(Untitled)
What. The. Fuck.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12292003/business/14640.htm
I especially like "This is 10,000 times worse than the worst thing anybody thinks Michael Jackson ever did to a little boy". Just wow. Comments? I'm too angry for words.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12292003/business/14640.htm
I especially like "This is 10,000 times worse than the worst thing anybody thinks Michael Jackson ever did to a little boy". Just wow. Comments? I'm too angry for words.
In regards to your article 'Give Back Take Two' recently published in the New York Post:
You can kill a cop, steal his gun, and then use it to shoot someone else. Or you can pick up a prostitute and have sex with her in the back of your stolen car, then beat her to death - or shoot her, bludgeon her, whatever you want.
Or you can not do these things. Much like real life, the recent two installments of the Grand Theft Auto series afford players the opportunity to make a great number of choices. Certainly, the option to kill police officers exists; I won't deny that. But, like real life, consequences for these actions exist as well. If you kill many people in the game, you will soon be caught and punished. What's the difference? Would you propose prior restraint in real life? To do such a thing would be quite unconstitutional, and with good reason. Our society works on a social contract, just as does the society of Grand Theft Auto. Perhaps you should persecute the games that encourage killing without offering any consequences.
One might actually make quite the opposite argument that appears in your article: The game allows people a 'morality test' to try out things in a simulation before they try them in real life. This could prove invaluable to borderline people who might otherwise turn to crime- they get to see beforehand what crime leads to. If you think that this argument is a bit extreme, which I would guess you might, please be assured that it is no more extreme than the argument which appears in your article.
Moreover, your wild speculation on the consequences of content to Take Two's stock is quite wholely unjustified. If you would care to set a wager on a target price or performance point for the stock, please give me a few days to put together a model, and we'll give it six months and then settle based on who's closest. I would be happy to engage in such a wager in order to demonstrate to you that your speculatory recommendation on the likely movement of the company's equity is probably based on nothing but mediocre research, and that you are completely unqualified to give investment advice. As this is what I do, I find it somewhat offensive that you would publish such speculation without solid backing. In case you're curious, Yahoo Finance puts mean analyst recommendation for Take Two slightly ahead of the comparable leisure goods meta-industry. This means, generally speaking (though it's not the best metric, it's the quickest, and fit for now), that smart analysts who research this and comparable stocks for a living believe this stock will outperform the universe of comparable equities over time.
Jack S. Phelps
Reply
Reply
Reply
nick
Reply
Leave a comment