Greenpeace posts latest Guide to Greener Electronics: Sony Ericsson first, Nintendo in dead last

Greenpeace posted the latest edition of its "Guide to Greener Electronics" yesterday, which ranks the top 18 consumer electronics companies by their policies towards toxic chemicals and recycling, and it looks like the rankings have shifted slightly since last time -- Sony Ericsson and Samsung have tied for the lead with a 7.7 out of 10 rating (taking over from Nokia, which fell to number 9 with a 6.7) and Sony is sitting pretty at number 3 with a 7.2. Apple, which has taken some lumps in the past few months, is right in the middle of the pack with a 6, but most surprising is Nintendo, which came in absolutely dead last with a big ol' 0 -- looks like Mario wasted a little too much water in Sunshine, eh?

[TURNERSVILLE @ Jan 1st 2008 4:58PM]

Greenpeace is just a home for communists. They don't call out Al Gore for having a $30,000 per month utility bill but instead try to attack the companies that are succesful. Communists!!!

[Chris @ Nov 27th 2007 11:48PM]

Try $30,000 per YEAR, not MONTH.

Also, Gore pays more for wind/hydro power.

Finally, he buys carbon offsets for whatever CO2 is left.

Maybe that's why they did not "call him out"?

[Dave @ Nov 28th 2007 12:37AM]

@Chris

Where can I buy some of these scarcely found carbon offsets? They don't seem to sell them at any local store?

That's a scam and a half.
Give us money and we'll invest it in wind farms, planting trees or methane capture or whatever people think will save the planet. Key word. INVEST. Oh wait forgot. He's on the board of the largest venture capital firm investing in global warming strategies. So is buying carbon offsets like say.. buying stock in a company he owns. Nahh couldn't be that simple. Nothing says a dollar he spends saves any tons of CO2. It may lead to a removal of it when an investment matures down the road or it may lead to someone buying expensive overpriced wind generators from a state congressman. A carbon offset is an unsupervised, unaccountable investment in an idea that eventually money is going to turn into a fixed amount of greenhouse gas reduction instead of greenback bank account reduction. There's no refund if zero tons of CO2 was removed. might as well buy lottery tickets.

The best part is for only $90 you could plant enough trees to cancel out your carbon emissions and you could live a great hippie lifestyle. Even better, when you don't renew your carbon credit, we'll sell those same trees you used last year to someone else to make them feel better. tree's need owners or they'd die ya know.

[Chris @ Nov 28th 2007 1:08AM]

I am NOT saying offsets are a solution. I was only pointing out the lack of facts in the first post.

Regarding so called offsets, some people actually don't mind investing in strategies that reduce pollution, promote environmental education, and research new technologies. Believe it or not, people are not looking for a monetary return, as you seem to indicate. It's not the point that $5 equals 1 pound of carbon (or whatever). The point IS that people can choose to make a effort in promoting a cleaner, sustainable future, people including Al Gore.

[Tis---strange @ Nov 28th 2007 5:41AM]

I'm always amazed, how bad a word communist semms to be in the US... Apparently, everyone not liked is communistic or (if very obsessive) a nazi. Maby even a communist-nazi.

Get over it already!

As for greenpeace: I don´t care for your oppinion eather, and I don´t call you a republican (if you don´t get it: think about what kind of word I may find offensive..)

[KR @ Nov 27th 2007 12:26PM]

F*ck Greenpeace

[James Cameron @ Nov 27th 2007 1:04PM]

Yeah, f*ck greenpeace. They are a bunch of useless whore. Why even care what they have to say? Lets dump some toxic wastes into you neighborhood. Just to show them we don't care.

[KR @ Nov 27th 2007 1:40PM]

I'm very interested in, and supportive of, efforts to clean up big corporations and keep the planet healthy.

But Greenpeace is more about sensationalism, media, and crazy wackos than actually doing good for the planet.

Companies should be concerned with how green their operations and products are. But when you look at Greenpeace, and the way they rate companies, their opinion is pretty much worthless.

That's why f*ck them. Not f*ck global responsibility.

[James Cameron @ Nov 27th 2007 8:01PM]

Yeah right. You are actually doing nothing but talk and bitches and sitting at your computer. At least Greenpeace are doing something. Sure they've gone overboard with some of their demands but if they aren't the one voicing and stepping up to do anything about, who will? You? Do you think these companies give a rat ass about the environment? They're here to make money. Since Greenpeace have the reputation and name, they are the one that actually challenge these corporations.

[Mort @ Nov 27th 2007 12:27PM]

To quote a comment on Joystiq quoting Kotaku...

"As pointed out on Kotaku, if you'll look at the report, you'll notice that they gave Nintendo a crappy score because they couldn't find any information on Nintendo's FAQ. Let me repeat that:

They have a score of ZERO because there is no information.

If you look at the report, it just says no info in every column. I'll admit Nintendo should be more open with that info but to say that they are the largest polluter among the console makers based on this information is simply a lie. I suspect Nintendo gets this grade because the Wii is still so popular, just like when they bashed the iPod as killing our children and puppies simply because it was the most high profile gadget.

Companies should have these goals firmly in mind, but there's not enough info here to base any decisions off of."

Yes Nintendo should publish this information, but saying they are the worst because you can't find it and can't be bothered to ask for it is just stupid.

I wonder if they tried to eat this like they did the iPhone to discover toxic materials.

[Grant @ Nov 27th 2007 1:44PM]

Thats hilarious.

Bob:"well, we have no information on them... I guess we shouldn't even include them"

Mike:" are you kidding! lets just throw them in dead last and stir up some attention since the wii is hot! no one would give a shit about this survey otherwise"

Bob:"I hear cash registers!"

[Jed Merrill @ Nov 27th 2007 2:03PM]

Nintendo actually has a very concerted environmental and recycling policy. There was an article on it somewhere, and if you e-mail Nintendo's customer support or call them, they can get you a copy of their top notch policy.

It is hard to imagine any of these companies being more concerned than what I read about Nintendo. They are, after all, headquartered in the Pacific Northwest.

[bobartig @ Nov 27th 2007 3:33PM]

This is exactly what Green Peace has done. Apple was equally secretive about their operations (its just that they're secretive about everything), and GreenPeace was jumping all over them for not complying with whatever level of corporate transparency they demand, but don't tell you about.

Steve then got fed up with their crap and posted some information about how instead of being "dead last", they were one of the most progressively eco-friendly computer makers in the world, that their schedules for phasing out toxic chemicals have been in place for a while, and was years ahead of competitors. GreenPeace has yet to figure out that their ignorance does not determine how green a company really is.

I imagine over at the GreenPeace headquarters that their intern compiles some list of information hastily grabbed from website FAQ's, and then they run it through a borked spreadsheet that equates with 0, and then that's sent straight to the website's frontpage as their "Guide to blah blah".

[Temple @ Nov 27th 2007 5:30PM]

whats stupid is that Nintendo has released information, especially in Japan under their "Corporate Social Responsibility" plan. Its just that its not in English, maybe Greenpeace should have first hired a translator or called the company up before giving them a "0" for no information.

http://www.inside-games.jp/news/214/21490.html

[Arthur Nonamiss @ Nov 27th 2007 11:54PM]

@Temple

Nice. I love it when some general commenter on some random news aggregation blog hands an organization their ass in a bag like that. How long did you have to research to find that? Seriously, Nintendo should sue Greenpeace for libel. They published an article containing misinformation which could in a very real way damage the company. Greenpeace actually carries some financial clout in the hippie crowd. Nintendo is headquartered in Japan, so it seems perfectly reasonable that this information might be in Japanese.

Suppose Engadget (a technical blog that carries some clout in the geek crowd) published an article saying that the Sony Corporation kills helpless puppies and bathes all of their products in slayed puppy blood, while offering no substance to back up that statement, you can bet there would be a libel suit. I don't really see how this is any different.

[fred @ Nov 27th 2007 12:29PM]

Seriously, does anyone even care what Greenpeace has to say about anything? The entire concept of Global Warming is a freaking joke. How many years ago was it that we were supposed to slip into another ice age? And just because we now have a plethora of kook celebrities on the bandwagon for it doesn't make it any more real. As a matter of fact the more TV networks, movie stars, and car companies (I mean, who trusts them?) start ringing the "Green" bell, the more I know it's bullshit. We need to be good stewards of the place we live, there's no denying that, but to think that we have the power to control a system that has been running on it's own for millions of years, and that we've ruined it in what, 150 years of "Industry" is ludicrous.

[Matt @ Nov 27th 2007 12:31PM]

I feel sorry for you.

[fred @ Nov 27th 2007 12:34PM]

No need to pity me friend. I didn't have to sit through that DiCaprio movie.

[Hollywood Ron @ Nov 27th 2007 12:48PM]

The new ice age was supposed to have happened in the 1990's. Obviously, it did not.

[Jimbo @ Nov 27th 2007 12:51PM]

@Matt: you feel sorry for Fred because he's telling the truth? There is very little actual evidence that man is having an effect on the climate. Heck, we only have actual meteorological data for the last 100-150 years. To think that we have this much of an effect on a random system like the weather is giving us too much credit as a species.

But, and this is a big BUT: I don't think we shouldn't try to take better care of our environment. We should try to reduce our energy consumption. We should pollute less. That's just being a good person and a good neighbor. I think Fred would agree with me on this. If the delusion of global warming helps bring this about, well fine. But don't kid yourself into buying the propaganda.

[Argot @ Nov 27th 2007 12:52PM]

You probably belive that Intelligent Design is real science too?

[fred @ Nov 27th 2007 12:57PM]

I'm right there with ya, Jimbo. I'm perfectly fine with taking care of the place we live. I encourage it, but do it TRUTHFULLY! Don't try to trick me into it and don't talk to me about "Global Warming" while you use enough energy for probably a couple of hundred people! (that's you, Al Gore)

[Timay @ Nov 27th 2007 1:02PM]

Maybe you should watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

[monkfishbandana @ Nov 27th 2007 1:05PM]

Why mark him down? He's absolutely correct. Over 90% of carbon dioxide emissions from the surface of the earth are caused by respiring organisms on the surface of the ocean. That leaves less than 1% of our emissions to everything else. Minus the respiring matter (humans, cows, plants) etc, add the photosynthesising plants and that just leaves industry, transportation and technology.

Add to that the fact that it has been proven that CO2 emissions increase FOLLOWING temperature rises, and that number ain't lookin' too significant now, is it?

[mike @ Nov 27th 2007 1:10PM]

yes, you're probably right, fred. You saw through the tissue of lies concocted by thousands of climate scientists. Congrats.

"but to think that we have the power to control a system that has been running on it's own for millions of years, and that we've ruined it in what, 150 years of "Industry" is ludicrous."

look at a g*ddamn graph, you idiot. Note how much global population and CO2 emissions have shot up in the last 150 years. I'm assuming you failed whatever remedial math and/or science classes you took, so I will point out the obvious: it's an exponential progression, meaning things have changed very quickly in a very short period of time. The evidence is already there staring you in the face, you're just too ignorant to see it.

[fred @ Nov 27th 2007 1:24PM]

How are you, and your cadre of scienticians going to tell me how shit is gonna be in a few years (decades?) when the f'ing weather guy can't for sure tell me what it's gonna be like outside TOMORROW? Obviously, because I have read things, and disagree with your assessment I must be a complete gibbering retard! Maybe if the movement had more well spoken and even-minded geniuses like yourself I would be convinced?

[rawhead @ Nov 27th 2007 1:35PM]

So, because one prediction made by a theory didn't come to reality soon enough, the entire theory must be bull crap?

Darwin's theory of evolution suggests that dimwits will eventually go extinct, but your presence clearly shows that hasn't happened yet. I guess that makes Darwinism bull crap, too.

[mac @ Nov 27th 2007 1:37PM]

And apparently you haven't taken a single statistics class. Come back when your evidence is better than "just look at it"...

Not saying that we shouldn't try to decrease pollutants, but if you've taken any econ classes you'd understand the problem with making drastic changes to mandated environmental policies. And that could start an entirely new debate on the merits of ..forget it. If you can't understand the massive problems with extrapolation and causation vs. correlation (or even reverse causation if new reports are to be believed), I won't dare delve deeper.

[fred @ Nov 27th 2007 1:45PM]

Awwww.... you're so cute when you're scientifical! Again, because I disagree with something that is not tangible I am an idiot. It's funny how when someone is losing an argument they will resort to name calling in order to throw the other person off the topic. Look, this is all very nice, and I'm sure that all these comments are earning you tons of Carbon Offset thingies, ok? But until I can see some real results I'm not buying, OK? I see a pumped up load of bullshit that's gonna go away in a couple of years, just like every other fad that we get our hands on.

Here, I'll prove it to you, ok? When we had Katrina and everybody was all up in arms about it, what happened? The globe was in PERIL! We were gonna have the worst hurricane season ever, ever, and we're all gonna get drowned and die! Right? Remeber that? And what happened? Nothing, one of the mildest hurricane seasons in recent history. So, when does this data start bearing fruit? When are we all gonna get burned up by the sun or washed away?

The point that you are missing here is that I agree with taking care of the environment, I just don't like being bs'ed! Why is that so tough?

[AzrealJG @ Nov 27th 2007 1:51PM]

Breating organisms on the surface of the ocean are engaged in "carbon neutral" activities, they're releasing the greenhouse gases they consumed in the course of eating/living. In fact, phytoplankton actually remove carbon from the atmosphere by breathing it in, and then carrying it to the bottom of the ocean when they die.

Digging/drilling up carbon that's been buried for tens of millions of years is adding MORE Carbon to the system than was there.

Burning down millions of acres of trees in the amazon river basin is removing the earths ability to sequester carbon and releasing carbon that had been captured in the last few hundred years.

[apeguero @ Nov 27th 2007 1:59PM]

@Timay:

I like that guy so much I'll let him come home and f*ck my sister!

This is the best argument I've ever seen made to take action to prevent global warming whether it's real or not. This is why I'm going to trade in both my minivan and my Jetta for a Toyota Highlander hybrid (hey, I have 3 little kids and need the space). I'm also going to buy the Gateway 30" LCD and ditch my old Sony GDM-FW900 electricity eating monitor. What else can I do? I bet I, and many others, can do a lot to combat global warming. Unfortunately, like everything else, the products available to combat this new threat are available to people with bank. Products like solar energy panels, electric cars, and other stuff are expensive. This is becoming a major profit making business where products exist that would help the environment in major ways but as soon as they are available they become cost-inhibitive to the normal Joe. Hell, even if we elect Kucinich for the next Pres probably won't mean much because of the lobbying power controlling Congress. BTW, on a side note, did you all see Kucinich's wife? What a hottie. Now back on topic. What about Nuclear Power plants? Those are way cleaner on the environment than oil or coal based ones. But the environmentalists hate these. What about wind mills? We wanted to create a windmill farm in the waters of Cape Cod around the Hyannis Sound. But guess what? That's Ted Kennedy's turf. He put up an up-roar about how it would damage the looks of that area. It just happens that the area where they wanted to build these is extrememly windy and would've provided good source of energy for that area. What about electric cars or bio fuel cars? The auto industry lobby is preventing this from happening. Do you know how expensive a solar panel for a home is?

I can see us taking action to help this but it's going to take a major effort from the Government and Industry to make this happen.

Oh, and BTW, when he said spread the word, it almost sounded like a religion. Maybe they should team up with Jehova's Witnesses and spread both words :)

[mike @ Nov 27th 2007 2:21PM]

@ mac

Mac, where did I say anything about changing economic policy or anything? I am only going so far to say that global warming exists and is due in part to human activity. The rest is you putting words into my mouth.

I just wanted to point out that it is g*ddamn ignorant of fred to claim that the human race has had no effect on the environment when clearly it has. And no, I didn't prove the causal link between human greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change, because the work has already been done for me by more qualified human beings. I'm not going to prove global warming in an engadget comment.

My issue is with fred's attitude that he is smarter than "them scientifical ivory tower eggheads," then proceeds to present a series of breathtakingly inane (and incorrect) examples to "disprove" global warming. If anyone needs a lesson on statistics, extrapolation, and causation vs. correlation, it's him, not me.

[Grey Acumen @ Nov 27th 2007 2:36PM]

@ all of you lameasses

"You're just too stupid to understand why I'm right, but I can understand it, that's why I'm right!"

Heheh. Seriously though, no matter which side you're on, you're getting facts and figures from media and politicians whose sole purpose for existing is to gain public attention. Even if the scientists aren't lying, you can still bet that both sides are doing their very best to ensure that all the info gathered is spun to the favor of their own benefit, and that you either don't get, or don't believe any of the data that puts holes in their agenda.

Personally, I don't believe any of the global warming situation merely because of hypocrisy surrounding it, the sheep supporting it, and the vagueness of the subject as a whole.
You have people willing to do everything from shout down people on the internet and real life, try to pass laws restricting businesses from operating, take land away from private citizens without any reimbursement, to blowing up buildings and killing people, all for the cause of "Saving the earth"
The "New and Improved" formula in my shampoo that makes my skin break out in a rash is going to somehow save the planet? If the temperature starts to go down again in 20 years, will it be because of the amazing efforts of the globalists? or will it be because this time there's an ice age coming that is caused by man's tampering?!
Does anyone remember the online scam where the guy was threatening to eat a rabbit, whose picture he posted on the net, if he didn't receive a certain amount of money from people sending in contributions? People actually sent in money for this stupid rabbit. Out of all the millions of rabbits, and the millions of rabbits that are used for food, he got thousands of dollars in order to keep this thing alive.
There was no possible way to know if he was telling the truth about being willing to eat it, or even truly having it to begin with. On top of that, no one had any guarantees that he wouldn't eat it anyway, and there was certainly never any mention made of any other animals that he might be eating in the meantime (chicken, beef, pork, other unmentioned rabbits, etc) yet people still sent the money in.
Does anyone else see the correlation here?

[heather @ Nov 27th 2007 3:06PM]

You think Global Warming is a joke? I think the polar bears that are starving to death would beg to differ.

[Fred @ Nov 27th 2007 3:55PM]

Mike, it's totally you. You tell me that I should believe your "more qualified human beings" but why? I mean it's one thing to have real proof that something happens. When it's cold water freezes, etc. But I can make a set of number say anything I want. If you want to turn your thinking over to a bunch of "more qualified human beings" knock yourself out. Hey, enjoy your chosen religion.

Oh, and Heather, have fun saving all the cute fuzzy animals and eating the ugly ones.

[getz76 @ Nov 27th 2007 4:10PM]

Rabbits taste good.

[grable @ Nov 27th 2007 4:57PM]

I totally agree!!! Global warming propaganda is some of the worst out there.

[MasterCKO @ Nov 27th 2007 5:46PM]

Sorry Fred, but years (even decades) of study, research and training in a particular subject does make people who undertake such efforts more qualified than a layman (you, for instance) in said subject. Simple fact of the human mind. Just because you can't understand something does not in fact mean that it can't be understood (at least to a greater degree than a layman is able to).

"I don't see it, it must not be there" can be a pretty dangerous frame of mind. However, all this is moot, since you seem to be for environmental responsibility, so why argue the particulars?

[fred @ Nov 27th 2007 6:01PM]

MasterCKO, I agree with you to a certain point. I know that these are people who are by no means laymen. I am saying that there is a huge propaganda machine built up around this problem and that from my vantage point we have far too much hype built up over an issue that makes everybody feel good even though there's not REAL proof. But hey it keeps us distracted from the real problems we have so "HEY EVERYBODY LET'S BE GREEN!" Let's not talk about the shitty things that people are doing TO OTHER PEOPLE, never-mind the environment! This whole thing to me is the human scale equivalent of going and kicking over ant piles to watch the ants rebuild them.

On the flip-side of your coin, insisting that something is there doesn't make it materialize. The poor guy with OCD is sure that he left the oven on until he goes and checks it 10 times.

As far as arguing the particulars, the particulars in this case that Greenpeace lies over and over to draw attention to things. Would you then say that it's ok for someone to accuse you of a heinous crime and have you thrown in jail because you have chronic halitosis and they don't want to smell it? Wouldn't it be easier just to give you a mint and address the actual issue?

[mac @ Nov 28th 2007 1:30AM]

@mike
My point is completely lost on you. Read some of the reports you remember from news stories over the last few years, and you can note that they base their conclusion off of a major assumption and extrapolation (an awfully bad idea- can I predict population now based on growth rates during the baby boom? What if I used those rates to predict what our population will be in a 100 or 1000 years from now?). Either way, it's beyond difficult to "prove" causation, and with all the new studies (okay, that's hyperbole, I think it was one new study), it might even be reverse causation- that increases in temperature might actually cause increased CO2 emissions.

And nowhere am I saying screw the environment, and I bet most everyone would agree that decreasing emissions is a good thing, I just want to remind everyone about how ridiculously unscientific most early papers on global warming were. Crackpots are crackpots, doesn't matter what side of the spectrum they're on.

[liin @ Nov 28th 2007 11:07AM]

@Grey you stupid lameass

I just called you stupid, and a lamass, therefore I'm right. Yeah, only in America. And that's exactly why global warming could be sold as a "hoax", only in America. The loser "side" who was incompetent at protecting the country from terrorists decides they can still look tough by name-calling the other "side" as gay-environmental-freak-who-love-abortions-and-would-fall-for-scams-because-of-lack-of-faith-in-God. So without looking into any facts ( I mean, what fun is that? ), sheep started joining the name-calling side ( I mean, it's more fun, and it feeds the ego that you can't get from your life, right? ).

Did you ever wonder why that only in U.S. is global warming a political issue, and not so for the rest of the world?

Your fellow good citizen's lifetime hard work gets recognized by Nobel, and you bash him, only because real losers who'd never done any good work sounds really "macho" pitching their books and public personas when they trash-talk. Only in America.

You talk about scams. Do a survey of people believing in global warming a hoax versus those who don't. Chart them against those who believe in Bush and those who don't. And chart them against those who had actually fallen for scams or suffered from bubbles and those who had never. Yeah, you'll see your scam correlation right there.

[fred @ Nov 28th 2007 11:40AM]

liin. This thought that only us Americans are arguing against "Global Warming" as it is currently defined is not correct, and as a matter of fact is you look at the link listed later in the comments here: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264835 Thanks, tstreesapx. The guy making the statement is FRENCH.

Stepping up for Al Gore is a little stupid in this argument considering the Greenpeace is all up Apple's ass and Good 'ol Al sits on their board.

Here is a fun little piece on Al Gore:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.html

Be careful not to spin this into a Dem vs. GOP thing. It is clearly not. I ascribe to no party, and find that most people who do are not much for independent thinking. The passion behind what you are trying to say is admirable, but you are drowning your message in rhetoric.

[liin @ Nov 29th 2007 10:23AM]

@Fred

I was replying to Grey's comments, not this article.

I don't agree with Greenpeace one bit. They just want to make noise, and those noise don't help because they're barking insignificant stuff. Product with toxic chemicals makes recycling more a problem. But reducing impact is always Reduce-Reuse-Recycle. Reducing redundant/non-functional parts of a product is key. Creating products with longer lifespan is key. Reducing manufacturing process is key. Giving life to a dead product by turing it into something else is good. Recycling should be your additional last effort to keep impact to a minimum. Greenpeace just want to make themselves known, they just want to be in the news. They don't praise companies that creatively make products with minimal part counts, they don't promote those companies that make discarded posters and sails into bags. They are always negative, and only about parts of hot items having problem being recycled.

[liin @ Nov 29th 2007 2:37AM]

@Fred

If you think I'm spinning, just do the survey like I said. You'll definitely see Bush supporters as "global-warming-hoax" supporters. And they'll definitely see those who deem the crisis urgent as weak liberal gay tree huggers who have no God and stand no chance against terrorists. Then, do a survey around the world, even in China. You'll see almost all would be concerned about global warming except Bush supporters.

If it's just Al Gore's political agenda, why would the international community ( again, even China ) gives a rat's ass about Gore's political agenda? You think scientists worldwide are stupid losers who can't see it and people who need to drive trucks and quote TV personas to secure their manhood knows better?

[w @ Nov 27th 2007 12:31PM]

ha!

[Chuckles McGee @ Nov 27th 2007 1:16PM]

Perhaps "Bioshock" should be for the Wii

[brian @ Nov 27th 2007 12:33PM]

havent they lost their credibility long ago? i feel like they are into putting down whatever company has been getting publicity lately. they were after apple for a while, but now im guessing they will be on nintendos ass. how about they just start making their own electronics out of wheat and grass

[davideo @ Nov 27th 2007 12:34PM]

Gree-peace

Great spelling there.. it is a hard word to remember, seeig that they have oly bee aroud for a few decades..

And yes turnersville ad KR, real bad people trying to save some of whats left of this planet.. shame on them. And also shame on them for trying to get nintendo to be open about their numbers so consumers can make informed choices..

[Johnathon Zirkle @ Nov 27th 2007 12:37PM]

Wait...you dare try to correct their spelling??? Did you check your own post? I see a few mistakes...

[David @ Nov 27th 2007 12:40PM]

Whahahaha, great observatio mate.. really, brilliat...