Mnementh_2230

Terrible tragedy, and it doesn't suprise me in the least that the lawyer from Miami "He who shall not be named" chimed in almost immediatly with his usual agenda-driven bullshit.

JT, you're a sad piece of work.

OK, back on topic - I doubt his religion had anything to do with it, and I SERIOUSLY doubt it was terrorism. Refugee gives up all hope in life, finds a fixation ("I hate mall rats!!") and decides to give up his life in persuit of this goal? Sure, it sounds insane to us, but to the already-mentally-imbalanced?

Poor kid (for his past, not his actions), poor victims, poor situation. The entire thing is a damn pity.

Furthermore, Jacko, your b!tching about being censored on Gamepolitics is just about the stupidest thing you've ever uttered. He told you time and again that you weren't welcome there, and yet you persisted, saying that you hadn't been banned because you were still able to post. Perhaps if you had read the EULA for livejournal (which thankfully he's not using anymore) you would have realized that by continuing to make more accounts with which to post on www.gamepolitics.com, you were actually VIOLATING THE LAW (or at least the EULA). As such, you have no place to complain about being censored. Grow up.

@ John Bruce Thompson

Now, you all would have been informed of this if Dennis McCauley, who is the only censor in this situation, had bothered to update Joystiq directly or his own GamePolitics.com site by sharing the actual letter that the MBTA sent me hours ago and that I faxed to McCauley!

Jack/John Bruce Thompson, you're such a dumbass - you only just sent that information to Dennis, and you expect instant results. Do you have a grasp on TIME?

Besides which, you've posted the information here, so what is being censored? NOTHING. Dennis isn't censoring anyone, the MBTA is censoring billboards as I suppose is their right, and that is that. If they have expanded their polocies to include video games as well as the affore mentioned movies, that is their perogative, and there is no controversy. Go find another dead horse.

William - you answered your own question.

With all those little caveats you specified, it is not the games that cause the violence.

Either it is bad parenting, or it is the kid's brain, that causes the violence ultimatly. The games may, in those cases, be a catalyst, but they are not the root cause.

I agree with you that children should not be playing ultra-violent games, but legislating the issue is impossible, if you know anything about the constitution - Equal Protection means they'd have to make it illigal for children to watch violent television, too, as well as protect the kids from violent movies, books, music, etc... You want to make a difference? Hold the parents responsable, with more than a slap on the wrist.

Haven't caught the segment, don't really want to play it now and disturb the wife, but from the comments I've read and from previous clips of John Bruce on the air, he was in his "public" mode, not the childish, foolish braggart that posts here and elsewhere on the 'net.

Jack, just because you've been on television doesn't mean you're an expert. You lie, you use facts out of context, you exagerate, you make up studies, and you generally act like a five year old when it comes to proving yourself right.

Correlation is not causation, and the studies only show correlation.

violent people are likely attracted to violent games
violence has been around longer than games
games cannot train you to kill - if they could do that, they could train you to be a sports star, and I'm no John Elway despite the football games I've played.
Your arguments as usual are full of crap, John Bruce Thompson. You've only made me laugh in the past, and I hope you continue doing so as you impotently bludgeon yourself against the constitution.