Slashdot Mirror
Violent Games Good for Kids
fjordboy writes "Scholars from MIT, the University of California in LA, and the University of London have worked together to oppose laws restricting children from playing violent video games. The battle is currently taking place in the US Court of Appeals and the case seems to hold a decent amount of merit. From Vnunet:"Experts on childhood and adolescence have long recognised the importance of violent fantasy play in overcoming anxieties, processing anger, and providing outlets for aggression." Similar article from Reuters as well."
I knew I should have spent more time playing video games and less time studying.
I'm sure the folks over at The Army are glad to hear this one!
Repeated beatings of the gaming industry can't be rescued by a single validation. What really needs to be done is that society must realize that not all disasterous things int he world can be blamed on the gaming industry. When that happens, then it will be a true validation of pc/console gaming.
------
Amadaeus
The last bastion of Mathie-ism
They havn't warped me.
--Inmate # 1268358 Walla Walla State Pen., WA
Feeling better aren't you?
Good for kids and adults!
When I was a kid I released my agression by chopping wood and mowing lawns. Nothing like violently chopping the heads off of 1 million blades of grass to relieve stress.
This space intentionally left blank.
Ultimately, however, what will protect video games from censorship will be free speech issues, not arguments about level of or lack of harm. The fact the more and more video game players are adults will help build consensus for thinking of them as a full-fledged media, and not just a children's toy.
Have these researchers for a moment stopped to consider that hours spent glued to some machine instead of interacting with ones peers is the cause of "anxieties", "anger", and "aggression"? While there may exist a threshold for healthy computer gaming, I am certain that I have met many young men who have exceeded it.
Dr. Joseph Hairston
Superintendent, CCBC
TIGER! TIGEr!
Ahhhh, I feel better already!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
When I used to play chess, I would often find myself getting very angry. I'm generally a fairly passive person, but when playing chess, I would just plain get mad. In fact, I would sometimes get so mad that I felt like hitting someone, but I never did.
Anyway, that's somewhat beside the point. "Violent" implies that you are doing something to someone. Nobody gets hurt when I sit down and play "Return to Wolfenstein" on my computer. No real Nazis die. My health doesn't deteriorate, and I generally don't even eat any real chicken dinners while playing. When I play a videogame that simulates violence, I often find myself relieved of lots of stress built up over the workday. When I play chess, I get really stressed and want to hurt people.
Obviously, chess is bad, and games with simulated violence are good.
What about virtual kiddie porn?/ 82444/1 824
http://www.infoanarchy.org/story/2002/4/18
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Parents making a decision, you just need to know one thing:
Does your child easily descriminate between fantasy and reality?
If he/she can, then games aren't going to have a detrimental effect.
If he/she can't, start the conselling early. Maybe you can make a difference if you start now.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Personally, I see some games making people more angry and edgy. Take, for example, Counter-Strike. I've been at lan parties where people have gotten seriously pissed off while playing this game, even to the point of violence more than once. And almost everytime it's the same thing: Someone says the way in which they died doesn't count because of any number of complete bullshit reasons(awp shot, camping, even accusations of cheating).
Even I'm guilty of this. I get midly pissed off if I own someone and they go "luck" or "won't happen again". I've seen people that shout "BS" after every single death, it's pretty fucking sad.
Not every game is going to relieve stress. If you're serious about the game, and you're not playing up to your usual standard for whatever reason, you're very quick to anger. It's not very theraputic if cs is giving you a pissed-off anxiety attack.
P.S. Camping with the awp=sniping(fair, and expected). Camping with the mp5=camping(cheap).
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Actually the lions share of the market is over 18.
RTCW and GTA3 arent designed for little kids. If they were targetting my 9 year old, they'd be doing a piss-poor job.
He couldn't care less about the titles I enjoy.
I mean, how much money does the average 5-10 year old have in his/her pocket? Richie-Rich aside, its not enough to buy a new game every week.
New as in full MSRP on release day, they dont make money when you pick up Warcraft II BattleChest for 4.99 at babbages.
The video game industry didn't surpass the movie industry in gross sales on little Billy's allowance.
That's the reason there are so many 'Mature' games.
All this "good/bad for your kids" debate does is misdirect the public.
Video games aren't "kids entertainment", any more than all movies are "kids entertainment".
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
don'tchathink?
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok
While I doubt the laws will be tremendously effective considering my childhood access to R rated movies despite parental disapproval, I don't see the basis for the legal challenge here.
It seems silly to argue that a video game company or retail store's right to sell a product to a child is greater than that child's parent's right to not allow their child to buy that product.
This isn't to say I think restricting access to video games is going to have any positive affects whatsoever, but that doesn't mean that decision should be taken away from parents.
paintball
[devils advocate] Not if it was all done in CGI...if no kids were involved, where does your argument go?[/devils advocate]
Doffing Devil's Advocate hat, ducking and running...
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Does this mean that kiddie porn should be allowed because it allows pedophiles to act out their fantasies in "safe" ways.
The problem with kiddie porn is that children have already been violated in the creation of the material. It's pointless to claim that kiddie porn results in fewer pedophiles acting on their impulses because children have already been harmed. One solution is the so-called virtual kiddie porn which would be an outlet for pedophiles and not have actual children being used to produce the material. However, if Ashcroft and his Goon Squad have their way, that will become illegal too.
I'm not picking on you, Rader, I just think you chose a bad example. Let's consider something different: Japanese hentai anime porn. In these movies, young girls are usually raped by evil monsters or demons. Here, actual people are not being harmed and it could be argued that watching such material is a safe outlet for those who enjoy fantasizing about violent, nonconsentual sex (and there are both men and women who have fantasies like this). I think it's important for those of us who defend violent videogames to keep these sexual examples in the back of our minds because sooner or later some "save the children" organization is going to use them against us. A lot of people who might be willing to accept violent videogames as harmless fun will balk at the hentai movies. Then it will be a simple matter for the anti-videogame crowd to say "You're against violent pornography, then you should be against violent videogames as well." And I argue that it's quite possible that that argument will win over some sitting-on-the-fencers.
GMD
watch this
After the High School shootings in where the kids involved said they had been playing 'Doom' there was a backlash against such video games. Now the studies say it didn't matter. Well I have to believe that those kids were screwed up to begin with and the video games had nothing to do with it. They also claimed that playing doom sharpened their killing skills. Since when does a keyboard, mouse, or joystick handle like a shotgun?
Kiddie porn is illegal because there's a kiddie involved.
Virtual kiddie porn, OTOH, seems to have been deemed legal because it fails that criteria.
I grew up with condemned shows like the A-Team, and Airwolf. Shows that people said were too violent for kids. Were kids in the 80's as violent as ones now? Hell no, and it's because the kids growing up just after I did had crap like Captain Planet and other spoon-fed pablum created to make everyone love and respect eachother.
I've got -nothing- wrong with love and respect, great things to have. But those aren't taught by TV, they're taught be experience. When I watched action-oriented TV, I got the adrenaline rush -and- the easy comedown before the credits rolled. Great way to get rid of tension.
Hell, consider those old shows the violence version of masturbation. Probably fits.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
- Driving over an innocent in GTA III, score: 30, extra 15 for ending the victim's pain with shotgun.
- Creating you own game to plan and execute the murder of your teacher, score 99, extra 1 for doing it with a chainsaw.
Is that what they wanted say?
I find GTA3 an excellent vent for agression... you can beat people up, fire a rocket launcher at them, etc. But I know the difference from right and wrong (at least I should). I wonder if younger kids still might get the wrong idea. In any case, I wouldn't let my 6-year-old play a game like Grand Theft Auto 3.
In general, the longer kids spend playing video games inside, the less they're out getting into fights and robbing stores (I met a 17-year-old on the bus who just got out of juvenile detention for attempted robbery of a gas station). Why go out and beat someone up when you just did it for the past four hours with your favorite fighting game? Just don't set the skill level too high...
"Crying and mowing the lawn at the same time! How's that for therapy? 'Geez, the Leary kid is in therapy again -- their lawn looks great!'"
They all do.
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok
Such general statements as "violent games" good/bad for people are absurd.
It depends on the person.
Some people will use it as a stress reliever. Its good for those people.
Others will get too into it and become hyper-competitive; it'll make them stressed, and they'll get up tight. Probably bad for those people.
Point is, it depends on the person.
One person derives please from that which causes pain in another. For example, while some people may love cottage cheese and it brings them pleasure, it makes me sick.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Perhaps that's a valid positive aspect of violence in video games. But what about the negatives: that it desensitizes us to violence, and we even grow to enjoy it? Take television as an example. When I look around in the U.S., I see a nation of television addicts, whose priorities, interests, and cultural views are largely influenced by what they absorb watching television. One inevitable aspect of watching a lot of TV is witnessing violence. This might provide a cathartic outlet for some of us, but I think it also trains us to accept, expect, and even enjoy such violence... after all, if people didn't enjoy it, it wouldn't sell, so it wouldn't be on TV. Now, maybe adults can separate reality from fantasy (I personally don't believe this, but it is arguable), but can kids? From my experience, they are *drastically* less adept at this than adults, and I think adults forget this (until they have kids of their own, and then begin to take a conservative viewpoint on it - for a reason). Video games are in the same boat. Violent video games also desensitize people to what real-life acts of violence - such as murder and war - mean. Violence becomes glorified; it gets associated with fun, recreation, pleasure, endorfins. I'm not saying that what this study says is wrong; I'm sure that video-game violence is a cathartic outlet and can sometimes play a positive role. But that's only one aspect of it; we have to look at the big picture. Now, I know a lot of you slashdotters love video games, and I expect to get ripped for this one... but please, you don't have to dismember me - let's keep the discussion fair and mature, ok? Ryan Geiss
People ARE violent. Games are not going to mitigate or ameliorate that. You know why we are violent? Because for 2 million years we've killed, eaten and dominated all comers.
Our ONLY evolutionary advantage is not big brains or stereoscopic vision or opposable thumbs. It's aggression. It's our unquenchable lust to be the last one standing, dripping with someone else's blood.
This is a pretty classic example of people trying to pass the buck on who is responsible for their children and what they do. Regardless of whether violent images in video games harm, help or do nothing at all to children, the responsibility for deciding what is appropriate for each child and the consequences of that choice lies with the parents. If your kid has no friends and spends 12 hours a day in front of the tv, IT IS YOUR FAULT not the broadcasters who provide the shows. YOU should be monitoring what your child watches, just like YOU should be monitoring what your child does online. Passing the buck by enacting more useless and unenforceable legislation merely provides additional opportunity for lawsuits and does nothing at all for the children who are so easily used as examples of what is "wrong" with each industry. Those kids need involved parents, not more laws that regulate what they can do/see/say/think.
"Suppose you were an idiot..... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeate myself."
Computer games don't affect kids.
If Pac Man affected us as kids, we would all be running around in
darkened rooms, munching pills, and listening to repetitive music.
Trust me, I am not a troll...
I've always thought that cursing was a cathartic release. Get a little built up rage, let out a good string of 4 letter words, and you feel much better. You don't kick the dog as often.
It might not be proven that these games are good for kids, but it seems to be an intuitive conclusion. Doing violent things in fantasy is always preferable to doing violent things in real life.
A lot of things that uppity people label as "bad" are made worse if you ban them! Now we can tie this entire thread into everything from porn to alcohol and drugs. Quit banning things! There's a REASON people seek an escape from real life! Sometimes that reason is to deflect seriously unsocial behaviors into a harmless fantasy world.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I have played Football, and GTA3 - and in my mind Football better prepares one for the life of a vilent criminal as one is actually hitting and huring real people - GTA3 you are just pressing buttons
NO!
One should only supress emotions such as anger and hatred, so they can stoke a fire inside you, rather than making you look angry, until you destroy the world in a fit of rage! DEATH TO INFIDELS!!! DEATH TO NON INFIDELS!!! Oh. I feel better now. NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Supression, not control, is the answer!
Ask me, three time serial-killer killcount award winner SJ Zero!
It's been a long time.
I would really like to know who these "experts" are. This notion of "playing out fantasies" or "venting of aggression" in the psychological literature is known as catharsis. Any first year psychology student SINCE the time of Freud is taught that the notion of catharsis is false.
Note: I am not saying that the group is wrong in what it is doing; only that the reporter is claiming results that have been demonstrated to be false for quite some time.
You mean like this?
o me tech.html
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/newsreleases/1999/h
I wont bother you with actually reading it, here's the opening paragraph.
NEW YORK, MAY 13, 1999 - Young teens are the biggest users of video game systems - right? Not according to a new survey of home technology from Nielsen Media Research which shows nearly 75% of the 63 million people using video game systems in the U.S. are 18 years old or older (18+). The most recent data show that 25% of video game system users - 15.6 million persons - are teens (persons 12-17), 40% of users - 25.2 million persons - are in the 18 - 34 age bracket, and 34% - 21.4 million persons - are 35+.
Of course NIELSEN wouldnt know anything about entertainment demographics, would they?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The idea is that venting provides a sort of release so that people will not have to take out their rage on others. However, recent evidence by Bushman (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2002; not available on-line for free) suggests that venting actually increases anger. He ran an experiment in which he angered subjects, then distracted them to think about something else or allowed them to hit a punching bag to "vent" their anger. The punching bag group became more, not less, angry.
Having them punch a bag may have kept the focus of their anger more fully in mind. It may have also raised their physical arousal level (a correlate of anger) allowing them to better maintain their anger level.
James Morrow wrote a beautiful novel called The Wine of Violence partly about the cathartic effects of violent fantasy. Morrow is probably the best satirical writer in English, and one of the best since Jonathan Swift.
:)
Briefly, a spaceship returning to Earth stumbles upon a planet where people live in harmony inside a walled city. There's no violence, physical or psychological, at all. Periodically these people go to special temples and live out their most violent fantasies in virtual reality; the ecto-plasmic by-product of this fantasy is called "noctus" and it pours out to surround the walls of the city.
See, the wastelands around the city are populated by the brain-eaters, humanoids who indulge their violent tendancies to the extreme. Problematically, the crew of the ship must convince the peaceful city-folk to wage war on the brain-eaters so they can return to their ship and escape.
This plot is mostly a hanger for Morrow's explorations of the nature of humanity and violence. Morrow's other writings are also fascinating. He's one of three or four SF authors I'll buy in hardback 'cause I can't wait for paper.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
by an unknown author:
I believe a self-righteous liberal with a cause is alot more dangerous than a Playstation.
'Nuff Said.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
I played hundreds of hours of violent games all through my youth, sat through thousands of hours of violent television and movies, and read dozens, nay, hundreds of books involving violence, death, and bloodshed.
Yet I haven't been in anything resembling a fight since I was in eighth grade, 11 years ago; I'm opposed to war, using violence to solve societal problems, and so on. Have I ever had the urge to run some asshole off the road, or punch some jerk in the face? Sure. But I'm able to restrain myself.
This doesn't prove that violent games are harmless to everyone; but it does prove that it's at least possible for someone to be exposed to large amounts of violent content without becoming some kind of... whatever it is that the anti-violence lobby thinks you turn into. A Columbine killer, I suppose. Given that the overwhelming majority of kids who play violent games do not themselves become violent adults, if a kid plays violent games and becomes violent himself, it's because he's either stupid, or insane, or was never taught that actual violence is wrong.
We don't ban hammers because some sociopath kills someone with a hammer now and then; and we shouldn't ban video games because some asshole who played them kills someone now and then.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
This is getting annoying...it seems like every odd day there is a study showing something is good for you, and every even day there is one saying exactly the opposite. I have gotten to the point of not trusting any study and going on common sense. Eight hours of simulated killing a day is not good for you, just as eight hours a day of talking about peace, the environment, world good, etc would make you want to kill someone (even if yourself).
Give it up already.
Basically the Supreme Court has said that kiddy porn does not fall under the first amendment. On the other hand more normal porn does not fall under this exemption.
There's a crucial difference: Kiddie porn, by definition, involves kids, ie people who are not old enough for any sex act they might be involved in to be legally considered consensual. Therefore, when kiddie porn is created the rights of the child involved are violated. Regular porn, on the other hand, involves consenting adults, and therefore no ones rights are being violated in it's creation. Virtual kiddie porn is protected for the same reason: no ones rights are violated in its creation.
My point is that when determining whether a particular type of pornography is protected or not, the decision generally seems to be based more on basic human rights than the First Ammendment.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
If my kid Tommy needs to take his aggression out, I don't want him taking it out on video games. It's far better for him to take it out on his classmates, friends and neighbors dog. Actually the neighbors dog isn't around any longer since Tommy got his last test back, so it will have to be his friends and classmates.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Then I learned how hard it is to play SSX while in traction.
This is the same guy (different account) that posted the BS about Ogg Vorbis yesterday and got shot down by Monty. Moderators should mod accordingly.
May we never see th
The video game industry didn't surpass the movie industry in gross sales on little Billy's allowance.
That is an interesting contrast. Many video games are targeted at 18+ "mature" users, but I've noticed that there are many more PG and PG-13 movies than R movies in the past few years. The movie industry is trying to take away our sex and violence to make a quick buck from teenagers.
cpeterso
I think that we just need to look at the reasons WHY violent games are popular if we want to understand this question. Violent games sell well because many people think they are good entertainment. And the reason for this is that people are inherently aggressive.
Now, most people know when it's acceptable to be aggressive and when it's not. And playing violent games is a socially acceptable way of being aggressive, and a way that allows people who are usually at the receiving end of agression in real life to act out their agressive fantasies without any lasting effects.
In my opinion, violent games are simply a natural thing for humans to create given human nature. I don't think that they are going to change our nature one way or the other, because they are a reflection of the nature we already have.
Why do people accept that most video games, even Mario and Pokemon, require the player to beat other characters to death or unconsciousness, but get bothered by sex appeal? DOAVB and BMXXX don't even let the player have consentual sex, they only have skimpy clothing and some stripping, and in real life stripping is nothing compared to killing. Why does everybody ignore that?
Parents, would you prefer your kid to murder someone or play doctor?
But companies aren't going to care about proportions of populations, they're going to care about the raw numbers. If I produce a game that will guarantee me 100% of the 3 memeber 5 - 6 year old janitor population as opposed to one that will give me about 10% of the 100 million member "young adult" catagory, I wouldn't conclude that the 100% is better. These companies want to move as many titles as possible, so in terms of number of potential buyers it's better to target the 18+ crowd.
Ad in classifieds: Pandora's Box (no box) $5
Video Games may not cause cancer, but anything to excess is bad. Most gaming time can easily be spent doing something else, something better for you than the games are.
I know of several young children that have picked up the finer aspects of violent video games such as cursing, bad hand gestures, rude comments. Yes it is true that there are other sources to obtain these skills, but why add to the list?
Get a free ipod.
People ARE violent
There's a degree of nature in it, but violence has a lot of cultural.
Compare the Japanese before and after Second World War. Same about the Jews. There is a sharp difference in acceptance of violence, and it's not caused by a change in their brains or DNA.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
I mean, how much money does the average 5-10 year old have in his/her pocket? Richie-Rich aside, its not enough to buy a new game every week.
Point a) They're targetting teens. Not 10-year-olds, but still kids.
b) Piracy costs little money. Many teens have no problem with downloading or copying games
c) In an aside, I've watched violent movies and played violent games since I was about 9. I never developed any real-life violent tendencies...or than smacking my old monitor whenever it used to make odd high-pitch noises (it worked, loose circuit?).
But yes, a little online slaying does tend to loosen one up a bit, unless you suck and die too much - phorm
I don't feel picked on. I wish I could have thought of a better example, since I know that child pornography involves abusing a child to begin with. And that is the argument everyone brought up.
You Hentai example was much, much better, thanks. But then again, that's not illegal. Either is bestiality?
How about this... Why is it illegal for minors to view 18+ content? But it's ok to learn driving skill in GTA3 and join gangs and shoot people.
I don't know where I'm going with this. I'm mostly surprised to see the article. Seems to me that violent video games being a "solution" to anything means that we must have some pretty bad symptoms in this day and age.
It's like George bitching in "Seinfeld" about his grandparents eating bacon, eggs and sausage every day of their lives, and living to be 90 years old, while he's there trying without success to watch his health eating vegetables and tofu. We live in a stressful ramen & coke world.
Violence is bad m'kay?
Fear the Gord. Love the Gord.
For anyone who doesn't believe this: Sit through a two-hour long meeting with a manager and then go play twenty minutes of GTA3.
Feeling better aren't you?
Play Mario Sunshine or Tetris for 20 minutes and you'd feel even better. Anything that takes your mind off of your frustration will relive it.
Actual scientific research into the so-called 'cathartic' effect has shown that it simply doesn't exist. The reason you feel better after playing GTA3 is because it's fun, not because you get to 'work out' your aggression.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I'm a big fan of the game Jet Grind Radio and it's sequel Jet Set Radio Future. It's basically a game where you skate around and tag buildings with graffiti. It's a lot of fun, and in the game you can "grind" on railings, power lines, etc. Basically you jump onto them and slide. You can do that in games like Tony Hawk as well.
:P
:P
Anyway, after playing for a while I noticed that when I would see a railing or corner I would get the urge to jump on it and 'grind', even though I wasn't wearing skates.
(it has also given me latent urges to start tagging things, but that's more of a constant nag rather then an instantaneous thing like with grinding)
After playing Gran Tourismo 3 I get the urge to drive way to fast
Running over pedestrians in GTA3 gets kind of old for me, so I never really did it much when playing
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Humans are just different in that somehow, some of us just seem to "snap" and totally lose perspective and rationality. Animals fight each other over territory or mates, but they usually don't kill each other; one will give up at some point.
Seriously, do you have any idea what you're talking about? Animals kill eachother all the time over various disputes. You are, just, totaly wrong...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
RPG bad !
No, RPG good !
videogames bad !
No, videogames good !
Napster bad !
No, Napster good !
HEY, TEACHERS, LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE !
I think you failed to detect a hint of sarcasm in my voice with regards to my comments about other preditors. The sad fact is that our little town once had bears, mountain lions, et all, but that humans destroyed them all. No amount of aggression could do that without the aid of the tools and ideas that the origional auther tries to downplay... Additionally, these creatures were destroyed due to fear, rather than aggression, again, going back to my point.
Look at forgin policy... Look at the war on 'terror.' Look at the US tendency to poke our noses into other people's business... Look at our LACK of expansionary movement.
We fight for oil, we fight for 'security.' Greed and fear; both in their very primal forms, but with rather advanced technology. Dude, all off this supports my point that aggression is a means to an end, rather than a goal. Deer don't fight for the sake of fighting, they do it for mating and survival. Most (if not all) animals (including humans) will *NOT* attack each other just for the hell of it.
The problem is that he (and you it seems,) believe that people will kill each other for the sake of doing so. He's wrong.
Sadism is the exception rather than the norm.
This all says to me that he has a lot of pent up anger at the world.
If people are so deeply agressive, why the vocal support for conservation from the slashdot community? Have slashdotters really lost some basic human instinct? Do you think humanity has fundimentally changed over the past million years?
*sighs*
There's a reason that people wear padding and helmets in (American) football...
Because they're too wussy to play Rugby?
"Information wants to be paid"
Maybe I need to play it in God mode.. :)
Well, maybe...
"Shows that people said were too violent for kids. Were kids in the 80's as violent as ones now? "
No, they were more violent. The incidence of violent crime has been steadily dropping for 20 years.
However, the reporting and awareness of violent crime has increased. Think what it would've been like if Kennedy were shot today. CNN would cover it for weeks, we'd still be hearing Dallas citizens telling us about it a year later on national TV. Media is the bigger problem, overstimulating this violence-counter response in a vicious cycle.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.