Dear mr. Thompson,

After reading your website along with a number of related websites, the oppinion's of well respected webartists and those of a part of the gaming community about the subject (the subject being that violence in games is or would be a direct cause for aggression amongst the younger gaming population), I wanted to share my oppinion and view with you.

First things first, I do sympathise with the victims and their relatives of the incidents in which a youth went "overboard". Just so you know that I am not a hartless son of a b****.

Next is that I am a (17 year old) gamer, along with, probably, 95% of the male population in the western world. That means that the things you say and "preach" are also directed at me, not just the entertainment business or people that happen to attract large amounts of attention (certain webartists). But I read your interviews and I've heard much about you and your cause. And I do think that there is a big truth in what you say.
You say that incidents like Columbine are a direct consequence of games like the GTA series or doom and that the games are not correctly rated. In an email, amongst others, sent to the artist responsible for VG cats, you point to the game "killer 7" being incorrectly rated. It had a rating that prohibited people younger than 17 to buy said game. You said that the game should have gotten the "AO" rating in stead of the "M" rating because it displayed "full-blown sex sequences".
And you hold the rating board responsible together with the game developers and publishers.

I do not deny that a lot of games show a lot of violence and/or sexual nuances and themes, neither do I deny that this has a, although marginal, influence on the avarage gamer.
What I do deny is that the rating board, the games developers and the publishers are solely responsible. Did you ever stop to think about the stores where these games are sold? THEY have a responsibillity that should not be taken lightly.
If, say, a 16 year old boy wants to buy a beer and he gets away with it. Subsequently he runs over a pedestrian with his car, because he was to drunk to react properly.
Where does the responsibillity lie? With the kid? The parents? NO, at least not solely. Ofcourse the parents and the boy should be held partially responsible, it is, after all, their son. But the store where the beer was bought/sold should be primarily held responsible for it was not allowed to sell beer to that individual. But according to you the brewery should be one amongst other companies and institutions that should be held accountable. Where's the logic in that?

The same counts for games. The label that games get isn't there for show. If a game is M-rated the store may not sell that game to a child younger than 17. It is that simple. How do these kids get there games you ask? Because the parents buy it for them. In that case the responsibillity lies with the parent(s).

In the extreme cases that you talk about in your interviews and on your website you present videogame violence as the sole cause. Which is far from the truth. A problem which has only one cause is a very rare thing mr. Thompson. In this case the youth was obsessed with one or more games and spent double, triple or sometimes quadruple the avarage amount of time spent on such a game per day. Why? Because the PARENTS (yes those people that should be responsible for you for at least the first couple of years of your life) did not intervene when their child was spending extraordinary amounts of time behind thier pc or console. Note that parents aren't the only people who could have addressed said gamer(s).
I've been playing games for quite some time, I played Mortal Kombat when I was twelve, but my parents made shure I did not spend more than an hour or two per day gaming. On top of that they made shure that I know what right and wrong are, that's called "parenting".

These games are not the only thing responsible for the incidents that have taken place. It is true that the games (or the spending of extraordinary amounts of time playing them) can be the cause for the perpetrator to go overboard and express certain levels of aggression (frustrating things can have that effect). But the means to the deed was not the game, nor the lousy parents, nor the gamestore, nor the rating board or publishers or developers. The means to the deed was the local gunstore around the corner. It is okay for an American to carry a (LETHAL) fire arm, but when a so called "nippleslip" occurs, all hell breaks loos. The local gunshop and the US law made it possible for the perpetrators to do the things they did.

Furthermore, do you really think that a 18 year old will react more maturely than a 17 year old? NO, they will not. A 17 year old thinks about stuff like games, girls, consuming obscene amounts of alcoholics and, yes, SEX! I am not saying that you should go out promoting sex or violence, but you can't protect a 17 year old from reality. True, you can shield them partially, but nearly the majority of 17 year old teenagers are no longer virgins. The only difference with games is that they are not doing it themselves...... biologically speaking.

The truth is, mr. Thompson, that these incidents do not occur because of the increasing demand for outlets, money and entertainment these days, they are a direct consequence of a failure in the community and lousy parenting, shops and stores that do not abide by the rules and easily acquirable weaponry.

If you want to shield the American youth from sex and violence you should direct your "wrath" at parents, shopkeepers and the right to "arm yourselves".

That was my two cents. I felt a need to express myself. Now, you are still alive, but according to you, I should be some sort of mercialless psycho killer..... what went wrong? NOTHING! Your hypothesis just doesn't add up.

If I were you, I'd rethink your campaign target. (Too bad I'm not you, eh)

Greetings from the Netherlands (yes, the small country where they sell weed, drink too much alcohol legally from 16, DON'T drive untill we're 18, Harry Potter is Vice-pres and where gunshops are reserved for the milliary)

Erwin Beens

PS: Next time don't throw a stick at webartist, because they have a certain amount of influence on the gaming communnity. They do not directly tell the gamers to get mad at you (they don't have to) but they give thier oppinion. And if you go on disrespecting their publishings and/or oppinions you hit a sensitive spot in the community. This means that a lot of sticks get thrown back!
And if you've seen the movie "House of Flying Daggers' you'd know that sticks can be VERY dangerous.

NOTE: This was not a threat. Well, at least not a death threat. At the UTMOST your mail box will be spammed with mails such as this one or more childish ones. You've threatened with legal measures in such a case before. But you'll be nowhere. It's perfectly legal for the community to give their oppinion, even if it is childish or exaggurated and in an obscenely large quantity. Have a nice day mr. Thompson.