71
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + +
→Expand the article
:::Other than Penny Arcade, some video gamers are on a crusade to smear their critics, and especially Jack Thompson. There's little doubt that video games are causing significant harm to kids who become addicted to them, and to innocent people victimized by them. Mr. Thompson should be praised, not vilified, for standing up against the vile industry. It is doubtful that his "offer" was legally binding and fully satisfied (presumably it meant selling and promoting such a game like the others), and this issue at best a distraction from more important issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 27 December 2009 (EST)
:::Other than Penny Arcade, some video gamers are on a crusade to smear their critics, and especially Jack Thompson. There's little doubt that video games are causing significant harm to kids who become addicted to them, and to innocent people victimized by them. Mr. Thompson should be praised, not vilified, for standing up against the vile industry. It is doubtful that his "offer" was legally binding and fully satisfied (presumably it meant selling and promoting such a game like the others), and this issue at best a distraction from more important issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 27 December 2009 (EST)
::::Your observations provide more insight than the article does, so perhaps we should put something to this effect in the article. You're absolutely right, the original "modest proposal" does require that the game be sold, although free downloads are readily available. In sum, Jack Thompson could use some good conservative defenders, and the only portion of this article that provides that viewpoint is the word "effective." If he's effective, then what effect has he had (other than being disbarred, poor fellow)? [[User:DanieleGiusto|Help! I can't edit anything, including my own talk page!]] 23:42, 6 January 2010 (EST)