Mr. GOH!

I was, too. But check the Table of Contents.

I read quickly. Also got my hands on a copy on Sunday.

I've finished the book. So I won't spoil you..

I think he's 18 or 19. But perhaps I'm wrong.

I think Young Griff is too old to be Jon's twin.

Is the commenter whose company uses FB as a corporate directory a Gawker employee? I mean, that seems very new media, but it also seems pretty darn inconvenient from an HR management point of view.

I'm fairly certain that some jerk said something threatening about Crecente's child at some point, possibly on the kotakuites forum. I mean, the original Kotaku deserters included some colorful and crass individuals. Not to mention the tripe that shows up in comments on Kotaku. I think, as someone has already said, that Crecente either confused Dean with someone else OR held Dean responsible for comments made by another on Kotakuites.

Okay. Just wasn't sure from what you had written.

So, wait, Dean, was that clause actually in the email?

I think it's fair to assume that emails between two parties are meant to be kept private and that it is courteous to ask before publicizing them. On the other hand, accusing you of threatening harm against children is pretty beyond the pale. It also should have come as no surprise that you would likely share such accusations, so I'm surprised Joel did not even ask you to keep it between you guys. Then again, I guess they're not really interested in understanding *why* the Kotaku community has fallen apart over the past year, nor what made it a strong community in the first place.

As usual, Thursday has it right. Also: did Joel realize you'd publicize this email?

What did you post that riled them up, though? I'm familiar with the aftermath, just not the genesis.

Yeah. I was on vacation when the Apocalypse happened and your comments have been scrubbed. So just curious. Also wondering what Crescente's version is insofar as that's what Joel will get from him.

I'll bite: what *is* your take on what happened?

The scene where Robb is sworn fealty to by the riverlords and the lords of the north. Point is, the Blackfish should've been there by now. He wasn't. He BETTER be in the second season, or I am refusing to watch the show again. while your passion for equal time for homosexual characters is laudable, HBO only allots so much money. If it comes down to Davos or Brynden, i choose Davos. Word on the street that brynden and edmure will be combined.

I play the piano, cello and the various clarinets. I am far and away the best at the cello.

Ween, bitches. If you don't dig Ween, you ain't got no class at all.

Transformers 3 is godawful. It's 2 hours of the worst conspiracy comedy movie I've ever seen and half an hour of brilliantly beautiful scenes of robots fighting. But everything else aside from the fighting was unwatchable. Also annoying: Shia is supposed to live in DC, but his neighborhood has skyscapers in it. There are no skyscrapers in DC. Maximum building height is about 12 floors.

Though Brazil remains his best.

Actually, such reasoning has no place in Constitutional arguments. The Constitution restricts government power regardless of private agreements or organizations. The EMA could disband tomorrow and ratings could be abolished, but the ruling would still be pretty iron-clad precedent that could not be overturned. In legal terms, what you're making is a policy argument; whether the policy of the law would be served or be redundant or whatnot. Policy arguments are summarily discounted by the courts and the Court in constitutional cases. The debate is about the scope of government power, which is not contingent on whether the Court believes the exercise of that power is a good idea but rather on whether it it permissible in the face of Constitutional restrictions. The ruling speaks at length (from page 15 of the pdf) about how the ESRB and EMA currently fulfil the need this act purported to fill. The fact remains that you have turned control over to an unaccountable private company (or NPO, same difference) rather than vest control in a government that is duly elected by the people. If the EMA decide to start pulling video games off the shelves tomorrow (which is expressly provided for in their contract) there's precisely nothing you can do about it. You can't write to your senator, you can't lobby the government, all you can do is write a strongly worded letter to the board of the EMA which they are in no way incentivised to respond to. I find it odd that America is so fearful of handing power to its elected government, yet so eager to pony over control to a bunch of boardroom executives, I mean, have none of you seen Wall Street? Yes, the Court outlines several reasons why the law doesn't pass strict scrutiny. But that is a legal sideshow; if the ESRB were to dissolve tomorrow, many other facts could be found to make a similar law fail to pass muster. Strict scrutiny essentially means that if there's any reason, even outlandishly hypothetical ones, why a law might violate the relevant Constitutional Amendment or Clause, the law will fail. I know that seems odd, but, honestly, that's the way it works. Sure, the ESRB and the MPAA rate stuff for content. But not everything. And it's not *necessary* to partake. Concerted action by consumers or publishers could change the status quo. Government regulations are more pernicious; candidates aren't voted in on one issue, but a host of issues. Even if the majority want something, if the intensity of that desire is insufficient, it will go unmet. But when you're dealing with private entities, they'll react to specific wants of the public much more quickly, theoretically. Thursday next: I work in financial regulation with Wall Street brokerages. I know exactly what you speak of and I agree that the people should not cede control of the country to corporate oligarchs. But that's not what the ESRB is.

I can't blame them for going after pageviews. It's how they make their money. My chief complaint in the focus of the gaming industry (Bash) and the way they have handled the redesign. In the industry I work in, if a customer complains, it goes through layers of people and is discussed in quality events we hold every year. Improvements are always expected in quality. Then, today, Kotaku has been one screwed up site. The ca and uk.kotaku sites have both been, apparently, decommissioned, as they are redirecting to the "new and improved" site. I shake my tiny fist at you, Gawker! You make a classic mistake here, TheRevanchist: commenters and visitors are not Gawker's customers. The folks they sell ad space to are their customers.

Actually, such reasoning has no place in Constitutional arguments. The Constitution restricts government power regardless of private agreements or organizations. The EMA could disband tomorrow and ratings could be abolished, but the ruling would still be pretty iron-clad precedent that could not be overturned. In legal terms, what you're making is a policy argument; whether the policy of the law would be served or be redundant or whatnot. Policy arguments are summarily discounted by the courts and the Court in constitutional cases. The debate is about the scope of government power, which is not contingent on whether the Court believes the exercise of that power is a good idea but rather on whether it it permissible in the face of Constitutional restrictions.