He's not THAT short is he? Oh or are you referring to HIS little man? It might explain the whole overcompensating thing.

His religion is sick, obscene & perverse, the religion in question is the Church Of Thompson where he is senile pope, vengeful god & the entire brainwashed congregation.

@Haggard

As such, I'd like to take the opportunity to offer him a role in a documentary in which he meets up with Keith Vaz for a good old chit chat - I'll call it "Cross-Atlantic Reactionism: The Meeting".

Dude, make them fight to the death for the right to be the true voice of ignorance. It'd be like Highlander only with lying morons! There can be only one..

I think GlaDOS put it best:

"If at first you don't succeed, you fail."

(Y'know since he literally wrote the book on failing...)

Hmmm... 

- He is the most successful opponent of videogames in America

I actually don't think that is a lie... Yet.  Hehehe!  No one really has been successful opposing video games thus far.  Not to mention it depends on how you define success.  I know he defines it as how much face time he gets on television.

Jack:

Only you would be dumb enough to bother raising "video game" defenses after your client had already been convicted of the crime for which they are about to be sentenced. All the sane lawyers that I would have realized that the time for raising defenses of any sort had come and gone. Now, the not so sane attorneys that I know may be inclined to raise "video games" as a mitigating factor to be considered prior to the jury's or the court's rendering of sentence. But, even as to use as a mitigating factor, the sane lawyers that I know wouldn't waste their time. 

Jack

Please define this term you keep using "Brain scans". Are we taking about a CT, MRI, X-ray, Gamma Ray, flighlight in the ear, or some scientology device that measures Body Thetons. Since this isn't the 23rd century and tricorders don't exist, then what you define as a 'brain scan' sounds a whole lot like bogus medicine. Of course if you could just provide a viable link to these said studies, which any repudable medical group would have, then we can decide for ourselves how viable this 'study' is.

Of course, it was just you putting a collander over the person's head with wires attached to a computer playing Doom 3, then that doesn't cut it.

Children also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Please try again.

Thompson, you meathead.  Do you even read the articles you post?  Nowhere in the article does it say that kids believe video game violence = violent behavior, except for the obviously sensationalistic headline.  It says that they believe video games have more of an impact on behavior than movies and TV.  That could mean any number of things, but of course you choose to interpret it according to Jack Thompson's Book of What I Think Is Right.  The rest of the freakin' article is about the parents and their attitudes on how they raise their kids,  which is something you'd do well to focus on instead of trying to tell other people how to raise theirs.

Do the planet a favor and piss off.

Fail. If you even read the article you might have noticed that it said "had more of an impact on behaviour" not that it actually caused them to become homicidal psychopaths. After that first paragraph it went into how parents should check what their kids do not washed up attorneys from Miami. And for any study you can find that  supports your argument I can find one that refutes it.

So don't try and take the attention away from your blatant attack on the truth of what happened in that trial with some little article barely supporting your argument. This type of tactic hasn't helped you in the past, and it sure as hell isn't going to work now.

And you may remember me from a few days ago when I emailed you asking for your opinions, you know, the "mind-numbed gamer." My failed attempt at carrying on a civil conversation with you was a mistake I won't make again.

Since Jacko doesn't seem to know how to do diligent research and find the actual study rather than simply link to a summary of a summary of it, I'll do junior's research for him.  Here is the actual study in question:  http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/ml_...

Here is the pertinent section on videogames:

Children share public concern about violent games

Children’s views on gaming are particularly interesting. Around two-thirds of older children agree that violence in games affects people’s behaviour outside the game and that violence in games has more impact on people’s behaviour than violence in television or films. There are high levels of agreement for having settings on consoles which can restrict game playing based on age ratings.

Although research to date has failed to prove conclusively a link between violent games and violent behaviour in children, children themselves clearly share the wider public concern around this issue. A possible factor in this is the high ongoing level of media coverage of violent crimes in which game playing is alleged to have been a factor.

So what this says is that children thing ideogames are bad. It isn't surprising that they think that with all the biased television coverage of them and lying talking heads like Jacko appearing on television.  Then again children also beleive in the tooth fairy so I'm not sure if their beliefs should be held up as solid evidence.

For argument's sake let's take their belief seriously.  What does that say?  It means that children themselves think games are dangerous.  Doesn't that disprove Jacko's assertion that kids don't know the dangers of games?

Maybe after the relaunch he was able to sneak in. After all, isn't GP running on different server now? If so than he wouldn't be banned (yet) and (unfortunately) would be more than able to spew his rhetoric.