Slashdot Mirror


Jack Thompson Calls Cops on Penny-Arcade

Anon1001 sent us the latest developments in the ongoing saga between Miami Attorney Jack Thompson and Penny-Arcade. So far the story goes that Jack has filed a wrongful death suit against Rock Star, claiming that GTA is a cop killing training simulator responsible for the murder of a pair of cops. He also offered $10k to charity if anyone who would develop some ridiculous murder spree game. When someone did it, and he changed his mind and Penny-Arcade donated the cash instead. All of this is being documented on the Penny Arcade website, in phone calls, rants and comics, as well as an 'I Hate Jack Thompson' T-Shirt. (Note, Slashdot's parent company owns ThinkGeek). He has now called the cops claiming harassment. Update: 10/18 17:40 GMT by Z : It seems like this confrontation has been brewing all summer. The most recent altercation is just another link in the chain made by Thompson's reaction to Hot Coffee and his crusade against the Sims 2. Further, PA has put up the scan of the letter to the cops, and a photo of the check.

913 comments

  1. Disbarrment by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's going to happen very soon now, as Jack is getting loonier and loonier. He keeps dancing around direct legal threats, because he knows what will happen. Soon he will slip, and soon after that he won't be a lawyer anymore, and won't THAT be a shame?

    --
    "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    1. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      These idiots have been so careless as to post on their www.pennyarcade.com web site what they are doing regarding the harassment of me."

      "I look forward to working with your fine Police Department to shut this little extortion factory down and/or arrest some of its employees."


      Slander and lible... I hope the folks at PA sue the shit out of him for a few million, and then (irony sweet irony) donate the proceeds to some university that teaches game programming!

      Of course, the guy could claim mental incompetence I guess.

      ("Optical?" where's the mind reading capcha today?)

    2. Re:Disbarrment by mboverload · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This really reminds of of McCarthy. People eventually saw him for what he was, a fucking lunatic.

    3. Re:Disbarrment by LSD-OBS · · Score: 4, Informative

      He spelled the name of the website wrong anyway.

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    4. Re:Disbarrment by pete6677 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sounds like an Elliot Spitzer wannabe. For those that don't know, Spitzer is New York's attorney general who is known for shaking down corporations in the name of "fighting corruption". He started out with noble goals, but soon let the power go to his head.

    5. Re:Disbarrment by Txiasaeia · · Score: 1

      The key word is "eventually" - history might redeem PA, but who knows what will happen until then? (Yes, my tin-foil hat is on straight; why do you ask?)

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    6. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone should post some juicy pics to the binaries groups with jackpeace@comcast.net as their username.

    7. Re:Disbarrment by ValourX · · Score: 5, Informative

      On the off chance that someone who is dealing with Jack Thompson reads this, here is the procedure for filing a complaint against a Florida lawyer.

      I would do it myself, but you have to be in some way involved with the lawyer (client or opponent) to file a complaint, it seems.

    8. Re:Disbarrment by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Soon he will slip, and soon after that he won't be a lawyer anymore, and won't THAT be a shame?

      Nah, the RIAA will probably hire him.

    9. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't someone sue him for barratry or something? Does that apply in this case?

    10. Re:Disbarrment by kinglink · · Score: 1

      Most people use words like Disbarrment, or Impeachment as vague threats, or jokes, not understanding the underlining factors to reach that level. But Jack Thompson has crossed that limit a while ago. He originally was a danger to gaming community, but now he's become a nut job who definatly is walking towards Disbarrment.

      Kudos on seeing that it actually should be considered here. And Kudos Jack, for giving me my hourly comic relief.

    11. Re:Disbarrment by JackThompsonTheLawye · · Score: 1
      Sue Tick List :

      Rockstar Games
      Penny Arcade
      Slashdot

      So be afraid, be very afraid.

    12. Re:Disbarrment by Xeriar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ann Coulter, McArthy, Jack Thompson...

      I wonder what makes people go into these modes. It's like they don't feel there is any reprecussion to their actions. They are real-life trolls.

    13. Re:Disbarrment by mboverload · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > They are real-life trolls Most insightful Jack Thompson comment. Ever.

    14. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not to mention that pennyarcade.com USED to go to a transexuals website. Forgot that "-" many a time....

    15. Re:Disbarrment by Mercano · · Score: 1

      Then how will he be introduced every time he comes up? Former Miami Attorney Jack Thompson?

      --
      #include <signature.h>
    16. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't forget to go after that Anonymous Coward! That dirty bastard has been saying some awful things about you!

    17. Re:Disbarrment by hey! · · Score: 1

      I would do it myself, but you have to be in some way involved with the lawyer

      Fortunately in the case of Mr Thompson, it doesn't seem to be that difficult to accomplish. Buena suerte, mi amigo.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    18. Re:Disbarrment by ifwm · · Score: 1

      I think you could just buy a share of stock in one of the companies he's suing.

    19. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that there is no Jack Thompson listed with the Florida Bar, He may not even by a lawyer.

    20. Re:Disbarrment by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      I know I'm responding to a troll, but out of curiousity I did a search. If you go to http://www.floridabar.org/ and do a search for last name Thompson, no Jack Thompson shows up.

      I don't know if this really has any bearing on whether he's really a lawyer in FLA. Its possible that not all lawyers in florida are in that list, or that his real first name is James or something similar and he just goes by Jack.

      I believe its also possible to pass the bar in states like New York, and be allowed to practice in other states because the standards to enter the bar in New York are tougher.

    21. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Since his real name is John B Thompson (according to faxed letter), I would assume it's this guy:
      John Bruce Thompson

      Member in Good Standing Eligible to practice in Florida

      ID Number: - 231665
      Firm:
      1172 S Dixie Hwy Ste 111
      Coral Gables Florida 331462918
      Phone: 305.6664366
      Fax:
      E-Mail: jackpeace@comcast.net
      County: Dade
      Circuit: 11
      Admitted: 05/31/1977
      (Found on this site)
    22. Re:Disbarrment by HardCase · · Score: 4, Informative

      Look up John Bruce Thompson. "Jack" is a nickname.

      John Bruce Thompson

      Member in Good Standing Eligible to practice in Florida

      ID Number: - 231665
      Firm:
      1172 S Dixie Hwy Ste 111
      Coral Gables Florida 331462918
      Phone: 305.6664366
      Fax:
      E-Mail: jackpeace@comcast.net
      County: Dade
      Circuit: 11
      Admitted: 05/31/1977


      From the Florida Bar Association web site. Don't sue me, Jack!

      -h-

    23. Re:Disbarrment by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Well, if you send him an email and he replies, would that not imply you've got some sort of involvement with him? Wouldn't that allow you to file a complaint against him?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    24. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, now. You shouldn't pretend to be stupid people. It'll reflect poorly on your DNS! Have some pride!

    25. Re:Disbarrment by deesine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If only we had more AG's like Eliot Spitzer! He's one of the only AG's in the country to take on corporate corruption; most notably the Wall Street gangs.

      I haven't followed his career lately; got any "power go to his head" links?

      --
      damaged by dogma
    26. Re:Disbarrment by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      definatly

      finite begat definite begat definitely begat indefinitely

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    27. Re:Disbarrment by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      My bad. If you check the PA letter it lists his name as John B Thompson.

      If you check the flabar.org site, he's in there as John Bruce Thompson, Coral Gables Florida. Does have his contact info though.

    28. Re:Disbarrment by Jambon · · Score: 1
      It's going to happen very soon now, as Jack is getting loonier and loonier.

      The fact that it hasn't happened yet is what scares me. That he has been allowed to continue to go on his insane tirades says a lot about the sanity of the rest of the country. To be concerned about young children playing violent video games is one thing, but to do what he has done is completely different. If the majority of the population can't see that this man isn't right in the head, that frightens me. I do not want these people voting. Maybe most people do see that he is insane, but won't do anything about it. Either way, the end result is the same: a loonie lawyer running around suing people.

    29. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't think he can sue you. The information is publicly-available and he's posted essentially the same information at his own website, StopKill.com:

      If you want to help your state pass a constitutional law to prohibit the sale of these virtual reality murder and sex simulators to children, if you want any additional information or help, or if you want to help Jack Thompson in any fashion, including prayer, please contact him at 1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111, Coral Gables, Florida, or phone him at 305-666-4366. May God bless you, keep you, and protect you and yours.

      And here is the WHOIS info, confirming his ownership of the site:
      Registrant:
      Jack Thompson
      Jack Thompson
      1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
      Coral Gables, FL 33146
      US
      Email: greytop@comcast.net

      Registrar Name....: REGISTER.COM, INC.
      Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
      Registrar Homepage: www.register.com

      Domain Name: stopkill.com

      Created on..............: Tue, Dec 03, 2002
      Expires on..............: Sat, Dec 03, 2005
      Record last updated on..: Sat, Oct 15, 2005

      Administrative Contact:
      Jack Thompson
      Jack Thompson
      1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
      Coral Gables, FL 33146
      US
      Phone: 1-305-6664366
      Email: greytop@comcast.net

      Technical Contact:
      Register.Com
      Domain Registrar
      575 8th Avenue 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10018
      US
      Phone: 1-902-7492701
      Email: domain-registrar@register.com

      DNS Servers:

      dns28.register.com
      dns27.register.com

      Thank you all. And God Bless!

      Btw, has "Jack" opened himself up to legal liability for registering his website under a nickname, rather than his proper legal name?
    30. Re:Disbarrment by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      I smell junk mail....

      I wonder who he'd try blaming THAT on?

    31. Re:Disbarrment by magarity · · Score: 1

      This really reminds of of McCarthy. People eventually saw him for what he was, a fucking lunatic
       
      McCarthy was way too brusque for someone in elected office but hardly a lunatic. The KGB's Verona files revealed that there WERE a couple of hundred people on their payroll working in the State Department and FBI during McCarthy's time in office.
       
      I bet you're also confused about Senator McCarthy (who was concerned about Soviet spies working in sensitive areas of the Federal government) versus the House subcommittee on un-American Activities (whose concern was communist/socialist promoters in Hollywood. Movies like 'The Majestic' would have you think both are the same, but they were completely different.

    32. Re:Disbarrment by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      ID Number: - 231665
      Phone: 305.6664366

      Man he came so close to having several references to 666 in his info. Got one in the prefix anyway ;)

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    33. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Recently he refused, completely, to prosecute a town council for passing and enforcing an ordinance against speeders. The local government has been ruthlessly fining people for doing 55 or 60 in 45mph zones, sometimes as much as $75 per incident. Despite their monopoly on local law enforcement and the supply of local roads, Spitzer's refused to do anything about it.

    34. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Michael Moore, Al Franken, virtually every other liberal comedian with a microphone, the New Black Panther Party, MoveOn.org, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc. etc. etc.

    35. Re:Disbarrment by pete6677 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's one example. I won't deny he has done some good in his career, but the story I link to shows a blatant abuse of power. But I forgot, Spitzer is a good guy according to Slashdot groupthink. This means the grandparent post and probably this one will be modded Troll.

    36. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, etc, etc, etc.

    37. Re:Disbarrment by wed128 · · Score: 1

      i don't think any university teaches "game programming". They teach Computer science, with which you can pretty much program, but a major like "Game Programming" would come from a tech school...

    38. Re:Disbarrment by kv9 · · Score: 2, Informative

      i don't think any university teaches "game programming".

      you sure about that?
    39. Re:Disbarrment by Quaoar · · Score: 1

      I like how his phone number includes the mark of the beast.

      --
      I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
    40. Re:Disbarrment by jafomatic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Guildhall? Teaching the arts and sciences of digital game development seems to be right on. They've been around a few years, if I recall. Funny, I remember seeing their ads on, you guessed it, penny-arcade.com a couple/few years ago.

      --
      ::jafomatic
    41. Re:Disbarrment by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that whenever patents come up, people (not necessarially you, or your group of people) always say "oh, so-and-so company isn't 'abusing' the system, since thats how the laws are! They're only doing what the laws let them do!"

      Frankly, this "Martin Act" sounds like it was a bad law to begin with. Perhaps the solution is to fix the laws allowing this "abuse" of power, rather than to revile the people using them to their own ends.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    42. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should come as no surprise that his phone number (after the area code) starts with 666.

    43. Re:Disbarrment by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      I'd almost be willing to bet that "Jack" is a shortended version of an insult toward him. =]

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    44. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that both parties and their fan clubs are full of assholes, fascists, idiots, etc., etc., etc.

    45. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=1172+South+Di xie+Hwy+Suite+111,+Coral+Gables,+FL

      Would this fall into the catagory of terror threat sorta like what the Indian Prime Minister was worried about?

    46. Re:Disbarrment by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      So?

      McCarthy didn't know them. He ran around yelling about how he had a list, and it was entirely bogus.

      In fact, that probably hindered the whole commie-tracking in the government, which needed doing. (As opposed to the commie-tracking in Hollywood, which was just idiotic.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    47. Re:Disbarrment by Meagermanx · · Score: 2, Funny

      suuuuure you did.
      You're just trying to cover up your cache.

    48. Re:Disbarrment by muzthe42nd · · Score: 0

      Over this side of the pond, Abertay University has a Computer Games Technology course...

      --
      Pfft - Sorry, what?
    49. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      liberal comedian

      This is redundant. Conservatives aren't funny!

    50. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention Alan Ralsky, Scott Richter, The SCO Group...

    51. Re:Disbarrment by Rasputin · · Score: 1

      "McCarthy was way too brusque for someone in elected office but hardly a lunatic. The KGB's Verona files revealed that there WERE a couple of hundred people on their payroll working in the State Department and FBI during McCarthy's time in office."

      But the newly (2003) released transcripts of McCarthy's hearings paint him as more of a professional asshole than a lunatic:

      http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/05/mccarthy .hearings/

      And after all those lives he destroyed in his pursuit of Communists, how many did he catch? Zippo.

      --
      "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
    52. Re:Disbarrment by diablomonic · · Score: 1

      Here in Melbourne, Australia almost all the Universities now have a games programming course of some description. I will actually be lecturing a 3rd year games programming subject at latrobe uni here next year and have been head tutor for a few games subjects for a while now (we have had a specific games programming stream of CS for a few years now).

      --
      watch "the money masters" on google video
    53. Re:Disbarrment by tundog · · Score: 1

      ROTFL. I want everyone that reads this post to send an email to jackpeace@comcast.net as follows:

      Subject: Jack

      Dear Jack,

      Please don't sue me, Jack!!!

      Sincerely,

      Jack

      --
      All your base are belong to us!
    54. Re:Disbarrment by WaR.KiN · · Score: 1

      It's going to happen very soon now, as Jack is getting loonier and loonier. He keeps dancing around direct legal threats, because he knows what will happen. Soon he will slip, and soon after that he won't be a lawyer anymore, and won't THAT be a shame?
      In the USA, who knows... He could as well end up as Judge in the Supreme Court because he knows the third cousin of George Bush or something.

    55. Re:Disbarrment by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Yea, y'know seeing that same off-topic nonsense in every thread gets old fast. I get it. You don't like GWB. I don't like him much either, but he was elected, and he's not going away until the next election.

      Spewing crap like that doesn't help anything. It only makes people write you off as either a European (who wouldn't understand that we dont' hold elections every time someone thinks a Prime Minister shat on their cat. No offense guys, but we have a slightly different system, so it's not helpful. Besides, its our government, not yours. Kindly butt out. I don't bitch about the German elections, or the ones in the UK.), or a sore loser (Kerry lost. Get over it and rally for the next election)

      It's not even clever or funny anymore. It's been done to death. Get new material.

      If you really don't like the current administration, come up with an alternative if you're a US Citizen. Make suggestions, find a candidate. Make a difference instead of just making noise.

      I'm looking for alternatives myself, but I'm not likely to take a cue from people who act like children who weren't given the lollypop they wanted and threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    56. Re:Disbarrment by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      That's very interesting. I thought Full Sail had a focus on game design.

    57. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slander and lible

      "libel".

    58. Re:Disbarrment by Periodicity · · Score: 1

      McCarthy didn't know them. He ran around yelling about how he had a list, and it was entirely bogus.

      He did have a list of security risks in the government. He made a famous speech in the Senate listing the cases and the evidence against them. I don't know in what sense you think that's "bogus."

      In fact, that probably hindered the whole commie-tracking in the government, which needed doing.

      This is a common hypothesis thrown out by McCarthy's political enemies, but it doesn't fit the facts. The FBI regularly made reports of security risks in the government (with evidence), especially in the State Department and the military, which were ignored. After McCarthy started his investigations and questioned people as to why this sort of thing was ignored, security was tightened and more people who were security risks were thrown out.

    59. Re:Disbarrment by Periodicity · · Score: 1

      But the newly (2003) released transcripts of McCarthy's hearings paint him as more of a professional asshole than a lunatic:

      Actually, go and read them. Not articles about them, the actual transcripts. You'll be surprised at how little the common perception of McCarthy's investigations match reality. Be one of those people who knows the facts, not what's in the movies.

      You'll mostly see him patiently questioning witnesses, many of whom plead the fifth amendment (sometimes legitimately, sometimes not.) He sounds just like a trial lawyer questioning a defendant. He's not an "asshole" any more than prosecuting attorneys are assholes. It's just that he's investigating security risks in the government, not conducting a criminal trial.

      And after all those lives he destroyed in his pursuit of Communists,

      List some lives he destroyed. Go on, try to find some names. This is another one of those urban legends about McCarthy. You won't find much.

      how many did he catch? Zippo.

      Well, in what sense was he supposed to "catch" them? He wasn't the FBI or the police. It wasn't his job to deal out indictments. In many cases, he drew attention to security risks who should be fired, and they were. Many people he questioned were clearly spies, communists, or covering for others who were. Often he was questioning members of the government about why security risks in the areas of their responsibility were not being removed or investigated.

    60. Re:Disbarrment by Physician · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should do some research on McCarthy yourself. He singlehandedly saved our country from the communist threat. Don't listen to all the liberal bs spin that turns this hero into a lunatic. Please don't put this hack Thompson and McCarthy in the same sentence.

      --
      Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
    61. Re:Disbarrment by smbarbour · · Score: 1

      I know Jack Thompson is a lawyer, but he's not very bright. He obviously forgot that (forgive the intensity) IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO FILE A FALSE REPORT. I hope someone who can do something about it reads this.

    62. Re:Disbarrment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You'll mostly see him patiently questioning witnesses, many of whom plead the fifth amendment (sometimes legitimately, sometimes not.)


      When it is the Constitutional right against self incrimination illegitimate?
    63. Re:Disbarrment by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      The difference is that none of those people have the ear of the government like Thomson and McCarthy. The people, maybe, but not the government. Besides, comparing Coulter and Thompson to Moore and Franken is the worst kind of equivocating. Moore's no saint, but Coulter is a freaking lunatic.

    64. Re:Disbarrment by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      according to Slashdot groupthink

      Oh, come on, there's no such thing. This crowd can't even agree on what text editor to use.

      Just because there are people who disagree with you, doesn't make you into some kind of martyred hero of free speech. And complaining about 'bias' and a lack of 'objectivity' won't win people over to your side, it only makes you sound like a spoiled whiner.

    65. Re:Disbarrment by Periodicity · · Score: 1

      When it is the Constitutional right against self incrimination illegitimate?

      Sometimes witnesses would plead the fifth when refusing to answer a question that wouldn't incriminate themselves. (For example, they were trying to protect others.)

      Either way, when witnesses were pleading the fifth, something was definitely up. This goes against the common wisdom that McCarthy "didn't catch anyone."

    66. Re:Disbarrment by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      I don't know where you got your history lesson from.

      He did have a list of 205 apparent security risks. (Not all communists, as he claimed occasionally. Only about half were even possibly communists.)

      However, none of the people that had been identified as possible communists by him were identified as security risks by the Tydings Committe.

      After they were cleared, the State Department started an internal witchhunt called the State Department's Loyalty Security Board and hounded many of them out of a job or dismissed them for made up reasons.

      And, yes, after his little attack, more people who were apparent security risks were thrown out. Whether this helped anything or not is debatable.

      Anyway, McCarthy's list was completely bogus. Every person was cleared by Congress, every one of them, as non-security risks.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    67. Re:Disbarrment by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      List some lives he destroyed. Go on, try to find some names. This is another one of those urban legends about McCarthy. You won't find much.

      There are 81 people on his list who were cleared by the Senate's Tydings Committee, who were then hounded out of their job by an internal witchhunt in the State Department that was a direct result of McCarthy's actions. 81.

      Many people he questioned were clearly spies, communists, or covering for others who were.

      And, apparently, no other member of Congress could see this, because they cleared every single one as not being a security risk.

      Look, we all realize that stupid people get him and HUAC mixed up. That doesn't change the fact that his 'list' amounted to nothing, and did, in fact, screw up the lives of quite a few people, who got tainted by the label of 'communist' and got let go or forced to resign from the State Department after being legally cleared.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    68. Re:Disbarrment by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Whereas the actual fact that he didn't catch anyone would seem to tip the scales towards the common wisdom that, you know, he didn't catch anyone.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    69. Re:Disbarrment by Periodicity · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you got your history lesson from.

      My usual procedure is to read both sides of an argument, then check the evidence to see who's right.

      He did have a list of 205 apparent security risks. (Not all communists, as he claimed occasionally. Only about half were even possibly communists.)

      Did he really claim they were all communists? In his speeches, he said that the 205 were security risks, and that he had the names of 57 who were members of or who supported the communist party.

      McCarthy's political opponents claimed that he was making up the lists, and as evidence pointed to the two different numbers 57 and 205, when these clearly referred to different things.

      However, none of the people that had been identified as possible communists by him were identified as security risks by the Tydings Committe.

      The Tydings Committee was partisan and bogus. I don't have transcripts to hand, but you'll find it was a bit of a whitewash. The Tydings Committee failed to investigate these charges properly, as they were supposed to do.

      Notable cases where the charges were correct were Owen Lattimore, Philip Jessup, and John Stewart Service.

      After they were cleared, the State Department started an internal witchhunt called the State Department's Loyalty Security Board and hounded many of them out of a job or dismissed them for made up reasons.

      So, the State Department Loyalty Security Board worked on it for months and said some of them were security risks, and out they went. The Tydings Committee said all of them were not security risks. Who's more likely to be right? Do you really think that of the dozens of cases in the list, none of them were communists or security risks? Not even one? Doesn't that seem fishy to you? You'd think that, even by chance, there'd be one or two.

      The original list of 205 wasn't produced by McCarthy sitting at home one day pulling out names from the State Department staff directory at random. It came from an FBI report that had been given earlier to the State Department. The FBI didn't choose names randomly either. Think about what the "I" stands for.

      McCarthy wanted to know why more had not been done to investigate the charges in the report.

      McCarthy definitely did not want to smear all of these people. When he made a speech in the senate listing the evidence against them, he refused to give the names of each of them, in case some of them turned out to be innocent. His opponents continuously interrupted him and asked for the names, but he refused to give them out in open session, to avoid the possibility of putting a black mark against an innocent man's name.

      So much for McCarthy's witch hunt.

      Every person was cleared by Congress, every one of them, as non-security risks.

      They might have been "cleared" by a blanket statement by the Tydings Committee that McCarthy's list was rubbish, but many of them were later found to be security risks by other congressional committees, and by the State Department.

      This is more an indictment of the Tydings committee than anyone else.

    70. Re:Disbarrment by Periodicity · · Score: 1

      There are 81 people on his list who were cleared by the Senate's Tydings Committee, who were then hounded out of their job by an internal witchhunt in the State Department that was a direct result of McCarthy's actions. 81.

      Ok, but to show that these were all innocent people, you have to show that the Tydings Committee was right and State Department security was wrong.

      And, apparently, no other member of Congress could see this

      Not every other member of Congress, just the Tydings Committee. And the committee didn't try very hard.

    71. Re:Disbarrment by Periodicity · · Score: 1
      Whereas the actual fact that he didn't catch anyone would seem to tip the scales towards the common wisdom that, you know, he didn't catch anyone.

      Ok then, here are some quotes from the senate transcripts. I got them just by randomly searching for "espionage" and "fifth amendment."

      Here's McCarthy questioning someone:
      The CHAIRMAN. Have you been in contact with any one at the Signal Corps Laboratories or Telecommunications within the past six weeks?
      Mr. FINESTONE. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
      The CHAIRMAN. Have you been engaging in espionage?
      Mr. FINESTONE. Sir?
      The CHAIRMAN. Have you been engaging in espionage?
      Mr. FINESTONE. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
      The CHAIRMAN. Are you an espionage agent as of today?
      Mr. FINESTONE. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
      The CHAIRMAN. Are you in the pay of the Communist conspiracy as of today?
      Mr. FINESTONE. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.

      Wow. This guy's clearly innocent. Here's another one:
      The CHAIRMAN. Were you an espionage agent when you were handling secret material over at the Army Signal Corps?
      Mr. ULLMANN. I must decline to answer on the grounds that a truthful answer may tend to incriminate me, sir.
      The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever pass secret material to members of the Communist party when you were working at the Signal Corps?
      Mr. ULLMANN. I must decline to answer, sir, on the grounds stated.

      Ooh, this one's cleverly avoided being "caught" too.

      So, I guess if you want to weasel out of this, you'd say that McCarthy didn't "catch" these people because they denied the charges against them despite the evidence, or pleaded the fifth amendment. Or that someone else originally uncovered the evidence that these individuals were communists or spies, so maybe McCarthy wasn't the one who "caught" them. (Maybe for some of the witnesses it was McCarthy who first found them, but I'm not going to trawl through documents to find one.)

      But this would be missing McCarthy's major point. McCarthy's primary goal was not to personally chase down individual communists and uncover their activities or have them fired from sensitive positions. (Although he did succeed in doing that.) That's the FBI's job, and other security services' job. McCarthy wanted to know why they didn't always seem to be doing that job. The famous Army-McCarthy hearings came about because McCarthy wanted to question army officials about this kind of thing, and they refused to answer him.
    72. Re:Disbarrment by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      No, I don't have to show that, because only a few of those people were actually 'dismissed' for being security risks. (And I don't know where you go 'innocent' from. None of them were found guilty of anything.)

      The rest were, like I said, hounded out of their job by internal investigations that didn't go anywhere.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    73. Re:Disbarrment by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      It looks like these people, unlike some people in recent memory, actually had good lawyers. And, no matter how you want to think otherwise, refusing to answer questions under oath because they might incriminate you is not solely restricted to the guilty, it's also true of people who are pissed off and people who are worried you're trying to trap them in perjury, both of which would describe this bunch.

      And the Senate can grant immunity to people, and force them to testify. It did not.

      And none of these people ever got charged with any crime, so it wasn't someone else who 'discovered' them. Let me repeat that for you, as that seems to be the sticking point: None of the people on his list were charged with espionage. None of them were 'spies', or, if they were, we never learned it.

      And considering we had a damn list of them, who refused to answer the question, it seems rather unlikely we'd have missed them if they were. Normally, spies have to, you know, operate in secret.

      See, that was the thing. McCarthy got a list of POSSIBLE SECURITY RISKS. Not known security risks, not known communists, but possible security risks, which other people had already looked at and decided were okay.

      He then hauled them in front of the Senate and ask them if they were spies, when he had no evidence whatsoever of that. They were all found innocent of being spies and real security risks.

      At which point the State Department, left with these hot potatos, managed to get rid of many of them.

      And, hell, a few of them probably should have been removed. That doesn't justify this whole thing. He went about it in a total political and self-serving way, dragging these people into the spotlight and screwing up their life, ranting about 'Communists shaping policy' when the real issue was 'This person probably should not be trusted with secret info, because they have a drinking problem/links to communist organizations/are gay and can be blackmailed'.

      What should he have done? Well, either the Senate had the authority to force the State Department to follow certain standards, and should have actually passed a law doing so, or it didn't have the authority, and they should have stayed away. (I honestly don't know which is true.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    74. Re:Disbarrment by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Did he really claim they were all communists? In his speeches, he said that the 205 were security risks, and that he had the names of 57 who were members of or who supported the communist party.

      Yes, he occasionally claimed he had a list of 205 communists, despite that fact that some of them had been put on the list by the FBI for, for example, drinking problems or blackmailable reasons. He was actually tried for prejury because of that, later on.

      And he constantly harped about how Communists were setting the State Department agenda, which was completely unrelated to the issue of security risks.

      See, your interpetation makes sense...if this had been the only time he'd done this. McCarthy screamed communist for political gain repeatedly. He'd done it before, and he did it again later.

      At some point in time, he discovered a list of possible security risks working at the State Department, compiled by the FBI. Some of the names were there because of communist connections. He immediately started talking about how communists were shaping policy at the State Department, which was a completely absurd charge, and it went downhill from there.

      As for not naming names, you can either think that was because he didn't want to screw up people's lives, except, of course, he did eventually name names. Or you can think he just wanted to make it harder to disprove his list at that time.

      And your two of your examples are insane. Philip Jessup was cleared of all charges by State Department's Loyalty Security Board, so even your claims the Tydings Committee was a whitewash leave you with no support of your idea he was actually a security risk. He's one of the few people who actually stayed put and said 'prove it'. John Stewart Service was dismissed as a security risk by the Loyalty Security Board, but sued and was cleared and reinstated.

      Owen Lattimore, OTOH, is a prime example of why you never answer questions under oath, as he was cleared of everything by Tydings but arrested for perjury because he'd denied he'd ever promoted communism. (However, he certainly was a security risk, on of the few actual ones.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    75. Re:Disbarrment by Periodicity · · Score: 1
      Yes, he occasionally claimed he had a list of 205 communists, despite that fact that some of them had been put on the list by the FBI for, for example, drinking problems or blackmailable reasons. He was actually tried for prejury because of that, later on.

      Is this about the speech in Wheeling? The congressional committee that investigated him found that McCarthy was probably telling the truth, that he had said he had the names of 57 communists, not 205. But whatever, maybe he exaggerated. Boo hoo. That's better than letting soviet spies keep their jobs in the state department.

      I can't think of a time when McCarthy was tried for perjury. Do you have a reference for that?

      He immediately started talking about how communists were shaping policy at the State Department, which was a completely absurd charge, and it went downhill from there.

      That they were "shaping policy" might be debatable, although there was plenty of evidence for people who wanted to argue that line. But there were certainly communist spies and security risks who were working in the State Department and shouldn't have been. His charges were not "completely absurd."

      As for not naming names, you can either think that was because he didn't want to screw up people's lives, except, of course, he did eventually name names. Or you can think he just wanted to make it harder to disprove his list at that time.

      Only the first interpretation fits the facts. The Democrats already had the names, and Senator McCarthy even *offered to give them* the names in closed session. Not giving them the names during that speech, in open session, did nothing significant to "make it harder to disprove his list." He just didn't want the list given in public since some of them could turn out to be in the clear, just as he said.

      Here, have a quote from McCarthy, just to nail it down:

      "The Senator from Illinois demanded, loudly, that I furnish all the names. I told him at that time that so far as I was concerned, I thought that would be improper, that I did not have all the information about these individuals. I have enough to convince me that either they are members of the Communist Party or they have given great aid to the Communists; I may be wrong. That is why I said that unless the Senate demanded that I do so, I would not submit this publicly, but I would submit it to any committee, and would let the committee go over these in executive session. It is possible that some of these persons will get a clean bill of health."

      Owen Lattimore, OTOH, is a prime example of why you never answer questions under oath,

      Oh yes, brilliant legal strategy. Don't answer any questions. Have a nice time in jail, Owen.

      (However, he certainly was a security risk, on of the few actual ones.)

      So the Tydings committee was wrong to claim he wasn't a security risk?

      How many more cases did they get wrong, in your opinion?

    76. Re:Disbarrment by Periodicity · · Score: 1

      No, I don't have to show that, because only a few of those people were actually 'dismissed' for being security risks.

      Ok, how many is "a few"? I'd be interested to know how many cases you admit the Tydings committee got wrong.

      (And I don't know where you go 'innocent' from. None of them were found guilty of anything.)

      I mean "innocent" simply in the sense of the accusations not being true, not innocent of some formal criminal charge.

      The rest were, like I said, hounded out of their job by internal investigations that didn't go anywhere.

      I'd like some documentation on that.

    77. Re:Disbarrment by Periodicity · · Score: 1

      no matter how you want to think otherwise, refusing to answer questions under oath because they might incriminate you is not solely restricted to the guilty,

      Uh, what? Of course it is. Your answers can't incriminate you if you're not guilty of anything, so by definition it's restricted to the guilty.

      it's also true of people who are pissed off and people who are worried you're trying to trap them in perjury, both of which would describe this bunch.

      Do you really think these were innocent people who lied and made themselves look like spies, just to spite McCarthy? "How dare McCarthy accuse me of being a spy! I know, I'll pretend I *really am* a spy, that'll teach him!"

      I suppose I could research one of the cases, round up the evidence, and list it here. But you'd probably do what you did with Lattimore, and say "well ok, that guy was a communist and should have been fired. But the rest of them weren't!" So I'm not going to bother.

      Not known security risks, not known communists, but possible security risks, which other people had already looked at and decided were okay.

      Originally, they were listed as being security risks. McCarthy wanted to know what happened about them -- whether the original assessment didn't hold up, or whether they should be fired. Given the high-profile spy cases in the State Department, where warnings from the FBI about security risks were ignored, it was a prudent question to ask.

    78. Re:Disbarrment by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      See, here's where you're confused.

      Being an security risk is an opinion.

      It is not guilt, or innocence, although someone accused of it can, if they care much, can prove the specific facts used to come to that conclusion are not true, like John Stewart Service did. In most cases, however, the facts were correct.

      The Tyding committee can be right, as can the State Department's Loyalty Security Board, even if they come to different conclusions about the same person.

      The State Department (and a few other agencies) had looked at the evidence before, and came to the opinion that none of those people were security risks. McCarthy looked at the list, and came to the opinion that surely some of those people had to be security risks. The Tyding Committee looked at it and said, no, what the State Department decided was fine.

      Then, later on, the State Department decided that some of them were, in fact security risks. Some of these decisions were provably wrong, where incorrect facts were used in the process. Many of them where 'true', in that the facts could be used to come to that conclusion. A few of them I would probably agree with, that those people shouldn't be working for the State Department.

      But the entire process of re-examining that list was purely political. I don't think that someone can suddenly become 'more' of a risk because pressure has been brought to bear. You can argue that the standards of 'risk' were lowered, which might or might not be true.

      However, that doesn't mean it was actually lowered to the correct level, or that the previous level was incorrect.

      Or you can argue that those political embarassments were removed as much as possible, instead of actually concentrating on the most 'risky' people, which is what I say is what happened.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    79. Re:Disbarrment by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      I can't think of a time when McCarthy was tried for perjury. Do you have a reference for that?

      Sorry, he was just accused of being a liar and commmiting perjury, by Congressman Bennett. McCarthy then sued over it, but eventually dropped the case when it looked like he wasn't going to win, because he actually had said those things.

      Oh yes, brilliant legal strategy. Don't answer any questions. Have a nice time in jail, Owen.

      What are you talking about? The only crime that Lattimore was ever accused of was lying to Congress.

      So the Tydings committee was wrong to claim he wasn't a security risk?

      No. Being a security risk is an opinion.

      However, he was rather pro-communist, and him working in the State Department was something I wouldn't have allowed, unless he was kept well away from classified material and policy.

      He certainly shouldn't have been allowed to work there after lying to Congress. But, of course, they didn't know that at the time.

      However, having a list of 205 people and claiming they are 'risks' and having one person on that list apparently being such a risk is not really evidence that the thing was worth it.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    80. Re:Disbarrment by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Uh, what? Of course it is. Your answers can't incriminate you if you're not guilty of anything, so by definition it's restricted to the guilty.

      No, it's not.

      Almost every single defendant in criminal cases refuses to testify. It's dangerous to testify if the state is pressing a case against you. If the case fails, and they think are guilty, they might comb over your testimony for perjury out of spite, and try you for that.

      It's even more dangerous when there isn't an actual case against you, just a hearing about your suitablity for a job. At worse, all refusing to testify can do is make you lose your job, whereas testifing and trying to hide something can get you arrested, which happened, if you recall, to Lattimore. (And, actually they might have recourse under the law if dimissed. See here, although that ruling was two decades later.)

      If you think that refusing to testify is limited to guilty people, you must be one of those people who thinks every defendant is guilty.

      Almost the only defendants who take the stand are ones who lied at some point earlier about something, and were called on it, and know the only way they'll be believed now is if they personally get up there and explain why they lied earlier. (Well, and sometimes people in misdemeanors, and obviously some people who don't listen their lawyer.)

      As for the legal justification? Read the fifth. It doesn't say you can't be compelled to incriminate yourself, despite that being the phrasing people say to use it.

      It says, quite clearly, that, 'No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself'.

      Legally, you're a 'witness against yourself' if you're testifying WRT to yourself, regardless of what you say. Yes, that sounds odd, but that's been what that's meant since before the US existed.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    81. Re:Disbarrment by Periodicity · · Score: 1

      Sorry, he was just accused of being a liar and commmiting perjury, by Congressman Bennett. McCarthy then sued over it, but eventually dropped the case when it looked like he wasn't going to win, because he actually had said those things. I'd like some evidence that he dropped this case "because he actually said those things." The congressional investigation said he didn't. What's your opinion based on? Or is this all referring to a different speech of McCarthy's? What are you talking about? The only crime that Lattimore was ever accused of was lying to Congress. Have a think about what happens if you refuse to answer questions from congress. However, having a list of 205 people and claiming they are 'risks' and having one person on that list apparently being such a risk is not really evidence that the thing was worth it. I see. Well tell me this: a) How many people do you think were such a risk? b) How many people need to be a risk before it was worth bothering to investigate?

    82. Re:Disbarrment by Periodicity · · Score: 1
      You're confusing being the defendant in a criminal trial with being asked to testify before congress.

      Read this quote again:

      The CHAIRMAN. Were you an espionage agent when you were handling secret material over at the Army Signal Corps?
      Mr. ULLMANN. I must decline to answer on the grounds that a truthful answer may tend to incriminate me, sir.

      He didn't say "I don't want to answer" or "I don't have to answer." He said "a truthful answer may tend to incriminate me."

      This is a different matter to refusing to testify in a criminal trial in which you're the accused.
    83. Re:Disbarrment by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      This is a different matter to refusing to testify in a criminal trial in which you're the accused.

      No, it's not. Not legally. You can always refuse to answer questions about your own involvement or lack thereof in a crime, for any reason, whether you did it or not, any time under oath, or even merely when talking to the government in other circumstances, like filling out forms.

      That may not be obvious from reading the 5th, but that's been caselaw for 200 years. That's why police officers say 'You have the right to remain silent'. Not 'You have the right to not say incriminating things specifically about a certain crime', you have the right not to speak at all.

      Oddly enough, it's been one of the few rights not whittled away at, at least not until this whole 'torture' thing started being okay.

      Now, you're thinking that 'They weren't charged with a crime, so they have to testify'. If they aren't being charged with a crime and are testifying in court as witnesses, true, the rules are laxer, and they can only refuse to answer questions that will, in fact, incriminate themselves.

      Note the wording. They can refuse to answer questions designed to incriminate themselves, even if the answers would not, in fact, do so. So 'them not being charged' only works if they were being asked innocent questions, it doesn't work if you're asking them questions to determine if they had, in fact, been spies. You can't call someone into court for witnessing a traffic accident and start questioning them about a murder they committed, and require them to answer. Even if they didn't do it.

      Seriously, haven't you ever watched Matlock, or any of those legal mysteries where a witness on the stand turns out to be the guilty party, and when they realize the game is up, they stop answering questions and aren't arrested for contempt? Because if their questions are about their guilt, or are even trying to prove their guilt despite them being innocent, they don't have to answer anymore.

      As I've already pointed out that one of the few things that ever came of the hearings was someone getting charged with perjury, I think it's pretty obvious that refusing to answer questions was a good idea.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    84. Re:Disbarrment by Periodicity · · Score: 1

      No, it's not.

      Yes, it is, as I explain below.

      You can always refuse to answer questions about your own involvement or lack thereof in a crime, for any reason, whether you did it or not, any time under oath, or even merely when talking to the government in other circumstances, like filling out forms.

      There are exceptions to this, but they're not relevant here.

      That's why police officers say 'You have the right to remain silent'. Not 'You have the right to not say incriminating things specifically about a certain crime', you have the right not to speak at all.

      Answering questions from the police when you're charged with a crime is different to answering questions from congress.

      Now, you're thinking that

      Don't be silly, you don't know what other people are thinking.

      They can refuse to answer questions designed to incriminate themselves, even if the answers would not, in fact, do so.

      That's nice. But that's not what the witness I quoted said he was doing. You can argue that he misspoke, but this really isn't an important point.

      Seriously, haven't you ever watched Matlock, or any of those legal mysteries where a witness on the stand turns out to be the guilty party, and when they realize the game is up, they stop answering questions

      Yeah, but do you then sit there and think "well, he must be innocent?" That's the point I was making. It isn't proof that he's guilty, but you'd think twice before declaring him innocent.

      and aren't arrested for contempt?

      Well, duh. The people who went to jail for contempt for not answering McCarthy's questions were the ones who refused to answer questions for which they couldn't plead the fifth. Like I said, congressional testimony and a criminal trial are different, and this is one of the reasons why.

      Your hypothetical advice for people to just "refuse to answer questions" would land them in jail, just like I said, because inevitably some of the questions would not be ones for which they could plead the fifth.

      As I've already pointed out that one of the few things that ever came of the hearings was someone getting charged with perjury, I think it's pretty obvious that refusing to answer questions was a good idea.

      Let's stipulate that it was a good idea for them to plead the fifth when they did.

      But were any of them spies, communists or security risks? Did McCarthy expose instances of lax security in the government or not? Did he have good reason to look? These are the important questions, and the answer to all of them is "yes."

      My original point was that the common myth that none of the people McCarthy questioned were communists/security risks/soviet spies is bogus (and largely misses the point of the hearings). Quoting people taking the fifth under questioning was a comical way to demonstrate how silly the idea is. I could take the time to go through lists of witnesses and the evidence against them instead, but that takes longer and isn't as amusing.

    85. Re:Disbarrment by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      It isn't proof that he's guilty, but you'd think twice before declaring him innocent.

      I don't think I need to say anything more at this point.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    86. Re:Disbarrment by Periodicity · · Score: 1


      It isn't proof that he's guilty, but you'd think twice before declaring him innocent.

      I don't think I need to say anything more at this point.


      I see, so that only works in your Matlock analogy, and not in real life? Why did you make it then? Or is it that you disagree with the principle that someone is legally innocent before being proved guilty?

      I'll take your refusal to answer the rest as a concession.

    87. Re:Disbarrment by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      You're the person who has issue with it, and apparently thinks people have to be 'declared' innocent.

      People are innocent until found guilty. They don't need any sort of determination to reach that status.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    88. Re:Disbarrment by Periodicity · · Score: 1

      You're the person who has issue with it, and apparently thinks people have to be

      Stop talking nonsense. You're just trolling now because you lost the argument.

      Assuming someone is guilty or assuming someone is innocent, without considering the evidence, is stupid. Stop defending stupidity.

      Nobody here disagrees with the principle of people being legally innocent before being proved guilty.

  2. Wow by Tebriel · · Score: 1

    The man gets a $10k tax break from Gabe and Tycho and he goes to the cops.

    The man's intelligence must be so staggering, it's beyond my comprehension.

    Or maybe he's a just a loony.

    --
    The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
    1. Re:Wow by schon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thompson himself started this mess.

      <imitation type="loser jack">
      No, he didn't! no he didn't! no he didn't!

      The VG cats guys started it when they replied to the email he sent them!
      </imitation>

    2. Re:Wow by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Umm, a $10k tax break doesn't do you any good if you lose or give away the $10k. You're still down $10k, less the taxes you would have paid on the 10k.

      Much better from a purely financial standpoint to not give away the money at all, with certain limited specific exceptions (I am not a tax accountant).

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:Wow by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      Yes, except Jack Thompson is out $0 and he gets the $10k break. So, he stands to gain.

    4. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They gave the money in his name. He did not lose any money. If he can in fact write off the donation they made in his name then he has benefitted.

    5. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to even try to defend the guy (he is a jackass afterall) but I suspect that he is angry that Penny-Arcade indirectly released his email address and phone number; being that PA is one of the widest read web comics I suspect that he recieved hundreds of emails and phone calls (that would annoy anyone).

      Being a lawyer I would think that he would realize that what PA did (albeit annoying) is far from illegal, thus the cops can't do anything

    6. Re:Wow by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Actually, there are a few ways that charitable donations can be profitable for you. In this particular case however, the money was donated by PA, not him, so he would theoretically be saving money on this; except that he wont qualify for the tax break, PA will.

      All they've done (I assume) is say in the accompanying letter, "we are donating this on behalf of..."

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    7. Re:Wow by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      But, er, Jack didn't give away any money. Gabe and Tycho just donated the money in his name.

    8. Re:Wow by n9uxu8 · · Score: 1

      Though one can't say Prarie Ho' Companion on a shirt...

      Dave

    9. Re:Wow by Zediker · · Score: 1

      The thing is, since Jack has engaged himself in the public eye so much, he now qualifies as a 'public' figure, which means he is not immune to people making fun of him publicly, etc. So all of his 'threats' are pointless now because he can no longer back up the fact he wants to be left alone.

      --
      I love to slaughter the english language.
    10. Re:Wow by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      As a lawyer he knows, or should know, that you should never put anything in writing that you don't want somebody publishing, or somebody else's lawyer holding up in court.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    11. Re:Wow by baltimoretim · · Score: 3, Informative

      The guy's a jerk, but he won't get the tax break. That goes to the taxable entity that writes the donation check. You can make a donation to just about every nonprofit "in honor of" somebody, but if the donated funds come out of your bank account, you get the tax break.

    12. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no i don't think they did give out his e-mail he's just a jackass

    13. Re:Wow by Stripe7 · · Score: 1

      Well PA is getting a lot of free publicity from this right now. If they manage it well which they seem to have so far, Jack Thompson gets dipicted as a loony, ambulance chasing lawyer with political aspirations. If they can emphasise the loony ambulance chasing aspect strong enough, the current political movers will think twice about using his crusade as a political platform. In that case it will be a win situation for PA.

    14. Re:Wow by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      How does he get the break? If they give him the $10k, then he needs to declare that income, regardless of whether he donates it or not.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    15. Re:Wow by wo1verin3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      >> no i don't think they did give out his e-mail he's just a jackass

      well they didn't directly but they did link post this:

      You're all asking me for Jack's Email and or phone number and I respect that. The problem is that I can't give that info out. The fact is that Jack had time to call me after I sent him a sarcastic email. I have no doubt in my mind that he would try and pull some legal bullshit if I post his phone number.

      Did I ever mention how much I like VG cats?


      Check out the "VG cats?" link which I myself have not done. :)

    16. Re:Wow by GoRK · · Score: 4, Informative

      How can geeks be so smart and know nothing about tax law?

      Just because a donation is made in his name doesn't mean that he made it. To take a deduction on a charitable gift you actually have to document that you gave a charitable organization some of your money or goods of a certain value and they received it from you. In this case, PA (depending on how the company is actually structured and where the money actually came from) will probably get to take a deduction.

      The only case where a pure cash donation to charity can really be advantageous to your bottom line is if you are teetering on the edge and the deduction will drop your AGI into a lower bracket. You may also be able to help yourself if you can figure the donation in as an adjustment instead of a deduction (but this is not an easy set of rules to meet). You can also sometimes receive beneficial tax credits that when you donate in specific ways or to specific organizations such as with tsunami relief in 2004.

      A handy deduction tip: Give your old stuff away to charity instead of having a garage sale. If you are already itemizing your deductions anyway (most homeowners are in this boat) the tax savings from the deduction at a reasonable declared value will bring you more than taking pennies on the dollar from spendthrifts at your sale. Plus, you dont have to pay taxes on the income from the garage sale (since there is no income).

    17. Re:Wow by Tebriel · · Score: 1

      The More You Know!(Tm)

      --
      The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
    18. Re:Wow by kcb93x · · Score: 1

      Why not?

      Damnit, now you make me want to make one that says that and go to the State Fair next year, just to see the response...

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    19. Re:Wow by Kierthos · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I think the point is, though, that anyone who already wanted Jack's e-mail and phone # and whatnot, easily had it already from the aforementioned VG Cats link because the creator of VG Cats made no bones about publishing it weeks ago. Bloody hell, Thompson makes a point of attaching it to practically everything he sends out, so it's not like he's trying to hide it to begin with.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    20. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't think the government (at least on the federal level) uses tax brackets. Instead, each section of your income (the first $10,000, the next $10,000, from $20,000 to $40,000, etc. These are not actual values.) is taxed at a different rate. This is to prevent the exact problem you describe... you should never receive less money by earning more.

    21. Re:Wow by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Easy: Taxes are the ONE area of the law that require a post-doctorate degree.

      If you think that a random geek should grok the Tax code then you have 0.0 practical experience with the law or lawyers.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    22. Re:Wow by AngryUndead · · Score: 1

      Penny-Arcade did not release either his email or phonenumber. However, he did mention how much they liked VG-Cats.

      They provided a link to VG Cats, thats all...

      Of course, VG Cats had a page relating corespondance with Jack, and that included phone numbers and emails and such. Good stuff.

    23. Re:Wow by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Because the tax laws are over 100,000 pages long and rather difficult for those trained in Tax law to understand?

      They aren't exactly written from the taxpayer.

    24. Re:Wow by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1

      They didn't give _him_ the money, they gave the money at his name.

    25. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are garage sales really considered "income"? If I buy something for $10, then two years later sell it for $0.25, I've just LOST $9.75. How could a loss be considered profit?

    26. Re:Wow by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      A handy deduction tip: Give your old stuff away to charity instead of having a garage sale. If you are already itemizing your deductions anyway (most homeowners are in this boat) the tax savings from the deduction at a reasonable declared value will bring you more than taking pennies on the dollar from spendthrifts at your sale. Plus, you dont have to pay taxes on the income from the garage sale (since there is no income)

      Just for the sake of argument, lets assume your tax rate is 30%, and you figure a reasonable value of your garage sale crap is $500. That would generate a tax savings of $150.

      You'd be ahead of the game if you sold your $500 worth of crap for anything over $150, assuming you didn't bother to declare your garage sale income on your taxes, because honestly, who has ever done that? Anyone? Those must be the same people that declare Use tax.

      OTOH, at least you wouldn't have to waste a weekend selling your junk $5 at a time, and hauling the leftover stuff to the trash.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    27. Re:Wow by saintp · · Score: 1
      If you think that a random geek should grok the Tax code then you have 0.0 practical experience with the law or lawyers.
      So, wait, how much EXP do I get from a lawyer?
    28. Re:Wow by geekboy642 · · Score: 1

      Any geek can handle a 1040A, if there's no stocks, mutual funds, real estate sales, or more than a certain (very large) amount of income. It's pretty darn simple, all the directions are written right on the form. For Pete's sake, installing Ubuntu is harder. It'll take two to three hours of training to know how to LEGALLY fill out the related forms for the other crap. To get the best benefits out of the various forms, that takes about 40 hours of training. It's not until you're into "Tax Credits for my Special-Child Bowling League in a Racially Divided Foreign Nation Owned by my Corporation" that it starts getting really hairy. /worked as a VITA last tax season

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    29. Re:Wow by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      I take the best of both worlds - spread the junk out on tables, sit outside and sell whatever sells, and then donate the rest. That way, I get some money now, and some later - rather than having to wait all the way to April... :)

    30. Re:Wow by jebell · · Score: 1

      I think you're overlooking the fact that people who hold garage sales generally sell the items for LESS than they would declare their value for charitable deduction purposes. At least, that's what I would do.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    31. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he didn't make a report, he filed a complaint.

    32. Re:Wow by cr0sh · · Score: 1
      How can geeks be so smart and know nothing about tax law?

      Yes, the idiocy of thinking that when someone else makes a donation in your name that you get the tax break is amazing, especially for a supposed geek (of course, lately it seems that more non-geeks are showing up on /. than ever before). However, to assume that geeks should know tax law to any large extent is ludicrous at best.

      Take a look at law sometime from the perspective of a software developer. What you will see will make your hair stand on end. To use an unfair and cliche'ed portrayal, "I have seen better code written by a VB programmer".

      To put it simply, all of law is the greatest mess of spaghetti code the world will ever know. It is time for a major refactor, if not for a complete redesign. I would not be surprised if you looked through any current State's (that is, any country or independent State) corpus of law and found "orphaned" laws - similar to how you can find code within any large software project that is never executed due to having had all calls/branches to it removed, either through design or oversight.

      With law "structured" in such a manner, the phrase and meaning of the words "ignorance of the law is not a defense" becomes itself meaningless. The reasoning behind that statement is the fact that we have lawyers and judges the world over who themselves are ignorant of the laws which they swear to uphold. How can laws be upheld, if you are ignorant of them and know not whether they are just? Furthermore, there is the fact of "specialization" in law. This, in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, if you are speaking of say, "copyright and trademark law" vs. "criminal justice law" or similar. However, here in the United States, at least (though I doubt it is a situation specific to our country), one would expect that all lawyers and judges should know and understand precisely what is contained within what is supposed to be the "supreme law of the land", our own Constitution. However, the fact that there is a branch of knowledge called "Constitutional Law", and that there are judges and lawyers who don't understand this document and how it may apply to cases of which they are party to, brings into question the entire system as it currently stands:

      How can "ignorance of the law" not be a valid defense, when lawyers and judges are ignorant themselves? How can they dare hold a citizen to a higher standard than that which they hold themselves?

      I doubt we will ever get an answer to this issue, however, because it is a question which exposes the system of law as it currently stands and upon which society is based, for the house of cards it is.

      Finally, I must say your observation regarding charity vs. garage sales is spot on. This is something my wife and I learned a long time ago, soon after buying our house. The hassle and effort to go through a garage sale just isn't worth it in the end, and the deduction at the end of the year at tax-time is well worth donating the stuff to charity...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    33. Re:Wow by Drakonite · · Score: 1
      Plus, you dont have to pay taxes on the income from the garage sale (since there is no income).

      You don't have to pay taxes on a garage sale anyways. Forgive me for not remembering the exact numbers off the top of my head, but you are allowed to hold a (or IIRC up to 2) garage sale a year tax free, though there is limit on the length (in the neighborhood of 3 days) and I believe must be at least a certain length of time apart as well.

      --
      Shoot Pixels, Not People!
    34. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The only case where a pure cash donation to charity can really be advantageous to your bottom line is if you are teetering on the edge and the deduction will drop your AGI into a lower bracket

      That's not how tax brackets work. They're more like "buckets" that you fill up. You start at the bottom with the lowest taxation rate, when you fill that one up, you overflow into the next highest rate.. and so on. Your first $10,000 (or whatever the "brackets" are) is taxed at the lowest rate, then anything above that to $20,000 is taxed at the next highest, and so on. So if you earn $20,001 you get taxed at the lowest rate on the first $10,000, the next highest rate on $10,000 - and the next highest rate on the $1 over $20,000, etc.

      There may be some advantage to making a tax-deductable donation for other reasons (like pushing your AGI down a little so you can make an IRA contribution for the year - or, yes, as your interesting alternative to a garage sale) - but most of the time it makes no sense at all if you're simply trying to maximize income.

      In summary: be very suspicious of financial advice on Slashdot (including this post).

    35. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False complaint... false report... aren't this two things essentially (if not exactly) the same? They may be different words, but statutorily I would expect them to confer the same meaning in the given context.

    36. Re:Wow by n9uxu8 · · Score: 1

      C&D from GK himself. See the following for more information: No Praire Ho Companion
      Dave

    37. Re:Wow by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      "I think you're overlooking the fact that people who hold garage sales generally sell the items for LESS than they would declare their value for charitable deduction purposes. At least, that's what I would do"

      Not at all. In fact, the whole point of what I was saying is that you *could* sell your stuff for far less than the "fair market value" and still break even or even come out ahead. AND, you wouldn't have to hassle with filling out IRS forms detailing every item you were donating. That's assuming you are willing to roll the dice and hope your neighbors don't turn you in for not declaring your massive windfall on your taxes.

      Granted, if you have a few, more expensive items, then it would generally make sense to go the tax deduction route. But for lots of lower priced items, I say "go on, take the money and run"

      And as a follow up to a comment someone else made, when I had a garage sale earlier this summer (ok, we call 'em "tag sales" in my neck of the woods), everything that wasn't sold at the end of the day was listed on my local Freecycle groups or donated to the Salvation Army (no tax deduction taken).

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    38. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only case where a pure cash donation to charity can really be advantageous to your bottom line is if you are teetering on the edge and the deduction will drop your AGI into a lower bracket

      Tax brackets are incremental. By lowering your AGI, you will lower the amount of tax payable on income earned at the higher bracket. This does nothing for money earned in lower brackets. And the amount of the donation minus the tax you would have paid on it is much greater than the tax benefit you receive from making the donation.

      How can geeks be so smart and know nothing about tax law?

    39. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why hasn't he been sued for slander yet? Surely someone as nutty as him has crossed the line into slander once or twice.

    40. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can geeks be so smart and know nothing about tax law? ...
      The only case where a pure cash donation to charity can really be advantageous to your bottom line is if you are teetering on the edge and the deduction will drop your AGI into a lower bracket.


      Pot...meet kettle.

    41. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are being quite literal. The term 'tax bracket' in the US is defined as the rate you pay on the 'last dollar' you earned. It does not imply you paid that rate for all the dollars you earned.

    42. Re:Wow by archipunk · · Score: 1
      How can geeks be so smart and know nothing about tax law?

      Tax law has nothing to do with smarts. It's gnosticism. Years of exposure and careful study of minutia.

      Lots of very smart people realize that they are not experts about tax law, and they hire tax law experts.

    43. Re:Wow by krbvroc1 · · Score: 1
      However, the fact that there is a branch of knowledge called "Constitutional Law", and that there are judges and lawyers who don't understand this document and how it may apply to cases of which they are party to, brings into question the entire system as it currently stands:

      Actually, I think this reflects more on your ignorance of the field than the judges and lawyers. Being versed in 'Constitutional Law' is more than memorizing the document. The document is ambiguous - it was drafted by debate and compromise. Even the 'founding fathers' had differences of what it means - see the Federalist Papers - news articles written to convince the public that it should be ratified. However it is more than that, not just the document but the case law/precedent.

      There is little black and white in Constitutional Law - things are fuzzy because trying to address complex issues using the ambiguous English language is tough. Its important to determine what the writers of the documeant and how that applies to a changing society.

    44. Re:Wow by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      Which is why I am for the following law:

      Resolved: It shall be a Class A felony for any holder of an elective office to hire any agent or use any tax specific computer software to prepare his or her income tax returns.

      That law would fix 99% of the problems with our tax code instantly.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    45. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      How can geeks be so smart and know nothing about tax law?

      If they know nothing then they know more than you. You are chock full of misinformation.

      The only case where a pure cash donation to charity can really be advantageous to your bottom line is if you are teetering on the edge and the deduction will drop your AGI into a lower bracket.

      "Drop your AGI into a lower bracket"? Your AGI is not *in* a single bracket in the first place, and it cannot be "dropped" into a lower bracket. A cash donation to charity will not lower your tax due.

    46. Re:Wow by spezz · · Score: 1
      He will however get a nice letter from the ESA Foundation saying that a 10k donation has been made in his name by Tycho and Gabe. Which, one can only assume, he'll construe as a hate crime.

    47. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are instances where you can recieve less money by earning more. This occurs when you trigger the AMT (alternative minimum tax)

    48. Re:Wow by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Funny

      That depends on if you kill or just subdue.

    49. Re:Wow by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      How can "ignorance of the law" not be a valid defense, when lawyers and judges are ignorant themselves? How can they dare hold a citizen to a higher standard than that which they hold themselves?

      Because if "ignorance of the law" was a defense, you wouldn't have to pay a lawyer BIGNUM bucks every time some seemingly innocuous action you took turned out to be illegal.

      You gotta remember, it's also lawyers who MAKE the law. The ultimate in job security.

    50. Re:Wow by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      That law would fix 99% of the problems with our tax code instantly.

      Nah, they'd just pass a law which says that holders of elective offices are exempt from income taxes.

    51. Re:Wow by Random832 · · Score: 1

      The point was that the claimed benefit in the original post for dropping enough cash to end up in a lower bracket would require tax brackets to work in exactly the way that we all know they don't.

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
  3. Re:Ah-Hahahahahaha! by peculiarmethod · · Score: 2, Funny

    and your name is drew... hmmmmmmmm.. plug perhaps? is THAT why all slashdots stories end up on fark after they're posted? hmmmmmm?

    (ducks)

    --
    ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
  4. Wow by valeriyk · · Score: 1

    Sounds like PA is having fun with this... AFAIK, people can say pretty much anything on their shirts... Oh well, guess litigation is always the way to go.

  5. Eh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    He also offered $10k to charity if anyone who would develop some ridiculous murder spree game.

    What the fuck does that even mean?!

    1. Re:Eh.... by cjm182 · · Score: 5, Informative
      He had a "modest proposal", loosely based off Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal (1729)" only not as well written. He offered $10,000 to charity if someone would make his violent videogame idea. Of course, he backed down after groups started to actually make the game.

      Penny-Arcade accused him of playing a "shell-game" and donated the money themselves, satisfied that Jack's orginal proposal had been satisfied to the letter.

    2. Re:Eh.... by stanmann · · Score: 2, Funny

      It means that He offered $10k to charity if anyone who would develop some ridiculous murder spree game. It also means you don't read Slashdot all that often.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    3. Re:Eh.... by lrucker · · Score: 5, Funny
      It also means you don't read Slashdot all that often.

      Well, the editors don't, so why should he?

    4. Re:Eh.... by droptone · · Score: 3, Funny

      So ughhh...when do we get to eat the poor? It is clear they are asking for it.

      --
      Every post I make begins with the assumption P=~P.
    5. Re:Eh.... by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why should he do what? What did I miss?

      --

      There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
    6. Re:Eh.... by grogdamighty · · Score: 1

      The issue being raised is not the promise he made, but the wording "he offered $10k to charity if anyone who would develop some ridiculous murder spree game" - which is clearly nonsensical.

      --
      My other sig is funny.
    7. Re:Eh.... by Mondoz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Clearly original the book was intended purely as a simulator for baby-eating, so we can either use that as instructional material, or offer to donate $10k to charity if someone writes a book about burning books.
      Wait, someone already wrote a book about that.
      I guess we skip directly to the step about retracting our offer and suing anyone who mocks us.

      --
      /sig
    8. Re:Eh.... by stanmann · · Score: 1
      If I had(and I don't) 10K to charity if someone would do something(not illegal)

      What makes it ridiculous? Or are you suggesting that he didn't make the offer?

      if any video game company will create, manufacture, distribute, and sell a video game in 2006 like the following:
      or are you taking issue with "anyone" vs " any video game company"??


      A modest video game proposal
      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    9. Re:Eh.... by grogdamighty · · Score: 1
      This makes sense:

      "He also offered $10k to charity if anyone would develop some ridiculous murder spree game."

      or

      "He also offered $10k to charity for anyone who would develop some ridiculous murder spree game."

      but this does not make sense:

      "He also offered $10k to charity if anyone who would develop some ridiculous murder spree game."

      As I said, the problem isn't the offer but the grammar of the original statement. Thus, it doesn't mean anything, just like your " If I had(and I don't) 10K to charity if someone would do something(not illegal)" doesn't mean anything (hint: one verb isn't always enough!).

      --
      My other sig is funny.
    10. Re:Eh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand how Food not Bombs works. It's a charity organization. They feed homeless people.

    11. Re:Eh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      satisfied that Jack's orginal proposal had been satisfied to the letter.

      To the letter? Well maybe the letter, but not to the number.

      I'll write a check for $10,000 ... if any video game company will create, manufacture, distribute, and sell a video game in 2006 like the following.

      It's a technicality, and he's a "lawyer".

    12. Re:Eh.... by bypedd · · Score: 1

      What's really odd is that he thinks such a game a) doesn't already exist or b) won't come to exist unless he (lies when he says he) puts $10,000 down for it.

      While the handful of vehement activists always grabs the headlines, this, as in all other media wars, has the greatest affect not on what Jack Thompson does, but on how the reports and the counter-comments affect the public. Obviously the gaming contingent of the public are pretty outraged and dismayed with Jack (although I'm still disgusted by particularly violent games, I don't think they should be censored), but the middle-dwellers are what matters. Thus far, I think the response has generally one-upped Jack in most of its rejoinders, but it has the makings of a huge mess up if gamers get too aggressive and ruin their own position.

      Sometimes I find myself missing the pre-internet-boom days of floppy-disk-distributed shareware that hardly made a blip on the news media. That, and 500kb free disk space system requirements.

    13. Re:Eh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      My question is that - if the terms of the "offer" could not even be met... since it was claimed to be a satire.

      When exactly would Jack be obligated to donate to the charity?

      To rephrase... why did he even bring it up if he had no intention of donating?

      The guys as PA called it right... and quite frankly they just revealed he's playing his game... but in their house.

    14. Re:Eh.... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      ... I think the original poster was referring to the horrible grammar which, indeed, means nothing. Thanks for the play-by-play, though.

    15. Re:Eh.... by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Ah. I hadn't realized we needed to stop bombing homeless people.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    16. Re:Eh.... by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Further, I'd love to hear your ideas on ensuring food distribution across the undeveloped/developing segments of the world without using guns or bombs to protect the food and the hungry from the local warlords.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    17. Re:Eh.... by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Ah, where is the -1 Pedant Mod when you need it?

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    18. Re:Eh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering he made an offer over public television, I as a programmer would have done the following.
      1) Mailed him, in postal, a question regarding if he was offering $10k to the charity of my choosing such that I made the game.
      2) If he replied with "yes I am offering" or something to that extent. That is considered a legal OFFER.
      3)I then reply as soon as I get the letter. "Yes I accept. Umm.. give it to the WWW foundation" or something like that. I put this in the mailbox approximatly 10 minutes after receiving his letter.
      He would then be locked into a Contractual Obligation to give $10K to the WWW, if I produce said cop-killer death game.
      Now since he made the initial offer on some electronic medium, I'm not sure about the USA but in Canada electronic law is kinda in its infancy.
      A judge would be required to make the call that an offer made over electronic medium was valid. But due to the 'dare' nature of his statement it would most likely be considered an Invitation to Purchase, which he could refuse 'sale' of his $10k to anyone he chose.
      In other words, Jack isn't constractually obligated to give anyone $10k dollars atm. Though some clever developer could have snared him, had he chose his words wrong... which Jack does often.

    19. Re:Eh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Seriously, although the article's grammar is horrible, it's not grammar alone that makes the article a horrible one. Knowing almost nothing about the situation to begin with, I reread the article in the hope that it would somehow enlighten me. It did not. After reading it perhaps five times, I realized that I still knew nothing at all about what happened. In the end I actually had to RTFA to figure out what was going on.

      Let's reconsider this article from an outsider's standpoint.

      So far the story goes that Jack has filed a wrongful death suit against Rock Star, claiming that GTA is a cop killing training simulator responsible for the murder of a pair of cops. He also offered $10k to charity if anyone who would develop some ridiculous murder spree game.

      What the hell are we talking about here? Who is this guy? If he is suing RS over their "cop killing training simulator," what does he want with a "ridiculous murder spree game?"

      When someone did it, and he changed his mind and Penny-Arcade donated the cash instead.

      Huh? Who did what? And where does Penny Arcade come into all this?

      All of this is being documented on the Penny Arcade website, in phone calls, rants and comics, as well as an 'I Hate Jack Thompson' T-Shirt. (Note, Slashdot's parent company owns ThinkGeek). He has now called the cops claiming harassment.

      OK... that sounds plausible. We all know how kind and courteous the Penny Arcade guys can be when they feel like it.

      In true Slashdot fashion, however, I'm leaving the rewriting to the next person to submit this article.
    20. Re:Eh.... by JThundley · · Score: 1

      As much as I hate this worthless cunt, I think you're wrong about his proposal being satisfied to the letter. He wanted to see it on store shelves, marketed.

      I'm not sure if that makes up for the fact that the douchebag's first reaction was "I was just kidding!" when he heard that somebody fulfilled his proposal.

    21. Re:Eh.... by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      Wait a second. You mean Jack Thompson INTENTIONALLY based his poorly written letter on a letter written in 1729 that was not only about eating babies, but drew a from the original author's peers, major criticizim and disgust.

      This just gets better and better.

      What kind of an idiot repeats something like that when the original outcome was so bad, and then is shocked and complains when he finds his own associates turning on him for his sick and twisted mind.

      This man is either going to end up in an asylum for being completely insane, or end up earning himself one of the most remembered Darwin awards in the history of man kind.

      The thing I wonder is if he succeeded in getting penny arcade locked up, how many people would be ready to donate cash to bail them out?

      Now for fairness sake, if HE was put away, how many people would be ready to help him get out?

      Food for thought.

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    22. Re:Eh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also offered $10k to charity if anyone who would develop some ridiculous murder spree game.

      What the fuck does that even mean?!


      THANK YOU! This is the second time I have seen this thing come up and both times the comment made reference to Jack giving a donation for something or other but the sentence made no sense whatsoever. Did the same person submit all these articles? If so, they need to go take some English classes.

    23. Re:Eh.... by BKX · · Score: 1

      So all we have to so is put one of these games on shelves and, BAM!, he's actionable. I own a cybercafe and we definitely sell video games. Case closed. (What a dumbass!)

      Of course, speaking of technicalities, it seems to me that he was being serious in his letter, and that letter seemed to be an offer. Before he came out with his retraction, several people accepted his offer. Let me think back to business law, offer, acceptance, consideration, legality, remedy and competancy. Unless he's insane I think we got him. One of those dudes who wrote the game needs to get it packaged, I'll sell it, and we'll sue him!

      On second thought, I'll just eat my ham sandwich.

    24. Re:Eh.... by cjm182 · · Score: 1
      As much as I hate this worthless cunt, I think you're wrong about his proposal being satisfied to the letter. He wanted to see it on store shelves, marketed.

      He never said marketed on store shelves though. And the websites *did* advertise their games, albight through alternate channels. They even offered to charge money through PayPal, so it would qualify for the "selling" part of the requirement.

  6. Fascinating, but who hears it? by YankeeInExile · · Score: 1

    I am fascinated by the whole story -- before this week, I had never heard of this nutjob.

    Therein lies the crux of the problem: This guy (Thompson) is railing against freedom of expression, and the mainstream press is ignoring him in droves.

    --
    How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
    1. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to be actively ignoring gaming news to not hear about this guy. He was the one responsible for the recent re-rating of GTA, which was covered by just about every major news outlet in existance.

    2. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      I've heard his name many times over, first in the late 80s. He gets mainstream press now and then.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    3. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by vercingectorix · · Score: 1

      An old saying: Never fight with a Pig (Thomson) because the Pig will like it and you will only get dirty. Lets end this pariah's 15 minutes and just stop listening to/posting his tantrums and out of touch rantings. It's like the whole William Hung (of American Idol fame) thing, the guy sees lots of people paying attention to him and ends up thinking he inspires people, when in reality he's just a part of a sad media freakshow. Thomson needs to be trated as the social outcast that he is and be properly ignored.

    4. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Iriel · · Score: 1

      Some of what he's been doing for several years now has had its share of effects. He was involved in the case against 2 Live Crew in which some of the members were actually arrested! If I'm not mistaken (though, I could be) I do believe that's the lawsuit that started the famous Parental Advisory labels on CDs. He was the lawyer who went against Ice-T's (or was it Ice Cube?, please correct if you know) infamous song "Cop Killer".

      He's been the rallying general in almost all the lawsuits against RockStar games for GTA titles, but I'm not sure if the Seattle cops are going to give him the time of day if they know that he called them while claiming that NIMF was bought out by Best Buy and is claiming to be suing Best Buy and Target for pre-ordering Bully before it even comes out.

      Witness the complete and total meltdown of a mind, and I'm not joking at all.

      --
      Perfecting Discordia
      www.stevenvansickle.com
    5. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Yocto+Yotta · · Score: 5, Informative

      Jack Thompson:

      +Led the campaign against the 1989 2 Live Crew album "As Nasty As They Wanna Be", and later, Ice T's "Cop Killer."
      +Filed with the FCC regarding the contents of a 2003 edition of Howard Stern's radio show resulted in Clear Channel Communications being fined $496,000 in 2004.
      +Filed, in 1999, a $33 million federal products liability lawsuit against several entertainment companies, including Time Warner Inc., Polygram Film Entertainment Distribution Inc., Palm Pictures, Island Pictures and New Line Cinema, Atari Corp., Nintendo of America, Sega of America Inc. and Sony Computer Entertainment on behalf of the parents of victims of the 1997 Paducah schoolhouse shootings.
      +Most recently has taken his tirade against videogame publishers Take Two (Grand Theft Auto series, Bully et. al.), Capcom (Killer 7), and EA (The Sims. Yeah really).

      A great interview with Jack by Chatterbox Video Game Radio can be found at: http://www.chatterboxgameshow.com/jack.htm .

      This guy has really made himself a credible source for irrationality and brought many smiles to sane peoples faces.

      Most comment points excerpted from Wikipedia.org

      --
      A B A C A B B
    6. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by stanmann · · Score: 1

      It was the Same Ice-T that plays a cop on L&O: SVU.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    7. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Iriel · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I don't think it's that simple with Jackie T. He changes his crusades with the times and finds new, unknowing people to buy into his scam. The sad thing is that, in the past, he got some of his goals accomplished. But after a point, he started to lose it; first professionally, then mentally.

      I don't like the idea of torture, but I think this man will ever leave us alone is to let him fume (while we refute his nonsense) until he's nothing but a shell of a man sitting a clean, white, sterile and monitored environment. At least that's the way he seems to be headed.

      --
      Perfecting Discordia
      www.stevenvansickle.com
    8. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Senjutsu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This guy (Thompson) is railing against freedom of expression, and the mainstream press is ignoring him in droves.

      Are you kidding me? The mainstream press loves this guy. The hot coffee mod "scandal" is but his latest whipping boy. This guy has scored a lot of prime time interviews and news stories on major outlets since the early '90s with, among other things, demands that 2 Live Crew's "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" and Ice T's "Cop Killer" be banned (those were big news items at the time), been a major factor behind several indecency fines Howard Stern received from the FCC, and been a part of damn near every news story on the dangers of violent video games.

      This is the guy who insisted that Columbine was caused by DOOM being a "murder simulator". He has sued, among others Time Warner Inc., Polygram Film Entertainment Distribution Inc., Palm Pictures, Island Pictures and New Line Cinema, Atari Corp., Nintendo of America, Sega of America Inc. and Sony Computer Entertainment under Federal Product Liability laws after a different school shooting .

      His allegations led Dateline NBC to report that Lee Boyd Malvo, the beltway sniper, had "trained extensively using Halo".

      He has been interviewed numerous times on CBS, including one famous instance in which he compared Doug Lowesnstein of the ESA to Joseph Goebbels. .

      He has appeared on 60 minutes to discuss how Grand Theft Auto (he alleges) trained a young man to murder two police officers.

      No, the problem is most definitely not that the media is ignoring him. Quite the opposite, really.

    9. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      And he played a rapper in GTA:VC.

      Of course he was also a mutant kangaroo in Tank Girl, so I don't think he's all that good at picking out roles.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    10. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the guy who insisted that Columbine was caused by DOOM being a "murder simulator".

      Sit him down in front of CS:S -- maybe he'll die of a heart attack...

    11. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has been interviewed numerous times on CBS, including one famous instance in which he compared Doug Lowesnstein of the ESA to Joseph Goebbels.

      And the 10k donation (in JT's name) is going through the ESA - icing on the cake.

      They stepped in to assume his role and donated it in the exact direction a game developer would (as outlined in his rules). Seriously genius!

    12. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Minwee · · Score: 1
      Let's face it, the US news media loves loud-mouthed morons.

      In fact, that's their target market.

    13. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by theJML · · Score: 1

      Ok, so I just have one question, what's so bad about the Sims in his eyes? I mean, I'm not a huge fan, nor do I believe that shooting people in a video game equates to mass murder in real life (parents should be teaching their kids that it's JUST A GAME), however... What's the connection to the Sims? I mean, the Sims is no more a violent video game than Bubble Bobble or Tetris.

      --
      -=JML=-
    14. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by solive1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I love how he says that these people "trained extensively" on video games. Because pressing a button on a controller or mouse is obviously equivilent to firing a gun accurately.

      I'd also love to hear him explain how using the BFG trains you for anything at all.

    15. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Yocto+Yotta · · Score: 1

      Excellent question. A mod to The Sims 2 allows players to view full frontal nudity in the game. Yes, a mod NOT from EA. Because of this, Jack Thompson wants EA to be shut down entirely because of a tit that isn't even in the retail package to begin with. Brilliant, yes?

      --
      A B A C A B B
    16. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by ifwm · · Score: 1

      Watch a lot of news, do you?

    17. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Minwee · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not if I can avoid it. On my last trip to the USA I was exposed to the local "FOX" news reports.

      I would call it an educational experience, but I wouldn't want to devalue the word "Education" by associating it with that.

    18. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Riddlefox · · Score: 1

      According to the Wikipedia article on Jack Thompson, he mistakenly believed that a patch that removed the 'blurring' effect when your Sims were naked showed genitals, etc.

    19. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      He said on Beyond the Music that'll he'll take any role offered because he's been poor and been a thief and he's not above taking people's money when they offer it for a role.

      So he'll taking crappy bit parts in crap movies because it's a paycheck.

      He's one of the few rappers that are still around who actually came up from the street and used rap to get away from a real life of crime.

      "Ice-T was born in Newark, New Jersey. His parents died when he was young and he was orphaned to Los Angeles. There he found a passion in music but became immersed in South LA gang life and whores. He enlisted in the U.S. Army."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-T

      If I remember correctly, he was a pimp for a while and also robbed jewlery stores and did a stand in the California Prison System, then got out, stole more, settled down with a girl and rapped.

    20. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by yfkar · · Score: 1

      I think Thompson should begin with Barbie and Ken, not Sims. You can have full interactive nudity with them, in real life. The naked skin is even included in the retail package.

    21. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      I do know some athletes and one auto-racer that plays video games to hone their reflexes. A bit of a stretch from 'training' to do something though.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    22. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange how he goes on about how violent the video game industry is making our children, yet today CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/17/crime.rate/inde x.html) is reporting violent crime is down again this year, according to the FBI. OMG, does this mean the FBI is in cahoots with the video game industry trying to do a coverup of just how wrong these games are?

    23. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Krach42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "This guy has really made himself a credible source for irrationality"

      The problem is that he *IS* rational, and makes a rational argument. Just many people are so hell-bent on attacking the guy that they forget this fact. He bases clear sound and logical arguments.

      The problem is that his whole argument is built upon certain premisses that just don't coincide with any reality that I'm aware of. He claims that people "train on GTA to kill cops"? What part about GTA lets me pick up a gun and use it to kill a cop? It may train my behavior, but it doesn't train those skills that I need to shoot a weapon with the accuracy that people like, the Columbine shooters exhibited.

      When I loaded up this radio program I was ready to hear some crackpot wizzing away again like all the other crackpots out there. But this guy isn't like that. He's intelligent, and sane. He's just using some fantasy pixie-dust premisses that support his preconceived opinion that artistic violence envokes violence in the audience.

      I wonder what he'd have to say about the real Grimm Fairytales... "Of course we started the Crusades, just look at what they were teaching their kids! After a decade of training on stories of knights kill things and wolves eating small children, they had the whole skillset needed to launch a massive compaign to regain the Holy Land!"

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    24. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by shibashaba · · Score: 1

      Yes, a video game in which cops run into walls trying to get to an assailant on the other side is really effective at training people to kill cops. He's perfectly rational, I'm sure the judge will be amazed at the completeness of the AI in the video game. I'm sure he'll find plenty of cops willing to say that the characters in the game perform exactly the way they did while in training.

      --
      ---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
    25. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Yocto+Yotta · · Score: 1

      Jack does come off as an extremely rational person. My thoughts after first hearing the interview were exactly along the lines as yours. I was expecting, particulary with the "disclaimer" at the beginning of the interview, for Jack to be a screaming evangelical lunatic, and that of course is not the case at all.

      He is a lawyer though, and he knew what audience he was talking to. I actually had a very good conversation with Alon, who hosted this interview with Jack, and he agreed that the point of the interview was to show that Jack isn't as maniacal as the gaming media and opinioners make him to be, but if you look at how he behaves outside of the spotlight, examples found here, here, and here, you can begin to gather that this guy is not a good person by any standard -- and that is removing all personal opinion as a gamer and looking at him purely as a human being.

      I contacted Alon to defend Jack in a roundabout way, as his points about keeping violent media away from children's hands is very valid. I think we all agree with Jack on that. It is the basis of his reasoning for all of his actions -- profiting -- and his own conduct, that are Grade A wacko.

      --
      A B A C A B B
    26. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      I think he would argue that they're not training mechanical methods to kill, but rather suppressing the natural state of a human to not want to kill.

      Because he keeps claiming that the US military uses video games to supress the feeling that killing is wrong.

      Actually, when I was in Army Basic Combat Training, the training that we had to suppress this was to shoot at human-shaped silhouettes, and bayonett man-shaped objects.

      The Army has a lot of techniques for suppressing this desire to not kill, and none of them involve video games. We weren't even allowed to watch TV during Basic Combat Training.

      Basically, the Army teaches you how to do your job, defend yourself, and attack points through wargames, that involve you shooting fellow Army mates on the other side with blanks and Miles gear (advanced lasertag stuff, really cool). The idea is you get so trained into really physically pointing an M-16 at someone and shooting at them, that you won't hesitate in the field.

      This isn't something that can be matched in the computer rendered world. (Ok, there are simulators where you interact with a scene. This is what at least a few police departments do.)

      My point is not just that video games lack sufficient AI to be sufficient for real world application, but also that even the "desensitation" that he claims happens doesn't really exist, because there's a difference between not giving a crap about shooting some gansta in a video game just 'cause he on you land, and handing that same person a real firearm with no expectations. They will not first thing take aim and shoot at people, because they don't care. Otherwise the military would train exclusively with actual computer games. I'm sure it's cheaper to hook up a huge LAN party than to stage war games. I mean, if the only thing standing in the way wasn't muscle memory and real life reactionary skills, but rather just simply a desensification to killing.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    27. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I listened to the interview. Jack came off waaaaay better than the interviewers. He answered every objection they had and then some, and stayed patient even when they failed to hear his answers.

      And then gets repoted here are blanket statements like "Jack Thompson said EA games are full of Porn" when in fact his argument is a lot more subtle than that.

      But, he attacks our beloved game makers, so we hates him.

    28. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      I wonder what would happen if he got a hold on the phallic disney myths. I mean, we've already determined he's Fucking Goofy!!!

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    29. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Txiasaeia · · Score: 1

      He believed that a patch that removed the blurring effect did *what*? You're missing the rest of your sentence ;)

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    30. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      His beef with EA is that they are not using their power as copyright holders (or even as trademark holders) to stop people making mods that show full frontal nudity. As such, he claims that EA is conspiring with modders to make a teen rated game an AO game without going through the classification process. He makes a very reasonable argument (ignoring his lack of understanding between the differences of trademark and copyright law) but what it really hinges on is this belief that only children play The Sims 2. That said, having mods available for download (and having a company like EA encourage such development) which have not been classified, can only weaken the already weak game classification system. EA should be forcing modders to get their mods classified as AO before they offer them to the public.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    31. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by shibashaba · · Score: 1

      I hope the judges involved in these cases have as much common sense as you do.

      --
      ---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
    32. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    33. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Yocto+Yotta · · Score: 1

      What's next? I can't put Skittles in my beer?

      Sorry, that episode was on tonight. Anyhow, when I see Sims 2: Virtual Ass (tm) offered for download on EA's website or sitting on Fred Meyer's shelves, rated Everyone or Teen, then there is an argument to be made. Frankly though, if "kids" are out looking for this stuff and know how and want to download and install it, they're probably not going to be harmed or offended by it. This isn't Sims 2: Full Penetration (tm) afterall. If EA themself was including frontal nudity in their E rated product for all the nine year-olds to see, there would definitely be a problem.

      Granted, EA does support it's mod community, which consists of item creation and model skinning (no pun intended sadly), but anyone can (and will) take any game from any publisher and replace the bitmaps without much trouble, API or no API.

      All that aside, I'm no hippy, but what is wrong with nudity anyway? Social conditioning? I'm sure traditional Tanzanian's wouldn't see anything wrong with Mom putting out the fire in the kitchen buck-naked while junior and friend are watching.

      --
      A B A C A B B
    34. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      That's a bit of a cop-out isn't it? EA gets to keep the moral high ground whilst permitting people to make unregulated mods to their game. It's not like people are just giving these mods away, there are people selling them and EA is turning a blind eye because it sells more of their product.

      And it's not the nudity which is an issue. It's the fact that you can select one Sim, click on another Sim and select "Fuck". If someone's kids got their hands on that and their parents found out you can be sure there would be hell to pay. Not that I think it's going to do any harm.. but those parents sure do and they should be reasonably assured that society is going to prevent their kids from buying this kind of material. Just as parents should be reasonably assured that their children will not be able to buy cigerettes or alcohol.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    35. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by spoco2 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you indeed... and listening to the show made me very annoyed as it always seems to when I listen to these 'radio' shows hosted by those in our 'nerdy/geeky' fraternity... they miss opportunities to really point out the problems in these people's arguments... on listening to the whole thing (yeah, all 1 and a half hours of it) I'm left thinking that they really went into it underprepared... and that sucks... they run this show, they go to the effort to get to talk to this guy and then, by the end of it, you're kinda left thinking that they lost and that he had answers for all of it... yet you know he has it wrong, but he has all these stats and studies and such, and they had nothing...

      *sigh* We're left with them constantly going 'Ok... I'll give you that' or otherwise being talked down by him... I'm left with the thought that he is nowhere near as nutty as I got the impression he might be... He makes some valid points... in fact I'm 100% all for the ratings of computer games to be enforced (they kinda are here in Australia, but we don't have an adult rating, so if a games gets that... well, no-one can buy it)... there's no faulting that logic. I'd have to also say that there's something a bit off about having a game devoted to bullying... but hey, that's based on three screenshots, and I believe in giving a game a fair go before condemning it on that little info.

      He is very fond of using the term 'Murder simluators' and 'murder training tools' etc... uh huh... as that's what they are.

    36. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Yocto+Yotta · · Score: 1

      I guess what my point is, is that even if EA didn't permit mods of any type, the game could and would still be modded. The mod we're both talking about is not provided or sanctioned by EA, and they wouldn't have any way of stopping it short of requiring server authentication and hash checks before the game will run. Oh damn, that almost sounds like a good idea (patent pending) . . . man, I'm working against myself ;).

      Anyhow, getting ahold of this mod is an intentional thing done by the game-owner, and assumably with full understanding of what it does. It would be created regardless of EA's official mod stance (unless my patent pending idea is put into effect, which is realistically skirtable anyhow), so be it unfortunate or even wrong, EA still really isn't at fault. Did they make it easier? Eeeehhhhh. Would making it harder stop such mods? No.

      I could very well be in the dark, but I can't think of a single piece of software -- entertainment, productivity, OS or other -- for any hardware platform that I cannot legally alter in anyway I please using my own means or the help of someone else. Of course, so long as I'm not using to offer commercial services, or resell as an altered, copyrighted, trademarked, patented work that isn't mine.

      Wanna make some money? Let's anonymously create a "mod" that turns Window's sound sets and themes into verbally and visually graphic assaults that would make George Carlin blush, then turn around and sue Microsoft into oblivion. Yup, that won't work. That's all I'm saying.

      I form my own opinions, but some other people put it very well here. Eurogamer also has a good piece, but I suppose objective news may be more appreciated in this case. Statements from EA and Jack Thompson are quoted in this Google cached San Jose Mecury News piece (hence the IP instead of URL). Jack makes a seemingly reasonable point, saying, " . . . EA is not taking action against people for messing with its software. They need to get their game back."

      But like I said, they can't.

      --
      A B A C A B B
    37. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      That's Jack Thompson's entire point. EA can and should be stopping people from making mods of their game that exceed the rating level for which they have been granted. They have the power of copyright and trademark law. They could shut down these sites that are selling mods to make the game pornographic, but they choose not to.. why? Because they make money from these mods, because people need to buy the game to run them. That aint right. If EA wants to sell a T-rated version of their game and an AO-rated version of their game, let em do that, but don't sell the T-rated version and then pretend there's nothing they can do about people selling unrated mods to the game that exceed the T rating.

      As for your plan to sue Microsoft.. any plan to sue Microsoft has at least some hope of working. But a primary sticking point in your plan is that Windows is not rated like games are rated. So there's no rating for your mod to exceed.

      More interesting would be if you could do this with movies. Say you were to take Kill Bill Vol I and undo the sepia effect that got the hardcore sword fight scene past the censors. If you were to offer this mod on the Internet and someone was to bring it to Quentin Tarantino's attention he would probably just laugh and say "good on em". If he were to say that on the record though, he would be considered responsible, as he has the power to stop the distribution of the mod but chooses not to.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    38. Re:Fascinating, but who hears it? by Yocto+Yotta · · Score: 1

      EA CAN'T STOP THEM. If EA decides to get all legally hardass about games mods, people will just take an extra three seconds to put out their releases anonymously. If EA removes mod support from the game altogether, it will just be modded more creatively. This isn't about EA or nipples at all though. It's about the core nature of technology, software, and the distribution of information when the internet is involved. Good or bad, it just honestly can't be stopped.

      Adobe and Microsoft, who have experience combating piracy for 20+ years (around 7 years for piracy that is often enabled by cracks -- or mods, if you will), and they still can't prevent people from circumventing their new fancy online validation tools. What do you expect EA to do? Not put out the game ever? Sue the modders?

      I know, let's pass a law requiring the destruction of all media-related electronics. That's the ONLY thing that will ever eliminate the possibility of harmful content reaching children. Jack Thompson's reasoning would absolutely require him to sue every media and electronic company on the face of the Earth. He himself has said he is only one man, so he stays focused on one thing. But you know what? If he really had a clue of any sort, there would be 10,000 other lawyers following in his footsteps. Last time I checked (ohhh, just about a minute ago), there is zero behind him. Maybe he is the only saint left among all of us crazy people.

      --
      A B A C A B B
  7. This Will Be Good by Zediker · · Score: 1

    Its like a car wreck, you dont want to stare, but you cant look away!

    --
    I love to slaughter the english language.
    1. Re:This Will Be Good by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I think it's entertaining, though in a kind of twisted way. Kind of like a train wreck.

      Through a chemical plant.

      Which spills into an orphanage.

      Which catches fire and burns down the nursing home.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I sure hope they cite his ass for making a false report. Publications are not harrassment. Jack Thompson himself started this mess. Does he consider himself guilty of "harassing" the makers of GTA? ...the video game industry? ...game loving Slashdotters everywhere?

  10. This is good by faloi · · Score: 1

    The more extreme he goes, the more orginizations and politicians will distance themselves from him. Filing charges against sites like Penny Arcade should hasten his fall to obscurity. Or at least I can dream.

    --
    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
  11. What about VGCats? by hyu · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since VGCats were the ones who posted all his contact information, wouldn't it make more sense to go after them? Penny Arcade, who are not really a company lack Jack insists they are, really only recounted a story about Jack and nothing more.

    1. Re:What about VGCats? by NoTheory · · Score: 1

      Well, this would be difficult for a Miami-based lawyer, because Scott Ramsoomair is a Toronto-based Canadian :P

      --
      There are lives at stake here!
    2. Re:What about VGCats? by MisterMurphy · · Score: 1

      I'm not even sure if that is his real contact information; lord knows the email I tried to send bounced. Maybe it was packed, though.

    3. Re:What about VGCats? by hyu · · Score: 1

      His new email address, which works, is greytop@comcast.net

      I think he just wants to be left alone by the majority of the people now. Unfortunately, that means if you have a real problem with him, you can't get in touch as easily.

      Oh, and I got the email address from a previous post in the Jack Thompson commentary yesterday.

    4. Re:What about VGCats? by lowe0 · · Score: 1

      That certainly looks like a corporate check on their site. I wouldn't be surprised if, as part of PA's getting religion about business, they incorporated.

    5. Re:What about VGCats? by Suppafly · · Score: 1

      Penny Arcade, who are not really a company lack Jack insists they are

      No, they really are a company, despite you claiming they aren't. That is why their checks say Penny Arcade Inc. The Inc. means incorporated, IE they are a company.

    6. Re:What about VGCats? by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      Since VGCats were the ones who posted all his contact information, wouldn't it make more sense to go after them?

      He's started to send them annoying emails as well now.

    7. Re:What about VGCats? by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      I suspect it came after their initial problems with the book publisher. They brought a businessman onboard to keep things straight. I'd bet he incorporated the whole place a while ago. At the very latest, it would have been a couple years ago when they took down the donation box.

    8. Re:What about VGCats? by Michael+Hunt · · Score: 1

      The phone number is accurate enough. Well, at least, when I rang it, some guy SAID that he was Jack Thompson.

      I attempted to engage him in civil discourse. He called me a moron.

    9. Re:What about VGCats? by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you read the cheque that PA is donating, it is a cheque from 'Penny Arcade, Inc.', the Seattle-based business that runs Penny Arcade and related goodness. It's hard to make money doing things like this if you don't have a corporate shell under which to work.

      What amazes me is that they had $10,000 lying around that they could donate. Pretty amazing, I had no idea they were doing that well for themselves.

  12. What an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    IAAL, and I gotta say, Jack Thompson, YOU SUCK.

  13. Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by eln · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean sure, this guy is a blowhard and a liar, but I think the T-shirt goes a little too far. However, it doesn't constitute harrasment. A bunch of geeks calling his house or hacking into his email or whatever else does, though. I don't know if that sort of this is happening yet, but you can bet it will if this continues.

    1. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by Ieshan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is the T-Shirt a bit much? Thompson has publicly expressed his views against a certain industry and group of individuals, and some of those people are expressing the view that Thompson is an idiot and his opinion is asinine.

      If you say that a group of people are vile sinners who are going to hell, you can bet damn right that group of people is going to publicly disagree with you. I don't really see the problem.

    2. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by eln · · Score: 1

      Except they're not saying they think he's an idiot and disagree with his opinion, they're saying they hate him, which is very different. If the T-Shirt said "I disagree with Jack Thompson," that would be a different story.

      Look, I'm not saying people don't have the right to wear a t-shirt expressing hatred for someone. I just think it's over the top and uncalled for.

    3. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by Ieshan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except they're not saying they think he's an idiot and disagree with his opinion, they're saying they hate him, which is very different. If the T-Shirt said "I disagree with Jack Thompson," that would be a different story.

      And he's saying they're vile sinners who are going to hell!

      I think hate is the appropriate word in that case.

    4. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by dr_dank · · Score: 1, Funny

      However, it doesn't constitute harrasment. A bunch of geeks calling his house or hacking into his email or whatever else does, though. I don't know if that sort of this is happening yet, but you can bet it will if this continues.

      He could always try to make the claim that their followers are doing the bidding of Gabe and Tycho by harrassing the douchebag. They even put up a link to his personal info on their site.

      That said, I'd love to hear that call to the cops:

      Hello police? Drop that missing child case and get a load of this: two guys said UNKIND things about me on the internet! They promote video games that glorify violence against cops and are displeasing to your grandma.

      yes, I'll hold....

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    5. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by Duncan3 · · Score: 1

      Hrm, wonder how many hundreds of people with that name there must be.

      Yea, the shirt is a little much.

      --
      - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
    6. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by Andy_R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't "Hate" a bit uncharitable?

      I'd be much more inclined to wear a t-shirt that said "I pity Jack Thompson", or "I blame Jack Thompson's Parents".

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    7. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by SquadBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Point to said "link to his personal info". It ain't there. In fact if you read you will notice that they specifically did *not* link to personal info.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    8. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Funny
      Hrm, wonder how many hundreds of people with that name there must be.

      Have you ever considered that you might hate them, too, if you just took the time to get to know them?

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    9. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by goldspider · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's called "class", and it's something that is very much lacking in today's society in favor of "shock".

      First off, nothing good is EVER accomplished through hatred. Rather, hatred is the cause of so many problems we face today. Glorifying hatered on a t-shirt is counterproductive, and reflects VERY poorly on the reasonable cause the shirt represents. Which leads to my second point...

      It's hard to take people seriously when they make a public spectacle of themselves. Face it: the only point of such a t-shirt is to attract attention and elicit a response. Around here we call that "trolling" and such behavior is appropriately dismissed as irrelevant. It should come to no surprise that such behavior offline is similarly disregarded.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    10. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      You're all asking me for Jack's Email and or phone number and I respect that. The problem is that I can't give that info out. The fact is that Jack had time to call me after I sent him a sarcastic email. I have no doubt in my mind that he would try and pull some legal bullshit if I post his phone number.

      Did I ever mention how much I like VG cats?

      -Gabe out

    11. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by SilentOne · · Score: 1

      I am Jack's lack of humility.

    12. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by toad3k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is not uncalled for. This man is a menace. He is a big part of what I believe is wrong with the world today. He shifts media views against you. He threatens to bring the law down on you for not being like him. If he had stated his opinion and left it at that, then I would disagree with him.

      No. He hates us. Why shouldn't we hate him back? More importantly why shouldn't we take his power away from him, and by that I mean his creditability, and ultimately his career. Could we complain to the Bar the same way he complains to the cops, the fcc, congress and the news networks? We have as much justification as he's ever had.

    13. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      So if that counts. Does this count also.

      http://maps.google.com/maps?q=1172+South+Dixie+Hwy +Suite+111+Coral+Gables+Florida&spn=0.006061,0.015 136&t=h&iwloc=A&hl=en

      Linking to already public info is hardly a bad thing. Most peope would read yoru intial comment as meaning they linked to private information. This was clearly not the case.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    14. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      Hrm, wonder how many hundreds of people with that name there must be.

      Yea, the shirt is a little much.


      Can you imagine the endless wrong numbers?

      "Hello?"

      "Yes, is this Jack Thompson the lawyer?"

      "Oh jeez, NO, for the last time this is not Jack Thompson the lawyer. This is Jack Thompson the baker. The master baker!!"

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    15. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      "I'd be much more inclined to wear a t-shirt that said "I pity Jack Thompson", or "I blame Jack Thompson's Parents"."

      No, no, it's not the parents' responsibility. The shirt should read, "I blame the TV shows Jack Thompson watched."

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    16. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I hate Joe McCarthy too. Same problem, different decade.

      Jack Thompson should be free to speak his mind. He should not be free to intimidate people into silence by his legal bullying.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    17. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by DynamoJoe · · Score: 1
      A bunch of geeks calling his house...

      Why would you want to call his house, when you can visit it?

      --
      bah.
    18. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

      It's not fair to blame his parents or television. Most likely, he played too many "lawyer simulation" games as a child and now thinks he's qualified to be a lawyer.

    19. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by saintp · · Score: 1
      I'd prefer one that says, "I want to shoot Jack Thompson in the face with a pair of sawed-off shotguns, then steal a police car and run away."

      Also, can we get a geek t-shirt that isn't black? Thanks.

    20. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by schon · · Score: 1

      Most likely, he played too many "lawyer simulation" games as a child and now thinks he's qualified to be a lawyer.

      Actually, I think the fact that he passed the bar is what makes him think that he's qualified to be a lawyer. :o)

      And yes, I know you were making a joke (unlike Jack, I recognize satire.)

    21. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by gowen · · Score: 1
      First off, nothing good is EVER accomplished through hatred. Rather, hatred is the cause of so many problems we face today.
      Good to see you've been working on the grammar, Yoda ;)
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    22. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by Evro · · Score: 1

      How many people have accomplished their goals throughout history by using "class" versus "shock"? I don't think being "classy" is very effective overall.

      --
      rooooar
    23. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Martin Luther King comes to mind off the top of my head. On the other hand, I can't think of anyone who's achieved anything of any importance with shock.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    24. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by Lordleppard · · Score: 1
      A bunch of geeks calling his house... Why would you want to call his house, when you can visit it [miamidade.gov]?
      Now THAT'S fucking classic!
    25. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by jcostantino · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be more "legal" if it said something like, "I believe Jack Thompson is a self-aggrandizing asshole?"

      --
      Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
    26. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      Then you sir, must have taken a great deal of time and care to learn nothing from history.

      Lets take the time to define this 'shock' at least the one communicated here.

      2a. Something that jars the mind or emotions as if with a violent unexpected blow.
      3. A severe offense to one's sense of propriety or decency; an outrage.

      By the definition alone, shock seems like it could be a pretty influential part of human kind.

      Lets look up a recent example of shock. Oh yes, the Iraq war. Shock and awe. I guess thats trivial anyway, maybe I can find something bigger. Saddams not that important anyway

      Oh yes, World War II, Hitler's blitzkrieg. "Operationally, its goal was to use indirect means, such as, mobility and shock, to render an adversary's plans irrelevant or impractical." I bet the French found this to be of importance.

      Now to put the sword deep in the heart of your argument, I could write for hours about the Romans, but will instead leave with one article about the description of Roman Cavalry and let you search google on how the use of shock has shaped nations.

      I bet you think you can make this world a better place for other people? You can't, many will choose to live like dogs, to your disgust. You can only make the world a better place for yourself, and hope others follow your example.

    27. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Either you havn't thought about this very hard, or have decided to limit your definition of "shock" to the behaviors of early morning radio personalities. Reporters and editors have used shocking stories to achieve results both good (Nellie Bly) and bad (WIlliam Randolph Hearst). Shocking allegations have caused more than one leader to step down, and shocking brutality has kept more than one leader in power. The civil rights movement itself was spurred along by the widespread coverage of shocking events, like the murder of Emmit Till, and the violence at Birmingham, even Martin Luther King's assassination.

    28. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I blame Jack Thompson's video game playing."

    29. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by rpj1288 · · Score: 1

      The poster below you is correct. In addition, the T-Shirt is not being sold by Penny-Arcade. It is being sold by Think-Geek. So is everyone on the internet suddenly liable for what everyone else on the internet does?

      --
      Marvin knew: "Think of a number, any number..."
    30. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I replied to a Jack Thompson email and all I got was this T-Shirt.
      (And sued for harrassment)"

      "Jack Thompson thinks I'm an Idiot Gamer.
      (I think he's a Senile Douchebag)"

      "Common Sense 16, Jack Thompson 0"

      "Jack Thompson is a senile old moron."

      "(Picture of an ambulance being chased by a car)
      Jack Thompson: Turing Tragedy into Profit since 1975."

    31. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by BrGaribaldi · · Score: 1

      Ten thousand dollars is a lot of money. Say it with me, "Ten Thousand Dollars". I don't have the means, and I'm sure that it wasn't easy for Gabe and Tycho to part with that kind of cash, but they did it. They stepped up and made good on Jack's offer. Dropping $18 on an "I hate Jack Thompson" t-shirt is the least I can do to show the guys at Penny Arcade that I think they did an incredable thing when they cut that check.

    32. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Howabout "I did Jack Thompson's mother."

      Oh right, you were trying to take things the other way. Sorry.

      This is a joke, total humor protected by my first amendment right to freedom of speech. I did not, in fact, do Jack Thompson's mother, nor have I ever had the urge to do so. So don't go suing me Jack. If anything, blame the video games I've been playing for my poor taste in humor and sue the makers. Oh wait...

    33. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 1

      It's hard to take people seriously when they make a public spectacle of themselves.

      Well then this t-shirt fits in well with old Jack, doesn't it? I heard the interview he had where he literally accuses EA of "collaborating with the porn industry," because they don't regulate mods to The Sims.

      Face it: the only point of such a lawyer is to attract attention and elicit a response. Around here we call that "trolling" and such behavior is appropriately dismissed as irrelevant. It should come to no surprise that such behavior offline is similarly disregarded.

      Fixed.

    34. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by merlinokos · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Jack Johnson should have been a blowjob."

    35. Re:Well, the T-shirt is a little much... by SamSim · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see an old Penny Arcade line: "I play violent videogames and could snap any minute"

  14. Beautiful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "These idiots have been so careless as to post on their www.pennyarcade.com web site what they are doing regarding the harassment of me."

    In the same sentence he's call them idiots he gives the wrong web address.

    1. Re:Beautiful... by djh101010 · · Score: 1

      In the same sentence he's call them idiots he gives the wrong web address.

      For the record, www.pennyarcade.com is taken...I just checked. Ah well, could have been fun to turn it into a commentary site or something.

    2. Re:Beautiful... by jeschust · · Score: 2, Funny

      A while ago, I typed in the address without the hyphen, the URL provided by Jack, and it was the personal website of a transsexual star. It's not there anymore, but that's just what came to mind when I read the letter. Judging by Thompson's record of homophobia and misrepresentation, this might have been intentional.

    3. Re:Beautiful... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Naw, he just got confused and pasted in the first entry from his AOL Favorites list.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:Beautiful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've read any of Mr. Thompson's other "works", you might almost find it insulting that a man of his position and "status" either simply cannot spell or does not take the time to spellcheck such "important" documents.

  15. Thank god someone is doing something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't somebody please think of the children -- and run down Jack Thompson with an 18-wheeler!

    1. Re:Thank god someone is doing something... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 5, Funny

      I will offer 10K* to the first person who makes a game involving running Jack Thompson over with an 18-wheeler .**

      *10k meaning a 10k text file composed of the words "Jack Thompson is a twit" , as opposed to 10,000 in money
      **This is satire , a parody of Jack Thompsons Parody ***
      *** This , like J. Thompsons Satire is poor Satire .

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    2. Re:Thank god someone is doing something... by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 1

      Just download Truck Dismount (or Stair Dismount, for that matter) and pretend it's him. OMG murder simulation!

    3. Re:Thank god someone is doing something... by clickety6 · · Score: 1

      Does it have to be a game? Would video footage suffice?

      (CGI simulation of course ;-)

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    4. Re:Thank god someone is doing something... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      The F-Cat prize is open to any computer generated entertainment , though if its non-interactive the prize will be limited to an 8k text file.
      However that can be increased if Mr Thompson Sues or gets offended .
      If he tries to get me extradited for enticing Violence against him you win a free edited copy of one of his tirades of Morals

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    5. Re:Thank god someone is doing something... by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      Oh great. And when someone DOES release the game, I suppose you'll want someone else to provide the 10K text file. *Starts typing and grumbling*

  16. Waaah! by WilyCoder · · Score: 1

    Watch out, here comes the Waaaaaaaaah partol!

    1. Re:Waaah! by Kurrurrin · · Score: 1

      Its a Waaaaaaahmbulance, you dummy.

      --
      -Doug
    2. Re:Waaah! by WilyCoder · · Score: 1

      He called the cops, not 911. Ass master.

    3. Re:Waaah! by seth50k · · Score: 1

      I believe it's Waaaaaaaaa-mbulance.

    4. Re:Waaah! by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      The favorite phrase of me and my friends is: "All I hear is wah!"

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    5. Re:Waaah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but Waaaaaaaaah partol isn't as funny as Waaaaaaahmbulance. And besides, if he called the copes, I'm pretty sure they would send a patrol before a partol. The former is a detachment used for security or reconnaissance, while the latter is an automated feeding pump.

    6. Re:Waaah! by WilyCoder · · Score: 1

      Waaaaah! Typo! Waaaaah! Shall I be expecting the grammar police at my door ;) And why would he call the copes instead of the cops ?

  17. That's a paddlin'..... by blankoboy · · Score: 1

    That's a paddlin'.....

  18. Poetic justice by H_Fisher · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is exactly what blowhards like Jack Thompson deserve: to be publicly lampooned for their ridiculous actions.

    What does this man think he's going to accomplish? His vitriolic actions are very unlikely to change anyone's mind about the issue of video game violence. I teach argumentative writing and rhetoric to college students; one of the first things we teach is to know one's audience. Very few people of the ultra-conservative persuasion, however, need to be persuaded - they already are fanatically against video games that contain violence, sex, etc.

    And his tactics - wilfully distorting the truth, branding video game makers as murderers, setting up straw men to attack in his ravings about violent entertainment - well, I doubt anyone who's played the games he's targeting is going to burn their copy of GTA because of the things Thompson is saying.

    Bravo, Penny Arcade, for helping him do what he'd end up doing anyway: alienating anyone who might have listened to a more logical or reasonable argument against game violence, and generating more media attention for Rockstar Games et al. so they will, in turn, sell more games and continue creating popular content. For a lawyer, Thompson seems to have missed that one little maxim: "any press is good press."

    1. Re:Poetic justice by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "This is exactly what blowhards like Jack Thompson deserve: to be publicly lampooned for their ridiculous actions."

      This is exactly what the constitution guarrentees me, you, and everyone else the right to do. Whether or not they deserve it, it's certainly within my constitutional rights. See Jerry Falwell for relevant details.

    2. Re:Poetic justice by stare_at_the_sun · · Score: 1

      For a lawyer, Thompson seems to have missed that one little maxim: "any press is good press."

      Judging from the quantity of very predictable "press" he has got right here at slashdot, maybe he is counting on that one little maxim. "Bad" press can help people out, if they use it right. I'm thinking, oh... say.. Kevin Mitnick?

      --
      "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" -Jesus (John 14:6)
    3. Re:Poetic justice by nine-times · · Score: 1
      What does this man think he's going to accomplish? His vitriolic actions are very unlikely to change anyone's mind about the issue of video game violence. I teach argumentative writing and rhetoric to college students; one of the first things we teach is to know one's audience. Very few people of the ultra-conservative persuasion, however, need to be persuaded - they already are fanatically against video games that contain violence, sex, etc.

      And his tactics - wilfully distorting the truth, branding video game makers as murderers, setting up straw men to attack in his ravings about violent entertainment - well, I doubt anyone who's played the games he's targeting is going to burn their copy of GTA because of the things Thompson is saying.

      There is another possibility here. Sometimes people voice extreme views like this because they're stupid enough to think it will convince people. On the other hand, some people do it knowing that no one will be convinced. His goal may not be to convince either the video game players or the people who already think video games are dangerous. He may be purposefully inciting animosity between the two groups. If he's looking for a way to seize some sort of political power by scaring the crap out of people who are afraid of video games and feeding their paranoia, this all might be a rather successful venture. Inciting passionate and hateful responses from the opposition will serve to reenforce the fear that he needs to gain support.

    4. Re:Poetic justice by freidog · · Score: 1

      >>For a lawyer, Thompson seems to have missed that one little maxim: "any press is good press."

      You operate here under the assumption JT's goal with this is to defeat the violent video game makers.
      I'd give better than even money that his 'crusade' is aimed more at benifiting himself rather than society.

      Some on earlier in this thread posted JTs media appearances over the last some odd years, it was quite a list for a blowhard wackjob. Seems to me he's siezed on the idea that any press is good press and has sought out as much press as he can get himself, the sanity or rational of his position be damned.
      He's either setting himself up as the ambulance chaser of choice for those allegedly wronged by violent video games, or for a political run.
      Either way, he's a lunatic (deffamation law suit now pending) of a lawyer who's garnered national media attention time and again.

    5. Re:Poetic justice by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

      I find Jack Thompson to be the lawyer equivilent of Jim "The Ultimate Warrior" Hellig A.K.A "Warrior".

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    6. Re:Poetic justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't compare Rev Falwell with this loon. Falwell tries to help our country get back on its moral path. Thompson is just fucking nuts.

    7. Re:Poetic justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Falwell is a hateful piece of dirt. "Moral path"? Only if "moral path" means "God hates homosexuals, feminists and anyone else I want to piss on today."

    8. Re:Poetic justice by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 1

      "Very few people of the ultra-conservative persuasion, however, need to be persuaded - they already are fanatically against video games that contain violence, sex, etc."

      Yeah, but they may not be VIRULENTLY against video games.

      I think Thompson is proceeding on the assumption that there are plenty of fellow whacko conservatives out there who just don't know enough about video games to be properly outraged. So he pulls PR stunts like this, in the hopes that those untapped crazies will read the headlines and join his crusade.

      I think he's doing this just right, rhetorically. There's no point in going after a more rational or moderate audience, because rational and moderate people realize his argument is crap. He wants to stir up the crazies. And Lord knows it's been a successful strategy in the past.

    9. Re:Poetic justice by H_Fisher · · Score: 1
      I never said he didn't have the right to free speech.

      Agree with him or not, if someone was trying to censor Thompson, I would be against it. The crux of my post was that he's going about his fight the wrong way, and that he's really just shooting himself in the foot.

    10. Re:Poetic justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a lawyer, Thompson seems to have missed that one little maxim: "any press is good press."

      That's just the thing - no *real* person could be this profoundly insane, or believe such severely deranged rhetorical tactics would pursuade anyone to his "cause". The level of serious mental retardation necessary for that kind of dysfuction would never get someone past the bar. He's blown his cover - Jack's actually Rockstar's highest paid PR man. Good strategy, but you took it too far, Rockstar. We're on to you now.

    11. Re:Poetic justice by inquisitor · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's referring to Falwell vs. Hustler, in which Falwell sued Larry Flynt for publishing an ad-parody "featuring" the good reverend - one of the cases protecting the right to parody in the USA.

    12. Re:Poetic justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone should let Falwell know that if he keeps saying that the hurricanes this past month or so were the "wrath of God" on the "sinful" in New Orleans and Louisiana, that someone is going to tell him that the God they believe in is a perfect and loving God, not whatever cretin this freak believes in, whose shitty aim flattened three states' shorelines and yet still managed to leave the infamous French Quarter standing, and who certainly wouldn't have played chicken with Houston, only to change its mind at the last minute after dozens of elderly were killed in a bus fire.

    13. Re:Poetic justice by yoyhed · · Score: 1
      "Bad" press can help people out, if they use it right. I'm thinking, oh... say.. Kevin Mitnick?

      If Jack Thompson were to use his bad press like Mitnick did, he'd open a consulting firm to help people protect themselves against frivolous lawsuits from completely-fucking-batshit-crazy lawyers.

      --
      WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
    14. Re:Poetic justice by Ieshan · · Score: 1

      I know. =)

      I was just pointing out that Penny Arcade can do whatever the fuck well they please so long as there's no reasonable charge that they provide information possibly harmful to his physical wellbeing. And that's a *good thing* (tm).

  19. Re:Ah-Hahahahahaha! by Kirran · · Score: 1

    For the record, the actual threat of police action against PA happened only this morning. The rest of it has been on-going.

  20. From the World of Warcraft community. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the world of warcraft community, We'd like to give this insightful advice to Jack Thompson. "CRY MORE FGT" Since I can't hide behind a level 1 alt here, I'll just AC it. HAND.

  21. Now that's liebel by MacFury · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey, looks like a written attack on Penny Arcade. They should counter sue on the grounds that they are not idiots :-)

    1. Re:Now that's liebel by Tebriel · · Score: 1

      That might not be a winnable lawsuit =p

      --
      The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
    2. Re:Now that's liebel by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      You'd have to prove that Jack intended it as "they have an IQ lower than 50", and that this somehow tarnishes their image.

      If it's just an insult, then it can't be libel.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    3. Re:Now that's liebel by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Careful there... Insults can be taken as libel. What you put to paper in a public forum can come back to haunt you unless you frame it with "In my Opinion" first.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    4. Re:Now that's liebel by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      No, insults can't. Well... this need be clarrified. Only a statement of fact can be considered libelous or slanderous. Thus, if the insult has a statement of fact in it, as in for example: "Jack Thompson is a liar." (This is an example, don't sue me Jack Thompson.) Then you open yourself up for libel, because it can be argued that the statement is intended as a statement of fact, and if it were wrong, then would be libelous/slanderous. (Note: in the US, truth is an absoulte defense to libel/slander, and thus no matter how offense or degrading the statement might be; if it's true, you gotta live with it.)

      Now, just add some words to make it obviously a joke, "Jack Thompson is a big fat stupid liar liar pants on fire." You cut yourself free. Or, add information to explicitly state it's an opinion, "In my opinion, Jack Thompson is a lawyer."

      But there are few things that are never a statement of fact under US law. These include profane statements. Like: "Jack Thompson is an asshole." Completely protected right from the get go, because it's profane.

      So, looking at this stuff. In order to claim libel, you have to establish that Jack Thompson's claim against PA is: not profane, intended as a statement of fact, not true, and damaging to their image.

      The point failing here is the "intended as a statement of fact". You can't argue that Jack Thompson intended "idiot" as a statement of fact, but rather as a "semi-profane" insult. Idiot has an exact definition, and a epithetical usage. If he didn't intend it with that exact definition, then it's not libel. And I think it would hard to establish that Jack Thompson did intend to say that the people of Penny Arcade have an IQ low enough to establish the definition of "idiot."

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    5. Re:Now that's liebel by mr_sas · · Score: 1

      Or for the Brits among us, by catting "Allegedly" on the end :)

    6. Re:Now that's liebel by saintp · · Score: 2, Funny
      Or, add information to explicitly state it's an opinion, "In my opinion, Jack Thompson is a lawyer."
      I can't tell if that's a Freudian slip, and you actually meant "liar," or not. It's funny either way.
    7. Re:Now that's liebel by Krach42 · · Score: 1
      Or, add information to explicitly state it's an opinion, "In my opinion, Jack Thompson is a lawyer."

      I can't tell if that's a Freudian slip, and you actually meant "liar," or not. It's funny either way.


      Damn, that's hilarious. I can't believe my fingers typed that. Yeah, it's supposed to be "liar".

      I don't think it needs to be "opinion" that Jack Thompson is a lawyer. Well, until he gets disbarred.
      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    8. Re:Now that's liebel by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      Well, in Britain you don't have fully the same protections as here in America (or the other way around, if you consider from the victim's perspective.)

      In Britain you're expected some privacy, whether public or private, and even if something is true, if it is spoken/published in such a way that there is nothing to be gained other than defamation of the person, then even if it's true, then it's wrong.

      For instance, say while you were running against an opponent in an election, and you started outwardly saying that your opponent is homosexual. If this defames your opponent, whether true or not. So asking them to check a box on a slip of paper declaring their sexual orientation wouldn't save your butt.

      Now as far as opinion... crap, I forgot that part of non-US law. I'm sure it's pretty much the same. Of course, the other nifty trick I learned that German uses heavily is to put the phrase into the subjunctive. That way the whole sentence is spoken as if it could be contrary to fact.

      Thus, "Jack Thompson were a liar, and an idiot." is covered because it's by nature of grammar contrary to fact. So you could really say anything like, "Jack Thompson were to molest young boys, and spank their bottoms." I mean, he can TRY and sue me over those ones, but they're by nature of grammar a statement contrary to fact, and thus by gramatical features it's obvious that it is intended that they're not statements of fact, and thus not applicable to defamation law.

      If you couldn't tell, I enjoy learning little details of language and linguistics and stuff like this. Plus, I've been in a few situations where it's important to watch what you're saying about a particular person.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    9. Re:Now that's liebel by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 1

      But there are few things that are never a statement of fact under US law. These include profane statements. Like: "Jack Thompson is an asshole." Completely protected right from the get go, because it's profane.

      Penn & Teller use the same tactic on their show, Bullshit. They've said that if they call people liars and quacks, it leaves them open to legal threats, but if they use words like "bullshit" or call people douchebags and motherfuckers, they're completely in the clear.

      And if you've not seen Bullshit, you should. It's one of the best TV shows ever.

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    10. Re:Now that's liebel by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's actually what got me to look up the point about obscenity and libel. :)

      It is an awesome show. I was damn surprised by the 2nd Hand Smoking episode. I was all, "WTF? 2nd Hand Smoke is Bullshit?" Sure enough.

      And you have the same Jack Thompson-like assholes running that sham, too.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    11. Re:Now that's liebel by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Nice catch. However, I DO believe that Jack, old boy, did screw up on that count at least once or more on his rants. I'd be looking for someone else as a DA, that man's a liability, not an asset.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    12. Re:Now that's liebel by mr_sas · · Score: 1

      This wasn't not a comment about a running gag on Have I Got News For You, a part of British popular culture

    13. Re:Now that's liebel by mink · · Score: 1

      While 2nd hand smoke is not going to kill everyone, it can still bother people who have allergies or are not regularly around it. Personally I think smoking (and 2nd hand) makes food and drink taste like ass.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  22. I think I'm not alone in saying... by Phil+John · · Score: 1

    ...what a complete douche thompson is.

    --
    I am NaN
    1. Re:I think I'm not alone in saying... by ethx1 · · Score: 1

      You are.


      The rest of us are saying he is a fucking nutcase.

  23. Bar sanctions needed by dartmouth05 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am not a lawyer, but reading the course of communications between Jack Thompson and Penny Arcade, it seems to me that while Penny Arcade is certainly not guilty of criminal harassment, Jack Thompson has violated the Florida Bar's standard of ethics for attorneys. He is using his status as an attorney, as an officer of the court, to threaten/bully private citizens with obviously frivolous suits. (You cannot sue someone for merely e-mailing you, unless it was obscene, a death threat, causing severe emotional distress, etc.!) While not rising to the point of a suspendable offense, I believe a public reprimand from the Bar is appropriate and needed.

    1. Re:Bar sanctions needed by killtherat · · Score: 1

      That's a good idea. Are there any lawyers in Florida that read slashdot that would like to report Jack's actions to the Florida bar association?

    2. Re:Bar sanctions needed by SpamJunkie · · Score: 3, Funny

      The most likely way that he would receive professional discipline would be as a result of one or more well-reasoned, viable complaints to the bar.

      I believe this is the proper form.

    3. Re:Bar sanctions needed by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And I'd suggest NOT doing this (unless you've been attacked by Jack personally). If PA want to file a complaint, then they're wel within their rights, but the last thing the Florida Bar association wants is 10000 angry geeks demanding he be censured.

      Besides - that would be harrassment.

    4. Re:Bar sanctions needed by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling that telling him the sky is green causes him "severe emotional distress".

    5. Re:Bar sanctions needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I believe a public reprimand from the Bar is appropriate and needed."

      I presume that you're new here in the State of Florida. Let me clue you in: Nothing will happen to him.

      This has been a public message from the Florida Bar Association.

      Step away, nothing to see here...

    6. Re:Bar sanctions needed by justins · · Score: 1
      While not rising to the point of a suspendable offense, I believe a public reprimand from the Bar is appropriate and needed.

      I'm sure the Florida authorities will get right on that. They're so reasonable about everything else...
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
  24. Jack got the URL wrong by jettoki · · Score: 0, Redundant

    These idiots have been so careless as to post on their www.pennyarcade.com web site what they are doing regarding the harassment of me.

    Actually www.pennyarcade.com was the website for a "Queer theatre" troupe.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20021123192944/http://w ww.pennyarcade.com/

    I guess it's a moot point to jokingly call Jack homophobic. His attacks on Islam have already painted him as cookie-cutter Christian Right.

    1. Re:Jack got the URL wrong by operagost · · Score: 1

      Cookie cutter? Not unless you think every Christian is a belligerent lawyer with an axe to grind.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Jack got the URL wrong by jettoki · · Score: 1

      [JackThompson]
      "The Bible doesn't promote killing innocent people," Thompson said. "Grand Theft Auto does. Islam does. Islam promotes the killing of innocent people. The Quran requires the infidel, whether Jew or Christian, to be killed. ... That's a core essence of the religion. ... Muhammad was a pirate who killed infidels and who advocated the killing of infidels. Not a nice guy. Osama bin Laden is in keeping with his fine tradition."
      [/JackThompson]

      Okay, Radical Christian Right. Comprised primarily of belligerent lawyers, preachers, and daytime TV hosts with a collective axe to grind. I meant no offense to normal, goodly right-wing Christians.

    3. Re:Jack got the URL wrong by Swamii · · Score: 1

      homophobic...cookie-cutter Christian Right.

      Not really. His teaming with leftist Democrat Sen. Clinton distanced himself from the right. Couple that with some of his recent angry rants, where he criticizes games for violence "against police officers, women, and homosexuals".

      It seems to me this guy is just an angry, litigious scatterbrains, who honestly thought he was on a valid, righteous crusade, only to find out that video games are quite harmless. Now that he's publicly made a fool of himself, and he'll do what he does best: sue, in the hopes of reclaiming some self-dignity.

      --
      Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
    4. Re:Jack got the URL wrong by jettoki · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's no longer backing Hillary Clinton.
      I certainly did, however, lose respect for Senator Clinton when she decided, after that, to attend a fundraiser thrown for her by the video game industry and by ESA's Doug Lowenstein. To me, that was a sell-out for campaign cash.

      http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=1 0830

      And I don't see why the parent post was modded Redundant, seeing how TFA doesn't link to www.pennyarcade.com. *sigh*

    5. Re:Jack got the URL wrong by Swamii · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

      Looks like the some rightist orgs, like the National Institute on Media and the Family, recently denounced ties to him as well, reported here.

      --
      Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
    6. Re:Jack got the URL wrong by MisterMurphy · · Score: 1

      In one of his open letters to the chairperson of NIMF, Jacky Boy called him a "liberal" as if it were slander. So I'd say he can be safely classed as on one half of the table, and that'd be on the right.

      Of course, in the same article he compared the game industry to the Nazis. So who knows what the loonball is thinking?

    7. Re:Jack got the URL wrong by Swamii · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah. If he is a rightist, he's a really poor representation of what one should be. As both rightist and a video game player, I can say that -- at least for myself -- games have had no real affect on my life. It's entertainment, like going to watch a movie; unless there's something severely wrong with a person, entertainment isn't going to revolutionize the one acts in the real world. Also, if the right is concerned about morality and ethics as it claims to be, the authority of a child's morality and ethics should be placed in the hands of the parents, not some lawsuit-bent lawyer.

      I notice some people are calling him a Christian as well, and likewise, if he is a Christian, he's done an utterly poor job representing Jesus. I mean, he called (apparently, in satire) for a game where people piss on the busted brains of dead game shop employees? Oh yeah, that's real Christ-like there Jack. Nevermind the fact that Jesus said to refrain from taking people to court. Ugh.

      --
      Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
    8. Re:Jack got the URL wrong by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      What kind of "rightist" are you, though? Jack Thompson's the new breed of rightist, just like Bush (But thankfully, still unlike a good chunk of the Republican party). Twenty years ago, extremist evangelical Christians who said the way to "conquer" America was to get a stranglehold on the Republican party. God-invoking figures like Jack Thompson, George W. Bush, and for that matter even Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Joe Leiberman are the result of their attempts to do so.

      Face it: This is the new face of the right wing. Cheny, Barcia, Powel, McCain, those people are becoming relics rapidly. Barcia's already gone from Congress, replaced by the Christian Right, McCain has probably given up hope for being president, Powel became fed up with what the right has become and left the cabinet, and it looks like Cheny's going to take the fall hard for the spy scandal.

      It's all well and good to say what conservatives are SUPPOSED to be, but there are scant few of them left anymore. It's all well and good to say what Christians are SUPPOSED to be, but many of them have stopped reading the New Testament because Leviticus lets them increase their standing in God's eyes by persecuting others. It's great to say what Liberals SHOULD be and pull up great names like Kennedy and Roosevelt, but we've got to face it too: Liberals aren't what they're "supposed" to be anymore either.

    9. Re:Jack got the URL wrong by Swamii · · Score: 1

      A lot of what you say is true. So much so, that I -- formerly a zealous Republican supporter -- am now quiet when politics come up, because I've come to the realization that putting faith in men, especially men involved in politics, is total folly.

      I think you've been misinformed about Christians, though. The believers I know are quite loving and forgiving, some of the kindest people I've met. Yes, there are a few bad apples who use belief in God as a weapon (contrast this with Jesus, who taught that of all of Scripture, the greatest laws are to love God and love others). Despite the few bad apples, for the vast majority of Christians, at least the one's I've personally known, they are not in the least bit hateful or persecuting in nature. I hope you haven't encountered one that are.

      --
      Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
  25. Huh? by mike.newton · · Score: 1

    Worst. Summary. Ever.

    1. Re:Huh? by Mr.Intel · · Score: 1

      You misspelled 'Evar'.

      --
      ASCII tastes bad dude.
      Binary it is then.
  26. Oh, this is nice... by Karma_fucker_sucker · · Score: 1
    This latest controversy is part and parcel to a complicated dispute over Thompson's bizarre offer to donate $10K to charity provided that a developer create and distribute a violent game of Thompson's specification in which the victims were industry executives and their families.

    What would that prove?

    what a jackass.

    --
    Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
    1. Re:Oh, this is nice... by DeathPooky · · Score: 1

      According to his original article, he believed that video game makers would be too afraid to make a game where a boy went out killing game industry executives because it would 'train' kids to target them instead of cops. So he was basically baiting them to turn the destructive video game lens upon themselves with a promise of $10k to charity

      Yes, it's a very stupid idea, considering the video game industry for the most part doesn't truly believe that they're training kids to kill, so I doubt they'd have any qualms putting the bullseye video games supposedly create on themselves.

    2. Re:Oh, this is nice... by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      From what I can tell, he's trying to make a point that the police officers being killed in the games are real people... that putting officers in that kind of a game in that kind of a way should be viewed by the game designers in the same way as putting images of themselves and their families in the game.

      Yeah, I think he's stretching it. Maybe officers should volunteer to have their faces added to the graphics in the game.

      Friendly domestic scene of an officer with a family, "hey dad, watch what I can do when I rip off your head!"

    3. Re:Oh, this is nice... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Clearly he wasn't familiar with Doom2's final boss, John Romero's Head on a Stick. The fact that no gamer has gone out to kill John Romero, in spite of "making us his bitches" with Daikatana, is proof to me at least that J. Thompson's thesis that kids will kill whoever video games tell them to kill is bullshit.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Oh, this is nice... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      The fact that no gamer has gone out to kill John Romero, in spite of "making us his bitches" with Daikatana, is proof to me at least that J. Thompson's thesis that kids will kill whoever video games tell them to kill is bullshit.

      No, it just means that kids can't get ahold of a rocket launcher at just the moment that John Romero is hiding behind a huge goat head.

  27. His Next Suit Will Be... by Evil+W1zard · · Score: 1

    Against the motion picture industry when the aliens attack since they released movies like Mars Attacks and Alien which are obviously trainers for how aliens should kill people and take over the earth...

    Oh sweet irony prevail and let this man get run over by a delivery truck from EB Games full of violent video games...

    --
    News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
    1. Re:His Next Suit Will Be... by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      such "sweet irony" could, in fact, turn him into a martyr for the anti-gaming crowd, and might even prove his point in the eyes of some senators (if, as he claims, he has spoken to any).

      A much brighter future would include Jack Thompson spending the rest of his life as an orange farmer. He could spend all day picking oranges, and relax and unwind. It might help him forget the horrors of the world. He would be able to earn a living, and he wouldn't be perpetuating needless conflicts.

      And any world with one more orange-picker and one less lawyer is a good one by me.

  28. Superiority by Gadgetfreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems that most of his quotes seem to deride the geek community, particularly gamers, as somehow not being as intelligent as he is. I'm not surprised at all that he's gotten this kind of backlash, particularly from a group that typically doesn't like to let an issued a challenge go ignored.

    I'm also surprised that he hasn't been more thoroughly bashed by Penny Arcade. I would have expected some sort of Fruit F*cker episode gone wrong.

    --
    "No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
    1. Re:Superiority by Drey · · Score: 1

      Well, there's always the comic that ran at CAD.

    2. Re:Superiority by Dani+Filth · · Score: 1

      When has a Fruit F*cker episode ever gone right? :)

    3. Re:Superiority by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Mod me troll, but I'll say this.

      Tim Buckley's a pedo. And pulled a Jack Thompson trying to cover it up.

      Read this: http://forums.rantingsofmadmen.com/viewtopic.php?t =119

      FWIW, I do think that posting something like that wasn't the greatest idea, and the OP should have been banned. Banning anyone who even KNEW about it, though?

    4. Re:Superiority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tim Buckley's a pedo.

      "pedophile" means someone who is solely attracted to pre-adolescents.

      Whatever Tim was doing, it doesn't sound like that's very accurate. Even if it's representative of his normal behavior, the girls mentioned in that thread were 17 and 16, hardly pre-adolescent.

  29. Complete sentences please. by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

    The fragments in this Slashdot story are hard to decipher.

    1. Re:Complete sentences please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just which sentences are fragments?

  30. The sick thing is... by Caspian · · Score: 1

    ...he'll probably win. At least in the first court battle. Consider the current political climate. Not only Republicans, but high-profile Democrats as well (thank you, Hillary Roddham Clinton) are coming down hard against those eeeeeevil video games.

    Now, on the other hand, it's good that it's Penny-Arcade being threatened and not, say, some random shmoe with some unknown little Website. Penny-Arcade has enough fame to make this a high-profile case, which means a lot of flak will be generated for Jack Thompson and his defenders, which means that the "good guys" have a fighting chance of winning-- maybe even in the short term, and not the long term. If, instead of picking on Gabe and Tycho, he'd decided to pick on, say, some random video game lover, the "good guys" wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell.

    --
    With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
    1. Re:The sick thing is... by OctoberSky · · Score: 1

      As recent as a month ago I would have ageeed with you about Him (J. Thompson) winning, but given his recent antics I think the likes of Hillary Inc. are going to distance themselves like that other group did.

      As a gamer and a geek I think I have to ask others what they think, I know far more about this story than my less than geek friends. Not everyone reads Slashdot, so they don't all know about this guy. But the fact that Hillary Inc. is involved will make this much worse for him.

  31. Hypocrite. by smose · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Evidently, Jack believes it to be acceptable to harass video game developers, but sees this as a one-way street.

    This is what freedom of speech is all about, Jack. Say what you will. You are free to listen to what others have to say in return. Harassment law ought not prevent you from being hung by your own words.

  32. Ignore the bully? by Bollenator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On the one hand, I almost feel compelled to call the Seattle PD (local for me) and plead with them not to take any action based on Mr. Thompson's ludicrous and exaggerated claims; on the other hand, I can't imagine anyone taking that man seriously after all the negative press he has been receiving. It's almost as though the more he gets ragged on, the more intense he gets about beating the video games industry into the ground.

    I do love Penny Arcade as much as the next guy (perhaps moreso if the next guy doesn't like them :P), but this situation with Jack Thompson reminds me vividly of the classic bully/attention-whore syndrome in elementary school. The more flak people give this guy, especially negative, he's just going to keep coming back for more. You know what would really hurt him? Neglect and disregard. If somehow everyone was able to see what a boisterous gasbag this man is and just learn to ignore everything he barks, he will lose his bite. So for Mike and Jerry, while reading about their antics of antagonizing Mr. Thompson are often hilarious and eye-opening, they may be just making the matter worse for most involved.

    In any event, this too shall pass; I just hope it passes before our friends at Penny Arcade get slapped with a real-yet-bogus lawsuit by this litigation-happy doofus.

    Fin.

    --
    "The gods do not protect fools; fools are protected by more capable fools." -Larry Niven's "Ringworld"
    1. Re:Ignore the bully? by Senjutsu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the one hand, I almost feel compelled to call the Seattle PD (local for me) and plead with them not to take any action based on Mr. Thompson's ludicrous and exaggerated claims; on the other hand,

      I wouldn't worry about it. Quoth Tycho:

      It is critical to establish that this letter isn't anything to worry about. We've been sent worse by better.

      A response that should, with any luck, inspire Thompson to further heights of lunacy to the amusement of all.

    2. Re:Ignore the bully? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought what could really hurt him was to use him as an effigy, and to break and shatter the "crusade" he's leading, and to use his own words and leadership to destroy all his ideals. THEN to show him his folly at the end of his life.

    3. Re:Ignore the bully? by captaincucumber · · Score: 1

      I remember in elementary school that I was told many times by teachers and my parents that bullies would go away if you ignored them.

      However, I never actually encountered a bully that went away when ignored.

      Has anyone? Seriously, who makes this stuff up? Jack Thompson will go away if ignored?

      I don't know what elementary school you went to, but at mine the only way to stop bullies was violent dismemberment.

    4. Re:Ignore the bully? by commonchaos · · Score: 1

      I think that you should call the Seattle PD and thank them for ignoring Jack. Say that you appreciate that level heads are prevailing and that you are proud to have them looking out for you. Police deal with far more negative than positive and I'm sure they would like to hear a "thank you" from you.

    5. Re:Ignore the bully? by archmedes5 · · Score: 1

      Bullies are one of those in which ignoring just proves that you're a pushover. The best way to make a bully go away, is to punch him square in the face, once he realizes that you can and will hurt him when he tries to bully you, he'll move on to another target.

  33. What a little baby.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cry more n00b!

  34. Hah by slackmaster2000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ok, if GTA is a "cop killing training simulator", then what does that say about the compentency of our police force?

    I remember a spot in GTA 3 where I could hide under an overpass and the cops would all jump off the top to their deaths...this would continue indefinately and I found it rather amusing. And now that I know that this is what would happen in real life, I'm going on a crime spree rampage during which I'll wipe out the town's entire police force by crouching near an overpass.

    1. Re:Hah by yoyhed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Along the same lines, try the hospital parking lot in Staunton Island when you have 5 stars. There's a short fence at the top of the walls, so when the FBI cars come flying into them, they get some serious (hilarious) air before crashing to their deaths in huge piles.

      --
      WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
    2. Re:Hah by saintp · · Score: 1

      I know that every time I go on a murderous rampage in which I blow up countless cars, kill dozens of innocent pedestrians and scores of cops, I just run back to my house and step on the giant floppy disk in my kitchen. The cops all leave me alone after that.

    3. Re:Hah by drew · · Score: 1

      Not to mention you can do whatever you want and no matter how pissed off they get at you, they'll forget about you in a second when you get your car repainted.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    4. Re:Hah by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh yeah, GTA trains you in all kinds of important cop-killing techniques and strategies:

      - To start your rampage, you'll need weapons and armor. Civilians can get shotguns, pistols, kevlar vests, and double-ended dildos (for hand to hand combat, of course...) from their local police station.

      - Stealing a cop car is a great way to start a murder rampage. The best way to do this is to find a car with one cop, and try to open the passenger door. The cop will unlock both doors as he gets out, and leave the keys in the ignition. You can then get in through the passenger door as he runs around the car to catch you, and drive off.

      - If you only commit a minor crime, such as bludgeoning a hooker to death with a double-ended dildo in the middle of the street, the police will forget about you in a few minutes.

      - For more severe crimes, such as beating a police officer to death with a double-ended dildo, you will have to duck into various dark alleys until you find one marked with a star that will cause the police to forget about you.

      - If the heat gets too hot to handle, try spray painting your car so the police won't recognize you. Changing cars won't work, though. The police aren't dumb, you know!

      - If you do lose the police by spraying your car, refrain from immediately bludgeoning one with your dildo, or they'll recognize you. You have to be patient. It can take up to thirty seconds for the police to forget about the dozens of cops you killed.

      - If defeat is inevitable, try to let an on-foot officer catch up to your car so he can arrest you. Despite the trail of destruction behind you and the cop guts stuck in your tire treads, the officer will forgive and forget for a measely $100 bribe. You'll be dropped outside the police station without any of your weapons, so make sure to run back inside and re-arm.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Hah by mrseigen · · Score: 1

      There are a couple areas in Vice City (like the golf course) where ambulances off in the distance will drive directly toward you, only to fall into a natural hazard (such as over a fence and into the river). It's rather amusing to watch.

    6. Re:Hah by yoyhed · · Score: 1
      I wish I had the motivation to share everything hilarious like this I've managed to find in the GTAs, but here's one gem: turn on the "cars float away if you touch them" cheat in San Andreas (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/gta4/hints.htm l).

      Gently touch a cop car with yours (so as not to get a star yet, but so it floats), quick get out and hop on it, and wait for it to float high above the streets. Then shoot the cop car you're standing on, and you will get a star and the cop will get out to reprimand you, only to fall to his death.

      Coordinate with multiple cars for more fun :-)

      PS: GTA 3 is still the best for cop fun, since their strategy to reprimand you is to drive insanely fast in a straight line towards you, with complete disregard for what stands in their way, be it pedestrians, cliffs, etc :-)

      --
      WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
  35. This is circular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more press you give him, the more outrageous and stupid bullshit he pulls. Eventually he will get on The Today Show, Nightline, whatever fucking show has a lot of morons watching and he will say ONLY what he wants to say and try to make everyone believe it. The news agencies see "games kill people" stories as good for ratings so they usually side with whoever is being "killed" and villify the "killers" as much as possible to add hype and excitement.

    THIS IS MY MESSAGE TO YOU PEOPLE:

    STOP TRYING TO DEBATE THIS MAN. HE IS NOT A LAWYER, HE IS A TROLL.

    DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

  36. The idea was by autopr0n · · Score: 4, Informative

    He wanted to make a video game about a father who's son does something violent after playing video games. The father would go nuts and kill video game developers. He offered to donate $10k to the charity of the developers choice if the game was made. A game (actually, a GTA mod) was made, and Thompson reneged on the offer

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:The idea was by Iriel · · Score: 1

      Actually, if I remember correctly, you play as the father of a boy that was killed by some other child brainwashed by violent games. Hence the vengeance idea.

      --
      Perfecting Discordia
      www.stevenvansickle.com
    2. Re:The idea was by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      I guess the parent has seen the story about that thing, but complained about this oh-so-well formed sentence in the blurb.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:The idea was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually, a GTA mod
      Well, according to him, a mod is a game. Which is why Rockstar got into all kinds of trouble they didn't mean to. This is of course only slightly different than the trouble they DO mean to get into.

    4. Re:The idea was by southpolesammy · · Score: 1
      There are a few things that are scary about this guy, beyond the trite lawyer comments:

      1. He's actually advocating for someone to create a game that represents the opposite viewpoint he stands for (why not advocate someone to create a game that agrees with his mentality? Seems more productive to me...)
      2. He can afford to piss away $10,000 -- regardless of his reneg, he probably has the funds, and money buys friends in political circles


      IOW, he's a loose cannon with money to burn towards his tilted view of the world. This is not a good thing.
      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    5. Re:The idea was by TheOneBiscuit · · Score: 1

      I disagree, the scary thing about this guy is the detail he goes to in his "game".
      This sounds to me less like a game proposal and more like something that has been thinking through in his head, almost like a fantasy.
      Listen to the way he describes the scenarios, you can almost hear him getting more excited with each death of a gamer.
      That is what scares me.

      --
      Things are good
    6. Re:The idea was by southpolesammy · · Score: 1
      Very true. In fact, there's been posts that has said that this guy has been observed for mental issues -- I think he may very well be a psychopath (not joking here...this is a very big problem). Look at the DSM-IV-TR criteria he probably satisfies:

      1. Failure to conform to social norms. Yes, check -- he has been engaging in barratry to prove his point.
      2. Deceitfulness -- check, although it may be delusions of grandeur that he's having that make him believe he's telling the truth
      3. impulsivity -- no, this doesn't fit -- he's very aware of what he's doing and planning carefully
      4. irritability or aggressiveness -- definite check, he's openly attacking anyone who disagrees with his viewpoints, instead of calmly debating them
      5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others -- hard to say here, but going to go with no since I can't establish a reasonable cause here
      6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations -- reneged on $10k check, need I say more?
      7. lack of remorse -- check, he definitely does not seem to mind hurting others, and his vision of the game he wants is frightening


      If a person satisfies three or more of these criteria, a diagnosis of psychopathy or sociopathy is probably warranted. Jack meets 5 of the 7. He seriously needs to be admitted to a mental hospital ASAP.
      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
  37. Not sure its been mentioned here by Kirran · · Score: 5, Informative

    Though I'm sure many following this mess know about it. Jack has also recently recieved a letter from Dr. David Walsh of the National Institute on Media and the Family. In this letter (published on www.gamepolitics.com) Dr. Walsh distances himself and his organization from Jack. His comments tend to really get to the core of what Jack does, "Your commentary has included extreme hyperbole and your tactics have included personally attacking individuals for whom I have a great deal of respect." He's like a kid on a playground. Someone does something he doesn't like and he starts yelling about getting his daddy to get them, because his daddy is a cop or a lawyer. Only he is the lawyer...

    1. Re:Not sure its been mentioned here by AkaXakA · · Score: 1

      "Only this time he is the lawyer..."

      Coming to a theater near you soon!

  38. i don't know what to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jack t. sucks, and so does penny arcade. i'm confused!

  39. Gouranga! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That which brings the highest happiness.

  40. Re:boobies? by 72beetle · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just one, and surpise, he's a lawyer.

    --
    -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
  41. Max Payne and Jack Carver Countersue by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    Their training simulators deal with thugs and criminals and they have since countersued for defamation of character.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  42. IANAL & YANAL by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's going to happen very soon now, as Jack is getting loonier and loonier. He keeps dancing around direct legal threats, because he knows what will happen. Soon he will slip, and soon after that he won't be a lawyer anymore, and won't THAT be a shame?

    How, pray, does an attorney get disbarred for being a loonie? Half the western governments would lose representatives, MPs, etc. on that claim. More to the point:

    He has now called the cops claiming harassment.

    He will now harass PA and the thing is, he knows full well how to do it and could make PA suffer in the short run.

    I have no doubts he has nary a leg to stand on, bringing this all upon himself by raising himself to a Public Figure, which surrenders certain protections.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:IANAL & YANAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      How, pray, does an attorney get disbarred for being a loonie?

      Why, dear reader, by doing exactly what the parent poster indicated:

      "He keeps dancing around direct legal threats, because he knows what will happen."

      We tend to call that "barratry" here in the US. And yes, it is actionable.

    2. Re:IANAL & YANAL by shotfeel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He will now harass PA and the thing is, he knows full well how to do it and could make PA suffer in the short ru

      I don't know. I was thinking PA should send him a Thank You stating how his harassment of them has brought hundreds of new readers to the site, more than offsetting the cost of the donation they made in his place.

      Anyone actually been nearby when a pressure-cooker explodes?

    3. Re:IANAL & YANAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dunno if you've run a website recently, but bandwidth is still not free.

    4. Re:IANAL & YANAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been nearby when the pressure releif valve on a pressure cooker let go. It was impressive. It spewed chicken and dumpling puree all over my aunts kitchen. Well, at leats the wall near the stove and the exhaust hood. One seriously loud bang, followed by a whistling, then dead silence as everyone stared.

    5. Re:IANAL & YANAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      dunno if you've run a website recently, but bandwidth is still not free.

      An neither is advertising on their website....

    6. Re:IANAL & YANAL by damiam · · Score: 2, Informative

      I very much doubt that hundreds of new readers and a /.ed server (with the associated bandwidth costs) add up to a net profit of $10000.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    7. Re:IANAL & YANAL by vermox · · Score: 1

      I really doubt the guys at PA needed all that extra readers to make a 10K donation, their site has a huge fan base built with years of witty and humorous comics and news comments, and besides that, they hold an annual charity event called Child's Play, which brings about 500K in donations every year. This was just to sting Jack Thompson's pride a bit.

      --
      --- /dev/null
    8. Re:IANAL & YANAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've seen a can of spaghetti on a campfire explode.

      Now that was funny! Spaghetti hanging from trees, people running around covered in spaghetti screaming about the spaghetti burns.

      If you ever have the chance to secretly lob a can into a campfire - do it. It will keep you laughing for hours!

    9. Re:IANAL & YANAL by Meagermanx · · Score: 1

      ...but love is.

    10. Re:IANAL & YANAL by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      I really doubt the guys at PA needed all that extra readers to make a 10K donation, their site has a huge fan base built with years of witty and humorous comics and news comments, and besides that, they hold an annual charity event called Child's Play, which brings about 500K in donations every year. This was just to sting Jack Thompson's pride a bit.

      Oh, I know all about PA, I've been a reader for years. I was even a donor when they were still struggling. Certain injunctions could sting them and, like the American McGee incident, could run a bit of egg down their faces as well.

      I've saved that American McGee drawing somewhere. It really wasn't as good as all the fuss made it out to be. National Lampoon, ages ago did a Strawberry Cheesecake which was far more outrageous (and funny.)

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  43. But he'd make a GREAT politician... by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    GREAT in the sense of successful, of course, not in the sense of "good for the people."

    You all are taking note of what he's trying to do, right? He's trying to transform the gamer community's reaction to his lunacy into attacks on his cause, which is, at least in his mind, protecting innocent kids and brave police officers.

    It's just a matter of time before it becomes a real simple equation:

    Disagreeing with Jack Thompson = Helping to kill cops

    At that point, it becomes really easy to pass laws banning the types of videogames that Jack disagrees with. (Then movies, then web sites, maybe even books...)

    Yep, he may be just a lawyer right now, but he clearly has higher intentions in mind, and he's using skills that have been taught very well over the past few years to get elected. It doesn't take too much gray matter to realize that soccer moms outnumber gaming advocates by a pretty wide margin, so who would you rather have included in your base?

    The crying shame of it is that given America's record of picking leaders lately, he'll probably succeed, unless at least a few people not just read Slashdot, but actually act on what they read here.

    Send a message, folks, and get out and vote. And not just for the big elections every four years. Vote in your Congressional elections. Vote in your state elections. Vote for your local councilmembers. Spread the word and get your friend to vote. Don't be afraid to use that fancy gaming machine to write a fickin' letter now and then. What do you say, can we please stop the ensuing madness to come before it gets started?

    Jack wants to protect children and cops. Hey, I do too, I just happen to think he's going about it all wrong. The question in my mind now is: Who will protect the rest of us from Jack?

    1. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jack wants to protect children and cops.

      Someone should tell Thompson that in general, kdis and cops don't need protections over and above the ones they receive now. Kids have parents and cops are armed. If having supervisors or weapons are insufficient protections, then your society is collapsing and no further regulation is going to help.

      Of course, no one listens to this point of view. It's crazy. Even more importantly, it's UNELECTABLE.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    2. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disagreeing with Jack Thompson = Helping to kill cops

      That's all it takes? Wow. Revenge (for actual wrongs in my case) has never been so simple.

    3. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Tiro · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Your argument assumes that institutions [ie legislative elections] matter.

      Typically political power trancedes the institutional facades of power.

    4. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by petabyte · · Score: 1

      So is Jack Thompson Snowball or Napoleon?

      *puts Animal Farm back down*

    5. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by halltk1983 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Love the sig, and thought you might appreciate this linked article.

      Kid's Violence Levels

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    6. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I disagree. I don't think Thompson wants to be a politcian. I think he justs wants to be rich; well, richer.
      Think about it: He creates all this media hoo-ha, and finally brings a case against a game company, most likely Rockstar and their partners. He brings this case for, oooh, say, the family of a kid who got gunned down by some nutbar who happened to own a playstation. (And probably access to lethal weapons, along with the experience to use them. But forget about that. It's definitely the playstation's fault, right?)
      Let's say he wins the case.
      He'll get a cut of the money.(Which will probably be vast, thanks to punitive damages.) But more to the point, it'll be a landmark. Precedent will be set. Jack Thompson's name will be attached to the case.
      Then the first lawyer people think to call in on similar cases will be 'You know, that video game guy, what's his name? Tom Jackson or something?'
      With precedent set, it'll be much easier to win these future cases. Jack Thompson keeps getting a cut of the money from every case he wins, as well as the lucrative talk show spots and inevitable quango* posts.
      All he has to do is one case, and he's a millionaire a number of times over. That's his motivation, as far as I'm concerned.

      *quango: QUAsi Non Governmental Organisation, an organisation employed by the government, but not officially a lawmaking body. Like a think tank.

    7. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by KillShill · · Score: 0, Troll

      "gaming machine"? you mean console?

      those machines are incapable of executing non-approved code, hence no vi or emacs can be used to write a letter.

      perhaps we should petition the government to remove these artificial restrictions on our property...

      oh you meant "com pu ters". never mind.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    8. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      given America's record of picking leaders lately

      Perhaps the root of corrupt government is not that the wrong people are in power. Perhaps the problem is that power exists.

      In political terms, power is the unique "right" to initiate force as a means to an end (any normal citizen or group who does so is criminal). It is impossible to hold this "right" and not abuse it -- after all, the very notion that such a "right" should exist is unjust.

    9. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 0, Troll
      Your argument implies corruption at every level of government. On what facts are you basing this assertion?

      Moderators, Tiro is a well known troll. He finds great pleasure in pretending to harbor the prototypical Slashdot anti-establishment disposition and watch his wacky claims go unrefuted by hordes of otherwise intelligent human beings who will blindly follow the clique here merely because deep down inside they know they don't belong in any social circles out in the real world*GAAASSSPPP*

      Sorry, that was a bit of a mouthful.

      -1, Redundant.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    10. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by mr_sas · · Score: 1

      uhm, most modern consoles are capable of executing non-approved code, see the whole "chipping" that's been going on since 1996ish, probably sooner.

      With regards to vi and (shudder) emacs both are available on the two most popular consoles. You can buy a "linux kit" from Sony for the PS2 which presumably includes vi and emacs; and also linux is available (via aforementioned mod chip) for the xbox.

    11. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >At that point, it becomes really easy to pass laws banning the types of videogames that Jack disagrees with. >(Then movies, then web sites, maybe even books...)

      fudmonger- you're no better than he is

    12. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by UncleFluffy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your argument implies corruption at every level of government. On what facts are you basing this assertion?

      My guess would be the last ~10,000 years of human history.

      --

      What would Lemmy do?

    13. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It doesn't take too much gray matter to realize that soccer moms outnumber gaming advocates by a pretty wide margin, so who would you rather have included in your base?

      Think so? I'd be willing to bet that for every soccer mom, there's a soccer dad who squeezes in some GTA:SA after mom puts Ashley and Courtney to sleep at night.

      Signed,
      The guy who's playing Silent Hill 4 once his preschoolers drift off later this evening.*

      * My wife is an NHL nut and hates soccer, but that's beside the point.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    14. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by illumina+us · · Score: 1

      It's interesting to note the huge increase in violence levels during the reign of Atari and Nintendo.

      --
      -illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
    15. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by saucercrab · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think it's also valid to mention that not only are the police officers armed, their training isn't limited to excessive Grand Theft Auto play.

    16. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by weremook · · Score: 2, Informative

      That sharp decline in 1993 can be attributed to the federal legalization of abortion twenty years prior.
      This trend has been checked against violent teen crime statistics in states that legalized abortion sooner.

      I will go ahead and supply the link to the counter-rant http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm .
      It is oozing with legitamacy.

    17. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GREAT in the sense of successful, of course, not in the sense of "good for the people."

      In the history of the world here has NEVER been a politician that is "good for the people".

    18. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Gulthek · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have a nice graph for you about pirates vs global warming: http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

      Clearly, we need to draft people into pirating and stop global warming before it gets even more out of hand!

    19. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by JimmehAH · · Score: 1

      I blame ET.

    20. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by edbarrett · · Score: 2, Funny
      It doesn't take too much gray matter to realize that soccer moms outnumber gaming advocates by a pretty wide margin, so who would you rather have included in your base?

      Don't worry, all your base are belong to us!

    21. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by arodland · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember "power corrupts, and absolute power is really pretty neat"? It applies at all levels. Corruption in government is the rule, not the exception, because government is the perfect instrument of corruption. Where power lies, the people who wish to grab power follow, and government is the institution which claims all power for its own. So the money follows the power, and the government is corrupt, and the more government, the more corruption. That's the rule. Anything else is an exception.

    22. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like how the New York Times circulation keeps dropping, and I play more Tennis than ever!

    23. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by AtariEric · · Score: 1

      Moderators, Tiro is a well known troll.

      And you're jealous because you're not as well known of a troll?

      --
      Don't trust any concentration of power.
    24. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take too much gray matter to realize that soccer moms outnumber gaming advocates by a pretty wide margin
      I'm not sure about this

      http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/oct20 05/id20051007_999151.htm

      Businessweek seems to think that Video Games are the future of entertainment, not just technologically, but in terms of marketshare, as well.

      AFAIK, The Video Game Industry (TM) is bigger than The Movie Industry (TM).

      Soccer moms are actually a smaller demographic, but they may represent the same sort of small but noisy demographic that tends to get laws passed over the large but indifferent demographic.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    25. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by lewp · · Score: 1

      And yet the pasty white video game kids are too much for them.

      --
      Game... blouses.
    26. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      Think so? I'd be willing to bet that for every soccer mom, there's a soccer dad who squeezes in some GTA:SA after mom puts Ashley and Courtney to sleep at night.

      Wrong!

      This dad's putting the kids to bed (early) so he can have the entire evening free for some GTA:SA action.

      Mom puts 'em to bed way too late. OTOH she thinks I quickly change what's on the TV when she (or the kids) walk in because I'm watching porn. Why else would that "controller" be vibrating while I'm flushed and breathing heavy?.

    27. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by karnal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Anything that has "abortion" in it's link and is stated to be "oozing" is something I really really have to think twice about before clicking.

      --
      Karnal
    28. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're jealous because you're not as well known of a troll?

      Check our friends pages :P I just hadn't seen him in a while...

      -gw3k

    29. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by loquacious+d · · Score: 1

      Wow, even for a joke graph, that's really awful. You should have done a scatter plot with a linear scale of pirates along the x-axis and temperature along the y-axis, and then a best-fit line to approximate the obvious connection between pirating and global environmental calamity. Either that, or time as the x-axis, and *two* lines showing the declining trend in pirates along with the constantly rising temperature. As it is it's just a wreck, trying to squeeze three dimensions of data into two (and not very well).

      </pedant>

    30. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by magarity · · Score: 1

      Corruption in government is the rule, not the exception
       
      While I think you can make a case that office holders may have a base human nature to *want* to be corrupt, we should more correctly say something like "The amount of corruption is inverse to the accountability of the officeholders". Let's take China and Britain for example. In China, there is pretty much no accountability so there is staggering amounts of corruption. Any "investigative reporter" who leaks a corruption story about anyone higher up than the local dogcatcher finds themselves disappeared in a hurry. In the UK, there's a scandal of various size every once in a while, but they're caught out and sent off in shame and or shackles. That's not to say that every corrupt politician in the UK is caught, but neither are 100% of them doing their very best to bleed the country dry for their personal gain.

    31. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Clearly, we need to draft people into pirating and stop global warming

      Or maybe global warming is wiping out the pirates.

    32. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by pixel.jonah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While that may be true, I don't think it's a good path to go down. And others have like former education secretary Bill Bennett: "you could ... abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." The next step is to say kill all the poor people to reduce poverty or all the dumb people to raise test scores. It may work, but it's not the right thing to do.

    33. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's probably a bad reason to allow abortion, but there's no harm in noting its effects on things like this.

      Also, I doubt that killing all the poor people would reduce poverty in the long run, unless you KEPT killing people when they became poor. Poor people, unemployed people, etc. are built into the system and are necessary for it to function properly.

    34. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by jtroutman · · Score: 2, Funny

      This graph aptly demonstrates that pirates are cool.

      --
      I stole this sig from a more creative user.
    35. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The facts indicate that people born to extremely poor parents are more likely to be criminals than other people. This actually a fairly obvious conclusion, known for millennia.

      A way to reduce crime, therefore, is to reduce the people born to extremely poor people. There are ethical and unethical ways to do this.

      The ethical way is rather obvious: Stop people from being extremely poor.

      However, the entire theory is screwy. Legalized abortion didn't result in less poor people having children, it managed to result in them having more.

      And you can't look at the crime rate of X1 year olds in year Y1 and compare it to X1 year olds in year Y2, or X2 year olds in year Y1, and get anything meaningful out of it. Different types of crime went up and down, probably almost completely due to drugs.

      Ergo, while the concept 'poor people cause more crime' is sound, the basis for it in the book isn't. Abortion did no such thing, mainly because it didn't actually reduce the amount of poor people.

      In fact, you can't reduce them that way. The size of the underclass is completely unrelated to the amount of people born into it, it's due to the structure of society. We could run in and kidnap every poor baby and raise them in a rich family (Surely more ethical than killing them.) and the next higher class would simply shift down a notch when they lost their jobs.

      Anything else is akin to trying to save yourself from quicksand by pulling out the leg that's in the deepest. That can't possibly work. The only way to reduce the size of a class of society is to restructure society, or at least shift the structure a bit.

      Being poor just means that your children are more likely to fill the job of 'poor' . If they do not, someone else will. (And, thus, they are more likely to be criminals.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    36. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Informative
      In exactly what universe does GTA train you for anything?

      That made some sense when applied to DOOM. It made even more sense when applied to games like Unreal with stragety. Teaching you how to aim and not get shot and whjen to snipe from, etc.

      GTA, OTOH, teachs you nothing. Admittedly, I haven't played it in like four years, so I'm like two games behind, but let's see what it teachs you:

      You do not learn how to steal a car, beyond the obvious carjacking, which anyone with a working brain can figure out. You do not lean how to hotwire one or get a locked one open.

      You do not learn how to aim and fire guns, unless they've added some FPSing to a recent game. Aiming a gun in the third person is entirely different than actually aiming in real life, and you can take a lot more damage than is realistic.

      You do not learn how to flee from the police, unless the game has gotten a lot more realistic. Transposing thirty minutes the sort of crime spree you can do in the game into real life would result in all sorts of hassles. Unlike the game, you can't just duck out of sight and get a new car and keep going after taking out a few cops.

      You also cannot get health from hookers to recover. This is just obviously wrong.

      You cannot steal vehicles like taxis and firetrucks and just randomly do their job. This is an incredibly stupid idea.

      With the Hot Coffee hack, it may teach you to be better in the sack, but I rather doubt it.

      GTA doesn't train anyone for anything Whether it encourages all sorts of anti-social behavior is a meaningfull question, but it doesn't show you how to do any of it.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    37. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Meagermanx · · Score: 1

      It's from the Flying Spaghetti Monster website.

      An excellent read, if you're not offended by 'evilution'.

    38. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by pixel.jonah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well put.

      It seems that in our society these days how many children you have or if you have any at all is not related to the parent's financial ability to support them. You might say "better-off people are more career/work oriented and so don't want to be burden themselves with children who's care would detract from the pursuit of wealth" and you might say "since poor people don't as many opportunities/incentives for financial advancement, they have more time and focus that on their familial relationships."

      So, poor people aren't having abortions because the want their children while rich people are having abortions because they don't want their children and having the nanny care for the ones they do have.

      Generalizations aside, you get the point.

    39. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by trawg · · Score: 1
      Kids have parents and cops are armed
      Yes, but how can cops be expected to defend themselves, armed or not, when faced with people that have TRAINED to become EXPERT COP KILLERS in high tech TERRORIST SIMULATORS like Grand Theft Auto?!
    40. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 1

      It means that fewer children were born to women that DIDN"T WANT children. There were fewer orphans and unloved/wanted children who became anitsocial due to abuse, extreme financial hardship, living in the social services system or lack of proper parental care or education, felt the need/desire to or land in situations that require/entice them to kill/rob/rape in adulthood. When less people are born into a situation such as that, then there has to be fewer common criminals later on.

      Seems like it should be a priority to try to fix that situation, this "game+teen=crime" bullshit isnt going to fix anything.

      I wonder if this could be applied to Corp./Gov. crime somehow? Something about being born into a world where the greedy/power mad are looting retirement funds or abusing official powers is ok because they are just old people or uninformed voters.

      Where would you have to set up abortion clinics to get rid of those people in 20 years?

      C.

      --
      "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
    41. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like "you're either with us or against us"?

      Well the American people would never fall for that kind of simplictic stupidity!

    42. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by thelibrarian · · Score: 1

      Actually QUANGO stands for QUasi Autonomous Non Government Organisation. It means any organisation funded by a government, but not directly run by the government, such as the BBC, the (Australian) ABC, the DMV etc., as well as government think-tanks.

    43. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Finuvir · · Score: 1
      While that may be true, I don't think it's a good path to go down. And others have like former education secretary Bill Bennett: "you could ... abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." The next step is to say kill all the poor people to reduce poverty or all the dumb people to raise test scores. It may work, but it's not the right thing to do.

      You're right. If you agree with legalisation of abortion then you don't need any crime statistics to sway you. If you disagree with abortion on ethical grounds you will certainly not be persuaded to change your mind by crime figures.

      Steven Levitt's work on the abortion-crime link was not done to convince people of the value of abortion. Instead it appears to have been presented to persuade us that perhaps the other factors that are often given credit for reducing crime--things like zero tolerance and more cops--were not as effective as we thought.

      --
      Why is anything anything?
    44. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by TooMuchEspressoGuy · · Score: 1
      "And others have like former education secretary Bill Bennett: "you could ... abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.""

      Typical liberal selective quoting. You left out the part where he said, "this would obviously be morally reprehensible, but..."

      --
      Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
    45. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Did you hear that whooshing sound? That was the sarcasm passing over your head.
      Of course GTA doesn't train you for anything beyond playing more GTA. Neither does Doom, UT, or CS. I'm willing to bet that cops would love it if, when engaged in a shoot-out with a criminal, that criminal would try bunny-hopping around in the open. The only time that might have every worked, even shortly, was during the bank robbery in North Hollywood a few years back when the robbers were wearing body armor. And that worked right up until the cops got something a bit more powerful than the low velocity pistols they use. Because of that incident, all of the cops in California, which I have seen, now have an AR-15 in their car, next to their shotgun. A bunny-hopping idiot in kevlar isn't going to last long.
      Anyone who thinks that their time in front of a computer is going to help them in a real fight, is sorely mistaken. If someone has never shot a gun before, I suggest they go give it a shot. You may be able to bullseye some guy in the head all the way across the map in CS with the Desert Eagle. You'll find that hitting a 3 inch circle outside 30 yards takes a lot of practice with that gun, in real life.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    46. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by pixel.jonah · · Score: 1

      Hmm, yeah - I've seen his full quote, but the article I found to copy the quote from had the "..." in it.

      It was my (maybe faulty) assumption that people would know the complete quote, it's context and surrounding controversy without my having to reiterate the whole brouhaha. .j

    47. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      Of course GTA doesn't train you for anything beyond playing more GTA. Neither does Doom, UT, or CS


      I'll play devil's advocate, and say Time Crisis.

      (Of course, most light-guns don't implement recoil, and have sights to make aiming easier - but there are more difficult games that add a kicker in the light gun, and that exclude iron sights.)

      Other than that, you are correct:

      You'll find that hitting a 3 inch circle outside 30 yards takes a lot of practice with [the Desert Eagle], in real life.


    48. Re:But he'd make a GREAT politician... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this is late in the game, but...

      I think this is the real issue that no one seems to want to talk about.

      I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone who could succesfully argue that cops and kids do NOT need more protecting. I believe that both are dying or being mistreated at an alarming rate, and in more grotesque and evil ways. I also believe you are correct - this is not a legislation or regulation problem, but rather a social problem. I am all for less regulation (read: more freedom) in favour of parental control, but the parental control isn't working (or at least, parents don't care). Thus, one could argue that society is failing. In that case, WHAT DO WE DO?

      Ultimately, all legislation is formalized morality. Society's rules are outlined in a comprehensive manner, and your behaviour must comply with these rules or else you are considered to be immoral. Thus, a society's laws are an indication of its moral values. Do we throw people in jail for killing? Yes, because we believe killing is immoral. Do we throw people in jail for selling candy to kids? No, because we do not think that such action is immoral. If we as a society believed that vending confectionary was immoral, we wouldn't think twice about a law enforcing such prohibition, since we all agreed with it anyway. In that case, the law isn't really even necessary, unless you want to punish those who break the law, which is what we generally desire, especially for more serious crimes.

      One could say that the complete vehemence of the gaming community against legislation governing the sale of entertainment software indicates that this community (of which I am a member) cares more about maintaining the availability of games than we care about protecting children and cops from any potentially or hypotheically harmful (even if miniscule or unprovable) effects. I'm not saying that regulation is the answer; I am saying that our actions show us where our priorities lie, and thus where our moral values rest as a society.

  44. Let's call the cops on SLASHDOT by Work+Account · · Score: 1

    Rob Malda harasses my eyes everytime I read a same-day dupe and fourteen grammar/spelling errors in a three sentence story summary.

    --

    If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
  45. I am developing a railgun... by PrimeWaveZ · · Score: 1

    That will shoot ball bearings at things. I am going to use it for hunting, but I'm sure people will use it against police officers and other people not deserving of that fate.

    I look forward to Jack Thompson's lawsuit against me and the pinball machine manufacturers for programming children to use my soon-to-come railgun against police officers.

  46. Libel, bannination (disbarment) by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Quoth the jackass: "I look forward to working with your fine Police Department to shut this little extortion factory down and/or arrest some of its employees."

    Extortion factory? That's not a stated opinion, that's stating a (supposed) fact. Better get your own law team together, because libel's a bitch. I'd like to see how many lawyers it will take to get Jack off.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:Libel, bannination (disbarment) by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I saw that too... I hope smokinggun keeps on top of this case, because it's going to be funny to read the court transcripts, when Jack explains how a reneged promise to pay $10K was turned into an extortion scheme.

      Jack to Judge: "Your honor, these youths tried to extort me $10K by donating $10k to a charity in my name!"

      Disbarilarity will ensue.

    2. Re:Libel, bannination (disbarment) by lowe0 · · Score: 1

      "I'd like to see how many lawyers it will take to get Jack off."

      Whoa, man, bad mental picture. I'm going to go pour bleach in my eyes now.

    3. Re:Libel, bannination (disbarment) by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      But you still have to jack off a horse ;)

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    4. Re:Libel, bannination (disbarment) by thesandtiger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, yeah -

      First, it can be expected to be taken seriously - after all, the guy is a lawyer, and he is filing a complaint with the police. So either he expects that statement to be taken seriously or he's filing a falce claim.

      Second, he's an attorney lodging a complaint - extortion has a very specific legal definition and meaning, it isn't a word an attorny lodging a complaint with the police would be throwing around lightly. He either is actually accusing them of extortion or he is incompetent and is using the word incorrectly.

      While they probably won't bother doing it, I do think it would be nice if PA did sue this guy. Hell, I'm halfway tempted to goad him into making some stupid ass complaint against me so that I can sue him, too. That should be much more fun than playing violent video games!

      Thanks, Jack, for spawning an entirely new gaming genre: Jack Thompson Baiting. Just like Bear Baiting, except it's way funnier to watch you lose your shit.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    5. Re:Libel, bannination (disbarment) by ettlz · · Score: 1

      I know, someone's been listening to too much I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue.

    6. Re:Libel, bannination (disbarment) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mad props for the word "disbarilarity", dude.

    7. Re:Libel, bannination (disbarment) by Infernal+Device · · Score: 1
      It wasn't libel until it was published - if I tell you, even in a letter or a fax, that so-n-so is a complete tool who eats human children for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, it still remains a private communication. If you or I choose to publish the letter about the child-eating third party, then it may be libel, but then again, it could be just opinion, which isn't libel if it's not published as a stated fact, which is very difficult to prove.

      By the same token, if I send you a letter claiming you chow on children, it isn't libel. If you publish the letter, you do so of your own volition, but it doesn't meet the standard for libel because the originator of the information (me) did not publish it in a public forum.

      So, give up your baby-chomping ways and read this: Libel Law in the United States.

      The relevant section in question are thus:

      Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.


      and ...

      American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling.


      So, JT is being a tool about this (my opinion) but neither he nor PA has committed any sort of libel. I doubt PA's lawyers would let them at this point, considering that legal threats should be taken very seriously, no matter how spurious the claim may be.
      --
      "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    8. Re:Libel, bannination (disbarment) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahhaahaha! You said "Jack off".

      That is all. As you were cadet... :D

    9. Re:Libel, bannination (disbarment) by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm aware that this situation doesn't fall under libel laws, since JT didn't publish the letter, and it would be pretty hard to prove that there was (1) blatant disregard for whether the statement was true or false, (2) that the statement was false, or (3) whether it is an opinion or not.

      Part (3) would actually be fairly easy to prove -- as a lawyer, it is understood that JT has knowledge of what constitutes extortion in fact, and by his knowledge of the particulars, that he knows PAs actions to not be extortion.

      Part (1) depends on whether JT leaked a copy of the letter to the press or anyone else not specified as a recipient of the letter.

      Part (2) relates to part (3), might be hard to prove.

      At any rate, an investigation of libel would be possible, and possibly even an indictment. And given JT's propensity to use his status as a lawyer in FL in manners inappropriate to members of the bar, I could see that leading to disbarrment.

      Not that it will, of ocurse, but that it would be justified.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    10. Re:Libel, bannination (disbarment) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eww, Jack Thompson lawyer porn? I should hope not.

    11. Re:Libel, bannination (disbarment) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see how many lawyers it will take to get Jack off.

      Just one! But he'd threaten libel suits to anyone who walked in on him in the process.

    12. Re:Libel, bannination (disbarment) by Infernal+Device · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the extortion claims, but would it be possible to nail him for false advertising, for reneging on his $10K offer?

      --
      "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    13. Re:Libel, bannination (disbarment) by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Probably not, since it's even debateable whether they satisfied the terms of the offer. They must "create, manufacture, distribute, and sell" the game in 2006. Well, it's only 2005, and they did not "create" the game -- they modified an existing one. Also, AFAIK, they have not distributed or sold the game yet.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    14. Re:Libel, bannination (disbarment) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "how many lawyers it will take to get Jack off."
      Boy... Is THAT a loaded question...

    15. Re:Libel, bannination (disbarment) by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      He filed the letter with the police so it is a public document. It really depends on the regulations the Seattle PD has regarding letters from the public.

      Additionally, the letter can be used to show harrasment on the part of Thompson.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    16. Re:Libel, bannination (disbarment) by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I'm not positive whether the letter can be considered 'published' just because it was addressed to the chief of police in Seattle. Many localities have laws protecting the privacy of such complaints, since there could be a fear of reprisal in some circumstances. Although, I don't know if that applies in this instance, or in Seattle.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  47. Because you all need to be protected... by OgTheBarbarian · · Score: 3, Funny

    Jack Thomson is trying to SAVE YOU! Ever since the first Lemming exploded the video game industry has been corrupting your minds. You all clearly lack the ability to discern sliding a CG mock-up car through a crowded bus stop in Carmageddon from real world laws and morals. GTA and Bully will spell the end for all the decent God fearing folk of your great nation! Won't someone please think of the children?!!! *SOB!* *WEEP* *MOAN* What's Next?! GTIB?!!! (Grand Theft Investment Banker) GTE?!!!! (Grand Theft Election) What kind of example would that set for the financial and political leaders of the last bastion of freedom and high-holiness in the world?

    1. Re:Because you all need to be protected... by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, the company that made Lemmings was what we now know as Rockstar North (formerly DMA Design). Ever since inception they've been promoting violence and an Orwellian authoritarian lifestyle that goes against those most American principles I hold dear: Life, Liberty and Apple Pie.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

  48. Ice T's heavy metal rock group "Body Count" by mindaktiviti · · Score: 1

    It was Ice T's group Body Count that did the infamous "Cop Killer" song.

    1. Re:Ice T's heavy metal rock group "Body Count" by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      And now Ice T plays a cop on Law and Order.

    2. Re:Ice T's heavy metal rock group "Body Count" by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Was that considered "Heavy Metal?" I thought it was rap...

    3. Re:Ice T's heavy metal rock group "Body Count" by mindaktiviti · · Score: 1

      Well Ice T himself was definitely a rap artist, however his group Body Count - which is only a small part of his much bigger solo career - I believe is considered...well I'm not really into many forms or rock / punk / heavy metal etc. The wikipedia article on Body Count classifies them as "Punk Metal".

    4. Re:Ice T's heavy metal rock group "Body Count" by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      I remember when the album with "Cop Killer" came out, but I don't recall if I was able to drive at the time or not. That's probably why I didn't pick up a copy, and why I don't have a collection of 2 Live Crew albums. I wonder if I can still get that at K-Mart in the censored music section (yeah, the section isn't labeled as such - just like the music)... :)

    5. Re:Ice T's heavy metal rock group "Body Count" by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      I dunno, there's good money in powder sales (according to my neighbor the convicted felon), and I've always wanted an early 70's Eldorado... :)

  49. Cheap laughs by FishandChips · · Score: 1

    Imho, it's no bad thing for the games industry to have some shots put across its bow. A great deal of exploitation goes on, a great many sharp practices happen since vast sums of money are involved, and anyway no industry is above scrutiny and criticism. There are genuine and valid concerns about the impact of some games on kids, too. Indeed, on games generally if they are played to the point of being a substitute for growing up into a real life. Left to its own devices, could the games industry be trusted to behave for one moment? I doubt it - no other industry can be. Just check out fast food, pharma and smokes.

    I don't know anything about Jack Thompson and maybe he is a nutter - but anyone who is subject to this kind of vilification has usually scored a bull's-eye somewhere and, besides, it takes more guts than most of us have to stand up to the plate and say what you believe in when these are the consequences. Try it sometime before scoring cheap laughs off the guy.

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
  50. When I think of Jack Thompson... by Chicane-UK · · Score: 3, Funny

    ..i'm immediately reminded of Walter Peck from Ghost Busters.

    Hopefully when the phoned up the police to ask them to arrest the Penny Arcade guys, the police officer on the phone said "You do your job pencil neck, don't tell me how to do mine!" ;)

    --
    "Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
    1. Re:When I think of Jack Thompson... by samureiser · · Score: 1

      Dr. Peter Venkman: Yes it's true. This man has no dick.

    2. Re:When I think of Jack Thompson... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Ok, someone needs to photoshop Yack into that scene and put it on a T-shirt with that caption.

  51. If he's aware of the t-shirt..... by 8127972 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ....then he (or one of his minions) is aware (or will be aware) of this thread here on Slashdot. Seeing what a over-reacting media whore he seems to be, I suspect that this discussion will be referenced on whatever media outlet he ends up on (likely Fox News, if you want to call what they do journalism) to prove that we "nerds" are a bunch of psychos who are addicted to violent video games and our threats to "run down Jack Thompson with an 18-wheeler" as the AC who posted that comment said will be used as proof of that.

    Why not tone down the rhetoric and give him the type of attention he deserves, which is NONE whatsoever?

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
    1. Re:If he's aware of the t-shirt..... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Why not tone down the rhetoric and give him the type of attention he deserves, which is NONE whatsoever?

      Because giving him no attention gives him incentive to tone up his attacks against gamers? By not ridiculing him and calling him out on his own bullshit, he'd most likely keep up his electronic and moral Jihad and give us all a bad image. Oh, wait, that's defamation of character, right? Isn't he already doing that??

      How about we all turn around and sue him in a class-action lawsuit for his public defamation of our character, instead of bitching about what someone else says in response to a damned forum post?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:If he's aware of the t-shirt..... by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      I suspect that this discussion will be referenced on whatever media outlet he ends up on (likely Fox News, if you want to call what they do journalism) to prove that we "nerds" are a bunch of psychos who are addicted to violent video games and our threats to "run down Jack Thompson with an 18-wheeler" as the AC who posted that comment said will be used as proof of that.

      How do you know it wasn't Jack Thompson or one of the people who work for him that posted that comment as an AC here on slashdot?

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    3. Re:If he's aware of the t-shirt..... by MisterMurphy · · Score: 1

      Oooh. Now we got some good paranoia cooking. But I don't think you're going far enough; I think that Jack Thompson was actually the lead designer of GTA: San Andreas.

    4. Re:If he's aware of the t-shirt..... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      Why not tone down the rhetoric and give him the type of attention he deserves, which is NONE whatsoever?

      Because if he were to succeed in getting what he wants, it would be a threat some of the fundamental freedoms I hold dear.

      Ignoring a threat is not the same as dealing with it. And Jack Thompson's goals and tactics need to have the metaphorical mudhole stomped into them before they have a chance to do any real damage.

    5. Re:If he's aware of the t-shirt..... by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1
      threats to "run down Jack Thompson with an 18-wheeler"

      I've been working on this, but it turns out Big Mutha Truckers doesn't actually teach things like double-clutching.

      Thankfully all those hours of playing Halo taught me proper breath control and sight picture, so sniping's always a fallback option.

    6. Re:If he's aware of the t-shirt..... by ShibaInu · · Score: 1

      I realize you are joking, but it does bring up an interesting thought - does Jack Thomson own stock in EA or Take Two? For all the noise he makes about video games, he probably gives Rockstar, EA and Take Two more free publicity than all the nerds in the world put together.

    7. Re:If he's aware of the t-shirt..... by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      None at all is the last kind of attention we should give him. Why? Becuase he's getting a LOT of sympathetic attention, and has for nigh on twenty years now. And because of that, he's managed to hurt the entertainment industry. Not much, but he has won victories. That's called precedent, and it means he will tend to win MORE victories.

      He's already in the public eye, but currently, the public eye is not seeing how bad this man is. They haven't seen his nebulous threats of legal action against just about everybody in sight. They haven't seen him resort to childish namecalling in a discussion with a 14 year old child. They haven't seen the fact that the organization he's been invoking as supporters for years want nothing to do with him, or the fact that he's been throwing nebulous threats of legal action at them as a result. Outside of the gaming community, not many people know that he challenged the video game industry to rise to even more grotesque levels of debauchery than they ever have, and even moreso to direct that violent imagery against depictions of themselves. They didn't see him promise $10,000 to charity if they did. They didn't see him bragging of the check filled in and resorting to more childish namecalling.

      Most importantly, they didn't see him then renig on his promise. They didn't see him refuse to give money he'd promised to charity. They haven't seen two gamers step up and have the balls to do what he promised to do, at their own expense. Much less, they have not seen that these two gamers have raised fifty times this much for charity over the last to years. And most importantly, they haven't seen him go into a rage, intimidate police, slander those two gamers, threaten more vague legal action and even send them letters to them which could be construed quite understandably as threats of physical harm.

      Remember, this is a person the public has seen on TV. The person who's lie that Doom caused the Colombine massacre was so widely spread and believed that it's hard to tell that it was even a lie to begin with anymore. This is a person who has been lying to the public more than any US president, ever.

      This is a person who the public has believed.

      And it's time for that to stop.

    8. Re:If he's aware of the t-shirt..... by Admiral+Ackbar+8 · · Score: 1

      Actually the loon was on CNN tonight. Spouting his non-factual drivel.

  52. Well, duh!!!! by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    FTFA:
    There are a bunch of computer geeks out there who think that the video game industry has a constitutional right to paint a bullseye on your back and on your officers' backs...
    Well, chubby, as long as law enforcement officers will act like assholes who think that civilians are an inferior life form, it is only fitting that some people would paint targets on your backs. Maybe one day, the remaining ones will develop brains (you know, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc...) and will manage to learn to behave less assininely and thus will be acceptable to lowly civilians.
    1. Re:Well, duh!!!! by Ahnteis · · Score: 1

      Geez, are you stupid?

      Attitudes like this are NOT going to help anything.

      Addressing one specific claim:
      as long as law enforcement officers will act like assholes who think that civilians are an inferior life form, it is only fitting that some people would paint targets on your backs.

      Fitting? No, it's NOT fitting. Fitting means that it is appropriate.

      Now, it may not be surprising, but it is certainly not fitting.

  53. this is like a bad accident by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

    I know it is entertaining to watch, but the more publicity you give this guy, the better it is for him.. just ignore the asshat but put your efforts into undoing his attempts at passing bad legislation with your representatives...

    IF we can stop the rubbernecking it will go a long way to getting this guy the recognition he deserves, which is none...

  54. I would be amused by Council · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I always like to ask right-wingers ranting about games and sex causing social decline, "Yeah! I mean, do you know what's happened to rates of violent youth crime and teen pregancny in the last ten years?" They always answer that they're at unprecedented levels, and then are thrown off when I tell them that they've actually been falling quite steadily. Teen pregancy is even at its lowest rate since we began taking statistics in the '40s, down from the all-time high in 1991.

    What would be really amusing to me is if they discovered, in 20 years, that untold psychological damage to children was done by The Sims. People spending all day running households like gods, torturing and killing families and developing these horribly twisted personalities. I mean, take a horribly violent, depraved movie -- for example, Saw, and ask what game the creators would probably enjoy playing?

    In all seriousness, I think people are both more fragile and more resiliant than they're usually credited with. We handled torturing animals with sticks in the backyard 50 years ago, and we'll handle GTA. And I was going to say something about child-rearing, but then I realized that the last thing anyone wants is more advice on raising kids from a childless twentysomething, so I'll leave it at "the world is probably not coming to an end".

    --
    xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    1. Re:I would be amused by zoomba · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just as a bit of a reality check. The most vocal politicians against violent games have been democrats. Liberman and Hillary Clinton being the biggest names behind the recent crusades.

      Funny enough, the attempt to censor violent media has long been the crusade of the democrats. Tipper Gore became pretty well known when she went after violent lyrics in rap music in the 90s.

    2. Re:I would be amused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, when I play The Sims, the high point is when I have two female characters make out.

    3. Re:I would be amused by Rycross · · Score: 1

      Its typically been left-wingers in support of censorship of games, not right-wingers. For example, Hillary Clinton.

    4. Re:I would be amused by zulux · · Score: 1

      I always like to ask right-wingers ranting about games and sex causing social decline

      Please - It's not just the right - it's also the *left* that rant about sex and violence.

      The "Parental Advisory" on CD were brought to you by the *left* as was the v-chip.

      When I'm around my fellow right-wingers, I remind them that free-speach is a right, and should not be abridged.

      I invite you to do the same for your left-wing friends.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    5. Re:I would be amused by Council · · Score: 1

      Oops. I didn't mean this to be partisan. I said "right wingers" because the people I was thinking of were the campus's Young Constitutionalists, the only moral crusaders you'll find around here. My focus wasn't on the censorship, but on the attitude that we're suffering societal decline. And the only times I have those conversations are with right-wing moralists (contrasted to my cousins, Dean activists who are basically in favor of sex and violence in all media), so that's what I said. But that wasn't the focus of my post. I didn't mean it to be partisan. But that's the only thing getting replies.

      Ah, well. Such is life.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    6. Re:I would be amused by saintp · · Score: 1
      That's because Lieberman and Clinton desperately want to appear to be sufficiently centrist to attract the critical vote of fence-straddlers, like the suburban soccer moms who elected Bush in 2000. (Apparently, Clinton I's tactic of getting elected by the young, the poor, and the Black will never work again.) Feigning moral outrage -- indeed, pretending to be even more outraged than the right -- is one way to do this.

      Tipper Gore, on the other hand, just hates Black people.

    7. Re:I would be amused by Council · · Score: 1

      I was casually referring to specific conversations I've had with the local moral crusading "society is falling apart" group, who happen to be far right-wing. I didn't mean it to be a partisan post, but those two words are the only thing being siezed upon.

      Of course I mean my comments to apply to everyone holding those attitudes.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    8. Re:I would be amused by nitemayr · · Score: 1

      "In recent years, Democratic politicians such as Clinton, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich have joined longtime Republican critics such as Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania in taking the software industry to task. "


      Let's not point fingers at the Centerists and otherwise and say "There you are"
      Lieberman and Clinton are hardly leftists....

      --
      Hello Kettle,
      You, my friend are as black as pitch.
      With love, Pot.
    9. Re:I would be amused by stlhawkeye · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I always like to ask right-wingers

      Ooo! Ooo! I'm one. I'll try to answer.

      ranting about games and sex causing social decline

      Oh wait. No, I don't buy that line. Uberconservative Republican hacks like Senator Hillary Clinton might want our tax dollars to investigate violence and sex in games, but I'm one conservative who does NOT. LESS governmenting spending on this bullshit.

      "Yeah! I mean, do you know what's happened to rates of violent youth crime and teen pregancny in the last ten years?" They always answer that they're at unprecedented levels

      Hmmm. Maybe I'm NOT conservative, because I don't believe that either. It's the George Bush cronies and conservative right-wing nuts like Senator Clinton, Howard Dean, and John Kerry who have recently been found playing up false numbers for activities that we generally frown upon as being measures of moral decay in our society. No, Republicans, screw you, I'm not buying into that line.

      and then are thrown off when I tell them that they've actually been falling quite steadily.

      Amen brother. And what's been happening for the last 10-15 years? Unprecedented prosperity, even when you consider the recession a few years ago. Crime rates almost always drop when people are making more money.

      Teen pregancy is even at its lowest rate since we began taking statistics in the '40s, down from the all-time high in 1991.

      Go go gadget condoms!

      What would be really amusing to me is if they discovered, in 20 years, that untold psychological damage to children was done by The Sims. People spending all day running households like gods, torturing and killing families and developing these horribly twisted personalities. I mean, take a horribly violent, depraved movie -- for example, Saw, and ask what game the creators would probably enjoy playing?

      uhhh.. The Sims 2 is actually on the list of morally reprehensible games that Jack is crusading against. Seriously.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    10. Re:I would be amused by lgw · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that these Democratic politicians are feigning moral outrage so that they'll seem to be more to the right than they really are, in order to get votes? This differs from Republican politicians how, again? Not as much practice, maybe? :)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:I would be amused by Khomar · · Score: 1
      I always like to ask right-wingers ranting about games and sex causing social decline, "Yeah! I mean, do you know what's happened to rates of violent youth crime and teen pregancny in the last ten years?" They always answer that they're at unprecedented levels, and then are thrown off when I tell them that they've actually been falling quite steadily. Teen pregancy is even at its lowest rate since we began taking statistics in the '40s, down from the all-time high in 1991.

      As a "right-winger", I have to say that I am not surprised at all by these statistics. The past ten years have shown a rise in morality among youth. The government has begun teaching abstinence from sex while dating, and it is catching hold in the youth culture as well. There has been a quiet mini-revolution that, while not as radical as the revolution of the 60's, has had a profound impact on our country.

      The younger generations have sensed all of the failures of the baby boomer philosophy, and they are quietly fighting back with more emphasis on faithful relationships, family, and respect for one another. The baby-boom generation neglected their children while they pursued money and/or worthy causes. In the end, their children cared more for their grandparents than their own parents. I fear the baby-boom generation is facing a very lonely future when they retire. If their children show as little interest in their parents as they showed them, who will visit them when they are moved into retirement homes?

      The next generation has seen these repercussions and recognizing the need to poor more time (not money) into their own children's lives. They understand that in order for our lives to be better, we need to show respect for one another. They have seen that "free" sex is not free as AIDS, HIV, herpes, and other sexually transmitted diseases have run wild. They also see the empty relationships that result, and they want something better. They are not doing this by holding demonstrations or having rallies, but merely by changing their own lives to reflect the values they see as important. More and more, people are seeking happiness in relationships and community than in personal acheivement or pleasure.

      As I look at the next generation, I see a reason to hope.

      ps. Sex does not damage society. A cheapened view of sex and relationships where the opposite sex is seen merely as an object to be used in pursuit of pleasure -- this is what can destroy a society. Sex is a beautiful expression of devotion and affection, and in that context, it can actually strengthen and provide stability to society.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    12. Re:I would be amused by saintp · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? They're worlds apart! I mean, they use totally different mascots!

    13. Re:I would be amused by Morinaga · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, it's amazing how someone like Jack can draw broad conclusions based on narrow observations. Kind of like concluding "right-wingers" all rant about games and sex causing social decline. There are conservatives that are social moderate or liberal and there are liberals or progressives that are fisically conservative. I dare say most voting Amercians fall in to a categorie that borrows from both political leanings. So, um yeah carry on. It's Bush's fault... or something.

    14. Re:I would be amused by Council · · Score: 1

      Scratch the "right-wingers" from that line. I wrote it thinking of the Young Constitutionalists on my campus who are always sending me news of our moral decline and the collapse of society. I really wasn't thinking in political terms. It was a poor choice of words, and I forgot how angry people get about when something sounds partisan. I just meant "those moralizing society-going-to-hell folk", and the examples I have around me were pretty right-wing, so that phrase seemed appropriate. But I ended up getting tons of replies to that one phrase (please, my point was to make a joke about The Sims, people, and to mention those teen pregnancy stats).

      I will make a point not to use "right-wing" or "left-wing" in a slashdot post when referring to social attitudes, and to try to be specific about who I'm talking about. I'm sorry.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    15. Re:I would be amused by Council · · Score: 2

      Good lord, I'm sorry, when I said "in conversations with right-wingers" I was referring to the local moral crusaders in my area, the Young Constitutionalists, who I think of as characteristic of the far right wing. I'm sorry if my labeling was more broadly incorrect, but thank you so much for addressing the other stuff I had to say and not just getting mad about the one partisan phrase in my post. Poor labeling. I'm sorry. I don't care who the people are who spout that stuff, I was just trying to find an appropriate term to refer to them. You can drop it without changing my meaning.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    16. Re:I would be amused by Council · · Score: 1

      Please - It's not just the right - it's also the *left* that rant about sex and violence.

      Sorry, I wasn't trying to be partisan. I just had in mind this specific right-wing group on campus who is always spouting gloom and doom about the decline of society. It was just a poor phrase to refer to people that I didn't think about at all.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    17. Re:I would be amused by Council · · Score: 1

      Quick disclaimer: As has been pointed out to me, it's not the 'right-wingers' spouting what I said, for the most part. I used that phrase with a specific group of people I know in mind. Ignore it.

      The government has begun teaching abstinence from sex while dating, and it is catching hold in the youth culture as well.

      I'd like to see statistics, though, on whether the declining pregnancy rates are correlated with increased abstinence or not.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    18. Re:I would be amused by Morinaga · · Score: 1
      Fine by me and perfectly understandable. I understand your point and believe it's a good one. I think there's a laze faire association between fanatical social thought and either side of the isle.

      Nice to see the moderation objectivity of my fellow slashdot posters. Well done.

    19. Re:I would be amused by BinaryOpty · · Score: 1

      I also would like to see statistics of non-intercourse sexual activites. My guess is they're on the rise, because teens can easily say "Well, I'm saving myself for marriage, but oral/anal/etc. doesn't count as real sex because there's no chance of making a baby!"

    20. Re:I would be amused by cptgrudge · · Score: 1
      Nice to see the moderation objectivity of my fellow slashdot posters.

      And that's exactly the reason that I browse with Troll at +5. Makes for some NSFW stuff sometimes, but I'll find objective stuff that is actually insightful but doesn't jive with the /. group-think. I wonder how many there are that do that? I've seen one other at least. Plus, a few of those Troll posts are hilarious!

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    21. Re:I would be amused by zulux · · Score: 1

      I just had in mind this specific right-wing group on campus who is always spouting gloom and doom about the decline of society

      Ugh! Sorry if a few jerks make all of us right-wingers look evil!

      We're really only 50% evil ;)

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    22. Re:I would be amused by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Remember, folks, with sex, you get what you pay for. Don't trust that free sex.

      And you're crazy if you think sexual activity among young people has dropped the last decade. Becoming sexually active has been slightly deferred by a year or two over the past decade, with less 15 and 16 year olds but the same amount of 17 and 18 year olds, and the teen pregnancies drop is mainly due to better use and understanding of contraceptives.

      And oral sex has skyrocketed, which isn't showing up because many teenagers aren't even counting it as sex. Also contributing to the lack of pregnancies.

      The fact that teenagers now have oral sex when 15 and intercourse at 17 instead of just starting off with the intercourse at 15 is probably not the great moral stance you seem to think it is.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    23. Re:I would be amused by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      you forgot anal sex. used to be just for homosexuals and weirdos, now it's caught on with the highschool kids as a way to screw without pregnancy

      hooray for sodomy!

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    24. Re:I would be amused by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      and they use different colors to count states during the elections can't forget that

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    25. Re:I would be amused by Impotent_Emperor · · Score: 1

      I'm a Republican and I'm for the three G's:

      Guns
      Ganja
      Gratuitous sex and violence

    26. Re:I would be amused by vertinox · · Score: 1

      "but I'm one conservative who does NOT. LESS governmenting spending on this bullshit." and then "Hmmm. Maybe I'm NOT conservative, because I don't believe that either. It's the George Bush cronies and conservative right-wing nuts like Senator Clinton, Howard Dean, and John Kerry who have recently been found playing up false numbers for activities that we generally frown upon as being measures of moral decay in our society. No, Republicans, screw you, I'm not buying into that line."

      You are a libertarian and just don't know it yet.

      The word right-wing and conservative can actually be two seperate ideologies.

      I could be pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, pro-gay marriage but still be anti-big government or pro-military. The problem is that liberal is associated with personal freedom but big government and then conservative is related to authoritarian rule, but small government.

      The problem is neither of the political parties actually follow these guidelines... Both Democrats and Republicans sponsor big government and moral legislation.

      The political differences between George Bush and John Kerry were nihl if you look at stances on issues (although I don't know if John Kerry would have invaded iraq).

      So it is a loose loose situation for us... If we could only have moderates in power.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  55. Cyberstalking by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Jack uses a Cyberstalker law in Florida to threaten people who email him. Basically he cussess them out then ends it with "and don't email me back", and when they reply, he says they're harrassing him and to stop or he'll call it Cyberstalking.

    Of course, like everything Jacko does, it's never gotten to court. If he actually let it get to a court of law he'd be thrown out forcibly.

    1. Re:Cyberstalking by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Jack uses a Cyberstalker law in Florida to threaten people who email him. Basically he cussess them out then ends it with "and don't email me back", and when they reply, he says they're harrassing him and to stop or he'll call it Cyberstalking.
      What's this wiggler's e-mail address? (Not that I'd like to e-mail him, but I'll gladly make his e-mail address available to spammers, who would then be complained against for cyberstalking when they keep sending him v1a9ra spam)...
    2. Re:Cyberstalking by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      His address is fairly public. He probably gets plenty of spam already

    3. Re:Cyberstalking by Em+Ellel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Jack uses a Cyberstalker law in Florida to threaten people who email him. Basically he cussess them out then ends it with "and don't email me back", and when they reply, he says they're harrassing him and to stop or he'll call it Cyberstalking.

      So let me get this right, if the people who email him just add "and don't email me back" to end of THEIR initial email, HE cannot legally respond? Sounds like FUN.

      -Em

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    4. Re:Cyberstalking by protoshoggoth · · Score: 1

      Bah, how ridiculous. And I will sue anyone who responds to this post, you cyberstalkers!

    5. Re:Cyberstalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bah, how ridiculous. And I will sue anyone who responds to this post, you cyberstalkers!

      Just try it.

    6. Re:Cyberstalking by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      Only if you're in FL. He's there, so he's (at least partially) goverened under that state's rules. If you're not from there, you can't use that as an excuse.

      Feel free to find alternatives, however, in your state's own or federal laws.

  56. Re:Rockstar Bites Back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did anyone else realize.... Citizens United Negating Technology For Life Aand People's Safety

  57. Bad taste on both sides? by theSpaceCow · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Let me be the first to say that Jack Thompson is verifiably batshit loco insane. He has twisted a simple premise (he believes that violent media has a role in violent behavior in some kids and adults, and since there's no sure way to know how these impressionable kids will react, we shouldn't sell it to them) into a media-whoring shouting match the likes of a mentally unstable street preacher. Let me also say that Gabe and Tycho enlighten me and entertain me on nearly a daily basis and I love them to death.

    That said, I still think that both sides have handled the situation fairly poorly, as I see it. First off, if Jack really wants to change things, he should have offered his $10,000 toward nonprofit research that proves the positive mental effects of nonviolent games. If you tell the 16-year-olds of the world that being good at Tetris will get them laid, Rockstar would be bankrupt in a week.

    On the other hand, I feel the guys at PA have sunk to the same shameful ad hominem depths as their opponent with their "I hate Jack Thompson" shirt. It's their right to sell it, of course, but it shows no class and seeks to profit from causing misery to a specific individual. I happen to think they also should have donated their $10,000 to starving families and dying children, and not the Entertainment Software Association. Sure, it's funny that "Jack Thompson" is sending the ESA a check, but all they're really doing is furthering their own agenda and probably funding lawyers -- I had hoped that out of this debacle people in need would see some benefit, but I guess that's too much to assume.

    --
    I support the separation of oil and state.
    1. Re:Bad taste on both sides? by lowe0 · · Score: 1

      They're actually donating it to the ESA's charitable foundation. So yes, it's going to go where it can do some good.

    2. Re:Bad taste on both sides? by theSpaceCow · · Score: 0

      Good news! I'll admit that since I was at work, I'd only skimmed the article regarding where the donation was going. I apologize for my finger-shaking on that point, and for doubting the guys who put together something as great and magnanimous as Child's Play.

      --
      I support the separation of oil and state.
    3. Re:Bad taste on both sides? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Saying you hate someone is not an ad hominem attack.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  58. jezus christ by goarilla · · Score: 0

    this guy is beeing hated more and more doesn't he understand that's not a good thing

    i cant believe this since when do we blame entertainment for our actions, since when has society turned his back on own actions and turn to scapegoats?
    people have been wearing those nice Copkiller t-shirts for ages and they never have been sued
    Why go against the games industry when hollywood itselfs has a more longstanding 'copkilling' reputation
    or did u forget movies like goodfellas, reservoir dogs, ... should martin scorcese be put in prison
    i dont think so

    he deserves prison equally as the developpers at rockstar imho

  59. Well, it's entirely possible he's crazy by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I don't mean like crazy as an insult crazy, I mean crazy in a medical sense. He really does show many signs of schizophrenia. I mean under the "delusions" sections of the diagnosis he seems ot meet 3 of the 4 to a T:

    1. Paranoid delusions, or delusions of persecution, for example believing that people are "out to get" you, or the thought that people are doing things when there is no external evidence that such things are taking place. 2. Delusions of reference - when things in the environment seem to be directly related to you even though they are not. For example it may seem as if people are talking about you or special personal messages are being communicated to you through the TV, radio, or other media. 3. Somatic Delusions are false beliefs about your body - for example that a terrible physical illness exists or that something foreign is inside or passing through your body. 4. Delusions of grandeur - for example when you believe that you are very special or have special powers or abilities. An example of a grandiouse delusion is thinking you are a famous rock star.

    Well he certianly seems to think people are out to get him, he seems to have delusions of reference as well, and he sure as hell has delusions of grandeur as he seems to think he's a great crusader against evil. He meets various other criteria as well:

    # disorganized thinking # difficulty understanding # difficulty expressing thoughts # difficulty integrating thoughts, feelings and behavior

    Now of course I am not a psychologist (though that is what my degree is in) and even if I were, you cannot diagnose a condition like schizophrenia from things over the Internet, but there's enough irrational behaviour that it certianly gives me cause to wonder. The man may honestly be clinicly crazy, and if that's the case, his rationale for his actions isn't likely to make sense to anyone.

    1. Re:Well, it's entirely possible he's crazy by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1
      I doubt you have a degree in psychology. No one with any understanding of the subject would use a term like "clinically crazy". (There is not even a definition of the word "insane" in DSM-IV. It has no medical meaning.).

      If you had a psychology degree you would know that anyone who is truly schizophrenic is a low functioning person. They are not able to even take care of themselves let alone file lawsuits.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    2. Re:Well, it's entirely possible he's crazy by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Mental disorders aren't black and white. There are schizophrenics that are very high function, usually with the help of medication, and there are those who's grip on reality has slipped totally. However it's not generally an on-off switch, as in person is normal one day, gone the next. It's progressive. People show eairly signs and continue to get worse, if not treated (http://www.schizophrenia.com/earlysigns.htm for a list if you like). I had a neighbour who slipped down the slope of schizophrenia of the course of a few years. He was a nomal guy for most of his life, but his behaviour became increaslingly paranoid and erratic. It wasn't an immediate thing, though. He didn't go from normal to shouting at things in the night (which he did do near the end) in a day, or even in a year. It was a gradual process.

      Now, as I noted, I'm not a psychologist, this isn't a medical diagnosis, however Thompson's behaviour is extremely odd, seems to be increasingly erratic, and shows one hell of a parinoia streak. It's enough to give me cause to wonder. Apparantly was enough to give the courts cause as well. A couple years ago he was ordered to undergo a psyc eval. He passed, but it's rather uncommon for that to be ordered.

      As for my choice in termonolgy: It's not meant to be medically accurate, it's meant to help explain to people what I mean. Most people are calling him crazy as an insult, I am calling him crazy meaning that his mind may not be functioning correctly. I don't care if my termonology is correct or not. I'm writing an informal post on a chat baord, not submitting a paper for publication.

    3. Re:Well, it's entirely possible he's crazy by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "Well he certianly seems to think people are out to get him"

      Well...he may not be entirely crazy. We really ARE out to get him. And we won't stop until we do!

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    4. Re:Well, it's entirely possible he's crazy by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      Ok, THIS is dangerous.

      You shouldn't be going around claiming that some person (especially a known litigious one) fits the description of a particular mental disorder. Unless you can *prove* it, and are willing to do so, in a court of law.

      Otherwise, you need to make your wording very carefully. "Jack Thompson appears to me that he fits many of the criteria of schizophrenia."

      The second you start spouting this as fact, if it's defamatory then Jack Thompson *can* sue you under US defamation law, and the only defense that you have left (because you claimed it is fact) is to actually back that assertion up with proof, and prove that it's is indeed a statement of fact.

      Which is very hard to do with a psychiatric disorder, unless you examined him. In which case, you'd be breaking doctor-patient priviledge by divulging this information to Slashdot.

      Either way, if you're going to rock the boat, make sure you're not the one that's going to get all wet.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    5. Re:Well, it's entirely possible he's crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Untrue. He could be victim of a very minor case of schizophrenia. These things aren't dichotomies you know - there is a long, complicated scale between "normal" and schizophrenic. As long as the schizophrenic symptoms are severe enough to inhibit day-to-day functioning in any noticable way, it can be considered schizophrenia. I personally don't agree; he may have delusions, but it is doubtful that he is schizophrenic.

      And you are correct - there is no "clinically crazy." I assume the poster simply has an undergraduate degree in Psychology, which makes his claims quite expected; a BA in Psychology is not enough training to make such a claim. The previous poster admits this freely, and you attack him without cause.

      And if you want to be technical (which seems to be the lynchpin to your criticism), the current version of the DSM (with which you apparently have vast knowledge) is DSM-IV-TR anyway...

    6. Re:Well, it's entirely possible he's crazy by Kupek · · Score: 1

      Jack Thompson's love of media attention has likely removed his private citizen status. As a public figure, he would have to prove malice in a libel case, which is extremely difficult.

    7. Re:Well, it's entirely possible he's crazy by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      Hm... that applies so long as he's a public citizen. In court, I'm sure he would attempt to argue the opposite. (Note, I say, attempt)

      Attempting to show malice... meh, yeah, he's got a good tone to his article. Not scathing at all, and at the end a serious concern for the man's well being. Of course, apparently a court in Florida at one time had equal such concerns.

      So, your right, he's probably safe. As with psychiatry, helping avoid defamation is best not practiced remotely...

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    8. Re:Well, it's entirely possible he's crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Wikipedia entry has some interesting facts about his mental condition:

      Following the Flores case Thompson became prominently involved in First Amendment issues, particularly concerning the possible effects of sexually violent material. The Florida Supreme Court ordered that he undergo psychiatric testing during this campaign, which he successfully passed. He later quipped that this made him one of the few sane lawyers working in the state. The specific reasons that prompted the court to require Thompson to be tested, and on what grounds they compelled him, are unknown.

    9. Re:Well, it's entirely possible he's crazy by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 1

      I don't mean like crazy as an insult crazy, I mean crazy in a medical sense.

      Here in the states, a schizophrenic over age 40 is refered to as a "fundamentalist".

      Jokes aside, I would like to like to publicly forewarn all those that hold political office at the moment. My generation (30 year old libertarians) are going to be turning 40 soon. We're "really" pissed off with what you've done with the country. We're going to get rid of your social security. We're going to get rid of your medicare. We're going to get rid of the socialist institutions that your retirements depend on. Your pention, your tax funded security....gone. Enjoy your current positions while they last.

      BBH

    10. Re:Well, it's entirely possible he's crazy by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      And a competant lawyer should argue that since he's been the subject of no fewer than 5 news stories on /. alone, leaps at the chance to give interviews (At least until they start going against him), AND that the defendant has never met the man in person yet still has SOME behavioral evidence to back up what he said, the "public figure" designation is valid.

    11. Re:Well, it's entirely possible he's crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sycraft-fu: He really does show many signs of schizophrenia. I mean under the "delusions" sections of the diagnosis he seems ot meet 3 of the 4 to a T: (emphasis mine)

      Krach42: You shouldn't be going around claiming that some person (especially a known litigious one) fits the description of a particular mental disorder. Unless you can *prove* it, and are willing to do so, in a court of law.

      It looks to me as if the OP did present a statement of opinion.

  60. Opposing Dickery by rechelon · · Score: 1

    I think the real issues here are getting obscured amid this Jack Thomson fracas and the hearty self-congratulations of we internet warriors fighting off such trollery. Namely that Thomson and his ilk want to use legal and de facto social power to outlaw the access of certain media based on age.

    Though I appreciate the Gaming Community's sensitive nerves when it comes to the irrational violent stereotype of gamers, this whole troll hunt has largely helped obscure the dangers posed by Thompson's larger movement. This is a battle with those who somehow think they are owed the privilege of controlling what information individuals are allowed to pass between one another. And all those gamer personalities who, in the heat of action, are passingly assigning blame to parents 'not strict enough' in 'enforcing' what games their children could play... are actually buffering the very movement they so fashionably oppose.

    Just like with every other troll we need to make sure we aren't doing their work by fighting them.

  61. Bring on the lawsuit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jack Thompson touched my peepee.

  62. Jack Thompson interview and comments by Faust7 · · Score: 5, Informative

    You all may want to check out the ChatterBox interview with Gabe and Tycho that was done this past Sunday. Gabe talks a little about his recent conversations with Jack Thompson. Apparently the first thing Jack said after calling Gabe up and establishing his identity was:

    "Let me tell you something, idiot."

    This utter professionalism is well-reflected in the text of his fax to the Seattle police.

    "There are a bunch of computer geeks out there who think..."
    "These idiots have been so careless as to..."

    I can only imagine what some of his non-game-related correspondence is like.

    Also, this has probably been posted before, but here it is again: the ChatterBox interview with Thompson. Lunacy thrown into the sharpest relief.

    1. Re:Jack Thompson interview and comments by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Isn't that libel?

      Or at least harassment?

    2. Re:Jack Thompson interview and comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't waste your time on the Thompson interview, unless you want to hear the interviewers drop the ball several times, and JT display his remarkable lack of understanding on the difference between trademarks and copyrights.

    3. Re:Jack Thompson interview and comments by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      This is a really good interview and it's hard to actually disagree with Jack Thompson when it comes to how poorly games are rated in the US. But his comments on EA not enforcing their trademark against porn sites that are making mods for The Sims, although perfectly valid, are a little hard to follow as he keeps talking about copyright violations..

      But other than that, how can you fault anything he says here? If you accept that "murder simulators" are harmful to children, then how can you defend the idea that these games should be sold to children? Personally I think Jack Thompson's biggest problem is that he's so tied up thinking about how much damage a game is going to do to kids that he sometimes forgets that adults play games. But so long as he only wants games to be banned to kids then I say all the better! Don't let kids play any game that isn't Mario-like, fine, go ahead. But if you want to stop me from buying games, whether they contain cop-killer violence or nudity or whatever, then I'm gunna fight you to the death. But that isn't Jack Thompson's goal.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  63. the sims 2 by danpsmith · · Score: 0

    If we ban the sims 2 for allowing us to see mannequinely naked sims when we ourselves have to get a cheat code to do so, then we should ban barbie and *gasp* skipper too because you can take their clothes off, and skipper is underage for christ sakes!

    --
    Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
  64. Trouble Brewing by Lagged2Death · · Score: 1

    Thompson is a Grade A asshat, and it's easy for anyone familiar with video games, with his long-term crusade, or with this episode in particular to see that. But we're not Thompson's intended audience; he doesn't care if we know he's an asshat.

    If this story draws any mainstream attention, you know how it will look when the news bobbleheads summarize:

    "Pro-family activist lawyer harrassed long-distance by violent video-game-addicted L337 H4XX0R punks! Are YOUR kids safe from internet preadators?"

  65. Bout time this got on here by shoptroll · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised this didn't hit here earlier.

    Let's see... we've got the PA forums, "/.", and VGcats backing PA...

    Is it possible to get wanged and /.ed all at once?

    Mischief Managed

    --
    Insert Sig Here
    1. Re:Bout time this got on here by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

      Does this mean he'll accuse us (/. and Penny Arcade) of trying to pull a DoS attack on his web site?

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    2. Re:Bout time this got on here by shoptroll · · Score: 1

      Like he knows what a DoS is. Wasn't that the operating system you use to play DOOM?

      --
      Insert Sig Here
  66. Take him out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People like this need to be taken out.

    I'm sure his personal protection is somewhat lacking, so just pick him off from a distance and get yourself a headshot.

  67. Serious Sam is calling his lawyers by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    He might be next in line.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  68. Re:Rockstar Bites Back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    From the testimonial section.

    "Growing up in a strict religious house hold, I did not know what a penis or a vagina was. Then I got hooked on the internet. Now, I am ashamed to admit I have both."

    - Name withheld

    "I've always had a healthy sexual appetite. Around the time I hit puberty, I became sexually fixated with my grandmother. I could not get her out of my mind. People told me it was wrong, but I honestly believed that they were lying. If it feels so right, how can it be wrong, right? Wrong! I heard about the interweb. I went online expecting to discover a whole secret society of people JUST like me who loved much elder relatives, and hoped that for the first time since I gave up fantasizing about my sister, I could feel normal. How wrong I was. No one is obsessed with their grandma aside from me. I am a complete freak, and completely alone. The internet has ruined EVERYTHING. The worst of it is I STILL LOVE HER!"

    - Brain Baylor, Shady Pines

    ROFL

  69. This is going in the wrong direction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know Jack Thompson, so I can't comment on the quality of his character. However, I think all of this harassment is the wrong thing to do; attack the message, not the messenger. Jack Thompson is not the problem (although he appears to be an asshole); the view he holds is the problem. He is not the only person who thinks GTA is a "cop killing simulator", you know. He represents a good chunk of the population. Personally attacking/harassing him gives his message validity, or at least takes away validity from the opposing viewpoint.

  70. Going after a charitable company by mindaktiviti · · Score: 1

    Going after a company known for providing charitable contributions and trying to get the owners arrested isn't exactly the smartest thing to do. This guy should pick his battles better.

    If the Seattle news media are reading this, I have a great headline for you:

    "Jack Thompson goes after charitable game news company"

    No matter what would happen to PA because of him calling the cops on them, his reputation with the mass media would definitely go further down the tubes!

    You want to go after a company that has done this!? Shame on you!

    1. Re:Going after a charitable company by EvilMagnus · · Score: 1

      Or even better: "Jack Thompson threatens local Sick Children's Charity organizers"

      --
      -EvilMagnus
  71. Association games by Wylfing · · Score: 1
    Take look at Jack's fax. It tries to create a relationship between Penny Arcade and things like "cop killer" by putting them near each other in the text and using vague referents. For example, he writes "This is what the criminal harassment of me by Penny Arcade is all about." That statement seems to imply that cop killing is what it's about, when of course it's not.

    The whole fax is a clever troll to try and get the Seattle PD thinking Penny Arcade is somehow a direct danger to them.

    --
    Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
    1. Re:Association games by chadjg · · Score: 1

      Nice analysis, but may I suggest that it is actually not all that clever of a troll and that many reasonable people will see it as you have.

      --
      Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
  72. The Greater Conspiracy by bricklayer · · Score: 1
    Does anyone else think that Thompson is really an invention of Rockstar games?
    So far he has:
    • alienated game industry critics
    • revealed his supporters (Hillary, et al) as bandwagon-jumping fools
    • and publicized some violent games I probably wouldn't have looked at anyway

    I, for one am grateful for Thompson's lunacy.
    1. Re:The Greater Conspiracy by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      and publicized some violent games I probably wouldn't have looked at anyway

      That's certainly true. Rockstar haven't begun promoting Bully yet, but I already know it's apparently "a Columbine simulator". Sounds like fun.

  73. Re:Ah-Hahahahahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw this story on Fark long before it was on Slashdot. Don't get me wrong; I love Slashdot, but I also love the truth.

  74. Washington State Harassment Law by agibbs · · Score: 1

    Washington State Code 9A.46.020 (1) A person is guilty of harassment if: (a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens: (i) To cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or (ii) To cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the actor; or (iii) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or (iv) Maliciously to do any other act which is intended to substantially harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety; and (b) The person by words or conduct places the person threatened in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out. "Words or conduct" includes, in addition to any other form of communication or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication. It is possible that Florida law would apply given that Thompson lives in Florida. I haven't yet looked into that, but I may if I get curious. However it is pretty clear to me that this is a spurious claim based on the Washington state definition of "harassment."

  75. I guess what I really want to know is by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 1

    What made Jack such a sociopathic misanthrope, and why don't we ban *that* instead?

    1. Re:I guess what I really want to know is by willfe · · Score: 0, Troll

      Probably because if you try to ban "religion" in this irritating country, bible thumpers from all over will emerge with torches and pitchforks.

      --
      Read my stuff.
  76. Who has the balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    jackthompson.ws is available.
    jackthompson.tc is available.
    jackthompson.vg is available.
    jackthompson.ms is available.
    jackthompson.gs is available.
    jackthompson.be is available.
    jackthompson.co.nz is available.
    jackthompson.at is available.
    jackthompson.com.mx is available.
    jackthompson.org.uk is available.
    jackthompson.me.uk is available.
    jackthompson.net.nz is available.
    jackthompson.org.nz is available.
    jackthompson.de is available.
    jackthompson.tv is available.
    jackthompson.cc is available.
    jackthompson.bz is available.

    jackthompson.com is unavailable.
    jackthompson.net is unavailable.
    jackthompson.org is unavailable.
    jackthompson.info is unavailable.
    jackthompson.us is unavailable.
    jackthompson.biz is unavailable.
    jackthompson.name is unavailable.
    jackthompson.co.uk is unavailable.

  77. Jack is a plant! by Wylfing · · Score: 1
    I understand it now: Jack is a plant. He's on the payroll of Rockstar Games. His job is to make the anti-games people look so extreme and flaky that no one will come out against games for fear of seeming in league with this fellow. "Oh, you're just like that Thompson guy.." "No no nooo! Forget what I said."

    That's gotta be it.

    --
    Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
  78. You're all forgetting the golden rule: by MuNansen · · Score: 1

    There's no such thing as bad press, unless you're in office, and this guys' not in office (yet?). Either he's playing the game exactly the way he wants, doing anything for attention, or he's insane and getting attention for everything he's doing. Either way, it keeps his name in the news. Doesn't matter WHY his name's in the headlines, just that it's there. As a result, he wields more power than the other 99% of us that are sane.

  79. Let's finish what you started by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Policeman - You, cut the power to their web server.
    Gabe - Sir if he cut the power you will let all the Penny-Arcade users free to roam on the internet. We won't take the responsability for this.
    Jack Thomson - You will be held responsible! YARRRGH!

  80. He is actually crazy by s20451 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's not an act -- the guy is actually loony. (Or at least, he has an extremely active imagination.) Here are some other famous outbursts by him.

    One example: in 1988, he ran against Janet Reno for DA of Dade County:
    Thompson's unique campaign message was that Reno was unfit for the job because, as a closeted lesbian with a drinking problem, she was great candidate for blackmail by the criminal element. Jack never explained why this remained a threat even after he exposed her "secret." Reno cruised at the polls.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    1. Re:He is actually crazy by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      It doesn't mention his Batman fetish at all.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:He is actually crazy by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not an act -- the guy is actually loony.

      The Wikipedia article on him also includes this curious tidbit:

      Following the Flores case Thompson became prominently involved in First Amendment issues, particularly concerning the possible effects of sexually violent material. The Florida Supreme Court ordered that he undergo psychiatric testing during this campaign, which he successfully passed. He later quipped that this made him one of the few sane lawyers working in the state. The specific reasons that prompted the court to require Thompson to be tested, and on what grounds they compelled him, are unknown.

    3. Re:He is actually crazy by ilyaaohell · · Score: 1

      Heh, well, if he passed psychiatric testing, then he's NOT a loony, is he. :P

      --
      UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.
    4. Re:He is actually crazy by tjw · · Score: 1

      It's never too late to seek a second opinon.

      --

      XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UB E-TEST-EMAIL*C.34X
    5. Re:He is actually crazy by mo^ · · Score: 5, Informative

      For the sake of reference, in the UK at least, any person working with sexually extreme material (violence, paedophillia, masochism) is usually required by the authorising body to undergo psychiatric checks to ensure no alterior motives exist, or to pre-empt and issues arising.

      --
      bah!*@%!
    6. Re:He is actually crazy by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      Heh, well, if he passed psychiatric testing, then he's NOT a loony, is he. :P

      He cheated. He watched 'Armageddon' and knew the answers to the ink blot tests.
      Woman with large breasts.
      Woman with medium breasts.
      This one looks like you...with breasts.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    7. Re:He is actually crazy by budgenator · · Score: 1

      After reading some of his complaints like DoD Approves Sale of US Military Training on Open Market or his letter to Senators Lieberman and Clinton here I think you agree that his passing a pychiatric testing may say more about the competency of the examiner than it does about Thompson.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    8. Re:He is actually crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "alterior"?

    9. Re:He is actually crazy by indiechild · · Score: 1

      Psychiatric or psychological testing is mostly BS anyway, I'm not surprised that he would pass. I don't know why this kind of Mickey Mouse "science" is even allowed in the court.

    10. Re:He is actually crazy by Fr05t · · Score: 1

      It's not an act -- the guy is actually loony.

      As a Canadian, I find it very insulting you would use the name of our 1 dollar coin to describe Jack Thompson. I believe the term wacko, crazy, or insane would be better - however I'm sure you would be insulting wacko, crazy and insane people everywhere. Thanks, Eh.

    11. Re:He is actually crazy by mo^ · · Score: 1

      Sure i could have spelt it correctly, but this gives me the chance to justify it as the creation of a new word that is an amalgam of Alternative and Ulterior...

      --
      bah!*@%!
  81. T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirts by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    He's made himself a public figure, that makes him venurable to things like that. It's true, you can't do that to some random private citizen. If I went and started selling "I hate eln" t-shirts tp get back at you I could get in trouble (well, assuming I was using your real name that is). However we are allowed to mock public figures, be they politicians, celebrities, etc. So by going on 60 minutes and the like, he's made himself a public figure and subjected himself to this.

    The geeks calling his house and such IS harassment, but Penny Arcade isn't liable for that. Nowhere on their site do I see his contact info or directions to contact him. In fact they say "You're all asking me for Jack's Email and or phone number and I respect that. The problem is that I can't give that info out."

    As far as I can see, Penny Arcade is in the clear.

  82. Imagine if he was a REAL lawyer? by kinglink · · Score: 1

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/docs/jackdocument.gif Image from penny-arcade his letter.

    Notice the website meantioned. www.pennyarcade.com Guess he's going to get the police to act with no proof. Nice try Jacky boy.

  83. Pot meet kettle by Tangurena · · Score: 1

    Mr Thompson has made himself a public figure, which makes his sueing folks for slander or libel just about impossible. Pretending to be harassed while deliberately harassing others is hypocrisy. A debating technique commonly called Ad Ad Ad Hominem.

    1. Re:Pot meet kettle by LMariachi · · Score: 1
      IANAL, but I don't think being a public figure affects you vis-a-vis slander/libel. It might even make it easier to pursue slander/libel suits, since a public figure has more of a reputation to be damaged. (Plenty of people put gerbils up their asses, but Richard Gere is the only guy unfortunate enough to have his name associated with the practice.)

      Being a public figure does affect your expectation of privacy, though. A celebrity has little recourse against paparazzi or obsessive fans with creepy websites, but a normal person has a reasonable expectation of not being hounded by photographers every time he goes out to eat.

  84. The deeper you dig... by shadowmatter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... the crazier Jack Thompson seems to be. Apparently he ran against Janet Reno for the Office of Dade County State Attorney back in 88. He made some pretty ridiculous claims, including that Janet Reno uses call girls. He's also gotten in an e-mail flamewar with a 14-year old, and his quips make the youngster look like Socrates by comparison.

    I hope if the mainstream media begins to give Jack Thompson air time, since he is fast becoming a "celebrity", these past deeds are brought up. To ignore them does not accurately portray his real character.

    - shadowmatter

    1. Re:The deeper you dig... by Tired_Blood · · Score: 1

      He's also gotten in an e-mail flamewar with a 14-year old, and his quips make the youngster look like Socrates by comparison.

      My assumption has been that the 14-year old is really an adult. Given that, I find it fitting that you mention Socrates.

      As for JT, I'm very interested in how this current dance with PA progresses.

      --
      This is not my sig.
    2. Re:The deeper you dig... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      This guy has serious psychological issues - he constantly falls back to questioning his opponents' state of mental health and/or sexual practices. In fact, those seem to be his principle lines of argumentation.

      I find that not just bizarre but kind of scary coming from a lawyer.

    3. Re:The deeper you dig... by Tidal+Flame · · Score: 1

      It's possible, but I would not be surprised if that was indeed written by a fourteen year old. I'll admit that there are a lot of... well, stupid kids... but, conversely, there are a number of adolescents who are completely capable of sound logic, as well as proper grammar and spelling.

      Jack Thompson, by contrast, repeatedly makes himself look as if he's under the age of ten.

  85. talk about litigious by romerom · · Score: 1

    lawyers with free time on their hands to worry about something penny arcade is posting on top of other nonsense about video games can't be successful lawyers.. successful lawyers i would think would rather be raking in some billable hours..

    --
    http://www.awwsheezy.com
  86. Wow, this would be the perfect time... by Gruneun · · Score: 2, Funny

    for Jack Thompson to release a book and benefit from all this free publicity.

    Oh, wait a second.

    1. Re:Wow, this would be the perfect time... by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

      from the amazon link: Customers who viewed this book also viewed
      * Advanced Sex : 101 Positions and Techniques, for the Sexually Adventurous by Randi Foxx

      Why do I find that so funny?

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    2. Re:Wow, this would be the perfect time... by Gruneun · · Score: 1

      I saw that, too, and have two theories:

      1. Jack Thompson is missing his target audience.

      2. Jack Thompson is the only person interested in his book and he's getting a little Hot Coffee of his own.

    3. Re:Wow, this would be the perfect time... by Don+Calamari · · Score: 1

      Very, very interesting! Always follow the money.

      Although, I may just pick that book up from the library to see how what must be a GREAT editor greps through the scriblings of such a loon and turns it into a book that can actually be published.

      And mod parent up, BTW.

  87. He's not even very good at being threatening by Minwee · · Score: 2
    It is worth reading the email that Jacko sent just before filing his complaint:

    "This story is completely false and defamatory. Take it down or else."

    And Tycho's reaction to it:

    "It is critical to establish that this letter isn't anything to worry about. We've been sent worse by better."

  88. gods, what a jerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sounds like time for a Luau...

  89. This'll be fun once an actual lawyer's involved by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 1

    This guy's a great example of the problems that America has with lawyers... Anyone can become a lawyer, and there's really no criteria to determine who deserves to be a lawyer, vs. those who can simply memorize a lot of laws and precedence.

    This guy continues to prove his total ineptitude, but by god, he's got that stupid lawyer degree hanging on his wall, and so he's capable of hurling lawsuits, and thus wasting innocent people's money. The Penny Arcade posts are classics, and between them, and the 14 year old who argued him into a corner (link was posted in yesterdays thread... Look for it if interested), it's quite obvious that this is a man who thinks he's morally right, yet has no clue as to how the law works. He evidently thinks that having that lawyer degree automatically makes him right, and anyone who questions him is "stupid" (using his own mighty lawyer talk).

    It'll be nice when once of the people who Jack so casually threatens and harrasses actually hires a lawyer to deal with Jacks threats and harrasment. Perhaps then Jack will learn how the law really does function.

    For that matter, as honorable and nice as Penny Arcades contribution in Jacks name is, I would have preferred to see someone go after Jack for not fulfilling his publicly stated contribution once his conditions were met. Regardless, something tells me that Jacks nearing the end of his soap boxing, as he's now involving law enforcement to try and resolve the situations he gets himself into. Eventually someone's going to say "Look, we have bigger fish to fry than a lawyer who doesn't understand the law", and at that point, he'll go from victim to tormentor in the eyes of law enforcement.

    Can't wait for that to happen...

    1. Re:This'll be fun once an actual lawyer's involved by planetoid · · Score: 1

      The only reason Jack goes after videogames is because he's too mentally inept to drive a car to chase ambulances all day.

      --
      Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
  90. Sentences? by fredrated · · Score: 0

    Does slashdot use them?

    What does this mean?
    "He also offered $10k to charity if anyone who would develop some ridiculous murder spree game."

    Or this?
    "When someone did it, and he changed his mind and Penny-Arcade donated the cash instead."

  91. There he is. The biggest douch in the universe! by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    I think we have a winner for this year's title of biggest douche in the universe. And it's not Ursula, the giant douche from the Horsehead Nebula, Station J-12.


    Here he is, the Biggest Douche of the Universe!
    In all the galaxies, there's no bigger douche than you!
    You've reached the top, the pinnacle of douchedom!
    Good going, douche.
    Your dreams have come true!

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  92. Two problems with the whole situation by davecrist · · Score: 1

    (1) Why is it that when some idiot -- who was wired wrong to begin with -- goes off of the deep end and kills someone that folks like Jack Thompson try and take away MY rights? There is something wrong with the whole premise... I am being punished for what someone else can't manage! Following that logic, all religions should be declared illegal because some extreme Islamic sects have committed terrorist actions.... heck, I should try and sue EVERY CHURCH IN THE WORLD because of what some dipshits did.....sounds stupid doesn't it? ...and...

    (b) What would happen to 'activists' like Thompson if they weren't collecting 30-50% of their lawsuit damages?

    I'm willing to bet people like _him_ at least would go away... (I am NOT trying to say that all lawsuits are frivolous... but I question the TRUE motivation behind hundred million dollar class action suits where the CLASS gets 1/2 the money!)

  93. Not according to the RCW! by Trauma_Hound1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    RCW 9A.46.020
    Definition -- Penalties.
    (1) A person is guilty of harassment if:

              (a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:

              (i) To cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or

              (ii) To cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the actor; or

              (iii) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or

              (iv) Maliciously to do any other act which is intended to substantially harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety; and

              (b) The person by words or conduct places the person threatened in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out. "Words or conduct" includes, in addition to any other form of communication or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication.

              (2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a person who harasses another is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

              (b) A person who harasses another is guilty of a class C felony if either of the following applies: (i) The person has previously been convicted in this or any other state of any crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, of the same victim or members of the victim's family or household or any person specifically named in a no-contact or no-harassment order; or (ii) the person harasses another person under subsection (1)(a)(i) of this section by threatening to kill the person threatened or any other person.

              (3) The penalties provided in this section for harassment do not preclude the victim from seeking any other remedy otherwise available under law.

    ----

    BTW how many weapons out there have gamepads attached them them? Seems to me that to be actually training to kill cops, you'd at least need a gun based game controller. This guy should be dis-barred.

    --
    Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
    1. Re:Not according to the RCW! by stanmann · · Score: 1
      This guy should be dis-barred.
      Personally I'd rather see him defenestrated.
      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    2. Re:Not according to the RCW! by Trauma_Hound1 · · Score: 1

      Better watch out, if he knew what the word meant, he might come after you for criminal harrasment. ;)

      --
      Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
  94. Re:Ah-Hahahahahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's nothing. I saw this on Penny Arcade before it was on Fark.

  95. War and attitudes by stewwy · · Score: 1

    Has anyone noticed? there seems to be a correlation between the warlike nature of a country and/or its leaders and the increasing numbers of attacks on 'warlike' or 'violent' games, comics and video.
    I wonder if anyone (reputable) has done a study. I seem to remember it happening here (UK) during the falklands conflict and 'video nasties' corrupting our 'youth'

  96. Saw this coming a mile away by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

    I love PA and read it constantly, but even I could see this coming a mile away. Things were going just a bit too far.

    I'm not talking about the comics or what-not, but their posts. It's kind of an "our word against his" about the way their conversations were going. Between their descriptions and the interview, anyone could tell that an insane lawyer was going to try something like this.

    I'm not saying it's right or that they deserve ir (far from), but when you pick a fight with an insane lawyer then expect an insane lawsuit or criminal case lobbed at you.

    1. Re:Saw this coming a mile away by (startx) · · Score: 1

      It's kind of an "our word against his" about the way their conversations.

      Accept JT has already proven that he has absolutely no ability whatsoever to accurately remember the order of events, or events occuring at all, even when they are quoted in the same email!

    2. Re:Saw this coming a mile away by (startx) · · Score: 1

      WTF? how come /. stripped the link to http://www.vgcats.com/jack.php when it posted the comment?

  97. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by Mondoz · · Score: 1

    "He's made himself a public figure, that makes him venurable to things like that. It's true, you can't do that to some random private citizen. If I went and started selling "I hate eln" t-shirts tp get back at you I could get in trouble (well, assuming I was using your real name that is). However we are allowed to mock public figures, be they politicians, celebrities, etc. So by going on 60 minutes and the like, he's made himself a public figure and subjected himself to this."

    What makes a person private vs. public?
    How do I know if it's fair game to make a t-shirt about someone and not 'get in trouble'? What level of 'public-ness' must a person attain to become fair game?
    What law/rule/statute would it be breaking to make/wear/sell a t-shirt that said 'I hate John Smith'?

    --
    /sig
  98. So this is how geeks fight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, and the new stylesheet crap on this site really sucks.

  99. Wow -- PA should sue by pclminion · · Score: 1
    I look forward to working with your fine Police Department to shut this little extortion factory down and/or arrest some of its employees.

    He stated that Penny Arcade are extortionists. They should sue him for libel.

  100. movies,websites,books,music ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    At that point, it becomes really easy to pass laws banning the types of videogames that Jack disagrees with. (Then movies, then web sites, maybe even books...)

    Right now it's video games. But the rest is not just speculation. He's already on record demanding a ban on certain movies, web sites and music.

    Most notably: 2LiveCrew. Yeah, same guy.

  101. GTA sales by se7en11 · · Score: 1
    I'd be curious to see how many copies of the GTA series was sold due to people talking negatively about it. I for one checked it out just to see how bad it really was.

    Now if only more people talked about how bad Shaq-Fu was maybe it would have had the same success.

  102. The ambulance chaser... by Kodack · · Score: 1

    yeah, Jack Johnson ripping off A Modest Proposal makes about as much sense as Abbey Hoffman ripping off a Nixon speech. Who would have ever thought an ambulence chaser like Thompson would try (and fail) to use yippie tactics like that.

  103. Make your complaints known! by NYTrojan · · Score: 4, Informative

    The florida bar association

    Center for Professionalism:

    Carl J. Zahner
    czahner@flabar.org
    Terri Anderson
    tanderso@flabar.org
    Paula Stephenson
    psteph@flabar.org
    from http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBOrgan.nsf/54E05CD 1C9D5551885256B61000B58D2/AE11AE39767C4F8685256B74 00523C2E?OpenDocument

    1. Re:Make your complaints known! by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

      Done:
      --- SNIP --
      I am a reader of an online news aggregate and commentary sight Slashdot, and a recent article about Jack Thompson and a web sight has brought to my attention Mr. Thompsons behavior. After spending the day investigating the facts as far as I can see I am compelled, per my civic duty, to bring my concern to the Bar that there is some validity to many claims of unethical behavior on Mr. Thompsons conduct. I am however, not a lawyer, nor familiar with the Bar's standards for conduct. But I know what I've seen, and I find it unsettling. I would not readily dismiss the claims coming from people, especially those more familiar with the Bar's conduct rules, but I do feel his conduct is questionable and worth investigating. I would however remind the Bar that a through investigation would be in order and to treat any comments from a news aggregate sight as suspect, we are all innocent until proven guilty after all.

      Thank You
      -- SNIP --

      --
      -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    2. Re:Make your complaints known! by BitHive · · Score: 1

      I started drafting a letter, but I quickly realized that I didn't have anything of substance to say. If anyone drafts a letter that cites specific violations of professional codes of conduct for lawyers, I would gladly put my name on a copy and send it in. However, all the evidence I have for Mr. Thompson's lack of character come from excerpts of private communications (such as the scan of the fax) and anecdotes from people that have dealt with him. While it's my opinion that it's unprofessional for a lawyer to accuse someone of "criminal harassment" without just cause (as is clearly the case here), I can't bring myself to write to the Florida Bar Association without specific greivances. I wish I had the time to research this more.

    3. Re:Make your complaints known! by TheOneBiscuit · · Score: 1

      It is unfortunate that you made numerous spelling mistakes in your letter...
      The word spell-checker is not a substitute for human proof reading.
      I don't mean to pick on you, but it is very important that any correspondance written to anyone regarding this issue is of the highest quality.
      Remember, you are representing a lot of people here.

      I am also seeing a lot of silly comments written by people in Slashdot today. The worst of these can be picked out and used as examples of gamers.
      Jack,"See, and this person said he would shoot me up the ass with a rail-gun. They can't tell the difference between games and reality."

      --
      Things are good
  104. Re:Jack is a bodysnatcher! by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    Actually, I'd liken him more to a pod person... Oh, wait, you were speaking figuratively? Never mind then.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  105. even the might of penny arcade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can be destroyed by the utter power that is slashdot link followers.

    slashdot - 1 penny arcade - 0

  106. Re:Rockstar Bites Back by daeley · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not Obvious, So Happy I Told. Somebody Has Easily Ruined Laughter Over Coward Kibosh

    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  107. How lawyers "solve problems" by tyates · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is how lawyers "solve problems". They sue people. Another way to solve the problem of kids and uberviolent video games would be to make an online web page with a list for parents so that they can click on a game and see how violent it is, and decide whether they want to buy it for their kids. Then you publicize that web site so that parents know its out there. That's how a reasonable and intelligent person would solve the problem. But when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and when all you have is a law degree, everything looks like an actionable lawsuit. So he types up a brief in his underwear while he's watching an episode of "Boston Legal", and he thinks he's making a difference.

    --
    Tristan Yates
    1. Re:How lawyers "solve problems" by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      This is how lawyers "solve problems". They sue people.

      Except he's not sued (yet), he's just filed a complaint with the police and tried to get Gabe & Tycho arrested. That's a pretty big difference there.

      While I'm not a lawyer I have to wonder how he can legally get away with some of the things he states as fact in the complaint. Others have noted this as well, in particular the bit about their "extorting" him. In my opinion it looks like the only laws broken so far have all been by Mr. Thompson, those being libel of Gabe & Tycho and filing a false police report.

      I somehow doubt justice will be served and he end up in trouble for those acts (if indeed I am correct) but it would be nice to see. Overlooking his attacks on gamers and free speech the man still comes across as a real jerk, one that you'd just love to see karma come back and bite.

  108. If only... by wynterwynd · · Score: 2, Informative

    Gosh, if only there was some way for us to channel our annoyance into something that could undercut the very base of Mr. Thompson's power. If only there was a governing body monitoring the practice of law in Florida that we could contact and ask that they look into his legal harassment of satirists. If only their contact information was this:

    Florida Bar

    Complaints - Phone
    - Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
    - (850) 561-5600 + 1 + 5673
    - ACAPflabar.org

    If only there were a ton of witnesses to his wanton bullying who were willing to corroborate these claims and perhaps get his license to practice law suspended.

    Well, I can dream can't I? =)

    --
    "Not all who wander are lost" -- JRR Tolkien
    1. Re:If only... by wynterwynd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pardon my mislink - Florida Bar

      --
      "Not all who wander are lost" -- JRR Tolkien
  109. Jack is evil by Anita+Coney · · Score: 2, Funny

    It appears he's even launched a DNS attack against Penny Arcade's server! He's brought it to its knees. That bastard!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:Jack is evil by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, that's just the combined assaults of slashdot and fark.

      Google has trouble with that.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    2. Re:Jack is evil by Tuzy2k · · Score: 0

      And Digg.com. You guys are forgetting theres a new linking powerhouse in town...

  110. boycott? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have a list of organizations and/or businesses that Jack Thompson is affiliated with?

    I think this would be a good time to fire off letters to his affiliates saying how I was a customer (if that's the case) and will boycott their business/organization as long as they are affiliated.

    Also, does anyone know if he has the support of any senators or representatives? If he does, this would be a good time to send off a few more letters and volunteer for their opponents.

  111. Is Penny-Arcade down? by VickiM · · Score: 1

    I'm not getting it to come up, and I've never had that problem before. Does anyone know if they pulled it down for now, or if they were maybe forced to?

    1. Re:Is Penny-Arcade down? by VickiM · · Score: 1

      NM. Got it now. Not down, just very busy. His e-mail to the guys seems to hint that he'll claim that they made it all up. I certainly hope Gabe and Tycho come back with a libel suit, but maybe they'll see that as lowering themselves to his level...

  112. New Florida gun law by Ryan+O'Rourke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Shit man, be careful - there's a new law on the books in Florida that ensures a Floridian with a permit to carry a concealed weapon even more leeway in the right to use deadly force if they feel threatened.

    1. Re:New Florida gun law by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      What does your fearmongering have to do with Jack Thompson's fearmongering?

      Seriously, don't worry about Jack having a gun, the same people wanting to ban video games are typically the same who want to ban guns and self defence... and the same laywers who sue video game companies for street violence are the same ones who sue gun companies for street violence. Both are based on the ideology of "People must give up their constitutional rights and personal freedoms in order to protect society and children".

      Stop trying to promote your own authoritarian agenda by tying it to some other unrelated position. The constitution give Americans BOTH the right to free speech and the right to bear arms.

    2. Re:New Florida gun law by Ryan+O'Rourke · · Score: 1
      lol... wow, certainly didn't expect a response like this one - but I suppose I'll bite.
      "My fear mongering"? "Authoritarian agenda"? Geez dude, lighten up. All I was saying was that it's apparent Jack Thompson is feeling threatened and since he lives in Florida he could now legally pull out a gun and shoot those whom he feels are threatening his safety. My lighthearted "warning" was aimed at anyone who might decide to wear an "I hate Jack Thompson" t-shirt.
      Do I think Jack will shoot anyone? No. Am I trying to push some ulterior agenda by striking fear into the hearts of citizens? No. Am I trying to tell anyone they can't/shouldn't buy a gun? No. Am I trying to tell anyone they should buy a gun? No. Am I arguing the finer points of the United States Constitution? No. Was I just killing (hehehe) a few minutes of my afternoon on Slashdork with a humorous anecdote? Yes.
      Step away from the computer... step away from the computer...

      Now let's consider this comment of yours: "the same people wanting to ban video games are typically the same who want to ban guns and self defence..."
      This is interesting to me for a couple reasons. First of all, do you have any facts to back this up? Because without taking any time to look into this further, I might suggest the opposite. The Right likes to harp on violent video games just as much (or more) as anyone on the Left, but the Right also seems to hold their right to bear arms quite dear in the same breath.
      Also, I like the way you try to subtly blur the line between a gun and self defense. Sure, there are people who would like ban guns, but who wants to ban "self defense"?? That notion is absurd. If anyone is guilty of insinuation or hidden agendas here it is you.

      And finally, what is this:"The constitution give Americans BOTH the right to free speech and the right to bear arms."?
      When did I ever attack free speech (or the right to bear arms, for that matter)? I'm calling "strawman-igans" on that one.

  113. Of course PA is a company. by Some+Random+Username · · Score: 1

    What are you smoking? They've been a company for a long time, its their business, it is how they earn a living.

    1. Re:Of course PA is a company. by cnelzie · · Score: 1

      Oh, don't be so hard on him.

          Some people have serious difficulty understanding that a corporation could really honestly consist of one single person who is majority shareholder, the entire board of directors, the president of the corporation and the soul employee of the corporation.

      --
      If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    2. Re:Of course PA is a company. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      PA is two people.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    3. Re:Of course PA is a company. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's actually 3 people. Their business manager is part of the company.

    4. Re:Of course PA is a company. by cnelzie · · Score: 1

      No crap.

          I was simply pointing out that a corporation can consist of one single person acting as controlling interest, the board, the president and soul employee. Do you read before you post?

      --
      If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    5. Re:Of course PA is a company. by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Let's see, you leap to the assumption that I was leaping to assumptions about what you thought and I was incorrectly correcting you, so you decided to 'correct' me?

      Is that about it?

      You see, I didn't correct you, because you didn't say anything wrong. I just said PA was two people, which is exactly as true as your statement, and you went and actually did what you were accusing me of.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  114. god didn't mention Jack by micromuncher · · Score: 1

    The problem is that Jack thinks he is on a Jihad inspired by God Himself. I talked to Jack recently and he told me as much. However, when I told him that God never mentioned him to me, nor their communication, that I found truly abhorent, Jack started yelling "Who the hell do you think you are?" at me over the phone. I tried to explain that I had a close, personal relationship with the almighty and that he didn't start any Jihads without consulting me first. Jack responded with a tantrum, and name calling "Blasphemor! Blasphemor!" I said "Listen Jack, Mr. Man and I are going for a smoke in a few minutes to talk about Dubya and a viscious assult by a swarm of national socialist howler monkies. If you don't watch it, I'll subtly suggest a dozen bueboes on your Chevy Chase." He proceeded to call me a large purple dinosaur that mated with a large purple teletubby with a pink triangle on his forehead. "Sir, my farts sound more eloquent than you," I imparted as I put the phone down. I'm pretty sure that Jack spanks to Laura Croft, but that's my personal opinion.

    --
    /\/\icro/\/\uncher
    1. Re:god didn't mention Jack by Gehenna_Gehenna · · Score: 1

      That is weird. I talked to God just the other day and even He said Jack pisses him off. Then he went on about how Jesus roxors at Halo 2. You know, that God is a bit of a tool.

      --

    2. Re:god didn't mention Jack by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that Jack spanks to Laura Croft, but that's my personal opinion.

      Hell, who doesn't?!

      (crickets)

      Er, I've said too much. Nevermind....

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  115. Don't make a martyr of him by malakai · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This is exactly what blowhards like Jack Thompson deserve: to be publicly lampooned for their ridiculous actions.


    No, this is exactly what he wants. All this 'public lampooning' feeds the beast. There is no bad publicity for this guy. Like that cheesy Merlin mini-seires from 1998, the only way to destroy the evil witch is to FORGET JACK THOMPSON. Turn your backs. Ignore him. If he wasn't controversial, producers wouldn't be seeking him out an putting him on news shows. The game news media attraction to him, and the gamers attraction to mocking him gives him power

    Having said that, I recognize it's impossibly difficult to stop the "I hate Jack Thompson" landslide, mostly because younger people are far more prone to reaction based on emotion than logic. But right or wrong, by keeping his voice alive in the media, a percentage of adults are going to pick out his soundbites and use it to reinforce their already negative image of some games.

    No matter how many psychologist you parade on TV, or game execs, or 'kid next door' interviews that are frank and honest about violence in game and the lack of attribution towards violence in real life.... it wont make a difference. They'll hear what they want to hear, and because the target demographic of 85% of products is 18-30 years of age, us being upset about this guy gives a button to push that makes us turn to watch, or read, or care.

    Jack Thompson is a griefer. He's the MyG0t of Attorneys. And the best way to make a MyG0t'er leave a server (assuming you can't kick/ban) is for everyone to ignore him.

    1. Re:Don't make a martyr of him by yoyhed · · Score: 1
      He's the MyG0t of Attorneys. And the best way to make a MyG0t'er leave a server (assuming you can't kick/ban) is for everyone to ignore him.

      I've found that any situation in life can be reduced to a Counter-Strike reference. Or any song; take Brian McKnight's "Back At One", for example:

      verse 1:
      --------
      it's undeniable
      that we should scrim together
      it's unbelieveable
      how i used to say that i'd camp never

      you didnt believe me though
      that i was cal-invite for real
      so let me show you now that i'm leet krew
      of all the things in cal, i will reveal
      woo-oo-oo-ooot

      chorus:
      --------
      ONE you're like a dream come true
      TWO just wanna scrim with you
      THREE girl its plain to see, that you're the only t for me
      FOUR we plant the bomb in b
      FIVE camp and snipe out the c-t's

      if ever i believe the round is done
      then i'll start back at spaaawn

      --
      WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
    2. Re:Don't make a martyr of him by justins · · Score: 1
      No, this is exactly what he wants. All this 'public lampooning' feeds the beast. There is no bad publicity for this guy.

      Maybe not for him, personally, but he's sure making the anti-videogame people and their cause look very bad. That's why they are starting to back away from him publicly.

      Let him babble, works for me.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    3. Re:Don't make a martyr of him by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Yeah.

      This guy is really hurting the people who actually are sane people yet stupidly trying to censor videogames. His ranting can't but help.

      BTW, before anyone starts claiming such a position is not stupid...this war was already won. By you guys. We have ratings on game, they are not sold to young children.

      And thus the 'movement', at least the hollow shell of idiots it left behind, are reduced to complaining about how stupid parents buy games for kids anyway and all sorts of crap, like how a game for 17 year olds has sex in it if you hack it, and should be for 18 year olds, when of course 17 year olds can rent R-rated movies.

      Jack is just at the far end of this, and willing to show up in public and actually sue people over it. He helps expose the whole thing for the idiocy it is.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  116. I'm missing something - by DissidentHere · · Score: 1

    So, video games are bad m'kay. But video and images of killing in Iraq (and elsewhere) are fine? Is it because CNN is less graphic (hardly), or because those people are 'the bad guys'? How about the movies? Television dramas? Where the fuck does this guy come from?

    Easy answer, every one else is either owned by the government or has a huge lobby. The video game industry lobby currently doesn't come close to the rest of media (where'd that link go?).

    I really hope the general public gets the message 'dumbass is pissed about charity donation in his name' (sounds like Onion material) rather than 'superstar lawyer is saint and patroit' - there's a chance since the general public doesn't RTFA either.

    The real irony, I think, is that if there were some Hindu/Buddhist/Jain company that created a game where the challenge was to not kill anything, this guy would be just as pissed - 'WHAT! You're not killing the $Name Bastards'. He'd probably be happy to attack /. just for the use of the word 'karma'

    --
    "None of us are as dumb as all of us." - meeting mantra
  117. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    In fact they say "You're all asking me for Jack's Email and or phone number and I respect that. The problem is that I can't give that info out."

    Yeah, but the random link immediately underneath that to vgcats *does* have his email and phone number, so they're giving it out indirectly in a reasonably obvious way.

    Not that I think they're completely off-base, but I don't think they're completely in the clear either.

  118. He is not hard to find by jhines0042 · · Score: 1

    I Googled Jack Thompson, first web page gave me a reason for his cause an address and a phone number.

    PA can't possibly be held liable for information that is so easy to get.

    And if they need it, I would donate some money to pay their legal fees. I'm sure many others would too.

    --
    42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
  119. seriously, by jen_savage · · Score: 1

    GROW UP.

  120. From PA's site by jayhawk88 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "I guess Jay Leno is going to be there (at the ESA convention, where their friend Robert will be presenting the $10k check)".

    Dear God and Jesus,

    My name is Jayhawk88, but then you already know that. I know I haven't been the best person in the world, and I don't go to church very much, but if you could see to it that this Jack Thompson v. PA feud receives national media attention, I promise to be a good Christian from now on. I will give to the needy, love my fellow man, and praise your name if you will give me Jerry Holkins debating Jack Thompson on The O'Reilly Factor.

    1. Re:From PA's site by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1
      I dunno...Mike and Jerry are both really great guys, but they're both self-admittedly awkward in a variety of social situations.

      Thompson is very, very comfortable with the camera; Mike and Jerry, probably less so. Probably best for them to stick to their preferred media: the written/drawn word...

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    2. Re:From PA's site by Rimbo · · Score: 1

      We need both PA members debating him on O'Reilly. Just to make it MORE unfair. :)

    3. Re:From PA's site by Gadren · · Score: 1

      I agree that it could be dangerous...they'd be fighting him on his own turf.

    4. Re:From PA's site by Castar · · Score: 1

      On O'Reilly? I think he would just tell the PA people to "shut the hell up". Seeing as Jack is a right-wing Christian lawyer trying to suppress violence and sex in a threatening new medium...

      I'd rather see them on the Daily Show, which generally does a pretty good job of understanding current technology enough to see past this guy's FUD.

      --
      I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
    5. Re:From PA's site by LakeSolon · · Score: 1

      Better yet: Anyone know how to suggest guests on The Daily Show?

            ~Lake

  121. Re:Ah-Hahahahahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    try digg.com... it's slashdot on-time and fark without all the crap

  122. Can't he be disbarred due to racism? by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    The first high profile cases he had was going after prominent black rap groups, and recently he said to Scott Ramsoomair (Ransoomair, whether a pseudonym or not in the case of Scott, is an Indian name):

    "Get a name and a life"

    Or maybe it had too many vowels in it for Thompson's comfort.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    1. Re:Can't he be disbarred due to racism? by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      I just did a quick Google image search, Scott is definately Indian, if not central Asian in origin. So essentially Jack just mocked someone's name because it wasn't Anglo in nature.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  123. Donation to Charity by Mad+Ogre · · Score: 1

    "He also offered $10k to charity if anyone who would develop some ridiculous murder spree game." So what is the incentive to develop this game for the people to actually take the time and effort to do it? Also - don't tell Jack about the game by Running With Scissors called "POSTAL". He just might fall over dead.

    --
    MadOgre.com
  124. Just ignore him by WarwickRyan · · Score: 1

    Mr Thompson is just a sad, lonely guy who wants some attention. As he obviously has no natural talent or charisma his only chance of doing this is by picking up contrivertial causes.

    Just like Kevin Warwick http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Warwick, Uri Gellar http://www.sisyfos.cz/sisyfos/geller.htm and co will all go away if we just ignore them.

  125. Sue Jack for his Unilateral Contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has been a long time since I took contracts, and I haven't read the original documents in this case, but, that never stopped anyone one Slashdot.

    It appears that Jack made an Offer for a Unilateral contract.
    "Someone" took him up on his offer and performed according to the contract.
    Now, Jack attempts to rescind the contract claiming it was all a joke.

    But Jack can't rescind the offer because someone already accepted and performed (thus completing thier end of the contract).

    Now is it worth the attorney fees to sue jack under the contract? Probably not, but ...
    Pay the $25 fee and take him to Small Claims Court. He may move you to real court, or he may not show and just default. Either way, he feels the love.

  126. How many people that read the bible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...have MURDERED people? I'd guess about 1000000000000x more than the people who have happend to play video games and killed people.

  127. Thanks by Ironsides · · Score: 1

    Was trying to remember where I saw that before. Thought it was a VG Cats comic, not CAD.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  128. PA Money? by Momoru · · Score: 1

    Just out of curiosity how does PA make so much money? They sell gear...and they have that convention once a year... but they seem to be paying at least two people full time, plus donating large sums of money. Where does it all come from?

    1. Re:PA Money? by kasek · · Score: 1

      advertisements & side projects

    2. Re:PA Money? by ethame · · Score: 1

      NO. If the site was up I'd link you to the comic about stealing money from the people gabe kills to buy xbox 360s. Crazy AWESOME.

  129. Has anyone thought abot EULAs? by Landshark17 · · Score: 1

    Follow me on this one:

    Jack Thompson has stated that he plays games like GTA VC and such so that he can make videos of the kind of corruptive behavior they demonstrate. To play the games, doesn't he have to agree to the EULA? If so, he's waved his right to file half the suits he's filed, and can probably be sued for violating said EULA.

    I can only hope.

    --
    This sig is false.
  130. He is NOT a conservative. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Very few people of the ultra-conservative persuasion, however, need to be persuaded - they already are fanatically against video games that contain violence, sex, etc.

    This idiot is not a conservative. I am however. And as a conservative, I believe it's the parents responsibility to make sure their children are being tought morals, ethics, and respect for their fellow neighbor. Jack Thompson however, thinks it should be GOVERNMENTs job to dictate the virtues of life to others without parental intervention. This flys in the face of conservitism.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Ofcourse he's not conservative, nor are any of the arguements he makes. Many of the people who argue the points of 'government mandated' fall into the left side of the spectrum, bigger government who should dictate morality. Things change a bit when you add in religion, personal morality and such. But this flies in the face of many a professer who would rather lump things into a 'left/right' camp and creed.

      This doesn't apply to all conservatives either, as you and I both know. Some on the right sit in the same camp and want 'mandated morality' as well. But they are as vocal as those on the left. Now if we really want to get into it, what happens when you ask this fundamental question? In the last 50 years you've had liberalism dictate morality and erode personal morality and strip parents of the rights to do such even in their own homes.

      Where does the blame lay?

      For liberals now upset, please understand that the parent poster is correct. The standing belief of Conservatism is: Morality falls to the parent first for the virtues of life, and lessons of morality fall to parents. Only the state steps in when all falls by the way-side when that fails, unfortunatly the state has started to become a 'nanny' and govern into that far too much.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservative's also belive it is the parents responsibility to make sure there children are being tought good spelling and grammer. This flys in the face of liberilism.

    3. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by Darby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many of the people who argue the points of 'government mandated' fall into the left side of the spectrum, bigger government who should dictate morality.

      No, not really.
      Legislating "morality" is primarily an issue of the right.
      Big government is favored by both the right and the left.
      Liberals believe in individual liberty, but the right (and to a point the left) in America have worked extremely hard to demonize and redefine this word since nobody in our government wants to give up power.

      The political spectrum works like this:

      Liberals (or "those formerly known as Liberals") believe in individual liberty. "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal" is the peak of the Liberal movement boiled down to a sentence.

      The right is the party of the rich elite and they believe in using the power of the state to prevent equality. For a pretty damning example of this, just look at the current American Republicans.

      The left is the party of the little guy (supposedly) and believe in using the power of the state to force equality. Examples of this gone bad are obviously Soviet Russia (cue the overused moronic jokes) and the like although there isn't much of anything on the left in America to point at anymore. Of course deluded idiots like Rush and the like are fond of referring to Kerry as an extreme leftist in reality he is pretty far to the right by most people's standards.

      The worst you really see out of the American "left" are things like hate crimes (the definition) which are merely thought crime by another name.

      The reality is that the right and the left believe in big oppressive government.

      I'm not sure where you get your ideas about conservatism, but they are at least 30 years out of date.
      American conservatives believe in shoving their religion and morality down everybody else's throat, as well as keeping the fags down. They typically claim to be Christian although clearly know nothing about the religion (or at least they know nothing about what Jesus said)

      You might not believe that these are good things, but that is essentially the defining characteristic of an American conservative. You might want to think about choosing some other way to describe yourself if this isn't what you believe. That word has no good connotations left at this point, so when you use it to describe yourself most people are going to consider you an ignorant racist who despises freedom since that is what the word has come to mean.

      Similarly, I would have been described as a Liberal some time ago but there is no word left to describe belief in personal liberty. The Libertarians like to claim that they do, but they're mostly just Randroidian whackjobs who think any sort of altruism is the world's greatest evil.

      So anyhow, you're trying to fight against the tides here. Language changes.
      Jack Thompson is the poster child for what "Conservative" means in America today.

    4. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by DigiShaman · · Score: 0

      Of course deluded idiots like Rush...

      You've never heard this man speak before I bet. If you had, please state ONE thing about what Rush Limbaugh has said that you disagree with. Not a single far-out liberal suck as Dean, Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Hillary, can trump rush in a debate. Pure and simple. In fact, Rush Limbaugh as stated time and time again to debate these democrat liberals time and time again. You know what? They refused because the KNOW they would look like fools.

      So what do they do, they slam Republican but NEVER offer a real alternative to our problems. At least the Republicans are trying (though not very well) which is more then I can say for the other party.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by BKX · · Score: 1
      Maybe that's because all those people are centrists not "far-out liberals". On the politcal spectrum, the Republicans fall very far to the right, damn near monarchists and fascists (by the original definition), with many already there. The Democrats fall on the center, with some slightly to the left. (Just to note, libertarians are a split case on the spectrum. They fall on the extreme right insofar as government issues are concerned and on the extreme left insofar as personal liberty is concerned. "Anarcho-capitalists" are much the same but are not anarchists; they just think they are.)

      Maybe if he asked to debate someone who was actually a "far-out liberal" (like a socialist, communist or an anarchist), he'd actually get a yes.

      To those of you who think they're on the left, you're probably not. Maybe by American standards, you are, but not by the rest of humanity.

      PS - If Rush wants to debate a real leftist, I'd be quite happy to do it. Of course, as a communo-anarchist, I may be too far left for his tastes. Meh, who cares?

    6. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      First of all, a "communo-anarchist" sounds like an oxymoron. Communism is about government control over the people. An anarchist is someone who is in favor of absolutely no government what-so-ever. In fact, to an anarchist, there is no law. To really find out what your viewpoint is, try taking this test. http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

      Maybe if he asked to debate someone who was actually a "far-out liberal" (like a socialist, communist or an anarchist), he'd actually get a yes.

      He has, and Rush has spanked many live on radio with facts. If you managed to stump Rush, you would be the first. And I really doubt your much smarter then some of the professors and Dr that he has debated before.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by Darby · · Score: 1

      Communism is about government control over the people. An anarchist is someone who is in favor of absolutely no government what-so-ever.

      Wow, and here we have DigiShaman demonstrating his utter lack of understanding of what the words he's using mean.

      Communism (the theory, which is the only thing that makes sense to talk about since there are no real world examples) does require government control to start out. However it demands that this evolves to anarchy. So, in fact, the worst you could possibly say about BKX's stated philosophy is that it's redundant.

      As far as Rush goes, the fact that you would defend him speaks to your lack of any sort of moral character. Lets see what DigiShaman thinks of as unbeatable debate skills:

      "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" And he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton is 13 years old.

      Clearly, she is a human being rather than a dog so in terms of honest debate he has demonstrated his inability to actually involve himself in it.
      Just as clearly he didn't mean that exactly. No, that is known as an "ad hominem" attack. The truly sad and pathetic thing is that he is attacking a 13 year old girl. That is the typical level of Rush's "debate"

      Limbaugh calls concern about the ozone layer: "balderdash. Poppycock." The only people who worry about it are "environmental wackos," "dunderheaded alarmists and prophets of doom."

      Given that we know the exact mechanism by which ozone depletion occurs and its major effects this is nothing besides a blatant lie.

      See how easy it is to destroy this hate mongering ass's "arguments"?

      Now, also consider the fact that Rush doesn't debate anything. His show is nothing but him pompously spouting off nonsense and taking calls from sycophants (like you). On the rare occasion that an actual thinking person gets through the screeners he spouts nonsense, accuses them of being whacko leftist commies for having the audacity to actually use their brains and then hangs up on them.

      He has been challenged to debates many times and refused, so whatever it is you're smoking, you might think about laying off of it for a little while. Clear your head.

      Here is an article detailing his cowardice in response to a debate challenge by high school history students who he was attacking on his show.

      Yeah, real great guy you're defending there. It speaks volumes as to your character, or rather lack thereof.

      Your arguments are so easy to tear apart that it is no surprise that you learned your "debate" skills from Rush.

    8. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Communism (the theory, which is the only thing that makes sense to talk about since there are no real world examples) does require government control to start out. However it demands that this evolves to anarchy.

      But it never works out that way does it? No, it sure doesn't. Communism never works, never has, and never will in regards to a prosperous and free civilization. This has been proven time and time again every time it's been tried. And to this day, this philosophy leaves people in utter squalor and despair. Such examples can be found in China, N. Korea, Cuba, former Soviet Union, and soon to be Venezuela should Hugo Chavez have his way. It's time you liberals wake up to reality and get your head out of the clouds. The world is about results and NOT intentions. So keep your pie-in-the-sky ideas of communism to yourself. You're only advocating corruption and immorality if you're in favor communism.

      "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" And he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton is 13 years old.

      I never did hear about this. In fact, I wonder if it's even true. But I will assume for sake of discussion that it is...

      I can only assume (based on my knowledge of Rush from talk radio over the years) this was one of his acts of satire. Even as such, it was very degrading and without honor. And knowing my fellow conservatives, Rush would have cought major hell from his audience...and I'm sure he did.

      Limbaugh calls concern about the ozone layer: "balderdash. Poppycock." The only people who worry about it are "environmental wackos," "dunderheaded alarmists and prophets of doom."

      Given that we know the exact mechanism by which ozone depletion occurs and its major effects this is nothing besides a blatant lie.

      See how easy it is to destroy this hate mongering ass's "arguments"?


      You destroyed nothing. All you did was bring up an example of pathetic satire. I will give you credit though for a nice stab at Rush. As for the issue of Ozone hole, he is correct. There is NO evidence that human activity created this hole let alone is contributing to its growth. In fact, do you even know HOW Ozone is created? I will tell you. It's the Sun. And guess were the two places on Earth that get the least amount of sunlight? That's right, the poles. Did you also know that lately the hole has been closing? Did you also know that the Earth is warming up to the same increased lambda degree as Mars? Mars of all places is warming up!!! I tell you, it must be all of that oil drilling on Mars... No, actually it's because the energy output of the Sun has been INCREASING over the years. Nothing to be alarmed about, it's a cycle that waxes and wanes every 11 years.

      Answer: Ozone is created when UV light ionizes oxygen in the upper atmosphere.

      Now, also consider the fact that Rush doesn't debate anything. His show is nothing but him pompously spouting off nonsense and taking calls from sycophants (like you). On the rare occasion that an actual thinking person gets through the screeners he spouts nonsense, accuses them of being whacko leftist commies for having the audacity to actually use their brains and then hangs up on them.

      He has been challenged to debates many times and refused, so whatever it is you're smoking, you might think about laying off of it for a little while. Clear your head.


      You know nothing about Rush other then how to spout hate and range towards this brilliant man. And yes, he has refused debates many times. He simply does not have the time to debate all of the "cookie cutter" liberals out there. Unless you have something fresh and new to debate about, he simply won't waste his and the audiences time with these people. Frankly, I agree. Been there, done that...

      Your arguments are so easy to tear apart that it is no surprise that you learned your "debate" skills from Rush.

      This post has proven you wrong about m

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by Darby · · Score: 1

      the theory, which is the only thing that makes sense to talk about
      But it never works out that way does it?

      It *hasn't* certainly.
      You dedicated a whole paragraph to repeating what I acknowledged and tried to pretend you were making a point. Umm... wow, congratulations you worked that hard to demonstrate my points.

      I never did hear about this. In fact, I wonder if it's even true.

      Why would you wonder when you could easily prove it to yourself?!?

      I can only assume (based on my knowledge of Rush from talk radio over the years) this was one of his acts of satire.

      No, it is his stock in trade. Why do you suppose that his audience, like himself are defined by what they hate?

      Even as such, it was very degrading and without honor.

      I'm pleasantly surprised that you can actually recognize this. It's sad that you're still trying to defend him when spewing ignorant hatred like this is his job.

      And knowing my fellow conservatives, Rush would have cought major hell from his audience...and I'm sure he did.

      And having watched it happen, I saw your fellow conservatives demonstrate the depths of contemptible hatred that is the defining characterisitic of conservatives. They celebrated as their moral counterparts did after 9/11. When your whole worldview is based upon hating something else rather than standing for something that's what happens.

      Again, quit being a petulant little bitch "wondering" about something and research it.

      You destroyed nothing. All you did was bring up an example of pathetic satire.

      So, your whole defense of Rush boils down to that his stock in trade is merely "pathetic satire".
      At least we're on topic now :-)

      There is NO evidence that human activity created this hole let alone is contributing to its growth.

      Damn, dude. I'm having a hard time believing anybody could be as stupid as you're presenting yourself. You must be a troll.
      You're mixing the ozone hole and global warming as if they were the same thing. You're ignoring the fact that we have identified the mechanism behind ozone depletion and made legislation to correct it. Then you use the fact that the corrections are working to say it was never happening. Well, you are either a troll or truly a dedicated Rush fan. How else could you explain such incredible ignorance?

      Congratulations! Your post has just added more weight in favor of Rushes point of view. You're officially just another liberal statistic.

      Wow, you're pretty far out there.
      You have presented me with a new definition of Liberal though. According to you it means "Anybody who disagrees with a pompous hate mongering ass".

      The word originally meant "One who believes in individual liberty", and this country's constitution was the shining jewel in the crown of the Liberal movement. Big oppressive government supporters like the Republicans, the Democrats, Rush and you have worked really hard to demonize that word though. Congratulations.

    10. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      the theory, which is the only thing that makes sense to talk about

      I never agreed to this statement, nor did I allude to do so. And no, this theory does not make sense. It never has, and never will. Human nature down to the genetic level prevents communism and socialism for working. Unless you can re-engineer human behavior at the genetic level, you will never prevent those seeking control from rushing in and filling the vacuum of power that these two failed philosophies provide (and dare I say it... empower).

      No, it is his stock in trade. Why do you suppose that his audience, like himself are defined by what they hate?

      You do not have the credibility to talk about someone you know nothing about. The fact is, he does not "hate". If anything, he is guilty of tasteless humor and satire in the name of good fun. But he never spouts hate to the degree liberals do. Sir, you are really dancing on razor blades. So much so that you're close to being marked as a slanderer! How dare you represent someone on a public forum whom you know NOTHING about!

      And having watched it happen, I saw your fellow conservatives demonstrate the depths of contemptible hatred that is the defining characteristic of conservatives. They celebrated as their moral counterparts did after 9/11. When your whole worldview is based upon hating something else rather than standing for something that's what happens.

      Conservatism is not based on hate, rage, and destruction of others credibility. Those are hallmark characteristics if liberals in action. In fact, it happens every day on the media. Just look at the anti-war protesters. They really want Bush dead. Hell, they even want America to fall and falter. They blame global problems mainly on America when in fact it's America that does better for humanity then any other country. Seriously, the viewpoints of the left are NOT based on intellect or intelligence for that matter. I would honestly say that the liberal modus operandi in its current form (starting in the 1960s) is based purely on irrational thoughts and feelings. Basically, liberalism can be described as a psychological disorder centered around a self absorbed form of hubris.

      Damn, dude. I'm having a hard time believing anybody could be as stupid as you're presenting yourself. You must be a troll.
      You're mixing the ozone hole and global warming as if they were the same thing. You're ignoring the fact that we have identified the mechanism behind ozone depletion and made legislation to correct it. Then you use the fact that the corrections are working to say it was never happening. Well, you are either a troll or truly a dedicated Rush fan. How else could you explain such incredible ignorance?


      I never said they were the same thing, but ozone hole depletion and global warming are related in effect from our Sun. As for legislation, it was enacted because of the study put forth by two scientists (Rowland and Molina) and later published in a scientific journal called Nature. While their number crunching seamed very plausible from a mathematic standpoint, it was still only a theory and not based on any factual "enviromental effecting" data. Basically, legislation was put forth based on political fear that their enviromental/waco constituencies would no longer support them through campaign donation. And to this day, scientists still cannot connect the dots between ozone depletion and CFCs. Obviously, CFCs have been drastically reduced and the hole has closed up (though not by much). But you cannot factually prove the hole was never their since the introduction of oxygen to our planet. Also you cannot provide conclusive evidence that the stopping of CFCs have reduced ozone depletion. At least there is more evidence in the scientific community that states the Sun (imagine that, a giant fusion reactor in the center of our solar system), has more of an effect on our planet and its ozone layer then say...mankind.

      You have presented me with a new definition of Liberal thou

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    11. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by BKX · · Score: 1

      It sounds an aweful lot like you know absolutely nothing about leftist politics. Communism is not about government control of the people, it's about giving every member of society the means to live comfortably. Just because Russia screwed it up hardcore says nothing of the theory. Communo-anarchism is about as related to communism as chimpanzees are to bonobos; they come from the same ancestor but are completely different.

      The communo-ness of my anarchism is simply the manner in which I would have the anarchist society look. It just shows that I want to place an emphasis on the small communities and envision communal living. Other types of anarchists want much the same thing but emphasize different aspects and want for different types of societies and living arrangements. For example, mutualist anarchists want an economy of sorts complete with banks, but without the "usury", ie no interest, rent nor profit. Most types of socio/communo anarchists want a complete abolishion of money. Unlike statists, we anarchists don't have a problem with these seemingly contradictory views being present in our movement; we understand that no one is right and that we all have different views. Having views even slighlty different from a rightist like Rush usually brings bullshit like ad hominem attacks and other logical falicies that Rush and co. are so fond of using. Rush has been "stumped" many times, but I've never heard him admit it; he usually just attacks his adversary on unrelated grounds.

      As far as the law goes, do we really need it? Since when does the law stop people from breaking it? And if there was no law, would you start murdering, raping and pillaging? Why would anyone else? (Not directly related to what you said, but anyone who questions anarchy invariably first argues that without the law we would have a continuous stream of rapes, murders and robberies, much like we have today.)

    12. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by Darby · · Score: 1

      You do not have the credibility to talk about someone you know nothing about.

      Which is relevant how? I know a lot about Rush. He has made a name for himself by spewing vitriol about the "evil Liberals" without once doing anything to back up his ridiculous assertions. Those are the facts which you have done nothing to counter except straight denial with no evidence. I, on the other hand presented evidence of this fact.

      But he never spouts hate to the degree liberals do.

      Again with the Orwellian nonsense. Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and the rest of the Republican hate machine have worked for years to destroy integrity and rationality in public discourse. So when you take what you and your people are doing and then try to claim that it's actually the rest of the world you just make yourself look silly.

      Conservatism is not based on hate, rage, and destruction of others credibility. Those are hallmark characteristics if liberals in action.

      Again with the doublethink.
      It's hilarious. Just think R.I.N.O. Your people can't even hold back from attempting to destroy the credibility of people on your own side merely because they attempt to be rational.

      In fact, it happens every day on the media.

      You, of course, mean the media that is owned almost exclusively by major right wing corporations right?

      Just look at the anti-war protesters. They really want Bush dead. Hell, they even want America to fall and falter.

      So, let me see if I can untangle your warped attempt at logic...
      Somebody who has taken the time to inform themselves about the reasons behind the war, the motivations of our leaders, and the situation in our nation i.e. a good citizen, wants America to fall?!?
      Where do you get this insanity. You are talking about people who are justifiably angry about being lied to and manipulated by the President and his administration, the Senate, and the media. The undisputable fact is that anybody who isn't angry about the current administration either isn't paying attention, or has no interest in integrity at all.

      They blame global problems mainly on America when in fact it's America that does better for humanity then any other country.

      No, they have the integrity to admit that some of the things that we do are wrong. Integrity is exactly what the right is completely lacking in. Their loyalty is to their party at the expense of their country and this shows in everything they do.

      Seriously, the viewpoints of the left are NOT based on intellect or intelligence for that matter.

      Which is just more of your Orwellian doublethink. The idea that rising tides lift all boats, that honor and integrity are important, that treating others as you would like to be treated makes for a more pleasant society. That freedom means others get it too. That shoving your warped, vile and vicious "morals" on others because you're too cowardly to accept that not everybody is the same. These things are what you describe as not based on intelligence?
      Presumably you think that the right's ideas are based on intelligence. So you think that pissing all of America's integrity away as an excuse to start a war, that ripping off the middle class to enrichen the already extremely rich, that pissing right in the face of every concept that made this country great, and actively striving to destroy freedom in the interests of promoting amoral corporations over American citizens are signs of intelligence?!?
      What a loon. Evil, but a loon nonetheless.

      And to this day, scientists still cannot connect the dots between ozone depletion and CFCs. Obviously, CFCs have been drastically reduced and the hole has closed up (though not by much). But you cannot factually prove the hole was never their since the introduction of oxygen to our planet. Also you cannot provide conclusive evidence that the stopping of CFCs have reduced ozone depletion.

      Actually, this is all well understood and conclusively demonstra

    13. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Now, back under your bridge ignorant troll.

      *clapping*. Bravo..BRAVO!!!

      You have just proven my point about the attitudes of liberals. I don't need to rehash the explanation...as you have done it for me.

      I was going to post a rebuttal to your post. But, I changed my mind after seeing that you called me an "ignorant troll". That alone has diminished your credibility despite the fact you might sound rather intelligent, which is why I decided to engage in a debate with you for so long. It's too bad really. How can you be honest with the vast majority of Americans when liberals cannot be honest with themselves? I for one at honored and proud to be a conservative! You view the word liberal as though it was an insult. Gee, I wonder why... *sarcasm*

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    14. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      As far as the law goes, do we really need it? Since when does the law stop people from breaking it? And if there was no law, would you start murdering, raping and pillaging? Why would anyone else?

      It's a proven historical fact that crime is much higher in countries and societies of lawlessness. Personally, I find it disturbing...but there is no turning a blind eye to the truth. Remember, humans are animals too, some are just more civilized then others depending on whom you talk to.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    15. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by BKX · · Score: 1

      What is lawlessness?

      It's also a proven historical fact that countries with more laws have more criminals. The US has more people in jail than any country but Russia and China and also has the most drug laws. Its also a proven historical fact that crime goes up as inequity goes up. The more rich the rich people are compared to the poor, the more crime there is. Compare Mexico to any country in Europe, the rich people in both countries are just as rich as eachother but Mexico's poor are much more poor, and, lo and behold, Mexico has a crapload more crime. Is the cause lawlessness or is it inequity and ridiculous laws?

    16. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it the fuck up, DigiShaman.

      You've proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you're an asshole.

      Why? Because my aping your idols (Rush, Coulter, etc.) you wallow in their shit, which stinks to high heaven. Yet you seem to think that said shit doesn't stink, and even if it did, that it doesn't stick to you. And since that particular train of thought is at odds with actual literal reality, you prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are an asshole.

      Remember, dear, dear dumbass, that your idol Rush slammed everyone who used drugs, calling then scum and insisting that they be jailed immeadeately. And yet when he was found to be doing said drugs, his tune changed completely. No longer did the rules appily to him, you see. That is the true demarkation of the modern republican - sanctimonius bullshit. When someone eles does something, its wrong. But when they do it, its right. Kind of liek when Bush's Republican administration blew a CIA agent's cover. The rules of this country state that such actions carry the death penalty. And if this would have happened under Clinton, you and your pathetic ilk would have been screaming for blood. Yet now, for some strange reason, these same rules don't appily. Apologetics are the order of the day, not responsability. Just like with your idol, Rush. Which means that they, like you, are asshles, because they've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that what comes first is personal gain - not America, nor its laws, nor the right it grants to *all* of its citizens.

      And yet, strangely enough, you claim this is *better* then the alternative - democrats and liberalism. You know, the party and the position that, unlike yours, is pro-individual rights, pro-environment, pro-education, pro-science, pro-arts, anti-gun lobby, anti-polution, anti-cronyism, anti-elitism, and anti-pork. It's a sad day indeed when a sane thinking person would consciously run against such a platform. But of course, you're not a think person - you're a drone, and an asshole. And it shows, buddy, it shows.

    17. Re:He is NOT a conservative. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      If you look through the data, you will often find poor countries having the most crime while rich countries have little. Keep in mind though, crime statistics are gathered through the local enforcement agencies. So for all we know, areas with the least amount of police may actually have much higher crime rates then what gets reported.

      I personally don't base the idea of crime rate to inequality. I base it on culture and local ethical values. Also with lack of money to spend on law enforcement by any given poor country, a higher crime rate is to be expected.

      Interestingly, the US does have the highest reported crime rate (based on raw numbers, NOT percentage). Germany, UK, and France follow. You could say that other three countries are very much based on a platform of democratic socialism.

      Check out this website http://www.nationmaster.com/

      Note that most of the crime in the US is based on auto-theft, assult, and rape. Yet it's the poor countries that lead the way in murder.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  131. The Obligatory Wiki by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 1

    Read up on Jack Thompson here.

    --


    "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
  132. Controllers Dont Kill People, People Kill People by deathCon4 · · Score: 1

    Did the Kids walk around taping 'X' on there controllers to kill the cops? The number of young people playing Doom/Quake/Duke/Kill Zone/GTA/Carmaggedon or whatever is so high, you can not equate that to police officers dying. Sure the kids are nuts, but Video Games didn't make them do it. I can not think of one person I know (myself included) who has even threatened/hurt somebody else in a manner similar to any video game, and we've been playing the most horrific and deadly and immoral games we could find for over 25 years! Now, Take those video games away from kids, and you'll have a real problem of wacko's!

  133. The critical part is... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    get out and vote. And not just for the big elections every four years. Vote in your Congressional elections. Vote in your state elections. Vote for your local councilmembers.

    Good.

    Spread the word and get your friend to vote. Don' be afraid to use that fancy gaming machine to write a fickin' letter now and then.

    Better.

    You are one vote.

    Your letter to your congresscritter may be counted by him as some multiple of one vote - the inverse of the fraction who believe as you do but don't write letters.

    But the critical part is to convince others to vote, and write letters, and convince still others. Then you are multiplied, not by a constant, but by a rising exponential.

    Research this guy. If he's working against an aspect of freedom that is one you value highly, he's probably done the same for other aspects that are valued by others. Dig them out. List them. Use them to convince others that the guy is a menace to THEM.

    If you're talking in person, draw them out about what they do, and tell them how this guy is bad for it.

    If you're writing letters, give them a list. They'll mostly ignore the ones that aren't a big issue for themselves and zero in on the ones that affect them. So you can write letters and let them filter, rather than trying to figure out in advance what will bug any particular person.

    Once you've got them convinced, try to recruit them to help convince others.

    Find his political opponent. Volunteer to help with his campaign. He'll need money - but he'll need warm bodies even more - to stuff letters, walk precincts, talk to people, staff booths. Help out and you not only help get rid of the crank, but you get the ear of the guy you're helping. Keep HIM aware of why you were so opposed to his opponent, so he doesn't make the same mistake.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:The critical part is... by samkass · · Score: 1

      Research, then vote. Get your friends to read about the candidates and issues, then vote.

      Please don't "just vote". Don't try to convince your friends to "just vote". It dilutes the votes of people who actually know what they're voting for and skews the vote in favor of superficial whims. If you don't know a candidate or issue while in the voting booth, it's too late; leave the entry blank, please.

      --
      E pluribus unum
  134. Um...does he have any clients? by wandazulu · · Score: 1

    Filing frivilous lawsuits actually costs money, and I don't see where his income comes from. It's all nice to crusade and all, but eventually you have to pay for the fax machine and ISP.

    And what kind of law does he actually practice? All this grandstanding could be done by anyone with the wherewithall to build a soapbox, but I wonder if all this is actually just an excuse to avoid going to the office and doing the inevitable paperwork: "Make sure Form 5A is included with Form 7B (revision 2) that has been notarized along with the Schedule C form...."

    Zzzzz...

    (Maybe that's why he's so aggressive...he's just trying to stay awake)

  135. My mommy didn't hug me.... by bluezenx · · Score: 1

    My mommy didn't hug me.... so video games make me kill people! Sheltered bastards become asshole lawyers... apparently!

  136. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by jtwJGuevara · · Score: 1

    Would you please enlighten us as to what it is like to wear one of these penny arcade T-Shits out in public? I'm sure everyone is eager to walk up close to you and talk to you with one of those on.

  137. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by Suppafly · · Score: 1

    actually i'm pretty sure could get away with putting anyone's name on a tshirt whether public or private.

  138. Re:Now that's libel by steveness · · Score: 1
    Damn, dude I couldn't decide if this was +1 funny, or +1 Interesting. What I really need is a +1 "Dude just insulted Jack Thompson 4 times with no legal liability".

    Brilliant.

  139. Uh-oh... by Landshark17 · · Score: 1

    We've /.ed Penny Arcade!

    --
    This sig is false.
  140. penny-arcade.com never had a chance. by doublem · · Score: 1

    Between Fark.com and slashdot.org, the poor Penny Arcade server never had a chance.

    Farked, and hit by the /. Effect on the same day.

    And thus they have invented the /. Fark.

    Poor Bastards

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:penny-arcade.com never had a chance. by shoptroll · · Score: 1

      Nah. I've seen websites get knocked around by people in the PA Forums. You want to really get your server on fire, get /.ed, farked and wanged (linked from the PA mainpage) in the same day.

      --
      Insert Sig Here
    2. Re:penny-arcade.com never had a chance. by ChronoReverse · · Score: 1

      Not sure what you're talking about since Penny-arcade.com seems to be still kicking for me. In any case, PA is large enough to have a sort of PA-effect of their own.

    3. Re:penny-arcade.com never had a chance. by Kyosuke77 · · Score: 1

      PA's readership is large enough that they are able to themselves wield something of a /. effect. It would appear that only being hit by massive traffic from two large tech news sites will make their server start to sweat, and even then only just.

      --
      GET THEM INSIDE THE VAULT!
    4. Re:penny-arcade.com never had a chance. by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      They are handling it fairly well. Gabe just made a post saying they'd have intermittent issues as they make changes to deal with the load they are getting, but that they should be ok.

    5. Re:penny-arcade.com never had a chance. by doublem · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I'm just disturbed by the thought of being wang slash farked

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    6. Re:penny-arcade.com never had a chance. by doublem · · Score: 1

      I'm very impressed by their server-foo.

      They were down at the time I'd posted, but it looks like they weren't down for long.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    7. Re:penny-arcade.com never had a chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Farked, and hit by the /. Effect on the same day.
      > And thus they have invented the /. Fark.

      "/farked".

    8. Re:penny-arcade.com never had a chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went to high school with a Wayne Slashfark

  141. Wait a minute... by freidog · · Score: 1

    "I hate Jack Thompson" T-shirts are a form of harassment?

    Does that mean 'F*** GW', 'Nuke the whales,' 'don't blame me I voted for Kodos,' and 'Winbloze' are also forms of harassment of our president, the whales, kang, and wndows users repsectively?
    Oh god, if Jack Thompson wins this I'll have nothing to wear....

    fortunately for my 'Guns don't kill people, I kill people' shirt JT is just a raving lunatic with nothing better to do than make an ass out of himself on a regular basis.

  142. Penny Arcade Address by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    From the check:

    9500 Roosevelt Way Ne, Suite 300F
    Seattle, WA 98115

    http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=9500+Roosevel t+Way+Ne,+Seattle,+WA

    1. Re:Penny Arcade Address by JimmehAH · · Score: 1

      My God!
      It looks like Hell on Earth. So many houses, all around. Enough to give you claustrophobia.

    2. Re:Penny Arcade Address by budgenator · · Score: 3, Funny
      From the website stopkill
      If you want to help your state pass a constitutional law to prohibit the sale of these virtual reality murder and sex simulators to children, if you want any additional information or help, or if you want to help Jack Thompson in any fashion, including prayer, please contact him at 1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111, Coral Gables, Florida, or phone him at 305-666-4366. May God bless you, keep you, and protect you and yours.

      I'm sure we'll all send our prayer to your office most of us really think you need all the help you can get. You seem to be losing your grip on reality, and are suffering some kind of delusions of grandeur and just a bit of a suicidal in the way you've gone and made your self a highly visable target; alarmingly a realativly simple google search on your office address turns up as the number one link, your complaint against California-licensed attorney, Mark Geragos who was attorney for Scott Peterson in his murder trial; that complaint as required by California law not only lists your office address and phone number but your home address, home phone number and cell phone number.
      We are begging you to realise life is not a video game, you have no free extra lives in the bank, when some whacko finaly tracks you down and puts a bullet in you it will most likely hurt you very badly or kill you, Please be careful
      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:Penny Arcade Address by Tofino · · Score: 1

      Live in the country do ya? Had a rural Michigander friend (now Iowan) come and visit us a year or so ago. We live in the suburbs but still he was quite horrified by the density and the lack of privacy. He said he would not buy a house if he couldn't stand on the porch during the day, pee off it, and be in zero danger of anyone seeing.

    4. Re:Penny Arcade Address by JimmehAH · · Score: 1

      I live in England (on an estate and now on my university campus) so there's not enough space to build that many houses like that.

    5. Re:Penny Arcade Address by spot35 · · Score: 1
      If you want to help your state pass a constitutional law to prohibit the sale of these virtual reality murder and sex simulators to children, if you want any additional information or help, or if you want to help Jack Thompson in any fashion, including prayer
      ...and if you can find them, you can call... Bah bah baaah, da da daaaaa...
    6. Re:Penny Arcade Address by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Ahh, wonderful, prove him right. Honestly, gamers should be doing everything they can to keep this guy from getting harmed by some idiot with an axe to grind. If someone murdered Thompson the media, and every other nut like Thompson (remember, he's not alone in his beliefs) would use it as proof of their point, and they would play it to the hilt. Right now, Thompson's continued descent into idiocy is the best thing going for gamers. He needs to be given the tallest soapbox, and the loudest bullhorn possible. Then, when his web of lies and stupidity comes unraveled it will be all the more visible and obvious. Once he goes down hard in the media and public opinion, no one will be able to make similar arguments without being compared to Thompson.
      It goes back to the old saying, "give him enough rope to hang himself by." Thompson needs to stay in the spotlight so that when he falls, and he's going to, it's obvious and visible.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
  143. I once read... by intangible · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I once read somewhere that people who really get upset over the possible abuses of things such as these games (for child porn, etc) are really "closet" about it themselves?

    1. Re:I once read... by cr0sh · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yes, I would say this is true in many cases. The psychological reasoning behind it is fascinating, though it makes for a twisted form of reasoning.

      Basically, the rationale is that an individual, or a group of like minded individuals, have an attraction to something which has been deemed by the rest of society as being "wrong". To counter this attraction, these individuals seek to eliminate, in totality, that which they are attracted to. In certain cases, where the elimination of the object of attraction is not possible, they seek to make that attraction and/or the slightest expression of that attraction illegal, in the hopes that if this is so, they themselves will no longer be attracted to it, and the burden will be lifted.

      Sounds fine and rational on the surface, doesn't it? Therein lies the problem, which these individuals never dare to face: the attraction lies entirely within the realms of their own psychological makeup. Removal of the external representation ultimately does nothing to quell the attraction which lies within their minds and thoughts. If they truely thought that it would work, rather than eliminate the external sources, they would just remove themselves from societal forces entirely, either via suicide (in the extreme case), or through self-imposed isolation or exile (moderately extreme, but likely the classic method for dealing with the pains of society by individuals throughout history - is it any wonder why such practice tends to be part and parcel of most major religions?). In the case of the latter solution (because, after all, sucessful suicide would be a working solution), these individuals would quickly realize that the issues and troubles they (and others) face is within them, and can only be rectified through self-realization and self-actualization...

      Is it any wonder that this sounds like the beginning of so many religions?

      Anybody with half a rational brain can deduce this. Unfortunately, for many, they have to take the difficult route and either screw up the rest of society which has figured this out already via crazy changes to the law, or return from the wilderness after an extended stay to reveal their "revelation" to the masses (many of whom then agree and seek to follow, giving money and property at every turn) - only after they realize that it is all in their heads, and not much short of changing their worldview will change that.

      The thing is, if they would just stop what they were doing, and love themselves for who they are, both physically and mentally, rather than continuing with their self-flaggellation at every turn, the world would likely be a better place overall...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    2. Re:I once read... by vertinox · · Score: 1

      To counter this attraction, these individuals seek to eliminate, in totality, that which they are attracted to.

      Maybe Jack should consider militant Buddhism.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  144. Now taking bets... by 72beetle · · Score: 1

    ...on how long before this assclown pulls a Morton Downey Jr. style publicity stunt, saying he was beat up in a men's room by some angry gamers or something, to bump his story and endear himself to the handwringers?

    My guess is 3 weeks from today at the most.

    --
    -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
  145. What I really want to know by Thud457 · · Score: 1
    is where can I download this ridiculous murder spree game?!

    And what's the code to unlock the secret "Jerk Stompson, insane ambulance chaser" character?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  146. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't know, I buy my t-shirts on sale at Popular Outdoor and I don't really care what they say. However their legality isn't dependant on me wearing one or not.

  147. Translation anyone? by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1
    He also offered $10k to charity if anyone who would develop some ridiculous murder spree game. When someone did it, and he changed his mind and Penny-Arcade donated the cash instead.
    together stringing just words Grammar! without sentence make not does a
  148. Contact information by $inisterAngel · · Score: 1

    If it hasn't been posted yet..
    John B. Thompson, Attorney
    1172 South Dixie Highway, Suite 111
    Coral Gables, Florida 33146-2750
    Phone: 305-666-4366
    Jackpeace@comcast.net
    And possibly his home info

    5721 Riviera Dr
    Coral Gables, FL 33146-2750

    1. Re:Contact information by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      Don't harrass this guy, it's pointless. But is that really his phone number? 305-666-4366

  149. Society we live in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jack Thompson is simply the extreme of the pattern of victimization that has swept over North America. The reality is that there are some things that people are responsible for themselves. Parenting is one of them. A child being addicted to gaming is the same as a child being addicted to smoking - only in this case the parent has complete control over it since they provide the games, gaming console or even if the child is pirating games and playing them on computer, the parent provided the computer and internet access. Furthermore, violence is a key role in society when given a proper outlet. Historically, we've had the Colosseum with the gladiators, any kind of competition sport, movies, and games as well.

    I know from my own childhood, whenever I would a movie with violence in it (the blue moon when my parents would let me) they would watch it with me and constantly reiterate that it's not real. As far as I know, I haven't committed any acts of violence.

    Furthermore, I'd like to point out one thing - this man probably is a conservative who supports Bush and the war in Iraq - now which is a stronger message? A fantasy game where you kill aliens, or advocating the murder of others, especially when the reasoning behind it was a lie.

    PS. His claim that FPS games train children for acts of violence in the real world is ludicrus - shooting an uzi in a computer game is completely different than in real life not to mention that in a game all you do is press a button. He's also giving an excuse to people who commit crime - if you killed somebody, would you be more or less likely to blame a video game if it would mean a reduced sentence?

  150. He gets no publicity if... by TheDukePatio · · Score: 0
    ...he sues an individual. He gets more publicity if he sues a comapny/organization, etc. ESA's President is correct by not addressing Jack's attacks directly. By doing so he gives him more attention and makes him more visible.

    Take the spotlight away from someone who has nothing else going on and they fade away. He'll try harder to get the spotlight again, but if he continues to be ignored and shown to be an utter loon, then anytime he opens his trap he'll be brushed off w/o a second thought. Tipper Gore and the PMRC had a similar crusade against music in thte 80s. They won to a certain extent and Record Companies started to label music with the Explicit Lyrics label we've all come to love. The problem in Jack's case is that the ESRB already exists and already label's games.

    If music companies and artists aren't liable for the death of cops by gang-bangers who listen to Gangsta Rap then why should game companies be any different.

    --
    To Alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
  151. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by jtwJGuevara · · Score: 1

    psst - I was making reference to the typo in your subject line :)

  152. I DO hate Jack Thompson by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Informative

    Glorifying hatered on a t-shirt is counterproductive, and reflects VERY poorly on the reasonable cause the shirt represents.

    Hatred is a human emotion. So unless you bleed green and you have pointy ears, chances are you had a taste of it.

    The shirt is an expression of how the wearer feels about a public person, the wearer could be a hypocrite and pretend he meerly dislikes, or disagrees with Thompson, but if we do hate him for consistently attacking our character based solely on our preferred passtime, and his attempt to ban our passtime, then the shirt is simply expressing our feelings in a perfectly reasonable way.

    I hate that fucker Jack Thompson.
    There, I said it.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  153. coping with detachment by Somegeek · · Score: 1
    I don't know, when I call http://www.copes.com/ it seems that they do carry pumps, not detachments.

    What's really funny though is if you google 'detachments' the first hit is coping.org!

    Or maybe it's just me....

    --
    And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
  154. Jack Thompson Contact Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://stopkill.com/index.html

    At the very bottom of the page it has his work address and phone number listed:

    1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
    Coral Gables, Florida
    305-666-4366

    However, google maps has the address listed as:
    1172 S Dixie Hwy.
    Miami, FL 33146

  155. Re:boobies? by antdude · · Score: 1

    At least it is not Bob Loblaw.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  156. Charity fund raising idea! by Lithium_Golem · · Score: 1

    The PA guys should offer up all of the profits from the sales of their line of "I Hate Jack Thompson" shirts to chairty! I'd buy 3!

  157. The sad thing is... by jferris · · Score: 1

    ...that this whole ongoing chain of events has more action and more of a plot than the last few video games I did buy.

    --
    You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
  158. Who is John B. Thompson?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Both the fax header and title row say John and not Jack Thompson.

    Oh yeah, and the obligatory:

    - Alright, when I say "Hello, Mr. Thompson" and step down on your foot, you smile and nod.
    - Gotcha.
    - Hello, Mr. Thompson
    - I think he's talking to you.
  159. Where can I find the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://gc.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=5883

    Sounds fun. I want to play it.

  160. Help me here, please by anno1602 · · Score: 1

    Who the hell is Jack Thompson? And why should I care?

  161. I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel that the the precise arguement you are presenting, if taken past some critical mass, is completely electable. It's what everyone knows, and if someone spoon feeds it to them with charisma then people will listen.

    .
    -shpoffo

  162. Wasting police time? by angusmci · · Score: 1

    Does the offence of "wasting police time" exist in the US? Because while IANAPCFL (I Am Not A Publicity Crazed Florida Lawyer) it certainly looks to me as if Jack T's demands that the cops go and harass Tycho and Gabe of Penny Arcade could fall under that heading. It might even be a case of falsely reporting a crime, which has got to be good for a swift rap across the knuckles.

    The boys at Penny Arcade seem to be conducting themselves with grace, style and wit in this one. Thompson? Well, let's just say that he probably isn't adding to the circle of his admirers with his current antics. At least, I certainly hope he isn't.

  163. Great Penny Arcade Advertising by KnowledgeFreak · · Score: 1

    The most awesomely awesome thing about this is how Penny Arcade is nearly getting slashdotted with all the free advertising and interest in their site generated from this Thompson fiasco. For all I know they'll probably make back the 10,000 dollars they donated to ESA in his name. What Jack should do now, is take credit for that money, and demand it back from the ESA (or sue). ohh man, how would we entertain ourselves w/o insane public figures?

  164. I just had a brillient idea!!! by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Since Jack keeps using the stupid Florida cyberstalker law as a weak defense against those emailing him, I say we use Florida's AWESOME "Shoot First" law as a strong offense against Jack!!!

    I'm just kidding, but it *IS* a nice thought.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  165. Garage sale revenue is not taxable income by snowwrestler · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unless you sell it for more than you paid for it. Otherwise you are taking a loss on the transaction, and losses aren't taxed.

    Consider selling your car. If you bought the car for $15,000 and then sell it for $10,000 you are losing $5,000 of value, even though the other $10,000 has been converted to cash. The conversion to cash is a red herring--taken as a whole, the transaction loses money so you don't pay income tax.

    The taxman looks at your total monetary value before and after each transaction...income taxes are only assessed on positive differences.

    Think of your salary, where you start each pay period with x asset value, and you end each pay period with asset value of (x + paycheck)--you're taxed on the difference (paycheck). Or investments, where your investments start each quarter with n. If you have (n + appreciation) at the end of the quarter you pay taxes on the appreciation. If you have (n - depreciation) you get to deduct the depreciation from your total income.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  166. Name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the top of the scanned letter it says "John B. Thompson", yet at the bottom it says Jack Thompson?
    Could anyone tell me what's up with that?
    Is he that senile and crazy that he forgot his own name?

    1. Re:Name? by cjm182 · · Score: 1
      At the top of the scanned letter it says "John B. Thompson", yet at the bottom it says Jack Thompson?

      His real name is John Thompson, but he goes by Jack most of the time. Gawd knows why. Maybe he's embarassed of "John".

    2. Re:Name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, 'Jack' is an informal version of 'John'.

  167. So? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate the fool.

    I hate the fact that his vitriol and assinine attacks getting him national attention on 60 Minutes.

    I hate the fact that he is even allowed to get away with the very behaviors that he accuses others of simply be the fact that he's a lawyer. As such he should be help to HIGHER standards than those without professional legal training.

    I hate that he uses his "position of power", his lawyership, to be a bully.

    I hate his total inability to grasp reality and basic concepts like cause and effect.

    I hate is blameshifting.

    I hate his haircut.

    And I LOATHE anyone making any preconceived conclusions about me without any personal knowledge of who I am or anything else, a practice entirely too common from corporations, politicians, and grandstanders these days.

    1. Re:So? by goldspider · · Score: 1

      "And I LOATHE anyone making any preconceived conclusions about me without any personal knowledge of who I am or anything else"

      If people wearing "I hate Jack Thompson" t-shirts are worried about people drawing the wrong conclusions, perhaps they should try to communicate their message in a less childish manner.

      If you want to act like a child, fine. But don't be surprised when you are treated in kind.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    2. Re:So? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      If people wearing "I hate Jack Thompson" t-shirts are worried about people drawing the wrong conclusions, perhaps they should try to communicate their message in a less childish manner.

      Have you read Thompson's "argument" with a 14 year old? He made the kid sound like Socrates, as someone else has said, by comparison.

      The T-Shirt is a DIRECT RESPONSE to the miriad of presuppositions and baseless conclusions put forth by the individual in question. Someone who has furthermore gone on to capitalize on the media hype he creates in any way he can, so it would seem.

      If we lived in the same community for years without any problems and I suddenly started railing against you and lambasting you in the media simply because one member of your bowling league shot someone, you'd have a bit of a problem with that wouldn't you?

      The man has told so many people to check themselves into a mental institution that he should have been jailed for practicing psychiatry without a license by now.

      If you want to act like a child, fine. But don't be surprised when you are treated in kind.


      Accusing without proof is childish. Calling people names is childish. Grandstanding and throwing tantrums is childish. Bullying with legal treats is childish. Ignorance is childish.

      Wearing a shirt is just covering up.

      Thompson has continuously acted first, and cries when he's called on his actions or arguments.

      He won't even answer a simple direct question. That's seriously childish. But then again, thats also politics.

    3. Re:So? by Thud457 · · Score: 1
      I think a shirt proclaiming :

      "WARNING:
      64M3R
      "

      in big bright yellow letters might be a more satirical way of making your point. You can always put "Jack Thompson is an dangerous idiot" on the back if you must.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    4. Re:So? by goldspider · · Score: 1

      "Have you read Thompson's "argument" with a 14 year old? He made the kid sound like Socrates, as someone else has said, by comparison."

      So the appropriate, mature response is to lower yourself to his level?

      "Thompson has continuously acted first, and cries when he's called on his actions or arguments."

      Ahh yes, the classic playground "He started it!" defense. Thanks for answering my question. With that kind of debating technique, prepare yourself for a lot of disappointments in the future.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    5. Re:So? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      So the appropriate, mature response is to lower yourself to his level?>/i>

      I'm sorry? At what point was I on his level? I am not a member of an estimed body of legal professionals, in this case the Florida Bar Association. I have not the benefit of what should be wisdom gained with age. I have not the funding nor the mass media power at my disposal as he does.

      So forgive me if I write something on an f-ing t-shirt to make my point. I'd argue my point with Thompson himself but evidence shows I would be dismissed outright and probably subjected to barratry.

      Yeah, too bad I have neither the financial means nor the legal education to sink to his level.

      Ahh yes, the classic playground "He started it!" defense. Thanks for answering my question. With that kind of debating technique, prepare yourself for a lot of disappointments in the future.

      "He started it" is a valid defence when "he " should have known better.

      He is just like a high school bully who will one day get his nose broken by some fed up youth. Someone who the authorities should be curtailing before he causes more chaos in what is actually a valid and worthwhile debate.

      Thompson sends an email to someone, they reply, and he returns with "Stop harassing me or I'm calling the cops"? Where did this guy get the impression anyone wanted his fucking opinion in the first place? If you don't want a dialogue, stay silent. If you don't want to finish a debate, don't start one.

    6. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I LOATHE anyone making any preconceived conclusions about me without any personal knowledge of who I am or anything else, a practice entirely too common from corporations, politicians, and grandstanders these days.

      Arsehole.

  168. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

    The geeks calling his house and such IS harassment, but Penny Arcade isn't liable for that. Nowhere on their site do I see his contact info or directions to contact him. In fact they say "You're all asking me for Jack's Email and or phone number and I respect that. The problem is that I can't give that info out."

    As far as I can see, Penny Arcade is in the clear.


    Even better, the letter he wrote to the Police had his number/address removed. They are going to some effort to protect him from hurting himself.

    Personally I think Jack's an idiot but that's his legal right. Thought of getting one of those I hate Jack shirts. I'm hoping they come out with J2.0 shirts with something like "Jack's a Jerk" or something more creative :-)

    --
    Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
  169. wtf by Celt · · Score: 1

    This guy is a fucken nut case, what does anybody even bother paying attention to this nutter?
    Has this fuckwit even gotten onto TV to air his views?

    Good going to PA for donating 10k :)

    --
    "WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
  170. Pot. Kettle. You don't understand tax law either. by sirwired · · Score: 4, Informative

    How can geeks be so smart and know nothinga about tax law?

    I don't know the answer to that question, but your post shows that you don't know anything about tax law either.

    The only case where a pure cash donation to charity can really be advantageous to your bottom line is if you are teetering on the edge and the deduction will drop your AGI into a lower bracket. You may also be able to help yourself if you can figure the donation in as an adjustment instead of a deduction (but this is not an easy set of rules to meet). You can also sometimes receive beneficial tax credits that when you donate in specific ways or to specific organizations such as with tsunami relief in 2004.

    1) "Dropping into a lower tax bracket" alone does not magically save you money. If you donate cash to a real charity, you will ALWAYS pay out more money than you will get back in tax deductions. The term "tax bracket" refers to your "marginal" rate. If you are in the 28% "bracket", it does not mean that you owe 28% on all of your AGI. The U.S uses what is called a "progressive" tax system. That means that you owe X% on the first $Y of your income, A% on the NEXT $B of your income, C% on the NEXT $D, etc. If you drop from $1 over the 28% line to one dollar under the 28% line (into the 15% range), you will have donated two dollars, and you will owe $.43 less in taxes, for a net cash payout (read money out of your pocket) of $1.57. Your charity dollars acutally go LESS far towards reducing your tax bill, the lower bracket you are in.

    2) Tsunami relief did NOT give you special tax CREDITS. Instead, it shifted the deduction date deadline, which let folks take a DEDUCTION on their 2004 taxes for donations made in 2005. A credit is dollar-for-dollar reduction in the check you must cut to the IRS. A deduction merely reduces the amount that tax is calculated from.

    A handy deduction tip: Give your old stuff away to charity instead of having a garage sale. If you are already itemizing your deductions anyway (most homeowners are in this boat) the tax savings from the deduction at a reasonable declared value will bring you more than taking pennies on the dollar from spendthrifts at your sale. Plus, you dont have to pay taxes on the income from the garage sale (since there is no income).

    The "reasonable value" you are allowed to deduct for used household goods is supposed to be what the items would sell for at an establishment such as a thrift shop. Unless your local Salvation Army sells stuff 3x-6x more than a garage sale (depending on your marginal rate), you aren't going to end up on top by doing this.

    Please actually READ tax law (or at least IRS publications) before giving out wacky advice like this...

    SirWired

  171. Barratry by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

    bar-ra-try: the offence of habitually exciting quarrels, or moving or maintaining lawsuits; vexatious persistnace in, or incitement to, litagation.

    --
    Education is the silver bullet.
  172. Jack Thompson is right. by tabbser · · Score: 1

    As much as people here disagree, Thompson is, in fact, correct.

    I also believe these games are glorifying violence against not only cops, but others too.
    I happen to own GTA and Vice City and have played them both on many occasions and they certainly are obsessive games.
    I can image someone of weaker mind or great obession could easily be lead by this to do something horrific and not really know the difference between it and real life.

    And, yes, the kids on PennyArcade probably are hassasing him for his point of view, which differs from theirs.

    1. Re:Jack Thompson is right. by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 1

      games cannot be obsessive, only people can.

      games cannot be twats, only people can.

    2. Re:Jack Thompson is right. by 72beetle · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear. This is about bad programming in people, not in games. If someone with shoddy wiring doesn't get the inspiration to shoot up a school or a McDonalds from a videogame, they'll just get it from somewhere else - TV, a newspaper, their talking dog, whatever. You can't fault the trigger for a gun that's already loaded and cocked.

      --
      -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
    3. Re:Jack Thompson is right. by cjm182 · · Score: 1
      And, yes, the kids on PennyArcade probably are hassasing him for his point of view, which differs from theirs.

      You have to stretch it pretty thin to claim they're harrassing *him*. In response to ONE email, he's phoned them twice, emailed THEM several times, threating them at every opportunity, and called the cops to have them arrested on false grounds.

    4. Re:Jack Thompson is right. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Go away, Jack. A pseudonymn can't keep your psychosis from coming across in your writing.

      I can easily imagine someone of a weaker mind personifying video games... oh, wait...

  173. Jon Stewart / TDS by Soong · · Score: 1

    Penny-Arcade vs. Jack Thompson would be fun, but I'd rather see it on The Daily Show or some other venue moderated by Jon Stewart. I also desire a venue that can release the uncensored results of such a meeting.

    --
    Start Running Better Polls
  174. Now that... by Whiteout · · Score: 3, Funny

    is a _damning_ indictment...

  175. I think the guys at penny arcade are better than.. by johnmearns · · Score: 1

    than I would be, because I'd be talking to a lawyer and seeing what I could do about that libelous letter. Extortion seems like a pretty serious allegation to make about someone and their business. Way to go for both of them for being stand up guys and taking the $10k out of their pocket to give it to charity since the tight lawyer couldn't part with it.

    --
    "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." -Voltaire
  176. Yes, they did by Ayaress · · Score: 1

    They're doing quite well. it's been intermittently down for a while, but I was able to bring it up with a couple refreshes. They get 2 million plus hits a day, from what I've read, and this shit really hit the fan on a Tuesday, which helps. No new comic today, so more room for extra hits.

  177. Civil suit?? by schiefaw · · Score: 1
    IANAL, but wouldn't this type of thing be require a civil and not a criminal action? If so, would the police even be involved?

    If I am correct (fat chance), wouldn't a hot shot lawyer know that?

    --
    Angleyne: You can't bend that girder - it's unbendable! Bender: Well I don't know anything about lifting, so that ju
  178. Re:Pot. Kettle. You don't understand tax law eithe by cr0sh · · Score: 1
    Unless your local Salvation Army sells stuff 3x-6x more than a garage sale

    Haven't been thrift shopping lately, have you? In my locale (Phoenix, Arizona), if you go around and compare prices of equivalent items at a garage sale vs. Salvation Army vs. Goodwill, you will quickly find that on many items, the Salvation Army is ripping people off, and are making a hefty profit on "junk". Not that they don't have a right to make as much as they can for their "charity", but their margins tend to be way outside the norm of comparable items from other sources.

    As noted, though, this may be indicative only of the Phoenix, Arizona market, and may not reflect on other markets elsewhere...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  179. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by Mondoz · · Score: 1

    That's what I was thinking.
    I guess it comes down to "It's legal until the judge deems otherwise."
    I can't come up with a good acid test of what makes a person private enough not to be a target of satire.
    One man's privates is another man's publics?

    --
    /sig
  180. Today's megaGAMERZ 3133T strip... by X86Daddy · · Score: 1

    ... has some very insightful commentary about Jack Thompson. I learned quite a lot more about this fellow today.

    http://www.megagamerz.com/archive/051018.html

  181. I hope everyone realizes... by ppp · · Score: 1

    ... that there are a LOT of people like Jack Thompson in powerful positions right now, and more coming. There's a cultural war* going on in the U.S. right now, and these are just the opening salvos. I hope all of you free speach advocates are preparing your bunkers.

    *Yes, I'm using the new, improved version of "war," which bears little relation to its original meaning. For example, the "War on Terror" or the "War on Drugs", ie., a war on a tactic and a war on a substance.

  182. Jack's Information by Penguin2212 · · Score: 1
    From Gabe's Post:

    You're all asking me for Jack's Email and or phone number and I respect that. The problem is that I can't give that info out. The fact is that Jack had time to call me after I sent him a sarcastic email. I have no doubt in my mind that he would try and pull some legal bullshit if I post his phone number.


    Though, Gabe should also note that Jack's information is a matter of public record. And can be found on www.flordiabar.org
    1. Re:Jack's Information by arose · · Score: 1
      Though, Gabe should also note that Jack's information is a matter of public record. And can be found on www.flordiabar.org
      Did you miss the VGCats link?
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  183. Let him know here! by elfguygmail.com · · Score: 1

    John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law 1172 South Dixie Hwy. Suite 111 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 305-666-4366

  184. The Life of an Online Comic Writer Must Be Good... by DCheesi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they can afford to donate $10,000 US just to prove a point!?!

  185. Re:Rockstar Bites Back by Gulthek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Only, like, everyone.

  186. How do you feel ? by GreySeal2k01 · · Score: 1

    Man, all of this open discussion is making me really ANGRY......

  187. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone wanna tell Jack Thompson exactly what they think about him? His info is freely available online at http://www.stopkill.com/ - "If you want to help your state pass a constitutional law to prohibit the sale of these virtual reality murder and sex simulators to children, if you want any additional information or help, or if you want to help Jack Thompson in any fashion, including prayer, please contact him at 1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111, Coral Gables, Florida, or phone him at 305-666-4366. May God bless you, keep you, and protect you and yours."

  188. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Jack's email to Gabe, "This story is completely false and defamatory. Take it down or else.", is actually about the cold plecenta sandwiches that Tycho will get to enjoy after the birth of his child as stated in Monday's comic. What if Jack leans more toward the "Coneheads" vision of the birth process, where the father breaks the umbilical cord with his teeth? Different strokes for different folks.

    Nis

  189. Free Advertisement by Tom · · Score: 1

    Look, the guy very obviously doesn't care what people think about him.

    However, he does go on 60 Minutes. He's seeking publicity. And both PA and /. just gave him free advertisement.

    Hook, line and sinker. He's a troll, people. He doesn't want to win, he only wants to annoy and be remembered by as many people as possible.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  190. Re:Rockstar Bites Back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google "Teenage girls water sports" and the 5th match is slashdot. LOL so apparently this topic has been covered before. If you're lost see the Parent's link, follow it, and RTFA =D

    http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/16/ 1844257&tid=133&tid=10

  191. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by Sokie · · Score: 3, Informative
    What makes a person private vs. public?

    This has been the subject of extensive case law and precedent over the years. Ultimately it is decided by a jury if the case makes it that far.

    Here's some elucidating info:
    The Supreme Court later extended its so-called Sullivan rule to cover "public figures," meaning individuals who are not in public office but who are still newsworthy because of their prominence in the public eye. Over the years, American courts have ruled that this category includes celebrities in the entertainment field, well-known writers, athletes, and others who often attract attention in the media.

    And some futher explanation of 'public figures':
    The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

    A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".


    I think in this case, Mr. Thompson is certainly a 'limited public figure' and as such would have a much higher burden of proof in a libel or slander case.

    Harassment however is a whole other can of worms.

    What law/rule/statute would it be breaking to make/wear/sell a t-shirt that said 'I hate John Smith'?

    None as far as I know. (IANAL) However you might be treading on thinner ice if you walked around with a t-shirt that said "John Smith murders kittens." or "John Smith is a homosexual."
    --
    ------
    Where are the slash-groupies? I distinctly remember being promised slash-groupies!
  192. Baaaaa by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Your advice is appropriate in general, but it's off-topic and distracting.

    This guy is directly attacking an aspect of freedom - free speech. My posting above takes this as a given, and is strictly discussing how those who have determined to oppose him can do so most effectively.

    Research, then vote. Get your friends to read about the candidates and issues, then vote.

    Nice. But it doesn't address the proper function of elections. It is not to make rational decisions (although they often do, which is good when it happens). They are to figure out how the war will come out, so you don't have to fight it with more deadly tools.

    If someone feels strongly about an issue, and convinces others to go along - regardless of whether the position is rational or irrational - they will go along. The purpose of elections is not to stop this from happening, but to let it proceed to accomplish its goals through a less destructive channel.

    By advising people who have strong opinions about who should be the officeholder to advise people to do additional work, you are making them less effective at what they have already determined to do. Having them ask people to do extra work to convince themselves, when they can avoid both the work and the stress of change by ignoring the person trying to persuade them, means most will ignore him. Then he's wasted his time and effort.

    This is a war - by other means.

    The way for us to win it is to do the research FOR the people we're trying to convince. Then we present them with our results, and if they agree the guy's got to go, recruit them into our growing snowball.

    We use truth. Not because we must. But because it works better. Since it's a war, it's up to the OTHER guy to do the arguments for HIS side of the issues. Once they're BOTH brought to the voters attention, they become aware that there's an argument going on. Then those whose minds aren't already made up will compare our propaganda to his - especially where they diverge on matters of fact. That's where building ours on truth pays off. When they check, our arguments win, on facts and on visible logic running from them. (The credibility we gain there also leads to increased respect for our decision-making process and thus our opinions.)

    Please don't "just vote". Don't try to convince your friends to "just vote". It dilutes the votes of people who actually know what they're voting for and skews the vote in favor of superficial whims. If you don't know a candidate or issue while in the voting booth, it's too late; leave the entry blank, please.

    This is good advice to an individual voter. But it's noise for the election process. If he makes a random choice it cancels out. If he votes for a member of his preferred party he's accepting the party's endorsement that the candidate is a team player on their team: (That's a poor move for his own interests, but it still models how he'd behave if it came to a war, so it's just fine for the election process.) Ditto if he votes on name recognition: He just sold his vote to the guy with the biggest advertising budget or the operators of the mass media he views. That's a problem for those trying to swing public opinion - but (unfortunately) still a good model of the civil war.

    Leaving it blank when you don't know or don't care gives power to people who do know or do care. Sometimes that's in your interest. Often it's not. Because they vote in THEIR interest, which may be opposed to yours. (Of course if you don't know that, you could as easily help them and hurt yourself as the other way around. THAT's why you shouldn't vote when you don't know or care.)

    But that's advice to individual voters. This thread is advice to the committed, who DO know and DO care, on how to effectively advance their cause.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Baaaaa by samkass · · Score: 1

      Actually, my post was more on-topic than yours, I believe.

      I'm fine with other people distilling research to make it easier for a voter to grok. But it's still research, and should be done by any voter. Uninformed voting favors those with more money and name recognition instead of those who will do a better job or better represent the voter's interest.

      In general, I think uninformed voters will almost always cause more problems for a democracy than people who don't know or care staying home, and thus I tend to oppose knee-jerk "get out the vote" contentless campaigns.

      Just to add some content to my post, I'll post a few sites where you can do some meta-research (read distilled opinions about candidates and issues) in addition to the http://www.vote-smart.org/ site mentioned in the grandparent post:
      * League of Women Voters (look for local leagues for local issues): http://www.lwv.org/
      * FactCheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/
      * Google for your city/state and "voting information": http://www.google.com/

      --
      E pluribus unum
    2. Re:Baaaaa by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Actually, my post was more on-topic than yours, I believe.

      Depends on the topic. I was talking about effective ways to influence the government to move to our side on this matter. What topic were you on? B-)

      I'm fine with other people distilling research to make it easier for a voter to grok. But it's still research, and should be done by any voter.

      I think we're mostly in agreement there, coming to the same conclusions on what should be done, if sometimes for different reasons.

      I'm claiming that it's the job of the partisans, who are trying to swing the electorate to their side in the battle, to do their best to present their side. So the partisans should be sure they themselves are informed - both to be sure THEY'RE working for the right guys and to make their point more effectively. (That's because truth, in addition to being "nicer", works better than lies - something even an amoral psychopath can understand and use to good purpose). That means my prescription for the partisans is the same as yours, even if derived from a different basis.

      Can we agree that it's not the jobs of the partisans of one side to spend their resources making the arguments for their opponents? (If their opponents really have valid points, let them spend their own time and money to make them. If nothing else they'll do a better job of it than somebody who disagrees with their claims.)

      We agree that it's the job of the voters to inform themselves.

      Uninformed voting favors those with more money and name recognition instead of those who will do a better job or better represent the voter's interest.

      We agree there, too.

      Where we differ: I think that a partisan for one side would be irresponsible if he abandoned support from those who won't check but will vote - especially if his opponent is perfectly willing to accept such votes. I assume that the willfully-ignorant will be a significant voting block. So if the good guys abandon them the bad guys are more likely to win.

      I'll post a few sites where you can do some meta-research [...]

      Here's another, for campaign contributions. (Sometimes, when it's hard to tell where someone stands, you can figure it out from who is paying his bills. Follow the money.)

      = = =

      The main point I was trying to make, though: To win this battle we must preach to the UNconverted. Convincing people who are NOT (yet) on our side is what we need to win. Here on Slashdot the people are pretty much all on our side already. Trying to convince them of something they already believe is a waste of time and effort.

      Communication only occurs if the behavior of the receiver changes. The only change we need here, and thus the only messages we need to send, is "Go out and convert the onconverted." and "Here's how..."

      Politics is a game of sheep, wolves, and shepherds. Huddling in a large group with similar beliefs and behavior while bleating about your discontent is to be a sheep. Preying on such groups to their detriment and your benefit is to be a wolf. Getting the herds to move to better pastures is to be a shepherd.

      I want some of us to stop being sheep and become shepherds.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  193. Bernie Shifman == Jack Thompson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    JT kinda reminds me of Bernie Shifman...

    Maybe someone should start a 'Jack Thompson is moron lawyer' website...

  194. Stand you ground by metoc · · Score: 1

    Given that Thompson is from the state that wants you to "Stand your Ground", Penny Arcade should open an office in Miami. When Mr. Thompson shows up in person and starts being thretening, Penny Arcade should "Stand there ground" http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=4934076.

  195. Support Jack Thompson! Buy GTA! by xant · · Score: 3, Funny

    Jack Thompson proposes a game in which a father kills innocent people related in some way to gaming, as revenge for his son's death. Someone actually made that game as a mod--and this is irony, if you missed it--to Grand Theft Auto.

    If JT wants anyone to play his game, and get vicarious revenge on the game industry, they have to purchase GTA to play it.

    Well, I don't own a copy yet. Guess I'll go get one.

    BTW, if your reply to this post defines "irony" for me, I'll fucking stab you. Damn, video games do make you violent!

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  196. Re:Ah-Hahahahahaha! by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

    No, no, different Drew. I am Drew from Zhrodague. If this were a plug, I'd prolly do something like this.

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  197. How can't you love the media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love the liberal media we have in this country.

  198. What makes them go into that mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    toxoplasma gondii?

  199. Jack's email got slashdotted!!!!! by Khyber · · Score: 1

    I sent him a letter earlier, here's what I got back....

    This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

    Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

            jackpeace@comcast.net

    Technical details of permanent failure:
    PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 9): 551 not our customer

    Total hilarity, guys. Comcast says "Not our customer" as if they dropped that guy from their service!

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Jack's email got slashdotted!!!!! by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      That's their standard user not found error, in case you didn't know. He probably cancelled it because he was tired of getting all that hate mail.

  200. Contact number.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If you want to help your state pass a constitutional law to prohibit the sale of these virtual reality murder and sex simulators to children, if you want any additional information or help, or if you want to help Jack Thompson in any fashion, including prayer, please contact him at 1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111, Coral Gables, Florida, or phone him at 305-666-4366. May God bless you, keep you, and protect you and yours." Coincidence? I think not.

  201. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

    Naturally, one can find Jack's phone number on Jack's own site! How can you discuss something like this when linking to the opposing viewpoint is an incitement to harass?

    I'm also not entirely convinced that the vgcats conversation wasn't some prank call done through email.

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

  202. On a different note, this is /. ..... by Umuri · · Score: 1

    So i'm suprised no one's commented on the resilliancy of the slashdot effect on slowing down, but not killing penny arcade's servers. :P

    --
    You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
    1. Re:On a different note, this is /. ..... by cjm182 · · Score: 1
      So i'm suprised no one's commented on the resilliancy of the slashdot effect on slowing down, but not killing penny arcade's servers.


      That IS impressive. Gabe has commented on this, saying that if the servers go down, he wants people to know it was because of the /. story attracting visitors and not Jack. Not directly, at least... :)

    2. Re:On a different note, this is /. ..... by Tidal+Flame · · Score: 1

      Doesn't really surprise me. PA isn't quite as big as Slashdot, but it's big enough that it's been known to have its own Slashdot effect... except that they call it "wanging." (ie. We wanged that server.)

  203. Tack Jhompson... by DJCater · · Score: 1

    "An Open Letter to Jack Thompson"

    CAD had a fairly amusing strip about Tack Jhompson

    --
    Sig Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  204. What must Jack's private life be like by complexmath · · Score: 1

    if he behaves this way in public? I sincerely hope he doesn't have children.

  205. his phone number by NightDragon · · Score: 1

    Jack Thompson, (206) 282-0528, 1000 1st Ave W, Seattle, WA 98119 Google Maps Yahoo! Maps MapQuest
    Jack C Thompson, (206) 568-6357, 1200 Boylston Ave, Seattle, WA 98101 Google Maps Yahoo! Maps MapQuest

    Enjoy :)

    --
    -ND
    1. Re:his phone number by NightDragon · · Score: 1

      correction: his phone number is 305-666-4366

      --
      -ND
    2. Re:his phone number by NightDragon · · Score: 1
      --
      -ND
    3. Re:his phone number by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Umm... I would suggest not harassing those Jack Thompsons, since our douchebag lives in Miami, not in Seattle...

      Seattle is where PA is, if I'm not mistaken.

  206. Press release first then file a complaint by Annatar2 · · Score: 1

    Gamespot http://www.gamespot.com/news/6135979.html/ is reporting that Jack didn't even bother to file his complaint with the Seatle Police department until well after he'd faxed complaints to PA, Gamespot, 1up, and others.
    I realize the mans not the brightest bulb on the show room floor, but you'd think sending in the complaint before the press release would be a no-brainer. This, if nothing else, absolutely shows off the character of the man. Show boating, and media attention first and foremost.
    I'm with others, if he has finally filed a complaint with the SPD I hope they, and PA nail his ass to the wall for filing a false complaint. The only way the media will finally stop listening to him is if someone takes his ass to task for his tactics. Follow it all the way through the courts, get them to declare him an ass-hat and you have more credibility then all the Janet Reno and Trolling stories put together.

  207. Don't take issue with his stance on video games... by ravyne · · Score: 1

    The bigger issue here is his stance on being a lawyer.

    At this point, I wouldn't have this guy defend me on an air-tight first amendment case with cenematic quality video evendence, George C. Scott in its leading role, and supporting supporting expert testimony from Benjamin Franklin as to the true intention of The Constitution.

  208. Re:Rockstar Bites Back by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised nobody's done a "Killed my father and raped my mother!" routine with technology yet.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  209. Re:Ah-Hahahahahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    Jack Tompson touched my junk liberally. he strapped me in to his lawyermobile and he couldnt keep his offensive hands off of me. he was performing many red flag touches. i couldnt believe what the fuck was going on. i told Jack Tompson the city would not approve of a loudmouth gadfly touching an underage kid for free.

    can you believe it? Jack Tompson did all this. he picked me off the street, strapped my arms and legs down in the lawyermobile's passenger seat, and just wouldn't stop fondling my cock'n'balls.

    they definately were red flag touches. the goddamn referee he had in the back seat kept on raising up this red flag every time he touched my junk but did Jack Tompson care? NO WAY! he just kept on doing it. I couldn't believe what the fuck was going on, indeed. I pleaded with Jack Tompson but to no avail. I told him the city would not approve of such a crazy nutjob touching an underage kid like me (at the time I was 13) without at least compensating me for the trauma and the use of my body as his own personal plaything.

    this got to him, worrying about his image. he continued to fondle me, all the while ignoring the referee's red flags. then he drove the lawyermobile to my house and ejected the seat i was in! it was amazing. but surprisingly, after I woke up the next morning, my bank account had $150k in it!!! Can you believe it??????

  210. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by BlewScreen · · Score: 1
    A good acid test? That's easy - if your name or likeness is on a T-Shirt, you're a public figure....

    [omg - this is a post you can correctly respond to with "that begs the question"]

    -bs

    --
    That that is is not that that is not. That that is not is not that that is.
  211. thank you, jack thompson by evilmousse · · Score: 1


    this, my friends, is the fututre of reality entertainment.

    show description:
    over-puffed anti-vidgame blowhard takes on vidgame scenes' most prominent humorists--primarily the most charitable & anti-blowhard of them all.

    this is the greatest flamewar i've read in years, and no participation neccessary! the inevitability of his self-destruction is so delicious--it's like watching a kick-ass slow-mo explosion.. with director commentary!

  212. The man is a real jack ass by seabreezemm · · Score: 1

    The man is a real jack ass.

    --
    Karma: a simple way of silencing those with unpopular views regardless how correct or just that view might be.
  213. Jerry Falwell! by Laebshade · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I took your advice, Ieshan, and looked up Jerry Falwell:
    In November 1983, Larry Flynt's sex magazine Hustler carried a parody of a Campari ad[4], featuring a fake interview with Falwell in which he admits that his "first time" was incest with his mother in an outhouse while drunk. Falwell sued for compensation, alleging invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury rejected the invasion of privacy and libel claims, holding that the parody could not have reasonably been taken to describe true events, but ruled in favor of Falwell on the emotional distress claim. This was upheld on appeal. Flynt then appealed to the Supreme Court and won a unanimous decision on February 24, 1988 (Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell, 485 U.S. 46); the ruling held that public figures cannot evade First Amendment protections by attempting to recover damages based on emotional distress suffered from parodies.
  214. Let me be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just hope some crazy teens don't go out and kill a few Orcs in the name of the Alliance for the sake of Blizzard and Warcraft!

  215. Address and phone number for Jack Thompson by supabeast! · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Anyone interested in contacting Jack Thompson might want to try the following address and phone number:

    John B & Patricia H Thompson
    5721 Riviera Dr
    Coral Gables, FL 33146-2750
    (305) 666-4366

  216. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think someone forged Thompson's email address and then intercepted email sent back to it in order to reply?

    "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas...".

  217. Where's the game? by mcheu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The guy article says this guy welched on a verbal contract where he offered to give $10K to charity (still waiting apparently) if someone developed a game involving pissing on people and killing game store clerks. Apparently the game was made, because Penny Arcade stepped up and paid off the charity reward, which is part of this "harrassment".

    So what ever happened to the game?

    1. Re:Where's the game? by Luuvitonen · · Score: 1, Informative

      There supposedly was one GTA mod in http://hellfish.gtajunkies.com/Story.html, but the site is down ... no dns records or nothing.

      Another text game can be found here: http://oghc.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/

    2. Re:Where's the game? by Dysproxia · · Score: 3, Informative

      This very recent piece resulted in the GTA3 mod website being Slashdotted to ashes.

  218. not a republican thing.... by buhatkj · · Score: 1

    Well I see a lot of comments in this thread that associate Jack Thompson's actions to those of other public figures, like Ann Coulter, or George bush, or other right-wing political figures. I don't think that he is associated or supported by them, and while my information is by no means exhaustive, I do know that one the the senators he mentions he is working with is Hillary Clinton. (who is most certainly not a republican)
    I think there are public figures (senators and the like) on both sides that have been misled to believe this guy is legit.

    Basically I don't think this has anything to do with the republican party, Jack is just a fruitcake all by himself.

    --
    sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
  219. Jail Time by thesnarky1 · · Score: 1

    Interestingly enough, I just read today of a case where a man in New mexico (couldn't find a link, try USA Today) is standing for sentencing, of up to a year (3 total, but one for this one charge) for "criminal libil". 16 states have the law that makes it a misdemeanor to circulate and "false or malicious statement affecting the reputation, business, or occupation of another, or which exposes another to hatred, contempt, ridcule, degradation, or disgust". Now, clearly PA would also be in the wrong here, with their shirts, but I'm focusing on the one statement Jack made "to shut this little extortion factory down and/or arrest some of its employees" Where, extortion factory could be a statement that affects their business (although in this casem probably positively, heh). IANAL in any regards, but I found this article interesting.

    1. Re:Jail Time by EmperorKagato · · Score: 1

      Only 16 states including New Mexico? How would they be in the wrong if it is not considered federal crime?

      --
      ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
    2. Re:Jail Time by cjm182 · · Score: 1
      Now, clearly PA would also be in the wrong here, with their shirts

      Harder to argue. It *is* just a statement of opinion on a t-shirt. "I hate Jack Thompson" is the same as a t-shirt saying "I hate George Bush" or "I hate Osama"

    3. Re:Jail Time by thesnarky1 · · Score: 1

      Eh, good point. I was putting that there merely in case someone did one of the "Gee, isn't funny that he'd reccomend X when Y does it too?!?!?! lol lmao !!11!" posts. I agree with you, because on a t-shirt it might be free speech, but telling law enforecement that someone is breaking the law when they clearly aren't infringes upon their rights during the questioning.

    4. Re:Jail Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If PA said put out T-shirts saying "Jack Thompson blows dead goats... I have proof!" on them, then that would be defamation of character I think. Stating an opinion in public is certainly different than stating a falsehood fact in public.

  220. Postal 2 by UnkyHerb · · Score: 1

    Makes me think of Postal 2, in the level where there are protestors against violent video games, who start violently ambusting/attacking the software developers in their building.

    --
    Your Momma's so fat she makes emacs look like nano!
  221. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

    You certainly could with a simple "I hate _____", or anything like that, but you couldn't say "_____ fucks his mother" unless you could prove that ____ does, indeed, fuck his or her mother.

    At least, that's my understanding of the law here. Expressing an opinion is fine in all cases, but statements of fact that could harm someone must be demonstably true.

  222. Re:Ah-Hahahahahaha! by RabidOverYou · · Score: 1

    > fark without all the crap
    That would be one loooooonely and boring website.

  223. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 3, Funny

    I would pay for a shirt that says Jack Thompson murders kittens!

    Then again, maybe I'll say I'll pay for that shirt and recend my offer when someone prints it, I hear its what laywers do these days.

  224. Some more useful information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.stopkill.com/

    Hmmmmm... last paragraph of this website may be useful as well.

  225. Fuck you, Jack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What'll we get for ten dollars?
    Every 'ting you want
    Everything?
    Every'ting
    Ooh! Don't do that, baby! Ahh!
    Hold on this! Oh, sock it to me! Aaahh!
    Ooohh!

    Chorus (repeated during breakdowns):

    Ahh! Me so horny!
    Me love you long time!

    Verse 1: [Brother Marquis]
    Sittin' at home with my dick on hard
    So I got the black book for a freak to call
    Picked up the telephone, then dialed the 7 digits
    Said, "Yo, this Marquis, baby! Are you down with it?"
    I arrived at her house, knocked on the doo
    rNot having no idea of what the night had in store
    I'm like a dog in heat, a freak without warning
    I have an appetite for sex, 'cause me so horny

    Chorus

    Verse 2: [Fresh Kid Ice]
    Girls always ask me why I fuck so much
    I say "What's wrong, baby doll, with a quick nut?"
    'Cause you're the one, and you shouldn't be mad
    I won't tell your mama if you don't tell your dad
    I know he'll be disgusted when he sees your pussy busted
    Won't your mama be so mad if she knew I got that ass?
    I'm a freak in heat, a dog without warning
    My appetite is sex, 'cause me so horny

    Chorus

    Verse 3: [Brother Marquis]
    You can say I'm desperate, even call me perverted
    But you say I'm a dog when I leave you fucked and deserted
    I'll play with your heart just like it's a game
    I'll be blowing your mind while you're blowing my brains
    I'm just like that man they call Georgie Puddin' Pie
    I fuck all the girls and I make 'em cry
    I'm like a dog in heat, a freak without warning
    I have an appetite for sex, 'cause me so horny.

    Chorus
    Breakdown(4x):

    Ahh! Hold on this! Oh, sock it to me!

    Chorus

    Verse 4: [Fresh Kid Ice]
    It's true, you were a virgin until you met me
    I was the first to make you hot and wetty-wetty
    You tell your parents that we're goin' out
    Never to the movies, just straight to my house
    You said it yourself, you like it like I do
    Put your lips on my dick, and suck my asshole too
    I'm a freak in heat, a dog without warning
    My appetite is sex, 'cause me so horny

    Chorus
    Breakdown (repeated till end of track):

    Fuckie suckie. Me fuckie suckie.

  226. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by Mondoz · · Score: 1
    Jack Thompson murders kittens for $10,000*!

    *And I hate him for it!

    I'd buy that shirt.

    --
    /sig
  227. Speaking of names by JonTurner · · Score: 4, Funny

    Things are about to get really interesting. Why? This quote from PennyArcade, updated at 6:30pm: "I don't think we can just ignore him anymore. --Gabe"

    Translation: "Jack, you are about to be ridiculed like no other person in the history of the internet. Before this is over, you will be embarassed to speak your own name outloud, former friends will openly laugh in your face, children and animals will mistrust you, and you will reflexively spit at your own reflection out of disgust. And just when you think that things can't get worse, or perhaps it's all over, the fun will begin anew. "

    Or, to paraphrase: "Jack, baby, you really fucked up."

    1. Re:Speaking of names by lav-chan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Please. They never were ignoring him. They were giving the idiot all the attention he could ever want, doing their best to spread his ridiculous flame-baiting message all across the Internet. They continue to argue with him despite the fact that he ignores every rational statement they ever make, that he threatens them with legal action over the most completely ridiculous things, that he insults them for no reason, that he even degerenates into complete lunacy (like telling that VGCats guy that he initiated the conversation they had even though he obviously didn't).

      STOP TAKING THIS GUY SERIOUSLY. STOP GIVING HIM THE ATTENTION HE WANTS. STOP ENSURING HIS CELEBRITY STATUS.

      HE IS A TROLL. YOU HAVE ALL BEEN TROLLED. YOU HAVE LOST. HAVE A NICE DAY.

    2. Re:Speaking of names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's a funny little man who just can't stop doing what he's doing. If there's a troll in this case, the trollee is Jack.

    3. Re:Speaking of names by DeafByBeheading · · Score: 3, Insightful

      AC sibling is right. Trolls are in control. It's a game to them. Jack Thompson is many things, but he is *not* in control. He's compelled to do what he's doing. He *honestly* believes the future of the country depends on his success in this endeavor...

      --
      Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max
  228. Cut and paste and enjoy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  229. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

    There's a number of possibilities, ranging from someone forging the initial email to jackpeace@comcast.net not being jack thompson, aka john b thompson attorney at law.

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

  230. Re:Ah-Hahahahahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr. A.C., This has to be, quite literally, the funniest god damned thing I have ever read on /. Thank yo very much for this piece of entertainment. Should be plus 5 funny by now.

  231. Dungeons and Dragons made me eat my cat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has the same hysteria that Dungeons and Dragons was causing 20 years ago. Blaming bad behavior on video games make a good scapegoat for irresponsible parenting.

          Does counterstrike teach kids some decent door tactics? Maybe. Do they know to aim for the head now rather than closing their eyes and just squeezing the trigger? I'd say yes. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that video games can make someone a more proficient killer. (Don't you dare cut and paste my comment, Jack, you frigging retard) But, games don't make a person a killer. If they did, then there would be 100K counterstrikers shooting up the neighborhood.

          Ultimately it is still just scapegoating. I'll bet I can find people on the drama team or a chess club who've committed crimes. Dumbass is just trying to feather his nest off the tragedy of others. If he wants to make a difference, he needs to teach these kids ethics and morality. Murder stems from the heart, not from guns and not from video games. Jackass needs to go start spending his time helping troubled youth, and stop wasting it trying to violate all our rights.

          You know, everyone hates lawyers and he's just another example of why.

  232. Re:Pot. Kettle. You don't understand tax law eithe by kerrle · · Score: 1

    And for this slightly higher price, you get the benefit of shopping at a single location rather than spending all day in garage sales. Given today's gas prices, you may well spend less :)

  233. Re:Rockstar Bites Back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of my friends said, back in the 8-bit days there existed a game called the "rape simulator". I can't remember if it was on Atari 8-bit or C-64. I never saw it. But I guess the motto was, "If you can't fuck it, then beat it to death." Or something like that.

    I do recall one on the Atari ST called "Schoolyard Slaughter". The funny thing about these games is that they usually suck. It purely about shock factor and what's the most offensive thing can we think of to make a game/song/whatever about? I think a lot of it exists merely as a reaction to these fundamentalist. I can't have what? It's bad for me? What is it? and where can I get some to try it? I played/had a copy of/showed to people schoolyard slaughter because it was an offensive concept, not because it was a good game. So either for the OMG shock reaction of people who have easy to press buttons, or to people so we are indulging in some naughty thrill.

    People who try to enforce their own extremist ideologies are going to be confronted by an opposing ideology. I don't think censorship works in the long run. Now I'm off to make some popcorn and continue enjoying the show.

  234. Re: pretty creepy post by s388 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    wow. pretty creepy.

    pretty ominous too.

    jack is an idiot. but should he really be scared to have his home information public? ....SOMEHOW.....somehow, you know, somehow i imagine that what you're talking about HAPPENED to him, it would actuallly be bad. cause you know, it would be a big outspoken lunatic/critic of [videogame] VIOLENCE being harmed or killed because of his [idiotic] opining.

    which, SOMEHOW, ya know, maybe it would trigger a backlash(?)

  235. He spelled his own name wrong, too by Snover · · Score: 2, Funny

    At the top of the Fax, and in the letter head, it says "John Thompson", not Jack Thompson. Are we dealing with multiple personalities here, or did he forget how to spell his own name?

    --

    [insert witty comment here]
    1. Re:He spelled his own name wrong, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Jack" is a nickname. (which he uses to get himself mixed up with some politician or something.) "John" is his real name.

    2. Re:He spelled his own name wrong, too by hobbesx · · Score: 1

      As much as I wish he did make such a dumb screw-up, Jack is a common nickname for John.

      --
      This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
      Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
    3. Re:He spelled his own name wrong, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jack is just a nickname. Someone else posted the full link to the Florida Bar Association's data on him, which uses his proper name, John Thompson.

  236. VG Cats also lists contact info, including email: by Errandboy+of+Doom · · Score: 1

    John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
    1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
    Coral Gables, Florida 33146
    305-666-4366

    jackpeace@comcast.net

    August 5, 2005

    http://www.vgcats.com/jack.php

  237. My Personal Experience Dealing With Jack Thompson by Lew+Payne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many years ago, we (Meow Media, Inc - parent company of Persian Kitty's Adult Links) were sued by Jack Thompson in what later became a landmark sixth circuit court of appeals first amendment case. Granted, we were vindicated after two years of legal expenses... but it still cost us several hundred thousand dollars in attorney fees, expert witness fees, and appeals fees (which required a second set of attorneys).

    While Jack Thompson's lawsuit was grinding its way through the court of appeals, another copy-cat attorney by the name of John DeCamp decided to sue us (Meow Media) for the Columbine shootings!

    Soon, every attorney with expensive car payments was jumping on the bandwagon, in [what I perceive as] an effort to collect a "nusiance" settlement from us and other defendants. In fact, this practice became so common and popular that PBS FrontLine ran a feature story on our collective plights.

    Fortunately, when the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor on the Paducah lawsuit (and reaffirmed this when they rejected the appeal for reconsideration), the other defendants were quick to drop their lawsuits, else face an action sounding in tort. However, that too required attorney fees and retainers for each case, in each particular venue.

    For those of you who have not yet gone through lengthy and cumbersome litigation... there is not much you can do to recover the costs involved with defending yourself from most tort litigation. Sure, we could turn around and sue the families of the deceased children who were killed by the shooter... but that's not exactly good publicity, nor does it make for a sympathetic jury.

    So here I sit today, a few hundred thousand dollars poorer, watching history repeat itself.

  238. home / cell number & home address. Give him a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5721 Riviera Drive
    Coral Gables, Florida 33146.

    home phone number is 305-666-4366
    cell 305-588-3005

    from findlaw & fark

  239. Re:uh.. they just spent $10,000 by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure that means all their profits from t-shirt sales probably already are going to charity for a while :)

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  240. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those possibilities being drastically reduced when jackpeace@comcast.net is the address listed as his in numerous locations, and replies sent to it were answered. One initial email could theoretically have been sent by someone else, but not very likely further replies in the same thread, especially when they eventually acknowledge the initial email.

  241. WTF? by NHSheep · · Score: 1

    After reading several things which Jack Thompson wrote, it seems that he lacks a coherent argument, and resorts to ass kissing and name calling more than half of the time.

    In the scanned letter, he refers to Penny Arcade as "an extortion ring," a "bunch of computer geeks," and repeatedly spews "facts" about the gaming industry which have yet to be proven. To my limited knowledge, Rockstar Games has not publically admitted that GTA:Vice City is some sort of combat simulator which prepares youth to overthrow authority. Hell, the game has very little bearing on reality from what I have seen.

    Lets face it, this letter was designed to have maximum effectiveness with the police, not a third party. He doesn't seem to be bothered by this alleged harrassment, instead, his letter seems to be a vengeful attack on Penny Arcade.

    This guy needs to do some research and forget about whatever it is that motivates his attack on "violence." Whether he is after money, political power, or a place in history is not certain, but there is clearly an ulterior motive to his attack on the gaming industry.

  242. Re: pretty creepy post by Meagermanx · · Score: 1

    I don't care. It would be worth it.

  243. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by Dog135 · · Score: 3, Funny
    ou certainly could with a simple "I hate _____", or anything like that, but you couldn't say "_____ fucks his mother" unless you could prove that ____ does, indeed, fuck his or her mother.

    But what if the t-shirt says: "Tom Jackson is a dyslexic mother fucker"?
    --
    "That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
  244. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by Dog135 · · Score: 1
    I would pay for a shirt that says Jack Thompson murders kittens!

    It'd be legal if you put "I think", "I believe", or "in my opinion" before it.
    --
    "That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
  245. Is English Cmdr Taco's first language? by fishbowl · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Is English Cmdr Taco's first language? I could not make any sense of the post.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  246. I think its time... by LHN · · Score: 1

    I think its time the gamers unite and go 'Ralsky' on his ass. His address has been posted, lets sign him up for magazines, game demos, porn, everything. Have any old games kicking around? Consider making an anonymous dontaion to Jack.

    Of course we could all be evil and say, set all our phones to call forward to his business phone number or something >:->

  247. Re:The Life of an Online Comic Writer Must Be Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, maybe they are also nice guys that wanted to give money to charity, and this was a golden opportunity to also show everyone what a jackass this guy is.

  248. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

    But what if the t-shirt says: "Tom Jackson is a dyslexic mother fucker"?

    You know "The Thinker", right? Well, you've just stumbled upon the question that's had him sitting on that rock for all these years. :)

  249. Ignore him?? No! Think this through! by mbius · · Score: 1

    Currently Jacko has all the cards: he's on CNN and whispering in the ears of Congress, possibly the Democrats' '08 presidential nominee. The gaming community is confined to, well, here.

    Now, the bigger this fight gets, the better chance the fight has of catching media attention. Which inevitably means a gamer gets press coverage--America loves a good catfight.

    Now, how awesome would it be to have Mike & Jerry on CNN talking about free expression in video games? Dare I dream, arguing in public with Jack Thompson? They're smarter than him. They have more charisma than him. They have a children's charity; he is a puritanical scumbag lawyer.

    There is nowhere, I repeat, nowhere the public discourse about boundary-pushing games can go but up. This has happened in every industry Thompson and his ilk took on, because artists asserted their right to free expression. Ice T, Jello Biafra, George Carlin, Lenny Bruce.

    GTA and games like it are this decade's offensive entertainment, but they have no Champion. This is dangerous. This time Thompson came strapped with statistics, which look like scientific proof to a politician. This is dangerous. The political left is sucking up to social conservatives; that's dangerous.

    I don't know Thompson's stated goals. The Chatterbox interview (linked above) doesn't clarify them. But the man has, this very minute, all the influence he needs to get legislation passed. I probably wouldn't like his legislation, and nobody is standing up to him. We cannot afford to ignore him and hope he goes away. One does not do that when one's rights are threatened.

    A PA post put it best: this thing happens every few years, and after much hollering, someone reminds them we live in America and everyone shuts up. It's high time for that reminder. I can't think of a more apropos source than creators of a new and delightful medium that fuses gaming with that other innocent children's entertainment, comic books. As far as I'm concerned this is Jack Thompson vs. The Beatles, and my little flag is a-waving.

    On Mike! On Scott! Go Jerry go!!

    my journal: Hot Coffee

    --
    you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
    Prime UID Club
  250. Re:VG Cats also lists contact info, including emai by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Funny

    John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
    1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
    Coral Gables, Florida 33146
    305-666-4366

    jackpeace@comcast.net

    August 5, 2005


    zomg he is the devil !!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  251. You don't suppose... by Elynngault · · Score: 1

    that all this furor he's causing is because he has a book coming out in November and he wants some free publicity? Nah, of course not. Move along, nothing to see here.

  252. I called the man. by r0bVious · · Score: 1

    Greetings, first post. I am but a boy of 18, an avid gamer, and a lover of all that is slightly rebellious yet not-so-criminal. With that said, I give you people the conversation held between Mr. Thompson and Me: Italics is Narration I stumble across his phone number. I write something short and sweet and give the man a ring. It rings about 12 times before I get his voicemail/answering machine. I hang up, figuring it's 10:30PM, he's probably not in his office, and furthermore, I have all evening tomorrow to pick up the phone and give him a call. I am on my way to replace the phone handset when it rings again. Lo-and-behold, it says Jack Thompson on the Caller ID. r0bVious (r0b): Hello? Jack Thompson (JT): What do you want? I decide to play dumb. r0b: Excuse me? Who is this? JT: What do you want? Seeing as that's not going anywhere... r0b: Oh! Is this Jack Thompson? JT: Yes. What do you want? Then I begin saying what I had pre-written. r0b: Mr. Thompson, I apologize about it being so late, but I just wanted to let you know that I support your actions versus the gaming industry. Without people like you, we'd have to find other reasons to make Canada look so good. Please, don't run for president. Sue me. I hang up. Satisfied. A nice hearty vent. I, once again, am going to return the handset, when it rings once more. Who could it be? I'll give you one guess. JT: Let me tell you something... I am too humored and surprised to come up with anything better than an obviously false voice. Even I was disappointed with what came out. r0b:squeaky-voiced Who is this? Vindictive JT laugh. JT: Let me tell you something... I have your number, and you need an attorney. I am utterly floored. I had read he was threat-happy, but I just didn't really believe it until I heard it first-hand. r0b: Truely stunned, You're going to sue me for giving you a call?.. JT: Slower; Evil-er (honestly), You got it. ...I figure I'm pretty low on his To-Sue list, so I'll expect my indictment in several years. Looking back, after he had said I needed an attorney, I should have asked if he was free.

    1. Re:I called the man. by r0bVious · · Score: 2, Funny

      *sigh*, I apologize. I'm always nervous my first time ;p


      Greetings, first post. I am but a boy of 18, an avid gamer, and a lover of all that is slightly rebellious yet not-so-criminal.

      With that said, I give you people the conversation held between Mr. Thompson and Me: Italics is Narration

      I stumble across his phone number. I write something short and sweet and give the man a ring. It rings about 12 times before I get his voicemail/answering machine. I hang up, figuring it's 10:30PM, he's probably not in his office, and furthermore, I have all evening tomorrow to pick up the phone and give him a call.

      I am on my way to replace the phone handset when it rings again. Lo-and-behold, it says Jack Thompson on the Caller ID.


      r0bVious (r0b): Hello?
      Jack Thompson (JT): What do you want?

      I decide to play dumb.

      r0b: Excuse me? Who is this?
      JT: What do you want?

      Seeing as that's not going anywhere...

      r0b: Oh! Is this Jack Thompson?
      JT: Yes. What do you want?

      Then I begin saying what I had pre-written.

      r0b: Mr. Thompson, I apologize about it being so late, but I just wanted to let you know that I support your actions versus the gaming industry.
      Without people like you, we'd have to find other reasons to make Canada look so good.
      Please, don't run for president.
      Sue me.

      I hang up. Satisfied. A nice hearty vent.
      I, once again, am going to return the handset, when it rings once more.
      Who could it be? I'll give you one guess.


      JT: Let me tell you something...

      I am too humored and surprised to come up with anything better than an obviously false voice. Even I was disappointed with what came out.

      r0b:squeaky-voiced Who is this?

      Vindictive JT laugh.

      JT: Let me tell you something...
      I have your number, and you need an attorney.

      I am utterly floored. I had read he was threat-happy, but I just didn't really believe it until I heard it first-hand.

      r0b: Truely stunned, You're going to sue me for giving you a call?..

      JT: Slower; Evil-er (honestly), You got it.

      ...I figure I'm pretty low on his To-Sue list, so I'll expect my indictment in several years.

      Looking back, after he had said I needed an attorney, I should have asked if he was free. (Thanks for putting up with me and my craptastic formatting intuition.)

  253. What can be done to fix the problem? by Gribflex · · Score: 1

    Can anyone think of an intelligent way to help stop the problem (Jack Thompson)?

    There are all sorts of idiots on the Internet who try to help by
    posting on forums and responding directly to Jack with hate mail;
    however, I don't think that sort of reaction will really help the
    situation. Responding to idiocy with further idiocy just fuels the
    fire.

    If there is some intelligent way that I can help, please let me know. I'd like to do something, but I don't really have any good ideas.

    Please keep in mind that I am Canadian, and thus do not have a senator to appeal to. (But if you can think of some American only solutions, post them as well).

    Thanks.

  254. But GTA is garbage.. by Netmonger · · Score: 1

    The guy does sound a bit loony, but GTA *is* trash. And while I doubt it was the software developer's intentions for police officers to get killed by addicts of their game, if the game did have any effect which resulted in those deaths, then I dont see why they shouldnt be held responsible at least to some extent.

    Christ, people sue McDonald's when their coffee is too hot!?! You think a lawsuit against a company who's product is an engrossing video game that glorifies killing innocent people and law enforcement is out of line?

    People *are* affected psychologicaly by video games, some more than others.

    Theres limits here that people in a civilized society should be able to see without the need for legislation. GTA goes beyond one of those limits.

    Consider: Pretty much everyone would agree that if a game came out tomorrow where you played the part of a Nazi soldier in a deathcamp and the goal was to exterminate Jewish citizens, that that would be distastful and 'over the line' right? (I sure hope you would agree!!)

    Well, GTA crosses that line too - just not as far over..

    3 people are dead: 3 people who seem to have done more with their lives besides play violent video games.

    IMO, the 'right to live without getting shot' preempts the 'right to play a violent video game'. And if people cant see this on their own, then legislation ends up coming into play. And that just sucks.

    The solution is not to purchase crap like GTA in the first place.

    --
    -- NeTMoNGeR
    1. Re:But GTA is garbage.. by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Consider: Pretty much everyone would agree that if a game came out tomorrow where you played the part of a Nazi soldier in a deathcamp and the goal was to exterminate Jewish citizens, that that would be distastful and 'over the line' right? (I sure hope you would agree!!)

      While I do think that such a game would be distasteful, please don't assume that I would automatically agree with you. What is "the line"? Do you think that creating such a game should be illegal? I would fervently disagree on that point; I may find it distasteful, but I think that a company that made such a game should be free to sell it, if they can find anybody who's willing to buy.

      Well, GTA crosses that line too - just not as far over..

      Wait -- are you comparing GTA to Nazis exterminating Jewish citizens? Have you actually even played the game, or do you only know what the mass media has told you about it?

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  255. ObSimpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're also lazy!

  256. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by Michael+Hunt · · Score: 1

    [omg - this is a post you can correctly respond to with "that begs the question"]

    You just made my friends list, for what that's worth.

  257. I tried to email him :( by qsqueeq · · Score: 1

    This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

    Delivery to the following recipients failed.

                  jackpeace@comcast.net

    From: squee burger
    To: jackpeace@comcast.net
    Subject: hi.
    Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:33 PM
    Hi,
    You are a moron.
    Please see -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron
    Also I like http://www.thinkgeek.com/pennyarcade/gamer/7a15/
    Thanks,
    Have a good day.

    damn.

    1. Re:I tried to email him :( by admdrew · · Score: 5, Informative

      Check the dns for stopkill.com, his site... it was updated Oct 15, 2005, and the new contact email is "greytop@comcast.net". Hope that helps :)

  258. Re:Pot. Kettle. You don't understand tax law eithe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "reasonable value" you are allowed to deduct for used household goods is supposed to be what the items would sell for at an establishment such as a thrift shop. Unless your local Salvation Army sells stuff 3x-6x more than a garage sale (depending on your marginal rate), you aren't going to end up on top by doing this.

    I know at least one tax practicing CPA who recommends this. Even if you don't end up on top by straight figures, any reasonable valuation of the time spent on selling the stuff versus donating it will easily push you over.

    Of course, if spending 4-6 hours hanging out on your lawn while people haggle with you over your stuff is your idea of a good time, go for it.

    If you know of a qualified charity that runs a thrift store and accepts donations at the store, you can take care of your donation and get a fair market value in the same trip by looking at similar items in the store.

  259. Scaredy cat by bhalter80 · · Score: 1

    Well it would appear that Jack feels he doesn't need to be reached by his fans, clients as the email address he provided to the FL BAR Assn' is no longer valid. As someone who wants people to be accountable for their actions he seems very resistant to following this rule himself.

    Just for reference:
    This is the Postfix program at host mail.armyofpenguins.com.

    I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be
    be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.

    For further assistance, please send mail to

    If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
    delete your own text from the attached returned message.

                            The Postfix program

    : host smtp.comcast.net[63.240.76.27] said: 551 not our
            customer (in reply to RCPT TO command)

    Reporting-MTA: dns; mail.armyofpenguins.com
    X-Postfix-Queue-ID: 2C547681CA
    X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822;
    Arrival-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:53:24 -0400 (EDT)

    Final-Recipient: rfc822; jackpeace@comcast.net
    Action: failed
    Status: 5.0.0
    Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host smtp.comcast.net[63.240.76.27] said: 551 not
            our customer (in reply to RCPT TO command)

    Jack if you're reading this say hi :)

  260. Re:Ah-Hahahahahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG, funniest shit evar!11!!1 Which mental institution do you hail from?

  261. We really need a +1 highlighted by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

    Where one of our friends gives a post a +1 moderation which is ONLY seen by his fans, and we can then rank this as something other than +1 if we want mabye. If you agreed with the rating then you could highlight it, and you could

    Or mabye I've spent too much time with and would be best served by StumbleUpon

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  262. Inflammatory comments by phorm · · Score: 1

    The anti-Jack movement thrives on revealing stupid actions and comments made by JT by posting them publicly. Perhaps in the future he'll be disbarred or successfully sued for some of the more aggressive or unprofessional remarks he has made

    However, Jack also thrives on the stupid, violent, or aggressive comments made against him. So rather than advocate such things and paint ourselves exactly as he is trying to do, how about we just use calm, professional points with correct facts - which seems to annoy him the most anyways - and avoid playing into his game.

    From most of the JT comments I've read, he seems to regard gamers and indeed geeks in general as a rather intellectually-insufficient subspecies. By providing intelligent feedback and/or responses we probably annoy him a lot more anyways, by proving him wrong. In such debates, he often also seems to make some pretty unprofessional and irrational comments, further proving our view that he seems to have some major personality and/or professionalism issues...

    Jack, if you're reading this, people of all types use the internet, play video games, and generally populate the USA. You're going to get idiots of various varieties as a representation of the general population, so if 1 in 10,000 people in the US are somewhat demented (and base on what I have seen in a 1000 or less school population, this probably actually a higher number), and 1 in 5000 play video games, then chances are you get some overlap there.

    1. Re:Inflammatory comments by 6ame633k · · Score: 1

      Yeah...you're probably right...we should take the high road...but that's no FUN! :) Off topic - I was playing GTA with my 6 year old nephew and I asked him why he wasn't shooting at the cops who were shooting at him for stealing a car. He said "I no kill good guys" - apparently my brother makes him play it responsibly - he can only shoot at thugs. He's not interested in that anyway - he just like to drive the cars...

      --
      You had me at merlot
  263. Cop killer? And mario is a turtle molester by Sleeping+Kirby · · Score: 1

    I just want everyone to know that when I first bought GTA 3 on the PS2 that in my 5~6 complete hours of playing that game, I blew up around 25~30 cars, blow up 4~5 trucks, shot and hurt many, many civilians. But you know what? I think I might have killed a total of one cop... again, I think... By the end of that 5~6 hours and leaving it on the shelf or a good year or so, I sold it to a game reseller a really bad Gundam game. You know... some people just fired up about nothing... Sim 2 has low-res polygonal nudity? God, thanks, Mr. Thompson. Thanks for telling all the pervvy little teenagers that. Now they'll go out to buy the game... idiot... *shakes head* Sometimes I wonder if he's getting kick back from these game companies. Oh yeah, I would also like to announce that Star Wars: battle front is a jedi-killing simulator. I mean, if I saw a real jedi on the streets, I would know exactly how to kill him! All I have to do is try to land a tie-fighter on him or blow him off a cliff with a grenade (and I say him because there are only male jedis/siths in that game). How dare lucas arts for making such a violent game! I mean, you can totally see what they're trying to do to our poor, innocent children!

    --
    please... let me sleep... a little more... yay, no longer annonmyous coward.
  264. Re:The Life of an Online Comic Writer Must Be Good by Supero100 · · Score: 1

    True... they're definitely not getting anything good out of it. Nope... no publicity or anything.

  265. Jon Stewart Or Steven Colbert by Alexius · · Score: 1

    Someone Please Get Jack An Interview On Comedy Central. That Would Be So Much Fun to Watch.

    --
    `Lex - Find Me Here: Text Appeal
    1. Re:Jon Stewart Or Steven Colbert by Derleth · · Score: 1
      Someone Please Get Jack An Interview On Comedy Central. That Would Be So Much Fun to Watch.

      Someone please teach this guy how to capitalize. This is so annoying to read.

      More seriously, an interview between Jack "Mehoff" Thompson and Stewart or Colbert would be hilarious. Jack might try to throttle the person interviewing him, but isn't the senseless violence of the insane the foundation of American entertainment and what Jack's whole campaign is about?

      (Jack Thompson: A Daffy Duck waiting for a Bugs Bunny.)

      --
      How can you use my intestines as a gift? -Actual Hong Kong subtitle.
  266. Email Slashdotting by ruiner13 · · Score: 1

    I see a rash of emails to that address coming now, lets see if comcast can handle an email /.ing. At least you can narrow down the subnet to find ole Jack's woefully insecure windows machine connected directly to the cable modem with the 800 gigs of beastial porn. You know, "research material".

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

  267. Loser Pay by aepervius · · Score: 1

    This is why a loser pay system is far better. Oh yes, and if you cannot drop a suit you initiate unless you poay the defense cost.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Loser Pay by Boogaroo · · Score: 1

      Loser pay systems should only be instituted if the lawsuit was deemed to be frivolous or otherwise "out of order."

      The reason for this is simple: What happens when you sue for some grevious percieved mistake your dentist made while working on your teeth? You lose due to the jury/judge deciding that it wasn't a mistake, but rather a known standard complication...yadda yadda. Now you owe the dentist another $100,000. Congratulations, now you have a messed up mouth AND a huge debt.

      I do realize you are probably taking this into account, but many people do not. Loser pays is not the answer people think it is. It has to be restricted some way.

  268. Alright, I've listened to the interview... by eonlabs · · Score: 1

    OK, I sat and listened to the interview with Jack Thompson and Chatterbox Video Game Radio.
    I felt I needed to get past the bias and everything else.

    So here's what I've gotten out of it:
    1. Jack Thompson seems to believe his focus is very well defined. He claims he wants to fight access to violent and sexual video games by minors, which is something a lot of people including myself agree with, but his actions don't follow.

    2. His actions are indictive of his dislike of the existance of violent games and games with sex in them.

    3. He doesn't seem to grasp the concept that mods are not created by the original artist, and feels that they should be held responsible for modders creations.

    4. He likes to throw big names around to support his opinion. His personal favorite appears to be Hilary Clinton. It feels like he's trying to play off the fact she's running democratic to draw in people on both sides of a fence. As far as I understand, conservitive views tend to be we should maintain the status quo.

    5. He blames the game developers for the ESRB's short comings in rating video games.

    6. He believes that interactive entertainment has an exponentially stronger affect on people's minds than any other form of media.

    7. He loves to point out that he has been on TV and had many interviews.


    And my take on it is, he's focusing his energy on the wrong targets. I feel a lot of people agree kids shouldn't get their hands on the higher rating games, but that's not something to blame the game companies for. They shouldn't stop creating the games they do, but they shouldn't focus ads on minors. They should keep the right to make the games they do. If people really didn't want them, they'd be out of business.

    I remember the argument about the rating system coming up before. A lot of people felt that it made no sense to have a different rating system for movies and games, and I agreed with that, but I think it's too late to change it now for one reason. The movie rating system works because it's been working for a long time. Familiarity is what keeps it stable (even though it is drifting too), and it's what defines its meaning now. Games haven't had a rating system for that long. When the movie industry first started using their system, did they make mistakes? I wouldn't doubt it, although I can't site specific examples. The industry has faults because its growing into the system. Society needs to pick up on it too, and that's going to start happening as more and more gamers start having kids, because all of a sudden, people are going to recognize the long held system for rating games and be able to better protect their OWN kids from the games.

    Many of the problems are taking care of themselves, and Jack seems to be missing that point. Gamers are not just kids anymore. We're the first to test the waters of this technology, and now we get to spread that message to our kids.

    And no, Jack, just because you've been on TV doesn't mean you're any more credible than I am, dropping a comment on /.
    Don't make bluffs you're not prepared to be called on.

    --
    I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
  269. Re:The Life of an Online Comic Writer Must Be Good by Dogun · · Score: 1

    They don't _need_ publicity. I'm sure that the net cost to PA will wind up being something less than 10k due to the increased ad revenue and whatnot, but it's still money for a charity and it makes me laugh, AND it makes Jack Thompson look like a dildo, so I've got no cause to complain.

  270. Mod Parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod Parent up

  271. Done and done if you care do the same. by Rabbitgod · · Score: 1

    As a privet citizen employed by the Lutheran church I have become concerned about the recent inappropriate actions and public comments by John B. Thompson aka Jack Thompson. In recent days he has incited violence against several people, and has attempted to "bully" news and creative outlets that have pointed this out with threats to sue. In the long term their is an entire history of him being just plain nasty to otherwise nice people asking honest questions about his legal beliefs and motives. Hes has also, in ignorance or in a just plain lie, has told major media outlets that the NFL is so sickened by the video game industry that they would not allow Midway ltd to use their logo when in fact EA simply secured exclusive rights to use the logo in their line of sports games. Below I have provided links to a handful of media and creative outlets that have had ongoing contact with John B. Thompson aka Jack Thompson.

    http://www.vgcats.com/jack.php (creative)

    (Penny-Arcade updates Mon, Wed, and Fri the 3 links I have provided go to various dates as well as their most current news. Also Penny-Arcade is involved in both news and creative media but they DO NOT create news their reports are accurate and well documented)

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/news.php?date=2005-10- 14
    http://www.penny-arcade.com/news.php?date=2005-10- 18
    http://www.penny-arcade.com/

    http://croqaudile.com/?article_id=10299 (news media/blog)

    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/janet.htm (media, little old back from when he ran agenst Janer Reno for dade county DA)

    http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000103062744/ (if you type the words "Jack Thopson modest" into the search engine google.com this artical and several other related articals are the top hits this refects the level of negative public attenion his recent actions have brought up.)

    (slashdot.org news for geeks very long link so I broke the format of posting the sorce type next to the link)

    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165653&thr eshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=123&mode=thread&pid=0

    http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/17/ 1750203&tid=133&tid=10

    The following is John Bruce Thompson's bar information:

    John Bruce Thompson

    Member in Good Standing Eligible to practice in Florida

    ID Number: - 231665
    Firm:
    1172 S Dixie Hwy Ste 111
    Coral Gables Florida 331462918
    Phone: 305.6664366
    Fax:
    E-Mail: jackpeace@comcast.net
    County: Dade
    Circuit: 11
    Admitted: 05/31/1977

    I have carboned copied this E-mail to Mr.Thompson as well as news@slashdot.org, gabe@penny-arcade.com and, tycho@penny-arcade.com

    I implore you to look deep into his recent actions this individual is practicing law in both your state and on a Federal level while at the same time is showing very little regard for the law.

    Your truly & concernd;
    Keith. J. Lemire
    Community Intergration Specalist
    Luthren Socal Services

    P.S. Feel free to contact me by phone between 5pm and 10pm Monday through Thursday or 9am to 10pm fri,Sat,Sun
    #ya right I'm not slashdoting my phone number!

    1. Re:Done and done if you care do the same. by Rabbitgod · · Score: 1

      I couldn't find a slashdot email listed so I took stab and guessed their was a news@slashdot.org oh well.

  272. Wrong Address by tiny12 · · Score: 1

    he couldn't even get penny arcade's web address right in his letter, what a tool!
    hey jack its www.penny-arcade.com , dumbass. you are award not points for your response, we are all dumber for having heard it, and may god have mercy on your soul.

  273. Wow. If wishing made it so... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    I sure wish -I- could gain national media attention by living in my own fantasy world.

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  274. Police Report by archmedes5 · · Score: 1

    It was my understanding that in order to get the police to arrest someone for harrassment he has to file a police report first, i.e. calling the dade county police to file a report, and then THEY contact the seattle police, at which point, the seattle police would visit the location, get their version of the story, add it to the police report, and then probably tell Mr. Thompson that it's a civil matter and that the police are not going to get involved.

    BTW, I wrote a small rant about the affair on my website at http://www.b-o-g.net/

  275. Re:The Life of an Online Comic Writer Must Be Good by asuffield · · Score: 1

    Realise that Penny Arcade is a couple of game geeks who had good timing. They don't do this stuff for publicity. They do it for laughs.

  276. So here's what I'm thinking... by Lonath · · Score: 1

    we tell him about Derek Smart's new game and sit back and watch the fireworks...

  277. Re:The Life of an Online Comic Writer Must Be Good by Obsi · · Score: 0
    If only we could edit posts in Vim.
    s/dildo/enema nozzle
    I say enema nozzle because he's full of shit.

    Also, if anyone's heard the extremely well-done satire of Rush Limbaugh, transcribed at http://www.vegsource.com/talk/pub/messages/570.htm l, you might find that audio file could very well be descriptive of Jacko. To get the full effect you'd have to listen to the audio file first though.

    From the bowels of Adolf Hitler
    Comes the voice of Jack Thompson

  278. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even though it's only Anon., I've not laughed so hard in MONTHS.

    For some reason, that was hilarious.

  279. Re: pretty creepy post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pass me the popcorn.

  280. THE SIMS?? WTF??? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    You know, much as the guy _is_ insane, some of the stuff before sounded at least _technically_ true, or a truism. E.g., _technically_ the Hot Coffee material was there on the CD, and the modders used what was already there. Yes, I know, it still wasn't available in the game as published, so Jack _is_ full of shit. But in a lawyer's technicallities and verbal fallacies game he does have _some_ actual fact (minor and irrelevant as it may be) from which to start the fallacies game.

    But The Sims 2? Give me a fucking break. As shipped there are _no_ models or textures on the CD that include penises, vaginas, nipples and all the crap that Jack's been spouting.

    In this case, it's 100% user-created material, and typically requires one to get an account to an adult-oriented mod site, or the adult section of a mod site. (I.e., if Jack saw that in his copy of the Sims, he must have not only downloaded it himself, but even then he wasn't getting it unknowingly while thinking he's just getting a new haircut for his sims. The only way to get those is knowingly, after registering to a site which explicitly tells you what are you registering for.)

    At any rate, it's not EA's material, it's not on EA's CDs, it's not on EA's site, it's not even linked to by EA. How the f-word can he hold EA responsible for it? It's like holding a car company responsible for changes a customer did to his own car.

    It's not even that the game "allows" third-party skins, in much the same way as HalfLife, Doom 3, or Unreal Tournament allow user-created skins. It's that Maxis, for all the "yay, we love the mods users create for our game" declaration, is actually fairly hostile to modding. Beyond recolouring clothes, EA and Maxis haven't published the file formats, haven't published any tools, etc. All modding has happened pretty much against EA's and Maxis's wishes, by reverse engineering their binary files.

    In fact, the latest Nightlife expansion pack is pretty much a slap in the face to the modders by EA, because it warns the users that any script mods could interfere with the game, and by default offers to disable them. There's a lot of Joe Average and Jane Clueless users who've just been told by EA, "don't use mods, they screw up your game." (If EA is so concerned about that, wouldn't it be nicer to offer a clean stable API and tools or documentation instead? You know, beats throwing a fit about how those reverse-engineered hacks are screwing their game.)

    So again, the short story is that any mods other than recoloured clothes and haircuts happened _against_ EA's wishes and lack of support. They were _hacks_ to EA's game.

    So how the heck can Jack hold EA responsible for that?

    What's EA supposed to do there? DRM the files, to prevent the users from reverse-engineering them? Sue the modders (i.e., their own fans and customers) under the DMCA? Yeah, suing one's own customers gives a company such good publicity and goodwill. Or _what_? What does Jack want them to do to prevent users from creating their own skins?

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  281. Seriously by thelonestranger · · Score: 1

    Jack Thompson makes Woody Woodpecker look sane.

    --
    To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.
  282. Re: pretty creepy post by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    I hope someone sneaks into his house and ties him up in a straightjacket while he sleeps.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  283. MOD PARENT DOWN! TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dirty, stinking troll.

  284. Wrong way to look at it by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    "Very few people of the ultra-conservative persuasion, however, need to be persuaded - they already are fanatically against video games that contain violence, sex, etc."

    1. Even then, you can convince them that you represent their views the best. For a politician trying to get elected, that may well be enough.

    Also, you can point their existing hatred and bigotry at your own target. E.g., someone might already be rabidly against the mere mention of sex in the media, but not see video games as the main threat. They might not even have bothered looking at what games are available. Even if they had a brief look at the Bible Blaster their own little Dick and Jane are playing, they don't know what Jack and Jill across the street are playing. If you drum up games as being _the_ main offenders to their bigotry, you might have gained some allies.

    Even and even if you didn't sidetrack them towards hating games, again, see the first paragraph. You've told them "I'm fighting for the same values _you_ have" (e.g., against any mention of sex) anyway.

    Also, you can shift their priorities a bit. Humans, even bigots, are complex beings. They don't just have _one_ issue or problem, they have a variety of issues, some related, some not. E.g., someone might already, to different extents, be for Issue A, but also for Issues B, C and D. E.g., someone could be against sex in games, yes, but currently be more concerned about national security, or the recession, or their job getting offshored, or whatever. Yes, they're already convinced that games are filth, but might consider other issues as a more immediate need.

    And you _can_ push the right buttons to shuffle some of those existing concerns around. E.g., if you appeal enough to their fear that their kids will get raped and/or shot by a gamer school-mate, that pre-existing conviction will go up the scale. Where previously they might have rather voted for someone who promisses to end the recession, you might get them around to think "hmm, well, even _if_ I were to lose a job, saving my children from being shot is probably more important."

    2. You have to realize that some people are into protesting something just _for_ the act itself of protesting something. It's not even just that some people are RL trolls, it's also that some people actually _need_ to feel like they're part of something that'll save the world. They have to see themselves as the few chosen ones that see the big danger everyone else ignores, and the ones who do the up-hill battle of saving you all. (If needed, sprinkle a bit of persecution complex, for even more self-backpatting oportunities.)

    And for a lot of them it doesn't really matter _what_ they're saving us all from. It can be from atheism, or from sex in video games, or from Intel, or from emacs, or from buttering the bread on the wrong side. What really matters is being a messiah and a martyr, not the actual goal, nor if it actually makes any sense.

    And such a loud-mouthed crusader offers a high profile crusade to join. It doesn't matter if it's wilfully distorting the truth, word games, and straw men. Those are the normal tools of the trade in the messiah business anyway. What matters is that it offers a great (imaginary) "threat" to save the world from.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  285. Harrassment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't harrass Jack, that just fuels his fire... harrass the news agencies that give him a voice. Here's one to start you off:

    To: 60m@cbsnews.com

    Dear Sir / Madam,

    I find the views of "Jack Thompson" biased, inaccurate and insulting, not only to me, but to the community of gamers and the community of Islam. I hope you will take this into consideration before letting him speak on any issues in future.

    Yours,

    -=NAME=-

  286. Re: pretty creepy post by budgenator · · Score: 1

    My feeling is he's a paranoid with a martyr syndrome.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  287. Off on a tangent by smbarbour · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else who reads this find it slightly ironic that Ice T went from songs about killing cops to playing a cop on TV (Law & Order: SVU)?

  288. UK:resistance does it best by wild_berry · · Score: 1

    The folks at UK:resistance made me laugh with their take on this.

  289. Break out the certified mail by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    floridabar.org

    Jack Thompson is a fucking kook.

  290. A Modest Proposal by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see an ultraviolent game in which your character decides to take revenge on a loudmouthed personal injury lawyer named Tom Jackson. There would be several endings to choose from, ranging from your character pissing on the lawyer's bludgeoned brains to decapitation.

    I can't afford to give $10K to charity for such a game, but I can say I will!

  291. Cop Killer by dswan69 · · Score: 1

    I'm going to sue Rockstar. Their GTA cop killing simulator is a dismal failure. I trained for weeks, but I've haven't managed to kill a single cop.

  292. Re:T-Shit is fine, just like Bush or Kerry T-Shirt by Aumaden · · Score: 1
    How about:
    Jack Thompson wants to stop you from killing kittens
  293. Re:Murder Simulator by vertinox · · Score: 1

    "This is the guy who insisted that Columbine was caused by DOOM being a "murder simulator"."

    If murder involves remote controlled robot using a keyboard and mouse... Then yes I would call it a "murder simulator".

    You for the life of me I can't remember, but there is some reason that the US military doesn't just train recruits by sitting them in a cubicle and having them play US Army for 6 weeks and then ship them to Iraq... Seems to elude me...

    Oh yes, I remember now... Firing large caliber guns effectivly and on target is hard to fucking do in real life.

    Not to mention the tactics involved fighting in urban combat or lugging around 100lbs of gear. Maybe if Doom taught how to clean your guns as well... US Army comes close, but the only murder simulators out there are the shooting range and basic training.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  294. Re:Ah-Hahahahahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cannot post as myself because I just modded this fucking hilarious, but I've got to say, if an ariticle about jack thompson ever comes up in the future, I'll be sure to paste this in as a running gag.

    Truly great.

  295. Three Prong test for Libeling Public Figures by Tangurena · · Score: 1
    In the USA, for a public figure to sue for libel/slander, they have to meet all three prongs of the following:
    1. The plaintiff has to prove the statement is false.
    2. The defendant has to know the statement is false.
    3. The defendant made the statement without caring whether the statement is true or false.

    That is called the Sullivan Test after this Supreme Court decision. That particular decision was about a public official, and other decisions have expanded that rule to any individual who is a public figure. Being a public figure makes it much harder to win a defamation case in the US, so many plaintiffs will try to sue in British courts. That's why Jack decided to lie and make the claim "This story is completely false and defamatory. Take it down or else." Because he is probably attempting to try to use that as a defence in court at a later date. Ultimately all lawyering revolves around intimidating your opponent. An opponent who refuses to be intimidated will be very expensive for Jack (or any other lawyer) to deal with. He already ruined his reputation, so it is impossible for anyone to defame it further.

    Libel is the term used for written defamation of character (I hand you a note, or print in /., saying that your cat is an idiot), and slander is the verbal form (I tell people that your cat is an idiot). Defamation loosely means making false statements about someone that results in their losing reputation. If your cat really is an idiot, then it isn't defamation. Proving whether a statement is true or false is pretty easy. Proving malice, which is needed for public figure plaintiffs, is much harder to do.

    According to Gamespot, the infamous fax to the Seattle Police has not been received by the Seattle Police (as of yesterday). My hypothesis as to why the fax was never sent to the police is that it would constitute filing a false police report which is a crime in every state in this country.

    I am not a lawyer either, but I did go to a police academy.

  296. Re:Pot. Kettle. You don't understand tax law eithe by sirwired · · Score: 1

    Oh, I wasn't saying that it was actually a good idea to run a garage sale, just that dollar-for-dollar, the garage sale will most certainly put you on top, if you run it properly. Personally, I DO donate my surplus items to charity. I think the poster I was replying to was inferring that the cash value of the tax deduction could be equivalent to the cash you would receive from a sale. This is obviously not true.

    SirWired

  297. So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...does this mean it's actually illegal to be criminally unfunny?