Not that I want to open with "games as/are art" in here, but this is precisely the reason why our medium needs more mainstream respect. Making a movie or writing a book about this war would be completely acceptable, I think.

That's too bad, I was hoping to see what all the raw nerve fuss was about.



Even if it was something like GoW style, I applaud Atomic for taking on a real subject in their game. I have to admit, I was curious to see how they would attempt to paint the reality of a modern conflict. Would it be a juvenile fantasy or a grittily realistic portrayal?



I hope a publisher with a set steps up and brings this to market.

I firmly believe in what Atomic is trying to do and I really hope that they can pick up another publisher, or publish Six Days independently.



The only way to advance the medium is to create these innovative games, and there will be plenty of naysayers either way.



Atomic is reaching out to try and educate an audience who have been misled about the experience of conflict through games. Are the naysayers striving to maintain their ignorance?

I say this is a good move for Konami. There was going to just to much heat for them as the war is still happening and bodies are still coming back form the field. This is a game that should have been made AFTER the war was over and the wounds had healed. I am not against the game. I like war games but it is just to early for this one.

I think it's a good move on Konami's part, also. This game would've ended up more of an insult to the real-life veterans of the Iraq war and merely stirred up political controversy that I don't believe would've swung in the game's favor sales-wise.

Kale, I'm curious how you could know that the game would be insulting since you haven't (I'm assuming?) played the game. I think this is a big problem that games have as a medium - no one says it's "too soon" for the countless books on the Iraq war, or the movies or music that have been made about it. I'm not entirely sure why games get treated with kid gloves when other art forms are allowed a full range of expression.

Actually, Adam, people did complain when the pair of 9/11 movies were released. They were too soon, but got made anyways and did well.



Problem with this game is that it's a shooter. You probably start it up, receive instructions and shoot people and save civilians. That is not the only thing that happens in a war. Is there even a main character to identify with, in this game? Movies are about the people and their internal/external conflicts.



This is a shooting game in set in fallujah. Not the same thing.

I just took a stroll down Amazon Lane. I went to the site typed in 'Fallujah' in the search bar with the search encompassing the entire site. Here is what Ifound just on the first page of results:



2 MP3/CDs

5 DVDs

9 Books/eBooks



All about the Fallujah Conflict. There were a little over 2 more pages of results related to a 'Fallujah' search.



So why is it that these song writers, television/documentary producers and writers able to produce their works about Fallujah, but a game developer can't? I have no idea. Perhaps ii is the mainstream perception about games being one of two things: Kid stuff, and juvenile gore fests.



I really wish that Konami didn't give into the pressure from these short sighted complainers.

Joseph,



This game from the related stories about it, are the accounts of several soldiers who actually had a hand in its creation. They were brought on as consultants in order to make it as accurate as possible.



I have read nothing except from complainers that lead me to believe that this game is just another generic FPS or shooter taking place in Fallujah. Could you please cite your source on your information.

Gamespot has been covering this in the last few podcasts they did. They're professional game journalists, they've played it, and they seem to feel that this is just another FPS that happens to take place in Fallujah. So far, from what I can tell, Atomic hasn't made any artistic decisions that would take it beyond the scope of FPS. it's not the mainstream perception that this is kid stuff, it's the developers who think it has to be "fun" in order to sell. (and they're probably right) -- I think this could be done really well and it could be potentially effective and moving, but this is offensive to people because they're just making a shooter with Fallujah skin.

I agree with Adam 100%. It's almost comical how COD4 was based in fictional Iraq, and thats okay. Yet you put a real city on the game cover and it's too controversial. I know it's a sensitive subject. They may need to take the assets and re-do the game into something fictional.

Konami's reason's are obvious for dropping this title, but I still hope it comes out. The controversy could be a good thing, as that will spark sales (if only for the wrong reason), and generate a healthy discussion on self-censorship and how it relates to both current events, and the gaming industry as a whole. It would be nice for a smaller publisher to pick this up, or they could just rename it and turn it into a "generic" mid-east shooter.

Assuming it was indeed going to be a good game, dropping production seems like a mistake to me. You can't buy this kind of press coverage. If the game was great and not gruesome or offensive, then this was a golden opportunity for Konami. I think they overreacted.



Controversy fuels sales, if you can produce a great product underlying it.

Tom,



I so hope they don't just drop the Fallujah aspect of it. That would really be a disservice to the games industry.



Such a move would set the games industry back and prove that we care more for profit and 'fun' than anything that this medium is really capable of.



The interactive aspect of video games is the most powerful tool in making documentary style games.

You know what would be really cool is if Atomic took this opportunity to reevaluate and see if they can push the medium a little further and actually say something with their game. I completely agree with Ephriam's sentiment that games have immense potential to be immersive and communicative, I just feel like that potential is vastly unexplored. -- I would love to see a game that could communicate the spectrum of emotions I'm sure soldiers feel, here's hoping.

...never has it been easier to use "spin" and pretend like you were publishing a game, you weren't really able to deliver, and then cancel it for convenient reasons. aside from (probably very few) offended military folks, the victims here might be the individuals at the developers studio. hope they can find something else to do with their dated war engine.



btw- how come some of you (above) have such controversy with this locale? why don't germany and japan count on your questionable cities? we've been recreating their battles for years interactively. did this group know that almost 85K Iraqi civilians have been killed in the last 5 years? gamers may be really smart at certain things but objective social and political awareness don't seem to be in today's skill set unfortunately.

@mt m,



you're making assumptions about how those people feel about those other locales. Objectivity doesn't seem to be your strong point either.

mt m goes a bit overboard, but I think the overall point is an interesting one - Far Cry 2 essentially turns the ongoing civil wars in Africa into "entertainment", but I've not seen anyone complain about that. The past decade in the Congo has been much worse than what's gone in in Iraq, and it's still ongoing today. So why is it acceptable to make a game which is ostensibly about a series of conflicts that have taken millions of lives, and caused millions more to be displaced, yet it's not OK to make a game about a war that Americans are involved in? Is the problem simply that it uses the word "Fallujah", or do conflicts involving Americans get treated differently? I'm not trying to accuse anyone of anything, I'm genuinely curious why the responses are so different.

Fallujah is politically pertinent to Americans, the Congo, less so. We have a vested interest in Fallujah and it's politically very divisive. Making a game about it offers up the chance to offend people with opinions about it. I think that's why we get so many different views.



Having said that, I really am looking forward to this game should/when it come out. I think the idea of the game and some of the design concepts could make for an interesting experience. If done well, of course.

I was really interested to see where this game was going to go. At least it got people to talk about wars and the video game industry in relation to the book, music, and movie industry.

i don't get into the full time profession of posting here but pete anderson....you're comment proves my point ;) tx!

here's one more notion to try and make swiss cheese out of. maybe the contemp. war genre is too crowded and when konami couldn't answer the important questions during their press day recently, they realized they should probably let this one go where most war time fps' end up: cancelled. most gamers want enhanced game experiences. feeling more reality is a holy grail, be it in an ER, police chases, or wars. there will hopefully be more of what some of us are looking for, especially in non-war games.

There's no mention of the work Atomic did with the insurgents, which I believe is the real controversy in all this.



http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/04/14/insurgents-contributing-quotsix-days-fall
ujahquot-says-developer

sorry mt m, did I hurt your feelings :( -- love the tortured logic. This is actually the first time I've ever posted... anywhere. Ha ha, I just really find this topic interesting.



I'm a developer myself, I'm not just some douche gamer. I guess I just want the medium to go beyond what this tried to do. If you're gonna claim hyper-reality of a current event in an interactive medium, you better back it up with the appropriate social commentary, whatever that may be. I'm not against it altogether, just didn't like the direction this was going in.

thanks for your sensitivity pete. i'm glad to know there is a new sherriff in town. i feel safe knowing that you are an actual developer now. i was worried for a minute that i was dealing with some "douche gamer"



btw- i'll make sure to update my elder japanese and jewish friends that you have okayed their war tragedies as experiences that are unarguably exploitable through games.

Innovative? Hardly. I think there are many more productive and positive ways we can push the medium forward. A realistic war game based on actual modern events is a waste of creativity, innovation, and the potential to do something new and interesting. I'm happy this game is getting canned. The last thing we need is more war is any form, be it real, or artificial.

Steve, there's a difference between discussing war via art and actually engaging in warfare. We'll never be free of war, and we'll never be done discussing it. How is canceling a game that tries to present it for public discussion a good idea? Should we also stop with movies and books about it? How about journalism? Not discussing it is just sticking our heads in the sand, and it's not good for anybody.

At first, I was mildly interested, but after reading through the comments and seeing the link jaime kuroiwa posted? I WANT this game made. I'm actually appalled that people are getting pissed off they're trying to get the perspectives of every side. You don't see these people getting up and arms with every other war game that comes out and does D-Day over and over. I didn't see anything but praise for Saving Private Ryan which was heralded as an incredibly accurate WWII movie. Then again, we had a handful of closet racist blacks going crazy over Resident Evil 5 when not a single Mexican or Spaniard seemed to get ticked off at RE4, so over reaction should be expected from the sensitive ignoramuses. Seriously, that Dan Rosenthal guy in the linked article was ticked off about health regeneration... He might as well be pissed off you can keep playing after your first game over. He's calling the devs of the game hypocritical when they explicitly said they're getting input from marines, citizens, AND insurgents. Idiot.



If Atomic Games is serious about bringing the modern Iraq war to an interactive medium and is serious about making it as realistic as possible to portray its horrors and heart aches and destruction, I would gladly drop $50 on it the day it comes out and I very rarely spend that much outright on a single game now that I'm in college. I can handle ultra realism if it's done well and I'd look forward to playing marines AND insurgents, because it's great to see every side, especially in a game based from reality. It aggravates me to no end when we endlessly see movies and video games portraying only our side or the "winning" side or the "good" side and this could be a rather innovative change of pace.

I'm actually sorry I was a jerk mt m, I've only been posting this whole time cause I'm just interested in this topic. Sorry to have turned the discussion all snarky.



I'm confused now though, so what is your position on this? For some reason I thought you were for it, but now you're accusing me of wanting a holocaust game. -- just to clarify, I'm more on the side of steve. I'm way glad this was canned and I think gamers and developers alike take war way too lightly. I'm more than sensitive to Hiroshima and the Holocaust, but I'm also not opposed to someone doing something as long as they do it right, the same reason I'm not against Schindler's List. (whether or not that's plausible is another question)



anyway, sorry mt m, didn't mean to be a douche developer.

no worries pete. you're a better poster than me. and, i definitely don't take these boards personally. i am all for new and innovatve gameplay. i'm for a war game that immerses the player into a more realistic albeit via docu-drama feeling. this might be one way of bringing awareness to the fact that war is NOT an answer (okay...let the new banter start on this comment ;).



my main issue is that konami, as all predicable publishers, is just trying to take advantage of a situation that is already over exploited. they put a spin on the game that never really existed in my opinion. add to that a recesion, some boring months for game PR, many journalists at a konami gamers day...and voila- a smoke and mirror show. i have watched this dozens of times while at midway and other publishing companies in the last ten years. no one really suffers here but the developers and their support staff (eg. soldiers, etc.)



the atomic team have great accolades. they can pull off a great game IMO. the problem these days is that the business doesn't want to pro-act. it wants to react. that means making games that have already been successful and not ones that haven't been validated yet. pro more realism in interactive entertainment! it's come a longway already.

Daniel, you might want to give Insurgency, a mod for Half-Life 2, a try... very similar to what you are looking for, plus you can keep the $50.



Steve, war is quite a profound issue for humanity (maybe not for all, but likely most). Don't think about what Atomic is trying to do as something for the sake of innovating the games industry, but for the benefit of those outside of it (where the vast majority of fans are found). Shooter games especially mislead gamers of the depiction of war. Might as well have some sort of value to the time being in game. Education and enlightenment is a great excuse to innovate the games industry; what better topic gamers need enlightening about than war? Especially during a time of war.

Regarding Daniel Ferlise"s comments:



You post is full of factual errors. You say you didn't see any criticism of Saving Private Ryan, but in fact there was. There is plenty of criticism leveled against those D-Day games too, so again you are wrong.



You then move on to Resident Evil 4 and 5 and claim that only a "handful of closet racist" went "crazy while "not even a single Mexican or Sapniard" seemed to "get ticked." You statements here are incorrect as well. There were a significant number of people upset with RE 5, including individuals and groups. They weren't all just "closet racist blacks" either. I think you are making commentary about "reverse discrimination here, but it is so unformulated that it just comes off as intolerant on your part. There were people claiming Mexian heritage that objected to RE 4. So that part of your post is incorrect as well.



You say. "so over reaction should be expected from the sensitive ignoramuses." I think this applies to you.



While I think this game should be made, I don't think it should be free from criticism. Clearly, the developer knows it is provactive and is attempting to use this aspect to develop interest (and ultimately sales) in the game. Therefore, commentary from a broad range of experience and background are likely to and should be exepected. I am sure the developer is pretty happy with the dust up. I am sure they aren't thrilled with losing their publisher, but I am willing to bet that they are not totally surprised either. When you play with fire you can get burned.

Get Dick Cheney to publish it. Then it will sell, right?

The problem is the word, "game." It has a connotation of being entertaining and fun. Those are the first things that come to mind for most people. A documentary film or non-fiction book,however, these do not have the same connotations. They are thought of as educational and informative, foremost.



There are educational games out there, but for the most part, the industry is still about fun and entertainment.



I had and still have some hope for this Fallujah game, but I am also skeptical. An FPS that's realistic will be difficult. First of all, you wouldn't have many opportunities to use your gun. And, second, the more opportunities you get the shoot, the more likely your character will wind up dead. If the game has the player running solo and killing about 200 guys by the end--how is that supposed to be realistic?



It's just difficult grounds to tread.

I applaud the developer for its apparent commitment to get all sides of the story and am also saddened to see how individuals pushed for the censorship of this content.



Nevertheless, I am not the bit least disappointed in their choice to let it go. I think I have killed enough Germans, Russians, Palestinians, and 'Insurgents' to last me a lifetime. If the game was intended to be something along the lines of September 12th or Oligrachy I would have felt otherwise. But, considering the game was probably going to end up as a run of the mill shooter, I am happy that Konami decided to move onto something else.

The organization named in the news stories as the primary opposition to the game, Gold Star Families Speak Out, is a chapter of the organization Military Families Speak Out. Both of these organizations are political groups with the stated goal of getting US forces withdrawn from Iraq. I think that this aspect of these organizations should be known and considered with regard to their opposition to the game.



Here are the websites for these groups (actually the same group, one being a chapter of the other):

http://www.gsfso.org/

http://www.mfso.org/



The websites themselves make it quite apparent that these groups have political goals. (They have an agenda, but it is quite up front and open.)



I would be interested to hear what some other groups, like the American Legion or Veterans of Foreign Wars, have to say about a game like this one (good, bad, or indifferent).



Maybe the game could be marketed a little differently, and to a different demographic - like wargamers, who generally play out of historical interest in the subject matter of a game and many of whom are themselves war veterans.



The military is using gaming as a training tool right now (and has been for decades). As a medium to teach someone about things, it is quite strong.

Andrew: Tried it, hated it, the UTTER AND TOTAL LACK OF HELPFUL GUI leading to me getting killed with no clue where they came from, to shooting team mates, to just having no real clue what was going on and no real clue what did what. There's realism done right and realism done wrong, and Insurgency was realism done wrong. There really is a limit to appropriate realism because it's a lot harder to distinguish things properly when you're staring at a screen VS real life. I mean, that's why games have GUIs, to compensate for the fact that you've only got sight and hearing (limited hearing, at that).







Edgar: If you minded my word choice, I admitted to hearing pretty much no outcries. Regarding RE, it just strikes me that these days it's as if anything slightly depicting minorities (especially blacks) in a darker light or as the "bad guys" means it's racist, and my real life experience continues to suggest to me that it seems as if only white people can be racist, at least in America. From my point of view, the general public and all the civil rights groups and activists overreact or presume racism when a little research and thought might suggest a mere, say, bad choice of words. His name escapes me, but a major league baseball player, a pitcher if I remember, had a comment regarding New York City taken way out of context, one that never even hinted at race, yet racist was one of the words used to describe him once the public committed to a mob-like outcry, leading him to be fired purely for PR reasons. More often than not, I see more of a knee-jerk reaction to these sorts of issues and quite frankly the political correctness of it all is stifling. Quite frankly, I'm convinced its this political correct social pressure that is in fact promoting prejudice because we get force fed stereotypes and unfair expectations when, as otherwise good people, we're just not that fluent in such-and-such a subject. It's like that bullshit sensitivity training, all it does is fill your head with the wrong train of thought and improper assumptions when what people really need is a desensitization so they don't knee-jerk and prejudge at what often is merely poor word choice or a genuinely innocent ignorance to the subject. I'm willing to bet the fear of being taken out of context has contributed to some of the flubs we hear.



As to SPR, I actually heard GOOD reactions to that, in that it WAS realistic. I heard real WWII vets went in thinking it'd be another typical war movie and wound up having to walk out because of how powerful the imagery was. Really, at this point you must ask yourself when it's appropriate to deal with unpleasant and even controversial subjects like war? Is there like a minimum of time we have to wait? Obviously, no one's gone ape shit over the America Civil War games and movies because there aren't any vets of it alive anymore to get their tessies in a twist. Afterall, it's not like anyone is forced to play or watch or read something, and if it's not some, and rather criminal I might add, attempt purely for profit then what's the harm? if it's trying to show reality as it really is, why is that such a bad thing? Why do people get upset about reality when someone tries to put it into the light it deserves to be?



Maybe I was being too harsh, but after reading that linked article I was pretty annoyed. People are just way too sensitive. You have marine vets supplying Atomic with information about the war on one hand who clearly have no problem with their being an insurgent perspective also being given, and then you have someone like who was quoted in the article who is convinced Atomic's devs are subhuman scum and DOES have a problem with an insurgent's view point. Seriously, what does that tell you? Just what does that tell you!? Maybe with some real critical thinking, you might understand my perspective and MY outburst, because it tells me that people are way too sensitive on subjects everyone deserves to know about and should.

While I understand that showing a realistic and respectful view of what it was like to be in Fallujah is something we would all like to see our medium doing, I don't feel that Six Days was pursuing that goal effectively.



One of my friends told me the story of how her grandfather was in the 101st on D-Day, survived the first night, then got machine gunned in the leg the next day and was sent home. That was his war: 20 hours in Normandy. If you made that into a game, nobody would play it.



Who wants to play a game where your character "loses"? How much fun is a game where you are in only one firefight where you are hit from the start and all you do is watch and bleed and hope not to die while your comrades (maybe) pull you to safety?



Inevitably the goal in Six Days is to survive enemy attacks, accomplish the mission, save the day, win the war and shoot your opposition before they shoot you. It's a story of good vs. evil, player vs. AI. It is not a story about real war. There is a way to win and a way to lose. Death is a great consequence for failure in games because it's significant, but what about being wounded, being sent home and surviving? Isn't living to raise a family, despite being permanently crippled, a worthy goal in life? That's a real war story, with a (pretty much) happy ending. Is it better to be injured yourself than to kill another human being? Many veterans ask themselves that question. Was Six Days going to aspire to that, or just to be another war-based shooter? I think you can all figure out the answer to that one.



Until there is a game that can convey the same experience as Born on the Fourth of July (live with being crippled in a veterans hospital), or Platoon (injure yourself to escape from the war and frag your commander over a personal grudge), or the Deer Hunter (escape from torture only to go crazy and eventually kill yourself) there will not be a need for another war game. Sure, Call of Duty and Day of Defeat and Close Combat are fun games, but at least they don't go acting like they're portraying what real war is like.

Daniel, you continue to say things incorrectly, and I quote you: "rom my point of view, the general public and all the civil rights groups and activists overreact or presume racism when a little research and thought might suggest a mere, say, bad choice of words."



You state that "all" the civil rights groups and activists overreact or presume racism. This is certainly not true. You are claiming that anyone who expresses a different opinion other than yours is intolerant. This is an untenable and illogical position. Do you understand the irony in what you are doing?



I hope that because of your opportunity of being in college you can have a chance to have your writing analyzed so that you can learn how to make a point and argue it effectively.



Also, much of your ideas of are focused on blacks. You pick on blacks as a group you don't like in particular. I find that you really have a problem with race and socio-political identity. You lack any real insight into the issues. You speak in generalities and platitudes. Much of your ideas are based on ignorance and immaturity.



I really don't see how a game developer's problem with getting a publisher really has much to do with a wide ranging indictment of the civil rights movement in general.



Your problem is that you hate anything to do with race and feel threatened by it. I can tell that you think that if some one discusses anything in a racial context you think that means you are being called a racist and are about to lose something. The trouble is that no one is doing that to you. You are not a victim of a conspiracy against you because you are white. The truth is that you have plenty of opportunities and benefits connected to your race. You should be satisfied with your lot in life and stop trying to attack others who may not be as fortunate as you think.

Edgar: Congratulations. Your recent post just perfectly personified what I mean. You've taken everything I've said so utterly out of context and I am absolutely disgusted and insulted. There really is nothing more I can say. You've completely missed my point and have now perfectly manifested to portray it: knee-jerk reactions because of social expectations of political correctness just because some particular subject has been considered controversial, so instead of being rational you, just like all the others like you, kick your own feet out from under yourself and blame whoever you think is a racist or this or that for your falling on your own ass.



People jump to conclusions. Far too many, especially in America, hear something and hear the spin on it from their particular source of news. Typically, pretty much the entire main stream media will put I think unfair negative spin on one thing or another just because it could be seen as racism etc. and then their viewers go into this broken record mob mentality and start spouting "Racist! Racist!" No one stops to think critically anymore, no one tries to rationalize anything, everyone immediately settles into the fixed perspective they're told to from their news media and society's politically correct demands. I am sick and tired of political correctness. It DOES put whites into an unfair and unrealistic corner, especially when I have seen and experienced racism before FROM BLACKS! Where's the public outcry there!? Why aren't the civil rights groups reprimanding a minority for being unjustly racist against the majority? Because it's always the majority who is at fault. It's a two way street, it's a double edged sword, but society doesn't see it that way and neither do the oppressed minorities or whoever the victim may be. That's why I'm upset about this. It's as if they want to get pissed off, it's as if they purposely look for reasons to be, and then the general public is given a disservice through misinformation and misinterpretation and is no longer capable of distinguishing the real problems from the insignificant. It's mountains into mole hills, and I'm tired of it, and that's not just regarding race.



I'm just hoping Obama's election proves "the man" isn't the one keeping you down, it's yourselves and your gang-humping gun-toting pot-smoking alcoholic sexist money-excessive rap culture which perpetuates and glorifies stereotypes and prejudices (and trust me, huge difference between rap and hip hop in my mind. I LOVE Jurassic 5 because they're hip hop artists and have been an inspiration for my perspective on this). I hate seeing such self defeating slop being glorified because it's robbing black youth of their individuality and the chance to think critically about their place in the world and how to reach their goals. Instead, they're given Snoop Dogg and Ludacris and 50 "Sell out" Cent and other bullcrap. They need more Jurassic 5 for a fresh perspective and more DMX to realize the glorified gang lifestyle and excessive luxury lifestyle are unrealistic, foolish, and destructive. The whole world does, but instead we're treated to such a disservice by the very people who can make a difference but do not in the name of ratings and profit.

Based on what you have just written it is clear to me that I have not taken your words out of context. You protest too much for me to have been wrong.



One thing you do need to understand is, that it is silly to criticize activitist groups for being activitists. For example, a group called the NAACP is named that way for a reason. They actually believe in the "advancement of colored persons." They aren't hiding it. This is not some secret you have uncovered. But you would have us all believe that this group has no right to function and seek opportunities for the people they profess to represent. Why? Because you think that every thing is a "double edged sword."



Life is not a double edged sword, Daniel. Things don't always cut both ways. History has proved you wrong on this. You need to spend some time learning about the world you live and figure out how you are going to be able to get along with people who you don't agree with.



And it seems like you have a really, really long list of people you don't agree with.



Lastly, to get back on topic about video games. I really don't see how you can argue that Six Days in Fallujah should be made, and I use your words, "because it's great to see every side, especially in a game based from reality." But on the other hand, you want to wipe out rap culture because you, "hate seeing such self defeating slop being glorified because it's robbing black youth of their individuality and the chance to think critically about their place in the world and how to reach their goals."



You make no sense. How can you argue that insurgents should get equal time and attention along with marines in a video game, but rap should not be allowed to exist along hip hop in music? You have fallen into your own trap. Your intolerance is your undoing.



It is not effective to ramble on in a rage attacking anyone you can think of that may hold different viewpoints than yourself. I find this statement to be particularly ignorant and offensive:



It DOES put whites into an unfair and unrealistic corner, especially when I have seen and experienced racism before FROM BLACKS! Where's the public outcry there!? Why aren't the civil rights groups reprimanding a minority for being unjustly racist against the majority?



This is silly. You are not a victim of discrimination by proclaiming theoretical notion of reverse discrimination. I can tell that your perceived victimization is the basis of all your histronic ramblings. But the truth is that you have suffered no wrongs. Currently, affirmative actio has largely been repealed, invalidated, and legislated out of existence.



Lastly, I it is incredibly stupid to argue that that blacks and the mainstream media based on their desire to perpetuate the tenants of reverse discrimination are conspiring to deprive you of your right to play Six Days in Fallujah.

Edgar, you are a troll and a fool. It's not worth defending my position against someone who personifies my very problems with the mindset of society, especially when what I say has been so twisted out of context and shoved into my mouth as is evident by the last paragraph.



You don't know me, you clearly don't understand me, and by your reaction to me I can't ever expect you to, so good day to you.

Why do you continue to lodge complaints against such huge swaths of people? This time you say that it is not worth your defending your position against someone who personifies my very problems with the "mindset of society." First, why do you think you hold such a special understanding and insight into what all of "society thinks?" Second, what is so terribly wrong with society's mindset and so right about the way you think? The level of your intellectual arrogance is mindboggling. I can understand your lack of agreement with what I might have to say after a bit of discourse with me, but how can you say that I am representative or the emodiment of all of society?



This is a theme throughout all of your rantings and ravings. You persistently claim to know what everyone thinks and represents; you claim that everyone is against you; you claim that everyone else is wrong and you are the only person of reason.



You have attacked literally everyone for having thoughts or beliefs different than yours. At this point, I do know you. I know exactly who you are and what you really think. You started off poppng off about races and when called on the carpet for it you just got worse and worse. You dug yourself a deepeer and deeper hole and you have now found that you can't get yourself out of it. This is why you now resort to further name calling and pathetically claiming that you have been misunderstood.