Eh, don't bother. I don't really have the time to get into this conversation anyway and I don't speak for "GAF" but if someone else wants to engage go ahead, by all means.
I will respond to this though - what you found interesting from your original post was that so many would "rally" around a person like Fred Rogers when he believes that young children are impacted by what they see and hear. You're trying to set up a Catch-22 where if someone in the past has argued that they played a violent game as a kid and came out ok, they should be against what Mr. Rogers said in his hearing, and against his philosophy in general. You did not separate it as a watching vs. playing argument, and his statement from that hearing is also abstracted from the show itself and what children have actually taken away from similar programming targeted towards the developmental stages. There's no gotcha to be found here and more nuance than you're allowing for.
