Very often, when my fellow gamers reply to critics of their medium, I'm somewhat concerned about the angriness and the bitterness of some of them. But sometimes, they say why they're so angry and bitter, and I realize they have a reason to be that way.

For example, during the Cooper Lawrence fiasco, a GP reader explained that he didn't want to "take the high road" with game critics, because everytime he did so, he was even more scorned. He once wrote to a journalist about the mistakes he made on anime, and the only reply he got was : [I]"I wish I cared, you nerd"[/I]. And during the "game-as-art" debate with Roger Ebert, he was called a [I]"poor, poor idiot"[/I].

Another example is our fellow Yuki. When he wrote to David Walsh (which led him to write the famous column [URL=http://www.mediafamily.org/mediawisecolumns/gamers_mw.shtml]Gamer is Not A Dirty Word[/URL]), he said : [I]"I've written letters to newspapers, TV stations, and politicians. I've either never been answered, or I was insulted by the reply"[/I].

Indeed, I would like to know more about it, and this is why I created this thread. I'd like you all to come share your experience of dialogue/debate/correspondence with game critics of any kind (newspapers, TV stations, radio stations, scientists, politicians, activists...). Or, should I precise : "with game critics of any kind [I]except Jack Thompson[/I]".

The main reason why I'm interested in this subject is that I believe angriness and bitterness will lead us nowhere, and even though the respect you give to someone may not be returned, at least you have nothing to reproach to yourself. Furthermore, when I wrote respectful letters, the feedback (when there was one) was always positive, and I even befriended some people I wrote to !