The Bar Trial of Jack Thompson (part 4): Take Two Attorney Testifies Against Thompson

March 21, 2008 -

Background for today's testimony: James Smith was one of two Blank Rome attorneys who testified against Jack Thompson in his November, 2007 Bar trial. Smith, along with Rebecca Ward, represented Take Two Interactive and other video game industry defendants in the $600 million Strickland vs Sony lawsuit which Thompson filed in Alabama.

It was upon a motion filed by Smith and Ward that Judge James Moore, in November, 2005 revoked Thompson's pro hac vice (visiting) right to practice law in Alabama, essentially throwing him off the Strickland case, which alleged that a 2004 triple cop killing was prompted by the 18-year-old murderer's play of Grand Theft Auto.

(Smith and Ward filed a Bar complaint against Thompson and were called to testify at his trial.  In the excerpted transcripts, SMITH is Smith. JT is Thompson, TUMA is prosecutor Sheila Tuma and DT is Judge Dava Tunis, who is presiding over the case…)

TUMA: Explain to the Court why you filed your Bar complaint in this matter against Mr. Thompson.

SMITH: [Our complaint deals] with a history of the most offensive, abusive conduct that I have ever encountered in the 25 years or so that I have been a lawyer... I continue to get e-mails. I think I got one last week from Mr. Thompson. They have the same menacing tone, the same offensive quality to them. Nothing, in my view, has stopped him and I expect that when I leave here today that he will bombard me -

JT: Your Honor -

SMITH: -and my law firm with more e-mails -

JT: Your Honor, motion to -

SMITH: -because that's what he does.

JT: Your Honor, motion to strike. That's conjecture.

DT: Overruled.

JT: Overruled?

DT: Yes, overruled. Continue.

TUMA: Can you explain to the Court what effect Mr. Thompson's conduct has had on you?

SMITH: Your Honor, I have never experienced anything like this before and I have been in some pretty tough fights... This is so far beyond the pale, it's unimaginable. This man on a routine basis accuses me of participating in fraud, in the mental molestation of minors, in the most offensive, disgusting things that you could possibly imagine, and he does it all with absolute impunity... You can't imagine what it's like - well, I guess you can, because I hear he sued you, too - but it's difficult to imagine that this could go on.

It had nothing to do with the practice of law. It's horrible. It's absolutely horrible. He makes reference to my mother and father. He makes reference to my partners. He just makes baseless, absolutely insane allegations, and he does it continually... We have a filter in our law firm now so that his e-mails only go to certain people.

JT: Your honor, move to strike because he was asked how it has affected him and then he went to using words that I'm insane, that I have sued you, and so forth. So I would ask that you move to strike his non-responsive answer. The question was, how did it affect him.

DT: Overruled.

(Thompson begins to cross-examine Smith...)

JT: Mr. Smith, let's go to, if we may, your motion to revoke [my Alabama pro hac vice admission]... (Thompson reads from Smith's motion) "Further, Thompson failed to fully inform the Court and the Alabama State Bar of the complete history of his disciplinary proceedings in his home state of Florida." What did I fail to tell [Judge Moore's] trial court and the Alabama State bar?

SMITH: Well, what we have alleged in the brief, sir... It reads: "...the true material facts regarding Thompson's history of disciplinary complaints to the Florida Bar are far more complicated than set forth in Thompson's carefully worded letter to this Court. Far from simply accepting a public [1992] reprimand for violations of Florida ethical rules, Thompson instead caused a Florida Judge and the Florida Bar to question his mental capacity, resisted efforts to hold disciplinary proceedings, engaged in abusive invective against anyone he saw as his opponent, including the Courts themselves, and attempted to absolve himself of his misconduct by casting himself as the defenseless victim of a nebulous and far reaching conspiracy headed by his political opponents.

(Thompson then focused on the mental health issue, reading several paragraphs from a letter to Judge Moore's Court...)

JT: Now, why didn't you put [what I just read] in your characterization of what I had done improperly that I was reprimanded for [in 1992]?

SMITH: Why didn't I put it in?

JT: Yes. Since you wanted the Court, I guess, to fully understand what it was I had done 13 years prior; but you didn't have anything, did you, in your motion -

SMITH: Mr. Thompson, I'm going to ask you to step back. Step back.

JT: I'll step back when the court asks me to.

DT: Let's do this. We have a podium that's pushed over... Let's have all parties utilize the podium.

SMITH: Thank you, Your Honor.

DT: All right.

JT: What were you afraid of, Mr. Smith?

DT: Okay. That's inappropriate.

JT: No. It isn't inappropriate, Judge. I don't mean to argue with you, but I'd like to know what Mr. Smith is concerned about.

DT: Mr. Thompson, I'm going to ask you to please utilize the podium as it is -

JT: I'm going to utilize the podium, Judge, but I would like to know why Mr. Smith asked me to step back.

DT: I'm not going to require him to answer that question...

JT: I think the door was open on that because -

DT: There's no door open. Please continue with the questioning.

JT: And just for the record, Judge... Mr. Smith says that this has all impacted him and it seems to me he's afraid of me. So I wanted to ask him about that.

(there was much back-and-forth and numerous objections regarding Thompson's past issues with shock radio personalities... Thompson wants to know if Smith learned of these issues in his research on Thompson's 1992 issues with the Bar...)

JT: Did you find any evidence in any news reportage suggesting or indicating that the nature of - if there was, in fact - a series of death threats received by me and my wife?

SMITH: I don't recall.

JT: Would you be surprised if that had happened?

TUMA: Objection, Your Honor.

DT: Overruled. Go ahead, sir. You can answer.

SMITH: Would I be surprised if there were death threats against you?

JT: Orchestrated by the talk show host.

SMITH: I don't have the basis to have an opinion...

(followed by more sparring about what was contained in Smith's pro hac vice revocation motion to Judge Moore...)

JT: Mr. Smith, you're asserting, are you not, that the reason that I brought and sought certain federal relief was to forestall the disciplinary proceedings. You don't know what was in my mind, do you?

SMITH: Well, it's true that I don't know what is in your mind, ever, Mr. Thompson. That is a true statement.

JT: That's clever. Now answer the question.

SMITH: But I don't. That was the question, "You don't know what's in my mind," and I answered it.

JT: How do you know that my purpose of seeking the federal action was to forestall the disciplinary proceedings as opposed to getting federal relief for what I thought were inappropriate proceedings? You don't know that.

SMITH: Because I have a brain.

JT: I beg your pardon?

SMITH: And because it's exactly the pattern that you used here.

JT: What pattern here? Where?

SMITH: Running, suing everybody in sight who doesn't agree with you, seeking -

JT: Oh, so you -

SMITH: You cut me off again.

JT: Okay, Mr. Smith. You go right ahead. I'll give you as much rope as you want.

SMITH: Is that a question?

JT: No. You go right ahead, I said.

SMITH: Okay. It's exactly what you're doing here, Mr. Thompson. Exactly.

JT: Go right ahead.

SMITH: I'm finished.

(following this are numerous pages of back-and-forth about the circumstance which led Smith to file the pro hac vice revocation motion in Alabama... there is a discussion regarding one of Thompson's television appearances, the 60 Minutes appearance with the late Ed Bradley which Thompson so often refers to...)

JT: So your position is that I violated the canons of ethics in Alabama by going on "60 Minutes" about this?

SMITH: No, Mr. Thompson... you violated [rule] 3.6 when you said what you said on "60 Minutes." When you -

JT: That was my shorthand way of -

SMITH: When you went on "60 Minutes," at that moment in time, you hadn't opened your mouth yet. It's when you opened you mouth and said the things you said -

JT: Mr. Smith, you're -

SMITH: Excuse me. You're cutting me off again.

DT: Let him finish...

JT: So your testimony is that my going on "60 Minutes" and saying what I said about the [Strickland vs. Sony] civil case was an ethics violation. Is that right?...

SMITH: To be more precise, your going on "60 Minutes" and saying what you said allowed us to present to the Court in Alabama that there was an ethical violation. It was the Court in Alabama that found that it was an ethical violation...

(after some legal arguments, Thompson moves on to Rockstar's Bully...)

JT: Is it your position, Mr. Smith, that I shouldn't communicate with the media about Take Two's Bully game?

SMITH: It was my position - and still is my position, Mr. Thompson, that you, like every other officer of the Court, are required to discharge your duties in accordance with whatever rules are applicable. Therefore, I would need to know what it is you were contemplating saying about Bully and in what context. So in a vacuum, I can't answer that question. Certainly - I'll stop here.

JT: I'm not asking you that... Were any of the letters I wrote anybody about the Bully game - which in my opinion is a Columbine simulation made by your client, and there is litigation about that here in South Florida - that the letters you have regarding that violated the Canon of Ethics in Alabama?

SMITH: Mr. Thompson, we would need to go through the letters that are attached to the appendix so that I could refresh my recollection.

JT: Okay.

SMITH: Judge, I hope you can appreciate - I get eight, 10, 12 e-mails a day from this guy. I couldn't keep track of them all.

JT: Come on. Eleven e-mails a day. Are you saying that under oath?

SMITH: Mr. Thompson, I want you to listen to me very carefully.

JT: I'm listening real carefully.

SMITH: I'm absolutely saying that under oath.

JT: Eleven e-mails a day.

SMITH: Well, I'm sure there was a day when I got 11. I didn't count them all. They were so plentiful that our law firm had to engage in a system to screen them because you thought it was appropriate to enlist my partners in your cause.

JT: Well, if you were confronted with the situation where you thought somebody's law firm was acting improperly, would you consider alerting the head of the firm to that?

SMITH: Mr. Thompson -

JT: Would you?

SMITH: The point is, there was no basis for you to make those scurrilous allegations.

JT: Why don't you answer the question?

SMITH: They were scurrilous, false accusations...

JT: If you were confronted with a situation, Mr. Smith, in which a law firm you felt was involved - and I'm asking you this hypotheticaly - in unethical, illegal conduct, would it be appropriate to alert the head of the firm to that?

SMITH: It would depend if there was a factual basis to the concern... In this case there was none, as found by Judge Moore.

JT: Move to strike.

DT: overruled.

(as he did with Judge Moore, Thompson raises the issue of a parody website site for the the PSP game GTA: Vice City Stories. Smith seems unaware of it...)

JT: This is a letter to the Judge, Judge Moore. "Judge, I told you and I told Mr. Smith weeks ago, that his client, Take Two Rockstar, was and is still targeting me on its official website as supposedly the head of the decency organization called C.U.N.T.F.L.A.P.S., which is an acronym for Citizens United Negating Technology For Life and People's Safety. How clever they are. Pornographers are smarter that the rest of us, far smarter than the people of Alabama, they think." ...Do you have an opinion as to whether or not your client had that posted at  its corporate website?

SMITH: Yes...

JT: So did they post it?


JT: They didn't have C.U.N.T.F.L.A.P.S.?

SMITH: No, Mr. Thompson, this activity had nothing to do with me certainly, my law firm and certainly my client. I don't know about these websites that you get on and you communicate with people and people communicate with you that go far beyond the control of the people that we were required to control...

JT: Are you telling me that this was not at

SMITH: ...I will tell you that I have no knowledge that our client was involved in it and I have absolute knowledge that neither I nor any member of my law firm had anything to do with... this distasteful, disgusting word or acronym that appears here, despite the fact that you accused me of having been involved in it...

DT: The question is, did Rockstar. Is that a corporation?

JT: That's a defendant in the case... Take Two is the parent company of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Rockstar... My question is whether or not you know even now whether or not this material was at your client's website...

SMITH: I believe it was on a website. My best recollection, Judge - is that - and Miss Ward is going to be a witness and she's more factual on all this information than I am; but my best recollection is that people were able to come on to the website and make entries and that our client was not involved in this...

JT: Do you know who Colin Powell is?

SMITH: I've heard the name.

TUMA: Objection, You Honor, to the relevancy.

(there ensues a discussion, the upshot of which is that Thompson reads into the record some of Colin Powell's thoughts on the moral degradation of society, which leads Thompson to...)

JT: My question was... to Mr. Smith whether or not his parents would be proud of what he facilitates - that is, the distribution of this stuff to children. You took offense at that. Right?

TUMA: Objection

DT: ...He doesn't need to answer the question.

JT: You were offended by my referring to your parents -

TUMA: Objection...

DT: Sustained.

(there ensues more discussion about the Alabama case, broken up by an odd interaction with another attorney in the gallery...)

JT: Should I have gone into the mental health exam demand issue by the Florida Bar?

TUMA: Objection; asked and answered.

DT: Sustained. I'm sorry. I'm going to ask anyone that's in the audience not to speak out loud.

JT: He's not in the audience. He's here assisting me. I apologize.

DT: He's in the audience.

JT: He's here to assist me.

DT: And he's in the audience.

JT: Well, I -

DT: Sir, I'm going to have to have you removed from the courtroom, which I do not want to do...

JT: He won't say anything.

DT: ...Excuse me, Mr. -

JT: [Miles] Gopman...

GOPMAN: No, no, I'm leaving.

DT: Mr. Gopman, you are welcome to -

GOPMAN: I'll leave, Your Honor. I've seen enough. I've seen enough. That's okay...

DT: Let the record reflect that Mr. Miles Gopman has chosen to leave the courtroom and the Court was going to explain to him that he's welcome to stay... as long as he does not speak out from the gallery, interrupting the proceedings.

JT: Let the record also reflect that Mr. Gopman left; and I like your bailiff, but your bailiff was moving towards him to remove him.

DT: And I told my bailiff... there's no problem with Mr. Gopman sitting here, but he cannot speak out from the gallery.

JT: And, Your Honor, I'm not allowed to stand within 10 feet of Mr. Smith because of his concern... Mr. Gopman probably didn't appreciate your bailiff, who is a very nice gentleman, coming forward... He's also got his own harassment problems from the Florida Bar. So he left, for whatever reason.

(several more pages of argument ensue before Smith wraps up. As he is leaving...)

SMITH: I don't know if it's appropriate to ask this but I'm going to ask it anyway. Is there any way we could ask for relief to stop the e-mails, at least until this hearing is over? I don't know if you have the power to order that?

JT: No, she doesn't.

DT: Sir, I need to deal with one legal matter that's in front of me at a time.

SMITH: I understand. I hope you can appreciate my -

JT: That's a nice touch, Mr. Smith. I appreciate it. Are you going to take down from your client's site the references to me as a bisexual -

DT: Mr. Thompson, stop, stop.

JT: No. Your Honor -

DT: This Court is going to be in recess for a lunch break.

JT: Your Honor, are they going to take their comments down about me being a bisexual pedophile on their client's site?

(...but the session was over.)   


Re: The Bar Trial of Jack Thompson (part 4): Take Two Attorney

   Jack Thompson's use of Christianity as a public image is repugnant and disgraceful. As a Christian, moreover, as a citizen of the United States of America, I feel nothing short of rage at his personal vendetta against freedom of speach in all it's many forms. The man is nothing short of a villain.  He has no idea what it is to be an American, and is not one himself in my opinion. He is one of many enemies of our freedom who is getting much more attention than he deserves. He ought to be ashamed of himself.

i never knew legal proceedings could be so much fun. i wish court tv (or whatever it is called now) would have this on the air

Every new tidbit on this man makes him more and more distant from the "good Christian" he pretends to be.


Turn it into a holiday, yes; a cult/church, no thanks... :p

I had to forward this article to many friends... You just can't make this stuff up, and its just beautiful to see...

I'm still hoping for a re-enactment, or hopefully Stephen Colbert picks it up with Gary Cole for Harvey Birdman..., or maybe the Colbert Report... 8D

The part that isn't so funny is:

I'm sure -- without knowing a whit about the specifics -- that Mr. McCauley's Bar complaint (upon which no action was taken) doesn't too much differ in essence from the conduct about which Judge Moore, Judge Friedman, Mr. Smith, et al., complained (but upon which the Florida Bar now sees fit to take action). Like what? If you ain't a sitting judge or an attorney from some white shoe, silk stocking firm, you can't get no relief.

Bishop, Your Honor!! Bishop!! Dis case is pear bishop!!


Wow not only is everybody aganst him, but hes acting like a total ass in court. What kind of lawyer is he?

One that seems to be very aware that his career is completely and irrevocably doomed, so might be trying to set up something else. Like being able to claim a kind of martyrdom for being a "Christian Activist", or fighting the good fight against those evil video games.

Okay, I've got an idea how this is going to end.

The man's a Froot Loop. I mean, it's one thing to act that way outside the courtroom, but I had no idea he was just as nutty when speaking before a judge.

Man, the way he's getting shot down at every turn... I'm not sure if it's funny or just plain sad.

@ Khabi

what about

SMITH: You cut me off again.

JT: Okay, Mr. Smith. You go right ahead. I’ll give you as much rope as you want.

SMITH: Is that a question?

JT: No. You go right ahead, I said.

SMITH: Okay. It’s exactly what you’re doing here, Mr. Thompson. Exactly.

JT: Go right ahead.

SMITH: I’m finished.

That actually made me burst out laughing, quite a rarity on the internet

Someday I do hope that the entire transcript of this trial becomes available. I absolutely understand why it isn't now, but I hope someday to read all of it.

Oh, man how much I wish that we could get a hold of a audio recording of this transcript. I could just see some one making a video of him rapping
C.U.N.T.F.L.A.P.S. and flashing up a picture of him every time he says it. Instant classic. I move that 24 hours after Dennis posts the news of Jack being disbarred, we all Toast his disbarrment by playing the murder simulator of your choice.

GP should use this picture in the future when referring to everything Jack Thompson:

The day he get's his license pulled, Jack Thompson is going to be like a little puddle of Goo on the sidewalk... figuratively speaking of course.

This is PERFECT. =D

Gameboy & DarkTetsuya:

There's the 1000-page transcript on Dava's desk. Towering beside and over it is the 30,000 pages of Jack's faxs, e-mails, filings, letters, press releases, etc., admitted into evidence.

That the poor soul has to turn her Report around by April 21 belies Jack's recent assertions that judges spend all their time flitting from charity dinner to charity dinner.


Technically, no. Not in the current proceeding (although it could be the subject of a separate complaint and a whole new proceeding). Only Jack's past conduct as specifically charged in the current complaint can be at issue.

Of course, on another level, it ain't very wise I think to act the fool when you're defending charges of having acted the fool.

See, Jack s problem is that his legal style worked for a long time.

Now its not

And this fact is just not sinking in at all for the man. He only knows how to practice law in one way, and he'll keep doing it, even though its the very thing thats sinking him

DT: Mr. Thompson, stop, stop.

JT: No. Your Honor -

Right there, contempt of court. Why the hell don't they nail him to a wall for it?


Course he hasn't, he's only been tryign ot make others look bad while managing the opposite.


I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but that was from GTA:LCS or VCS, not a real organization.


Just email him about anything at all and you'll get the same effect his comments here would give. He'll threaten legal action and give you his personal contact info in the hopes that you'll call him so he can file a press release and fax your local police department.

@ GP

lol @ diorama.


i wouldn't want to liable myself by making any kind of assumptions of jack thompson's mental state... but out of curiosity, what exactly do you have to do in public to get commited?

Oh my god, I don't think I can read this anymore. It is killing me, slowly. I'm going to literally die of laughter.

There were so many moments in this article that I seriously felt a "bitch-slap" moment coming. I could just imagine the judge facepalming at Jack's antics. How I wish I can view the whole thing on a video, or hear an audio recording.

Thank you, Dennis for providing this for us. I haven't LOL so hard in a while.

He shot himself there already. His feet are the only things he hasn't shot yet. Well he has one foot now.

I'm saving all these articles. They're just impossibly...just, lol. Everything else is dead serious in comparision.

Man, I can't wait for Jack's closing arguments. That is going to be a glorious paranoid and insulting rant.

heheh i guess Mr. Rumpole saw my comment on his site

and no i was not rude, or i believe i wasnt, i just thought it was important for the people on that side of the pond to get a peek into the mind of Mr. Thompson

overruled is the best goddamn word in the english language. i just love it.


True, we are biased, but I think we can make a few assumptions based on what has gone before.

1) Most of us assumed Jack was an ass to us because we're gamers. He doesn't care for us, and doesn't think we're worth responding to in a dignified manner. OK, that's fine, we're vermin. But who honestly would have thought he'd behave in the same undignified way among his legal-peers, and especially to a judge. He has, after all, been very polite and professional with journalists. So, clearly, while he treats us worse than he does the excrement he would wipe off his shoe, and while he has been a bit unorthodox in the courtroom before, who could have believed he would do so much to torpedo his own case when his career is on the line? Clearly the Bar's attorney was pounding his head into his desk for not simply calling Jack as the prosecution's only witness. I'm sure s/he (sorry, I can't remember who the Bar's attorney was beyond the initials didn't expect JT would be the best evidence against himself.

2) Judge Tunis needs so much time to render the verdict. If she were going to go with innocent, I'm sure she would have needed much less time, no matter her busy schedule. This is a big assumption on my part, but I think it would be much easier to say "Innocent" and not have to give much of a reason than it is to make a detailed ruling that Jack can't pass off as biased against him. Clearly she thought there was much to consider, even beyond the thousands of pages of Jack's emails and faxes, and I can't imagine that she would need nearly as much time to rule in his favor. So I believe by the end of the trial/hearing, whatever it is, she knew he was guilty of the charges, but needed to be sure of the degree of his guilt, and the proper way to convey it. Thus she needed nearly 5 months to construct her decision. After all, she knows he'll attack a verdict against him, and as a person of high moral fiber as I've heard her described (not in those words) she wouldn't want to inflict Jack's inevitable appeal on any other mortal being, not even the bastard offspring of Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin combined. So she's going to give him nothing to stand on for the good of humanity.

That was longer than I thought it would be.

Rav3 and Rauggo,

Sorry I wrote my last reply before reading your other messages...
but yeah, I still think that, in a way, we're all correct.

JT: What pattern here? Where?

SMITH: Running, suing everybody in sight who doesn’t agree with you, seeking -

JT: Oh, so you -

SMITH: You cut me off again.

JT: Okay, Mr. Smith. You go right ahead. I’ll give you as much rope as you want.

SMITH: Is that a question?

JT: No. You go right ahead, I said.

SMITH: Okay. It’s exactly what you’re doing here, Mr. Thompson. Exactly.

JT: Go right ahead.

SMITH: I’m finished.

This is comedy gold.
Please tell me he isn't serious.
One things for sure he chose the wrong vocation. He'd be a great comedian and successful too. But unfortunately soon he will only be a disgraced lawyer.

I just noticed this...

JT: Now, why didn’t you put [what I just read] in your characterization of what I had done improperly that I was reprimanded for [in 1992]?

SMITH: Why didn’t I put it in?

JT: Yes. Since you wanted the Court, I guess, to fully understand what it was I had done 13 years prior; but you didn’t have anything, did you, in your motion -

Okay... 13 years prior... from 2007 would make it 1994, not 1992. I know it's a bit nitpicky, but still rather amusing.

Is it so wrong that I'm enjoying this slow motion train wreck?

The more I see of his activities, the more I am convinced that Jack Thompson is Wimp Lo (from Kung Pow). I was just joking before... but now I honestly believe he is.

"Because that's what he does."

Is this what you want to be remembered for, Jack? You've already shot down your image and reputation as a crusader for Christ and morals.

"JT: They didn’t have C.U.N.T.F.L.A.P.S.?"


Jack Thompson damn near killed an e-mail server!!



No. Everyone here is enjoying it, including me.

@Game Politics
Are you going to let Thompson comment on these stories?

GP: I offered him an opportunity to comment before the series ran. He declined. If he wants to post a comment, I will likely let it through, unless he starts threatening readers with legal action, ect.

Jack Thompson killing fax machines
and neutering email servers

Is this really how he wants to defend his right to be a lawyer?

I mean... REALLY?

i dont believe he knows what hes doing anymore
its knee jerk reaction after knee jerk reaction

i feel so sorry for this judge

Well, well. I love how Jack Thompson is all for vigilante censorship of user contributions to corporate websites.

I feel like I'm reading a transcript of Harvey Birdman: Attorney At Law.


@ Aliasalpha

We so need to contract Gary's Mode to remake this whole story!

"This man on a routine basis accuses me of participating in fraud, in the mental molestation of minors, in the most offensive, disgusting thing that you could possibly imagine, and he does it all with absolute impunity… You can’t imagine what it’s like - well, I guess you can, because I hear he sued you, too - but it’s difficult to imagine that this could go on."

People have been telling the Florida bar this FOREVER and no one has done crap till now.

I can't wait for him to finally be disbarred for incompetence

After reading all of this I'm going to be quite amazed if the Judge allows Thompson to keep his bar license. It seems like the Judge just really dislikes Thompson's conduct and in a case like this, that's pretty bad.

Jack Thompson's Winning Strategy:

* Waste a lot of time
* Attack Witnesses
* Insult Presiding Judge

Obviously, he's gonna win from this!

JT makes my head hurt.

Make the bad man go away.
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilson well hopefully they will get out of game development after mgs508/03/2015 - 11:05am
IvresseSeriously IronPatriot, you're worse than a Daily Mail reader.08/03/2015 - 10:51am
Ivresse@IronPatriot: Will you stop lumping TotalBiscuit into this whole Gamergate issue, it's lying numpties like you who make up your own bullshit to justify your hatred to begin with that screw the internet up in the first place...08/03/2015 - 10:49am
ZippyDSMleeMost social justice is great but some of it is so stupid it taints the whole thing into triple negatives. A shame most of the gamergate stuff is bad...the core ideals are not bad it just jumped the shark and the n ut cases came out of the wood work..08/03/2015 - 10:07am
ZippyDSMleeJim dives into the red ash controversy , - 10:03am
IronPatriotSeriously people, do not believe crap spread by those who think "social justice" is an insult or that its a good idea to join a movement created for harassment. Like your gamergate hero TotalBiscuit.08/03/2015 - 9:32am
IvresseSeriously people, do not believe the shit that the internet spreads about anyone, especially with the whole gamergate SJW crap colouring the issue to the point of stupidity08/03/2015 - 9:14am
Ivresse@Big Perm: Only to the morons that inhabit the internet. Also his wife is damn awesome, I bumped into her when I had to catch my train before TB's meet and sign session, she ran to find TB, got him to sign my mousemat, then ran back to give it to me.08/03/2015 - 9:13am
MechaTama31I dunno. I'd rather see new characters than see, for example, someone other than Bill Murray try to be Venkman.08/03/2015 - 9:10am
Big Perm@ Ivresse. Is true that TB eats puppies?08/03/2015 - 9:01am
MattsworknamePS: hudson played winston zedimore08/03/2015 - 7:24am
Mattsworknameinfo: the orignoal cast wasn't part of Star trek, but the charecters in the movie were the same charecters. Ghostbusters with out stance, ego, venkman, and Earnie hudsons charecter, whose name I forget for some reason , feels wrong to me08/03/2015 - 7:23am
PHX Corp Scathing Nikkei Report Hints At Shameful Treatment Of Staff By Dictatorial Konami Management08/03/2015 - 7:15am
IvresseJust finished with Coxcon 2015 last night (convention in the UK organised by Youtube Jesse Cox). Was a damn good weekend meeting Jesse, Totalbiscuit, Dodger etc. and getting to ask them questions and stuff.08/03/2015 - 6:15am
InfophileReference for my comment earlier about Dan Aykroyd in the new Ghostbusters: - 6:00am
benohawkI hope the new ghostbusters is good regardless, but I also expect it to have to surpass the orignal for people to acknowledge that.08/03/2015 - 1:37am
benohawkMecha, those changes are also some of the bigger complaints I've heard about the Abrams Star Trek movie.08/03/2015 - 1:35am
MechaTama31 <-- Letterman interview with Bill Murray, he seems to have a similar opinion to mine about the pink-slime movie.08/02/2015 - 11:27pm
MechaTama31I don't think it's as big a deal as you think, matts. After all, JJ Abrams' Star Trek removed the original cast (mostly) and changed the formula significantly. If the movie is enjoyable, people will enjoy it.08/02/2015 - 11:23pm
MattsworknameDoc: Hope he recovers soon.08/02/2015 - 7:49pm

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician