NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just wondering what you people think of video game violence effecting children. Do you think violence in video games makes children more violent, doesn't do anything, or helps them blow off some steam rather than having them pound on another kid. Personally, I don't think it does anything. I know a bunch of studies say otherwise but other studies say those studies aren't correct. I do agree that general violence in the media desensitizes people of all ages.

I think its Parints looking for a scapegoat for the fact there god alfule parints

Human psychology is a very complex thing. It'll take more than mere video games to cause a kid to snap. Video games might have an affect on an already disturbed and troubled child, but they doen't cause that sort of behavior outright.

Human psychology is a very complex thing. It'll take more than mere video games to cause a kid to snap. Video games might have an affect on an already disturbed and troubled child, but they doen't cause that sort of behavior outright.

Those are exactly my thoughts. I wrote a paper on this once. I find it terribly amusing that all sorts of people blame the Columbine shooting on video games. The game won't make them kill. They're just already crazy.

Youth crimes are down 23% from 1990-2000, where vidoegame usage dramatically increased. I agree with the above post.

Exactly, I am a child of 13 and i play first person and thrid person shooting games and some fighting games suck as Dragonball z Budoki :sniper: (It kicks ass man) and Half life (one of those games where you :sniper: :mp5: and :gundge: down aliens) It hasn't affected me at all except increasing my stratagy and ability to look at things very closely to try and see previousaly unseen things! It hasn't affected me abit. but computer itself has made me need reading Glasses but thats it :headbang:

Violence in video-games has no effect on kids... I've been playing video-games since I was 2 and personally I don't believe in using violence... I know alot of people that are the same way.

I just recently played "Manhunt". Thats a totally silly game where violence is so over-exaggerated that its already funny. "Level 3" executions were modelled quite creatively in that game. It is a short-term entertainment - something new and never seen before, but that's it. Though I must admit, that I learned a few new ways how to torture someone effectively. Not that I'd ever do that.

I think its Parints looking for a scapegoat for the fact there god alfule parints

That's what, six spelling/grammar errors in one sentance. :rolleyes: Thanks for making the compelling and well thought out arguement.

That's what, six spelling/grammar errors in one sentance. :rolleyes: Thanks for making the compelling and well thought out arguement.

Your 3rd post and you're trying to flame already? Starting with complaints about grammar and spelling errors? Go away. You're not wanted here. Do something useful at least.

Edit: Don't complain about spelling errors unless you're sure you don't have any.

I'm just wondering what you people think of video game violence effecting children. Do you think violence in video games makes children more violent, doesn't do anything, or helps them blow off some steam rather than having them pound on another kid. Personally, I don't think it does anything. I know a bunch of studies say otherwise but other studies say those studies aren't correct. I do agree that general violence in the media desensitizes people of all ages.

Most games rock. Most games AID children. Puzzles games and good RPGs help problem solving skills and the like. As far as I'm concerned, a well-made game is as thought-provoking as a book. Games like Homeworld, Deus Ex, The Last Express, and Myst all have excellent plots which make you THINK. And people don't think enough.

Still, there are some games out there I would keep my child away from, if I had one. I hated Manhunt, but only because I failed to be entertained by it. Whatever. But I played GTA 3 for a few weeks, and I found myself driving far more recklessly than I usually would. Some games, I've found, can have a somewhat negative influence. Oh yeah, I work a graveyard shift a hotel. I played Doom 3. I never noticed how the lights flickered so much in the pool room. *shudder* Demon attack babies with wings... *shudder*

this is one of those bizzaar half truith kinds of things
that i've heard debated from every side except logical

let me put it this, if the only way someone has ever seen
a problem effectively delt with is violently, gee guess what
their first reaction is going to be the first time they run
into it.

of course. so elimating all exposure is going to solve the
problem; right? WRONG!

seeing to it that everone is exposed to a DIVERSITY of
effective nonviolent ways of dealing with things might
though.

it really comes back to cultural values. if the values you
are surrounded by romantacize and reward aggressiveness,
popular tastes in amusement are likely to be pretty violent.

and THAT is what we have and why we have it. even why in
the u.s. we have the kind of crappy corruption that the
loonatic right represents holding the highest political
power

your not going to get rid of that by forbidding violent
amusements or amusements that simulate violence but by
removing obsticals to greater diversity instead.

that's why this whole bussiness of repressing natural
childhood sexuality is all and exactly wrong. that is what
breeds aggressiveness and the romantacizing of it and a
taste for violence.

but childhood sexuality isn't the only thing that is defacto
sensored. don't try to tell me you haven't seen a ton of
pseudo-religeous programing (mostly fanatical
pseudochristerism) in media. but when have you seen
or even advertisements that feature alternative
transportation or energy production in prime time, even as
an unemphasized background context?

when have you seen anything but the socalled mainstream
same old same old pap being pumped at us, even in these
violent entertainments?

no wonder there's a market for simulated violence,
children have had their immaginations brainwashed out of
them so that the only alternatives that seem likely to
provide gratifying amusement are those which romantacise
and reward it.

this is a chicken or the egg scenario and what we need to
break it isn't more censorship, but among other things,
perhaps for starters, less.

but less censorship alone isn't sufficient. remember i
mentiond the gestalt mythose of a culture (well only in
passing so far and not yet clearly or specificly as i do
now).

we need a diversity of mythmaking. so that violence
appearing to be romantacized becomes no more then a small
fraction of it.

we need both passive and interactive amusements that
without tedium or repulsive force open up oppertunities
for individuals of all ages, genders and levels of
intelligence to think. to permit themselves to enjoy the
exercise of whatever intillectual and or creative capacities
they may happen to have. that realisticly and honestly
depict how the avoidance of causing harm can create a more
gratifying and sustainable world to live in. as well as
the real costs of failing to.

costs that we see all arround us all the time but often
misinterpret or misrepresent to ourselves, so used have we
become to seeing them so endlessly and premedditatedly missinterpreted (generaly by interests themselves self
deceiving and self deceived).

=^^=
.../\...

Humans were slaughtering each other long before video games came about.
It's all about enviroment and culture. Japan is crazy for the shit, and violence among youths there is relatively low.

In any case, I think we're all preaching to the choir here.

Humans were slaughtering each other long before video games came about.
It's all about enviroment and culture. Japan is crazy for the shit, and violence among youths there is relatively low.

But they were slaughtering each other for wholesome values... ;) :sniper:

Carlemnaria... your last post was VERY disturbing to read so I didnt finish it.

Anyway.

I know of friend who plays a lot of shooters and fighting games, and I must admit that, when he tries to be 'cool' he is seriously using pencills, rulers or plastic daggers to attack you. Not that he wants to harm you, I guess he just hopes you'll join in or something... He also likes 'acting cool' and doing karate kicks. My opinion in this is that he's quite voilent.

On the other hand, me and a lot of other kids I know play shooters like GTA, Doom and games about the second world war (battlefield, medal of honour) And I can't exactely say that I am voilent. I only get the impression that, if I'd ever get shot at, I'll know how to duck away and stuff.

Also, I very much prefer games with a good plot, like RPG's and Deus Ex, over brainless shoot-em ups like Doom.

Carlemnaria... your last post was VERY disturbing to read so I didnt finish it.

Anyway.

I know of friend who plays a lot of shooters and fighting games, and I must admit that, when he tries to be 'cool' he is seriously using pencills, rulers or plastic daggers to attack you. Not that he wants to harm you, I guess he just hopes you'll join in or something... He also likes 'acting cool' and doing karate kicks. My opinion in this is that he's quite voilent.

On the other hand, me and a lot of other kids I know play shooters like GTA, Doom and games about the second world war (battlefield, medal of honour) And I can't exactely say that I am voilent. I only get the impression that, if I'd ever get shot at, I'll know how to duck away and stuff.

Also, I very much prefer games with a good plot, like RPG's and Deus Ex, over brainless shoot-em ups like Doom.

Yay! Someone else on this forum's heard of Dues Ex! I was feeling so outcast... :D

Yay! Someone else on this forum's heard of Dues Ex! I was feeling so outcast... :D

I'm just glad that I found a game which is different from the thoughtless-killing games like doom :D

Another Deus Ex addict calling in :)

Anyway, to stay ontopic, I think it's indeed bullshit. Children shouldn't be playing Manhun anyway, that's why games have ratings.

That's what, six spelling/grammar errors in one sentance. :rolleyes: Thanks for making the compelling and well thought out arguement.
When on these forums, it is best to remember that english is not always the first language to some of the people that post here. Also, dyslexia is a problem for some people and is not a joking matter. You really should avoid antagonism in your posts, especially when you spelt argument incorrectly yourself. It makes you look a little foolish.

As to the topic of the thread, I don't think the amount of violence in games is to be worried about. Games have ratings now, such as PG13, 15, 18 etc... This can protect the younger groups. Also, surely it is up to the parents to ensure that their children KNOW that the violence in computer games is not acceptable in real-life.
I remember watching the A-Team as a child. The amount of explosions and gunshots that went off in it, but no-one ever got hurt.... This was totally unrealistic and could have given me the idea that I could drive a home-made tank into a jeep full of SMG wielding maniacs.... with no risk of injury. However, most computer games add the idea that IF you are not careful.. YOU WILL DIE. This, in itself, is not a bad message.

Being desensitized to violence is a good thing. If you have a ugly wound you don't want people helping you to look away and scream like little girls would you?

Video games don't make people violent - you don't see another million American or Chinese ppl (big gaming nations) doing stupid things 'cause of video games, do you?

Who cares how violent the game is?
As long as it's fun!

Being desensitized to violence is a good thing. If you have a ugly wound you don't want people helping you to look away and scream like little girls would you?

That is not quite how it works.

If the wound is your own and you are only desensitized to seeing wounds inflicted upon other people, a little thing I like to call a "reality check" comes into play.

As another poster earlier noted, human psychology is a complicated thing. Just because one is desensitized to violence within certain situations, does not mean it will hold true once the players change. Especially if the new players are very close to, if not including, yourself.

Been playing violent games since Wolfenstein 3d, and even went through the fun of having a projectile permanently lodged in one lung 5mm from my heart... but I still miss a beat when I realise I'm bleeding.

I suppose an indifference can be built up, and some people could be practically born with it....but playing video games by themselves is not going to make you Rambo.

Videogame violence is likely to cause violent behavior in children. But only to the same extant that deli meat is likely to go out on a murderous rampage with an SK 47.

I play violent video games everyday, even since I was a kid, and I turned out just fine.

I play violent video games everyday, even since I was a kid, and I turned out just fine.
r you quite sure about that? ;)

Playing Halo makes me want to kill aliens with big ass guns

Video games, in my opinion, don't do much harm to a person. In fact, some studies show video games are good for you (sharpening hand-eye coordination, etc). Ok I'll admit, playing halo for 8 hours isn't that healthy :eek: but its always fun!

Video games, in my opinion, don't do much harm to a person. In fact, some studies show video games are good for you (sharpening hand-eye coordination, etc). Ok I'll admit, playing halo for 8 hours isn't that healthy :eek: but its always fun!
That’s finger eye coordination. Which really isn’t all that helpful in most practical situations. Except for maybe typing. But typing is so much more complex than playing videogames. Which still doesn't make it all that helpful.

there is no proveable link between video games and violence-and if anything video games may actaully reduce violent impulses by providing an outlet for them

Young children (pre-adolescent) should not have access to violent games in my opinion. And by violence I am referring to blood, gore and killing; not cartoonish hitting with mallets and the like. I don't believe they are at a level of emotional or mental maturity to handle such things.

That's just me.

I play violent video games and watch anime which, though frequently censored into oblivion (damn FCC!), is still rather violent, yet I'm a pacifist to the core. Bush probably grew up watching Leave it to Beaver and ended up starting a war.

Young children (pre-adolescent) should not have access to violent games in my opinion. And by violence I am referring to blood, gore and killing; not cartoonish hitting with mallets and the like. I don't believe they are at a level of emotional or mental maturity to handle such things.

That's just me.
maybe not very young children but definitely by the time they are pre-adolecent they should be ready enuf for the gore by then

I play violent video games and watch anime which, though frequently censored into oblivion (damn FCC!), is still rather violent, yet I'm a pacifist to the core. Bush probably grew up watching Leave it to Beaver and ended up starting a war.
good point--I can also see how watching those lame old shows could lead someone into being a serial killer.Also the Brady Bunch were a classic kool-aid drinking cult who could easily be programmed into committing a killing spree as well

Young children (pre-adolescent) should not have access to violent games in my opinion. And by violence I am referring to blood, gore and killing; not cartoonish hitting with mallets and the like. I don't believe they are at a level of emotional or mental maturity to handle such things.

That's just me.
thats what the rating system is for, dont get all whiny about them playing them, dont yell at the government or the stores or the people making the games, yell at the parents of the kids. they made a ratings system FOR A REASON

Here's a thought that just occurred to me: everyone here, if they played violent games as a child, would have played Wolfenstein, Doom (1 and 2), Marathon etc. Now, I think we would all agree that these games do not look realistic. And we are arguing that we are fine.

But what about the next generation? The ones exposed to the likes of Doom 3 (for example)-games where you have to look hard to realise it IS a game.

Will this make a difference, do you think?

Here's a thought that just occurred to me: everyone here, if they played violent games as a child, would have played Wolfenstein, Doom (1 and 2), Marathon etc. Now, I think we would all agree that these games do not look realistic. And we are arguing that we are fine.

But what about the next generation? The ones exposed to the likes of Doom 3 (for example)-games where you have to look hard to realise it IS a game.

Will this make a difference, do you think?
I think anyone who's smart enough to turn on a PC can realize that a CD that plays scripts on your computer is naught but a mere game.

thats what the rating system is for, dont get all whiny about them playing them, dont yell at the government or the stores or the people making the games, yell at the parents of the kids. they made a ratings system FOR A REASON

I don't think you understand what I am suggesting. I am not saying that it may be inappropriate for certain children and hence should be banned. I am saying it would be a lapse in good judgement for -any- young child to be exposed to excessive violence because of the inherent stage of their development.

I am also not suggesting that violence in video games should be censored nor banned. The rating system does not exist to prevent children from getting games, but to inform potential buyers (of any age) of the content in the game, and to allow them to decide if they wish to buy it.

What you seem to be arguing is personal freedom, which is separate altogether.

well yeah, thats a good point FOR SURE.

I can really imagine problems arising with 3 year olds growing up with playing Doom 3 all day long.

I mean, such a rating system wont really stop anyone from playing those games is it? I could just purchase GTA vice city while not being 18 years old.

Exactly, I am a child of 13 and i play first person and thrid person shooting games and some fighting games suck as Dragonball z Budoki :sniper: (It kicks ass man) and Half life (one of those games where you :sniper: :mp5: and :gundge: down aliens) It hasn't affected me at all except increasing my stratagy and ability to look at things very closely to try and see previousaly unseen things! It hasn't affected me abit. but computer itself has made me need reading Glasses but thats it :headbang:


One's tempted to draw the opposite conclusion intended from this post. :)

I don't think you understand what I am suggesting. I am not saying that it may be inappropriate for certain children and hence should be banned. I am saying it would be a lapse in good judgement for -any- young child to be exposed to excessive violence because of the inherent stage of their development.

I am also not suggesting that violence in video games should be censored nor banned. The rating system does not exist to prevent children from getting games, but to inform potential buyers (of any age) of the content in the game, and to allow them to decide if they wish to buy it.

What you seem to be arguing is personal freedom, which is separate altogether.
it is still the parents responsibility, you would seem to be suggesting some one make sure the kids cant play it like the government or store or something, why dont you just see if you can tape up a piece of paper in wal-mart saying "The ratings are there for a resaon, do your jobs parents"

I mean, such a rating system wont really stop anyone from playing those games is it? I could just purchase GTA vice city while not being 18 years old.

The system works if you enforce it. Levying heavy fines against stores who sell Mature/AO rated games to minors would cause an immediate reduction of the problem. Stores simply aren't going to be willing to risk the liability and money.

Likewise, game developers boycotting stores from selling products if they do not comply with age restrictions would be exceptionally effective in curbing the problem.

As currently stands, the system is largely treated as voluntary.

it is still the parents responsibility, you would seem to be suggesting some one make sure the kids cant play it like the government or store or something, why dont you just see if you can tape up a piece of paper in wal-mart saying "The ratings are there for a resaon, do your jobs parents"

I don't see what you are arguing. There are only two possible stances:

a) Children should be allowed to play violent games.
b) Childen should not be allowed to play violent games.

If you choose A, I believe you are wrong due to the inherent emotional and mental immaturity of a child. If you choose B, you are suggesting that making sure the child doesn't play games falls to the parent. And yet that insinuates a choice in the matter.

Children are not allowed to drive cars. Period. We don't have a voluntary system where we allow parents to determine if their child can drive a car. They simply cannot. It isn't legal. That is what I want to see for violent video games.

Well, I only have one thing to say 'bout the whole japan post, if you can watch a movie call Battle Royale, then you can see the inside about Japeneese psyche. As for videogame violence, I don't belive that the video game indrustry has affected anybody by making shooting/blood/gore videogames, sure every once in a while I fell like punching something out of pure angure :mad: but that dosen't mean I'm going to :mp5: anything. I have been playing video games sence I was 5 and the only thing its made me do is see things in different prespectives. So as for the games coming from japan affecting our kids over here = Deffanate not, Videogames affecting kids to kill = deffante not.

I don't see what you are arguing. There are only two possible stances:

a) Children should be allowed to play violent games.
b) Childen should not be allowed to play violent games.

If you choose A, I believe you are wrong due to the inherent emotional and mental immaturity of a child. If you choose B, you are suggesting that making sure the child doesn't play games falls to the parent. And yet that insinuates a choice in the matter.

Children are not allowed to drive cars. Period. We don't have a voluntary system where we allow parents to determine if their child can drive a car. They simply cannot. It isn't legal. That is what I want to see for violent video games.
i choose C, it is the parents responsibility to either teach their kids its just a game and raise their children properly, or pretend they will never experience evil and shelter them all their lives and not let them buy the games

i choose C, it is the parents responsibility to either teach their kids its just a game and raise their children properly, or pretend they will never experience evil and shelter them all their lives and not let them buy the games

All their lives? :rolleyes: I hadn't realized 13 was their entire lives. It seemed to me the average life span was 75 these days. Unfortunately, your C is in fact A. You believe children can handle the violence in video games.

You may as well claim parents can decide to let their 10 year old be in pornography. It isn't a question of personal beliefs. It's a fact that it has negative effects on the child. Any child.

Hence we outlaw it. You have the right to raise your child as you see fit, you don't have the right to harm your child through negligence.

All their lives? :rolleyes: I hadn't realized 13 was their entire lives. It seemed to me the average life span was 75 these days. Unfortunately, your C is in fact A. You believe children can handle the violence in video games.

You may as well claim parents can decide to let their 10 year old be in pornography. It isn't a question of personal beliefs. It's a fact that it has negative effects on the child. Any child.

Hence we outlaw it. You have the right to raise your child as you see fit, you don't have the right to harm your child through negligence.
you are choosing simple logic for a complex problem as stated in the gun thread by some one else.

pornography and driving are different things from violence. and im sure you can drive just fine by your pre-teens, as long as you can see over the steering wheel and can reach the pedals. and im saying it is the parents decision, it is not YOUR decision or choice or opinion that matters. if the parents can raise their child right it wont matter if they see violence and stuff, if the kids become accustomed to gore, its the parents fault for not teaching them better. you seem to want to have some universal constant for something that isnt a constant. there are kids that cant handle it because of mental disabilities (this is a large encompassment dont get smart) or because their parents arnt doing their job. you are trying to make kids little innocent darlings and turn games into scapegoats, thats not right nor realistic

you are choosing simple logic for a complex problem as stated in the gun thread by some one else.

pornography and driving are different things from violence. and im sure you can drive just fine by your pre-teens, as long as you can see over the steering wheel and can reach the pedals. and im saying it is the parents decision, it is not YOUR decision or choice or opinion that matters. if the parents can raise their child right it wont matter if they see violence and stuff, if the kids become accustomed to gore, its the parents fault for not teaching them better. you seem to want to have some universal constant for something that isnt a constant. there are kids that cant handle it because of mental disabilities (this is a large encompassment dont get smart) or because their parents arnt doing their job. you are trying to make kids little innocent darlings and turn games into scapegoats, thats not right nor realistic

Oh on the contrary. Are we going to pretend they will never experience pornography and shelter them, or just teach them about pornography at whatever age we deem acceptable? :rolleyes:

You seem to have some idea that pre-teen children are capable of being as emotionally and mentally mature as an adult. This simply isn't true. You are welcome to believe whatever you wish, but so long as that is the basis for your argument, I'm going to have to say you are wrong (in my opinion of course).

Good day.

Are the kids violent because of the violent video games or do they play violent video games because they're violent.

Oh on the contrary. Are we going to pretend they will never experience pornography and shelter them, or just teach them about pornography at whatever age we deem acceptable? :rolleyes:
again, unviersal constant for something not universal, you are living a sheltered life, believe it or not. some people pretend pornography doesnt exist and shelter their kids so that will screw them up, once kids hit puberty, especially males, pornography is going to come up alot.
and hate to tell you this but, what is the "social norm" for america is much more uptight than many places in the world, i can only see it being below that of radical islam.

You seem to have some idea that pre-teen children are capable of being as emotionally and mentally mature as an adult. This simply isn't true. You are welcome to believe whatever you wish, but so long as that is the basis for your argument, I'm going to have to say you are wrong (in my opinion of course).

Good day.
you seem to have the idea that america's uptight social norm is a constant for all children everywhere all the time.

again, unviersal constant for something not universal, you are living a sheltered life, believe it or not. some people pretend pornography doesnt exist and shelter their kids so that will screw them up, once kids hit puberty, especially males, pornography is going to come up alot.
and hate to tell you this but, what is the "social norm" for america is much more uptight than many places in the world, i can only see it being below that of radical islam.

you seem to have the idea that america's uptight social norm is a constant for all children everywhere all the time.

I believe I was done debating with "Good day". ;) I say once more, good day sir. And just for reference, since you make several false assumptions based on nothing at all - I am not American, and I had both copious amounts of violence and pornography at my disposal before 13. :rolleyes:

Your 3rd post and you're trying to flame already? Starting with complaints about grammar and spelling errors? Go away. You're not wanted here. Do something useful at least.

Edit: Don't complain about spelling errors unless you're sure you don't have any.
Very true. It must also be recognised that Englsh may not be everybody's first language. If a translation utility is being used, there will always be some inconsistencies, as with any direct translation. I appreciate this is off topic, and submit my apologies accordingly.

I believe I was done debating with "Good day". ;) I say once more, good day sir. And just for reference, since you make several false assumptions based on nothing at all - I am not American, and I had both copious amounts of violence and pornography at my disposal before 13. :rolleyes:
still then, i will agree with the one thing you said about parents that im too lazy to look up and quote

That’s finger eye coordination. Which really isn’t all that helpful in most practical situations. Except for maybe typing. But typing is so much more complex than playing videogames. Which still doesn't make it all that helpful.

Lets say there was a gunman threatening to kill you and you had to dial 911 without looking at the phone and alerting him. I admit, that hardly ever happens, but it would be good to have fast fingers!

Still, the studies DO say playing video games helps, wether you belive it helps you in the long run or not is not my problem.

Are the kids violent because of the violent video games or do they play violent video games because they're violent.

a good point :) + :mp5: = :mad: OR :mp5: + :headbang: = :mp5:

I have been playing computer games since I was 6. One of the first I ever played was Wolfenstein 3D. I mean, it looks trivial now, but same principle as all other FPS games. I was introduced to shooting Nazi's at a young age, so what? lol

(Oh, and then there was taking over the world in Civilisation at age 8)

Heh, in all seriousness, they didn't do any damage to me.

Ugh, violece caused by videogames? If anything, they get RID of violence. Hi, I'm 13 and in 8th grade now. Of course, I love PC games. A good example is Call of Duty. Nah, it doesn't have much blood - Except when guys git hit (seriously, like, 50 gallons of blood come out of them between the time they are shot and hit the ground). But if it's taught me anything, it's compassion. You're probably giggling your snot out, but it's true. I started looking back at Pvt. Elder every so often to make sure he wasn't hit or taking fire. Yes. I made sure a virtual character didn't die. Now, I don't know what the all means in here but plainly: GAMES DON'T MAKE PEOPLE VIOLENT! Stress and anger cause violence. The most violent I've ever gotten because of a videogame was in America's Army. I threw my mouse at the screen. Did I shoot someone though? No.

MUHAHAHA! 3nd 0f t3h m455iv3 p4r4ghr4ph

Monkey Island I/II taught me to pick up everything not nailed down :D

Monkey Island I/II taught me to pick up everything not nailed down :D

Haha, and Duke Nukem 3D taught me that if I give a woman a wad of bills, she'll flash me.

Haha, and Duke Nukem 3D taught me that if I give a woman a wad of bills, she'll flash me.

Can't vouch for that, I've never had a wad of bills :D Anyway I think we can agree the primary message in Duke regarded the healing qualities of toilet water.

And how many people has Carmageddon prevented from ramming bulldozers without getting the Solid Granite Car?
Me, for one!

I drove Pee Wee Reese home to NJ agter a game at the stadium. A really great man - very simple and down to earth. RIP

Bill Blass - also a real class act who never forgot his Bronx roots. RIP

Gianni Agnelli - Decent enough for a master of the universe. His kids were atrocious. Sorry though that his son suicided.

Donald & Ivana Trump - First as a couple on the way into a major players party on Park Ave. (He was nervous as hell and Ivana was psyching him up for the doo) Then after he finished the Wolman Rink in Central Park. Actually shook his hand and thanked him. Guess my germs were frozen that day. Decent enough fellow, but we weren't doing a deal.

Henry Kissinger - I was shocked at how short he was. No other comment.

Nancy Reagan - What can I say? The brief elevator ride was punctuated by her deigning to speak to the common man (me) by mentioning the drought NYC was in at the time. I put on my best Bronx accent and told her, "Yeah, it's so bad they are pumping water in from the Hudson. If I was you I'd stick to my Perrier there." Her SS escort cracked up laughing. (We had talked several times before her arrival so he knew my normal speech pattern.)

Jose Ferrer - A quiet gentleman but friendly enough to always give a nod as he frequently passed by.

Woody Allen - He really is that neurotic - no he's worse than that.

Mary Tyler Moore - Very nice lady. Down to earth.

Ed Koch - Actually a quiet guy in person. Whodathunkit?

Rudy Guilliani - Short & Meanspirited.

So much for the top of my mind. Maybe more later.

I drove Pee Wee Reese home to NJ agter a game at the stadium. A really great man - very simple and down to earth. RIP

Bill Blass - also a real class act who never forgot his Bronx roots. RIP

Gianni Agnelli - Decent enough for a master of the universe. His kids were atrocious. Sorry though that his son suicided.

Donald & Ivana Trump - First as a couple on the way into a major players party on Park Ave. (He was nervous as hell and Ivana was psyching him up for the doo) Then after he finished the Wolman Rink in Central Park. Actually shook his hand and thanked him. Guess my germs were frozen that day. Decent enough fellow, but we weren't doing a deal.

Henry Kissinger - I was shocked at how short he was. No other comment.

Nancy Reagan - What can I say? The brief elevator ride was punctuated by her deigning to speak to the common man (me) by mentioning the drought NYC was in at the time. I put on my best Bronx accent and told her, "Yeah, it's so bad they are pumping water in from the Hudson. If I was you I'd stick to my Perrier there." Her SS escort cracked up laughing. (We had talked several times before her arrival so he knew my normal speech pattern.)

Jose Ferrer - A quiet gentleman but friendly enough to always give a nod as he frequently passed by.

Woody Allen - He really is that neurotic - no he's worse than that.

Mary Tyler Moore - Very nice lady. Down to earth.

Ed Koch - Actually a quiet guy in person. Whodathunkit?

Rudy Guilliani - Short & Meanspirited.

So much for the top of my mind. Maybe more later.

Wrong thread, methinks. :D