Talk:Jack Thompson (activist)/Archive 1

message: The point of the millstone verse is that the consequences for those who cause a child to stumble are worse than a millstone being tied around their necks, but Jack Thompson has turned it into "If you have a choice between letting a person cause a child to stumble and tying a millstone around their necks, then tying a millstone around their necks is the better option." --Hackwrench 19:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding of millstone verse 

message: There are some definate POV issues in this article. The last line says that the man is insane. As much as I hate Jack Thompson I don't believe biased words are appropriate for an encyclopedia entry.
:Seconded. The first paragraph is also pretty poorly worded. One really shouldn't have any difficulty portraying Jack Thompson as a raving lunatic simply by reporting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The article's cryptohostile tone just confuses the issue.
:Update - Well, I think I fixed the first paragraph. I didn't actually snip out any info, so one line seems a tad clunky and tangential, but methinks the entire thing is fairly objective. The article makes Thompson look like a frothing nutjob, but it does so simply by reporting the facts, without any selective omissions or tricks of phrasing. The article could definitely use some polish, but methinks PoV is no longer an issue. Opinions? Anyone think "slanderous" is problematic? The word is factually correct; Thompson's false accusations have been pretty well documented. The links already present in this article provide plenty of exemplars. The problem is that it connotates all sorts of judicial issues: there's a difference between spreading slander and actually being culpable of the felony or crime of slander.
Update: "He tries to manuipulate people by saying EA and Will Wright are supporting Adult custom content specificaly, when actually, Will Wright supports all custom content for the game, because he wants people to be creative with their own game". Reckon the PoV just got a little slanted 'round these here parts.
::Putting all else Jack do or say aside, anyone who lash out at Will Wright is someone who requires psychiatric care. And I do believe I don't need to explain why. Seriously, come on, Will Wright? 82.80.1.104 23:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: :"Jack Thompson is a complete douche bag. If I found him dying on the sidewalk I would make sure to find the sharpest stick I could possibly find and poke him until he died. I would probably be having so much fun that I wouldn't even notice. I wonder how long it would be before the point broke off/became dull. Do you think he would try to fight back? Gosh, I hope not. That would be a pain in the ass."
Like the previous post, I really don't like Jack Thompson.  However, there is no purpose to inserting immature threats, name-calling, and one's personal point of view into the article.
:Does this sort of comment even warrant a discussion topic? I thought the idea was to revert that sort of nonsense on sight, and lock the article if this sparks a revert war.
:I agree, everyone would like to see this sad excuse for a person to go away but to say that he should be killed and to personally express wishes to harm him, esp on such a public site is not only immature but also irresponsible. I am going to school for interactive media and game development and as i get closer to being in the industry i find it more personal when this guy attacks us, when someone like yourself makes verbal threats torwards someone who is making such statements about how violence is just imitating GTA or the sort you are simply reinforcing what he is preaching and you are not representing those people who enjoy media outlets in the way that shows we are higher on the food chain than he is. If you want to complain and voice your opinion of wanting harm to come to jack thompson do it in a private place where it stays between you and yourself.
::In such a scenario I would probably attempt to kill Jack, however, the law forbids it and I abide the law. Other than that, no, a single quote of someone's thoughts does not merit a discussion in here, unless you want to open for it its own page. Junk this, as in delete. 82.80.1.104 06:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious Bias, Threats 

message: Could we get a picture of Thompson, perhaps? Anyone know of a good one? --213.163.7.195 09:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All I found were these two (,) and they're pretty small. --Arcon 14:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a slightly bigger image of picture one that you linked to Arcon from  http://www.wcpo.com/news and added that, hope it's ok? --jasmine 01:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: I like to say a word or two about a couple of recent edits made in the past 12 hours.
The open letter, which is appears to be written by Thompson, has already been provided in a link in the article , and should be removed.
The second addition, though, may be legitimate, but unconfirmed:
Excerpt from article:
*Him attacking the Sims 2 was the Fault of someone From Gamefaqs named Micheal Dude. His Message:
"HAHAHAHAHAHA I was the one that email Thompson about Sims 2
Holy **** I can't believe it worked. I tried this as a joke and I seriously doubted Thompson would even read my email, especially with all the hate ones he probably gets. BUT he did! He read it AND replied thanking me immensely on the find.Lol sorry people, damn didn't think it would end up like this. I guess he would've found out eventually anyway." Linkis: http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=914811&topic=22380019 
Translation:
*He is believed to have received certain rumors, but failed to investigate the authenticity of the claim, as demonstrated by a GameFaqs member who claimed to have sent an e-mail to Thompson with false information about The Sims 2 .
Simply claiming that he sent the e-mail is not enough. Unless there is hard evidence, like say, the e-mails themselves, this passage may be providing inaccurate information. I'm placing a dubious tag after the sentence. Feel free to remove this passage if it isn't deemed encyclopedic. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 04:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions