Jack Thompson Debate Back On at SGC09

The on-again, off-again July 4th debate between disbarred Miami attorney Jack Thompson and gamer/attorney Mark Methenitis is apparently back on.

The debate, planned for this weekend’s SGC09 in Dallas, went off the rails rather suddenly yesterday morning when Thompson complained to event host Screw Attack (and cc’d GamePolitics) that:

  • he objected to a one- or two-line introduction ("I have never been introduced with 1 or 2 sentences.  Nobody can be introduced in that fashion…")
  • he objected to a user-created parody video posted (and since removed) on the Screw Attack site; Thompson may have believed the video, "Questions Not to Ask Jack Thompson" at SGC," was official Screw Attack content

After posting a story detailing Thompson’s assertion that he was canceling his appearance, GamePolitics rather unexpectedly found itself in the middle of a day-long flurry of e-mails between Screw Attack personnel and Thompson. Event organizers were clearly seeking to assuage Thompson’s concerns and salvage the debate. By late Tuesday afternoon, it appeared that Thompson, who is apparently under contract and being paid $2,000 for his appearance, was softening his position after receiving assurances from Screw Attack Program Director Craig Skistimas.

As recently as this morning, however, Thompson demanded that a post by a Screw Attack user be removed. While it was not taken down, the author, who was also behind the parody video that Thompson found offensive, e-mailed the disbarred attorney a lengthy apology; that seemed to satisfy Thompson.

Next, Thompson e-mailed Skistimas a "proposed text" to be used as his introduction at the debate. The 12-sentence intro mentioned his 2008 lifetime disbarment very briefly, referring to it as "illegal" and blaming the loss of his law license on "lawyers for Take-Two, the makers of the Grand Theft Auto games."

GP asked Skistimas whether the introduction would actually be used at SGC09. Skistimas told us, "I have yet to review his intro but Jack and I will work together to find an intro that fits both his needs and the time format of the debate at SGC."

A conference call between Thompson and the Screw Attack team planned for noon today was canceled when the parties decided in late morning that the debate was back on and Thompson was satisified.

Skistimas also said that the site would release a video tomorrow to reinforce the fact that Thompson will appear at SGC09.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

122 comments

  1. Kincyr says:

    Brief? Don’t make me laugh. the very definition of brief is "using few words; concise; succinct"

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  2. Kincyr says:

    juries wont meet with your demands, because they don’t negotiate with terrorists

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  3. Kincyr says:

    actually you did, and they’re still on GamePolitics. Checkmate!

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  4. Kincyr says:

    true christians bow down to no man, but I’ll most certainly call you ‘high’.

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  5. Kincyr says:

    MarzGurl doesn’t write articles for the site, she’s a reader who posted a video (that remains) on YouTube. And what’s to apologize for, telling people to be civil and NOT call you names? certainly reflects what Jesus said in Matthew 5:22.

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  6. Magic says:

    As I stare into this abyss of madness, I feel it staring back into me …

    PS – I love reading the remainder of this thread with the deleted comments from the disbarred attorney in (I missed the originals). Filling in the blanks is fun!

  7. BearDogg-X says:

    So what did the Metropolitian Moron of Miami post in response to my above comment?

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.


    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  8. ezbiker555 says:

    Hi Jack long time no see. Just wanted you to know that your pompous ego of your’s is really getting old. So please blow it out your A**. Also Please keep you crazed religous beliefs to yourself.  Personally I think you need to give up and move on.

  9. demonfoo says:

    I wouldn’t give him five cents for his opinion. We already know what it is, and that it’s not worth even that much. 🙂

  10. Kincyr says:

    "Anyone who says as much as ‘You fool’ will be subject to the fires of hell. (Matthew 5:22)

    this shows how "christian" Jack really is

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  11. Magic says:

    I’d love to see the sources to your first point – NOT that I don’t believe you, I just would like to have them on hand as references for JT’s madness. 🙂

  12. JDKJ says:

    And, regradless of whatever all that "blah, blah, blah," means, if as a practical matter he’s being directed away from T2 and towards its attorneys, it’s difficult to understand that he’d be also prohibited from public comment about those attorneys. It’s T2 that’s the party to the Settlement Agreement and enjoys whatever rights may exist under it. Not so T2’s attorneys.

  13. Andrew Eisen says:

    Thompson’s settlement with Take-Two:

    -JT can’t sue or threaten to sue to restrict the sale or distribution of any game from T2 or its subsidiaries.

    -JT can’t communicate to T2 or anyone doing business with T2 that the company has or will engage in any wrongdoing based on the sale or distribution of any game from T2 or its subsidiaries.  JT’s still free to criticize the content or distribution of such games.  He could also act as counsel in lawsuits brought against T2 if he hadn’t got himself disbarred.

    -JT’s communications with T2 are restricted to T2’s attorneys.

    Whole thing’s right here if anyone’s interested.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  14. BearDogg-X says:

    Comment FTW.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.


    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  15. JDKJ says:

    I considered the possibility. Thompson’s Settlement Agreement prohibits him from, as I recall, public comment about T2 and any of T2 products, or the way in which those products are marketed (e.g., "GTA is a school-shooter training device and pornographic mayhem simulator deliberately marketed by T2 to America’s unsuspecting youth as part of an evil world domination scheme master-minded by Strauss Zelnik"). I’m not sure it prohibits Thompson from commenting on T2’s attorneys.

  16. Mr. Stodern says:

    After all that Jack’s said and done, I have no problem whatsoever with him showing up, being insulted in some way, then leaving and claiming some kind of victory. Seriously, the man needs to be made fun of in a public manner as much as possible, and it’s not like he ever actually wins anything regardless of the circumstances.

    Whether he’s treated civilly or poorly, the end result is the same: Jack Thompson runs his mouth. I’d much prefer it if he does so while extremely pissed off that someone actually dared to give him exactly what he deserves.

    And to those who will inevitably disagree:

    …and applauded when a voice actor on a video game was injured in a terrorist attack.

    That alone keeps me from understanding how you could ever do so. Seriously, no one who acts like that should even be cosidered for what’s supposed to be a civil and constructive function.

    It continues to boggle my mind that credible people wish to engage that asshole in any way other than telling him to shut the fuck up.

  17. AuntySocial says:

    I have an introduction for him

     

    This man needs no introduction.  2008 Disbarred attorney of the year, the Jack-ass himself, Jack "Eagle shit" Thompson.

  18. BearDogg-X says:

    I look at it this way:

    1) So what if the video was "insulting" him? If they were really "insulting" Thompson, then he got off very light considering that he’s called every gamer "Hilter Youth", "drug-addicted", etc.; compared the former head of the ESA to Saddam Hussein and Joesph Goebbels; compared the release of the PS2 to Pearl Harbor; and recently compared GTAIV to polio. Not to mention made fun of two people’s deaths and applauded when a voice actor on a video game was injured in a terrorist attack. He was given a taste of his own medicine as far as I’m concerned.

    2) What "perceived" "bias"? Everybody involved with ScrewAttack were essentially saying the same thing she was(be cordial to the guests or you get thrown out).

    The only claim of "bias" is that it’s a debate on video game issues by two personalities most associated with video games(one more well known than the other) at a video game convention hosted by a video game oriented site. Mark Methenitis, then, already has "home-field advantage". It’s like playing for the college football National Championship in Miami and playing against a team from Florida(or in New Orleans against LSU).

    The bottom line is Jacky Boy was whining over nothing. There was more bias on the vast majority of his TV appearances.

    To me, the debate won’t matter in the long run, especially it’s not being televised anywhere(If it were at E3 or P.A.X. or Comic-Con in San Diego, it’d be a much bigger deal) and especially considering that Thompson’s appearance on Penn & Teller: Bullshit! next Thursday will end up being the death knell to his infinitestimal credibility.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.


    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  19. Lost Question says:

    anyone else think they are humoring him and the main reason its back on track is because they pointed to the contract he signed

    seriously if i was planning a convention and got jt to debate id make him sign a contract barring him from his usual schenanigans (cancleing over something minor, showing up but then walking of stage when he’s asked a hardball question, and insulting the audence and leaveing when the react) i would not let jack get off with a we fly you over, you show at the con, we pay you deal

  20. Andrew Eisen says:

    Screw Attack did not cave to Thompson and pull the video.  It was voluntarily removed by the user who created it.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  21. Ashla says:

    He’s lucky to be getting anything other then an eviction notice, given that he has no employment and maybe a few hundread dollars a month in royalties from his book.

  22. jedidethfreak says:

    That was the main point of the video, but she used the whole video to verbally insult JT.  Now, you’d think that JT would be used to that by now, but he’s been in the driver’s seat since he agreed in the first place.  The video itself would probably have been fine, too, if it weren’t posted on SA’s website.  As I have mentioned earlier, SA having the video posted puts out a percieved bias against JT, which the host of a debate shouldn’t be doing.  As such, JT whined, as usual, and now SA has been doing damage control to keep this debate going.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  23. BearDogg-X says:

    For what it’s worth, Marzgurl posted in her forum on ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com(aka The Nostalgia Critic’s website) that she’ll talk about this after the convention ends.

    I didn’t see the video either, but I don’t see any need to apologize for just saying that everyone that’s going to the debate should be on their best behavior. It’s not her or ScrewAttack’s fault that Thompson wouldn’t know what ‘context’ means even if it landed on his face and started to wiggle.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.


    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  24. black manta says:

    I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.  On one hand, for once JT is locked into a debate with a qualified opponent and can’t wlech out of it at the eleventh hour like he’s done in the past.  On the other hand, I don’t think ScrewAttack should have bent over backwards to accomodate him.  But I’m guessing they must have paid their $2,000 in advance and are determined to get their money’s worth.  Still, if they think it means that much to them, they need to reevaluate their priorities.

    Unfortunately I didn’t get to see Marzgurl’s video before it was pulled, so I can’t make an informed opinion on it.  I can only say that if it was juvenile, well, JT really invites that on himself and shouldn’t be surprised.  If Fred Phelps were asked to speak at a gay event, he’d most likely provoke the same sort of response from those in the gay community.

    Like JDKJ, I wouldn’t be surprised if ScrewAttack pressured Marzgurl to issue some sort of apology, as she doesn’t seem to be the kind of person who would do so of her own accord.  And I’ll bet she typed it out while gritting her teeth all the while.  JT isn’t the kind of man who deserves any kind of apology whatsoever.  I’ve seen her other videos on Youtube, however, and I think she’s pretty cool, not to mention cute. (Marzgurl, if you’re reading this, I’m available.  If you ever visit the east coast, let’s hook up!)

  25. Magic says:

    You’re not wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Pulling

    I actually never heard of her – probably because I’m a Brit – so I guess she was the main source of the anti-D&D campaigns years ago, I just read about vague accusations of witchcraft and the occult (And that parody of what D&D is actually like that went around years ago) but … reading this, it’s unbelievable.

    As you said, the parallels to JT are amazing:
    – A delusional self-belief that X product directly causes (or caused) tragedy Y. Both feel they are the moral crusader who has to save America from it.
    – Generally extreme views and an association with conservative Christians.
    – At least several failed lawsuits.
    – An utter disregard for a balanced, rational view of the truth, with wild accusations, made-up facts and flawed percentages.
    – Ended up on talk shows along with someone in opposition (Though this may say more about the media).
     

    What a waste of everyone’s time by a bunch of moral pannicking, self-righteous chumps!

  26. olstar18 says:

    Its the same as when pullings got all that publicity when she was going after d&d. She claimed there was a threat and blamed it for the deaths of children much like jack is doing. Claimed it was a serious threat to our safety both directly and indirectly much like what jack is doing. Claimed that children were more vulnerable to the damaging effects and were drawn to it more than adults again much like what jack is doing. Pretty much just go back and look at the d&d controversy in the late 80s early 90s and you will find it is almost exactly the same.

  27. Ashton says:

    Man, I don’t get how someone as old as Thompson can behave in such an arrogant and juvenile method. Almost anybody who has or had a white collar job behaves much more amicably. Thompson’s bullshit just boggles my mind; I can’t even imagine acting like him to ANYONE.

  28. Evil Toothpick says:

    Fourthed, although i will not watch it since i believe Mr. Thomson should be seen, read about, but not heard

  29. sqlrob says:

    You forget something – Jackie boy signed something saying he wouldn’t attack T2. They have him on contractual grounds, not slander / libel.

     

  30. jedidethfreak says:

    Thirded!

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  31. jedidethfreak says:

    Totally agree with you there.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  32. Erik says:

    And make $2000 in the process.  Thereby allowing him to continue to exploit the dead for his own financial and political gain.  And on top of that with his irritating childish requests he is trying to get Screwattack to kowtow to him so that he can gain an upper hand on the debate.  And if they continue to allow him his every request no one will find out that he is a moronic fearmonger.  He is attempting to turn this into his personal soap box, and Screwattack seems to be allowing him.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  33. Adamas Draconis says:

    To paraphrase another line of that song:

    Its in the blood. It’s in the will. It’s in the mighty words of steel, Thats slapping you ’round. Your at your worst when the road gets rough. Your the ultimate fail but it’s never enough!

    Your Jack Thompson!

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  34. Adamas Draconis says:

     

    Wow my first blue out, I feel special now! But sure bro, no big.

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  35. Austin_Lewis says:

    Just to clear it up, 2000 dollars for a debate appearance is not a ‘hefty fee’.  That’s like what you pay to get two hindi actors who are barely understandable to debate at your convention.  Honestly, I know he won’t realize it, but that’s an insulting sum to be paid for a debate.  Most experts won’t go to a debate for less than 5000, MAYBE 4 with a good hotel room and some things comped (meals and drinks). 

    Still, if he doesn’t deliver, he can expect to lose more of the money he needs to ‘take down’ the florida bar.

  36. hellfire7885 says:

    I don’t think anyone’s sayng that it wasn’t the right thing, just that it was wrong to make such threats over it.


  37. olstar18 says:

    You should watch it if for no other reason than to have more material to make Thompson jokes. And don[‘t refer to him as mr. he doesn’t deserve that much respect.

  38. jedidethfreak says:

    No.  This debate needs to go forward.  It needs to be seen by as many people as possible.  This will allow all of the people in state and federal governments to see just how much of a retarded Charlatain he is, thereby killing any amount of repect anyone may still have for him.  It will also be used as a reason to not listen to any whackjob who tries to say gaming needs to be restricted "for the children."

     

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  39. jedidethfreak says:

    Whoever apologized, I say it’s the right thing, considering what we will finally get out of it.  I probably misread, or mistyped, or whatever.  I just think that getting JT to go to this debate is worth someone who said something funny to eat a little crow for a while, as it is cited as the only real reason that he threatened to back out.

     

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  40. jedidethfreak says:

    You got the touch….

    YOU GOT THE POWERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!

    I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist.

     

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  41. Erik says:

    They need to cancel the debate on the grounds of his utter ridculous, lie-ladden, and potentially libelous "suggested" intro.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  42. JDKJ says:

    "Can they sue?" is usually never a very good question, regardless of the circumstances, because the answer to it is invariably "Yes." Assuming they have the price of the filing fee, they – like anyone else with the price of admission – can always sue. The much better question is "Can they win?"

    If you’re suggesting defamation as a basis of suit, I’d say "No, they ain’t winning that one" for, primarily, the following two reasons:

    First, a defamation claim requires a false statement of fact. If Mr. Thompson were to state that his disbarment was caused by T2’s attorneys, I’m not sure that sort of statement would qualify as a statement of fact. There’s a good case to be made that it’s nothing more than Mr. Thompson’s opinion.

    Second, assuming it is a statement of fact and not one of opinion, a usually sound defense to a claim of defamation is that the alleged defamor had some reasonable basis to believe their statement was true (or, conversely put, that it wasn’t false). Because T2’s attorneys were among the complainants against Mr. Thompson in the action which ultimately resulted in his disbarment, if Mr. Thompson were to state that T2’s attorneys caused his disbarment, I’d think that the statement isn’t wholly without some basis for belief in its truthfulness. In a twisted and remote sense, T2’s attorneys did cause his disbarment.

    Of course, someone else may have an entirely different opinion on the likelihood of success. Don’t take my word for it.

  43. nightwng2000 says:

    JDKJ,

    IF John Bruce’s intro WERE used, could Take-Two take action against it?  After all, John Bruce repeatedly threatens to sue every time someone even makes a minor negative remark about him, just like his demand to have that post removed (First Amendment Expert?  More like Anti-US Constitutionalist).

    Now, they probably wouldn’t, but COULD they?

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  44. JDKJ says:

    Not to flame you at all but, rather, just to clarify what could be mistated facts, nothing in GP’s article suggests that ScrewAttack apologized to Jack Thompson. The reportage only states that the person who posted the video has now apologized to Thompson. Which is not to say that it’s impossible that ScrewAttack also offered its own apology to Thompson. Just that nothing in GP’s reportage suggests that possibility. 

  45. jedidethfreak says:

    Hey, I’m not on his side here, but since SA is sponsoring the event, IMO they should have been a little more mature about the goings on.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think the movie was fair game, and JT has no right to claim any moral high ground, but a debate is supposed to be sponsored by an impartial third party in the first place.  In the absence of such (as is this case) the third party should at least pretend to be impartial, and the video proves the partisanship of the host in this particular case.

     

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  46. HilaryDuffGta says:

    He’ll back out of it i’m sure of it,Seriously thought a 12 line intro or whatever it was.Yea right oh well its nice to see jack is still a moron

     

    some things never change

  47. hellfire7885 says:

    If you make inflamatory comments, expect inflamatory comments back. Simple as that.

    If Jack couldn’t control the fire he should never have started it.


  48. hellfire7885 says:

    Becausre his ego won’t allow for anything less than a short story of his accomplishments, backed by a power ballad.


  49. Adamas Draconis says:

    ***

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

    AE: I realize the comment was very tame but let’s leave the family out of it, okay?

  50. jedidethfreak says:

    I’m probably gonna get flamed for this, but I think it’s good that ScrewAttack apologized.  The video was meant for nothing other than inflamatory comments, and considering the connections they have to this debate, they should have anticipated this type of outcome.  We know how JT acts.  I think he shouldn’t be such a baby, but ScrewAttack was partially responsible for this because they allowed the video on their site.  As for the debate itself, does anyone know if anyone will be posting a decent quality video of it?  Will it be broadcast on G4 or something?  I really want to see it.

     

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  51. jedidethfreak says:

    I actually like that intro, as it’s factual and not inflamatory in any way, but it isn’t totally bowing to JT, so it probably wouldn’t be used.

     

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  52. BearDogg-X says:

    Thompson just continues to prove that he’s a whiny little crybaby who will take his ball and go home at every opportunity if he doesn’t get his way.

    I don’t see why Marzgurl(from ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com/Nostalgia Critic) had to apologize for posting a)a timeline of Thompson’s antics and rampant stupidity and b)simply telling everyone that’s going to be in attendance at the debate to be on their best behavior.

    Why should Thompson get a 12-line intro(you’re not Apollo Creed or Hulk Hogan, Thompson), when 1 or 2 lines would have actually sefficed(like mogbert posted, just say he’s a former attorney who resides in Coral Gables, Florida and has been and continues to be on forefront of pushing anti-video game legislation for over a decade)? It’s not like the convention’s being televised and it’s not like anybody that’s going to be at the convention has never heard of that walking popcorn fart before.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.


    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  53. Kincyr says:

    as lame as the video was, nobody seemed to pick up on the hypocrisy Jack showed about it:

    insult Jack, and he calls it childish
    when Jack insults in the same manner, he says "Jesus insulted the Pharisees"

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  54. hellfire7885 says:

    If it does happen odds are Thompson will have instigated it. He’ll keep making snide comments and thinly veiled insults until someone does something.


  55. Charax says:

    Look Jack, I know you’re not an attorney any more, but here’s how it works:

    You’re under contract.
    You’re being paid two grand.

    That means you show up to the event or you get your backside sued off. Those are the sum total of your options. You are exchanging your appearence for a hefty fee. You don’t get to make demands, you just show up, or you break your contract.

  56. Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    Well, in my opinion, this is not a real debate. It´s just a show. Jack Thompson just doesn´t know the meaning of debate. As I said before, he is used to go to shows and talk crap about games with people who just have a freaking idea about games are.

    He can´t take on Adam Sessler. He won´t do a thing against Methenitis. Methenitis is a rational person. Jack can´t even pronounce a sentence without a lie or even calling names on others.

    By the other hand, it´s gonna be on a videogames convention. The chances for a 15-years-old idiot starts to insulting Jack are pretty high; and then, he is gonna leave and claim "victory" (I CAN BET A KIDNEY THAT HE IS WAITING FOR THIS EXACT THING TO HAPPEN). I´d do it myself. I hate this guy. Many of us hate him for being a pathetic human being. We just want he to stop this.

    The bootom line is this debate is just a show and the only result is that Jack is gonna use it to inflate his wide-ass ego even futher.

    I´m totally agree with that Marz-Gurl: "keep your hot-air for yourselves" (the ones who will go to SGC)). If you start to act like a bunch of kids, Jack just is gonna walk away and claim it as a victory. Let him to get buried under the weight of his own trash when he is "debating" with Methenitis.

    The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com/

  57. JDKJ says:

    I’m disappointed but not at all surprised. I’d be surprised if pressure wasn’t exerted by the organizers of SGC on Marz to have Marz apologize. 

  58. mogbert says:

    He might as well just but in his intoduction that he won the debate and is geting double the money for it. Maybe that is his plan?

    Quite frankly, I would remove all matters of opinion from his introduction. There is no way in heck I would read outload that his disbarment was illegal. Next thing you know he will be trying to claim that his disbarment was recognized as illegal during an important legal debate.Quite frankly, unless it is in the contract, I would tell him he can either come up with his own two sentance introduction, or we could come up with one for him.

    "Jack Thompson is a former lawyer who hails from Miami, Florida. He is currently at the forefront in attepts to legally regulate the sales of video games."

    See, that wasn’t hard, and I wasn’t even insulting. Feel free to use that one if you want, no charge.

  59. jadedcritic says:

    Is it me or is it particularly arrogant to DEMAND that you be introduced in a certain fashion. I mean even if he felt it necessary to expand on his credentials, couldn’t he have the balls to do it himself?  One wonders if anyone attending such a debate wouldn’t know EXACTLY who he is.

    (smiles) Only Jack Thompson would have a problem with arrogance after taking the kind of intellectual beatdowns he has over the years.

    Wierdly, you have to give him credit. Somehow he’s managed to convince people to give him 2000 dollars to hear what he has to say.  I wouldn’t give him 20, much less 2000.  I might give him 2.  He is pretty funny.

  60. hellfire7885 says:

    THe initial two sentence intro was likely a novel too short for his ego to take.


  61. jccalhoun says:

    Anyone want to take a bet that Jacko’s intro also mentioned being on 60 Minutes and predicting Columbine?

     

    I finally watched the video and it is incredibly lame.  They just call Thompson a "butt" a bunch of times.  They don’t even call him an ass or any other stronger word.

     

    http://www.popularculturegaming.com

  62. hellfire7885 says:

    They better be prepared to edit the hell out of the novel he’ll submit, and prepared for more demands, as well as demands ot have peopel who dare disagree with him removed.


  63. DarkSaber says:

    Isn’t this the same debate he said he had better things to do than participate in?

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  64. HarmlessBunny says:

    Awwwww I missed Captain Jack’s antics of stupidity? How is the old disbarred basket case doing? 😛 Still believe his sanity is waning more and more each day…

    I see he tried a full out attack in the article. I really wish Marzgirl didn’t have to "apologize" to him. However whatever gets this back on track so he can be trashed in the debate this weekend by a logical and sane individual…I am all for it!

  65. Flamespeak says:

    I wouldn’t count on SGC beating him. As much as I dislike Jack Thompson’s tactics, the man has proven time and time again that this kind of thing is HIS arena.  I fear a debate will do little besides make him get more notarity again. He will, of course, use blatant lies and come off as being egotistical and pompous, but he will also tear up the compeition because he is such a tenacious debator.

    It would be best to just realize that he is no longer of any threat and is no more than an average joe complaining about ‘evil video games’ and let him drift off into the horizon to be forgotten like a bad dream or uncomfortable bowl movement.

  66. TK n Happy Ness says:

    SGC would kick ass either way. Besides, why should the guy who posted that video have to apologize? It’s a free internet, and people can choose to do what they want.

    When Jack Thompson runs his mouth, does anyone really care what he has to say anymore?

  67. Ashkihyena says:

    Watch out, if you did, he’d sue you for harassment just like he attempted to sue those people for sending him flowers.

  68. JDKJ says:

    I’ll admit it’s not the most tasteful analogy I’ve ever come up with and looking back at it does make me cringe just a little bit. But, in my own defense, it’s a damn sight more tasteful than what my first impulse suggested was an appropriate description for what EZK describes, perhaps more tastefully but certainly less accurately, as ScrewAttack "humoring" Jack Thompson.

  69. Andrew Eisen says:

    "You can call it that, if you want to call it that. You can also surmise that if my freak show centered around The Man with the Four Foot Penis who, on the eve of opening night, was suddenly refusing to unfurl his penis, I’d be "humoring" him, too."

    I agree.  It’s in everyone’s best interest to make sure the JT debate goes on as planned.  It’s a headline event for SGC and something a lot of people are looking forward to (possibly the main reason several are going).  I’m sure Screw Attack’s first impulse is to give Thompson the finger but they’d have a lot of vexed G1s if they didn’t get the debate back on track.

    Needless to say, displeasing the attendees of your first convention is something to avoid if you ever plan to hold another.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  70. JDKJ says:

    That’s only because I’m not a show-off. My penis has not one but two feet and can tap dance circles around Savion Glover.

  71. DarkSaber says:

    If he needs something to use for leverage, yes. Might be a bit hard to achieve arousal if, say, it’s a horrific car carsh and a car needs to be lifted off a body. I’d be rather worried as to WHY he got one in that case.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  72. Yuuri says:

    Never seen a penis that even had 1 foot, let alone 4… Why would it even need a foot? To take itself for walks or sumthing? 😛

  73. DarkSaber says:

    Couldn’t he just get an erection? That’d be one hell of a lever.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  74. JDKJ says:

    Because The Man with the Four Foot Penis so loves to unfurl his penis in public that the only reason he’d be refusing to unfurl his penis was to gain some sort of leverage.

  75. DarkSaber says:

    How can you humour him if he’s not making any demands? Did you read his mind?

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  76. JDKJ says:

    You can call it that, if you want to call it that. You can also surmise that if my freak show centered around The Man with the Four Foot Penis who, on the eve of opening night, was suddenly refusing to unfurl his penis, I’d be "humoring" him, too.

  77. Adrian Lopez says:

    "I have never been introduced with 1 or 2 sentences. Nobody can be introduced in that fashion…"

    Really, Jack? I could introduce you with a single word.

  78. JustChris says:

    Oh, when people complain that news anchors call him "video game expert" or "school shooting expert" when he appears for interviews. That’s one of my pet peeves. Anchors don’t necessarily belive these descriptions are true- they are likely proposed indroductions from Thompson himself.

    GameSnooper

  79. GoodRobotUs says:

    Next, Thompson e-mailed Skistimas a "proposed text" to be used as his introduction at the debate. The 12-sentence intro mentioned his 2008 lifetime disbarment very briefly, blaming it on "lawyers for Take-Two, the makers of the Grand Theft Auto games."

    I thought it was ‘all part of the plan’? That’s pretty funny though, I’m sure Jack’s harassment and stalking, which continue to this day, were larger factors…

  80. MaskedPixelante says:

    Maybe we should send him a gift. Like a DS and the Ace Attorney games.

    —You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

  81. 1AgainstTheWorld says:

    "he objected to a one- or two-line introduction…"

    "he objected to a user-created parody video…"

    Jack seems to be raising more objections now than when he was an attorney.

  82. Cerabret100 says:

    The 12-sentence intro mentioned his 2008 lifetime disbarment very briefly, referring to it as "illegal" and blaming the loss of his law license on "lawyers for Take-Two, the makers of the Grand Theft Auto games."

     

    What does that have to do with his stance, and the point of the debate? i say  it should not be used as that’s just him trying to get an off topic jab at uninvolved parties.

  83. sqlrob says:

    I won’t consider it back on until Jacko is in the seat and the debate has started. Too much weaseling has happened.

  84. JDKJ says:

    "Jack and I will work together to find an intro that fits both his needs and the time format of the debate at SGC."

    Hey, Craig, while you and Jack work out that introduction, how about you include "accuracy" as one of your objectives? Because for you to allow him to describe his disbarment as "illegal" would evidence a profound disregard for Truth. That Thompson has no regard for Truth has been a long-known and well-established fact. But there’s no good reason for you to now acquire a similar reputation. No matter how much you think Thompson’s appearance will drive your ticket sales.

  85. mdo7 says:

    mikedo2007

    So Jack is going to debate uh.  I guess our mockery on GP must have motivated him to go back to debate again.  Well, time to see Jack fail, AGAIN!!!

Comments are closed.