So Jack Thompson was on G4, about the pending release of Bully from Rockstar Games.

I'm a bit confused. Nothing really new has been released, nor have there been any new protests against the game. I'm kind of confused as to why G4 would do this now.

I'm also confused as to why G4 would do this in the first place. Jack Thompson is one of the most despised characters to the gaming community, and others aren't thrilled with him - even other anti-game crusaders distance themselves from him.

Would you look at that? If I hold down the shift key too long, G4 becomes G$.

But, I believe what confuses me the most is the actual matchup. In this corner, you have Jack Thompson, who is alone against two and therefore feels he must be twice as loud and obnoxious.

And in this corner, you have a soft-spoken CEO of a video game news site and a video game show host, Adam Sessler, who spastically calls Thompson's theories 'insane' and 'morally reprehensible'.

Is there serious debate? The CEO, Mark Reid, tries. Adam and Jack just shout at each other.

Instead of making it a contest of who can force his or her own personal ideas louder, we need intelligent debate. Is it moral to have video game violence? No. Is it moral to ignore worse TV and movie violence to target it? Probably not.

But is it moral to blame the existence of things kids should not have, that the industry says that kids should not have, for violence that existed before such things and has drastic social and economic causes that are not being adequately targeted? No.

Drugs, poverty, poor health care, racism, child abuse, poor education.... Why doesn't Jack target these direct problems first? Because they don't have a quick fix, and they aren't popular.

Nice media-mongering, Jack. You saved us. And thank you, G4, you really earned your advertising dollars.

But no thanks to the slimeballs at Penny-Arcade who, through the evil Child's Play program, give sick children video games and toys. How reprehensible.