As I read Gee's articles this week, I found his discussions regarding the applicability/usefulness of gaming to be both interesting and persuasive. I must admit up front that I am not a gamer, and I usually am skeptical about the profuse praising that accompanies the virtues of gaming, but as I read Gee's articles I told myself to hold back on my prejudments and just listen to what the man had to say. What I found most interesting was his claim that students/children playing games is a way for them to develop a new type of literacy. OK, I get what he is saying that new digital, visual literacies are essential in today's technological world. But, the skeptic/cynic in me asks does attaching the word "literacy" to something give that practice instant credibility, i.e. make it seem more valuable than it really is? I admit that it's not as easy as I'm saying, but I can't stop but wonder how much of a positive influence this semantic move has had on the gaming movement in education. I did take note of the fact that he discussed literacies in terms of legal work, and that is something that I have an interest in, i.e. building legal literacies, especially in professional writing courses, but then I had to ask myself was I making the same move that Gee did? Specifically, by calling legal awareness a "literacy" was I trying to present it in a more positive and acceptable way for the public? At this point, I'm answering this question as both yes and no in my mind. To conclude, as far as gaming is concerned, I have to say that I'm on board with the benefits of it up to a certain point. What that point is I'm not sure, but as I begin to game a little here in the near future it may become more clear to me then.