Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×
The Courts Government Censorship News Entertainment Games

Judge Recommends Guilty Verdict for Jack Thompson 235

GamePolitics is reporting that a Florida Judge has recommended that Jack Thompson be found guilty on 27 of 31 counts of misconduct and is awaiting a Florida Supreme Court verdict to back him up. Thompson is striking back with allegations against the Judge and others, complaining that loyalty oaths were never signed. "Tunis made 21 recommendations of guilt in relation to Thompson's participation in Strickland vs. Sony, an Alabama case in which the anti-game attorney represented the families of two police officers and a police dispatcher slain by 18-year-old Grand Theft Auto player Devin Moore. Tunis also recommended that Thompson be found guilty on four out of five counts relating to his 2006 attempt to have Rockstar's Bully declared a public nuisance in a case before Miami Judge Ronald Friedman. An additional two guilty counts stemmed from a non-video game matter."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Recommends Guilty Verdict for Jack Thompson

Comments Filter:
  • Ummm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jellomizer (103300) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:06PM (#23494592)
    Who is Jack Thompson?
    • Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Funny)

      by RandoX (828285) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:09PM (#23494622)
      You must be new here.
    • Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Funny)

      by moderatorrater (1095745) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:10PM (#23494636)
      He's a singer who really uses nothing but an acoustic guitar and his folk roots to make his music. Very popular, although I find his music repetitive at best.
      • Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Funny)

        by infonography (566403) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @01:18PM (#23495470) Homepage

        He's a singer who really uses nothing but an acoustic guitar and his folk roots to make his music. Very popular, although I find his music repetitive at best.
        He claimed to be the inspirations/author for the well known Beck Song "Loser" [youtube.com] and also for the Henry Rollins song "Liar" [youtube.com]
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by makohund (10086)
          I'd say he inspired a few Megadeth tunes as well.

          Liar [youtube.com]
          Hook in Mouth [youtube.com]

          Bits of Hook in Mouth:
          "A cockroach in the concrete, courthouse tan and beady eyes
          A slouch with fallen arches, purging truths into great lies"

          Bits of Liar:
          "Make up your stories, truth's so hard to say
          Brain is numb and your tongue will surely dig your grave"

          "Start trouble, spread pain
          Piss and venom, in your veins
          Talk nasty, breathe fire
          Smell rotten, you're a liar
          Sweat liquor, breathe snot
          Eat garbage, spit blood
          Diseased, health hazard
          Scum bag, f
      • Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Funny)

        by scot4875 (542869) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @02:23PM (#23496376) Homepage
        Wait, am I reading Slashdot, or Uncyclopedia?

    • Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Informative)

      by wiggles (30088) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:11PM (#23494652)
      Here's the wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org].
    • Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Informative)

      by corsec67 (627446) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:13PM (#23494700) Homepage Journal
      Jack Thompson [wikipedia.org] is a lawyer who has made a bunch of lawsuits against several game manufacturers.

      Basically, he hates the 1st Amendment, and isn't afraid to make a ridicules lawsuit to try and censor people.
      • Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Funny)

        by mortonda (5175) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:34PM (#23494956)

        make a ridicules lawsuit
        I'm trying not to be one of those ridiculous people who ridicules people for bad spelling... ;)
      • Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by radarjd (931774) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:46PM (#23495108)

        Basically, he hates the 1st Amendment, and isn't afraid to make a ridicules lawsuit to try and censor people.

        That's sort of like saying "Al-Quaeda hates freedom" -- I don't think Thompson hates the first amendment, it is just (in his mind) trumped by other values. He has further picked a particularly poor method for promoting his values.

        To be more technically correct (and as this is slashdot, that's the best kind of correct), I'd say he believes that video games (and other media) containing sexual or violent content are the root of all evil, and that he'd rather have no video games (or other media) than the possibility that the games could contain sexual or violent content.

        This particular story relates to disbarment proceedings against the man for repeated poor (and illegal) conduct.

        • Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by morgan_greywolf (835522) * on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @01:07PM (#23495346) Homepage Journal
          The man is a Fundamentalist Christian who believes he received guidance from God to eliminate video games.

          No, seriously.
          • I wonder how he'll cope with his deity forsaking him in the courtroom.

            Should make for some fun reading should he choose to make a statement afterwards.

            • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

              by Anonymous Coward
              Easy. We all know that God loves video games. Thus, God wants the heretic to burn.
          • The man is a Fundamentalist Christian who believes he received guidance from God to eliminate video games.

            No, seriously.
            Citation needed... Well, would be appreciated! :-)
            • Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Informative)

              by Kamots (321174) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @02:04PM (#23496110)
              "God is very powerful, and He's not real pleased with Rockstar right now, nor with those who defend it. Watch out. Fire and brimstone on the way."

              "Actually, the people who have cashed in on the deaths is Rockstar. That's why God and I are going to destroy them. Thanks for writing."

              "The 'video game community' surely seems exercised about someone who is a 'joke' and who is accomplishing nothing. You all seem rather bothered and worried about a nonentity. God is in this battle, and I am privileged to be a foot soldier. You all should be concerned, not about me, but about Him."

              Need I go on?
            • Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Informative)

              by morgan_greywolf (835522) * on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @02:12PM (#23496220) Homepage Journal
              Check out this site [jackthompson.org], which has Thompson's own words. ALso note that Thompson's book Out of Harms Way is published by Tyndale House [wikipedia.org], which is publishing house well known for producing Fundamentalist Christian books such as Tim LaHaye's Left Behind.

              Trust me, I wouldn't make such a comment without knowing what I'm talking about.
        • That's sort of like saying "Al-Quaeda hates freedom" -- I don't think Thompson hates the first amendment, it is just (in his mind) trumped by other values. He has further picked a particularly poor method for promoting his values.

          AQ doesn't really attack freedom directly - the main way they have affected freedom is through giving Bush the '04 election and thus helping him to cut back on freedoms around the world. Jack Thompson, on the other hand, does directly attack things covered under the First Amendment. I agree that the GP's statement is overly stating the case, but your comparison manages to go too far in the other direction.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Scrameustache (459504)

          I don't think Thompson hates the first amendment, it is just (in his mind) trumped by other values.
          Such as the dollar value of the settlements he hopes to reach.
      • Re:Ummm... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Wrath0fb0b (302444) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @05:57PM (#23498612)

        Basically, he hates the 1st Amendment, and isn't afraid to make a ridicules lawsuit to try and censor people.
        There are a lot of very smart people that believe that the 1st Amendment does not protect obscene speech -- including two Justices on the US Supreme Court. They don't hate the Amendment, they just disagree with you on what counts and 'speech' that is worthy of protection -- in their mind, obscene speech doesn't even get in the door.

        Their reasoning is that the 1A is intended to protect expressive conduct (which is why you can burn the US flag even though it's not technically speech -- it's expressive conduct). Pornography, to them, is not speech for the purpose of expressing ideas but rather "titillation of prurient interest". As much as I don't agree with them, I have to respect that their interpretation is not unreasonable or ridiculous and that they are, in fact, intelligent people that love freedom as much as I do despite our serious philosophical difference about the meaning of that freedom.

        We are more permissive of government regulation in these circumstances because it is clear from the context in which exchanges between such businesses and their customers occur that neither the merchant nor the buyer is interested in the work's literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. "The deliberate representation of petitioner's publications as erotically arousing . . . stimulate[s] the reader to accept them as prurient; he looks for titillation, not for saving intellectual content." Thus, a business that "(1) offer[s] ... hardcore sexual material, (2) as a constant and intentional objective of [its] business, [and] (3) seek[s] to promote it as such" finds no sanctuary in the First Amendment.
        Justice Scalia, Dissenting in US v. Playboy http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1682.ZD.html [cornell.edu] (internal citations stripped)
    • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@gEULERmail.com minus math_god> on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:34PM (#23494942) Journal

      Who is Jack Thompson?
      A man who knows no restraint to further a cause that has religious roots and backings by watchdog groups whose only goals are to overstep their bounds.

      A man who stood up on Fox news the day of the Virginia Tech shootings [cnet.com] (when the bodies of slain students were still warm) and told the nation that he was certain we would find video games in the shooter's bedroom. He then later turned one of the funerals into a media circus and photo op.

      A man who has overstepped laws designed to give Americans freedom and the right to enjoy entertainment in their homes. He has taken the The Bill of Rights into the restroom and wiped his ass with it.

      A man who, after overstepping his bounds an pushing extreme values of the political Right, asked for members of the Bush family (which he erroneously thought would be allies) to remove his disbarment [wikipedia.org] from the Florida courts. Name Jeb & George [slashdot.org] ... who ignored the tool that was merely carrying out their core values.

      You have a man who has tried to undo the separation of church and state. This same man has been operating in a court of law and using false correlations while pushing his own moral and religious beliefs. He is completely divorced from the sense of Justice and the American People. This same man will soon suffer under The Justice of The United States of America or my faith in it will soon falter ...
    • I guess I was too subtile. The point is if he doesn't get any press then he is just another crazy but if he gets press then he is a threat. What it all leads down to is a chicken and the egg argument.

      Do violent people like to play violent video games.
      or do Violent video games make people violent.

      I would choose the first. As many people who play these games don't seem to be causeing all the chaos that they seem to protrait. How many people do you see throwing red turtle shells from their cars so they can pa
    • He gives ambulance chasers and shysters a bad name.

      A pettifogger [merriam-webster.com]

  • He's done nothing constructive to date that I know of, he has caused nothing but trouble for everyone. Throw him in guantanamo bay! (the facility, not the actual bay itself.. I wouldn't want him to pollute that pristine caribean water)
  • by overshoot (39700) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:10PM (#23494640)
    We could keep him around for entertainment value alone, but best of all he's so freaking useful in totally discrediting the antigamers who don't froth at the mouth, chew carpets, and fling feces at the judge.
    • Re:Gotta love Jack (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:17PM (#23494732)
      Except he wastes court time, i.e. our tax money, on his self-promotion crap. Give him a blog and let him rant, fine. But it's time the legal profession was reigned in over their bogus lawsuits.
      • Re:Gotta love Jack (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @01:26PM (#23495596) Journal

        But it's time the legal profession was reigned in over their bogus lawsuits.
        The legal profession has a perfectly functional (but slow) system of dealing with bogus lawsuits.

        The reason Jack Thompson has been allowed to get away with so much asshattery is because the justice system defaults to not disenfranchising people.

        This is a good thing.
        Keep it that way.
        • by overshoot (39700) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @02:29PM (#23496434)

          The legal profession has a perfectly functional (but slow) system of dealing with bogus lawsuits.
          Shall we make a date to revisit this question once the various SCOX kamikaze suits are finished?
    • Quite true. With friends like that, who needs enemies? I suppose this is the beginning of the end for J.T. We'd better gin up some studies and statistics for the next round of the anti-gaming nonsense. Actually, I'm hoping he's managed to kill it off, but if not we'll need some ammunition against the demagogues.
  • by idiotnot (302133) <sean@757.org> on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:11PM (#23494654) Homepage Journal
    Up in ur base, killin all ur d00dz, JT!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:11PM (#23494660)
    Please stop submitting Jack Thompson stories. His only point to his shenanigans is to gain press via controversy. Please don't give it to him by crossposting stories about him to Slashdot, Fark, etc. etc.
  • ...you sue Jack Thompson!
  • But man are they throwing the book against him. I have no love for the frivolous nature of the lawsuits and ridiculous manner he presents his arguments but it sounds like they're really going over the top. I mean, that list of charges against him reads like every lawyer's trial strategy.
    • by DustyShadow (691635) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:21PM (#23494766) Homepage
      I don't think putting pornography in court documents is normal strategy.
    • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @02:59PM (#23496830)

      I don't think the bar association had any major issues with the lawsuits themselves. There are all sorts of lawyers out there, but as a lawyer he has to follow the professional code of conduct. The things he accused of doing:

      1. making false statements to tribunals (perjury)
      2. disparaging and humiliating litigants and other lawyers (professional misconduct)
      3. improperly practicing law outside of Florida (professional misconduct)

      Each of these is a serious charge and the judge has determined that enough evidence exists. I don't know Jack Thompson but his actions suggest a man who doesn't think that any rules apply to him.

    • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @06:59PM (#23499078)

      If you read his response, it's typical Jack Thompson. He doesn't argue the merits of the charges (probably because he was guilty of everything that he is being accused). He argues that the judge should be removed because she has a grudge against him.

      One of the charges is improperly practicing law outside of Florida. This one was simple to prove. Every lawyer is licensed to practice law in the state where he passes his bar. To practice law in another state, you either have to (1) take the bar in that state or (2) apply for hac pro vice status if the lawyer needs to work a case. Every lawyer should know this. Jack Thompson (licensed in Florida) did not do either before representing families in the Devin Moore case in Alabama. Eventually he applied for status but had it revoked when he violated the gag order in the case.

  • GTA Lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dj245 (732906) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:21PM (#23494764) Homepage
    GTA4 has sold over 3.6 million copies [wikipedia.org]. Even if lawyers didn't like to brutally advance their careers through any means necessary, I would expect at least some of these sales to be to lawyers.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:22PM (#23494772)
    If the gay porn submitted for judicial review doesn't fit, you must acquit!
  • No big deal (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If he's disbarred I'm sure there is a place for him next to Tipper Gore and Hillary Rosen (RIAA) in the Democrat party.

    • by sm62704 (957197)
      Wikipedia says he's a Republican. Both the Republican and Democrat arms of the Corporate Party are against free speech.
    • Re:No big deal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by johneee (626549) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @02:42PM (#23496592)
      Huge difference between labelling content (which is what Tipper was going for - dunno about Hillary) and censoring content (which is what Thompson wants).

      I'm all for labelling so that people can make informed choices. I'm way against censorship so that I'm allowed to make those informed choice.
  • Site down / moving? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rufus211 (221883) <rufus-slashdot@h ... g minus caffeine> on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:30PM (#23494884) Homepage
    I just get a "Temporarily Closed" page when loading GamePolitics...great timing to move your host.

    Ars has a writeup that's a summary of GP's: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080520-judges-report-in-jack-thompson-case-guilty-on-27-charges.html [arstechnica.com]
  • by scorp1us (235526) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:33PM (#23494940) Journal
    What is the law, if not semantics? While I don't agree with Thompson, I do agree that until a loyalty oath is signed, no judge can ever issue a binding ruling.

    We as citizens must demand that our government dot it's 'i's and cross its 't's. Without these oaths, the judges are unaccountable. How hard is it to get a signature? How hard is it to take an oath? These oaths are required by the people and in them, the person taking the oath states they will follow whatever constitutions are relevant to the position.

    See http://www.jail4judges.org/ [jail4judges.org]
    • by nuzak (959558) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:51PM (#23495142) Journal
      The judges did sign their oaths. Jack alleges that Tunis forged her own signature, which is certainly a pretty novel theory, but if we decide to be more generous than the law even allows and take him at his intended meaning, that she had someone else sign for her, he doesn't have a single iota of supporting evidence, other than the worthless opinion of an utterly discredited "handwriting analyst" who made his opinion based on a whopping two samples.

      Accusing judges of malfeasance is just standard behavior for Jack Thompson. And his probable disbarment is just the start of his troubles -- there's one Cletus Junkin in Alabama (yeah I know ... I couldn't make these great names up) who may be going after him for libel next.
  • by amasiancrasian (1132031) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:36PM (#23494970)
    On the bright side: no job means more time to play GTAIV!
  • by Sloppy (14984) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:38PM (#23494998) Homepage Journal

    .. police dispatcher slain by 18-year-old Grand Theft Auto player Devin Moore.

    You could have also phrased that as, "..police dispatcher slain by 18-year-old fluoridated-water drinker Devin Moore."

  • Actually, none of them are videogame-related. He is being reprimanded for misbehavior regarding his role as an agent of the court. They arose in the context of a lawsuit which featured games as part of its subject matter, but none of this actually has anything to do with games.

    But hey, someone who disagrees with "the viewpoint" is being punished. That the malfeasance and reprimand has nothing to do with that viewpoint is irrelevant, so long as everyone gets their blood.
    • When someone abuses the judicial system to fight against "the viewpoint", sure we consider it a good thing when they're punished for abusing the judicial system. Or should we just wish him the best of luck trying to take away our rights? Stop being a passively aggressive pacifist.
    • Re:Just two counts? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cowscows (103644) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @01:08PM (#23495362) Journal
      Well what'd you expect? There is no body of video game related laws that for someone to violate. Much of the nonsense that he's perpetrated has been as a result of the bizarre war he's trying to wage against games.

      The issue isn't just that some guy doesn't like video games, it's that he's not only embarked on some sort of loony campaign against them, but he's also abused the legal system to harass video game developers and publishers. And he's also made sweeping, negative, and sometimes offensive generalizations about an entire branch of media and the millions of people who consume said media.

      Whether this guy is unethical enough to purposely crap all over the legal system over something like video games, or whether he's just plain insane, either way he should not be practicing law. And he certainly shouldn't be wasting tax dollars on his bizarre personal crusade against a bunch of gamers. The legal system is better off without him, regardless of his views on video games or anything else. He's pretty much proven that he has no respect for the proper functioning of the courts/etc.

      And third, this guy has managed to convince various media outlets that he is a credible expert on video games. Having an opinion on something does not make you a credible voice. We can only hope that whatever the end result of all this is, news programs will stop asking him to share his thoughts on video games or anything else.

    • Personally, as someone "in the business", I think it's great when someone is reprimanded for misbehaviour regarding his role as an agent of the court, regardless of what "the viewpoint" is.

      The fact that he's a Christofascist with a grudge against free speech as expressed through video games is just a bonus.
  • by sm62704 (957197) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:49PM (#23495130) Journal
    So I'd like to thank GamePolitics, Scuttlemonkey, and especially the Florida judge for brightening up this bad bad Wednesday!

    Oh yea, and I want to thank Jack Thompson [uncyclopedia.org] too, since if he wasn't such a stupid, obnoxious, self-serving buffoon this story would have never made it to slashdot!

    My life is SO filled with coincidences. Last night at Felber's one of the ladies there called me a "fuckmonkey" (in regards to my bringing Amy there half an hour before taking Tami there), I just got back fro Top Cat's, where today's drink special is the "Drunk Monkey", and now the Jack Thompson story brought to us by Scuttlemonkey!

    Weird. But not as weird as Jack Thompson.
  • by Yogiz (1123127) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:55PM (#23495184) Journal
    If he gets locked up, someone might emerge who can actually argument and make the public belive that the cause might be worth fighting. Somebody who has only stayed in the shadows because Jack Thomson has made all video game opponents look like a big bag of crazy. Someone who is actually mentally stable and sees, that such lamenting has only made the public side up with the game makers.

    • by cowscows (103644) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @01:21PM (#23495522) Journal
      If the public wants to have a reasonable and adult discussion about violence in video games, I don't think that's something to be afraid of. Just as our culture went through similar grumblings about movies and television, and almost repeatedly about music, it's a valid conversation to have. There's a useful discussion to be had about the appropriateness of certain types of games for particular age groups, and the most effective ways to introduce children to various things they might experience through games. At the end of the day, we've still got the first amendment, and not a particularly realistic chance that video game violence will somehow end up banned.

      What's most likely going to happen is that a smattering of state laws will get passed and quickly be overturned because they're unconstitutional. Ten more years or so down the line, there will be enough people in positions of authority who grew up as gamers that the issue will mostly go away. There will still be the occasional whining and controversy, just like we've got with movies/tv/music today when a game really decides to push the envelope, but most people won't give it a second thought anymore.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by not_anne (203907)
      Even fair a minded discussion on the topic doesn't have much weight. There just isn't any credible evidence of direct causation that video games make people into murderers. If it were true, there would be over 3 million new murderers running around because of GTA4 alone.
  • Loyalty Oath (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ohio Calvinist (895750) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @12:58PM (#23495230)
    While I love what the judge has done to this asshat, I think first (if it is not) that all judges should sign these oaths, and second, that if he was supposed to, and didn't, the judge should get fined for leaving an open door for a "not guilty by technicality" to occur over something so minor. I'm a programmer for the County Schools and I had to sign the loyalty oath to the US and California consitution when I got my parking pass just to program, I'd hope they'd hold a judge to this rather simplistic requirement (its not like having to take a physical or anything, and if it is a problem for him, he shouldn't be on the bench.)

    • by Eco-Mono (978899)
      See above [slashdot.org].
    • Re:Loyalty Oath (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @01:41PM (#23495810) Journal
      Frankly, I think it's appalling that McCarthy era loyalty oaths are still on the books. I hope the refusal to sign was intentional, and that this issue is persued to the point of being fired, which would then create an outcry in the judiciary leading to the legislature overturning this fascist act.

      What's wrong with a loyalty oath you ask? Take a look at what's happened to our government over the past few years, could you honestly swear loyalty to *this* government? What if it got worse?

      If you think about it, anyone who really meant their oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States... against all enemies, foreign and domestic" would have taken up arms against this government a long time ago. Ever since Wickard v. Filburn [wikipedia.org] it's been clear that even the SCOTUS is a domestic enemy of the Constitution.

      Dissent is an essential part of a democratic society. People who disagree with current policy should not be discriminated against, even if they are communists.
  • ... Some Hot Coffee to keep him calm.
  • ...at Law.com (Score:5, Informative)

    by sillivalley (411349) <.ten.tsacmoc. .ta. .yellavillis.> on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @01:04PM (#23495310)
    You can read a good summary at law.com:

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202421556225 [law.com]
  • Which game? (Score:5, Funny)

    by denttford (579202) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @01:51PM (#23495936) Homepage
    So what videogame was he playing that turned him into a criminal?
  • The real victims (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Seska (253960) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @02:57PM (#23496816)
    Having painfully(1) read GamePolitics' coverage of the trial, I find myself concluding that the real victims of Thompson are not gamers but the lawyers and judges of Alabama and Florida. As gamers, we can ignore him and go back to playing our games while occasionally enjoying schadenfreude at his expense.

    The lawyers and judges that had to deal with him endured harassment, patently false accusations, completely incoherent arguments, abuse of law and process, and threats at every turn. It made me glad to be on the receiving end of only the news stories about him.

    (1) Both because Thompson's rants are difficult to parse and because GamePolitics.com's servers were awful.
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @04:03PM (#23497598)
    Word is that he's planning to serve the local McDonalds with a cease-and-desist order and a job application.

At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.