Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jack Thompson Responds to Take Two Suit

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the nothing-good-can-come-from-this dept.

Games 131

interactive_civilian writes "Jack Thompson has personally replied to ArsTechnica regarding their coverage of the lawsuit from TakeTwo. Really, it's best for Jack to speak for himself: 'I have been praying, literally, that Take-Two and its lawyers would do something so stupid, so arrogant, so dumb, even dumber than what they have to date done, that such a misstep would enable me to destroy Take-Two. With the filing of this SLAPP lawsuit last week, my prayers are finally answered. This lawsuit, filed in US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, is, without a doubt, the single dumbest thing I have ever seen any lawyers do in my thirty years of practicing law--while in continuous good standing to do so with The Florida Bar, I might add, the shock radio and video game industry's efforts notwithstanding.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No truth to rumors (2, Funny)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403529)

There is NO truth to the rumors that Jack will star in Saw IV.

Re:No truth to rumors (1)

BSAtHome (455370) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403601)

I think he could star as the comic relief at some stage though...

Re:No truth to rumors (3, Funny)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18406775)

I can hear it now...

  • "Hello Jack. I want to play a game. For more than a decade you've seen yourself as a moral crusader. You've attempted to dictate to others what music they should listen to and what video games they should play because of your own sense of ethics. Today is different. You are now chained to a chair with one pound of dynamite placed directly beneath your scrotum. This dynamite will explode in ten minutes. In front of you is a PC with the game Grand Theft Auto:San Andreas with the Hot Coffee mod. If you can guide CJ to all 50 oysters, and have sexually satisfy two of his girlfriends, your restraints will open. Can you put aside your closed-minded prejudice long enough to save yourself? The game has begun."


LK

Re:No truth to rumors (3, Insightful)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 7 years ago | (#18406833)

IMHO there is a huge difference between morals and ethics. Mr. Thompson and his actions are the perfect illustration of this phenomenon.

Re:No truth to rumors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18407301)

You're assuming he HAS a scrotum, right? Otherwise, right on.

Lawyers praying? (1)

Gertlex (722812) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403537)

Stupid? Well quite high up there is Jack, a lawyer, praying. The man should have a bit of faith in his lawyer skillz ;D.

Re:Lawyers praying? (3, Funny)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404609)

The fact that Jack isn't in jail yet is a testament to his 1337 pr4y3r $k!112. Of course just who he's praying to is a matter of some debate...

WTF? (1)

Vengeance (46019) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403539)

I would ask if the man was mentally unhinged, but that's been obvious for a while. I wonder though, what he means by 'gone on March 23'?

Re:WTF? (4, Interesting)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403649)

He's convinced that he has engineered some sort of coup for the next shareholders meeting, namely, that a majority of the shareholders will vote to fire all of the executives.

If this "coup" does happen, it's doubtful we'd hear the end of it from Mr. Thompson, even if every last shareholder is quoted as saying "we booted the CEO over the options scandal, and have no idea who this Jack guy is".

Re:WTF? (3, Funny)

GiovanniZero (1006365) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404509)

We can't allow that to happen, not because Take Two needs to stay the way it is but because Jack Thompson will never shut up.

Won't someone think of the children!?

Re:WTF? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18406737)

But he has a certificate stating that he is sane!

Define Good Standing (1)

dctoastman (995251) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403553)

Didn't the Florida Bar Association try to get him disbarred for his conduct?

Re:Define Good Standing (5, Informative)

spribyl (175893) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403611)

According to this it was Alabama not Florida.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051122-5613 .html [arstechnica.com]

In Florida they are still working on it. Though, I don't think his status is still good standing.
http://gamepolitics.com/2007/02/03/jack-thompson-f aces-florida-bar-disciplinary-hearing/ [gamepolitics.com]

Re:Define Good Standing (3, Interesting)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18405813)

Alabama hasn't disbarred him -- yet (he's not even licensed in Alabama). He got his pro hac vice status revoked on one case, along with 18 pages of blistering rebuke from the judge, an order to attach it to any further applications to practice in AL, a threat of contempt, and a referral to the Alabama bar's disciplinary committee.

Thompson, in Classic Jack Style, filed his own ethics complaint against the judge. I think hearings are still pending. This was in 2005. I think Florida might be through with him before Alabama even gets to him, or it's possible that AL is just waiting, since if he's disbarred in Florida and has no other practice, the Alabama issue will be somewhat moot.

Re:Define Good Standing (5, Informative)

bockelboy (824282) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403687)

Yup. Here's a good quote from wikipedia:

In February 2007, the Florida Bar filed disbarment proceedings against Thompson over allegations of professional misconduct. The action was the result of separate grievances filed by people claiming that Thompson made defamatory, false statements and attempted to humiliate, embarrass, harass or intimidate them.
Thompson also sued the state bar in April 2006. After a few press releases, he dropped the suit in May 2006. For the most part this is how his cases go. There are a few big releases about "SUEING TAKE-TWO FOR $234 million," then the case is dropped within a month or two.

Also of note is that he did a similar campaign against Janet Reno. Yes, that Janet Reno. From wikipedia:

Thompson gave Reno a letter at a campaign event requesting that she check a box to indicate whether she was homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Thompson said that Reno then put her hand on his shoulder and responded, "I'm only interested in virile men. That's why I'm not attracted to you." He filed a police report accusing her of battery for touching him.
Even more:

In 1990, after his election loss, Thompson began a campaign against the efforts of Switchboard of Miami, a social services group of which Reno was a board member. Thompson charged that the group placed "homosexual-education tapes" in public schools. Switchboard responded by getting the Florida Supreme Court to order that he submit to a psychiatric examination. Thompson did so and passed, and since then has stated on more than one occasion that he is "the only officially certified sane lawyer in the entire state of Florida."
Yup - his antics are so ridiculous that they made him take a sanity test.

Re:Define Good Standing (4, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404151)

Yup - his antics are so ridiculous that they made him take a sanity test.

Yeah, and the psychiatric profession is still reeling from the blow to the credibility of their sanity test. They continue to look for the solution to what they call "The Thompson Erroneous Sane Diagnosis Anomaly" or just "The Thompson Anomaly".

Re:Define Good Standing (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404321)

Thompson gave Reno a letter at a campaign event requesting that she check a box to indicate whether she was homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Thompson said that Reno then put her hand on his shoulder and responded, "I'm only interested in virile men. That's why I'm not attracted to you." He filed a police report accusing her of battery for touching him. My respect for Janet Reno just increased exponentially. Not because she disliked Jack, but for her quick wit.

Re:Define Good Standing (1)

Agripa (139780) | more than 7 years ago | (#18406259)

I am so used to hating her that I am taken aback by her reported statement.

Re:Define Good Standing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18406695)

Also of note is that he did a similar campaign against Janet Reno. Yes, that Janet Reno. From wikipedia:

        Thompson gave Reno a letter at a campaign event requesting that she check a box to indicate whether she was homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual.
"Do you like me: Yes, No, Maybe."

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:Define Good Standing (1)

Workaphobia (931620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18409049)

Careful when you argue against Jackson using Wikipeida. The last time I checked that article, it was one of Wiki's worst in terms of apparent reliability - the bias was so overpowering I felt like the wind was knocked out of me. Although that may have been from laughing.

Anyway, remember to use a better source when explaining to your friends and family why Everyone Hates Jack Thompson.

Is this a man or a foil? (4, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403565)

At this point, I have to ask: Is Jack Thomson a real crazy person, or is he some cleverly created foil? The man acts like a fictional villain, trying to transparently conflate religion and his own fevered obsessions, and then trying to say that this gives him legal justification for his own insanity, insisting that the fact that he hasn't been completely stopped yet is proof.

I do understand that people really can be this crazy, and worse, but there just seems to be an air of even more blatant unreality at this point in his insanity.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Is this a man or a foil? (0, Offtopic)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403679)

SCO would do [slashdot.org] well [slashdot.org] to add [slashdot.org] him [slashdot.org] to their crack [slashdot.org] legal [slashdot.org] team [slashdot.org] .

Re:Is this a man or a foil? (3, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403715)

Vell, Jack Thompson's just this guy, you know?

Re:Is this a man or a foil? (1)

benfinkel (1048566) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403771)

I agree completely.

In fact, I'd like to explore the theory that Jack is actually on some under-the-table payroll of Take-Two and other video game publishers. His job? Act like a total asshat thus doing immeasurable damage to the true "anti-gaming" policy pushers out there.

Sounds reasonable to me...

Re:Is this a man or a foil? (1)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403813)

Fictional villain is a good analogy. He does seem to have such strange reactions and statements that show a persistent lack of reality. The March 23rd thing seems to be some weird prophecy that has no bearing on any announced events (as far as I can see)

I don't know about you but like many evil super-villains, I am beginning to like him. Or maybe it's because I am British.

Re:Is this a man or a foil? (1)

Phisbut (761268) | more than 7 years ago | (#18408885)

The March 23rd thing seems to be some weird prophecy that has no bearing on any announced events (as far as I can see)

March 23rd is quite real [cnn.com] . However, Jack has nothing to do with anything that might happen on that day.

Re:Is this a man or a foil? (5, Funny)

SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404617)

Is Jack Thomson a real crazy person, or is he some cleverly created foil?
He has a Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] entry, so he must be real. Right.....????

Also, while I was on Wikipedia, I found out that Sinbad had died.

This just in: Sinbad is still alive (1)

beer_maker (263112) | more than 7 years ago | (#18405721)

It seems that some Wikivandalism was done, but has now been corrected - Sinbad the comic is alive and well. He had some unkind words for the vandal, but took it in good stride from their account.

Is this man really... (1)

robcfg (1005359) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403583)

so stupid as he seems or is this a kind of joke? I mean, religion has nothing to do with laws. If it were so we would find ourselves still in the dark ages. So what's exactly Jack Thomson looking for? Publicity? I find pretty funny that this man uses the Bible as example because I remember that no man should judge his brother, only God can do it. So... yeah... Is Jack Thomson proclaiming he's God and has the right to judge? This is pretty absurd...

Re:Is this man really... (1)

markbt73 (1032962) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404435)

To the very very religious, everything involves God. He's not saying he is god, but I'm positive that he actually believes he is acting in His name.

Re:Is this man really... (2, Insightful)

MeanderingMind (884641) | more than 7 years ago | (#18405673)

It's basically another case where instead of following God, he thinks God follows him. It's certainly true that Christians are supposed to live every moment working God's will and purpose, but many appear to assume that means that everything they do is God's will and purpose. It's an easy, if fallacious, assumption.

Re:Is this man really... (2, Interesting)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 7 years ago | (#18406911)

A Joystiq user decided to talk to JT about Jesus. Here's his comment from Joystiq [joystiq.com] :

112. I sent him an email last night about how Jesus didn't preach destruction of one's enemies. This is the response I got:

"Actually, He is coming back to judge and to destroy. Learn your Bible, goofball"

Anyone surprised in the least?

Hoax? (4, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403605)

Everybody knows Jack is a nut and all, but this smells like a hoax to me. The language doesn't feel right for a lawyer (even a crazy one) and I don't see the point of him sending a letter like this. However, if it turns out to be true then Jack has really gone off of the deep end.

Re:Hoax? (2, Interesting)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403729)

The language doesn't feel right for a lawyer (even a crazy one) and I don't see the point of him sending a letter like this.
Have you ever read any of his other letters?

Honestly it's amazing the man even has a law degree. I seriously wonder if it was found in a cracker jack box.

Re:Hoax? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18403835)

The language is perfectly fitting with his character. He frequently writes letters like that, and I've actually heard clips from him before. This is 100% Jack Thompson. He's not just a nut because of his viewpoints... he's frequently called a nut precisely for things like this.

Re:Hoax? (2, Funny)

brunascle (994197) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403845)

The language doesn't feel right for a lawyer
i agree. as i read it, in my head i'm replying "so's your face"

Re:Hoax? (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404103)

However, if it turns out to be true then Jack has really gone off of the deep end.


Jack has not only gone off the deep end quite some time ago, he has spent years paddling around in it. It would seem the deep end is his element. What you're seeing here is simply Jack doing his usual backstroke while humming the theme to Jaws.

Re:Hoax? (1)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 7 years ago | (#18406665)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this letter is not genuine. Even JT knows that "God Himself" didn't write any of the Psalms. The Psalms of David are written by, get this, DAVID.

Good standing? (2, Insightful)

Chr0me (180627) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403643)

How does having the Florida Bar investigate you for ethical violations and filing disbarment procedures constitute "good standing?"

Re:Good standing? (5, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403827)

You're in "good standing" until your license is revoked. Sometimes it seems like a lawyer's primary skill is to lie by telling the truth. When he says that, he is technically telling the truth, but through the language he uses (which is absolutely technically accurate) he makes it seem like the bar is supporting him completely, which is of course the diametric opposite of the truth. English is a really great language for lawyers because every word tends to have a whole pile of meanings.

Re:Good standing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18404525)

That's because lawyers HAVE to tell the truth. If a lawyer consciously LIES in court, the repercussions can be fairly dire.

That's why lawyers are so good at finding ways to technically speak the truth while still hiding unfavorable facts.

A usual example is where a lawyer honestly states that his client only has $50,000 to his name, when the night before that same client put $5 million into a trust with his only son as the recipient. Yes, the guy only has $50,000, but it definitely doesn't give the whole story.

Re:Good standing? (3, Insightful)

MyOtherUIDis3digits (926429) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404799)

Sometimes it seems like a lawyer's primary skill is to lie by telling the truth.

As Shakespeare wrote in "The Merchant of Venice", "The devil can site scripture for his purpose."

Re:Good standing? (1)

demon (1039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404869)

I think that would fall in the category of "lying by omission" - strictly he's telling the truth, except for leaving out the really telling bits.

Re:Good standing? (4, Informative)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404989)

Good Standing is actually a technical term for professionals, as a lawyer it has a specific meaning:
  • He has a certified law degree.
  • He has passed the State Bar Exam.
  • he has paid his annual dues.
  • He has not been expelled or suspended from the State Bar.
That's it. Once you are in, you are in Good Standing unless you loose your license or forget to pay your dues & allow it to lapse. So like Jack, you can be in the process of being disbarred for baritry while at the same time legitimately claim to be in good standard.

Re:Good standing? (1)

demon (1039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18405015)

Yes, exactly - he can say "I'm in good standing with the Florida Bar Association!" - while leaving off the "for now", which really should be tacked on there.

amazing (1)

3.1415926535898 (969600) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403661)

This dude is of his rocker.... I mean completely insane.

Re:amazing (1)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403927)

OF rocker? I guess it would make sense that this guy is somehow the love child of John Rocker [wikipedia.org]

Something good can definitely come from this (4, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403689)

The "nothing-good-can-come-from-this" department?

We've already gotten something good from it: twenty-four karat comedy gold!

God's Legal Team (2, Funny)

CompMD (522020) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403745)

If only Jack would join forces with Fred Phelps, we'd have the ultimate legal team for all that is moral and right in this world.

In all seriousness, I think Jack should move to Topeka with Fred. With the two of them together, I think we can justify the use of nuclear weapons on American citizens. Just two of them. It would so be worth it.

Re:God's Legal Team (1)

LoveGoblin (972821) | more than 7 years ago | (#18408703)

In all seriousness, I think Jack should move to Topeka with Fred. With the two of them together, I think we can justify the use of nuclear weapons on American citizens. Just two of them.

It's the only way to be sure.

Re:God's Legal Team (1)

spiderbitendeath (577712) | more than 7 years ago | (#18409247)

I'm all for it.

Just say he's an enemy combatant, makes it legal.

Wow.. I mean... wow (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403757)

That has to be a hoax.

There's no way the guy could have written that. A lawyer wrote that? A vague bunch of threats and insults insinuating he's going to do something next week?

Huh?

Well, if it is him, he sure is losing a lot of credibility. We used to worry about the exposure he got, now I'm finding more and more non-gamers have heard of Jack Thompson - the far right looney toon who sues to stop them from making video games.

Re:Wow.. I mean... wow (1)

Attrition_cp (888039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403909)

As another poster pointed out, all of his letters are written like that. He could fit into a 16-year old console fanboy flame thread.

Look up some of his other letters for mental agony.

Re:Wow.. I mean... wow (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404013)

Well, if it is him, he sure is losing a lot of credibility.
He had credibility?

Pot, kettle...kettle. pot (3, Interesting)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403767)

"This lawsuit, filed in US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, is, without a doubt, the single dumbest thing I have ever seen any lawyers do in my thirty years of practicing law."

Apparently he's never taken a good close look at the lawsuits he's filed against Take Two or the laws he's helped write - which, by the way, have all been subsequently rejected on constitutional grounds. Part of me hopes he gets disbarred but that might be the only thing that's helped keep him in check (well reasonably in check compared to what he could possibly do without the fear of being disbarred - run for office for instance).

Re:Pot, kettle...kettle. pot (2)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404455)

Attempts to deflect the truth is a fairly common with his type. It's always convenient to say "they are the a-holes for doing x, y and z" all the while doing x, y, and z in a greater magnitude. The proverb of plank in your own eye vs. speck in someone else's eye still holds true.

What kind of response is that? (1)

AbsoluteXyro (1048620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403829)

Does JT think he is intimidating? He is like a thirteen year old with a brand new thesaurus. His response boils down to "No ur dum."

Bible? (2, Interesting)

Vaibhav_Locke (1010373) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403857)

He ... he quotes the Bible. Why is he quoting the bible? I mean ... if the Almighty God has sent Jack down to save us from the heathens, personally I think we're fucked I think the fact that jack seems to completely ignore games such as God of War (Which has the same rating as GTA, is MUCH more violent and has a much higher quality of nudity than the super secret unlockable) proves he doesnt really care about protecting the innocent children, take two was in the news a lot so going after them is big publicity. If theres no public outcry over god of war, theres no news coverage to be had from filing suit against them.

Re:Bible? (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404049)

> jack seems to completely ignore games such as God of War

Nothing more than a rather bland form letter at any rate: http://www.jackthompson.org/archives/index.htm#06_ 08_05_01 [jackthompson.org]

Aside from his odd little rant at the Maxis Porn Simulator (aka The Sims 2), Jack's videogaming bete noir has consistently been Rockstar Games, transferred to Take-Two at large. Before that it was 2 Live Crew (yes, he was behind the campaign of hounding them)

Re:Bible? (1)

Vaibhav_Locke (1010373) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404187)

Hah I didnt even know that. But then this gem pops up:

I wish to thank you for your call that the FTC investigate Take-Two Interactive in the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas "Hot Coffee" scandal, specifically as to whether Take-Two lied.

Hold on, waita minute, back it up. What does the FTC have to do with video game standards and protecting the children (o wont you please think of the children). I thought Take two was being investigated for backdating stock options

Re:Bible? (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404219)

The FTC investigates false and misleading advertising claims. And it's the SEC that is after companies for the stock options thing. Take Two is not entirely well-managed, but Rockstar's a property that is rather unlikely to go down with the ship.

Re:Bible? (1)

Vaibhav_Locke (1010373) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404301)

I see that now. Sorry I dont know much about federal agencies (not surprising, im from india). I have my criticisms for the FTC suit as well (link to the pdf complaint filed: http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0523158/0523158c416 2TakeTwoInteractiveandRockstarComplaint.pdf [ftc.gov] ) but wont bring them up here because the arguments been done to death

Re:Bible? (1)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404137)


He ... he quotes the Bible. Why is he quoting the bible?

Because he's a delusional kook who thinks he's working for an invisible super-being. Letters such as his give a lot of insight into his mental state.

Re:Bible? (1)

lmnfrs (829146) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404163)

God of War has a more sophisticated storyline, rooted in ancient history and full of references to ancient times. Because of this, its audience tends to be older or more knowledgeable than that of the GTA games, which are played by everyone.
In other words, he's just attacking what's popular and known enough that non-gamers have heard of it. That way he will get more air time and print coverage, which will lead to the misguided anger of the weirdos in religious and activist groups. That's all he's really about.. Just another weirdo trying to impose (not-in-touch-with-reality) views on poor helpless innocents (normal people).

March 23, 2007 (1)

Slashdot Parent (995749) | more than 7 years ago | (#18403867)

From TFA:

The pit Take-Two has dug for itself will be patently clear next week when I strike back. Oh, and by the way, the entire Take-Two management and board will be gone on March 23, so this pit-digging comes at a very bad time indeed.
You heard it here first. On March 23, 2007, the entire Take-Two management and board will be gone.

Guess we'll just have to wait until Friday. I'm not holding my breath.

Re:March 23, 2007 (4, Informative)

Vaibhav_Locke (1010373) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404025)

Actually he's referring to the fact that the CEO will be resigning, idk any details but the investors have decided to take over the board, mainly because of all the bad publicity they have been receiving (thanks in no small part to jacky). The CEO however was convicted of backdating stock options, something that has nothing to do with Jack or the video game industry at all.

Re:March 23, 2007 (1)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404191)

If he kills them.. we are stupid for not seeing it coming.

Well.. I guess I'm now going to be stupid if he dosen't try to kill them.. but.. whatever :).

-GiH

Re:March 23, 2007 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18406671)

That's right, on March 23, the entire Take Two management and board will be gone....TAKEN BY THE RAPTURE!

Jack sure will be surprised when his prediction comes true, and he's stuck here with all us other sinners to suffer the torment of the Tribulation. How ironic.

WOW! (2, Funny)

sanjacguy (908392) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404019)

Jack Thompson's letter closes with

Amen, and Praise be to God Almighty, maker of Heaven, Earth, and yes, the maker even video games. Jack Thompson

OMG, I'm like the most religious person ever with my raiding guild! Quick! To Blackwing Lair! For Justice! For Freedom! For Jesus!

Man, I couldn't even TYPE that with a straight face!

Re:WOW! (4, Funny)

MeanderingMind (884641) | more than 7 years ago | (#18405817)

All I want to know is, how did Jesus manage to keep from releasing his spirit for 3 days without being in an instance? He couldn't have used a soulstone otherwise.

But then he did say, "Into your hands I commit my spirit", which would indicate he instantly released. If that's the case, I guess the corpse run was just a really long one. Having them move the body into a sealed tomb probably didn't help, although he might have been in range to rez outside.

I'm sorry God, don't smite me. I haven't hit level 60 yet!

Don Quixote (5, Funny)

Vaibhav_Locke (1010373) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404067)

I me15ter on the ars discussion puts it best, so i quote his quote here:

In short, his wits being quite gone, he hit upon the strangest notion that ever madman in this world hit upon, and that was that he fancied it was right and requisite, as well for the support of his own honour as for the service of his country, that he should make a knight-errant of himself, roaming the world over in full armour and on horseback in quest of adventures, and putting in practice himself all that he had read of as being the usual practices of knights-errant; righting every kind of wrong, and exposing himself to peril and danger from which, in the issue, he was to reap eternal renown and fame. -Don Quixote

Written by God? (2, Informative)

n9uxu8 (729360) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404195)

Didn't David write the psalms? You know...singing and praying to God? You'd think he could at least get that right...

Re:Written by God? (2, Funny)

Vaibhav_Locke (1010373) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404335)

Please, ever word in the Bible is the unfiltered word of God himself, clearly untouched by over two thousand years of interpretation, translation and additions

Re:Written by God? (1)

IMarvinTPA (104941) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404587)

You forgot the omissions. A few of the translations skipped bits of it too.

IMarv

Re:Written by God? (4, Funny)

Vaibhav_Locke (1010373) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404663)

I omitted them

Re:Written by God? (1)

the_greywolf (311406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18405387)

He's a Fundie. God wrote it all with His own unerring hand.

(Every other, more realistic, Christian is able to admit that the Bible was written by at least 70 different authors, all of whom are thought to have written everything down in more limited roles as God's messengers. This just proves Jack's off his nut in more ways than one.)

Re:Written by God? (1)

PinkPanther (42194) | more than 7 years ago | (#18405925)

God wrote it all with His own unerring hand.

And in the King's English, no less!!

Re:Written by God? (1)

n9uxu8 (729360) | more than 7 years ago | (#18406243)

But seriously, fundie or no, the psalms are David's prayer's to God (or several folks prayers depending upon your tradition). They are defined by the fact that they are the human response to God and therein lies their beauty...all of which is neither here nor there, I 'spose.

In continuous good standing with the Florida Bar? (4, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404263)

This lawsuit, filed in US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, is, without a doubt, the single dumbest thing I have ever seen any lawyers do in my thirty years of practicing law--while in continuous good standing to do so with The Florida Bar, I might add, the shock radio and video game industry's efforts notwithstanding.

Would that be the same Florida Bar that he has sued (unsuccessfully) twice, which he alleges is unconstitutional, engaged in a vendetta against him, and is made up of criminal racketeers? The Florida Bar that is in the process of disbarring him?

I guess his idea of "continuous good standing" and mine differ somewhat.

Re:In continuous good standing with the Florida Ba (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#18405339)

Actually you can look him up on the bar website, he's technically in good standing.

Psalm 35 (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404697)

Thompson quotes the Bible in his letter:

7 For without cause have they hid for me their net in a pit,
which without cause they have digged for my soul.

8 Let destruction come upon him at unawares;
and let his net that he hath hid catch himself:
into that very destruction let him fall.

9 And my soul shall be joyful in the LORD:
it shall rejoice in his salvation.


Seems to me ol' Jack actually found the place in the Bible that perfectly describes the situation, except he refuses to see that he's the one falling into the pit he dug himself.

Question (3, Interesting)

Sigma 7 (266129) | more than 7 years ago | (#18404825)

Does anybody know the term for a "pseudo-lawyer" that's comparable to "quack" being used to describe a fake doctor?

And while I'm asking, if you're going to give him more media attention than he deserves, why not provide a link to one of his previous failures in the main article text? Sure, I could pull it up on a search, but there's at least some readers who aren't aware of previous blunders.

Re:Question (1)

n0dna (939092) | more than 7 years ago | (#18405065)

Yup: "lawyer"

I kid! I kid. "Ambulance Chaser" seems to work.

Re:Question (2, Informative)

Orleron (835910) | more than 7 years ago | (#18405153)

"Sheister"

Re:Question (2, Funny)

NeilTheStupidHead (963719) | more than 7 years ago | (#18405193)

Does anybody know the term for a "pseudo-lawyer" that's comparable to "quack" being used to describe a fake doctor?

"A Thompson" - It's an eponym.

Re:Question (5, Funny)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 7 years ago | (#18405411)

Does anybody know the term for a "pseudo-lawyer" that's comparable to "quack" being used to describe a fake doctor?
Politician

Re:Question (3, Informative)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18405971)

> Does anybody know the term for a "pseudo-lawyer" that's comparable to "quack" being used to describe a fake doctor?

Shyster. But he's not so much a fake or decietful lawyer so much as he is a garden-variety barking lunatic.

Re:Question (2, Informative)

dant (25668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18406365)

Pettifogger [m-w.com] is pretty good. It doesn't have the "unqualified" connotation that quack does, but you get "underhanded" in exchange.

Re:Question (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18407177)

Does anybody know the term for a "pseudo-lawyer" that's comparable to "quack" being used to describe a fake doctor?

My dad, who is a lawyer, calls them "paralegals"

Re:Question (1)

Dorceon (928997) | more than 7 years ago | (#18407815)

Barrator?

I'm a little stunned... (1)

singingjim1 (1070652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18405649)

...by the fact that any reasonable person - an industry term - would bother giving any credence to this man's thoughts and opinions or any weight at all to anything thing that spews forth from his paranoid/schizophrenic gray matter. He's a loon and should be treated as such.

JT missed a quote in his letter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18405717)

And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." - Luke 20:25

Re:JT missed a quote in his letter (4, Funny)

MeanderingMind (884641) | more than 7 years ago | (#18405883)

Great, now all those nifty graphics APIs are going to have to have methods for differentiating between renderings for Caesar and renderings for God. Thanks a bunch.

Jack Thompson knows dumb (3, Funny)

sdhankin (213671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18405941)

"This lawsuit, filed in US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, is, without a doubt, the single dumbest thing I have ever seen any lawyers do in my thirty years of practicing law..."

Listen to the man - if anyone knows stupid moves, it's Jack.

This can't be real, can it? (3, Interesting)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#18406151)

Is this letter genuine? I mean, seriously? He's claiming that he's praying for crap to happen to Take Two? Wow, what a devout christian. And the idiocy doesn't stop there:

First he writes:

I encourage folks to read Psalm 35, a Psalm of David, which is brilliant in its entirety (since God Himself wrote it)

and then he finishes with

Amen, and Praise be to God Almighty, maker of Heaven, Earth, and yes, the maker even video games

Ignoring all the mistakes he makes, if Jack claims that something is brilliant because god wrote it, and then claims that god wrote all video games, doesn't that make all video games brilliant?

Personally, I think he's a heretic. We all know that god didn't make all video games. He only made some of the Mario games, the early Donkey Kong games, Zelda and Pikmin. I mean, Jack is talking about Miyamoto, isn't he?

Re:This can't be real, can it? (1)

spiderbitendeath (577712) | more than 7 years ago | (#18409311)

Actually, Jack is talking about this weird cult, Christianity, that don't know the true joy of our father Miyamoto. He does not believe in the holy text of Power.

Hmm.... (1)

Coffee Warlord (266564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18407601)

I wonder if the whole 'Take Two's Board will be gone March 23rd' could be construed as Jack making a terrorist threat. ...religious lunatic? Check. ...vague threats, targets, dates? Check.

Ping: Homeland Security!

Of course... (1)

webheaded (997188) | more than 7 years ago | (#18409267)

Of course the man has to pray...have you watched him talk before? He's certainly not going to win that case by being a good lawyer.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?