@ las, attorney

It's Faux News, what did you expect from the tabloid arm of the mainstream media.

The next time Jacky Boy is on TV, it should be on a show similiar to ESPN's Around The Horn, where the host presses a button and they mute the offending commentator for ten seconds.

Jacky Boy would be muted the whole show.

@Pandralisk
Here I am, responding to you again when I didn't expect to, but something you said struck me as odd. You have often said that you are different from Jack Thompson because you are not trying to use the law to force your views on people. As far as I know, you are correct in that regard. (Though for all I know you could be a lier who's actually trying to ban the Bible and outlaw churches in real life.)

The odd thing is, a lot of people here view Jack Thompson as a hateful, deluded, possibly-insane bigot with no sense of reality. And it is that part of Jack Thompson that causes people to compare him to you. (Sorry, but that's the way it is.) What's odd is I have never seen you deny being a hateful, deluded, possibly-insane bigot with no sense of reality. You just say "The difference between me and Thompson is I'm not trying to use the law to enforce my views."

@zerodash

And he promised in court not to file more gay porn. Well, it's Jack. He likes to escalate, so I'll bet he'll spice things a bit by adding some zoophilia to the mix.

You know I had this well written reply that I was going to post, but then the computer stopped responding. I suppose that was a sign of sorts that I wasn't supposed to post what I intended.

Anyway, I think I may write Fox News an email about this one. It was clearly an inflammatory segment.

@Pandralisk

Have you ever heard of Godwin's Law?

Godwin's Law basically says whoever invokes the law, looks like a complete tit for doing so. Go look it up and find out what it is.
To compare anyone to Hitler is just the desperate technique of spin doctors of Fox News proportions.

"We wonder if Thompson would have the brass to go up against a video game-aware opponent"

Nope... he's had many opportunities but he always finds an excuse to back out and then declares a victory for himself. He's afraid of people who will debunk him.

And not once but twice in a row we continue to give the man exactly what he wants: More attention.

@Oni

Tycho and Gabe would own his ass.

It's a shame that Fox can't put a decent arguement together, but then when Thompson's on it's usually very one-sided.

Oh. My. God.

Why do they let that man on television.

He has the whiniest, most douchebag voice I have ever heard and he never, ever lets his opponent speak, he just speaks through them. I never even heard what the other guy said because there was this whiney, buzzing drone all the way through.

Jack, if you're reading this, please can you do me some favours:

1) Stop bringing up that psychological study bullshit. For every study there is that claims violent video games have a significant adverse effect on children, there are 10 more studies disproving it. It's the only point you have ever fought your battle against video games on, and it is a moot point. It is pointless.

2) If you ever get invited to talk about video games at all, anywhere, decline the offer. You are not an expert, you're a moron with a chip on his shoulder.

3) Stop saying the ESRB is a puppet of the industry, it is completely separate.

4) You claim Amazon are selling mature-rated games to children? First, prove it. Second, go after Amazon, not the developers. What next, you go after kitchen knife manufacturers after a shop sells a knife to an under-age kid? Idiot. The developers are doing nothing wrong.

5) Using the word 'magically' should mean an automatic revocation of your law license, which I doubt you have anyway. Understand how the rating system works, you cretin.

6) You accused your opponent of ad-hoc attacks? Pot? Kettle? Seriously, with some of the offensive, malicious, slanderous and frankly sometimes racist tripe you spout at anyone who disagrees with you, I wouldn't accuse others of ad-hoc attacks.

Also, that Fox presenter was a one-sided bitch. She hardly ever let Jack's opponent have a say and completely backed him up on his points. You might as well had two monkeys dressed into medieval dressing burning video games at the stake, since that was pretty much all it was.

He'll never actually debate someone that's intelligent beyond high school education. That's 'overeducated' in his eyes. XD

I've offered to debate Hal Halpin, Doug Lowenstein, Jason de la Rocca, and they've all refused.

I debated David Kushner, who writes for wired and wrote the biography of the creators of Doom. I debated him on national television programs and on ten college campuses. Nobody in their right mind would say he doesn't know the video game industry and is not a formidable debate opponent.

I am in fact debating Lorne Lanning at the video game expo in Connecticut this next Saturday, November 3.

So, once again, Dennis McCauley, who always resorts to ad hominem, when it comes to me, can't get his facts straight because he can't do anything but spin.

"We wonder if Thompson would have the brass to go up against a video game-aware opponent instead of the likes of Hoenig, Bob Guccione, Jr. and author Gerard Jones. Nice folks all, we’re sure. But when Thompson gets into video game specifics, they are out of their depth."

Some time back, John Bruce posted in one of the articles a challenge to Hal Halpin. Any word on that?

Now, we know what to expect:
John Bruce will hype it up the hilt, and then, all of a sudden, something happens (usually by some action of John Bruce's), and John Bruce backs out or gets kicked out and he blames everyone but himself.

But you know what I'd like to see?

A worldwide televised debate that would put the issue, ALL the "pop culture" issues, to bed once and for all. No "midnight show". Primetime. With politicians, "experts" (ALL forms of experts), industry and consumer defenders, the "anti-"s from the reasonable to the extreme to the "John Bruce 'Jack' Thompson and Lyndon LaRouche wack job beyond extreme" types. And not something that just lasts an hour or two. Something that takes place 8 hours a day for 5 days. And no "you have 5 minutes to speak and that's all you'll have the entire 40 hours of debate" crap.

We keep saying let one of these legislations make it all the way to the US Supreme Court so that that particular issue can finally be laid to rest. So why not do the same with the discussion? Hell, let's have internet and call-in participation. Let's do it for once and for all.

The sad part is, though, that it won't happen. We'll have the tabloid trash TV news and affiliates like FOX blathering ignorant clap trap. We'll continue to have politicians ignorant to the hilt and taking word of mouth information over facts and evidence claiming that the government will make better Parents for children than the children's own Parents, even though those same politicians show their ignorance about the very things they are making legislation about. (No one has yet to show even ONE video game, commercially sold in a brick and motar retail shop (which are the only retailers that the various legislations govern) that allows Player Characters to commit virtual RAPE, even though it's an argument used at nearly EVERY hearing debating the legislations being voted on.) We'll continue to hear individuals and organizations knowingly and intentionally lying to and deceiving individuals and using and abusing the tragedies of families and communities just to push their personal, religious, and/or political beliefs. And, as time goes by, newer forms of "pop culture" will be used to blame the various actions of a relatively small number of individuals rather than dealing with the actual, TRUE problems that exist in society.

Ah phooey! Since when did anyone ever truthfully claim the Human species was INTELLIGENT?

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Ugh... all this Jack Thompson is giving me a headache. Did he learn NOTHING from trying to get Bully banned? It doesn't work, it'll never work, just give up here.

There's something I've been wondering... why are conservative outlets like Fox News been giving him outlets lately? It seems to be happening more nowadays. In the past, save for some abberations like Bill O'Reilly and that governer candidate in Texas, it's been the conservatives that have been on the side o' angels in the video game violence debate. As a liberal, it has made me sick to see other liberals latch onto "video games are BAD!" as their moral appeal to their voters (it has NOT made me sad to see conservatives make the right decisions because it does my heart good to see people of sense still around). So... why are conservative outlets not reflecting what a lot of conservatives think on this issue?

Please feel free to correct and/or educate me if any of the aforementioned seems a bit off.

Hoenig was strikingly similar to Adam Sessler, and that's not a good thing. He sounded like a blithering idiot; kind of like some of GP's past posters who would see a JT post and get all lathered up, making themselves look like the lunatics instead.

It's a sad state of affairs when I'm looking more forward to Jack's disbarment than Christmas.

@Al Wesker

Because it makes Paradoxes. Paradoxes make ratings. And ratings make money, and subsequently, Little Green Men.

Well, that's what they'll tell you. In reality, the definitions of Political terms have become so cloudy it's not real. For example, the Liberal Democrats (Party in the UK) aren't actually Liberals. Neither are the Conservatives, well, Conservative in the traditional sense. Well, okay, so they are, but they're still more Liberal than the Lib Dems ever were.

But you could argue it down to the fact that Thompson is Conservative, so is FOX, and te US hates Liberals.

About minutes int the video, I just had to stop watching. More one-sided crap by Fox news.

And talk about rude.

@Jack Thompson

Talking over somebody else's turn doesn't make your argument any more valid. We probably wouldn't spite you as much if you could actually give people the chance to prove how you're wrong.

@Nekowolf

Yes, Take-Two is the parent company of Rockstar Games and it's branches.

@Chuma

Shirt, yes. Tie, no.

Hell, I could go in dressed as a Junkie and i'd still be more credible than him.

Shit, you could go on dressed as Freddy Krueger(complete with make-up) and be more credible than Jacky Boy.

@BearDogg-X

That's one for a rainy day :P

@mary

You're assuming that he hasn't already done just that.

True but he is so dumb that when he loses with one claim Iwould expect him to come up with another

His conspiracy theroy is one of his famous moves however it only shows how paraniod he is. Living with someone like that would be like living on top of a valcano waiting to explode. He is slowly pushing himself over the edge. The problem is when it will occur

We have already learned that fox will only use the ones that can be looked like dopes with Jack so they can get their point across.

Seriously, if Jack Thompson ever puts a cohesive argument together, I'll be his bitch. Like Fox is. Notice that they give him the last word, have him talk all over the guest, and ever have the (w)anchor back his argument up.

Jack once again rattling on about the APA report that didn't say what he believes it did, and his "We did 2 stings the whole country is at it" illogical nonsense.

@BearDogg-X

No, i'll tell you who we need. Paris Hilton.

You've got to admit, she is the intellectual superior of Jack. If no-one else.

@mary

We learned that years ago.

HOLD ON A SECOND.

This game is released by Rockstar. He can complain all he likes about it, but he can't technically do anything about it can he? He is bound by the agreement not to litigate, or even threaten to litigate. That must hurt him.

@Paul Kerton

You think that's going to stop him?

Hmm... between this and the lawsuit. I wonder if this is some sort of desperate last stand before the bar closes in for the kill.

Run little one, time is short...

*Enters*

Sees two more ego-fueling Jack Thomson stories

*Leaves*

I think the important point to remember here is: Jack's tactics will never work. The legal system today is smacking down videogame legislation with the 1st Amendment "banhammer", so we will not face any infringements anytime soon.

Also, as evidenced by the demographic here at GP, the leaders of tomorrow are gamers. So again, even in the future, our games will be safe.

This is just another instance, like so many in our history, of the older population fighting against things they don't understand. From the Salem witch trials when people overreacted to disease and famine they didn't understand, to Elvis Presley and his wiggling hips.

So let this generation whine itself to the grave, and then we'll have our chance to whine about whatever OUR kids are into.

Yep, I knew it. All this time, that "I'm all for adults being able to play what they want" line has been an outright lie. Thompson advocates ruining fun for grownups 100%. There's no way he'll able be able to claim otherwise now, because the evidence is right there.

And why didn't they let Jonathan Hoenig respond to the APA argument? They cut off the debate right at that moment. Hoenig was not at a loss for words, he was clearly about to open his mouth and respond but was silenced. And watch the video again right before that moment. That shit-eating grin Jack has on his face suggests to me that this was a planned trick.

RE: John Bruce's talking over his "opposition".

The simple reason is that his argument can't stand up to REAL debate. So, in an effort to prevent himself from looking like a fool, he prevents others from offering their arguments.

Only problem with that idea is: He still looks like a fool because he's being rude, crude, and socially unacceptable. Not to mention proving that even HE knows his argument can't stand up to REAL debate.

Nightwng2000
NW2K software

Why don't Rock* just sue his ass and be done with it? He's obviously breached the settlement they reached.

Sorry, just to clarify, the point I was making was 'Oh god, more JT 'news', a sentiment I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling.

Furthermore, in his agreement with Rockstar, did he not agree to stop harassing their point of sales vendors (Best Buy, Walmart, etc.). I swear I remember reading that somewhere, because if he does file a motion, and a rockstar game is anywhere on there it is the equivalent of breaking a contract...and more litigation will ensue.

@ BlackIce, Leftie

In effect, the gauntlet was thrown down, probably has been done many times, but Mr. Thompson always backs off, and fires off pot-shots from the safe harbor of FoxNews.

Wow...

This is one of the most offensive, lie filled piece I have heard to date.

It's totally not worth getting an expert to stand off against JT if it's going to happen on this show, it's just going to be JT and the host yelling at the top of their lungs every time the professional starts talking, and they'll keep yelling long past when the pro goes silent respectfully waiting for them to shut up so he can talk again. The host doesn't even deserve to be a host, since a host is supposed to facilitate discussion and debate while she was just a sycophant yes-woman agreeing with every spiteful lie from JT. However, for the love of all that is holy (or science if you're atheist or Scientologist), we do need some expert to get JT to stfu about that APA report that doesn't say anything he says it does. I would really like to get one of the scientists who did that study to publicly say "I worked on the study Jack Thompson is allegedly quoting, however, he is making crap up and saying we found and reported things we did not find, report or conclude at all. In all respects Jack Thompson should not be taken as anything more than a spiteful man who tells lies saying that he's telling the truth, and certainly never should he be taken as an expert." Really if a part of the APA big enough to make a small press conference got together and said JT's wrong it would be a happy day in my life, and it'd work too since they could title the conference "Violence in video games" and the media would eat it up, even if it was just to say "our only finding was that people already predisposed to violence derive a greater level of enjoyment from violent games".

Stepping back some, what about the part at the beginning where JT talks about 3 levels of "fraud" and all his other crap before the talk falls apart. I think that that's a bad enough lie to be worth looking into some defamation lawsuits if I was any of the mentioned groups, since it's likely to harm sales from people who actually believe this show. That and it's really hard to say these things without cold hard evidence unless you are actively and intentionally looking to harm them through lying.

Wait a second, Jack said that he bought the game with his son. Does that mean he gave permission? The way he described it in that video sure sounds like it, hah.

I really wish someone could call out both Thompson AND Fox News for this completely socially irresponsible crap. Go on a more respectable news program, I suppose...calmly, clearly, and openly put forth the facts that we here in the boonies all know, which completely dismantles any argument they have.

There are too many people who don't know enough to know he's totally full of it, and not enough people making the effort to correct the ignorance of the general population. I hope his disbarment makes major headlines; everyone out there needs to know what he really is. He needs to be completely and utterly invalidated in the eyes and minds of the general public.

I hope I hope I can have Thompson imprisoned now because listening to that I think over half my brain cells committed supaku.

And the "debate" wasn't moderated worth a shit, much to Thompson's pleasure. If it was a true debate, I'm pretty sure his opponent would have grilled him, but instead Thompson was allowed to interrupt, talk over, and be his general asshole self.

In fact he should be jailed for admitting to using his son in his crusade on national television.

@Gameboy

The problem is that these debates are way too short to be anything meaningful. They don't give anybody the time needed to present a credible argument, and Jack recognizes and takes advantage of that. It's exactly what happened with the 'Attack of the Show' argument between Thompson and Adam Sessler a year ago. Jack uses that very limited three minute window to raise his voice and talk over his opponent until it's time to for the commercial break.

@nightwng2000
"Some time back, John Bruce posted in one of the articles a challenge to Hal Halpin. Any word on that?"

Y'know, i'm not sure if it was Hal, but i am reminded of one particular debate challenge in the past. The challenger offered to debate Jack in at a school in, i think, washington; more than likely, the challenger had an actual job in washington so he wasn't free to go the otherside of the country like a certain jobless lawer we know. However, Jack made it a requirment that he be paid like to debate in front of school (jack mentioned it was a standard thing for his debates), and down right refused to do it for free. The challanger then took back the offer has he did not want the school to have to pay money to hold the debate... guess the challenger knew the money was better spent on education rather than seeing Jack get owned on stage (not to mention allowing jack to profit off his rantings). It went down something like that, might be a bit off with some of details... I think that was Hal, but i'm not sure, i could be thinking of someone else; my memory was never too good.

@lumi

I totally agree, their actions on just the social level were reprehensible. I've known better behaved 4 year olds, and there is no excuse for a 4 year old to be more mature and socially aware than the host and one of the "experts" of a discussion/debate. Not to mention all the morally wrong things that happened... There was no moderation at all, just a yes-woman claiming to moderate.

Personally I would've yelled kiai style (very very loud for those who don't know what a kiai is) "Shut Up!" to get their attention and continue with "Now that I have your attention, here is why you're wrong with true facts (insert rebuttal points). And now here's why you should no longer be allowed on TV (at JT, mention of earlier fact proving his lies and his pending disbarment, along with all the other legal trouble he's in) and here's the same for you (at the host, general rudeness, sycophant yes-woman, failure to perform job of moderator, etc)" and I would make sure to mention the truth of the APA study before JT can spread his lie about it.

@ Monte

You are refering to the Jason Della Roca debate challenge. They shared some back and forth about details. Jack told Jason they could make $3000 a stop each on a debate tour. Jason told Jack that he did not feel comfortable charging money to debate this issue. Jack took that as cowardice on Jason's part and called it off.

Don't bash Fox, or I will be forced to destroy you in passionate debate. I thought Jonathan did really well. Dennis, you're a tard.

And Zachary is fast on the draw! Drat, foiled again!

:D

Nightwng2000
NW2K software

@E. Zachary Knight

"Jack told Jason they could make $3000 a stop each on a debate tour. Jason told Jack that he did not feel comfortable charging money to debate this issue. Jack took that as cowardice on Jason’s part and called it off."

I believe the actual reason that Jack backed out of the Jason Della Rocca debate was that Jason suggested they hold the debate for free, or donate the proceeds to a charity. Jack replied "That isn’t how it works and I can’t justify leaving my family to go to Montreal on a freebie. Sorry. Have to pay the bills."

He has a point I suppose. Having had to pay out a large settlement to Norm Kent previously, as well as face fines from the Bar for unprofessional behaviour, especially in light of the fact that he may not have a licence to practice law much longer... Perhaps he really can't spare that money. I don't think I'd be volunteering to work pro bono if I was running my career into the ground in a very public and embarassing fashion.

Or perhaps it was just another case of "this is going to be a structured debate where my usual tactic of screaming and shouting so that the opposing arguments can't be heard will not work. Let's make up an excuse that makes it look like I'm not chickening out." We've seen it happen before with the PA debate, with Tom Buscaglia, with Kotaku (he suggested "mars" as a venue...), etc.

Whichever reason of the two, neither paints him in a very good light. Incompetent, or chicken.

This lawyer is a 12-year-old in an adult's body. Talking reason doesn't work because he totally lacks the ability to understand it and instead wants everyone to focus their attention on him. Some people just aren't gifted with high intelligence, and I don't mean that in a /bad/ way, but it's true nonetheless, as we can see with Jack here.

We're posting because we're frustrated. The fact that Mr Talks-through-the-nose keeps getting his voice out is intolerable, and the pretentious 'only sane person in the world' facial expression he puts on when he 'debates*' makes us all cringe. It has to end! When a real opponent like GamerDad finally breaks down JT's arguments and renders him speechless, everyone will laugh and cry, the planet letting off a huge sigh of relief.


* talking non-stop in a monotone nasal fashion so frustrating and asinine that it makes you feel like you fell over, broke your ass, ate sewage, puked and died.

@tallimar

please dont give him the idea! we dont need another dr phil show, especially one run by JT.

Oh come on, it'll be entertaining!

JT: Next up we have a disgusting drooling gamer, come on out!
Audience: Booooooooo
Gamer: Uh yeah, ou promised me a copy of Manhunt 2 if I showed up?
JT: Cause we're gonna use the power of JEBUS to cure you of your brain damage!
Gamer: Um, I don't have any brain damage. I'm fine. Look, if you're not going to give me the game, I'll just leave, ok? I've got university classes to get to later.
Audience: *Lies! Lies! Burn the sinner!*
JT: Alright, we all know that gamers are too stupid and brain damaged to know they are stupid and brain damaged. Jimmy, show those slides.
*flash of some brain scans, no context or anything, parts are coloured*
JT: See, proof that games cause retards. Next up, an eating disorder psychologist who will back me up because 5 minutes ago I told her to.
Guest: Right JT, you told me to say that those scans are proof. So I'll do that. Those scans, whichever ones you just showed, are proof.
JT: Thanks, now get off my stage, you're stealing my limelight. Right, next up, watch this clip as I file a document with a court clerk. What a fantastic play, I win!

...

You know, JT kinda shot himself in the foot with the whole "stings" bit with his son. He said, on air, that his son "was able to walk in, with me there, and buy two mature rated games". The key part is WITH ME THERE. Jack admits that he was there with his son at the time of purchase which means, as far as retailer policy goes, it was okay to sell the game to JT junior.

Well Jacky, seems those two "stings" of yours are null and void. Congrats, you fail again.

This video shows how much of a JERK JB Thompson is.

Your mother didn't raise you to well Jack because you sure never learned that interrupting people is rude.

@Black

How about Epee's at dawn and only torso shots count? And just to make things interesting, masks, but no jackets. Makes getting his that much more of a 'learning' lesson. That or Hungarian rules bare chested sabre dueling. Now THAT is hard-core stuff.

@GryphonOsiris (Assuming that post was directed at me and not Black Manta)

You think we could get an Enemy At The Gates-type thing?

@BlackIce, hmmmmmmm Sniper duel... interesting thought, however there is a much more meaningful humilation to defeat someone with as simple and crude of an instrument as a fencing blade. It teaches humility as the other person is right there, 5 feet away and you can't so much as touch them. Believe me, the only way it is worse is if the other person if a 5 foot tall, 16 year old girl. Talk about emasculating.

Hmmmmm.... thoughts of Uwe Boll coming to mind, but yeah, bit more brutal, but would have a stronger effect.

I could only watch a few seconds of that debate, before I couldn't take Jack's nonsense anymore.

@jds

I agree, these days every media outlet has to cover an angle, and none of them are unbiased anymore. That's the really sad part in fact. Reporters should be completely neutral on a subject matter, even if they don't agree with it, otherwise you get good-facts, not real-facts (1984 anyone?). It's just like how other media outlets only cover death tolls of soldiers and civilians overseas, but never mention any good that is happening, because good doesn't get ratings. To quote Rita Skeeter from Harry Potter, "The Daily Prophet (wizard newspaper) exists to sell itself." I promise ya, if the media did a completely unbiased series of reports for a month, their ratings and sales would plumment into the toliet. And this counts for all of them, not just Fox, ABC, or the Weekly World News.

@BI

Eh, mindless fun, like Star Wars.

The terms of the settlement included not claiming that anyone Rockstar did business with was violating the law by selling their games.

Right there is where they need to take him to court, with his own signature signing his warrant.

@ jds
"Not very fair and balanced. So, for Fox to be conservative in a sea of liberal “fairness”… Good for them."

No, not good for them. It makes them just as wrong; it isn't a balancing act, it's everyone missing the mark in a different direction. We're just more sensitive to Fox here because THEIR slant hurts us more.

I don't think there's a whole lot of "ABC/NBC news cheerleading" around here, there's just a ton of Fox bashing. Just because other people deserve it, doesn't make Fox any less deserving of it.

"It goes on and on. I’m not attacking anyone’s personal opinion, but to keep slamming Fox, deservedly so or not, when they are pretty much the only conservative television network around, seems unfair. "

Not unfair in the slightest. It would be unfair if we started claiming other news outlets to be unbiased, which I believe has yet to happen right now.

@ BlackIce

What exactly is the problem with having read/seen HP?

"It goes on and on. I’m not attacking anyone’s personal opinion, but to keep slamming Fox, deservedly so or not, when they are pretty much the only conservative television network around, seems unfair."


Its not a matter of opinion. Foxnews fought, and won, a court case for blatantly lying. In the end the case said that Foxnews' ability to lie to its viewers is protected by the first amendment.

Well, in defence of Heonig, I think he did a decent job, considering the handicaps. (He was rarely allowed to speak, the host went against him, and he was cut off from offering counterpoints, not even allowed to hit the APA study.)

I love how Jack claims that his son "stung" two retailers without a parent in sight, then points out that he was there. Shame that didn't get pointed out, it would have been entertaining to hear Jack's ad hominem attack responce.

I do enjoy how Hoenig pointed out how no one's rights are being violated by games, and how Jack is trying to skip the constitution. "First Amendment, except for these things on my list."

Oh well, hopefully next time there'll be someone more familiar with Jack's tactics, and a moderator who will put a stop to it. Personally, I want a mod who can cut a mike of someone who's speaking out of turn.

Fox Noise never ceases to be unfair and unbalanced. Amazing that people can even watch that channel, let alone vouch for it.

Its not "conservative", its douchebagative.

@hilaryduffgta

Understand that FOX News isn't the only ones at fault for lying to their audience. It has become par for the course in the mainstream media outlets, especially TV news where the networks want ratings, not good journalism. Lies of omission are often far more deceitful than outright falsehoods.

lumi - You make an interesting point.

With regard to not slamming other news outlets... Sure, I agree. And perhaps Fox is more or less against the videogame world. Further, I am not a big fan of Fox, I just get kind of tired of reading Fox this, Fox that all the time. The perception can be made that most readers are anti-Fox, which is fine, but it stands out more because they are the only network mentioned. I understand why.

Erik - I make no assertions that Fox is unbiased and law-abiding. If they were found innocent, I see them as innocent. About as innocent as O.J., that is... I also make no assertion that any media outlet is unbiased. The Creation of the Media, by Paul Starr, is a good book that explains how media was started. Basically, it was the initial way for politicians to get their message out and started primarily with newsprint dissemenating a political view. Given this, which one can claim to be truly unbiased?

The whole time I listened, I waited for it...

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

Wait fo--

"The American Psychological Association found in its official findings..."

THERE it is!

Tye

I don't claim they are fair and balanced, at all. On the contrary, they are biased. They are conservatively-slanted. Just as some folks are tired of Thompson comments, I'm tired of Fox comments. Nothing more... ;-)

But if you don't think global warming is a man-made problem, go watch the Gore-acles documentary. If it weren't true there wouldn't be a documentary for it; although, at the latest count there are 35 facts incorrect or misrepresented in it. Nor would there be a satire of it in South Park or in other programs.

jds, you seem to have confused a movie with the scientific evidence for global warming. This is no more relevant than errors in Jurassic Park are to evolutionary theory.

Presenter's a bitch isn't she..

I'm off to go home.

I'll check this thread later, just didn't want to seem like I bolted on a conversation...

Thanks, everyone for stimulating my brain today. I needed this! eLearning development can be bland at times.

I have only gotten the opportunity to watch the video there, the host described it as a debate at the beginning. How much of a debate can it be when you are shouted down and interrupted by both the opposing speaker AND the host, who then goes on to quietly listen to one side then declare "We're going to give you the last word". I don't know about Fox News as a whole, but that was a terribly biased and one-sided affair.

As for what was said? Lies about the ESRB being a part of the industry. Championing the flawed and inconclusive 2005 APA report. Being rude and aggressive toward those with a different viewpoint. It's Jack Thompson by numbers. I'm only surprised he didn't shill his book or mention his 60 minutes appearance.

Did anyone hear what i heard at 2:21. It sounded Like Jack said that he walked in WITH his who bought the games(Halo3 and Bioshock probably). If that is what happened then he has just invalidated his whole law suit against Bestbuy. If he was With his son at time of purchase then the store clerks did nothing wrong.
As for the rest of the clip, it was complete BS. The other guy could hardly even get a word in edge wise. Jack was talking over him while he for the most part let jack finish everything he said. Then the FOX flunky interrupted Johnathan and naturally sided with jack. The "Debate" as they called it was nothing more then FOX giving Jack a place to blurt his BS.

Hey Jack if you are reading this, I DARE you to try this: The few(2-3) times you are in a debate with someone on tv on the topic of videogames; Instead of talking over them and trying to cut them off you just keep your mouth shut and let them speak. They always do that for you, so why dont you return the favor. Go on I DARE YOU! Or are you just a coward who is afraid that they will catch you on something?

@GamePolitics:

"Hey, I’m very tired of the Iraq war, too, but I understand it is news and must be covered."

That's a very flawed argument and I think comparing a war in which people are dying every day (regardless of what you think of the reasons for said war) to the antics of this idiot who no one takes seriously is rather callous. The man is seeking attention and yes he's getting it from Fox News because Fox News lives to feed off ignorance and fear. The only reason he gets press beyond that is because of this site. I know talking about him gets people riled up and drives traffic but he is insignificant and has reached a point of insignificance where nothing he tries is going to get anywhere or get taken seriously by anyone who has an impact. All he is trying to do now is keep himself in the spotlight and by talking about him every time he so much as sneezes, you're giving him exactly what he wants. This is more of a hindrance to the cause that a help.

vellocet

I like to think I'm pretty down to earth. I don't get all wound up over politics and love to discuss them, even with people I do not agree with. If I didn't, how could I claim to have my own opinion?

Anyhow, the website I referred to earlier without naming (didn't want to give a commercial on this site, but will to illustrate a small portion of my point) is newsbusters.org.

They are conservative in nature, but really focus on showing how a story isn't "fair," to the conservative side, or how a story isn't balanced. I'm sure there are opposing sites out there, but I haven't yet found one that isn't full of hatred and anger. The comments of NB.org often falls below the level of "appropriate" but I don't post there mainly because of that. I don't want to surf inside an echo-chamber-internet of political discourse.

Besides, I can't surf any longer. It's not like riding a bike no matter what they say!

As far as the conservative versus liberal message/intent/modus operandi... The parties have both lost their way. My side of the aisle needs to be cleaned out. The other side of the aisle simply needs to quit caving to the extreme far left like moveon, and dailykos. They are pretty angry groups that have "allbut" punked out most democratic politicians.

And my President... Well, I'd support our President regardless of which side he'd sit on if he had to walk the aisle. Once a candidate becomes President he/she gets my support because we're both Americans. We've certainly got problems, and Bush is a real down to earth... bonehead... but I gotta be optimistic and believe that his intentions are true.

One way or the other, we'll know soon enough. The next President here has his/her work cut out for them. But I'm on board!

Cheers, Canada! I'll be up there next August fishing with my father-in-law for a week!!! WOOT!

@ Parallax Abstraction

*blink* I just heard your audio email on the July 11 GWJ podcast. Small world.

@ Parallax Abstraction and GP

On topic, what would you two (at opposing ends) think of a "Jack Thompson roundup" once a week? "Jack Thompson appeared on tv here, here, and here. He filed the following irrelevant motions. No update on his trial."

@hillaryduffgta

Not only that, but saying 'they didn't really have enough time to edit the game.' Yeah, like he was a programmer, he'd KNOW how long it would take to edit the game. He's so proud of being a lawyer (and you're not,) all of a sudden that validates him as an expert in EVERYTHING?

He's a hack. Plain and simple.

The fun part is that Jack is actually giving Evidence that nullifies his own case against Best Buy. He openly admitted that he was with his son. Now, with that said, the checker has no reason to question whether or not the kid had parental permission, because the %^@%&@# parent is RIGHT THERE! It is lazy, yes, however anyone who has worked retail learns a few shortcuts here and there because it gets pretty f'ing tedious sometimes. Jack should then go after the grocery chains next because on more than one occassion I've had them not card me when I've bought a bottle of Chianti to go with the $50 of pasta related grocery I've purchased. The crime of it indeed!

/end sarcasm

About the whole "They didn't have time to edit the game" thing:

They most likely were refering to the original July release date. October is a whole other story. That is close to four months to make the necessary changes. That is plenty of time. But the One month from getting the original rating to the July release date was not enough time.

@Hillaryduffgta

I'm not sure that's what he's in the closet about... what with the recent gay porn filings.

So jack is in the closet about a few things then

Just watched the video. "You can say that, but the science is all on our side of the issue"-Jack. Yeah, one flawed stucy from 2005 means ALL of the scientific community agrees with you. Right, Jack.

My name is Jack Thompson Blah Blah Blah I hate video games blah blah blah. Video games cause all the violence in the world blah blah blah. Seriously, haven't we heard this story before? Will this man ever, ever shut up.

Speaking of Uwe Boll, JT'd never agree to anything unless it was something he's good at. (and you're not. :P) So unless you wanna duel him at 'succeding at life' or 'lawyering' then I wouldn't bother... though he wouldn't agree to either anyway.

And this thread got 'godwin'd' and pandralisk'd in the same post, so I'm outta here. Later folks!

Here we go again: Jack "claiming" that Target and Best Buy sold M rated games to his son while he was there. 1. He's only using his kid as a scapegoat, and 2. Unless he has video evidence, he's got nothing. I feel sorry for his kid because once he gets into high school, people are going to figure out who his father is and beat the hell out of him on a regular basis. Then he ends up being a school shooter where our dear "friend" can't blame games on it.

"Ok, we're gonna give you the last word there Jack, thank you."

This is part of what needs to stop. The anchor (or whatever, I don't watch fox often enough to know) seemed kind of ignorant with the "what if they go to someone else's house" statement-- guess who has a say in whose house the kid goes to? The parent. Guess who has a say in them buying the game? The parent. Guess who has to buy it in the majority of cases due to IDing (which DOES happen)? The parent.

I like Newhound's slogan. "We watch Fox so you don't have to."

Why do you post on here jack thompson, attorney? I know you want the publicity, but isn't that completely against your principles as a man of the people? I just don't get it. I don't understand you. Perhaps if you can explain why it is you continue to spam this site, then maybe I might begin to understand your logic.

WHAT THE F*** there is other studies that side on the gamers side too jack F' YOU YOU SON OF A B**** GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

GET YOUR FACTS FIRST THEN YOU MAY DISTORT THEM AS YOU PLEASE
-MARK TWAN

YA HEAR THAT JACK HUH!?
GO TO HEAVEN...WAIT DONT GO THERE I DONT WANT TO SEE YOU THERE

GO TO HELL

Ok, Jack Thompson. With the Penny Arcade debate, you REFUSED to not keep it a secret that you were going to go debate. That was the condition, and you ignored it because you wanted your debate to be something else you can use to brag about.

"I differ from JT and Elizabeth by the fact that I am perfectly willing to accept and respect the individual liberty and moral autonomy of Christians, provided they keep their superstition confined to those gullible enough to believe such garbage."

Read my post again. I didn't say you were like Thompson. Well nix that I HAVE said you are like Thompson and I do believe you are like Thompson. This time I was actually comparing you to Hitler since you decided to pull the Godwin card first.

Yeah, Hitler had it in for a religion as well.

*sigh*

"I’ve offered to debate Hal Halpin, Doug Lowenstein, Jason de la Rocca, and they’ve all refused."

Maybe because you're a waste of time?

"I am in fact debating Lorne Lanning at the video game expo in Connecticut this next Saturday, November 3."

No, you're not...

"So, once again, Dennis McCauley, who always resorts to ad hominem, when it comes to me, can’t get his facts straight because he can’t do anything but spin."

"Oh, and I almost forgot. Penny Arcade reneged on its offer to have me come out to PAX 2007 to debate these issues, the excuse being “security.” We’ve got security in Connecticut, and there’s no problem."

Spin, spin, spin. Mr. McCauley's points have fact to back them up. Yours do not. Do the research -- YOU were the one that made the PAX debate crash and burn. YOU were the one that violated the ONE and ONLY request given. And you're still not in a debate in Connecticut in a few weeks. Wrong state.

"The Penny Arcade people proved to be cowards. "


And yet they ponied up the money for charity on your ridiculous game suggestion when you didn't.

Oh yeah, then you tried to get them arrested for that. How well did that work out for you Jack? Did you get them arrested Jack? Oh thats right, like usual you FAILED.

@Miraba

Man, small world indeed. :) I can't believe it's been that long since that podcast. Are you a member at GWJ? I'm pretty active there.

"On topic, what would you two (at opposing ends) think of a “Jack Thompson roundup” once a week? “Jack Thompson appeared on tv here, here, and here. He filed the following irrelevant motions. No update on his trial.”"

I think that might be a good idea. It'd still be giving him attention but rounded into a single entry. It's not my site of course and Dennis is free to do what he wants. I just think one of the reasons Jack keeps doing these ridiculous things (aside from the fact that he's insane) is because it gets him so frequently mentioned. Mark my words, the less press he gets, the faster he'll fade into obscurity.

Hey Jack Thompson, isn't the first rule of debating not to interrupt?

That's all you EVER do whenever you're on TV. XD

I find it strangely ironic that the byline underneath Jack says, "Cashin' In."

Why would Thompson agree to go up against someone knowledgable? Then he'd have no unfair advantage in the debate.

"magically altered?"

Last i read, they removed certain kills from the game and blurred and darkened the others. As a 22 year old male, fan of the series and individual planning on purchasing the game before it's conception I am outraged at what has happened. Removing what they removed is like removing fatalities from Mortal Combat, pointless. I for one am upset that I do not get to play this game in it's original version.

But to top it all off, we have a crazy-hyper conservative lawyer come on a nation-wide news station and spout rumors and lies to get the general public (who were already misinformed to begin with) to back up his beliefs and get the product banned. Bullshit.

No form of media; games, movies, books, or artwork should ever have to be banned. Regulation in the forms of ratings is safe to protect the children, and as a former employee of Blockbuster I can actually say that we were asked to question age and inform customers about the violence levels of games. I practiced this on several occasions and have had it practiced with me at many music, video game and entertainment stores across the country in my own youth. I understood. At the age of 17, when I wanted a copy of Fight Club, I asked my parents to purchase it for me, they agreed, understanding I had already seen it on several occasions. On the same level, at the age of 14 I was disallowed to rent Conker's Bad Fur Day for N64, until my parents finally understood the game's comedic intent and understood it was not harming me in any way. So in that sense, I understand and fully support our rating system, but banning is unneeded, illegal and something that no person should endorse.

Lastly, Last year in my Composition in Rhetoric Class I did my final assignment (which was to include a presentation with supporting proof and an essay arguing your views against the opposing views) on Video Game Violence and the effects on children using what information I could find online and from other sources. The study he is discussing, as I recall, shows no direct coronation with a causal link in violence and violence witnessed in any entertainment. Aggression is triggered during many types of play but these triggers can also been found during sports, doing rigorous work and even sexual activities. Also many stems sparked showing a positive connection of enjoyment and relief. Not to downplay John Bruce's ideals, but I have seen an interview where he was playing basketball with his son outside; sports and the fact that his son is alive and probably not adopted proves that Jack Thompson has probably had (though I don't want to think about it) sex. If he would like to start making an attempt at banning these activities we are talking about an entirely different world to live in, and one I am not willing to be a part of.

I am done ranting. Enjoy.

"Sweetie" has been busy:

http://nationalgaynews.com/content/view/1932/173/

Apparently a legal newspaper once had a headline "Is this man too crazy to practice law?".

Just stop, Jack. You're irrelevent.

This is my first time posting here. This may have been brought up, but I don't want to read the comments.

I got one question for Jack.

He says, and I quote, "and magically it went from an adults only to a mature rated game, and there wasn't enough time to really redo the game."

He also says something like, "The ESRB doesn't even play the game to the end when they rate games."(This is not an exact quote, but he says something along that line..)

My question is, have you played Manhunt 2, the M rated, and Adults only, to the very end to see what changes were made?

Thats is your own logic If the ESRB shouldn't rate a game till the very end, then nether should you.

Okay harldy a minute in I heard Jack Thompson say "that it (Manhunt 2) will be sold to children of all ages." or something like that....WTF?

@ Jack

Hmm, lets look at your debates so far. Every single one you've actually had the upper hand in was against an opponent who wasn't learned about gaming and the controversy surrounding it. All the ones you've refused to debate with were people far more knowledgeable about the subject. Anyone who does any research on you before engaging you in debate would find that your arguments and diatribe are about as stale and likely as unhealthy as that old yogurt we found in the freezer during a missions trip one year(three years old and the freezer didn't work so well. I'll leave the mental image up to you all).

Back off, Jack. We know your arguments inside and out and have countered them every time, point by point. At the very least try and bow out with whatever shred of dignity you have left.

Ok, Jack, you can stop appearing on TV now. You can easily be replaced with a broken record, here. Seriously.

Get your popcorn ready folks. The downward spiral of the not-so-great attorney Jack Thompson has officially begun.

This man needs to pick up a copy of the constitution and read it. It really will do him good to refresh his memory. In a free society people are going to be offended from time to time. It is ok to be offended. It is ok to get angry at someone. It happens, it is normal and you should deal with it, unless of course they are trying to ruin the law of the land.

Jack please understand, Censorship ruins freedom. Any attempt to prohibit any form of entertainment is an attempt to censor the people of this fine country. Please put out some solid studies that prove your theories of the dangers of video games or find a new axe to grind. You can't simply go on speaking against freedom by attacking every single form of entertainment you don't personally enjoy or find morally acceptable. Jack, you must sense that you don't have anywhere to go from here. That being said, how about we strike a deal. You stop chasing massacres and blaming them on products made for the sole purpose of entertainment and we will forget you've ever existed and will never speak your name again. I think its a win-win. This will allow the editors here at GamePolitics to cover intelligent topics instead of your silly hissy-fits on the new game that offends you the most. Just a thought.

I think it was Bill Maher that said "A mind is like a condom, it's only useful when you open it."

Jack - And think of all the time it will free up. You will no longer have to troll Game Politics. Maybe you could take that time and spend it with your family.

P-JT, next to the real JT, you are the damn biggest bigot on the site (well, who's on it regularly). Whenever the word "Christianity" appears in your comments, it's choked with proof of it. I'm starting to wonder if you are nothing more but an attention-whore.

Can anyone confirm that Mr. Thompson will actually be at VGEXPO '07? I scoured the website, myspace page, and myspace group and I haven't come across a whisper about him. If Mr. Thompson is debating, I would be very, very interested.

Correction- he is mentioned along side Mr. Lanning in the Spencer Halpin's: Moral Kombat segment as a contributor to the film, but it only mentions a panel for discussion afterwords without stating who will be there. I assume, at this point, that Mr. Thompson is declaring that he will be in attendance for the disucssion. I might just have to make a trip up to Philly for this.

Correction #2 (my apologies)- I misread the statement on the site. Mr. Thompson will indeed be at the expo. I need to scrape some money together for this. I would like to see him speak firsthand.

@Everyone else

I think we can all agree that Jack and his accomplise in the hostess of Cashin' In were completely off base with their mutual attack dog mode. I think we can also agree that while Jack may say that his faith motivates him, its more likely his own stated desire to leave a legacy. That legacy being that he was the man to destroy the videogame industry.

@Pandralisk
You sir, and I use the term loosely, are quite possibly the biggest bigot I've ever had the displeasure of meeting. If you want to have a war of words over religion there are blogs that discuss that very thing. I, myself, am a Bible believing, evangelical Christian. I'm not some superstitious boob who doesn't know the difference between reality and fantasy. My faith is very real and I'm more than a little tired of your rampant and disengenuous hate mongering. You are no better than Jack Thompson and you need to stop. No one is trying to take away your rights, that's propoganda that's been spread against Christianity for as long as I can remember. Kindly cease your incessant attacks against my faith.

I swear one of these day, the poor fellow will crack under the pressure and will do anything to prove his point.

woe be the day when he run on the street with a copy of GTA in one hand and a pistol in another, going on a shooting spree and shouting "video game are evil! here is the prove!" *bang* *bang*

My McCauley, just band Pandralisk already. He has hardly ever brought anything to these boards aside form hate speech, and it's only a matter of time before he turns on any other religions inhere.

Can anyone figure out what the hell Jack is talking about concerning being in Connecticut on the 3rd? I’ve searched every place in the state that could hold an event and none of them have one on their calender.

As much as it pains me to say this guys, Thompson won that debate.
If video gamers want to win a debate on any mainstream news network, they are going to need to be slightly less abrasive and appeal more to the conservative, 35+ audience. Calling Thompson a Bible nut and looking exasperated will not help the gaming cause. Points he brought up may have been true but that did not really matter because from the get go Thompson sounded like the more rational, reasonable guy.
We need some talented lobbyist in DC, then perhaps we can get some legislation passed in favor of us. If cigarettes, which have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt as being deadly are still supported by congressmen, imagine how much support a video game could gain?

@henjie

I think that was the intention. "Hey, look at the hostile guy playign for the gamers. They must all be hostile"

Is it even worth pointing out all the contradictions JT's making with earlier statements? I think they've all been hit, and am at least happy in the certainty we've got the quotes saved for posterity when he tries to deny that he uses laws and freedoms and more to his own benefit even when he denies the same for others.

@ jds

I respect that you think Americans should stand behind their president once elected, but constitutionally, such loyalty is meant to be contingent upon leaders serving the nation to the best of their abilities. Or at least legally. Our current president simply isn't doing this, from the perspective of numerous experts, military and otherwise.

Having had access to the experts and the information that specialized on either Iraq or the style of warfare inevitable in a war there, I can assure you their advice was ignored in attacking Iraq (that's how I met some of them--they were sent away from Iraq to where their disagreement wouldn't be heard).

Not to mention the reality that every bit of intelligence disagreed with the one source, already discounted by our people's assemssment and our allies, that gave any credence to the excuse for the president's invasion. In other words, lies were used to support the invasion, and then the blame for any mistakes was dumped on the very people who tried to make it eminently clear how unreliable that specific source was.

The experts on interrogation pointed out, as numerous studies have proven in history and contemporary battles, that torture--which is illegal according to the Geneva Conventions and outlying documents, anyway--results in inaccurate information that endangers soldiers, yet the president ignored them as well in favor of the CIA's outdated torture practices (they don't legally interrogate, so no need to update). The Generals whose area of expertise was urban warfare told him he needed more numbers if he were going to undertake an invasion and not only attain swift victory, but also maintain it; however, they were sent to another arena and promptly ignored, possibly because the Bush-reduced troop numbers couldn't easily support such numbers in an assault without understaffing other arenas to well under half strength (which they were already below in many places).

Why are the people who are high-ranking enough to conceivably have made a difference only coming out publicly with this information after they've retired? Because it's ILLEGAL for an officer to disparage or publicly disagree with their Commander in Chief while serving. They have no recourse but to try to make their soldiers enact the president's plan, or be severley punished while somebody else does so.

There's a lot more to his betrayal of the troops; Bush chose to cut troop numbers by a third before Iraq was ever an issue, firing a good number of our best soldiers so that the military dropped from having average 70% manning to somewhere around 40% (average, not everywhere). It might have been an understandable move have he done it as a cost-saving method, but he didn't.

He replaced guards and numerous other soldier-filled positions with civilian contractors, which minimally cost 12X as much as an NCO, not including longer paid vacations and training, etc., phasing in contractors in most other fields with the goal of creating an entirely mercenary fighting force based on capital. Needless to say, hiring the lowest bidder meant that the soldiers who were understaffed for their own positions had to fill the contractors' as well in too many instances, due to the latters' ineptness.

The last choice was the most heinous, though--and I say this because much of this took place DURING the war, when the president already knew there were going to be tons of injured soldiers but banked so heavily on the war ending quickly that he actually cut funding to Walter Reed, as stated: in the the hope that it would simply limp toward its demise so it could be quietly shut down.

I know part of the reason for this move was expectation that such advanced medical care wouldn't be much needed, which was unfortunate because it put certain soldiers who needed that care into limbo, with no other facilities available to them offering the same care. However, while I believe another part of the reason was the expectation that private medical care would be forced upon soldiers, involving some sort of voucher program, as far as I know that was only a rumor understood by many of the soldiers at Walter Reed during this time, with none of the definite evidence the other occurences include.

It probably needen't be pointed out that the president's decision to simply stop funding soldier medical facilities, Walter Reed in particular, is precisely why, not too long ago, military medical facilities were so underfunded and understaffed and doddering that even the not-so-badly-injured soldiers were getting ill simply from being in the rooms while those with time-sensitive issues didn't receive vitally needed care.

The numbers--troop reductions and cessation of medical funding--should all be common knowledge, information that can be found by civilians, by now. Yet nobody save retired Veterans (typically of higher rank to have seen the disconnect between advice and action) seems to acknowledge that every serious problem troops have had under Bush--decreased medical care, increased sickness, insufficient numbers, ineffective lowest-bidder armor, violation of international law and treaty and convention--has come about as a direct result of Bush's choices leading up to and during the war he started.

It's laudable that you believe it is the duty of Americans to support our president, but I am more concerned with supporting those who serve our country, not deman it. When the president chooses to place himself in this number by performing his job in a manner that benefits his country and the soldiers who fight on its behalf, I support the president. But not when he turns his back on huge numbers of American citizens, especially when those citizens are the very people who offer their lives for this country. Not when he pushes his own agenda at the cost of soldiers who suffer mounting tolls of psychiatric and familial problems in addition to physical trauma, none of which are receiving even remotely adequate treatment at present.

@ Pandralisk

Why do you do this? People started by asking you politely not to insult other people's beliefs; now they're annoyed and po'd, and asking you to stop being rude and hateful and yet you insist on doing it, and act superior while flinging out more supercilious contempt. Even worse, you talk to them like they're all "deluded Christians" even though many of the replies you thus denigrate are from atheists or people of other spritual background who are merely offended by your blindered, paranoid cruelty.

Even when they tell you they agree with your points, but don't think your presentation is appropriate or thoughtful, you keep spewing the hate as if those people, too, must be corrupted by the "Christian agenda". The world doesn't work that way; most of its people are NOT Christian, but we are all commenting against you and people like you, such as Jack Thompson, because rather than respectfully engage in conversation, you choose to fling accusations and calumny that override any real points you might make. You are obviously capable of rational thought, and if you with greater consistently wrote more objectively, people might actually care.

In those too-few instances when you do us the politeness of remaining on-topic--or at least not throwing around baseless insult dependent upon your interpretation of a religion many of those you condemn DON'T EVEN FOLLOW--people are likely to treat your contributions with respect. But you can't expect much when you constantly belittle and preach in such flagrantly hate-mongering manners that the politeness is so notable a rarity that your points are either hidden beneath your hateful rudeness or the (usually short-lived) novelty of its absence.

geez...even I could dismantle JT's 'arguements" and make him look like an ass, and I'm on SSD. heh

I finally had the chance to watch this and I agree with everyone, this was not a debate. It was let's give Jack a soap box and pretend it is a debate.

Horrible.

@Pandralisk

Oh and I'm an atheist, and whilst I am not a fan of organized religion by any stretch of the imagination, you should show a little more respect to those that are by allowing them their beliefs, no matter how ridiculous you think they are, and show them courtesy because you are also allowed your own.

They might think you're a godless sinner thats going to hell, and thats fine. They're allowed to think it. But they're not all coming out and lambasting you with that line, are they?

No, he isn't. The reason people won't debate him is precisely because of his non-relevance. He's not a threat to gamers, he's not someone to be feared or fought, at this point, he's someone for us to ignore. The problem is, we - the commentators, Dennis, and many other forms of gaming media - have been giving the man more credit and attention than he deserves.

Sorry Dennis, but more and more places have stopped reporting on Thompson precisely because he isn't news anymore. Him showing up on Fox News isn't news either, because we all KNOW what Fox is about. The moment you stop giving this man print time, the more you give him credence.

@ Coravin

You make some real good points. However, we're just going to disagree on some things.

I do not have access to experts, and I trust the credibility of yours, but there are two sides to every story. I just feel that things are different now. Not because it is post-9/11, not because of the Iraq war, not because of N. Korea, etc... I think things are different because situations have evolved.

What I mean I can best and most quickly sum up with an off topic comparison.

Transportation has evolved from horses to jet planes. Music has evolved from orchestral arrangements to what we have now (evolved for the better? maybe not), the exchange of information has evolved from letters and books to the internet, energy consumption has evolved from gas lights lining streets to our current energy situation... Just as all these things have changed, for better or worse, the way we need to fight a war, or secure a population, or eavesdrop on enemies has changed.

I take no side in this comparison; I only offer it. I am a conservative-minded person, but I am not wholly conservative. I mention this so you will hopefully not assume I completely agree with the conservative value system and operating procedures.

I just think that things need to be handled differently. Couple that with my optimistic attitude and I choose to give my support to the administration in the hopes that they can pull their heads out of their yahoos and move forward.

No one is perfect, and no war has ever been managed flawlessly. But I'll tell you one thing I believe implicitly. I do not think there is anyone better-equipped to protect Americans that George Bush.

Neither you, nor I will know if this is true for about 15 years. We can't make final judgement on it now, we need to let him go away and, over time, let the confidential documents get released to see just how corrupt, or upstanding he truly was.

I do appreciate the information you gave me. I'll re-read it many times...

...now to go find Jack's post. I love milk coming out of my nose while I laugh at his ramblings: he is such a loser.

I have debated Alan Dershowitz of Harvard on CNN. I have debated Nadine Strossen, the head of the national ACLU on Nightline and on 20 college campuses. Are all of you people here on crack? Don't tell me that I don't debate people who are recognized as expert advocates for their positions and articulate ones at that. You're insane to say otherwise.

Finally, now a Gamepolitics poster has emailed me and warned me that he is going to "confront" me at the game expo in Philadelphia next weekend. He is going to be apprehended if he shows up.

This is happening because the guy who runs this site, Dennis McCauley, declared war on me two years ago, trying to force me out of the public square, while hypocritically proclaiming the rights of others to enjoy the First Amendment. This is the same guy who filed a Bar complaint against me and refused to tell his readers about it.

If anything of a physical nature happens to me in Philadelphia, then Dennis McCauley will be the first one sued. Got that, Censor in Chief?

GP: if you can show me that a GP reader issued a threat, I'll ban their ass in New York minute.

As to your other wacky remarks, how exactly did I try to force YOU out of the public square? All I do is write about your antics, which you obviously enjoy since you keep sending me updates on what you are doing (as recently as yesterday). If you're so concerned about me, please, by all means, go and haunt some other site.

YOU on the other hand, well... you know all of the things that you did to me. They're all in the Bar complaint. Which, as you know, I was unable to disclose for legal reasons. Finally, you've proven, with your own voice, that it was YOU who declared war on GP. Please be truthful.

If anyone pulls any crap in Philly, they SHOULD be arrested. So we agree on that, at least.

Now, you're going to sue ME for something someone else did? Good luck with that. And as far as censor-in-chief, you've gotta be kidding me. You're posting here, aren't you? We covered your asinine appearance on Fox, didn't we?

@Pandralisk.

You are full of siht.

@Jack.
Honestly, half the shit you say isn't worth making fun of, and since I'm at home, I'm going to ignore for today and play with my dog.

"If anything of a physical nature happens to me in Philadelphia, then Dennis McCauley will be the first one sued. Got that, Censor in Chief?"



This whole law thing just really eludes you doesn't it Jack?

Since when has the law or the rights of others actually mattered to JT?

"Again, I bring up religion on threads relevant to the censorship of gaming because it is cited as the primary, fundamental, motivating force for those who wish to rape us of our autonomy and liberty."

Oh look. Pandralisk has fallen for the same trick that so many extreme right-wing Christian conservatives have fallen for, that the republicans in power actually give a toss about their beliefs. Sorry those in power don't care about religion. They care about two things: money and power. Therefore they are perfectly willing to take Christianity hostage in order to use it to manipulate voters to their whims.

Religion isn't the one guilty of assault in this fight, rather Christianity is a victim of fearmongering, power hungry politicians.


Of course no one is going to be able to convince Pandralisk of that, or franky anything else. Much like any Klan member his hatred has shut him off from any outside reason.

Sad really.

Hey, people.

I just IP-banned a guy who threatened to "confront" Thompson at the vgXpo.

People, say whatever you like on the issues. However. I simply WILL NOT TOLERATE anything that looks like a threat... ever.

i'm not a law-type person, but i did stay at a Holiday Express last night so:

how is it possible to sue one man for presenting the news because some other idiot decides to get violent about it?

i mean, that's like if the Reagan family had sued Taxi Driver because John Hinckley shot the president.

@Jack

We're insane?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

@BlackIce, Leftie: you're correct. But if you monitor the posts carefully, you should be able to figure it out by process of elimination.

:-)

I believe the reason Jack Thompson protest so much about not doing "debates with people who are recognized as expert advocates"
is because he knows it is true. We are talking about people knowledgeable on videogame issues. A debate Jack Thompson have yet to engage in publicly with.

He boast "I have debated Alan Dershowitz of Harvard on CNN. I have debated Nadine Strossen, the head of the national ACLU on Nightline and on 20 college campuses" while completely ignoring that the issue was about a debate on videogames.

Mr. Thompson, I could easily debate with you and probably blow out all of your arguments out of the water. If you had not backed out of a debate with Jason Delarocca in Montreal, I would have been there asking you the real questions. Questions that were sent to you via email and that you conviniently ignored.

I've debated Nadine Strossen on video games, you knucklehead.

@ Jack

Oh, the ESRB, of course. Another entity that has no legal bondage to any random retailer. How could i miss that? (half-joking)

You debated people, yes, but they knew as little about video games, if not less, than you do. They're not these Matrix-technology items from the future that download know-how of things into people's brains.

At least you passed your geography test and remembered what state VgXpo is in. Here, have a treat. You're going to have another quiz on Friday. Study hard.

Wow. Just wow.

In one breath Jack tries to get the complaint against him by the Alabama judge tossed because the judge made a public statement that he would file a complaint. Then in the very next breath, he attacks GP for *not* violating the rules and disclosing a filed complaint.

Well done. It takes most trolls years of practice to reach that level of hypocracy.

Hey, Jack's had ten years practice.

So Jack finally got the state and city right this time. For a moment I thought he was going to actually go to Connecticut. Then when he realizes that he is in the wrong place, he would blaim it on some vast conspiracy to prevent him from sharing the truth with all the lost souls at teh VGXpo.

Jack said: "I have proven to you that I have debated the folks that are supposed to be world class debaters."

John says: "You've still been unable to prove that you've debated videogame experts; only world class debators. I hereby deem you, Master Debater, Jack Thompson."

What a loser.

JT owns up to having successfully debated two people, Alan Dershowitz and Nadine Strossen. According to Wikipedia: Dershowitz, while a highly educated Harvard legal professor, doesn't appear to be any sort of First Amendment expert. Aside from this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz#Pornography_.281976-_.29) mention that he successfully defended a pornographic actor in an obsenity case, his background doesn't seem to mention much about the First Amendment or video game violence. Strossen's claim to fame is being head of the ACLU - again, an impressive achievement, but the ACLU focuses more on fighting the more invasive parts of the Patriot Act and stuff like that, not the video game violence debate. And she personally seems more an expert in women's rights and equality, judging by her book publications. So, while these people have great academic credentials, I really wouldn't put much stock in their ability to debate the games issue. They're focusing on other, more important issues. Just because someone went to Harvard doesn't make them an expert on game violence, and just because you debated them doesn't mean you're right.

"There is no confidentiality rule as to bar complaints. The complainant is free in Florida to announce it to the public, unlike in other states."

This is true, but what Dennis is saying is that while he is free to declare that he has filed a bar complaint, doing so could possibly leave him open to legal action. There is no law saying he can't tell everyone, but doing something that carries a risk of legal action is not exactly clever, so he decided not to.

Edit: How stupid do you have to be to actually issue a threat to this man? He threatens to sue everyone under the sun with no justification at all, what would make anyone think he wouldn't if given some semblance of a reason to do it legitimately?

We're better than that, we really are. C'mon, people.

"There is no law saying he can’t tell everyone, but doing something that carries a risk of legal action is not exactly clever, so he decided not to."

Since when do we expect Laddy Jack to understand what makes things "clever." Remember, he thought he was being "clever" by handing Janet Reno a lil' piece of paper asking her to admit that she was gay or bisexual, something akin to a 2nd Grade boy handing a girl a piece of paper saying "Do you like me? [] Yes [] No [] Maybe." My, my, clever indeed...

"Dennis, we’ll try this one last time, and then you tell me when you get your law degree"

Dennis might not have a law degree, but I do--and my read of Dennis' position is certainly consistent with the law.

"The Bar, which hates my guts, wound up dismissing it as BASELESS, Dennis."

Then be so kind as to send us all a .pdf of the Florida Bar document that uses the words "baseless," "frivlous," or the like in reference to Dennis' complaint.

Mark Standridge, attorney (and still will be in 2008)

@Mark Standridge - goods points, all.

First off, how in the hell did the kids get to buy ANYTHING online?!?!?!

Are they taking their folk's credit cards? If that's the case the wow, just wow................

Second off, the APA was agonizingly flawed. The so-called aggressive behavioral findings were misrepresented and not well documented. I remember there was even controversy about the leading members deciding not to put the study out because it was so riddled with inaccuracies, but they did it anyway because of political pressure in a post-Columbine world.

So once again the lord of spin Jack Thompson has done his dirty work fooling the out of touch people on Fox Noise Channel.

He also, I want to point out, loves to carve dollar figures into the tombstones of murder victims. Anytime someone dies, it just HAS to be the result of violent media. Death=profit.

Also, you do a great injustice to the bible by cynically hiding behind it to justify your never ending and never winning crusade Jack.

jesuslovesyou HOOOAH!!!!!!!!

I support the idea that violent video games should be handled differently, because as adults we can't protect our children from everything that is going to happen to them. We'd like to, but it just does not work that way and I would not want my child to play a game like manhunt 2, just look at it. It is a virtual killing game and utterly disgusting at that and while some of you would disagree with me it's all about personal taste and I respect that.

A lot of Ebgames, Bestbuys and targets do not enforce the "You must be 17" at minimum wage they do not care if some brat, buys an M rated game. That's just my area, but they're run the same way everywhere and it's like clockwork it is bound to happen everywhere as well. Maybe the industry should create a licensed M to AO vendor to sell only those games, sounds a bit extreme I know, but if nothing is done, the two groups are going to keep on stomping on each other and thats not what we want, people should work together (ie the industry and the community) to come up with a resolution to this problem.

That's just my two cents

Both Fox "News"(and all NewsCorp) and [Bill O'] Thompson are going to have to suffer the consequences of stinging satire on youtube, blogs, and photobucket.

@Bromeus

How many movie theaters enforce the NC-17 or R ratings on movies? According to studies (which had been posted here on GamePolitics, I forget which ones), apparently it is roughly the same percentage as the percentage of video game retailers not enforcing the M rating. Should video stores no longer offer R or NC-17 rated (or *gasp* the so-called "unrated") versions, just in case your child might go over to a friend's house and get to see the movie there? The whole line of thinking/rationale that you can't "protect your children all the time" used for video games, when expanded to encompass other media types, falls short, and fail. It is a fast way to complete government-regulated censorship, and violations of the 1st Amendment in the USA.

jack thompson is the only censor around here, seeing as he advocates a Manhunt 2 ban