Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-02-15 06:44:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:david hogue, games as porn, legislation, porn, utah

Utah Games = Porn Bill Revived

Do violent games equate with pornography?

They will if Utah Rep. David Hogue (R) has his way. Yesterday, according to a story in the Provo Daily Herald, a Utah House committee passed Hogue's bill, HB 0257 by a 7-2 vote. As reported previously on GamePolitics, the bill initially failed a January 28th vote.

The proposed legislation would make it a felony to knowingly exhibit or sell violent video games to minors,

"It's more than a message bill," Hogue told the newspaper. "This is a bill that identifies the effects that different media has on our children."

While the bill would apply to retailers, it could also affect "perpetrators trying to influence a minor."

The bill defines "inappropriate violence" as games with carnage that offends prevailing community standards and lacks "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."

The ESA and ACLU were quick to react.

"This bill is not needed. More importantly, the bill will be challenged as unconstitutional," said the ESA's Scott Sabey. "To plug violence into an obscenity statute won't work."

Eagle Forum Director Gayle Ruzicka spoke out in favor of the bill, saying, "If we have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, then let's take it to the Supreme Court."

For more background, see GP coverage of Hogue's bill from January 25th and January 28th.

GP: We thought this bill was dead and buried, but Hogue apparently made enough changes to satifsy Utah conservatives. With the "games as porn" rhetoric getting actual legislative consideration, Utah's HB 257 immediately becomes the leading political threat to the video game industry so far this year.




Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

(Post a new comment)

wha?
[info]enmitywithin
2006-02-15 11:53 am UTC (link)
jeezus, I thought we already went over this.
you can't lump violent videogames into the category of obscene.

(Reply to this)


[info]turbinerocks
2006-02-15 11:57 am UTC (link)
Utah v. Texas. Who has the most retarded laws? GRUDGE MATCH

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]the1jeffy
2006-02-15 02:14 pm UTC (link)
Texas: a retarded law proposed by a fat man in a 10-gallon hat just seems more retarded than if the same law was put forth by some suit. Then again, I'm a Yankee, so I might be biased.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]turbinerocks, 2006-02-15 10:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]acroamatis, 2006-02-16 03:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]acroamatis, 2006-02-16 03:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]turbinerocks, 2006-02-16 04:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bustermanzero, 2006-02-15 04:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aniki21, 2006-02-16 10:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tabor_tooth, 2006-02-15 09:57 pm UTC
Failed
[info]yukimurasanada
2006-02-15 12:08 pm UTC (link)
Hogue clearly doesn't do his homework. So I'll break it down.

1. 30 years standing case law, including a supreme court ruling state that Violence cannot be lumped in with obsenity.

2. This approach was tried in the past with movies that were to violent. Failed.

As for Gayle Ruzicka, I got news for her.

"If we have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, then let's take it to the Supreme Court."

Fine, lets go. Game industry has 30 years standing precident on you. Good luck beating it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Failed
[info]turbinerocks
2006-02-16 04:35 am UTC (link)
This Ruzicka dumbass saying she'll be taking it to the supreme court is like me saying I'm going to be the starting center for the Pistons at the NBA Finals. It won't happen, it's the most wishful of wishful thinking. The Supreme Court is not even remotely going to hear such an obviously unconstitutional bit of pandering like this.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]chuma
2006-02-15 12:08 pm UTC (link)
*Cue Jack telling us this is unconstitutional like we didn't know already.

These laws actually don't bother me in the slightest. They are bound to fail and are utterly stupid. What worries me more is the mainstream media carrying stories about games and their harmful impact on kids without proof or evidence. It's one thing for Jack to go on some program shouting off or Fox News to carry something, it would be quite another if Channel 4 News or the BBC did a headline piece. Thankfully, most have common sense, or maybe it is just that Computer games are seen in a more favourable light here in the UK?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

See chuma
[info]yukimurasanada
2006-02-15 12:09 pm UTC (link)
Thats what I've been such a stanch supported of the "Sue back" ideal. Maybe if the media was afraid to sensationalize, they would actually do there jobs first.

But I digress. yes, your right, this law is DOA. No need to worry about it

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]goodrobotus, 2006-02-15 12:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]desert_thunder, 2006-02-15 04:33 pm UTC
Don't forget... - [info]boffo97, 2006-02-15 12:43 pm UTC
Re: Don't forget... - [info]lordlundar, 2006-02-15 08:40 pm UTC
No offence....
[info]goodrobotus
2006-02-15 12:46 pm UTC (link)
Heh, I think JT is a tool as much as anyone here, but I really do think we need to stop mentioning him in every news-item, else he would have created a self fulfilling 'Jack Obsession' prophecy ;)

Let's just be glad he's not posting for now and leave him in the realm of anonymity that he so justly deserves ;)

(Reply to this)

uhhhhhhh
[info]squirrelofwrath
2006-02-15 01:03 pm UTC (link)


I need a zombie owl for this one, cause all I have to say is...

IT LIIIIIIIVES!!!!!

(unfortunately)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: uhhhhhhh
[info]howdoyouplead
2006-02-15 09:04 pm UTC (link)
Did you see the O RLY owl died the other day at his home at the San Diego Zoo? A sad day.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Fresh off the presses - [info]vaminion, 2006-02-16 07:08 am UTC
Re: uhhhhhhh - [info]yzzerdd, 2006-02-16 11:44 am UTC
Re: uhhhhhhh - [info]vaminion, 2006-02-16 06:13 pm UTC

[info]featherspy
2006-02-15 01:05 pm UTC (link)
It would be really awesome if I could get all my porn and video games in the same store...

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]the1jeffy
2006-02-15 02:17 pm UTC (link)
Hahaha, indeed it would. We could call it Pixelante Heaven, or Uncle Limpy's Games and Porn Shack. I'd go there.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]silver_derstin
2006-02-15 01:16 pm UTC (link)
This bill wins, really. I've never seen something so stupid, and bringing it back from the dead will just add to its stupidity.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]turbinerocks
2006-02-16 04:37 am UTC (link)
Zombies can prove useful. These pigs can prop themselves up and look oh so more moral than thou, shepherding this thing through. Most laws are passed not for the good of the people, but for the good of the careers of the politicans that champion them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]rmallen
2006-02-15 01:17 pm UTC (link)
Someone is mistaken. This bill does not identify the effects media has on our children. It rather identifies the inability of political leaders, and indeed anti-game activists as a whole, to see the greater picture. Games and their content (for the most part... there are some pretty terrible ones I admit: look back a few items on GP for that online sex sim) are not the issue. The issue is several disturbed individuals with the inability to distinguish right or wrong, who just HAPPEN to have played a few games. Naturally, since the activists aren't gamers themselves, and can't identify with virtual reality in that sense, all gamers must be identical.

It's been said time and time again: The actions of the few should not condemn the many. It's rather sad that will all the other problems in the world, these people have to waste taxpayer money on what is, for the most part, a non-issue. Go solve poverty or something guys, at least that's productive.

(Reply to this)

You know the sad part?
[info]chronozaga
2006-02-15 01:40 pm UTC (link)
You know the sad part? David Hogue will get votes from this law, even if it's ruled unconstitutional, so that he can go on and propose even more idiotic legislation.

On a side note, when I think of this law, I pictures a 29-year-old, soccer mom, trophy wife, driving alone in her huge SUV on the expressway while gabbing with a friend on her cell phone about how her precious little Johnny will be safer now, and taking a swig of her Starbucks latte every fer seconds (both hands full). Of course she's swerving around due to lack of concentration, on the expressway, going 42 mph, in the fast lane, in front of me. Is it normal to get such a mental image?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: You know the sad part?
[info]hilaryduffgta
2006-02-15 02:16 pm UTC (link)
actully i picture the same thing except with me its the mother going in and buying manhunt for little 3 year old billy and then speeding over to her dealer's house to grab a small bag of tweak.

then again this whole anti gaming Save the children so the parents can continue to be lazy little bitches movement has made me a bit antisocial and not to mention lose patience with these ignorant blood sucking leeches

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You know the sad part? - [info]chronozaga, 2006-02-15 04:01 pm UTC
Re: You know the sad part? - [info]the1jeffy, 2006-02-15 02:19 pm UTC
Re: You know the sad part? - [info]chronozaga, 2006-02-15 04:02 pm UTC
Re: You know the sad part? - [info]the1jeffy, 2006-02-15 04:20 pm UTC
Re: You know the sad part? - [info]silver_derstin, 2006-02-15 04:59 pm UTC
Re: You know the sad part? - [info]the1jeffy, 2006-02-15 06:04 pm UTC
Re: You know the sad part? - [info]tollwutig, 2006-02-15 06:58 pm UTC
Re: You know the sad part? - [info]jdmdsp911, 2006-02-15 06:43 pm UTC
Re: You know the sad part? - [info]the1jeffy, 2006-02-15 07:11 pm UTC
Re: You know the sad part? - [info]jdmdsp911, 2006-02-16 05:22 am UTC
Re: You know the sad part? - [info]the1jeffy, 2006-02-16 01:19 pm UTC
Re: You know the sad part? - [info]chronozaga, 2006-02-15 07:19 pm UTC
And who decides...
[info]seifd
2006-02-15 01:45 pm UTC (link)
The bill defines "inappropriate violence" as games with carnage that offends prevailing community standards and lacks "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."

And who exactly decides what community standards are? For that matter, who decides what serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value is? A bunch of people Dave Hogue chooses who don't understand video games?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: And who decides...
[info]rhanlav
2006-02-15 02:15 pm UTC (link)
I just read that too, and I'm trying to figure out how a video game is supposed to have 'political' value? Can we claim Halo 2 has a political value by saying it makes me want to support the military and also helps reinforce my belief in the Right to bear arms? *twitches*

Or is this the 'political' where they meant to write 'religious'? Now I want a Passion of the Christ video game. I mean its violent and stuff, but it 'political', WINK! *twitches more*

And whats with the 'scientific' value thing? I don't think anyone's wanting to ban The Oregan Trail from Apple IIEs around the country, but really, how many video games would this really effect? Would puzzle games count? Its a stretch, but some of those puzzle types are pretty tough on the old noggin.

Eh, oh well. More bad legislation for courts to toss out the window, again.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: And who decides... - [info]dagrak, 2006-02-15 02:44 pm UTC
Re: And who decides... - [info]barfo, 2006-02-15 05:43 pm UTC
Bravo! - [info]acroamatis, 2006-02-16 04:00 am UTC
Re: And who decides... - [info]kajanga, 2006-02-15 03:42 pm UTC
What's the point of this Bill, precisely?
[info]anticron
2006-02-15 02:38 pm UTC (link)
"The Daily Herald notes that games based on historical wars would ge granted exemptions category."

So.. realistic historically-based games (read: based on reality) are in, but games involving violence in other situations (read: fake) aren't?

Am I the only one questioning precisely what the point of the Bill is to be? If they're exempting historical portrayals, which are often just as violent as anything decidedly non-historically based.. how is that "protecting" anyone?

Real life virtual violence, good! Fake virtual violence.. bad?

wtf?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: What's the point of this Bill, precisely?
[info]goodrobotus
2006-02-15 02:43 pm UTC (link)
This does, of course, mean that Call Of Duty 2 is a historical re-enactment, church burnings and all ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: What's the point of this Bill, precisely? - [info]dagrak, 2006-02-15 02:47 pm UTC
Re: What's the point of this Bill, precisely? - [info]the_new_l, 2006-02-15 03:12 pm UTC
Re: What's the point of this Bill, precisely? - [info]acroamatis, 2006-02-16 04:04 am UTC
Re: What's the point of this Bill, precisely? - [info]bigman_k, 2006-02-15 02:52 pm UTC
Re: What's the point of this Bill, precisely? - [info]mnementh2230, 2006-02-15 03:33 pm UTC

[info]bigman_k
2006-02-15 02:50 pm UTC (link)
..."Hogue responded by saying the legislative legal staff said it was likely the bill would hold up in court."...

Well that legislative staff obviously must of missed all the past court presedents including the Supreme Court saying that violence speech cannot be deemed obscene for either adults or minors and the 6 - 0 win ratio for the game industry against states/cities trying to ban the sale/dissemination of violent games to minors. They should be fired.

(Reply to this)


[info]jerico6
2006-02-15 03:21 pm UTC (link)
This is AWESOME (sarcasm)!

(Reply to this)

An arrogant dumbass here
[info]skemodan
2006-02-15 03:34 pm UTC (link)
(Since he isn't showing up...probably banned again)

This bill is unconstitutional. In other news, you pixelantes are going down. I'm winning, despite the fact that not one bill has made it into legislature and stayed there. Hell, half of them haven't even made it into legislature at all. However, I'm still winning. When will you sociopathic rapists get overf yourselves and submit to my awesome power. Read the bible why don't you. There's a verse somewhere in there that, taken horrendoulsy out of context, will support my cause. Just look, it's there, just like pubic hair and nipples in The Sims 2. Hoah.

-A total dilnod

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: An arrogant dumbass here
[info]desert_thunder
2006-02-15 04:37 pm UTC (link)
Hooah!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: An arrogant dumbass here - [info]jbourrie, 2006-02-15 05:35 pm UTC
Re: An arrogant dumbass here - [info]acroamatis, 2006-02-16 04:06 am UTC

[info]casey_dunham
2006-02-15 03:38 pm UTC (link)
You know I'm getting tired of all this games legislation and Intelligent design crap. I'm sure everyone else is too. The way I see it, let them keep their chidren ignorant. Maybe we could pass legislation in these states that prohibits reading. I remember being disturbed far more by books I read as a kid than any games that I played.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]desert_thunder
2006-02-15 04:57 pm UTC (link)
Agreed. Have you ever read Chuck Palahniuk's story Guts?

Link definitely not for the weak of stomach. Seriously. I couldn't finish the whole thing, and it isn't even that long.

Due to the nature of the medium, the written word can be far more disturbing than videogames could ever hope to be. Because while videogames are constantly limited by the issues of technology, a talented writer (like the aforementioned Palahniuk) can paint a picture as vivid as they want, the impact of which is only limited by the reader's imagination. But America is a nation of illiterates, so how would they even know?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]the1jeffy, 2006-02-15 04:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]silver_derstin, 2006-02-15 05:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]desert_thunder, 2006-02-15 05:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]spudsey, 2006-02-15 08:32 pm UTC
Supreme Court
[info]tollwutig
2006-02-15 04:21 pm UTC (link)
The Court, in an attempt to set such limits devised a set of three criteria which must be met in order for a work to be legitimately subject to state regulation:

* the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
* the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and
* the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.


Don't think this law will pass.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Supreme Court
[info]gasperskeltner
2006-02-15 07:18 pm UTC (link)
That is Miller Vs. California for ya. The thing that gamers should worry about, is the pro-conservative Mormon Population. Contemporary community standards are going to fuck it up just right.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Supreme Court - [info]citizenkane86, 2006-02-16 01:23 am UTC

[info]dramagirl42
2006-02-15 04:22 pm UTC (link)
Presumably this gentleman hasn't thought about the consequences to families in which parents ignore the stern warnings of video game retailers and buy games such as San Andreas and Manhunt for their seven year-old because, "Well, he really wants it."

Think of the burdens on the penal systems? New "Rockstar" wings would be opened and roving gangs of soccer moms would rule the yard with decorative Martha Stewart Living shivs and an unfaltering belief that they know what's best for you.

"Daddy, why is mommy a felon?" "Because you snuck into our room and stole our copy of God of War, peanut."

Duuuurrr.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]barfo
2006-02-15 05:47 pm UTC (link)
luckily there already is a judge on record saying that God of War taken as a whole has serious literary and artistic value (Illinois? games law case i think).

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]desert_thunder
2006-02-15 04:40 pm UTC (link)
Is it wrong that more than anything right now I feel proud to be Canadian?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]attackgypsy
2006-02-15 05:00 pm UTC (link)
Nah, you guys just have more experience with what to do during long cold winters.

Probably lay in a huge stock of condoms in September, right?

I've been to Toronto in the month of January, and I'll never do it again. And I thought New England could get cold...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]silver_derstin, 2006-02-15 05:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bustermanzero, 2006-02-15 09:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]desert_thunder, 2006-02-15 05:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lordlundar, 2006-02-15 08:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]trencher, 2006-02-15 09:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]attackgypsy, 2006-02-15 10:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]acroamatis, 2006-02-16 04:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]turbinerocks, 2006-02-16 04:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]gray17, 2006-02-16 05:11 am UTC

[info]sir_bissel
2006-02-15 05:22 pm UTC (link)
Hey, so does that mean that when Grandma buys Billy Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, she can be arrested?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]yubberducky
2006-02-16 12:25 am UTC (link)
If grandma got arrested for buying Billy GTA: San Andreas, I think I'd cry. D:

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]barfo
2006-02-15 05:53 pm UTC (link)
Its disgusting that this law would make sitting down to play GTA:SA with your 16 or 17 year old (technically minors) son/daughter/younger sibling/niece/nephew a felony equivalent in the eyes of the law to giving them hardcore pornography or molesting them. While i understand that this has a cold chance in hell of passing the courts (which gets slightly warmer everyy time the Supreme Court is stacked with another Scalia clone), one has to wonder at the unmitigated bile and hate that leads people to even come up with the idea of trying to shove their reactionary interpretation of morality down the throats of all others via abuse of the legislative system.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Don't poo-poo Scalia
[info]bigman_k
2006-02-15 08:22 pm UTC (link)
I disagree with you, despite his conservative stance on many issues Antonia Scalia is actually incredibly pro-free speech. He even ruled that hate speech and burning the american flag is constitutional. Moderate O'Connor was actually way less pro-free speech then he was. And Alito who replaced her is actually very pro-free speech to.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]finaleve
2006-02-15 06:01 pm UTC (link)
Technically all games are more towards the fictitious side of this argument there, it just depends on how you look at the games nowdays and finding the flaw in the arguement (like how smart-asses say certain things).

The bill has a little more life than it did before, so the chances have increased for now. But why equal it porn? Sure, both stimulate in some way, but both are completely different. The law should be based to try and eliminate games being sold to gamers only, like how we eliminate ciggarettes and alcohol to minors, which they do a damn good job at it. That should be the main focus instead of trying to patch things with loose material only to be broken later.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tollwutig
2006-02-15 06:55 pm UTC (link)
"The law should be based to try and eliminate games being sold to gamers only, like how we eliminate ciggarettes and alcohol to minors, which they do a damn good job at it."

I don't know where you are from, but Teen smoking rates haven't really dropped all that much because you can't sell them to minors. Just the reporting. Its just a matter of getting someone to buy them.

Alcohol is the same way. Go find 20 College Freshmen and you will find 19 underage drinkers. Guess those alcohol laws are working great.

Now both Alcohol and Tobacco have been scientifically proven to have negative affects on the body. Thus the legal limitations on thier use.

There is no concrete scientific evidence that Violent Media results in violent behavior. There is correlative evidence that watching violent media and violent behavior are connected, but that could be violent people (see http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/207696.html?thread=14338128#t14338128) are attracted to the violent media. In fact statistics show a downward trend in Violent Crime since the advent of the Sony Playstation.
We could also correlate that Video Games reduce violent crime. It wouldn't be concrete but we could do it.

The problem with all of this is people are looking in a vaccuum. There are many factors to be taken into consideration which most psychological studies either can't account for, or choose to ignore. Until we gain the ability to read thoughts, there will be no substantive evidence to prove 100% sure what causes people to become violent.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Typo.
[info]durlock
2006-02-15 06:41 pm UTC (link)
It's just so glaringly obvious, or is it, that I just had to point it out and snicker. Not that my typing is any better mind, but I thought it was funny because of something I do almost everyday, RPing wise.

"The Daily Herald notes that games based on historical wars would ge granted exemptions category."

However, on that point, I think that's utterly stupid.

They're playing favorites already and the bill hasn't even passed. Commentarily like that'll get you sued.

(Reply to this)

(Reply from suspended user)
Ignore him.
[info]tsknf
2006-02-15 06:54 pm UTC (link)
Just please, ignore him.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Ignore him. - [info]aerix_saber, 2006-02-15 06:59 pm UTC
Re: Ignore him. - [info]durlock, 2006-02-15 07:00 pm UTC
Re: Ignore him. - [info]tsknf, 2006-02-15 07:01 pm UTC
Re: Ignore him. - [info]xlorep_darkhelm, 2006-02-15 07:04 pm UTC
Re: Ignore him. - [info]aerix_saber, 2006-02-15 07:05 pm UTC
Re: Ignore him. - [info]tollwutig, 2006-02-15 07:08 pm UTC
Re: Ignore him. - [info]aerix_saber, 2006-02-15 07:12 pm UTC
Re: Ignore him. - [info]tollwutig, 2006-02-15 07:26 pm UTC
Re: Ignore him. - [info]tsknf, 2006-02-15 07:10 pm UTC
Re: Ignore him. - [info]jaykaos, 2006-02-15 08:04 pm UTC
Re: Ignore him. - [info]xlorep_darkhelm, 2006-02-15 09:05 pm UTC
Re: Ignore him. - [info]warpstarmstr122, 2006-02-15 09:39 pm UTC
Re: Ignore him. - [info]mrflibble, 2006-02-15 08:58 pm UTC
To Mr. Thompson - [info]durlock, 2006-02-15 06:57 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]xlorep_darkhelm, 2006-02-15 07:03 pm UTC
Problem with your bill, Jack... - [info]boffo97, 2006-02-15 07:03 pm UTC
Re: Problem with your bill, Jack... - [info]acroamatis, 2006-02-16 04:30 am UTC
Re: Problem with your bill, Jack... - [info]turbinerocks, 2006-02-16 04:45 am UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]tconx, 2006-02-15 07:07 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]tollwutig, 2006-02-15 07:07 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]goodrobotus, 2006-02-15 07:12 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]tollwutig, 2006-02-15 07:29 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]sir_bissel, 2006-02-15 07:14 pm UTC
Serious Question for Jack Thompson (please read Jack) - [info]sundaos, 2006-02-15 07:16 pm UTC
EXTREME SARCASM ALERT FOR SUNDAOS COMMENT. - [info]gasperskeltner, 2006-02-15 07:22 pm UTC
Re: EXTREME SARCASM ALERT FOR SUNDAOS COMMENT. - [info]sundaos, 2006-02-15 07:38 pm UTC
"Mormans"? - [info]getwellgamer, 2006-02-15 10:27 pm UTC
Re: Serious Question for Jack Thompson (please read Jack) - [info]acroamatis, 2006-02-16 04:35 am UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]jdecamp, 2006-02-15 07:30 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]tollwutig, 2006-02-15 07:45 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]jdecamp, 2006-02-15 07:51 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]jaykaos, 2006-02-15 08:10 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]jdecamp, 2006-02-15 08:34 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]tollwutig, 2006-02-15 08:53 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]jdecamp, 2006-02-15 09:00 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]bigman_k, 2006-02-15 08:39 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]jdecamp, 2006-02-15 09:17 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]bigman_k, 2006-02-15 09:46 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]jdecamp, 2006-02-15 09:58 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]tollwutig, 2006-02-16 07:09 am UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]acroamatis, 2006-02-16 04:39 am UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]jabrwock, 2006-02-15 09:57 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]bigman_k, 2006-02-15 10:04 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]ianc14, 2006-02-15 07:44 pm UTC
No Yack, you're lying. - [info]zeroxphoenix, 2006-02-15 08:03 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]origamifrog, 2006-02-15 08:13 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]acroamatis, 2006-02-16 04:46 am UTC
I do want to congratulate you. - [info]startropics, 2006-02-15 08:32 pm UTC
Re: I do want to congratulate you. - [info]acroamatis, 2006-02-16 04:54 am UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]duncan_922, 2006-02-15 08:40 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]mrflibble, 2006-02-15 08:57 pm UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]enmitywithin, 2006-02-15 09:07 pm UTC
Create a law about something that has been a law for years? You're a freaking genius! - [info]razer_2mb, 2006-02-15 10:06 pm UTC
Re: Create a law about something that has been a law for years? You're a freaking genius! - [info]acroamatis, 2006-02-16 05:00 am UTC
Working with them - [info]attackgypsy, 2006-02-15 10:39 pm UTC
I'm glad Jack is helping them... - [info]dog_welder, 2006-02-15 11:13 pm UTC
Re: I'm glad Jack is helping them... - [info]warpstarmstr122, 2006-02-16 01:23 am UTC
Re: I'm glad Jack is helping them... - [info]dog_welder, 2006-02-16 03:13 am UTC
Re: I'm glad Jack is helping them... - [info]acroamatis, 2006-02-16 05:02 am UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]duncan_922, 2006-02-16 01:18 am UTC
Re: Jack Thompson Here - [info]karasukun, 2006-02-16 02:03 am UTC
Dibs
[info]tollwutig
2006-02-15 07:10 pm UTC (link)
This thread will now hit 500, since JT posted... anyone want to bet against me?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Dibs
[info]tsknf
2006-02-15 07:11 pm UTC (link)
No-one, that is the sad truth.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Dibs - [info]the1jeffy, 2006-02-15 07:14 pm UTC
Re: Dibs - [info]goodrobotus, 2006-02-15 07:17 pm UTC
Re: Dibs - [info]bustermanzero, 2006-02-15 09:02 pm UTC
Re: Dibs - [info]acroamatis, 2006-02-16 05:06 am UTC
Re: Dibs - [info]durlock, 2006-02-16 10:25 pm UTC

Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…