C’est ca que j’m

I love Snowball, the dancing cockatoo. I can’t get enough of his stompin’, headbangin’ style!

I love also one David Thorne, a man who submitted a drawing of a spider in lieu of his overdue payment. (via Geekologie.)

Click image for full article/email correspondence!

UPDATE: Oh my holy goodness. A Geekologie reader followed suit by submitting a spider drawing as an answer on his math test – and earned partial credit! I’m in heaven. P.S. Think this will help me get over my fear of creepy crawlies?

My New Superhero is Obama Dog

The more I watch this, the more I laugh. I love this dog. I want to hug this dog.

Obamaaaa. (as seen on BoingBoing.)

Perceived Gender and its Effect on Male Gamers

The following is a study my lab partner and I ran in our 3rd year Psychology Research class. Please contact me if you have any questions or want further information; I am excluding some personal details from our report.

How Perceived Gender Affects the Performance and Attitude of Male Online Gamers
March 2006

Abstract

The current study examined whether male video game players show more aggression toward a perceived male or female opponent. Undergraduate students (N = 8) volunteered to participate in a study using the popular game Counter-Strike™. Participants played two one-on-one matches against unseen opponents. The opponent’s aliases implied that one opponent was male and one was female, but both were actually the same male confederate. Participants filled out pre- and post-match questionnaires, recording mood and perceived skill levels of both themselves and their opponents. This data was combined with screen shots of game scoring (with aggression measured in number of kills), and summarized in a table. Our hypothesis predicted that perceived male-on-female matches would have lower ‘kill scores’ than perceived male-on-male matches, and this was not supported; however, a 2×2 factorial design showed a pattern that may have supported an interaction between perceived gender of opponent and gender order with a greater sample size.

How Perceived Gender Affects the Performance and Attitude of Male Online Gamers

As more children and adolescents overlook passive activities like watching television for more active participant roles in cognitively-challenging video games, one may be concerned about how these increasingly realistic games are socializing the players. After all, an increased potential for hostile or aggressive behavior following arousing violent video game play has been suggested and evidenced (Ballard & Wiest, 1996, as cited in Ballard & Lineberger, 1999). As well, it became impossible to turn a blind eye on this issue following an exceptionally memorable event: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold launched an attack on classmates and teachers at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, murdering 13, wounding another 23, and ultimately committing suicide. Following the horrific attack, the media and its shocked audience needed something to blame, and when it was discovered that the boys were avid players of a violent video game called Doom™ (licensed by the U.S. military to train soldiers to effectively kill), many scientific and psychological questions were raised.

In order to examine the effects of video game play, Mazur, Susman and Edelbrock (1997) conducted a correlational study on video game users, measuring cortisol and testosterone responses. Fifty-two volunteers (32 females, 28 males) with a mean age of 20 years played against same-sex partners in video ping-pong. Participants provided saliva samples before and after matches. Additionally, they were asked to describe their feelings and evaluate their own and their opponents’ performances after each match. Mazur et al. found an anticipatory testosterone rise in male participants before the match, and this testosterone increase is thought to fuel aggressiveness. Female testosterone levels generally decreased throughout the experiment. Considering the total lack of violence in video ping-pong, it is interesting that gender effects still played a significant role.

Brown, Hall, Holtzer, Brown and Brown (1997) wanted to evaluate the actual performance of both male and female gamers using the same game as Mazur et al. (1997) (pong), but removed the factor of interpersonal competition and had participants play against the machine. In three separate experiments, equal numbers of males and females participated, and it was found each time that, regardless of previous video game experience, men performed better than women. Both men and women profited from experience, however, which was demonstrated by fairly equal levels of improvement. One interesting finding resulted from the third experiment, where it was hypothesized that the presence of an audience would facilitate pong performance for men but not for women. In fact, both genders showed significantly poorer performance in the presence of a female audience.

Following these findings, Ballard and Lineberger (1999) wanted to examine the effect of confederate gender on aggressive behavior following video game play. One hundred and nineteen males played 15 minutes of either a nonviolent game (NBA Jam™) or one of three levels of a violent game (Mortal Kombat™). They were then placed in a teacher/learner paradigm with either a male or female confederate. They found that participants rewarded male (but not female) confederates significantly more under the nonviolent condition, and participants under the violent condition punished confederates more stringently as game violence increased, especially if the confederate was female. This is important in the sense that it could mirror real-life events of violence against women. Films that are violent, but do not have any sexual content, were found to produce significantly more male aggression against females than do neutral or erotic films (Donnerstein, 1983, as cited in Ballard & Lineberger, 1999). As mentioned above, video games are an even more active medium of participation than watching television or a film; it is possible that males who frequently play violent video games would integrate negative stereotypes of women and play them out in actual society.

Anderson and Dill (2000) conducted two studies, one correlation and one experimental, examining the effects of violent video games on aggression-related variables. Their correlation questionnaires measured amount of exposure to video game violence and amount of time games had been played by college students prior to the experiment. Life-event information was also obtained. It was found that time spent playing video games in general was positively related to delinquent behaviours, and the effect was stronger with violent video games. Furthermore, video game violence was negatively, but not significantly, related to GPA, while time spent playing games in general was significantly and negatively correlated with GPA. These results would clearly raise concerns for parents whose children are frequently involved in video game play, if this indeed had a significant effect on one’s life events.

Anderson and Dill’s (2000) experimental study examined laboratory exposure to a graphically violent video game to test whether it increased aggressive thoughts and behaviour. A large sample size of college students (N = 210, 104 females, 106 males) became familiar with either a blatantly violent video game (Wolfenstein 3D™, where the goal is to eventually kill Adolph Hitler), or a nonviolent video game (something comparable to Tetris). Both were deemed engaging games in pilot studies, which is important to the internal validity of the experiment; some weaknesses in previous research studies examining video game play were caused by lack of control for effects due to level of arousal as opposed to exposure to violence. In a reaction time competition following the game play, participants who had played the violent video game set more intense punishments for opponents who lost a trial. There was also a main effect of gender, where aggression scores for men were M = 3.45 and M = -4.60 for women. Playing the violent video game seemed to have primed aggressive thoughts, but it was unclear whether these applied more strongly to female opponents.

Bartholow and Anderson (2002) also used the reaction time task, but organized it such that the confederate (opponent) was always female. This study engaged undergraduate students who were not habitual game players but were familiar with both games involved (Mortal Kombat™ as the violent game, and PGA Tournament Golf™ as the nonviolent one). Participants played one of the two games for a 10-minute period before competing with a confederate in a competition which allowed for provocation and retaliation. Punishment levels set for an opponent without fear of retaliation served as the measure of aggression.

What Bartholow and Anderson (2002) found was that participants who played the violent game later showed more aggression toward the confederate than did participants who played the nonviolent game, with a larger effect for men than for women. This supported their hypothesis, but conflicting results raised a new question: did women display a different, more subtle style of aggression than males? Though not the topic of focus, it was noted that women set longer (but less intense) sound blasts as punishments than their male counterparts, who tended to set louder, shorter blasts of sound.

Given the ambiguity seen in past experiments regarding the effect of one’s opponent’s gender, the present study examines how male video game players react to an opponent when they are perceived to be male or female. Since both the Mazur et al. (1997) and Brown et al. (1997) studies focused on same-sex and computerized-opponent matches, perhaps the present study could indicate a decrease in male performance for male-on-female matches. Actual performance level is controlled by having each participant play against the same male confederate; in this sense, any variation among the ratings of the opponent’s skill level can be assumed to be based on preconceived gender notions in relation to video games, rather than the actual skill of the confederate. Prior experience playing the game is somewhat controlled because volunteers will be recruited based on their prior experience. We hypothesize that males will score lower in the perceived male-on-female condition than in the perceived male-on-male condition. This hypothesis will not be supported if there is no difference in scores between the groups, or if male-on-female scores are higher than male-on-male scores.

Method

Participants

Participants were eight male undergraduate students at ______ University with an age range of 18-24 years. They responded to ads citing a study involving “Counter-Strike™ 1.6 LAN” and volunteered to take part in two one-on-one matches using the online computer game and their first names as aliases. No compensation was offered for participation.

Materials

All participants brought their laptops, power adaptors, LAN cords, mouse (optional), and a personal copy of the online multiplayer game “Counter-Strike™ 1.6 LAN” (CS). CS was created by a developer named Valve Software and is published through an online distribution system called Steam. This multiplayer game pits two teams against each other: the terrorists and counter-terrorists (CTs). The terrorists are the ‘bad guys’ and the counter-terrorists are the ‘good guys’ who complete objectives, sometimes within set time frames. Players can purchase weapons and equipment that are realistically modeled after their real-world counterparts. Teamwork is typical; after each round, team members are allocated money based on both an individual and team performance.

Consent forms were developed for participants to read and sign acknowledging the terms and conditions of this study prior to survey administration (see Appendix A). Following completion of the full study, all participants were collectively debriefed and given debriefing forms (see Appendix B), discussing the true study questions and giving an assurance of confidentiality, as well as the opportunity to ask research-related questions. One questionnaire was administered before the matches began in order to collect general data (see Appendix C); additionally, two questionnaires were administered at the end of each match, presenting questions related to performance and post-match mood (see Appendix D).

Walkie-talkies were used to communicate between the researchers. SPSS 14 was used to analyze the data (see Appendix E).

Procedure

The researchers set up two rooms in _____ _______ Library at opposite ends of the building. Participants were each allotted a half-hour time slot, and were greeted by one of the researchers at the library entrance. They were informed that the other researcher was waiting in a different room with their opponent (who was supposedly matched to their experience level), but that their opponent had to leave early so they would actually get to play two different people in two separate 10-minute matches. They were told to not text chat with the other player, so as to not affect their performance or reveal information concerning their identity. They were also instructed to use their first name as their game alias, the assumption being that their opponent was doing the same. The experimenters then gave participants a consent form to sign and explained that they would also fill out a number of questionnaires throughout the study, in order to measure their emotions before and after the games.

Once participants were informed, they filled out a pre-match questionnaire in the form of a 7-point Likert scale that asked general questions such as how lucky they considered themselves to be, whether they made tactical game decisions, whether they were experienced in Counter-Strike™, and what their mood was at the moment. Additionally, two questionnaires were administered after every match, and included similar questions referring to their performance and satisfaction with the most recent game, as well as the performance and perceived skill of their opponent. Participants played one match against a perceived female opponent, and one against a perceived male opponent. Opponent gender order was a counterbalanced variable.

Matches were timed by the observing experimenter, and walkie-talkies were used to communicate the beginning, one-minute mark, and end of matches (to cue the engaged confederate to stop playing). Screen shots were taken of the final scores by the confederate, who also noted kill scores and ‘opponent gender’ order on a separate sheet.

When the final questionnaires were filled out, participants received an explanation of why they could not yet be fully debriefed, and given the opportunity to ask questions. They were also asked to keep their experience personal until the debriefing. A meeting was scheduled shortly after the last participant had completed the study, and participants were debriefed collectively. Participants already had a history together (weekly game nights) and had recommended the study to one another, so there was no ethical issue with having their participation revealed to one another. At the collective meeting, the deception concerning the experiment’s true purpose was revealed, and analysis results were explained to the group. A question-and-answer period was offered. Those who could not make it to the meeting were contacted personally by the experimenters and offered a full explanation of previous findings, deceptions used, the study’s actual hypothesis, and the results.

Results

Quantitative Data

A 2×2 factorial table (see Table) appeared to show a small main effect for opponent gender, with male-on-male games producing two more “kills” in total than male-on-female games (57 and 55, respectively). There seemed to be a larger main effect for game order, which represented a certain amount of learning or practice: in Game 1, 49 kills were scored, and in Game 2, 63 kills were scored. There also seemed to be an interaction found between game order and gender: when participants thought they were playing a male in the Game 2, their score improved drastically (from 21 in Game 1 to 36). However, regardless of game order, ‘kill scores’ against female opponents hardly changed across games (28 and 27) although the score from Game 1 was higher than that of male-on-male scoring. A 2×2 Repeated Measures ANOVA was performed on the data using SPSS (see Appendix E). No main effects or interactions were found. Perceived gender of opponent was insignificant at F(1,6) = 0.045, p > 0.1. Gender order (the order in which a participant played a ‘male’ or ‘female’) was also insignificant at F(1,6) = 1.171, p > 0.1. Finally, the interaction between perceived gender of opponent and gender order was not found to be significant, at F(1,6) = 2.194, p > 0.1. These results are not consistent with the hypothesis that male-on-male scores would be larger than male-on-female scores.

Qualitative Data

The data from the questionnaires presented a few basic patterns (see Appendix F). Self-ratings on the pre-match questionnaire concerning general luck and tactical decisions were good predictors of self-ratings of those same factors on the post-match questionnaires. Most participants felt that their performance in the games accurately represented their usual level of play. All participants rated their opponents as less lucky than themselves; the majority rated their female opponents as less lucky than their male opponents. Male opponents and female opponents were generally given similar ratings regarding performance and apparent experience.

Discussion

There has been a boom of research done on the relationship between violent video games and aggression in recent years, especially since the events at Columbine High School in 1999. Some studies have suggested that there is a fundamental difference between males and females when it comes to aggression in games, even when those games are not violent (Mazur et al., 1997). It has also been shown that, after being exposed to violent video games, males tend to be more aggressive toward females than toward males (Ballard et al., 1999). However, the present study explores the idea that males consider females to be less experienced and less capable in their world of online gaming.

Contrary to expectations, aggression, which was operationally defined as “tabulated kills,” did not drop significantly when participants played against what was perceived as a ‘female’ opponent, and so the experimental hypothesis was not supported based on the ANOVA test. However, the scores as described on the 2×2 factorial chart indicate that there are factors affecting the gamers’ performance when confronted with a perceived target gender. The general consensus is that males are more aggressive toward other males, but there were odd effects demonstrated in the present study. What is interesting is that ‘kill scores’ stayed the same against ‘female’ opponents regardless of game order. This could be due to a conscious or unconscious effort to go easy on the ‘female’ opponent. The effect could also be described in terms of shock value, whereas the male does not expect to encounter a female in his second match and re-evaluates his game style, performing once again at his first-game level. With a greater sample size, this pattern would have become more apparent and may have proven significant.

Some interesting patterns of behaviours and attitudes were noted within the questionnaires. The following may be explained by mere modesty, but participants almost always rated their opponents as less lucky than themselves. There was an interesting relationship demonstrated, which can be explained based on the following premise: assuming that performance is stable across matches (which, based on the confederate’s results, it is), it can be said that performance not attributed to luck must be attributed to skill. In the questionnaires, participants always rated their female opponents as less lucky than their male opponents. However, the anomaly is here: even though the kill scores against participants were virtually identical, and females were rated less lucky, they were not rated as more experienced or as having performed better! There is a discrepancy present – if the male and female were the same player in reality, and the male player was rated as more lucky, does this mean that, in the eyes of a male competitor, females who perform equal to males are proportionally more advanced (or “less lucky”) for their gender group? Perhaps more open-ended questions and a follow-up questionnaire could be generated to explore this topic further.

Another factor that could be explored in future studies is the gender of the researcher who observes the participant, an effect which might account for certain aspects of a participants’ performance. Brown et al. (1997) found that both males and females display significantly lower performance in the presence of a female audience. The present study only made use of a female observer. It is possible that participants did not perform at their usual level in the matches, although the questionnaire responses stated most often that they did, and the observer made sure to face away from their laptop screens. Another possibility was that, to avoid embarrassment, the participant may have gone easier on the ‘female’ participant so not to be judged as aggressive toward females by the observer. To account for this possible factor, a 2x2x2 factorial design could be used with a new “observer gender” independent variable to control for observer effects. To collect a more thorough data set without exploring audience gender, a third level under ‘gender’ could be explored, which would be an ambiguously-named opponent. It would be left to the participant to interpret the gender of this opponent as they wished, and it would be interesting to compare this category of results with the straightforward male-female distinction. Another option of interest is if females were included as participants in the study, if possible to recruit enough experienced players, in order to see if gender differences exist on that end as well. Only with further studies can these effects be analyzed.

Certain deceptions were necessary for this study, considering the lack of resources available to the experimenters. The questionnaires were not a true source of analysis, as participants were led to believe by their mere frequency; they were administered in the attempt to discover the presence of overlooked relationships. Secondly, emotions were not a topic of interest without their link to gender, but this description was as close as the experimenters could come to the actual hypothesis without creating bias or demand characteristics. There was a concern that if participants knew certain aspects of their behaviour were being studied, they might subconsciously alter those behaviours. For instance, if they believed the hypothesis was that males wouldn’t treat women as equal opponents, they might overcompensate by playing extra hard against the female players. If they thought the topic of study was aggression and gender, they might try to take a more defensive strategy against females. The biggest indirect deception was that participants were led to believe they were playing two different people of two different genders. The assumption was that since they were required to use their first name as an alias, they would expect the same honesty from their opponent. This factor was necessary to ensure consistency of their opponent’s performance across matches, to rule out the fact that participants might rate an opponent lower in performance because they were in fact a less skilled player.

Some of the above deceptions could have been remedied by developing a ‘cover story’ that did not lead to suspicions or compensations in behaviour, but that retained a fair degree of honesty with the participant. However, validity could have been retained, in the case where participants suspected the very fact that there were female players in the study, by having them meet a ‘female’ opponent before the match (also a confederate, of course, and not their true opponent). If time constraints were not an issue, a female could be trained in the game and be the one to play all the matches, while either a male or female ran the participants through in a different room. There are many possibilities, though all come with a different set of benefits and sacrifices.

Improvements to the general design of the study could have existed with better facilities. Better is defined as being more adaptable to the needs of the study; in the present study, where rooms were booked out from a library, the greatest rearrangement possible was moving the tables a certain way. Many inconveniences could have been avoided if two neighbor rooms were used to host the study, but the confederate’s room would have to be windowless to conceal his or her identity. A double blind study could have further ensured accurate results, but based on the technicalities and restrictions of Counter-Strike™, this process may have caused more complications to the process (ie. not allowing the confederate to see their own alias on the screen). Furthermore, it was expressed by several participants that Counter-Strike™ is most popularly used as a multi-player game, so perhaps a contemporary game could be used in a future study that is better adjusted for one-on-one match play.

Finally, the data from this experiment could have been explored more thoroughly with a greater sample size. Future studies would aim for 20 participants in a within-subjects design and upwards for between-subjects in order to achieve significance. This would involve a greater amount and longer period of advertising, and perhaps some direct benefit or reward for participation. For now, the results presented by this study remain a promising and contemporary examination of the effects of gender on motivation and aggression.

References

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 772-790.

Ballard, M. E., & Lineberger, R. (1999). Video game violence and confederate gender: Effects on reward and punishment given by college males. Sex Roles, 41, 541-558.

Bartholow, B. D. & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior: Potential sex differences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283-290.

Brown, M. R., Hall, L. R., Holtzer, R., Brown, S. L., & Brown, N. L. (1997). Gender and video game performance. Sex Roles, 36, 793-812.

Mazur, A., Susman, E. J., & Edelbrock, S. (1997). Sex differences in testosterone response to a video game contest. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 317-326.

Celebrities Don’t Lie

Okay, ignore the title. Just ch-ch-check it out and VOTE! November 4, baby.

Vote for what matters to YOU. And remember, JT can do anything. He was in a boy band, okay?

Send This To Your Mom Today

“The Mom Song” to the William Tell Overture (Anita Renfroe)

Get up now, Get up now, Get up out of bed
Wash your face, Brush your teeth, Comb your sleepyhead
Here’s your clothes and your shoes, Hear the words I said
Get up now! Get up and make your bed
Are you hot? Are you cold? Are you wearing that?
Where’s your books and your lunch and your homework at?
Grab your coat and gloves and your scarf and hat
Don’t forget! You gotta feed the cat
Eat your breakfast, the experts tell us it’s the most important meal of all
Take your vitamins so you will grow up one day to be big and tall
Please remember the orthodontist will be seeing you at 3 today
Don’t forget your piano lesson is this afternoon so you must play
Don’t shovel, Chew slowly, But hurry, The bus is here
Be careful, Come back here, Did you wash behind your ears?
Play outside, don’t play rough, will you just play fair?
Be polite, make a friend, don’t forget to share
Work it out, wait your turn, never take a dare
Get along! Don’t make me come down there
Clean your room, fold your clothes, put your stuff away
Make your bed, do it now, do we have all day?
Were you born in a barn? Would you like some hay?
Can you even hear a word I say?
Answer the phone! Get off the phone!
Don’t sit so close, turn it down, no texting at the table
No more computer time tonight!
Your iPod’s my iPod if you don’t listen up
Where are you going and with whom and what time do you think you’re coming home?
Saying thank you, please, excuse me makes you welcome everywhere you roam
You’ll appreciate my wisdom someday when you’re older and you’re grown
Can’t wait till you have a couple little children of your own
You’ll thank me for the counsel I gave you so willingly
But right now I thank you not to roll your eyes at me
Close your mouth when you chew, would appreciate
Take a bite maybe two of the stuff you hate
Use your fork, do not burp or I’ll set you straight
Eat the food I put upon your plate
Get an A, get the door, don’t get smart with me
Get a grip, get in here, I’ll count to three
Get a job, get a life, get a PHD
Get a dose of, ”I don’t care who started it! You’re grounded until you’re 36″
Get your story straight and tell the truth for once, for heaven’s sake
And if all your friends jumped off a cliff would you jump, too?
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said at least a thousand times before
That you’re too old to act this way, It must be your father’s DNA
Look at me when I am talking, Stand up straighter when you walk
A place for everything and everything must be in place
Stop crying or I’ll give you something real to cry about
Oh!
Brush your teeth, wash your face, put your PJs on
Get in bed, get a hug, say a prayer with mom
Don’t forget, I love you
And tomorrow we will do this all again because a mom’s work never ends
You don’t need the reason why
Because, because, because, because
I said so, I said so, I said so, I said so
I’m the mom, the mom, the mom, the mom, the mom!!
Ta da!!!

Finicky About Facial Hair?

LOL. Can someone please try these out and send in photographs? At least try the ninja star.

Wait, I think I found an even funnier one. Actually, all of this guy’s YouTube postings have raised the bar on entertainment, so check out Ramillen’s videos in your spare time!

My sister liked it so much, she tried to perfect the Salmon Dance herself:

UPDATE: This blogger over at Dyers.org has tried out almost every beard type he can think of. Wicked cool.

All I Wanna Do Is…

…share my current song addiction with you. Lots of mixed reviews on this one, but it works with my lazy, laidback, chilled-out, bummed out moods.

M.I.A. – Paper Planes (lyrics below)

[x2] I fly like paper, get high like planes
If you catch me at the border I got visas in my name
If you come around here, I make ‘em all day
I get one down in a second if you wait

[x2] Sometimes I think sitting on trains
Every stop I get to I’m clocking that game
Everyone’s a winner, we’re making that fame
Bonafide hustler making my name

[x4] All I wanna do is boom boom boom boom…
And (ka-ching!)
And take your money

[x2] Pirate skulls and bones
Sticks and stones and weed and bongs
Running when we hit ‘em
Lethal poison through their system

[x2] No one on the corner has swagger like us
Hit me on my Burner prepaid wireless
We pack and deliver like UPS trucks
Already going to hell just pumping that gas

[x4] All I wanna do is boom boom boom boom…
And (ka-ching!)
And take your money

M.I.A.
Third world democracy
Yeah, I got more records than the K.G.B.
So, uh, no funny business

Some some some I some I murder
Some I some I let go
Some some some I some I murder
Some I some I let go

[x4] All I wanna do is boom boom boom boom…
And (ka-ching!)
And take your money

P.S. Funny shit, check out this video by some fans of the song:

UPDATE: I can’t help but think M.I.A. might appreciate these Chanel gun shoes, below (via BoingBoing). Step-KAPOW! Step-KAPOW!

3 Reasons to Love Teenagers

I have to give credit to my younger sister for her generous sense of humour – bless her little heart for passing on the LOLs. Call me immature for loving these videos, but hell, we all deserve a good silly giggle now and again.

400 BABIES. Now, it’s only logical to follow up with Part 2:

Powerthirst is crystal meth.

My personal favourite.

Ever wonder how children’s songs are written? Clearly, by writing what you really mean and then subbing out the naughty words. Yikes, Count…sloooooow doooooooown.

I get so nostalgic for my youth watching old shows like Bugs Bunny…until I realize there’s an entirely separate, and gloriously enjoyable, layer for us big people.

P.S. When I’m alone I count myself? Seriously? I challenge anyone to tell me this wasn’t meant to be dirty. ;)

B****, I play the banjo!

So maybe it wasn’t Deliverance that made me want to learn the banjo (so much as avoid the woods), but it certainly introduced me to the first song I wanted to learned on it.

P.S. Deliverance got a shout-out on the newest episode of South Park (mediocre at best, I hate to say), s12e08: “The China Probrem” ;) Catch it around the 16:00 mark.

Charlie Bit Me!

Children are so odd, it’s entertaining. Would this be as adorable without the accent?

UPDATE: LOL! Ainslie Henderson and the White sisters wrote a musical interpretation of this video. Catch it below… (thx mattyr)