Jack Thompson accuses Rockstar of an "obscene assault" on his character

CptStern said:
www.[B]c[/B]itizensunitednegatingtechnology.org
Oh dear Lord. Before that I was merely thinking "What a clunky name." Now, surely, it's a piss-take!?

And I second, defend and concur with kirov's obscenely gluttionous heroin binge. Plus stein of ale to wash it all down, whilst inhaling crack fumes.
 
bliink said:
it would succeed in Aus though..

there was a case where a newspaper published a fiction story about an amarous preist, whose ficiticious name "artemus jones" was the same as a barristers who lived in a different town.

the barrister won damages because people reading the article may have thought it referred to him :|

(case was in 1910 though..Hulton v. Jones) but precident is what our legal system works on.

EDIT: so many misspellings.. i'm tired.

yes but they used an actual persons name ...I understand how that could be defamation but in this case they dont refer to Jack thompson in any way


edit: you posted this as a criteria for defamation:

does it refer to the person? (can be implicit or explicit)

:O wtf? if that's true parody must be dead in australia
 
The spoof website is actually more elegantly designed than stopkill.com
 
CptStern said:
THE DEVIL USES THE INTERNET, EVERY DAY.

QFT

Honeslty, I wonder why he is attacking the gaming industry. There are simply so many gamers you would think he would avoid such a meaningless attack if he wants to get re elected. I could see him attacking it for a worthy cause, but this only hurts the gaming industry. If he is worried about children seeing things they shouldn't..then shoudln't he be concentrating on all the free porn on the net? That is a whole lot more graphic, revealing and you don't even have to pay for it.
 
Glirk Dient said:
QFT

Honeslty, I wonder why he is attacking the gaming industry. There are simply so many gamers you would think he would avoid such a meaningless attack if he wants to get re elected. .


he's a lawyer ..he doesnt get elected

oh and he's made a career out of censoring media ..he's been quite successful at it too
 
His career so far, as I understand it, has been finding people who have been, or whose children have been victims of violent crime, and then ****ing some part of the entertainment industry over for cash. He exploits absolutely anything he can to get compensation for these people.

Ah, double standards. It's okay that a game features horrific violence and gang warfare - an ugly thing at best, but it's not okay that it features the beautiful union of man and woman - sex is generally quite a positive thing as opposed to death, wouldn't you say?
 
Sulkdodds said:
His career so far, as I understand it, has been finding people who have been, or whose children have been victims of violent crime, and then ****ing some part of the entertainment industry over for cash. He exploits absolutely anything he can to get compensation for these people.

yes ...but he successfully ruined Howard Stern, Ice-T and other entertainers career ...he also has friends in very high places ..people dismiss him now, but they wont when he's spearheading an industry wide reform ultimately detrimental to the growth of video games
 
...the question is, and always will be, what can we do?
 
Suicide42 said:
oh YEAH, of COURSE drug laws cause poverty, war and the basic human nature. If we all just got high everything would be fine.
Sulkdodds said:
If you say so. Personally I don't see how getting ****ed up on heroin could really help anything.
kirovman said:
I agree, I'm feeling up for a pint of heroine myself.
ignorance is bliss huh
 
TechnoHippyChic said:
A product of seventy years of anti-drug hysteria and misinformation...
indeed. funny how two of them mention heroin... because its the absolute worst of the worst right? :LOL:
if only people knew what they were talking about. kirovman couldnt even spell it and hes trying to piss take..
 
Reaktor4 said:
indeed. funny how two of them mention heroin... because its the absolute worst of the worst right? :LOL:
if only people knew what they were talking about. kirovman couldnt even spell it and hes trying to piss take..

Settle down Rectum4.
 
kirovman said:
that was a fair point. it wasnt a typo, it would be pretty coincidental that you added an e by accident and there just happens to be an actual word spelt with the extra e, plus the e key is nowhere near n..... that would suggest that you thought heroine was the correct spelling, and that means you probably havnt read anything at all about the drug heroin in your life, and consequently know absolutely **** all about what it actually is. maybe if you pulled your head out of your rectum, stopped being stupid and stopped believing everything you hear in the media you would avoid looking thick in future.
Grammarian usually has little to contribute to a discussion and possesses few effective weapons. To compensate, he will point out minor errors in spelling and grammar. Because of Grammarian's obvious weakness most Warriors ignore him.
no ammo? :LOL:
 
Rectum4 said:
that was a fair point. it wasnt a typo, it would be pretty coincidental that you added an e by accident and there just happens to be an actual word spelt with the extra e, plus the e key is nowhere near n..... that would suggest that you thought heroine was the correct spelling, and that means you probably havnt read anything at all about the drug heroin in your life, and consequently know absolutely **** all about what it actually is. maybe if you pulled your head out of your rectum, stopped being stupid and stopped believing everything you hear in the media you would avoid looking thick in future.

no ammo? :LOL:

You take things too seriously. I was having a lighthearted jape. Calm down. You'll have a heartattack. You're making a lot of assumptions based on a simple error. If you want to snort heroin, that's fine by me buddy (ie assuming I believe the media). Don't inflict it on the rest of us though.

And your name is rectum4, because you're too goddamn anal.
 
kirovman said:
You're making a lot of assumptions based on a simple error. If you want to snort heroin
and what are you making that assumption based on?
fyi i dont use heroin.
 
Reaktor4 said:
and what are you making that assumption based on?
fyi i dont use heroin.

It was what I like to call: a joke. Poor, maybe, but we can't all be on top form all day long.

Geordie humour ftw.

And fyi I wasn't trying to get into a drugs are bad discussion, tbh I couldn't care less.
 
A product of seventy years of anti-drug hysteria and misinformation...

Oops. Obviously I have been conned by the Man. Drugs never harmed anyone at all, did they? Of course.

Being unsarcastic for a minute, I hope we're not simply talking about Cannabis. I'm okay with that particular drug; it's not even worse than cigarettes. I'm not a hardline anti-drugs zealot either...I just think it's utterly ridiculous to claim that drug laws kill more people than anything else on this disease ridden war ravaged little rock of ours.

Bad example here, but murder is illegal. Now whose fault is it when someone commits the crime? It's certainly not the fault of the laws that prohibit it. Note that I am not comparing drugs to murder. :sleep:
 
Sulkdodds said:
I just think it's utterly ridiculous to claim that drug laws kill more people than anything else on this disease ridden war ravaged little rock of ours.

Yeah, that's the part that stood out for me too. I mean, look at Malaria. And the World Wars.

Not that I care or anything.
 
kirovman said:
It was what I like to call: a joke. Poor, maybe, but we can't all be on top form all day long.

Geordie humour ftw.

And fyi I wasn't trying to get into a drugs are bad discussion, tbh I couldn't care less.
fair enough. but 'yeah lets all have a pint of heroin' is the type of sarky comment the anti drug brigade come out with all the time when they run out of arguments, so it was easy to think you were.
edit:
Sulkdodds said:
Oops. Obviously I have been conned by the Man. Drugs never harmed anyone at all, did they? Of course.
case in point :rolleyes:
 
Read the rest of the post yet?

I'm not a hardline anti-drugs zealot

Take whatever you want; I'm not the ****ing DEA and I'm not going to stop you. But I take exception to claims that all drugs are harmless and need to be legalised. Or is that not what you're saying at all?
 
Sulkdodds said:
Being unsarcastic for a minute, I hope we're not simply talking about Cannabis. I'm okay with that particular drug; it's not even worse than cigarettes.
its not even on the same planet as cigarettes for reasons that i have explained multiple times.
I'm not a hardline anti-drugs zealot either...I just think it's utterly ridiculous to claim that drug laws kill more people than anything else on this disease ridden war ravaged little rock of ours.

Bad example here, but murder is illegal. Now whose fault is it when someone commits the crime? It's certainly not the fault of the laws that prohibit it. Note that I am not comparing drugs to murder. :sleep:
that was a bad example. its not just the direct deaths that result from the laws. a couple of quick examples. criminals worldwide make literally billions from selling drugs which they can then use to fund all sorts of nasty stuff from arming themselves to smuggling kids. also (mainly in jails), you find that many people switch from cannabis to heroin because it can take over a month to be able to pass a drug test if you have smoked weed but much much less if you have taken heroin. and illegal heroin has all sorts of dangerous shit in it which is what most 'heroin overdose deaths' result from. on the other hand, pure heroin is one of the safest drugs in existance.
 
Sulkdodds said:
But I take exception to claims that all drugs are harmless
this one is surprisingly common, and the funniest thing is that nobody EVER says that all drugs are harmless.
 
Fair enough. Hey, looks like you can walk the walk with the drug knowledge, although if you were lying I wouldn't be able to tell. :p

I'm also aware that a lot of drug-related deaths are caused by impurities, that the pure version of the whatever would be a lot safer. But let's say for a minute that 'bad' drugs were legalized. But it would have to be pure only, right? Thing is, then there'd be this big legitimate trade in pure stuff but the criminals would still be making money out of selling impure heroin, for example, to people needing a fix. Correct me if I'm wrong, but pure heroin is still addictive right? So you'd still have a massive trade in bad shit. I don't think there's a solution here. No drug money would be made if people didn't take the stuff in the first place.

I still don't think drug laws are the 'number one thing wrong with this planet'; not by a long chalk. Which was the original argument anyway.

EDIT: Yeah. Uh, after that comment I added 'or was that not what you were trying to say?' All you said was that drug laws were bad - isn't it a reasonable assumption you meant all drug laws?

EDIT2: I have actually heard someone say 'drugs are harmless' but they were a stupid person.
 
Just the Vietnam War killed more people than the War on Drugs...
 
Sulkdodds said:
Fair enough. Hey, looks like you can walk the walk with the drug knowledge, although if you were lying I wouldn't be able to tell. :p
im not lying. i researched this for years. and actually when i was a lot younger i was all anti drug too, but i was curious enough about the subject to start learning about it. everything im telling you is already out there for you to find, but because of the current situation thats not always easy. the popular starting point is www.erowid.org if you want to find out about this. also a google search for radioactivity in tobacco will show you why weed is not comparable to cigarettes in terms of cancer risk and general lung damage (not to mention that nicotine is the most addictive known substance on earth..)
I'm also aware that a lot of drug-related deaths are caused by impurities, that the pure version of the whatever would be a lot safer. But let's say for a minute that 'bad' drugs were legalized. But it would have to be pure only, right? Thing is, then there'd be this big legitimate trade in pure stuff but the criminals would still be making money out of selling impure heroin, for example, to people needing a fix.
i disagree for these reasons: for a start the prices would fall so much that they would hardly make any money at all out of it. when it becomes so unprofitable many would feel it isnt work the risk producing and distributing drugs in the first place. and i dont see why everyone would continue to pay for adulterated drugs from a dealer that cost more than clean pharmaceutical grade drugs, which btw they might even be able to get for free on prescription under new laws.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but pure heroin is still addictive right? So you'd still have a massive trade in bad shit.
see above. and yeah its still addictive but id bet my house that you think a heroin addiction is much more difficult to manage than it actually is.
I don't think there's a solution here. No drug money would be made if people didn't take the stuff in the first place.
i agree, but that is totally irrevant because there is absolutely no realistic way to make that happen. thats what the war on drugs was supposed to do lol
I still don't think drug laws are the 'number one thing wrong with this planet'; not by a long chalk.
then put it this way, its definitely the number one problem in the developed world.
EDIT: Yeah. Uh, after that comment I added 'or was that not what you were trying to say?' All you said was that drug laws were bad - isn't it a reasonable assumption you meant all drug laws?
the drug laws are bad but i dont see how that equates to me saying all drugs are harmless. in fact even if you completely disregard what drugs do, the laws are still bad because theyve been shown to do nothing but increase the amount of drug users. ill dig up sources for this if you really want me to but it would be quicker if you just searched for some of my earlier posts on this site because ive posted it all before, many times, and gone into much more detail than i have here and now. and it gets a little tiresome typing such volumes hundreds of times, but i dont mind doing it so much if the person im explaining it to isnt a complete ****wit like they usually are, so if youve got any more questions ill answer.
 
Dudes... Let's just kick back, have a bag of grass, and continue to make fun of Jack Thompson.
 
Absinthe said:
Dudes... Let's just kick back, have a bag of grass, and continue to make fun of Jack Thompson.

Thompson's coming for that too! :O
 
Jack Thompson smells of Silly Stuff....




STRING! Silly String, Thank you!
 
TechnoHippyChic said:
JT smells of elderberries, you silly knight..

However that is if and only if his mother was a hamster. Anyone have a family photo of the J-meister?
 
Coincedence? I think not:
 

Attachments

  • hamster.jpg
    hamster.jpg
    5.4 KB · Views: 112
  • jt true colors.jpg
    jt true colors.jpg
    14 KB · Views: 121
Back
Top