Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → How long before Jack Thompson spews on America's Army and angers the armed forces?
12
How long before Jack Thompson spews on America's Army and angers the armed forces?
2005-10-26, 7:47 PM #1
I give him no more than 1 year.
SpamBlogger
"u r dumb, stop or ill sue u
- jak thomsun

p.s. ur gay" - Victor Van Dort

New disclaimer - Any brain damage suffered as a result of typographical errors is the reader's liability.
2005-10-26, 7:47 PM #2
That's a long topic title.
twitter | flickr | last.fm | facebook |
2005-10-26, 9:08 PM #3
Didn't we all just get together and agree to ignore him?
"If you watch television news, you will know less about the world than if you just drink gin straight out of the bottle."
--Garrison Keillor
2005-10-26, 9:11 PM #4
Originally posted by fishstickz:
Didn't we all just get together and agree to ignore him?


Fancyman or Jack?
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2005-10-26, 9:30 PM #5
Jack
"If you watch television news, you will know less about the world than if you just drink gin straight out of the bottle."
--Garrison Keillor
2005-10-26, 9:49 PM #6
Who?
2005-10-26, 10:06 PM #7
It's actually a really good question seeing as America's Army would teach the kids to kill terrorists rather than cops, but at the same time, there are sniper rifles, so you never know.
Pissed Off?
2005-10-27, 7:35 AM #8
He's already said America's Army is as bad as GTA in e-mails. He just has yet to piss himself about it and ***** to the media.
Democracy: rule by the stupid
2005-10-27, 10:18 AM #9
I doubt he'll be doing much, isn't he being investigated?

Ever since that thread, Thompson news has stopped.
"We came, we saw, we conquered, we...woke up!"
2005-10-27, 10:22 AM #10
Has Jack ever stopped to consider the purpose of AA? Jesus..
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2005-10-27, 10:40 AM #11
wasnt there that article about someone using the medic training in AA to save his brothers life? :)
2005-10-27, 10:52 AM #12
Originally posted by Freelancer:
Has Jack ever stopped to consider the purpose of AA? Jesus..



To get people excited about the army and act as a recruitment tool for a bunch of tools?

:P
2005-10-27, 11:00 AM #13
Yeah.. which was supposed to be a good thing, barring your wording. :p
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2005-10-27, 11:11 AM #14
Thanks for calling recruits tools. We appreciate it.
Democracy: rule by the stupid
2005-10-27, 11:19 AM #15
[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]Thanks for calling recruits tools. We appreciate it.[/QUOTE]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think he means the gamers are the tools.
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2005-10-27, 1:32 PM #16
Grand Theft Auto: Bagdad?
Holy soap opera Batman. - FGR
DARWIN WILL PREVENT THE DOWNFALL OF OUR RACE. - Rob
Free Jin!
2005-10-27, 1:41 PM #17
[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]Thanks for calling recruits tools. We appreciate it.[/QUOTE]


You're welcome.



Thanks for misunderstanding what I said, by the way, tool.
2005-10-27, 2:05 PM #18
Translation: Anyone dumb enough to join the Army strictly based on playing AA is a tool.
Pissed Off?
2005-10-27, 3:00 PM #19
Actually, I cracked up when I read the title...

Good show, Fancyman.

Good show.
My Parkour blog
My Twitter. Follow me!
2005-10-27, 3:34 PM #20
Eh. I remember that article a while back about how America's Army was satan in a box (or a .exe)...

It was written all dramatically, and said... "A few training sims later, and you're staring down the scope of a sniper rifle". I recall a few people posting here about how that was BS, because you had a choice to go to sniper school or not...

(But I mean, why wouldn't you?! So fun :D )

In short, AA was a fun game, Pommy taught me how to play that :p.
2005-10-27, 3:39 PM #21
This is hilarious. I just can't wait to see what he says (gives anti-Thompson forces a hand signal)

We'll see.

Originally posted by Genki:
Grand Theft Auto: Bagdad?


BagHdad stupid. You forgot the H.

Originally posted by Avenger:
It's actually a really good question seeing as America's Army would teach the kids to kill terrorists rather than cops, but at the same time, there are sniper rifles, so you never know.


<3 That made me laugh

Zlocista
I had a blog. It sucked.
2005-10-27, 3:46 PM #22
Jack Thompson is to games what Joseph McCarthy was to people...
The man in black fled across the desert, and the Gunslinger followed...
2005-10-27, 3:51 PM #23
Or how mustard is to concrete?
"Jayne, this is something the Captain has to do for himself"

"N-No it's not!"

"Oh."
2005-10-27, 4:03 PM #24
Originally posted by Rob:
To get people excited about the army and act as a recruitment tool for a bunch of tools?

:P


Rob, **** you. You don't have any right to slander soldiers serving in the United States Army.
2005-10-27, 4:09 PM #25
Sure he does, it's called the right to free speech. It's in the Bill Of Rights.


Not that I agree, but he can say whatever the hell he wants.
The tired anthem of a loser and a hypocrite.
2005-10-27, 4:11 PM #26
Too bad this isn't America...It's the internet.
Think while it's still legal.
2005-10-27, 4:12 PM #27
America controls the internet.
"We came, we saw, we conquered, we...woke up!"
2005-10-27, 4:24 PM #28
[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]Too bad this isn't America...It's the internet.[/QUOTE]

He resides in America, so American law applies to him.


Sure, a mod or admin could delete the post, but if you trace what he said to the source, he wasn't even saying anything bad about the people serving the Army.
The tired anthem of a loser and a hypocrite.
2005-10-27, 4:25 PM #29
No-one controls the internet. Except maybe the porn industry <_<
You can't judge a book by it's file size
2005-10-27, 4:48 PM #30
It's still an assanine thing to say. The soldiers give him the very right to say ****ty things about them, he could atleast serve them some respect.
2005-10-27, 4:51 PM #31
The soldiers gave him the right to say bad things about them so he should say good things about them. :p

Actually, it was a few men back in the late 1700's that gave us all the rights we have now...but whatever.
Think while it's still legal.
2005-10-27, 5:23 PM #32
Originally posted by -Monoxide-:
It's still an assanine thing to say. The soldiers give him the very right to say ****ty things about them, he could atleast serve them some respect.


I agree, but I don't think he was trying to offend soldiers. Mabye he was.

But anyway, Freedom of speech is a double sided coin, and you have to accept both sides for it to turly be freedom.
The tired anthem of a loser and a hypocrite.
2005-10-27, 6:11 PM #33
[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]The soldiers gave him the right to say bad things about them so he should say good things about them. :p

Actually, it was a few men back in the late 1700's that gave us all the rights we have now...but whatever.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but the soldiers today preserve those rights.
2005-10-27, 7:06 PM #34
Originally posted by -Monoxide-:
Yeah, but the soldiers today preserve those rights.


Yeah, if it weren't for the army Saddam would be in the white house. Where would we be then, Rob? WHERE WOULD WE BE THEN?
2005-10-27, 7:07 PM #35
Originally posted by 'Thrawn[numbarz:
']Yeah, if it weren't for the army Saddam would be in the white house. Where would we be then, Rob? WHERE WOULD WE BE THEN?


What the hell dude? Someone explain this to me, because I don't understand what he is trying to convey here.
2005-10-27, 7:07 PM #36
1. Rob wasn't smacktalking soldiers. He was smacktalking people who enlist in the army solely because they played AA.

2. Soldiers are preserving our rights today? That's highly arguable.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2005-10-27, 7:15 PM #37
At this moment, perhaps not, but they would be the first to defend those rights.
Pissed Off?
2005-10-27, 7:17 PM #38
True. And I'm not saying they have't ever. I would consider Japan's attack on us such a case, and whatever other times we were attacked by a sovereign nation (my history is rusty).
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2005-10-27, 8:01 PM #39
I don't think we've had a war for -our- rights since WWII, the wars since then have been pretty much for "our rights" to become the rights of the people over there.
"We came, we saw, we conquered, we...woke up!"
2005-10-27, 8:09 PM #40
Originally posted by Jedigreedo:
I don't think we've had a war for -our- rights since WWII, the wars since then have been pretty much for "our rights" to become the rights of the people over there.



Rights for our companies to exploit people over there. Not that I'm complaining.

Actually, a lot of wars America has been involved (since America's founding) in are for the rights of our companies to exploit people over there.
"Those ****ing amateurs... You left your dog, you idiots!"
12

↑ Up to the top!