PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (1) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Less gaming = less aggression
January 15th 2001, 15:45 CET by Andy

This BBC story reports on research by Stanford University into the effects of computer games and television on children. The report is based on two groups of children studied over a six month period, and shows that the less video games and TV they were exposed to, the less aggressive they became.

In one school, 105 children were given advice on how to cut down on TV and games, and used an "electronic television time manager". In another school, the 120 children that were studied weren't given any measures to reduce their use of TV and games.

At the end of the six months, children at both schools were asked to assess how aggressive their classmates were. At the school where gaming and TV viewing had been reduced, there was a "statistically significant" drop in aggression levels.

But of course, this is all rubbish. Developers tell us that games don't make people aggressive and they know better than a bunch of those whacky academic folk, don't they?
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Less gaming = less aggression

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Apache"
2001-01-15 15:46:28
apache@stomped.com
KILL KILL KILL!!!

:-)
#2 by "PainKilleR"
2001-01-15 15:51:55
painkiller@planetfortress.com
Andy, it's Stanford University, the first article you linked spelled it wrong, the second did not.

-PainKilleR-[CE]
#3 by "zorken"
2001-01-15 15:53:05
zorken85@hotmail.com
I think all that is just.. STUPID!
I dont understand why people can blame games for making kids agressive!
I bet that the only thing that makes us agressive is all that stupid bullshit about games making us agressive and want to kill somebody!
The only people i would like to kill is the people who says these things and makes these "reports"

i have just one thing to say to them: FUCK YOU ALL!!!!

(i know my english sucks....)
#4 by "Andy"
2001-01-15 15:59:46
andy@meejahor.com
<b>PainKilleR</b> (#2):
<quote>
Andy, it's Stanford University, the first article you linked spelled it wrong, the second did not.
</quote>
Damn, I spelled it with an N then changed it when I re-read the Beeb story. Thanks.
#5 by "Andy"
2001-01-15 16:03:32
andy@meejahor.com
<b>zorken</b> (#3):
<quote>
I think all that is just.. STUPID!
I dont understand why people can blame games for making kids agressive!
I bet that the only thing that makes us agressive is all that stupid bullshit about games making us agressive and want to kill somebody!
The only people i would like to kill is the people who says these things and makes these "reports"

i have just one thing to say to them: FUCK YOU ALL!!!!
</quote>
That's some compelling proof you've got yourself there.
#6 by "BruceR"
2001-01-15 16:06:07
bruce@avault.com
1) Not a single reference study post 1991.
2) Not a single reference study that mentions video games (see 1).
3) Fourth sentence is a lie (there's only been about 200 studies, see Freedman's review). The "1000" figure is parenting group propaganda.
4) No mention of or reference to findings that downplay the media violence link in any way (Freedman, the recent FTC report, etc.).

And that's just the intro...

BruceR
#7 by "asspennies"
2001-01-15 16:09:14
asspennies@somethingawful.com
If I had kids, I wouldn't let them play most video games.  I probably wouldn't let them watch too much TV, either.  Too many parents leave either as a babysitter - something that mystifies the kids so they don't have to deal with them.

Unfortunately, too few parent's consider the consequences.  

I think it was Scott Miller who told us a while ago about how he's raising his kids not to be slaves to television or the computer, and I think they'll turn out better for it.

That's not to say that I totally believe that these programs or games lead to aggressive behavior or tendencies, just that with kids minds being so fertile at such an age, it's best to fill them with knowledge, not mindless nonsense - even if it's the mindless nonsense we as adults enjoy so much.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#8 by "PainKilleR"
2001-01-15 16:14:31
painkiller@planetfortress.com
Well, I'm reading through the second link, and I found this:
<quote>However, control children reported greater perceptions of a mean and scary world than intervention children at baseline (P = .02). </quote>

Anyone else see a problem with this? Basicly what they're saying is that before they even started, the children they were messing with had a lesser perception that the world was a mean and scary place than the children they watched as a control group (meaning they didn't do anything to manage their television/game intake). It doesn't appear to have been a large difference, and the end results are modified to adjust for this (that could be good or bad...). Of course, then it goes on to say:
<quote>As shown in Table 1, compared with controls, children in the intervention group had statistically significant decreases in peer ratings of aggression, the primary outcome measure, and observed verbal aggression on the playground. In addition, although not statistically significant, the direction of the differences favored the intervention group for all other outcome variables except parent reports of delinquent behaviors, which were very rare in both groups.
</quote>

I don't know, the study's pretty iffy in my book for a number of reasons.


-PainKilleR-[CE]
#9 by "the_reformed_pianist"
2001-01-15 16:25:02
pianist@canada.com
Two words: NINTH POST!!!!!!!
#10 by "zorken"
2001-01-15 16:29:08
zorken85@hotmail.com
Andy (#5):
That's some compelling proof you've got yourself there.


ok.. i dont have any proof but i knew that someone would post something...
And i hope we both know that it`s bullshit.. (with or without proof)

congratulations Andy! you are the first person ever who has quoted me!! ;)

(i know my english sucks more than jeffk`s)
#11 by "the_reformed_pianist"
2001-01-15 16:32:35
pianist@canada.com
Oh yeah, TV and video games pretty obviously increase agressiveness, and if you blindly defend it you are a banana pasghetti!!!

After I watched Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Movie, I went to New York and got lost in a sewer. AND I WAS AGGRESSIVE.
#12 by "Sgt_Hulka"
2001-01-15 16:32:55
rwaring@ameritech.net
I let my two young children play DOOM all weekend, and already this morning, they devoured an enitre cow in less than 30 seconds.
#13 by "zorken"
2001-01-15 16:39:13
zorken85@hotmail.com
the_reformed_pianist (#11)
[qoute]After I watched Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Movie, I went to New York and got lost in a sewer. AND I WAS AGGRESSIVE.[/qoute]
#14 by "zorken"
2001-01-15 16:39:51
zorken85@hotmail.com
hehe.. ops..
#15 by "zorken"
2001-01-15 16:46:51
zorken85@hotmail.com
the_reformed_pianist (#11)

After I watched Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Movie, I went to New York and got lost in a sewer. AND I WAS AGGRESSIVE.


I totally know what you are saying!!!
I watched the same movie at a birthday party and i was CRAAAAAZYYYY!!!!!
They had to call the police to get me out of the house and prevent me from tearing down the whole place!

To all kids out there: DONT WATCH VIOLENT MOVIES!! you WILL get CRAZY and you WILL want to KILL somebody!!

(again.. my spelling sucks)
#16 by "Bertrude"
2001-01-15 17:16:13
shane.gleeson@upm-kymmene.com
When I read the start of this article I thought it was going to be interesting and aproached it with an open mind. I don't think kids should be allowed to play most of the games I play. However this does not really seem like the best way of researching it. You are talking about kids aged about 8 or 9 and the way they are measuring thaeir levels of aggresion is to ask other 8 and 9 year olds. I can't imagine it being the most accurate way to measure anything, let alone something this objective. However I only read the BBC article and did not read the full report as I am busy in work (read too lazy). Maybe I'm missing something but as I see it I would disregard the report altogether even though I would tend to agree with it to a certain extent.
#17 by "SteveBauman"
2001-01-15 17:24:00
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com
I think it's an interesting study though hardly surprising. Kids do get more aggressive when watching TV or playing videogames. They also get more aggressive if they play sports. They get more aggressive if they eat a lot of sugared food. They probably get more aggressive if they engage in rigorous public debate.

It would be wrong to completely dismiss the potential harm exposure to violent media can have on a kid. We say exposure to positive things induces positive results, i.e. playing RollerCoaster Tycoon or SimCity gives his kids some idea of economics or the interconnectedness of things. So why is everyone so quick to dismiss the possible negative things?
#18 by "nick"
2001-01-15 17:24:09
nickb@iname.com
Here's an interesting chart from AP covering the same story.

[img]http://www.cnn.com/interactive/health/0101/children.aggression/popup.6.reduce.aggression.gif[/IMG]
#19 by "__try"
2001-01-15 17:27:48
try@woodruffs.com
Duh,
Kids who sit on thier fat asses all day (rather than *PLAYING*) will still need to burn off all that great kid energy.  And there will be a lot of it, released intensely.  Any parent that actually raises their child (rather than sending them off to daycare or having Ms Guadalupe the nanny raise them) knows this.

Plus this rankles me because these studies will be used (again) to prove the violent media promotes agressiveness, when it only (and marginally) shows that *media in general* promotes aggressiveness.

If only we could "wish away" violence and death by not showing it to children........
#20 by "Bertrude"
2001-01-15 17:31:11
shane.gleeson@upm-kymmene.com
Something else just occurred to me. The news article said television and vide games were cut down, not violent television and video games. Are we being led to believe that all games make kids aggressive. The only refrence it has to violence in the games is towards the end of the article.
#21 by "Decker"
2001-01-15 17:56:59
deckerwill@hotmail.com
Is it the kids playing the games that makes them more agressive? or the parents that neglect the children, and all they have to do is watch TV an play video games.

Believe me if a child is busy playing on a sports team, or participating in family activities I don't even have to do a study and I can tell you they'd be less agressive.

What should the children do if they don't have TV or Video Games? I'm not even talking about violent ones...

Video games just gives something a little more absolute when it comes to the imagination.

TV and video games are a part of growing up.  If a child goes without they'll be ignorant to the world around them.

People should spend more time encouraging their chilldren to do something useful, and spend time with them rather then conducting surveys.

I work as a peer councilor and I can tell you that parential neglect is probably one of the biggest reasons that children get angry and agressive.

Just my $0.02
#22 by "Scope"
2001-01-15 19:30:36
ed_cope@hotmail.com
They should have a 3rd group of kids who they showed the movie 'Saving Private Ryan'. That would probably cause more damage than good but I'm sure it would result in a decrease in the level of aggressive behavior. It's not violence that causes kids to become aggressive but the type of violence they are exposed to. Video games have a lot of 'A-Team' type violence. I believe that causes an increase in aggressive behavior. So does playing football after school. Like everything, it comes down to good parenting and understanding the difference between reality and fantasy.
#23 by "WarrenMarshall"
2001-01-15 19:47:01
warren@epicgames.com
*sigh*

Andy (#0):
But of course, this is all rubbish. Developers tell us that games don't make people aggressive and they know better than a bunch of those whacky academic folk, don't they?

Some of the stupidest people I've ever known have degrees and diplomas.


Is this topic worth hashing over AGAIN!?  Everyone knows what everyone elses opinion is on this ... some people will say it's true, but the majority will rant about parents not taking responsibility for their children.

I usually don't give a rip about what topics gets posted ... but this one just never seems to end.

---

Warren Marshall
Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill
Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#24 by "deadlock"
2001-01-15 20:02:19
deadlock@eircom.net
asspennies sayed:
That's not to say that I totally believe that these programs or games lead to aggressive behavior or tendencies, just that with kids minds being so fertile at such an age, it's best to fill them with knowledge, not mindless nonsense - even if it's the mindless nonsense we as adults enjoy so much.


I agree with you up to a point, but I still think that rather than going all out and sheltering kids, parents should allow the kids to be exposed to a controlled level of 'unsavouriness' and nonsense. Time has shown that kids that are overprotected become maladjusted when they are eventually exposed to the world at large. By all means let the kid play Quake 3, just make sure they don't play too much and that they understand that what they see on-screen bears only a fleeting resemblance to what happens in real life when someone gets shot or bludgeoned repeatedly with a metal glove; ie, we don't always get back up. But, eh, don't go overboard, they're only kids after all - they've plenty of time to realise the ills of society.

decker:
I work as a peer councilor and I can tell you that parential neglect is probably one of the biggest reasons that children get angry and agressive


Typical! I post something, then read back on what the previous post says and realise I'm repeating what someone else has said! With regard to the quote, UK and Ireland readers will remember one of the more poignant, and indeed shocking, examples of this: the Jamie Bolger case. Couple parental neglect with highly unsuitable video viewing and you've got a case of pre-teenage murder on your hands.

deadlock
#25 by "CharlieWiederhold"
2001-01-15 20:13:28
charliew@3drealms.com
Nick: I'm to blame for the girls in the bottom right corner of your chart thinking the world is a mean and scary place. I apologize. :(

Charlie Wiederhold
#26 by "Sgt_Hulka"
2001-01-15 20:14:02
rwaring@ameritech.net
This article makes me more aggressive.  Hulk SMASH!
#27 by "Andy"
2001-01-15 20:15:03
andy@meejahor.com
<b>WarrenMarshall</b> (#23):
<quote>
I usually don't give a rip about what topics gets posted ... but this one just never seems to end.
</quote>
;-)
#28 by "Andy"
2001-01-15 20:49:08
andy@meejahor.com
<b>Off-topic:</b>

Has some kind soul out there got a copy of Worldcraft v1.3 they could <a href="mailto:andy@meejahor.com">e-mail me</a>? I've got it on CD-R but when I try to install it there's a checksum error. It isn't available on the web because v1.3 was the version you got when you registered.
#29 by "None1a"
2001-01-15 20:53:49
none1a@home.com
<b>SteveBauman</b> (#17):
<quote>It would be wrong to completely dismiss the potential harm exposure to violent media can have on a kid. We say exposure to positive things induces positive results, i.e. playing RollerCoaster Tycoon or SimCity gives his kids some idea of economics or the interconnectedness of things. So why is everyone so quick to dismiss the possible negative things?</quote>

Who said being agressive was a bad thing, so what the kids where more agressive, but did more of them get kicked out for fighting. O never mind they didn't bother to record the violance part just agression.

<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#30 by "PainKilleR"
2001-01-15 20:59:28
painkiller@planetfortress.com
<b>None1a</b> (#29):
<quote>Who said being agressive was a bad thing, so what the kids where more agressive, but did more of them get kicked out for fighting. O never mind they didn't bother to record the violance part just agression.
</quote>

and remember, they were only observing random children for a minute at a time. I'm amazed they even observed aggression in one minute spans, that's barely enough time to really get worked up over something.

-PainKilleR-[CE]
#31 by "Barneyque"
2001-01-15 21:00:55
barneyque@hotmail.com
OH NO, not agressive?  Really?


Agressive people are the ones who get ahead in the world.

Losers are passive.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#32 by "NeoReaper"
2001-01-15 21:02:01
TheNeoReaper@email.com
<b>None1a</b> (#29):
<quote>they didn't bother to record the violance part just agression. </quote>
Exactly. Being aggressive is a key to being succesful in today's business world. Being 'meek' just insures that you will be overlooked.

Oh, and it seems obvious that a majority of today's youth crimes can be attributed to parental neglect. I mean, how many times have the police, afterwards, have found weapons, drugs, and other evidence literally lying around the kid's bedroom?

I wouldn't be surprised if half the time they <i>wanted</i> to be found out.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#33 by "Whisp"
2001-01-15 21:21:55
whisp@vt.edu
How about the potential for bias as a result of the subjective ratings?  It seems very likely to me that the ratings of the aggression, etc could have been influenced by the expectation that watching less television would decrease the aggressive tendencies of children.  It seems clear that the study designers tried to minimize this, but I don't think it is possible to eliminate it.

This is exactly the type of perceptual error that placebos are used to correct for in most drug trials, so that the physician or patient doesn't know whether or not the treatment is actually expected to yield results.  However, there is no way to hide the presence of the treatment in this experiment from the participants, and to me it seems likely that the expected or hoped for result would have been clear to everyone, including the children and the parents.  How could this not affect the ratings?

Interesting excerpt:
<quote>
Parent newsletters were designed to motivate parents to help their children stay within their budgets, and suggested strategies for limiting television, videotape, and video game use for the entire family. We allowed parents to decide whether to include computer use in their child's budget. The intervention targeted media use alone and did not address aggressive behavior.
</quote>
Note the focus of the study was on no particular media, and does is not necessarily applicable to computer usage.  Also, I wonder how much of the "improved" behavior reported can be attributed to the increased interaction and discussion with the children by teachers and parents.  Knowing that others really do care about you can be positive influence, regardless of the form that demostration takes.

-Whisp<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#34 by "paul"
2001-01-15 21:34:18
pbullman@webhitzone.com
who cares. this topic is dead. the ray carruth closing argument is going on, and I've invested lots of time watching it..
#35 by "paul"
2001-01-15 21:43:09
pbullman@webhitzone.com
i've invested so much time I can't even spell the guy's first name correctly too.
#36 by "BruceR"
2001-01-15 22:49:39
bruce@avault.com
Painkiller (#29), read the study again. Independent observers (with their one-minute spans) didn't find any significant change in behaviour. Only peers and parents reported a reduction in aggression greater than in the control group. So your last post is actually more of an argument FOR the study, not against.
#37 by "BloodKnight"
2001-01-15 23:04:55
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
<b>WarrenMarshall</b> (#23):
<quote>I usually don't give a rip about what topics gets posted ... but this one just never seems to end.
</quote>

Tell me about it, assholes who want to rip freedom of anything and the governments try to do the same thing for media violence, cigars, beer, etc.  I was even checking out some "NO Smoking" book.  Heres a quote from memory:

People who smoke, are they friendly to children and everyone else?

NO!  Not if they give everyone dieseases


Well fuck, my grandma smokes but she is better then 99% people I see everyday
<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#38 by "toadwarrior"
2001-01-15 23:39:52
toadw@uplink.net
Kids shouldn't play most games. The problem is, parents don't care. If they buy their kids adult games, tough shit, they shouldn't be allowed to sue because they fucked up.

But retailers shouldn't sell kids mature games either. I personally think they should card people. It's done for porn and tobacco, some places will even card kids when they buy movies. The same should be done for games.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#39 by "None1a"
2001-01-15 23:49:38
none1a@home.com
Lets try throwing some thing else into this and see what happens shall we.

<i>J.Allard: There is no "vchip" per se. we simply have a setting on the console and insist that xbox games are rated by appropriate boards. a parent may optionally configure the box to only play certain types of games. </i>
From the Russian Gaming World 12 questions about the x box interview (that you can read <a href="http://www.rgw.ru/12q/i_allard.htm">here</a>)

Good, bad, or what?
<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#40 by "EvilivE"
2001-01-16 00:17:31
satanas@worldmailer.com
All I know is I have been playing TFC for the past 12 hours and after reading this article I just want to rip someones head off and shit down their throat.  That is nonsense.  Games don't make you violent.  I would love to kill the guy that wrote that article.
#41 by "Quicken"
2001-01-16 00:32:06
geoffrey@access.com.au

1) Not a single reference study post 1991.
2) Not a single reference study that mentions video games (see 1).
3) Fourth sentence is a lie (there's only been about 200 studies, see Freedman's review). The "1000" figure is parenting group propaganda.
4) No mention of or reference to findings that downplay the media violence link in any way (Freedman, the recent FTC report, etc.).

And that's just the intro...

BruceR


Bravo. And also note it's a very small group of people, it is measuring perceptions rather than behavour, and worse is that the control group and test group are from 2 different schools so we have no real measurement of what other factors effect their behaviour. But then it's always easy to make a half arsed study because there are the groups that will jump to use it as "evidence".

Hey Warren! Post a new topic ;)
#42 by "None1a"
2001-01-16 00:35:45
none1a@home.com
<b>EvilivE</b> (#40):
<quote>All I know is I have been playing TFC for the past 12 hours and after reading this article I just want to rip someones head off and shit down their throat. That is nonsense. Games don't make you violent. I would love to kill the guy that wrote that article.</quote>

And the article never made that clame. The article made the clame that is increases agressive behavior but did not show that it increased violant behavior. The study showed here levels of verbal and pysical aggression, however the only three questions out of ten that they gave examples of are Who says give me that, who starts fights over nothing, and who pushes and shoves other children. What where the other questions, would those questions be considered violance or not?<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#43 by "Greenbean"
2001-01-16 00:42:20
john@playerofgames.com
Most amusing evilive.

You try shelter a kid from all the bad movies and tv shows on tv and you end up making them a gibbering paranoid scared freak. You try de-sensitise a kid by showing more movies and games, and go out praticing guns etc and you can end up with the opposite effect (a phsyco aggressive too quickly matured nutter).  Basically people try too hard in the wrong ways.

Its like this, everything in moderation. Theres a right time for discussing "are films real" and "do people really want to kill each other like that", its usually when the questions are asked. You then show the reality, yes there are nutters but most people want to be nice etc etc. Do you take a four year old out to shoot a gun, no... you wait until they are 12 or older and have a good moral sense and then show them how its dangerous and how its also useful. Now they hopefully won't blow their head off by accident if they perchance across a gun somehow and they also shouldn't have a lust for guns- they know its no big deal, but they are dangerous. Btw I'm pretty much against guns - but in ireland its a rarity for anyone to own a gun, no handguns allowed and shotguns are registered; but I do understand the argument in america where is much more common.

I think the obvious thing here is really the participation of family, a persons first step into and respect for society. Without family this dissappears and you have a downward spiral.
#44 by "PainKilleR"
2001-01-16 01:14:51
painkiller@planetfortress.com
<b>BruceR</b> (#36):
<quote>Independent observers (with their one-minute spans) didn't find any significant change in behaviour. Only peers and parents reported a reduction in aggression greater than in the control group. So your last post is actually more of an argument FOR the study, not against.</quote>

Actually, my comment is more in the direction of saying that the study wouldn't be able to prove anything conclusively because it's fundamentally flawed. You may or may not get to observe some aggressive behavior in that time span, but you wouldn't know anything about how it came about if you did, and you would be very unlikely to even observe it in the first place. Any agressive behavior you did observe would more than likely be mutual agression between at least 2 students, but since you're only supposed to be observing one student (rather than the entire group), you wouldn't even be able to comment on the agression of other students involved (assuming the agression is even focused on other students instead of simple imaginary play not involving other students at all, but showing agressive tendancies).

In other words, because the observation portion of the study is flawed in that you have little or no chance of observing anything worthwhile, the study itself is problematic at best. They provide sources for other studies that used similar methods for the observation and the peer review portions of the study, but I have quite a bit of doubt regarding the peer review portion as well (they mention certain numbers of the questions geared towards certain things, but the example questions mentioned seemed problematic at best, as you don't know what the child answering the questions is thinking, or why they answered the way they did).

-PainKilleR-[CE]<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#45 by "EvilivE"
2001-01-16 01:18:10
satanas@worldmailer.com
None1a.  My comment was called sarchasm.
#46 by "szcx"
2001-01-16 01:24:37
nedocze@hotmail.com
sarchasm -- the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient who doesn't get it.
#47 by "goatse"
2001-01-16 01:27:37
misternutty@hotmail.com
[img]http://vagina.rotten.com/fecaljapan/fecaljapan.jpg[/img]


[img]http://www.goatse.cx/hello.jpg[/img]
#48 by "JeffD"
2001-01-16 01:39:13
jefdaley@microsoft.com
mr0n, can you *please* make an exception and kill %47?  I'm surfing at work, and god forbid my boss came in while I was reading PC.  

And I think this study's a bit flawed -- for one thing, they should have studied *both* groups before the experiment to determine whether or not other factors could have influenced the study.  Perhaps the "control" group was more aggressive to begin with?

=JD
#49 by "JMCDaveL"
2001-01-16 01:51:57
jmcdavel@mailandnews.com
Wow... Stileproject forums have me so desensitized I scrolled right past the naughty pics and didn't even bat an eye!

--jmc
~a/s/l?~
#50 by "Barneyque"
2001-01-16 01:58:20
barneyque@hotmail.com
<b>#49</b> "JMCDaveL" wrote...
<quote>Wow... Stileproject forums have me so desensitized I scrolled right past the naughty pics and didn't even bat an eye!

--jmc
~a/s/l?~</quote>

That explains a lot.  Now I understand you.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Less gaming = less aggression

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (1) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]