Sections

Michael Jackson’s Thriller video free for today on Live [Update]

Sunday, 28th June 2009 21:09 GMT By Mike

thriller1b

Microsoft has announced that Michael Jackson’s legendary music video Thriller is free to download on Xbox Live until the end of today.

The information comes via Microsoft Xbox’s twitter page that reads: “Michael Jackson’s – Thriller music video is currently FREE on Xbox Live Marketplace, until the end of today.”

Sadly, this offer appears to be limited to US consoles only and strangely enough, if you access the song via Marketplace on your console (we’ve got a US account), it says the video currently costs 160 Microsoft Points. However, Xbox.com has it listed for free, so we suggest you use that instead.

It’s a standard definition only affair and therefore is a tiny 173Mb in size.

Update: Whoops: “EDIT- Michael Jackson’s Thriller video was FREE for a short period to only ‘US’ region Live Members. Apologize about the inconvenience.”

Latest

85 Comments

  1. Eon

    Both Xbox.com and the 360 marketplace list it as 160 points for me. =[

    #1 6 years ago
  2. Mike

    Wow, yeah. It’s 160 Points again.

    Nathan and I both check the Xbox.com link and it was free at the time of writing.

    Strange.

    #2 6 years ago
  3. Patrick Garratt

    Updated.

    #3 6 years ago
  4. Cort

    Age-old cheap, exploititative marketing trick. Announce something is free for a limited time then whack the price right back up as soon as people start attempting to take advantage of the ‘offer’. Hey presto, you sell a load at the original, full price and get a huge amount of free PR too!

    Distasteful.

    #4 6 years ago
  5. anasui

    horrible, just horrible

    #5 6 years ago
  6. Cort

    Oh dear. Free (and not just for five minutes) on PS3 VidZone, along with dozens of other MJ tracks.

    #6 6 years ago
  7. David

    Oh dear free on youtube :S

    #7 6 years ago
  8. Cort

    ^^ Some of us prefer a sound and visual quality better than like you’d find on one of those miniature handheld TVs.

    #8 6 years ago
  9. Eon

    I don’t know what you watch. It isn’t difficult to find high quality videos on YouTube these days.

    #9 6 years ago
  10. ecu

    Yeah, YouTube has really decent quality videos now.

    #10 6 years ago
  11. anasui

    i think you guys are kinda missing the point

    #11 6 years ago
  12. marty waterloo

    Volunteers needed for a survey about Michael Jackson

    Researchers from the Department of Psychology at the University of Waterloo, Canada are looking for volunteers to take part in a survey about people’s circumstances (e.g., what they were doing, where they were) when they learned about Michael Jackson’s death.

    To participate, you must be at least 18 years of age, and be willing to participate in a short online survey at this time, and be willing to take part in a short follow-up survey on the same topic within the next 12 months and to provide contact information for this purpose.

    This survey will take less than 10 minutes to complete. The survey will include questions that ask for specific details about your situation (e.g. what you were doing, where you were) at the time you heard about the death of Michael Jackson.

    To complete this survey, please copy and paste the following link into your web browser:
    http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~mprofile/mnptc/

    #12 6 years ago
  13. BraveArse

    Anyone find anything a bit weird about watching MJ as a zombie just days after he died? No? Just me? Ah well…

    #13 6 years ago
  14. Shatner

    Currently, the way this news is presented, VG247 makes it sound as though this sort of material is only available for a price and only available for one platform.

    That’s evidently not the case though. Is VG247 seeking to imply that paid content is better than free content? Did they simply not do some balanced research? And why update the piece with *some* information (#2)and not others (#6)? Looking at the author of the piece, however, it’s no surprise that the research behind the article is lacking, the information inaccurate and the focus on promotion of one platform over another. These are pretty consistent traits and continually damaging to the author’s credibility and, by extension, the site’s too.

    Comments 4 and 6 hold considerable merit and the apparent lack of interest shown in them by this site is quite telling. Chalk it up alongside the reluctance to report the cars-for-votes thing a few weeks back.

    Such a selective practice of delivering information isn’t serving your industry or your readership. Information please, not misinformation.

    #14 6 years ago
  15. Blerk

    For fuck’s sake, Shatner.

    #15 6 years ago
  16. DrDamn

    Played about on Vidzone for the first time last night and it’s a really nice service – particularly the playlist implementation and size/variety of the selection available.

    There is a big MJ playlist ready to go on the front page which, given the service is free, deserves more coverage than a cheap marketing ploy which now has a misleading headline.

    #16 6 years ago
  17. Shatner

    Yeah. Sorry Blerk! Let’s just have a news source that’s blatantly selective with how they deliver news and then, when their lack of professionalism gets pointed out by multiple members, we’ll just bury our heads in the sand because we prefer shoddy reporting to properly balanced and researched stuff.

    You go ahead and do that Blerk, I won’t stop you. I’d just ask that whilst you’re busy ignoring such behaviour you don’t go out of your way to discredit those that choose not to ignore it. Looks like you’d better make a dismissive remark to Cort and Dr. Damn too, now Blerk, otherwise it might look like you’re just one of those people that likes to have a go at one person for the comments that multiple people have made.

    Anyway, what’s so offensive to you about a request for balanced information, Blerk?

    #17 6 years ago
  18. JonFE

    You don’t actually think that’s going to work now, Blerk, do you?

    #18 6 years ago
  19. Blerk

    So, what? It’s a gaming news site and reports on something which is happening on a gaming platform. But wait – you can actually get this video on a bazillion other sites or buy it from a shop or watch it on the telly so perhaps we should include links to all of those as well despite it not making a fuck of difference to the actual story.

    Sounds ideal.

    #19 6 years ago
  20. DrDamn

    @Blerk
    Vidzone is an application you download from the PSN Store for free for the PS3. We aren’t talking about going to a website.

    #20 6 years ago
  21. Shatner

    “So, what? It’s a gaming news site and reports on something which is happening on a gaming platform. ”

    Well, if that’s the case, why shouldn’t it report something that is happening on more than just ONE gaming platform?

    So your point about if not making any difference about all those other sources is completely irrelevant. If the site is reporting on games platforms it has failed report in a balanced and comprehensive manner. It has even had relevent information about content available on ‘a gaming platform’ that it has, so far, chosen to ignore in spite of already updating the article for other information.

    The result is a site that actually ISN’T reporting “on something which is happening on a gaming platform”. It’s just choosing to be selective with what it reports and choosing to ignore information that would make its reporting seem far more balanced. And, who knows, it may now have cost readers money by directing them to something they have paid for when they might just as easily got it for free.

    So, following your last comment, Blerk, I’d argue that, no, it’s not ideal in the slightest.

    #21 6 years ago
  22. Blerk

    And perhaps when Sony get off their arses and send out a press release to that effect there will be such a story?

    You seem to be somehow at odds with the ‘press release –> report’ aspect of news. Not everything is a five hour piece of investigative journalism. Just occasionally it’s a throw-away tip for something that you might be interested in. Or in this case, something that you’re not interested in but which provides a reasonable excuse to don tin-foil hat and wear out another keyboard.

    #22 6 years ago
  23. OrphanageExplosion

    The other thing of course is that it suggests that the people who run this site give an inch of a toss what Shatner thinks when in common with most of us, they most likely ignore the latest “essay”.

    #23 6 years ago
  24. Shatner

    “And perhaps when Sony get off their arses and send out a press release to that effect there will be such a story?”

    What a great point. Why bother to research anything. Let’s have a news source that’s entirely based off events described from promotions and press releases!

    Not saying that more than half the news on the internet is sourced in precisely that way but you’re still arguing in favour of lazy, unresearched, unbalanced and inaccurate (did the press release also cover the “it’s not free any more” aspect? If not then, by your standards, there’s no point updating the article to reflect it, is there?) over something that would take less than 5 minutes to research properly.

    That’s minutes, not hours – stop trying to over-exaggerate fictitious details for your flawed argument.

    And, even 5 minutes is more than enough time. All VG247 has to do – as my original post was questioning – was to reflect the information PROVIDED (not researched by VG247) by its readers. Yet it has chosen not to.

    So, besides your finger waving, exaggeration and apparent lack of understanding of the point being made, Blerk, yoru responses are just ridiculous.

    As I said – if you want to bury your head in the sand and gulp down selective information and half-stories then you be my guest. Don’t try and shit on the people that don’t favour ignorance over information.

    And try to get a grip on what’s being said before you leap in and try to imply people they’re wrong. Every one of your posts has shown a lack of understanding at what’s been discussed but you’re still wading in with your dumb points and showing that you’re too keen to make a smartass comment than pay attention to what you’re commenting to.

    #24 6 years ago
  25. Shatner

    #23 I don’t care what people think of what I say. It wasn’t me that showed them the additional information in the first place.

    But whilst they make a habit of promoting one platform over another and refusing to publish crticial information of one platform whilst salaciously covering any bad news that comes their way on the other – well that sort of behaviour paints an image, doesn’t it?

    People on more than one occaision have reported newsworthy information that has been entirely snubbed. In spite of the games or material being heavily covered by the site elsewhere.

    If you’re ‘selecting’ what news to present to your readership then, logically, you’re being selective. Why is it so offensive to people that someone should ask why such selective behaviour goes on and what’s so wrong with some balanced reporting?

    Seems like a lot of people are too busy rushing to attack the guy asking the question than they are about the question (or the reasons for it) at all.

    But, please, continue to ignore my questions, misread what I’ve said and attack me and then tell me that you’re doing none of that. It’s funny watching insular people act like they can hear any voice but their own.

    #25 6 years ago
  26. Blerk

    I do apologise Shat, but I really can’t be arsed to read any of that.

    #26 6 years ago
  27. Shatner

    It basically demonstrated how wrong and irrelevent each of your counterpoints were and that you don’t read comments before you make a smartass reply to them.

    Still, I think your own comments have already demonstrated that quite clearly already.

    #27 6 years ago
  28. dirigiblebill

    I agree that the headline should be updated to include PS3 availability for balance’s sake.

    #28 6 years ago
  29. Shatner

    I’d say that, given the disparity of the price, selection and service, a properly researched separate article (should take 5, maybe 10 mins at the most) would be most fitting.

    - At last glance there’s 21 Jackson tracks (including the 13 minute version of Thriller) on VidZone this morning.

    - VidZone streams videos rather than downloads them.

    - As I understand it, VidZone is availabe in Europe, not the US (whereas this article is about a US only promotion)

    - The videos are free, along with the service.

    An off-the-cuff footnote implying ‘also on another platform’ would not be fully accurate and the information that applies to one platform (cost, regional availability etc) does not apply to the other. Ambiguity could lead to confusion.

    Credit to Cort for bringing this information to the attention of people that have an interest in information and content of more than a single gaming platform.

    And, I dare say Sony didn’t choose to “get off their ass and send out a press-release” because, on their video service, the Thriller video isn’t part of a bait-and-switch stunt to rake in some extra cash whilst everyone is going on about Michael Jackson – it’s just like all the rest of the content on their music-video service. At least, that’s what my tin-foil hat tells me.

    #29 6 years ago
  30. Blerk

    Do get over yourself, Shatner. There’s a good chap.

    #30 6 years ago
  31. dirigiblebill

    Hasn’t the Thriller video been on Sony’s Vidzone service for a while, though? I don’t think it qualifies as “news”, really, but I do think it deserves mention in the context of the piece above.

    #31 6 years ago
  32. Whizzo

    I believe the Thriller VHS tape is currently available in charity shops all over the UK as well, perhaps that should have got a mention in the story?

    #32 6 years ago
  33. Armitage

    I agree with Shatner’s tin-foil hat.

    #33 6 years ago
  34. Blerk

    Quite, Bill. Here’s how this thread should have gone:

    1. Original story.
    2. Someone comments that you can also get it for free on Vidzone, in a light-hearted and friendly manner.
    3. Someone perhaps updates the original story with a little afternote to that effect.

    And then all would have been well in the world. Instead we get treated to yet another over-acted “OH THE HUMANITY” thread assassination.

    You know… sort of how this Kotaku thread went. Same story, same set-up, froth-free outcome.

    #34 6 years ago
  35. Shatner

    Ah, I see Blerk’s now given up his misguided tirade and just resorting to making empty smartass remarks. How unexpected!

    And I also note that Whizzo has made exactly the same ‘don’t read but make a smartass comment anyway’ error that Blerk did that prompted #20. What a smart chap.

    DB: Well, that all depends on what the original focus of article was about. That would be the genuine focus of the article, not the one that might now be retrospectively claimed by its author(s). I’ve witnessed retrospective editing on this site more than once simply to (silently) dismiss a piece of critique. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen again. It just adds to the lack of professionalism that can rear its ugly head around VG247.

    Given that the current zeitgeist isn’t about Thriller but about Michael Jackson and that VG247 have already posted a couple of articles about the man rather than just one particular song, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect this article is written with the same view.

    But, having said that, given the article seems only concerned with taking their sources from what’s going on with one platform whilst disregarding the other it would be perfectly plausible to determine that if this promotion on the 360 covered more than just Thriller it would have been covered in this article.

    As I mentioned in my first comment here, it’s not serving the readership at all. Even *IF* it were only about Thriller, it’s failing to report it in a balanced way that applies to all the platforms VG247 claims to cover.

    Even so, if VG247 was interested in serving its readership – like how it often does by writing a piece about a game dropping in price or a special offer at a vendor for a limited time – it begs the question: Why only tell your readership about one video that’ll cost them money when you could also inform them of 21 relevant videos that are free?

    Again, simple, reasonable question that I’m sure nobody will choose to address. And therefore I (and others) will have to determine our own conclusions.

    #35 6 years ago
  36. G1GAHURTZ

    Nuts.

    #36 6 years ago
  37. Armitage

    I think you can get this free on “VidZone”.

    #37 6 years ago
  38. Shatner

    34: Was I agressive? I was calmy and clearly making a point.

    To which you leapt in with “For fucks sake” in a classic and predictable effort to inflame the situation. Congratulations, you’ve done that, you’ve brought the trolls.

    Now you’re trying to insist that, inspite of your deliberately inflammatory trolling remark, you’re the peacemaker.

    In fact, out of all of this, Blerk, you’ve been far more aggressive than me. Choosing to make an empty insult on more than one instance and demonstrating that you’re not actually interested in what’s being discussed, you’re more interested in throwing fuel onto the fire.

    So, please, don’t try and make out what a decent reasonable chap you’ve been all along Blerk. I’ve been very polite to you considering your behaviour towards me and your clear lack of interest in the discussion. You’re in no way innocent here. Quite the opposite. And the more times you throw in a needlessly incendiary comment (yes, I know that’s your ‘thing’ around here) the more evident that becomes.

    It’s always the aggressors that insist they’re the peacemakers. Check your own comments Blerk.

    #38 6 years ago
  39. G1GAHURTZ

    What a mentalist.

    #39 6 years ago
  40. Whizzo

    Actually I did read most of your drivel Shatner but the story that’s on this page is pretty specific, for a short period of time yesterday US Live customers could download Thriller for nothing.

    That’s the story, nothing more, saying that you could get it on the PS3, on YouTube or any other means would not change the fact that this story was specifically about it being free on Live, for about five minutes, in the US (maybe Canada too).

    It’s quite a simple throw away story, especially considering how limited it was, it’s not a break in at a prominent Washington DC hotel or an undercover investigation into the murky depths of human trafficking.

    #40 6 years ago
  41. Shatner

    Maybe so, Whizzo. So why are so many people going out of their way to imply that a request for a bit of balanced reporting is such a hugely unreasonable request?

    Why selectively report one thing and choose to ignore equally relevant information elsewhere?

    Why are people bending over backwards claiming that research takes “5 hours” and that when useful, relevant information is provided to the site and then snubbed that calmly questioning such behaviour is the same as crying “OH THE HUMANITY!”

    Why are people so upset by the request for balance that they resort to such insults, drama and exaggeration?

    What’s wrong with balanced reporting?

    See? All reasonable questions, all asked in a reasonable manner. Let’s see how reasonably people respond to them shall we?

    #41 6 years ago
  42. Syrok

    I think it’s more the way you request it than what you request per se. ;)

    #42 6 years ago
  43. Blerk

    I’m not a peacemaker in this instance, Shatner. You’re clearly a complete ego-maniac whose one and only interest in this site is to somehow prove how much ‘better’ you are than everyone else and to deride anyone else’s opinion as irrelevant when touting your own as though you are the only person in the world who is qualified to have one.

    Your one-man crusade to ‘fix’ a site which pretty much everyone else seems relatively happy with is excruciatingly tiresome.

    I look forward to you starting your own news site. I’m sure it’ll be absolutely perfect.

    #43 6 years ago
  44. Shatner

    Blerk, seeing as you jumped on my initial remark with “For fucks sake” and absolutely nothing else I find it difficult to take your concerns about “deriding anyone else’s opinion” as little more than another example of your insularity.

    Deriding another’s opinion is EXACTLY what you set out to do. You didn’t even have the courtesy to present any counterpoints. You were just rude and dismissive.

    You’ve got exactly what you set out to achieve. Perhaps when you and others will extend the courtesy of allowing me to express my opinion without deriding or dismissing it in the most tiresomely infantile and empty ways then you’ll enjoy this site more.

    Few seem willing to allow me to simply ask a question or express an opinion with deriding or dismissing – then after they’ve thrown insults and acted like a 5 year-old they go on about how wrong it is to have their opinions dismissed and derided.

    Perhaps they should practice what they preach. Or at least appreciate that if you’re going to dish it out, you’d better be prepared to get it back.

    #44 6 years ago
  45. G1GAHURTZ

    Perfectly schizophrenic.

    #45 6 years ago
  46. Blerk

    That’s because there are ways and means to express a complaint, Shatner. And those ways generally don’t include pompous derision of a person’s skills or accusations of corruption.

    #46 6 years ago
  47. dirigiblebill

    Thread needs a little music.

    #47 6 years ago
  48. Shatner

    Blerk, after “For fucks sake” and your proclamations to not read comments before making a response to them, I’m really finding it very hard to think of any reason why I should take your views on conduct as anything worthwhile.

    If you don’t like the idea of people deriding other’s opinions then stop doing it yourself. You’re in no position to attempt to lecture anyone on how to behave or what standards to apply.

    I didn’t accuse anyone of corruption. AGAIN you’re misquoting and exaggerating for effect. AGAIN this is infantile and transparent behaviour that undermines any pretence at being reasonable you’re putting on.

    I’ll file “corruption” alongside your remarks about “5 hours of research” and “OH THE HUMANITY!” and others.

    Are you starting to understand why it’s hard for me to talk you seriously Blerk? You make stuff up. You exaggerate. You don’t read comments. You go about trying to inflame situations. Then you try to say that someone else is being unreasonable!

    #48 6 years ago
  49. Eon

    Post 43 @Blerk: I agree. Shatner, you can continue your attempts at wit but in my opinion you’re just making a fool of yourself.

    #49 6 years ago
  50. Shatner

    I’d just like to be allowed to express an opinion without an army of trolls jumping on it one moment then crying like victims a moment later.

    But, I freely admit, the endless stream of hypocritical two-faced bullshitters that can’t handle a fraction of the criticism they’re so keen to dish out is hugely entertaining to me.

    #50 6 years ago
  51. G1GAHURTZ

    Poor Cath.

    #51 6 years ago
  52. Blerk

    I find it very amusing that you fail to see the irony in calling other people hypocrites and trolls, Shatner. And getting uppity about ‘not being allowed to express your opinion’ is the icing on the irony cake, given that you seem to take great delight in denouncing just about everyone else’s opinions on here because they’re “not qualified to comment”.

    Given the amount of criticism you level at VG247′s writers, I surmise you too are a journalist? Otherwise how could you possibly know what you were talking about?

    #52 6 years ago
  53. JonFE

    Blerk, the rules do not apply to Him.

    #53 6 years ago
  54. Shatner

    Blerk, give it up. The moment you decided to post “For fucks sake” you lost the chance to lecture anyone on reasonable behaviour and have them regard you as anything other than an insular hypocrite.

    I’ve remained calm and reasonable throughout. I’ve asked reasaonble questions and been continually attacked for it. Seems like the mob don’t like certain people asking certain questions but the same mob don’t like being told that everyone’s entitled to an opinion – they’re too busy doing whatever they can to dismiss other people’s opinions. If you’re leading by example, Blerk, then your words are very very empty indeed.

    Why should you be entitled to an opinion and not me? Isn’t that double standards? Hypocrisy? Discrimination? You don’t seem especially fond of equality here Blerk do you?

    And, surely, it doesn’t matter if I’m a practicioner of what I critique. I’m still entitled to an opinion despite yours and every others’ efforts to try and dismiss it.

    I’ll give you some friendly advice Blerk: if you’re going to do the “you’re only entitled to express your view if you’ve first hand experience” then you’re going to run into some pretty major hypocrisy seeing as the moment that view is reflected back on gamers they all uniformally wail about how they’re entitled to express their opinion no matter how clueless they are.

    You’re also going to come up empty handed as another thinly veiled attempt to dismiss my opinion won’t work seeing as I do have first hand experience. Not that it’s remotely relevent to any of the points I originally made. You’re just seeking for yet another angle to dismiss another’s opinion.

    So, please, stop trying to stifle, deride and supress the opinions of others. You don’t seem to like it when you believe you’re on the recieving end yet you seem utterly incapable of stopping yourself from trying every tired trick in the book to dismiss the opinion of someone else. You’ve been doing it all day.

    That’s where the hypocrisy and trolling comes from Blerk. Right from your very first comment. Funny how you’re so blind to your own behaviour isn’t it? A shame it’s in black and white for me to quote back at you (although, amusingly, you totally ignore all references to your own behaviour. You’re far too busy judging others!). Perhaps you’ll start to practice what you preach.

    Maybe, if we’re especially lucky, trolls like you and others will allow people to express their opions without trying to attack, dismiss and deride them for doing so. You (and the other trolls) have spent far more time attack me than addressing any of the points and questions I asked. You’re still doing it.

    #54 6 years ago
  55. Blerk

    Heh heh.

    #55 6 years ago
  56. Shatner

    “Heh heh.”

    And that’s why you’re a hypocrite and a troll Blerk. And that’s why I don’t care for your views on internet conduct – you prove you’re incapable of behaving to the standards you expect of others.

    You’re far more interested in making incendiary remarks and fuelling antagonistic behaviour.

    #56 6 years ago
  57. LeD

    Sandy vagina?

    #57 6 years ago
  58. Shatner

    No, I think he’s just a hypocritical troll LeD. I’m not sure he even has a vagina.

    #58 6 years ago
  59. G1GAHURTZ

    What a loony!!

    #59 6 years ago
  60. LeD

    Er, I was asking you, actually.

    Mind you, I’ve only caught the last few posts, so I’m not even sure what you guys are arguing about.
    Next you’ll be asking me to s… the f… up, I’m sure! :-)

    #60 6 years ago
  61. G1GAHURTZ

    Nah, he’ll more likely be telling you how much you make him laugh.

    #61 6 years ago
  62. Blerk

    Actually I only brought up the “you’re only entitled to express your view if you’ve first hand experience” thing because that’s precisely what you do, Shatner. All the time.

    #62 6 years ago
  63. JonFE

    You’re far too busy judging others!

    Ooh, the irony is killing me…

    #63 6 years ago
  64. Syrok

    “Mind you, I’ve only caught the last few posts, so I’m not even sure what you guys are arguing about.”

    About the integrity and unbiasedness of this site. As they do everyday. :)

    #64 6 years ago
  65. Shatner

    Ah, see, we’re back to trying to argue now that we’ve trolled a bit.

    How very unexpected of you Blerk!

    And I’ve only expressed that *specific* view when, just like above Blerk, I can dangle it in front of a troll’s transparent hypocrisy and efforts at finding some angle to dismiss another’s opinion.

    (Remember that principle you were arguing a little while back, Blerk – about how distasteful you found the practice of dismissing and deriding the opinions of others? Seems odd you should be so determined to try every predictable trick in the book to deride and dismiss the opinion of one other person doesn’t it?!)

    All your reasons and protestations Blerk, you only seem to like them so long as they work only in one direction. The moment those same principles are applied and used to argue against your view then you just change track and look for some other angle to dismiss whatever the other person is saying. Or you just resort to blatant trolling.

    Why is it that you only care for certain principles when it suits you Blerk? It sounds grand and important to have a princple but when you only believe in it when it suits you to – well, that’s when it becomes evident that you’re just saying stuff for effect.

    Not that there’s a whole discussion above that demonstrates you doing that or anything – right from your very first comment too! Nah, it must all be imaginary. Don’t worry Blerk – you just keep on ignoring your continuing mass of hypocrisy as you go and troll a bit more and ignore all your own behaviour as you try lecturing someone else on how you think they ought to behave.

    I’ll be right here happy to point out your hypocrisy by way of reply. :)

    And, for what it’s worth, my original comments still stand – unresolved, unanswered and gaining increased weight by people’s determination to ignore them and focus solely on attacking the person that expressed a view rather than the view itself.

    The same little transparent game happens all the time: you can’t argue with what’s been discussed with any competence, so you resort to attacking the person that said it instead. Hoping to dismiss and deride their views in the belief that it’s the same thing as a properly structured and reasoned counter-statement. Feel free to go back on topic at any time Blerk. Or, you know, you can keep trolling and trolling just like all the usual suspects who think they’re such great human beings around here like to do.

    Your choice!

    #65 6 years ago
  66. G1GAHURTZ

    LOL!!

    He cracked ages ago.

    #66 6 years ago
  67. Shatner

    It already “ended” when nobody could competently answer my simple and reasonable questions adequately.

    The rest is all posturing and bluff to make it look like the act of dismissing another’s view is a noble and good deed when someone chooses to do it.

    #67 6 years ago
  68. G1GAHURTZ

    LOL!!

    This nutter really IS serious business!!!

    #68 6 years ago
  69. Shatner

    I wonder what a *real* psychologist would deduce about someone’s mental state if they watched them stalk someone and then repeatedly threaten them with physical violence simply because they didn’t agree that their ‘opinions’ were the same as ‘facts’ in an internet discussion. Would the fact they’re obsessed with violent videogames be a factor? Probably!

    I think someone’s in deep, deep denial. The more frequent and desperate their posturing the more evident that it’s just a reflection of their own unhinged state. The refusal to engage with this ‘mirror’ helps the troubled individual believe that their comments are strictly about their target and not themselves. Classic denial symptoms really. :D

    #69 6 years ago
  70. Dr.Haggard

    ^ Shatpost of the year.

    #70 6 years ago
  71. G1GAHURTZ

    HAHA!!!

    The mental head case has been trying to ignore me all day, but finally reverted to his ridiculous type.

    LOL!!!

    #71 6 years ago
  72. Shatner

    Yes, Jonarob. There’s someone here that felt that threats of a shotgun blast to the face was the appropriate response to their self-proclaimed ‘facts’ being more accurately labelled as ‘opinions’. Continued remarks and threats and obsessive internet stalking behaviour have been commonplace since then.

    Clearly, the output of a rational mind!

    Telling then, that the same mind is so obsessed with judging the supposed mental state of the target of his threats.

    You don’t have to know much to see it’s a classic example of reassigning one’s own issues onto some semi-imaginary target. I have nothing by pity for the poor guy.

    #72 6 years ago
  73. G1GAHURTZ

    Nobody mentioned shotguns in the face!! LOL!!

    Shotguns are for the back of the knees…

    Glocks work much better in the face!!

    #73 6 years ago
  74. Blerk

    “You don’t have to know much to see it’s a classic example of reassigning one’s own issues onto some semi-imaginary target.”

    Heh heh. Post #66 says hi! In fact…. most of your posts in this thread are queueing up to greet you. :-D

    #74 6 years ago
  75. Shatner

    Hmm, I don’t recall making a big noise about how unfair it was to deride another’s comments after I’d derided someone’s comment and then continuing to deride someone else’s comment.

    And, as predictable a troll as always Blerk – you still fail to demonstrate you’re capable of doing ANYTHING besides continually seeking angles to dismiss the opinions of others.

    I know you think you’ve just been awfully clever but you’ve also just gone and shown that you behave in precisely the way I’ve described. Perhaps you’re not quite as clever as you think you are, hmm? I pointed this out to you in many earlier posts and even warned you of doing it in my last post. What a shame you don’t read comments before replying to them!

    It seems that, despite your best efforts to continually overlook your own poor behaviour, hypocrisy and trolling, you keep on providing more and more and more evidence of exactly that. Whoops!

    You’re incapable of allowing one person to express a view without you seeking to dismiss or deride it. Given your so-called ‘principle’ on such behaviour (you know, the bit when you were between troll-posts doing the ‘I’m a reasonable guy’ act) it’s hilarious that you continually act in the way you claim to dislike so much.

    And, just as I said before, even though YOU are resolutely ignoring your own behaviour, you leave a slimy trail of it all over this topic so we can all see just what an inconsistent, hypocritical, antagonistic troll you are.

    Looking forward to your next post Blerk. I’m pretty sure I know how it’ll read though! All I have to do is predict you’ll be trolling, hypocritical or seeking to dismiss another’s view (possibly all three if you’re feeling especially clever) and wait for you to hit that SUBMIT COMMENT button. ;)

    #75 6 years ago
  76. G1GAHURTZ

    I don’t think anyone will miss him.

    #76 6 years ago
  77. Shatner

    Jonarob – see what I mean?

    Did you notice the DELIGHT when he thought his projected alter-ego was acknowledging him? What a big deal he made of it?

    Can you see now how the dark brooding returns, talk of violence and finality when the attention isn’t given?

    Textbook stuff.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing more desperate attempts at joviality (an obvious act) and some imaginative story-telling crop up pretty soon.

    #77 6 years ago
  78. G1GAHURTZ

    LOL!!!!

    So transparent!!!

    Proof of the symptoms!!:

    “After several years of one stressful event after another, he developed an obession with [Sony] money (based in reality, but even when repeated shown ‘proof’ he clings to it). This elevated into paranoia about the people involved with [Writing stories on forums] the money and then into his being [victimised by other forum members] investigated by a government agency”

    #78 6 years ago
  79. Michael O'Connor

    That’s actually nothing bi-polar about Shatner’s attitude.

    Bi-polar is the emotional act if irrationally shifting from one extreme mood to the other without little cause or reason. Shatner’s attitude, extreme as it may be, is always consistent in what it’s trying to express.

    #79 6 years ago
  80. G1GAHURTZ

    It’s not quite as straightforward as that Michael.

    #80 6 years ago
  81. Shatner

    See what I said about increased efforts to gain attention Jonarob? More desperate pontificating? Excessive use of capitals and exclamation marks. Creating imaginary events that he can apply to his projected alter-ego to satisfy himself that his ‘opinions’ still count as ‘facts’?

    And the nail in the coffin? Someone as evidently unhinged as he (witness his ramblings over the last 60 minutes) assuming the tone of authority on any mental condition.

    When you read his statements and realise that his words actually apply to himself rather than his projected alter-ego they become quite unnerving. :(

    I’d donate money to a charity but until he acknowledges his problem, nobody can help him.

    “irrationally shifting from one extreme mood to the other without little cause or reason”

    Sounds like the type of person who would make a rational sounding post in one conversation then, seconds later, leap into another conversation screaming in capitals, using excessive exclamation marks and acting in a bloodthirsty violent manner.

    Even his name, written entirely in capitals, is a clear demand for attention and validation. :(

    #81 6 years ago
  82. G1GAHURTZ

    What a total nut job!!!

    LOL!!!!

    Clearly bipolar… The proof is there for all to see.

    #82 6 years ago
  83. SticKboy

    I like games. Do you like games? Games are fun!

    #83 6 years ago
  84. reask

    I have to say having gone back to the earlier posts I would have to say Shatner made some valid points.

    #84 6 years ago
  85. Cort

    G1GA, make a meaningful contribution to the debate or stop posting.

    #85 6 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.