Actually, something occured to me.
Let's say you're a lawyer. You represent a client who is a woman that has been raped. You lose the case.
Your next client is also a woman who has been raped. You lose the case.
It could be that you're not a good lawyer, but it could also be that you happened to have a couple of bad cases.
A third woman who got raped presents herself as a client. Do you reject her as a client because you haven't won any rape cases and there's no point to taking one? Perhaps you would if you thought you were no good at rape cases, but otherwise you'd take the client because it's your belief that there are a bunch of rapists out there that need to be stopped and someone has to fight for the victims.
That's what this Jack Thompson character is. He believes that these video game makers are like rapists (ok, maybe not that
bad and they need to be stopped. That's why he keeps fighting - he's trying to fight for a cause.
The flaw in this however is that there's yet to be proof that video games are responsible for murders (whereas it has been proven that rapists are responsible for rapes). This case is particularly bad - the killer wasn't even the one who owned the game - but he's going to go after it anyway. He believes he's on a crusade and these game makers must be stopped at any price.
At this point I'm not sure what to do - I don't think calm, rational explanations (or facts) will stop this man. I also realize that the relentless lambasting that people do on boards like this won't help either. Perhaps the ultimate result will be that, if he's ever successful, then more video game makers will take care with what they put in games.