility?) by inviting him to be a guest speaker. Instead of returning the favor by playing along with the secrecy, JT steals all the thunder for himself by spilling the beans early. JT: 1, PA: 0.

Now PA has missed an opportunity for its biggest publicity generator of the year, but JT still gets that exposure he wants just by revealing that PA approached him. There's no way JT would have changed any opinions by speaking at PAX, so he gains just as much (if not more) by going public now.

I am just as happy that this debate will not happen. JT speaks in nothing but insincere rhetoric and platitudes anyway. I've never heard him have an honest conversation -- an actual exchange of ideas -- with anyone who disagrees with him.

It's upsetting to listen to JT spread his views on mainstream news shows, but listening to him spout his canned hyperbole and slander to a room full of people who already know he's full of crap might actually turn out to be sort of boring.

@the1jeffy

Not so much security, as the fact that PA did not want their gamer event overrun with media hounds. How could there be a media frenzy if no one knew it was going to happen? If PA had really wanted to attract attention, they would have announced it to everyone weeks in advance.

@ JB

I agree with you mostly, I am not saying Thompson is right, or in the clear, I said he had A point. And how would security be a concern?

@ LightWarrior

Take a good look at what you've posted and ask yourself: "Why am I assuming that there will be a violent 'nut' that will fatally injured (or otherwise)?"

I know, "There's a nut in every crowd." That is an old adage, however, and should be used loosely and not as law. In reality, while there might be a nut, or nuts, in the crowd - history with crowds of gamers, even when they interact with Jack in public - is generally non-violent and very positive. The worst thing that ever ACTUALLY happened to Jack, at the hands of a gamer, was that he got "flipped off." The rest is empty childish threats by children, harmless pranks (KY gelee anyone?), and non-violent statments of flowers.

I submitt that Jack, in the event this debate would take place as I've descrived above, would likely be raucously booed, heckled, and the like, possible more 'flipping of the bird," but violence? Where's the history for that? The motive?

A simple metal dector in the debate hall would curb any possibility of long distance harm, and bouncers by the stage would be more security than ever needed.

However, this wouldn't happen for tow reasons:

1) Jack's inability, or fear if you will, to carry himself in a rational, moderated, point-for-point debate. This is well-documented.

2) PA's desire to use this debate as a 'statement.' They wanted Jack to look out over a 20,000+ crowd of 'solidarity,' and get 'Pwned,' by the best and brightest of pro-gamers. So they wanted it secret, with them holding all the cards. Jack's crazy, but not THAT crazy. Come on, people, would you go single-handedly into a PTC national meeting, with the PTC holding all the cards? NO! You'd want an even chance, and we gamers should provide the same for Jack. (Despite his inability to do the same, we should continue to walk the 'high road" ... )

Our continued insistance that Jack needs total secrecy and security from gamers is detrimental to our 'cause,' as it were.

A couple years ago I attended something called "An Evening with Kevin Smith." Essentially we all crowded into an auditorium and listened to Kevin Smith talk for a couple hours (very cool). About halfway through the show He says "Hang on, I brought a friend." and out stepped Jason Mewes who joined Kevin our on stage for the rest of the show.

Mewes wasn't in the program, nobody expected him or even knew he'd be there. So you can imagine how the whole theatre exploded when we saw him.

This Jack Thompson debate wasn't P.R., security, or an attempt to restrict Thompson's free speech (or whatever that crazy asshole thinks), it was a surprise for the audience. PAX is a party for gamers essentially, and Mad Jack the Censor was the surprise pressent for us all.

Thompson has a history backing out of debates at the last moment. I can think of three off the top of my head which he has agreed to and then walked away from. Each time he went to the press citing all his "complaints", most of which made no sense (a surprise for the audience encroaches on his free speech in his mind), and ranted how his would-be hosts are hypocites. He's never content to say no and walk away. He always goes to the press.

He's an attention whore. Nothing he's done here is a surprise to me.

Actually, I am pretty much suprised that during the MSNBC VTech discussion with the female reporter (anyone tell me her name please?) and Jack Thompson only said negative things about Jason Della Rocca, but never said anything negative about the South Korean serial killer.

Why? Because, Jack Thompson has the same stupidity level like the discourteous teenagers.

And another thing that caught my attention in the Gamepolitics Wiki article is that Jack Thompson signed in many accounts.

Lol, Jack Thompson, who thinks that he can be funny with many nonsensical-names accounts, grow up!

I said it before and I'll say it again:

WHAT A DUMBASS! Jack Thompson gets stupider every day!

~Otaku-Man

To Otaku-Man,

Good that someone here agrees with us. Greetings sir, what brings you here? Are you new here or a regular visitor of Gamepolitics?

@The Unworthy

I find it unlikely that Thompson would be considered a good 'suprise.' The debate itself isn't PR, but the secrecy that PA wanted just plain reeks of PR. Like I said before, PR is most often about timing a press release as much as the content of said press release. And if Jack agreed to secrecy, the PA PR people hold all the cards, which is a total classic PR move.

~the1jeffy After reading other comments and stuff...I dunno....you are right there really hasn't been any serious violence yet....I'm paranoid.

What would they do with said card? hold it some more until an hour before the debate? I fail to see how that is PR. The only thing they would have credit for is providing a debate where JT gets wrecked by someone who is actually knowledgeable about the industry. And this is not news to the rest of us and highly unlikely the mainstream media would even pay attention to it. So they gain what? To say that JT got owned at PAX. With an estimated 20,000 estimated attendence, I do not think PA is hurting for fans.

I think the only thing they are interested in is the same as the rest of us. To see JT publicly shot down, unfortunately, only those of us that pay attention to this news would know about it as the mainstream media would not really pay attention unless JT actually got attacked / injured. Which I would think would be a possibility because I do think JT would intentionally provoke the crowd to get that kind of reaction and someone would take the bait. Metal detectors would not work, someone would find a way if they truly hated him and it is pretty safe to say that there are plenty of people that hate him.

I think JT is smart for bailing out though, he (and we) know he would get owned. There is no challenge and it is like preaching to the choir. Nobody would walk away with new insight into the matter. Except JT's hurt pride. But I doubt he would be packing his hubris.

Personally, I would rather see a debate on national television so that the people who do not understand video games can see him get wrecked. If JT got smoked at PAX, it would not change anything. Convince the general public the man is an ignoramus and the voting public may change their outlook on video games (slowly, but better than believing JT).

Doesn't have the courage to attend.

Doesn't have the Testicular Fortitude to take responsiblity for cancelling because he couldn't promote himself, which is what this was about for him, self-promotion, and if he has to lie to do it, he will.

I don't think he EVER intended to turn up and debate there, he knew he might actually face someone who knew what they were talking about, and who would have bothered to read the reports that Jack keeps mis-quoting.

"Their concern about “security” is absurd and a contrivance."

In a room full of gamers? Isn't he the nitwit who thinks people who play games are violent?

OK, so they invited JT to a debate. Who was he going to debate? Tycho? Gabe? Jason Della Rocca?

"I have repeatedly emailed… Penny Arcade and told them of my willingness, from the start and now, to engage in the debate. They are the ones who canceled the debate, not I."

Hate to admit it, but Thompson is half right (congrats Jack, that's the closest you've ever been to right). Penny Arcade DID cancel the debate. But that's only because you breached the agreement they were trying to make with you. You would think a lawyer would understand a simple agreement and how they work.

And how "willing to debate" are you when you knowing breach said agreement? That's like punching someone for no reason, then claiming they started the fight.

@ Jlodus

"I fail to see how that is PR."

Yeah, I get that. It seems that most folks here have only a passing knowledge of whar PR is. PR in genreal is simply a company, organization, or person's way of presenting themselves to the public, via mass media in all forms.

You say that it isn't PR, but then go on to state exactly how it IS.

"The only thing they would have credit for is providing a debate where JT gets wrecked by someone who is actually knowledgeable about the industry."

And they would be able to paint whatever PR-picture they want (hold the cards, as I said).

"And this is not news to the rest of us and highly unlikely the mainstream media would even pay attention to it."

Right, not big news to us, but you are inccorect, Jack has an annoying knack for getting MSM airtime. PA isn't hurting for fans, where did I say they were? I don't think they are trying to grow their fanbase. They were, however, trying to make a big statement to Jack, and I have no doubt they would try their best to make it into the MSM with Jack's probable defeat.

"Metal detectors would not work, someone would find a way if they truly hated him and it is pretty safe to say that there are plenty of people that hate him."

Call me naive if you want, but I'll stand behind the history of gamers' interaction with Jack and say that metal detector in and of themselves would likely be overkill. Where is the evidence that Jack is in any way under real threat from gamers? Again, your insistance that gamers would harm Jack physically is kind of scary - are we really that violent?

"I think JT is smart for bailing out though, he (and we) know he would get owned. There is no challenge and it is like preaching to the choir. Nobody would walk away with new insight into the matter. Except JT’s hurt pride. But I doubt he would be packing his hubris.

Personally, I would rather see a debate on national television so that the people who do not understand video games can see him get wrecked. If JT got smoked at PAX, it would not change anything. Convince the general public the man is an ignoramus and the voting public may change their outlook on video games (slowly, but better than believing JT). "

I agree. But, this is not likely to ever happen.

# chip Says:
---
“Their concern about “security” is absurd and a contrivance.”

In a room full of gamers? Isn’t he the nitwit who thinks people who play games are violent?
---

Right! Don't you find it odd that Jack is ready and willing to waltz into a group of avid gamers, but PA is afraid we will hurt him? That says A LOT about what lies beneath both parties. Jack knows gamers aren't really violent, and PA fears . Weird ...

EDIT:

"and PA fears that we are.

Let's see...

Jack claims that security wouldn't be an issue, but they need to limit the number of attendees to 6000 in order for that to be true.

Last year's had over three times that, and they wanted more this year. I don't think Jack's 'solution' will work. Thus, security would be an issue.

Security doesn't have to be for Jack's security. It can be for everyone in the audience too. The last thing they need is for someone to put together a plan for everyone to charge the auditorium, and for Jack to have called the fire marshall ahead of time, shutting them down for 'gamer stupidity', followed by claims by him that the gamers either were really interested in hearing his arguments, or were a bloodthirsty crowd intent on his blood.

Personally, I'm rather glad it didn't happen. I don't want to see this guy get any money for his personal crusade.

I'd like to see a debate venue similar to what I've seen with some mayoral candidates. In a closed room, Someone from industry, Mr. JB Thompson, and a mediator controlling the action, with the ability to shut off each debater's microphones.
The mediator will ask the main questions, then have some people from the community and game community to ask questions. With no other audience, except community members and a small handful of the press, both mainstream and gaming. The questions must be answered within a set time limit. Maybe both debaters having the questions asked by the mediator prior to the event to formulate a response.

One addition I'd like to see is a break between sessions for fact checking. And calling out of each points of the debaters.

What do you all think?

You might not believe that playing video games makes people dangerous, but that's quite a different assertion from (A) All people at PAX are gamers and (B) All gamers are safe.

Even more proof that Jackie has no touch with reality whatsoever.

When do we have enough to lock him away?

Jer: A mediator-controlled debate is the only way that Thompson will shut up long enough for his opponent(s) to get a word in edgewise to combat his propaganda.

http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=15790

go to SECTION III and read what it says. conservative estimated attendence is 30,000 people.

Fact of the matter is that while most gamers are sane and non-violent, you can not deny that there are some that are not. Violent video games do not breed violent people, violent people are attracted to violent video games. No matter how you look at it, there will be plenty of people there that hate JT with a passion, even non-violent people. But that won't stop one person from ruining it all for the rest of us (as we have seen in the past).

The problem with your statements, Daniel Speed, is that they are all inclusive. You say ALL gamers are safe, but we know from past incidents and tragedies, that this is not true, so you can not say ALL gamers are safe.

Plus there are plenty of other concerns for the volunteer security folks like theft to worry about. And I would add, violence aside, that there are other security concerns with JT showing up announced, that would be the potential of a 30,000 pissed off gamer riot. It would be an understatement that JT could provoke a crowd of gamers. You can not control ALL 30,000 people there, it is just not feasible with the given constraints.

No JT fan, but I am a pro-logic fan and there is an issue with:
"As I said to Thompson in a reply to his e-mail, his contention doesn’t hold water. How could Penny Arcade be using the debate for P.R. when it was their intent to keep it secret right up until PAX?"

His point was that his refusal to debate would be used by PA ("they thought I would never accept the debate offer, and they planned to use that for p.r. purposes."). You seemed to have completley missed the mark with "using the debate for P.R." as his contention was that his *refusal* would be used as PR.
Whether PA kept the negotiations secret or not is a completely moot point and makes the logic-phile's brain squiggle uncomfortably.

Just saying.

That being said, JT is such a dink! He knew he would be completely embarrased before a hostlie audience. I find the fact that he even pretended to be interested an obvious PR menuevar on his part.

"Personally, I’m rather glad it didn’t happen. I don’t want to see this guy get any money for his personal crusade."

Odds are he wasn't getting, which is likely why he backed out

@Jer

If that were proposed something would conveniently happen where JT was unable to attend, but the true reason is he would back out since he wouldn't be able to spew uncontested.

JAck Thompson is a little slow in the head...

Jack Thompson had good reason to be scared... eventually somebody is gonna wack that guy... be it a rapper, actor, or gamer.... he is anti media, entertainment... This guy is the puritan preacher with the long stick hitting his congregation with a long stick, and starting witch hunts looking for quakers...

Hmmm gee jack not debating? now there's something new! *cough* Damn pussy *cough*

cant we all just put together a pool and get him a good running comp with a copy of wow and the burning crusade expansion back with a card saying "here now you have a hobby shut the hell up"

Hmmmm then again on second thought i see him going off saying the computer is a "Bomb"

Loser
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenNow, having said that, what sites are you reading that are claiming that if "you self-identify as a Gamer, you're immediately the problem" or that gamers are "obligated to stop harassment"? Or was that hyperbole too?09/21/2014 - 1:03am
Andrew EisenFirst of all, ONE person in the Shout box suggested an obligation to call harassers out on their harassing but only after YOU brought it up. Plus, Techno said "when you see it happening." If you don't see it, you're not under any obligation.09/21/2014 - 1:02am
Sleaker@Craig R. - at this point I don't even know what the hashtags are suppsed to be in support of. what does GamerGate actually signify.09/21/2014 - 12:21am
Sleaker@AE - Hyperbole for the first 2, but it seems like some of the comments in the shout are attempting to place blame on fellow gamers because they aren't actively telling people to stop harassing even though they don't necessarily know anyone that has.09/21/2014 - 12:16am
Andrew EisenSleaker - Who the heck are you reading that is claiming "all gamers are bad," we "need to pass laws or judgement on all gamers," that if "you self-identify as a Gamer, you're immediately the problem," or that gamers are "obligated to stop harassment"?09/20/2014 - 9:44pm
erthwjimhe swatted more than just krebs, I think he swatted 30 people http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/05/teen-arrested-for-30-swattings-bomb-threats/09/20/2014 - 9:31pm
Craig R.Btw, the guy who swatted security expert Brian Krebs? He got picked up recently. It can be done.09/20/2014 - 8:55pm
Craig R.Such things are not done in a vacuum... hence why the 4chan and other logs show what fools you've all been, tricked into doing the trolls' work09/20/2014 - 8:49pm
Sleaker@Technogeek - How do you call someone out that anonymously calls in a SWAT team, or sends threats to people?09/20/2014 - 7:04pm
Technogeek"It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so." I'd say you're certainly obligated to call them out when you see it happening.09/20/2014 - 5:17pm
SleakerNow if you disagree with anything in my last 2 posts then we obviously have a difference in world view, and wont come to any sort of agreement. I'm fine with that, maybe some people aren't?09/20/2014 - 5:09pm
SleakerIt also doesn't mean that just because a news outlet says that Gamers are the problem and you self-identify as a Gamer, you're immediately the problem. It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so.09/20/2014 - 4:59pm
SleakerJust to re-iterate: People getting harassed is wrong. Just because someone is harassed by so called 'gamers' doesn't mean that all gamers are bad. nor does it mean that you need to pass laws or judgement on all gamers.09/20/2014 - 4:56pm
SleakerAnd furthermore just because someone doesn't 'crusade against the evil' that doesn't make them the problem. You can have discussion with those around you. There's a thing called sphere of influence.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
Sleaker@Conster - one person getting harassed is a 'problem' only so far as the harassee's are doing it. Just because a select few people choose to act like this doesn't make it widespread. Nor does it immediately make everyone responsible to put an end to it.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
james_fudgeno worries09/20/2014 - 4:15pm
TechnogeekI misread james' comment as "we can't have a debate without threatening" there at first. Actually wound up posting a shout about death threats and "kill yourself" not technically being the same thing before I realized.09/20/2014 - 3:59pm
james_fudgeDon't hit me *cowers behind Andrew*09/20/2014 - 3:20pm
ConsterYou take that back right now, james, or else. *shakes fist menacingly*09/20/2014 - 3:00pm
james_fudgeOur community is awesome. We can have a debate without threatening to kill each other.09/20/2014 - 2:50pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician