Submitted by John - November 27, 2006 at 9:15 am -0500138.78.141.9
Mom:"I never know what kind of video game to get him. He knows more about the video games then we do, so it’s kind of difficult to get one that is safe for him to play."
Translated: " I am out of touch with what my child enjoys. He plays them more than I do but I am too lazy to get online and read something that could help me decide which games are ok, so I will blame someone else."
Really, any of these surveys are absurd. Essentially what these parents are admitting to is either bad parenting or illiteracy. Even the front of the box: Grand Theft Auto, Manhunt, Bully, Hitman: blood money all contain words in the title alone that should tip parents off on what the game is about. A quick flip across the back and you can see what it is about, and why it was rated. Still concerned.. www.google.com, BAM everything you want to know. If after all of this you will still buy a game named after a felony for a child, then anything that follows is YOUR fault.
The parent has every resource available to aid in making an educated purchase, but chose to ignore them. Sure an argument can be made about not having time in todays workworld to sit down and do this. If the parent can honestly say they have no time, ie works 2 work shifts and comes home to sleep, then yes there is a problem. But that problem is of a social and economic nature. However most of these parents who "Have no time" watch TV several hours a day, surf the web, or do something for themselves. If they took 5 minutes a day to read up on their child's habits, game ratings would be a non-issue.
I could be totally wrong and the other possibility of all these parents being illiterate could be the case. If this is true...yeah you're kinna boned
Posted 07/24/08 at 07:39am sortableturnip: Best...comments...ever: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/07/06/jack-needs-your-help.aspx?pg=5&view=threaded
Posted 07/24/08 at 05:42am sortableturnip: Alteffor: I 2nd that motion. GP you should have a special section for all of JT's correspondence to you
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:13pm GRIZZAM PRIME: Lunatic: Nope. Ever fading if I'm not mistaken.
Posted 07/23/08 at 08:05pm LuNaTiC: is there a way to view old shouts? sorry if its a noob question.
Posted 07/23/08 at 07:07pm gamepolitics: momma didn't raise no sock puppet
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:15pm Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Jack is a repressed man. Don´t be surprised...
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:07pm GryphonOsiris: So Jack admitted paying for gay porn... all I can say is wow... just wow...
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm lumi: to the case, and he's been on 60 minutes once!
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm lumi: GP, you should mention you'll be filing a legal injunction against him if he doesn't comply. Phoenix Wright will be attached
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:32pm Alteffor: You should add a section to the site for anything Jack CC's to you. It's always entertaining to read the stuff he writes.
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:31pm Matriculated: Does anyone know when the Supreme Court reaches their decission?
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:04pm Freyar: I demand to see this letter! (Not that I have any grounds to demand on.)
Posted 07/23/08 at 02:53pm gamepolitics: JT called me a "sock puppet" in an e-mail to Hal Halpin... i gave him 24 hours to retract it, LOL
Posted 07/23/08 at 02:46pm Haggard: Might want to take a look at what Anthony Horowitz wrote about GTA IV in the Telegraph, article seems to have been taken down
Posted 07/23/08 at 01:05pm Silencets: Beutiful. I always did wonder about Jacko Wacko
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:24am Matriculated: So Jack (an anti-gay activist) PAYED for gay porn
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:22am Matriculated: [i]...and purchased membership.[/i]
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:21am Matriculated: [i] few months later, as part of his ongoing campaign against Kent, Thompson followed links to gay porn on Kent's website[/i]
Posted 07/23/08 at 07:40am sortableturnip: Jack's at it again: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2008/07/jack_thompson_faces_permanent.php
Posted 07/22/08 at 11:22pm PHOENIXZERO: Ugh, that CNBC program "Play to Win" is it? Is on again...
Translated: " I am out of touch with what my child enjoys. He plays them more than I do but I am too lazy to get online and read something that could help me decide which games are ok, so I will blame someone else."
Really, any of these surveys are absurd. Essentially what these parents are admitting to is either bad parenting or illiteracy. Even the front of the box: Grand Theft Auto, Manhunt, Bully, Hitman: blood money all contain words in the title alone that should tip parents off on what the game is about. A quick flip across the back and you can see what it is about, and why it was rated. Still concerned.. www.google.com, BAM everything you want to know. If after all of this you will still buy a game named after a felony for a child, then anything that follows is YOUR fault.
The parent has every resource available to aid in making an educated purchase, but chose to ignore them. Sure an argument can be made about not having time in todays workworld to sit down and do this. If the parent can honestly say they have no time, ie works 2 work shifts and comes home to sleep, then yes there is a problem. But that problem is of a social and economic nature. However most of these parents who "Have no time" watch TV several hours a day, surf the web, or do something for themselves. If they took 5 minutes a day to read up on their child's habits, game ratings would be a non-issue.
I could be totally wrong and the other possibility of all these parents being illiterate could be the case. If this is true...yeah you're kinna boned