On upholstery and carpets, use the absorbent powder treatment, followed by a shampoo with liquid detergent, such as a Carpet/Rug Shampoo, a good quality laundry liquid or Quilt/Wool Wash. Avoid wetting backing of carpet or fabric, or discoloration occurs. Do not use grease solvents, e.g. dry cleaning fluid, on carpets or fabrics with rubberised backing. On wallpaper, scrape off as much as possible, then use warm iron and absorbent paper. Treat remaining stain with paste of cornflour and a grease solvent. Allow to dry, brush off, and repeat if necessary. Candle wax and chewing gum can be effectively removed by placing the object that has been stained into a freezer until the staining agent is quite hard, and brittle, then the material can be literally shattered off the object that has been stained. ...then treat any residue as follows: place the stain between clean, white blotters and press with a warm iron, changing the blotter as it becomes soiled. Then sponge with dry cleaning fluid or a laundry pre-soak (spot stain remover). In the case of coloured wax there may still be a colour stain. Sponge with a liquid made by adding ? c of methylated spirits (wood alcohol) to ? c water. First scrape off as much as possible with a dull knife. Hot soapy water will then remove fresh stains from washable articles. If a brown stain remains, soak in a solution of a diaper wash/sanitiser container sodium percarbonate followed by a good rinse in warm water. For unwashable materials, sponge with dry cleaning fluid. Allow to dry. Repeat as necessary with a clean portion of pad beneath. If any mark remains, sponge with equal quantities of methylated spirits (wood alcohol) and household ammonia (test on colours first). Follow with warm water. A spray-on dry cleaner may be used. Fresh cod liver oil stains can be removed successfully, but old stains set by washing and ironing are almost impossible to remove, even with bleach. Wash very fresh stains in warm water and a good quality laundry liquid or any one of the concentrated Laundry Powders available, applying a little neat liquid detergent to the stain. Stubborn stains on all fabrics respond to soaking in a diaper wash/sanitiser container sodium percarbonate. Wash as usual. Remove fresh stains from cotton and linen materials by first rinsing in warm water then pouring boiling water from a height of 2 - 3 feet onto the stain. Follow by washing in soapy water. If a trace remains, bleach in the sun, or with a diaper wash/sanitiser container sodium percarbonate. Tea stains on cottons and linens can also be removed by soaking in borax and water (1 Tbsp. borax in 1 c of warm water). Stains on wool and silk or any fabric may be sponged with lukewarm water, then apply glycerine, rubbing lightly between the hands. Let stand for half an hour. Rinse with warm water. If a grease spot remains from cream, sponge with dry cleaning fluid. Purchase some Spray & Wipe from your supermarket, and use concentrated on the stain. Most Spray & Wipe formula?s contain a solvent which will dissolve the liquid paper. OR Try a little gasoline on the stain, with some good absorbent paper or old cloth behind it. Then use some dishwash liquid or a good quality laundry liquid to wash out the gasoline. OR Purchase some xylene, or toluene, these are some of the solvents used in making the stuff. Use as if using the gasoline. These are stocked by gasoline companies and you may be able to request a small sample. Always test an inconspicuous piece of material before proceeding.


NOVA's Ice Mummies, an extraordinary trio of one-hour shows on ancient frozen corpses, which aired last fall, offers a judicious balance of academic commentary and excavation shots that make for some of the most riveting of recent archaeological programming. "Frozen in Heaven," the most interesting and moving, investigates evidence for the Inka rite of capac cocha, the sacrifice of children to the mountain gods. Andean villagers still believe that the great mountains have supernatural power, especially over the weather and that they must be placated. According to early European chroniclers, this was achieved by child sacrifice, and the discovery in recent decades of several well-preserved children's bodies from this period, recovered at high elevation, seems to bear this out. We are shown three of the best-known examples: a seven-year-old boy found in 1985 on Mt. Aconcagua in northeast Argentina who seems to have been fed just before death a red liquid, which still coats his teeth and clothing (the liquid may have provoked vomiting); the famous Juanita, found in 1995 on Mt. Ampato in southern Peru, who was shown by CAT scans to have died from a blow to the head; and the amazingly well preserved El Plomo boy found in Chile in the 1950s wearing magnificent textiles and footwear. The second show, "Siberian Ice Maiden," concerns the now-famous 1993 excavation of a frozen tomb on the Ukok Plateau in the Siberian Altai by Russian archaeologist Natalya Polosmak. The tomb contained the bodies of six fairly old horses, sacrificed with blows to the head to accompany the deceased, a practice still common in the region earlier this century. We see Polosmak and her team open the long, larch-log coffin and melt the solid white ice inside with cups of hot water. In it is the body of a 25-year-old woman who died about 2,400 years ago. Her head has lost its flesh, but some wonderful swirling tattooed figures of mythical beasts can be seen on her arms and hands. About 5'6" tall, she was carefully embalmed: the brain and internal organs were removed and the body was packed with fur, wool, and natural preservatives such as bark and peat. Her eyes were also cut out and the sockets stuffed with fur. The third program, "Return of the Iceman," deals briefly with the now well-known tale of the discovery of a 5,300-year-old frozen corpse in the Italian Alps in 1991, focusing on the latest findings and bringing the story up to date with the Iceman's transportation to, and installation in, the new museum in Bolzano, Italy (see " tzi's New Home ," January/February 1999). In some ways this is the most informative of the three shows because the Iceman, unlike the Andean children or the Ice Maiden, died on the mountain while going about his daily routine, and his clothing and equipment provide us with a glimpse of life in this region 5,300 years ago. These exceptionally informative shows stand as important documents in their own right and will be invaluable teaching aids for years to come.


Thursday, September 6, 2012 There are certain common conceptions about sexism and gender as they relate to gaming. Influenced by the recent influx of gender and sex-related video game discussions within the community, I was interested in finding out how much of these are actually true and how much they affect gamers -- both male and female -- as well as the gaming community. For this reason, I designed a twenty-question survey to find out more. I am well aware that sexism isn't just an issue of men versus women, and I wanted my study to reflect that. My survey was aimed at gamers of all genders in order to see who sexism affects in the gaming community, who is perpetuating sexism, and to what extent the things that we think we already know about sexism in the community are true or false. This survey was created online and distributed to various gaming communities online as well as through social media such as twitter and facebook. The survey remained open for participation for approximately one week and garnered 874 responses -- almost a third of which were accompanied by additional comments, examples, and clarifications. I also received nearly 200 comments on the purpose or topic of the research itself. Some of these comments were as telling as the hard data, and some are included in the report below. Is Sexism Prevalent in Gaming Community Immediately following the demographic questions, participants were asked "Do you feel that sexism is prominent in the gaming community?" The response was overwhelmingly "yes." 79.3% of all participants believe that sexism is prominent in the gaming community. 7.1% responded "no," and 13.6% of respondents were not sure if sexism is prominent in the community. A "yes" response was 7% more likely to come from a female gamer than from a male gamer. Male gamers were almost twice as likely to respond "no" than were female gamers -- a telling response when one considers how perspective affects opinion. Men and women who were not sure about the prominence of sexism in the gaming community showed a difference in percentage that is within the margin of error. When asked if they had ever been the subject of "sex-based taunting, harassment, or threats while playing video games online," 35.2% of participants said yes and 61.3% of participants said no. Women were four times more likely than men to have experienced taunting or harassment , with 63.3% of all female participants responding that they had. The stories that these women told me regarding their experiences are similar to what one might think of regarding this topic. "Cunt," "bitch," "slut," and "whore" were common slurs. The threats were largely of sexual assault. Much of the harassment was based around asking for or demanding sexual favors or comments that revolved around the traditional gender role and stereotyped behavior for women in Western society. Many of the insults were based on the subject's weight or physical appearance. 15.7% of men also reported that they had experienced sex-based taunting, harassment, or threats while playing video games. While this is in the minority, it is still of concern as sexism. The comments directed at these gamers, however, are different from those directed at women in some very telling ways. Most of the men who provided additional information on their "yes" response to this question experienced comments that revolved around them not fitting a masculine gender role. These men were often called "fags" and compared to or told that they were women and labeled with stereotypically feminine words. For those who identified as intersexed, identified with a sex that was not listed, or did not identify with any sex, the sexual harassment that was experienced largely related to not fitting into any norm. Those participants in these demographics had almost all experienced intentional misgendering from other players. For women, the sexism experienced is about being female. For men, it is about not fitting a standard of masculinity. In short, this sexism is always about "male" being the normative sex and "not male" or "not sufficiently male" being reason for insults, shaming, and bullying. This means that men who fit (or present) a masculine, normative standard are those who are most unlikely to be the victim of sexism. The responses to the question "Have you ever received an unsolicited proposition while playing video games online?" shows that this happens in much the same ratio between men and women as does general sexism, but that propositioning is slightly less common than sexual threats, taunting, and harassment. 32.0% of all participants said that they had experienced an unsolicited proposition while playing video games. 59.7% of women and 12.2% of men. The difference here, as found in the comments and clarifications that I was sent by some participants, is largely in the tone of the proposition and the reception therein. Both sexes reported receiving propositions with the exchange of money, goods, and in-game assistance as a deal. However, men were more often offered sexual favors if they would pay for them ("I'll send nudes for gold" was a provided example.), and women were more often offered payment if they would perform sexual favors ("Show me your tits and I'll help you," quoted one female participant.). In addition to this, more women described the propositions that they received as "gross," "dirty," "vulgar," or "inappropriate" than did men. From the clarifications I received, when men were approached with an offer of sex they were more likely to accept the offer than women were. A further distancing between men and women in terms of experienced sexism is apparent when reviewing the data that the survey received in response to the question "Have you ever experienced sex-based harassment that began while playing a video game and continued outside of the game?" Only 9.8% of all participants reported that they had experienced this sort of harassment. However, women were nearly 7 times more likely to experience this than men were (at 19.5% for women and 3.0% for men). This suggests that those who harass women are motivated to pursue the subject of their harassment once the game is finished in order to continue to harass them. Those who harass men don't experience this motivation to the same extent, and so women are more likely to experience sustained sexism than men are. Similar numbers were reported in response to the question "Have you ever felt unsafe because of sex-based harassment while playing a video game?" 9.6% of all participants answered "yes." 19.4% of women and 2.2% of men experienced this. This means that women are nine times more likely than men to feel unsafe in this situation. A handful of women commented further on this, and all of them expressed that their fears were rape or sexual-assault related, which is unsurprising considering that some studies report that as many as 1 in 4 college-aged women is sexually assaulted. Where rape is a real, common occurrence for women in the average gaming age group, it is not surprising that threats of rape made while gaming causes more concern for women than for men. Women were also much more likely to quit playing a game because of sex-based harassment than were men. 35.8% of women reported having quit playing temporarily because of sexism , and 9.6% reported that they quit playing a certain game permanently because of harassment. The numbers for men in the same areas were 11.7% and 2.6% respectively -- about a third of the percentage for women in each case. Another polarizing question was "Have you ever obscured or lied about your sex while playing video games to avoid unwanted attention or harassment?" 67.5% of women said that they had obscured their sex . Only 5.8% of men said the same. That means that women are nearly 12 times as likely to feel the need to conceal their sex while playing video games as men are. Two men sent clarifications to me regarding why they conceal their sex sometimes when they play video games. Both prefer to play with female avatars, and both have previously been harassed because they identify as male but play female characters. Again, they are being harassed because they don't conform to normative masculinity. When asked if they had ever avoided playing on a public server to avoid being a target of sexism, 50.6% of female respondents and 10.3% of male respondents said that they had. Beyond this, many women clarified by saying that they don't play video games online at all in order to avoid sex-based harassment either that they had previously experienced playing online or that they thought they might experience. While women are five times more likely to avoid playing on a public server to keep away from sexism, there is another difference between when men and women choose to do this. Many men sent clarifications about this question to say that they avoid specific servers that they know to foster a sexist community whereas many women said that they avoid all public servers and play only in environments they know that they will be comfortable in. When asked "Have you ever been the subject of sex-based comments, taunting, harassment, or threats in the gaming community while not playing a video game?" 45.5% of women said that they had -- almost 5 times the percentage of men who said the same. Similarly, when asked if they had ever had their gaming taste, ability, or skill questioned because of their gender, 77.8% of women said that they had (compared to 6.4% of men). Those men who said that they had been the subject of these comments and judgments related that they were often judged for liking games that were "for girls." One man said that he had been called a "faggot" when he said he didn't like playing violent games. Yet again, the sexism against men is not because they are men but because they aren't "male enough." Occasionally, women in gaming are labeled as something like "attention whores." The woman who plays video games for attention or uses her sex for special treatment while playing is a common stereotype in the gaming community. The response to "Have you ever intentionally used your sex as leverage when asking for favors, goods, or attention while playing video games?" shows that this stereotype is only true in the vast minority. 9.9% of female respondents said that they had done this at least once. What is perhaps more interesting is that when asked "Have you ever lied about your sex in order to receive favors, goods, or attention while playing a video game?" 12.9% of male respondents said that they had. The comments and data from these two questions point to an interesting conclusion: Some male gamers use the stereotype of a female "attention whore" to their benefit by pretending to be female in order to garner special benefits. Many of these men even kept images of women that they found on the internet in order to supply those gamers who helped them with nude photos and proof that they were female. In essence, an individual using femaleness to attain special favors and gifts from others while playing video games is more likely to be a self-identified male posing as a woman than to actually be female. When they were asked if they had ever participated in sexist behavior and comments, only 9.4% of participants said "yes," with 10.6% of men and 7.3% of women giving this answer. Men were only 3.3% more likely to exhibit sexism -- a number within the margin of error. This means that men and women are exhibiting sexism at very similar rates. Comments sent in by these people to clarify their answers also show that individuals who exhibit sexism do not only do so to people of the opposite sex. Men are perpetrating sexism against other men, and women are doing the same to other women. When asked if they had ever intervened in a conversation to stop sexist comments and behavior, 53.2% of participants (54.6% of women and 51.9% of men) said that they had. Both men and women sent in comments regarding why they had trepidation about defending others from sexism while gaming. Both were afraid of having the negative attention turned toward themselves -- men often concerned with the label "White Knight" (which relates to a man who defends a woman in the hope of sexual favors) and women were concerned with the same sexual harassment that was being received by the person they might have defended. Sexism Study Demographics: Who took the Survey The survey opened with some general demographic questions. When asked "What sex do you identify as?" 499 (57.1%) of the respondents were male and 356 (40.7%) were female. These numbers -- particularly the ratio of men to women in gaming - are similar to those which have been reported by other studies . They support the idea that the majority of the members of the gaming community are male, but perhaps some might be surprised that the number of female members comes even close to that of the male majority. 32.4% of all participants were between the ages of 20 and 23. Only one participant, a male, was under 13, and only one participant, who identified with no sex, was over 51. 77.7% of all participants were between the ages of 16 and 27. The average male participant was between 20 and 23, as was the average female. There was no statistically significant difference in the ages of male and female participants -- the distribution across age ranges was roughly the same for both groups. Participants were asked which genre of video games they play. The most popular genre was "RPG," which garnered 14.8% of all responses. The least popular genre was "Simulator" with 6.0% of all responses. The difference between the percentage of men playing a particular genre and women playing that same genre was never greater than 3.2 (12.6% of men and 9.4% of women played "Shooters"), which falls within the margin of error for this study. This suggests that men and women have roughly the same taste in video games. This information is interesting in light of arguments posed in response to other studies. Some of these arguments suggest that the population of women in gaming (41%) is only so high because there is no differentiation between "casual" and "serious" gamers -- that people who play only casual games should not be considered gamers and that making the distinction would lower the number of female gamers as reported by such studies. This study shows that this is not the case. In fact, no women who responded to this survey played only casual games. Women were 2.0% more likely to play casual games than were men (again, a number within the margin of error), but these same women also enjoyed other game genres. Similar data ranges were apparent in response to the question "What devices do you use to play video games?" The most popular device for gaming is the PC, which garnered 24.9% of all responses. The least popular device for gaming is the Mac, with 3.4% of the responses. The difference in the percentage of men and the percentage of women playing video games on a given device were statistically negligible. The largest difference was between men and women playing the Nintendo Wii; women were 1.1% more likely to play this console than men were. While this is a number well within the margin of error, it is the only difference between men and women as far as consoles and devices are concerned that was over 1.0%. The rest of the responses were only different by a fraction of a percent. It is clear that there is no real difference in the gaming devices selected by men and those selected by women. 49.4% of gamers who participated in this survey play video games for a few hours a day. Women were 4.6% more likely to play video games a few hours a week than were men, whereas men were 6.2% more likely to play video games a few hours a day than were women. The percentages of men and women who play video games more than four hours a day were only 0.8% different from one another -- with 16% of women and 15.2% of men playing at this frequency. The average male gamer and the average female gamer both play video games for a few hours a week. Sexism Survey Comments and Community's Reaction According to this study, most gamers recognize sexism as a prominent force in the gaming community. While it is mostly directed at women, some men experience it as well. Only a minority of gamers say that they've perpetuated sexism, and a majority say that they've stepped in to stop it. These numbers are heartening for anyone who, like me, is concerned about how the gamers, and people in general, treat one another. I myself received some interesting reactions and treatment when I opened this survey up to the public. For the sake of statistics and simplification, I counted the comments that I received that were directed at the purpose of the survey (as opposed to those that were in direct response to survey questions) and then categorized them as either: Definitely Positive, Definitely Negative, and Non-Definite. Encouragingly, those comments which were distinctly positive outnumbered the comments which were negative. The majority of these were methods of solidarity and encouragement -- praise directed at myself for undertaking the project or support for the project itself. Comments such as "I'm proud of you." and "You're doing a great thing." were common. Perhaps the most encouraging were the handful of comments -- 9, in total -- that came from people whose outlooks were changed because of the survey. One individual said that he was surprised about the topic. He hadn't previously considered that sexism occurred in gaming. After having taken the survey, he spoke with his wife (who is also a gamer) , asking her if she had ever experienced sexism while playing a video game. After she said that she had, the man became more conscientious of what he and other players were saying and how they were behaving while playing games online, and he decided to start speaking out against sexism when he saw it. While these responses were quite encouraging (as I personally like to see a community aware of its biases and discrimination), there were plenty of comments to provide a counterbalance to the positivity. I received 34 comments that I would classify as "negative" - just over half the number of positive responses. These negative responses were largely comments directed at me personally as opposed to the purpose of the research, and most of them were vile, sexual, and entirely profane. An even dozen of the negative comments that I received addressed the topic in a way that showed negative opinion while remaining what I see as professional in tone. The 22 remaining negative responses were consisted of or contained personal, profane attacks against myself. All of these comments came from men, and they all contained gender and sex-based insults. Eight of these comments featured sexual content -- descriptions of what should be done to me. One of them was four paragraphs long and particularly vivid. These eight are not anything that I would deem acceptable to reproduce here. This comment is fairly representative of those made by these 22 men: "Yoru[sic] survey is retarded and so are you. There's no sexism in the video game community, you stupid cunt. All you bitches play cause you like the attention that nerds give you. You can't get it anywhere else cause you're fat disgusting whales. You ruin video games. Shut the fuck up, tits or gtfo, and make me a sandwich. I'd say I hope you get raped, but you're such a slut you'd like it." What was most surprising, and slightly disheartening, were many of the 87 comments that fit into neither the positive nor negative categories. A number of these comments did not involve personal opinion on the subject matter in the study. These were things like "I'd like to see the results of this." or "This is an interesting survey." Such comments composed approximately a third of the non-definite responses. The remaining two-thirds, however, might be represented by this comment: "I really do feel for the people who are discriminated against when they play video games. I know that a lot of women get harassed just because they're female. But I don't see what we can do about it. Is sexism a problem? Yes. Is is bad? Yes. Does it happen in the community? Yes. But there's no fix for that. There are always going to be bigots, so what's the point in fighting it?" While I can understand this opinion, to me it represents a sort of conciliatory perspective. It's a recognition of the problem, but an unwillingness to stand up against it. The people who made such comments -- both men and women -- are those who have either given up or never tried. In some ways, too, I feel that these individuals misunderstand the ways in which sexism can be fought and in which gains can be made for gamers who want to see a community free of sexism. I can't argue that eliminating sexist opinion from every individual in the community is realistic, and it's not one of the goals that I personally hold when arguing against sexism. What I do think is achievable, however, is eliminating the normalization of sexism in the community. When people stand up in sufficient numbers against those who harass players because of their sex or gender -- when we stop laughing, joining in, or letting it slide and start handing out bans, saying "That's not okay," and refusing to play with bigots -- then eventually there is a standard that even those with sexist leanings will begin to conform to. Surely not every bigoted person will be swayed by public opinion enough to stop expressing their sexist thoughts, but there's going to be a number of them (how big that number is I can't be sure) who will consider being judged, scolded, ostracized, or made to look foolish when they use sexist slurs and insults to be enough of a deterrent to stop using them in mixed company. When sexism is less expressed, it becomes less normalized for those entering the community as well. When new gamers see that calling a woman a cunt or taunting a man for being beaten by a woman is frowned upon, they are more likely to learn not to do it. It's a change that will take time, but it's one that I and others believe is worth working toward. 26 comments: Of all the places I expected to see sexism discussion... well, let's just say I didn't expect it to be here! Either way, I'm really glad that this post has made its way to the site (and my view). Reading about sexism in games is often difficult for me, as I have experienced it myself as have many of my friends, but I'm compelled to hear more all the same. One reason I am such a fan of this post is because it gives hard statistical, indisputable facts. Whenever someone writes a "personal" opinion piece about sexism there's always comments about how it's just them or something. This shows everyone that there are certain trends in our community and sexism is definitely one of them. I also appreciate you speaking about men being harassed mostly due to not living up to some sort of "male ideal". This is incredibly true and easy to see if you listen in on multiplayer games. Thanks again for your post! I've tweeted it and hope all my friends see. Thank you for publishing this study and calling for gamers to de-normalize sexism. I am a woman and I've received harassment for simply pointing out sexism in games before. Would've loved to participate in this study! :) Please give actual examples of what and where you are seeing sexism in video games so that I can be sure you actually understand what the word means, because I doubt you do. Sexy female characters is not "sexism". Neither are most of the other things you're going to say are. And neither is saying something mean to a girl. Saying, for example, that a woman can't design a game as well as a man, simply because she's a woman, however *IS* sexist. But you're probably just talking more about idiotic misuse of the word like "durp durp that box cover is sexist because the female character has a nice set of breasts". Unless you can CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORD MEANS, you can't claim to have "been a victim of it". Also, where's the article about racism in gaming? How about homophobia? How about xenophobia? Why are we only ever engaging in constant navel-gazing about gender? Where's the data to support the conclusion about men posing as women to gain favors in video games? That seems unsupported and entirely out of place. Also, if less than 10% is a "vast minority" in regards to females who do ask for favors in games at least once by utilizing their gender, why is it not also a "vast minority" when less than 10% felt unsafe or had continued harassment outside the game? Beware of wording and bias if you want to be taken seriously. Epcyclopedia - see the data sheet for download at the bottom. The question posed that supported that men pose as women to gain favors was worded as "Have you ever lied about your sex in order to receive favors, goods, or attention when playing a video game?" 12.2% of the male participants answered "yes" to that question. "Where's the data to support the conclusion about men posing as women to gain favors in video games? That seems unsupported and entirely out of place." At the end of the same paragraph: "[...]"Have you ever lied about your sex in order to receive favors, goods, or attention while playing a video game?" 12.9% of male respondents said that they had." Given the the absolute numbers being 499 to 356 that means that around 35 women "have intentionally used their sex as leverage when asking for favors, goods, or attention while playing video games" and 63 men "have lied about their sex in order to receive favors, goods, or attention while playing a video game". I'm curious as to how many people alter their gaming behaviour to avoid the hostile environment in general, not for fear of being a target. I couldn't give a damn whether a bunch of self-important nitwits want to attack ME on a superficial basis. However, watching insecure individuals gang up against "outsiders" or turn against each other doesn't feel like a productive use of "me time". I don't have the energy to fight the global behaviour when the medium's anonymity precludes real responsibility, and curating safe spaces requires too much energy for my personal tastes, and paints a bullseye on your back for griefers. I question this, only because as a man, I often play female characters, with female names. I have never, in my 10+ years of MMO playing ever seen someone directly attack my female nature. I even did an experiment and created a reddit account with a very strong female name, and posted for 3 months straight, always being sure I never revealed my sex. I wanted to see if sexism would happen due solely to my name / typing. I have yet to find a single sexist comment. I am not saying it happens, but I think women mis-interpret a lot of it. When a guy online calls someone a "little pussy ass bitch", that is not targeted at your gender, that is a generic comment that gets said many times over to men and women alike. My guess is women tend to personalize the insults. To back that up, I will use the data in this study. Look at how many women feel they are no longer safe after getting a comment. I mean, this is the internet, the odds of someone finding your address, traveling to your place, to rape you is so extremely unlikely, yet the culture given to women is that men do this. I cannot for any reason, see how an anonymous environment would cause someone to feel scared. The only way I can think of why this would happen, is that women tend to personalize insults. Yeah, nothing sexist AT ALL about calling someone a "little pussy ass bitch.". Perfect example you've provided, so thanks for your case in point. The slam is precisely targeting the feminine as weak, lesser, and the lowest of states. Either learn to see that for what it is--which is very sexist--or "man up" like I do and admit, "yeah, I completely use sexism in my insults.". Cause sometimes I do. But the ultimate respect I have for gamers is for those who are cunning, and strength in gaming and life isn't the ultimate characteristic, and a lot of other traits or combos of traits will trump that. Reasonable people know that. And if you are able to overcome my skill sets, I must just resort to calling you a little pussy ass bitch but I'd probably be much more creative than that. Wow, even here, so many comments from my fellow dudes mansplaining to women how they should feel about sexism. "I'm a man and I totes get to define sexism even though I as a man will NEVER EXPERIENCE SEXISM and women need to just stop being such whiny VICTIMS I am such an expert on what it is like to be a female gamer hurr hurr". And before anyone cries "misandry" or "reverse sexism" JUST STOP. STOP. http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/\\... Us guys have absolutely no place in discussing what constitutes "sexism" because we will will never experience it---our job as men who want to be a good human beings is to LISTEN to women's lived experiences and trust that they know what it's like to experience sexist micro-aggressions. The OP says she received horrifying rape threats in response to simply posting a fucking survey. There. That's all the fucking evidence you need. A note: Men can experience sexism. No, it will not be the same brand of sexism, nor probably as harsh, that women face but there is still something there. The weird thing is how men tend to not "care" outwardly about their own biased presentations and treatment - such as media defining men as macho but with the all the brain function and experience of a 14 year old (man-children, man-caves, man-everything). Men "cannot" define themselves as anything "feminine", which is also pointed out in the study. Anyway, to the commentor who plays with a female avatar... You are lucky to not have seen or interpreted acts of other people as sexist toward you. Perhaps you just didn't feel it was out of place, or you were simply never targeted. That in no way invalidates how other women feel in the gaming community. Some women do not experience trouble while gaming, but many do. You did not, and that is great, but it doesn't mean that no one does. In regards to it being highly unlikely for a man to find your address and rape you, yes, it would probably not escalate that far. However, I have seen my fair share of women bloggers online who have been harassed day in and day out by people because they dared say anything negative about games or game culture. They have had calls they have had things delivered to their door they could have much more. I doubt most casual gamers are experiencing this but you don't know how bad things can get. I think your audiences that said no, do not know what sexual harassment is, or do not play online, because I am nearly certain that you are 100% guaranteed to be called a "fag" if you plan to play online. I do not, but I do not go through a day when someone does not throw slurs as such. Also, from my experience, females tend to be more prone to call people "faggots" while men tend to go with insults toward moms. Food for thought. IF you want to discuss, I'm more than open to talk about it, as I do take this to be a very serious matter and I do not condone unsportsmanlike conduct in gaming. --- OH, another reason for people to say no is that the MMORPG community tends to be much better. There's not really a reason to insult or harass each other (beyond PVP) in a grind kind of game. But the general rule of thumb in those types of games are that all females avatars are male. (There's a reason for that) To the "pussy ass bitch" being sexist debate, it both is and isn't. The words themselves are very sexist assuming aren't referring to a hybrid of a cat, a donkey, and a dog. But many of those using them (especially the young) don't even register the fact, it's just an unfortunate prerecorded response for a given situation. I myself exclaim "God damn" and "Jesus Christ" in spite of not following a belief system involving either of those entities. It's a language pattern that was created out of sexism and needs to be purged from the language. Also the idea that only the victim can decide what is harassment is flawed, especially since the victims themselves often don't agree within their own "group". That said, the vast majority of -ist comments of all varieties are harassment, and often victims don't even register it because they've been inured to it. Personally, if I'm in someone else's "space", and this behavior occurs, I leave, and may or may not confront the perp or discuss with the owner based on my relationship with said individuals. If I'm in a "space" of my own, I'll come down on the perp with a righteous fury. That shit pisses me off. =P Thank you for the survey. It's always great to see hard numbers like this. Well, depressing. But it somehow feels nice to know I'm not the only one who absolutely refuses to play certain multiplayer games (and the public servers of the ones I do play) solely because of harassment. I'm glad you asked about genre preferences. I hadn't seen any numbers on it before, and the results surprised me. I was sure simulators would be significantly more popular with female gamers than with male gamers. I agree that self-selection bias might be a problem (i.e. people who have been affected by sexism might be more likely to respond), but I don't think there's any other way to get these data. Given the fairly large response though (the sample size is large enough to allow generalisation to a population of around 50,000-100,000 using standard parameters) I find it pretty shocking though that the OP got threats simply for posting a request to fill in a survey. An interesting study and one that would be worth repeating once a year or so. I'd like to make some suggestions to perhaps help improve the above. 1) I think it would make your charts much easier to understand at a glance if you included the %s in the bars. Right now I have to look to the left and see the axis to get an idea about the numbers I might be seeing, and even then it's a guess. 2) When asking which gender people identify with, it looks like you've used the traditional binary approach (i.e. male / female). If you'd like a more sensitive scale, there is a seven-point masculine to feminine scale that is used where gender may be a sensitive topic that might give you a bit more granularity in your results. 3) For me, the statement, "This suggests that men and women have roughly the same taste in video games" is arguably one of the most important points raised in this article. It provides some weight against the idea that women don't play 'real' games, which is a bedrock for the kind of implicit sexism this topic is often greeted with. Thank you so much for conducting the survey, for posting your results AND data set, as well as for having the courage to engage in this research in the first place. Reading your findings and the comments above, the topic clearly remains a lightning rod for both serious debate and over-the-top-trolling, and I hope you are able to see the latter as additional fodder for your analysis and discussion. I also hope you continue on with the project... as suggested in some of the comments above, the research is timely and compelling, and it could indeed easily be expanded into a longitudinal and/or cross-cultural study.


Do You Think About Me Lyrics That first cold September night You were the blanket holding me tight You were kissing me and the years stood still You said we don't have to I said I will, yeah We ran in when the thunder came You told me sugar melts in the rain Don't want to watch our love go to waste So we ran inside before it was too late Oh I, Oh I I'm not even trying Oh I, Oh I But I can't stop smiling Yeah Do you think about me Like I think about you Do you think about me Like I think about you Yeah [ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/c/carrie+unde\\... ] I moved on to another town Wrote you letters til the ink ran out When the clouds rolled in, I'd grabbed the keys And play that song that we used to sing I met a boy a lot like you It's funny how we used to sing it too But he was always just a little out of key So much different than you and me Oh I, Oh I I'm not even trying Oh I, Oh I But I can't stop smiling Yeah Do you think about me Like I think about you Do you think about me Like I think about you Sometimes I wonder if you wonder What it could've been like When you're sitting there drinking coffee Are you thinking of me, When it's thundering and raining outside Oh I, Oh I I'm not even trying Oh I, Oh I But I can't stop smiling Oh I, Oh I It's sending me flying Oh I, Oh I But I can't stop smiling, yeah Do you think about me Like I think about you Do you think about me Like I think about you Do you think about me Like I think about you Do you think about me...


Ron Morris is a columnist at The State in South Carolina and has become Spurrier's nemesis. Last October, Spurrier called out Morris for something he wrote in the spring regarding then-basketball player Bruce Ellington and how Spurrier persuaded Ellington to play football. Shaw should not have started, or maybe even played, against UAB. It was an opponent USC could easily have beaten with Thompson at quarterback. The risk of Shaw re-injuring his shoulder was much greater than that of USC losing to UAB. Before you claim this to be second-guessing or Wednesday-morning quarterbacking, understand that I believed it was a poor decision when Shaw first ran on the field Saturday. I also am quite confident I was not alone in thinking Shaw was better served with another week of rest. [...] Maybe I missed where USC physicians invented a new cure over the weekend for deep bruises and/or fractures to the shoulder. Or, maybe Shaw is an incredibly quick healer the second time around. Or, maybe Shaw goes into Saturday's game with the same questions surrounding his running and throwing abilities as he did against UAB. My guess is the latter. My guess also is that, because of Spurrier's poor decision to play Shaw against UAB, USC will be dealing with the quarterback's sore shoulder for most of the remainder of the season So, instead of just talking to Morris man-to-man, Spurrier tried the passive aggressive approach, penalized all of the media for two days before finally talking during his Tuesday press conference. Morris and Spurrier are enemies, we get that, but why penalize the entire media contingent? And why over this? Yes, Morris questions whether Shaw should have played in that game, but I think a lot of people were doing the same. Shaw looked pretty miserable during the bulk of the Vanderbilt game. He sat out the East Carolina game and many thought he should sit out UAB to be ready for the grueling SEC season. In the end, Shaw's shoulder proved not to be a big deal against Missouri as he completed 20 consecutive passes in a dominating 31-10 win. So, I guess it's kind of a "See, I was right all along" kinda thing to Morris, but still just another example of childish behavior by a coach toward the media, which seems to be happening far more often this year than in the past. 113 comments I don't know of any "real" player that wants to sit out a game. Most media folk have nothing better to do than 2nd guess decisions of coaches. What Mr. Morris should have done before penning his story was to have a discussion with the USC trainer to get his take on whether Shaw could play - then write your story. Trainers clear injured players - not coaches. All coaches want their best players on the field if cleared to play and not suspended by SEC commish for making a tackle. F off b atch. You have no clue what is going on down here. Morris tells lies. Morris also compared Spurrier to Sandusky. Because morris is certain there is a cover up regarding Shaw. Get all your facts together before you start bumping your gums. We don't like you, we don't like morris. We LOVE Spurrier. I'm a UK football fan/a crazy person, I would trade a winning coach that ticks off the media over a losing coach who is polite any day. I'm a UK fan and I am defending Spurrier... Dark times we live in. Another misuse of the media...........when will somebody write that morris's opinions are not news and maybe he should just shut up... His only claim to fame is his dispute with spurrier, thus morris wont let it go as he seeks the spotlight, what a jerk I do not blame Spurrier at all when it comes to Morris . Many times the media will twist a coachs words , or try to look like they know more than the coach when it comes to decisions about a player , or a game . If Morris compared Spurrier to Sandusky , he should be fired without question for even comparing the two . Sadly , this never happens to a reporter because the media quickly jumps up with the second amendment . Morals should come up when a statement like Morris made is printed , just let the Sandusky matter stay in Pennsylvania where it belongs . I'm personally sick of Morris. Spurrier has called him out directly in the past, yet Morris continues to be a moaning b**ch about the program, and not only football. Just about every article he writes, he belittles USC athletics, not just football. It's always easy being an arm chair QB when you're a "journalist." And I quote journalist, because that Morris is not. As for Spurrier "penalizing the entire media contingent", really? Does the question "How do you feel about Shaw's performance?" do anything to enlighten readers? No! So before you chime in please do more research and understand this isn't just a couple of times it's happened. Maybe you should call out your fellow journalists for being so poor in reporting. While I understand Dr Saturday is an opinion article, those of us that need answers, want answers, or want to be entertained by Carolina articles, well we know where to find them. And thank you, Watson, for writing yet a 3rd article on our football program in a matter of days. Glad to see we've turned that media corner. :) Go Gamecocks!! you know coaches dont HAVE to let media do anything. Its funny when the media writes about this stuff. I'd never give them the time of day. And articles like this of course try to make the media look like they're innocent. Because most media/sports writers are more about selling a non-story. I wish more sports coaches/players would only talk to media that prints good/truthful information. Media can embellish stories and hid behind we don't have to give our sources. So, basically they can lie on anything. Most sports writers never played a sport, so who cares what they think. So, yeah, all media should pay the price when one of their own is a jerk. Eventually, that writer will be run out of town because the rest won't have a story.


This is not really something I've done before. Or expected to do. Okay, so there was that time that I spent the better part of a summer finishing a novel before promptly abandoning it because it wasn't the right way to tell the story I was trying to tell and I'd really just spent too much time envying Creative Writers who could tell everything in a poem or a short story and didn't feel limited, or rather intimidated, by that. And it's funny how if you think about an idea too hard, for too long, it gets warped, like it's been sitting in the sun, in the rain, the snow, and you can't really tell what shape it was originally supposed to be. I'm a chronic overthinker, so quite a lot of my life looks like that quite a lot of the time, actually. But mostly I am not what you could call a Novelist. Not with a capital N, anyway. When someone asks me what I write, I have a love-hate relationship with my standard answer, which is something vague that ends with a sigh and a shrug as if to say, see? you can't pigeon-hole ME! I often say (and write!) things like, "oh, I wish I was a novelist, because it would be so much easier ," and of course I never, or almost never, mean it. But anyhow I am writing a novel, now. And I'm enjoying it. I'm doing it because it's National Novel Writing Month . They call it nanowrimo. And yes, I hate the name. And no I will not say it out loud (unless, maybe, you buy me a drink, in which case I will say it out loud very reluctantly and very quietly). And yes, it's a gimmick. And no, I don't really have time for this. And no, neither does anybody else. But it doesn't matter. After the first thousand words it stopped really being a choice. Like Alice, I fell down the rabbit-hole of curiosity and now I'm wandering round Wonderland sipping potions. Growing, shrinking. Running just to stay in place. And it makes me deliriously happy. 2. It Looks Like This What this means is that I come home from work and I go for a swim, and then halfway through my swim I start thinking about the book and by the time I get home I desperately need to pull the laptop out and start typing. It's like foreplay, but for writing. Then I spend the next five hours typing as fast as I can. Which is great for me and not so great for the Man, who has to do the cooking and the cleaning and the entertaining himself all on his own, and then as a reward gets a grumpy/happy (grumpy because I need to sleep, happy because I'm SO TIRED and I finally get to sleep) me crawling into bed with my fingers still twitching. On the nights when he isn't around to provide for me I eventually realise that I'm hungry and look in the fridge and discover an open tin of baked beans and half an avocado and think, PERFECT! And make a meal of it, along with an entire bottle of Marlborough Sauvignon. (That counts as fruit, right?) And obviously I don't clean up after myself, because that would cut into the time I could be spending on the couch making shit up. This is straining our relationship (not actually, by the way, but after we've snapped at each other about something really banal like the fact that I left the bread on the cutting board and now it's harder than the iceberg that sunk the Titanic, we joke about it, a bit.). But I'm not writing this novel in a FRENZY! sort of way; I genuinely enjoy it. If I could, I would spend all of my time like this. The other day I caught myself being grumpy because WE HAD TO GO HAVE DINNER WITH SOME REALLY GOOD FRIENDS BUT I COULD BE SPENDING THAT TIME WRITING, and, well, that's probably overkill, and I mean, I do like a bit of socialising sometimes (and we had a wicked time and I didn't really regret not spending those few hours writing). But I would probably be pretty happy to spend the majority of each day holed up in my study typing and reading and watching the neighbours' bushy black cat climb the naked cherry tree in the garden. That's the other way you can tell I'm working on a project: all the books come off the shelves and there are strategic piles placed in every room. Our house is a mess because the Man can't clean up faster than I can take books of a shelf. Also, I haven't washed any of my clothes all month and I'm running out of relatively clean things to wear which you'd think would be fun -- all the old stuff comes out of the drawers, you discover some amazing old vintage dress. But I had really bad taste as a college student so mostly it means I wear schlubby things; the other day I wore a hoody from Abercrombie & Fitch. Let me say that again: A HOODY, from ABERCROMBIE & FITCH. It was awful; I felt disgusting (I'm a total snob and also I'm not an ugg-boots-and-denim-skirt wearing Brookes undergraduate although when I was 15 I INVENTED THAT LOOK, but that's another story) and then I discovered it was so tight (I used to like really tight sweatshirts, I guess) that I couldn't easily get it off, and I ran from room to room with my arms above my head pulling on the sleeves and the hood and for a few seconds I just thought, oh my god. I am trapped in my own sweatshirt. This is The End. 3. It Gives Me Joy But the point is it isn't really the pressure of having to write my 50,000 words by the end of the month (and also, I'm not that disgusting, I still shower regularly -- or as regularly as I ever did). It's more the giddiness of being this happy about something I'm doing. Why on earth don't more people try to write novels in a month? I keep reading these sort of pep-talky things. You know: writing isn't fun. It's actually really difficult, if it was easy everyone would be a writer! Even though everyone thinks it's so easy until they try! But this month is all about completing a project, NO MATTER HOW TOUGH YOU'RE FINDING IT, and ya just gotta keep on truckin' cause it's gonna be SO WORTH IT OMG! Actually some of these pep-talky things are very funny, or poignant, or just plain good, or indeed all three. But I have a fundamental disagreement with most of them, or at least, with parts of most of them. Because it is fun! In a sort of pleasure-pain way, sometimes; like biting your lip when you have a cold sore (or is that just me?). But fun nonetheless. I don't mean "fun" like wheeeee, we're on a rollercoaster isn't this so much FUN fun. (Although, I hate rollercoasters. But I do recognise -- see how good I am at being empathetic? at imagining other people's lives? -- that there are some for whom a rollercoaster is the epitome of fun.). Or, fun like a party, fun like a new dress, fun like binging on popcorn at the cinema, fun like "hey, guys, this is SO. MUCH. FUN." I just mean, it's like eating a really good meal. You have to eat anyway. And then you get the perfect steak. That's fun, but it's deeper than fun. It's enjoying the act of surviving. What better thing could there possibly be to enjoy? It's a serious rush. That's what I mean this is. It's the rush of enjoying the act of surviving. ALL. THE. TIME. I'm not kidding or exaggerating (I do kid and exaggerate sometimes; now is not one of those times). I don't mean it's easy, and I don't mean I'm just sitting there and everything is appearing on the screen, perfectly formed. And I don't even mean that I'm grinning wildly like a maniac all of the time (although I am grinning wildly like a maniac quite an awful lot of the time). I just mean that this is not really a struggle for me. I can write 50,000, maybe even 60,000 or 70,000 words in a month because most of the time I am actually stopping myself from writing. Because it is not practical to act all the time in the way that I've acted this month. I do need to wash my socks sometimes, and socialise more regularly, less urgently (Exhibit A: Friday night, I'm several ciders into the evening, in the same converse, skinny jeans, and black jumper I've been wearing all week, in the middle of a mostly-empty dance floor, DANCING, hi, have you ever met me, let me say that again, DANCING, like a complete fool), and cook dinner, and actually be in a relationship (these things need maintaining, you know: you don't just say, "let's be together!" and that's it). But probably, if I didn't have to do all of those things, if I didn't want to be a human, I would just sit there at my computer writing all the time. And sometimes, shopping for shoes online. Because occasionally the brain needs a rest. And the ego needs a hot pair of heels. I guess I should clarify though that when I say "writing", I don't just mean the actual act of putting words together. I sort of mean the whole "process", but of course "process" makes it sound wanky, and it isn't really wanky. All I mean is: the thinking (which involves, or can involve, things like a swim or a run or a walk or a bath or, sometimes , hanging up the laundry). And the reading. And the going back and obsessively changing one tiny detail because 20,000 words later you've decided that you should have ended that totally arbitrary sentence with this and not that . The discovery of previously unseen connections between things (a Wodehouse quote and Bryan Magee's Popper , say). The joy, the real joy, is always in these discoveries. To me this is the greatest thing that writing anything -- a novel, an essay, a dissertation, a poem -- offers. Finding the overlaps between texts (where a text is not just a book but maybe a piece of artwork, an equation, an idea, an experience), the overlaps between your text and someone else's, sometimes. Finding quotes that suddenly make sense in the context of what you're writing, ideas that suddenly mean something else because they've been enhanced by other ideas. So all of that, as much as the typing and the actual sentences, is writing. Is it really all happy, all the time? Of course not. Readers, meet My Self Doubt. My Self Doubt, meet -- oh hell, I probably don't have any readers anyway (JUST KIDDING! SEE WHAT I DID THERE?!). She likes to eat my brains for lunch and then piss all over me. But hey-ho, as they say. And also, yes there are times when there just isn't another sentence. JUST ISN'T. Except sit there long enough, read a poem, eat a piece of toast, and suddenly there is. It's like coming to a fence and sitting there for awhile going, gee whiz, I didn't see THAT coming, I'm not a bird, I don't have wings, OH WAIT, I CAN CLIMB OVER IT, OKAY. On our way. So yes. Frustration, self-doubt, smelly socks. But that's just life. 4. I Want To Get It Right (and yes, there is a "right") Then there's also always the question, what's the point ? Of writing a novel in a month, I mean. Or indeed of writing a novel at all. Let's put it another way. Do I want to get this right? I mean, do I want each word to be deliberate, do I want the book itself to be edited, clear, to mean something? Yes. I do. And I want this because that's what I do, as a writer. I write things that I think could be published. I'm sorry, but it's true. I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who will write a whole book without thinking, even briefly and without deliberately doing so, of what would happen if the book got published. And who doesn't write with that thought in his mind, if even at the very, very back, where all of the stuff-you-can't-quite-be-bothered-to-thi\\... lives. This novel was not part of The Grand Plan. It isn't the book that I've been slaving and struggling over for two years now, or the book I planned to write after that, or the book I've secretly wanted to write for fifteen years now. But it is A Book. By Me. Which means something. Also, there is no Grand Plan, not really. This is not a science or even an art, it is just a life. Capital L. A Life, or rather My Life. With lots of books in it, some of which apparently cannot be predicted. Yes I am writing this like it will someday be Something, because maybe it will. Maybe it will not. But I don't write things thinking they Will Not and I don't think very many other people do, either, or at least I'd like to think not very many other people do either because I'd like not to be alone in this. (And I know this is not at all what I said in this interview but that was before I'd started this project and before I'd actually really thought about it in the same way I have now). 5. Conclusion So yes. That is why I haven't written very many blog posts in November. 6 Responses YAY! I love this post -- it is laugh-out loud funny and at the same time wise and insightful and just plain brilliant. How do you do that? I look forward to reading this novel someday and all books by Miranda Ward. Loved this post. So glad you're having fun with the novel writing, although I'm sure the Man will be happy at the stroke of midnight when this month of is over! : ) I could totally relate with the 'strategic piles,' -- looking at several of them right now in my apartment. The sexuality in Beckett pile, the Arab adaptations of Shakespearean tragedy pile and the thesis pile. My man is OCD and there are only certain places I can put the book-piles without him going crazy and rearranging them...poor guy. He's been doing his fair share of dishes as well.


Abstract This paper studies the problem of public opinion formation and concentrates on the interplays among three factors: individual attributes, environmental influences and information flow. We present a simple model to analyze the dynamics of four types of networks. Our simulations suggest that regular communities establish not only local consensus, but also global diversity in public opinions. However, when small world networks, random networks, or scale-free networks model social relationships, the results are sensitive to the elasticity coefficient of environmental influences and the average connectivity of the type of network. For example, a community with a higher average connectivity has a higher probability of consensus. Yet, it is misleading to predict results merely based on the characteristic path length of networks. In the process of changing environmental influences and average connectivity, sensitive areas are discovered in the system. By sensitive areas we mean that interior randomness emerges and we cannot predict unequivocally how many opinions will remain upon reaching equilibrium. We also investigate the role of authoritative individuals in information control. While enhancing average connectivity facilitates the diffusion of the authoritative opinion, it makes individuals subject to disturbance from non-authorities as well. Thus, a moderate average connectivity may be preferable because then the public will most likely form an opinion that is parallel with the authoritative one. In a community with a scale-free structure, the influence of authoritative individuals keeps constant with the change of the average connectivity. Provided that the influence of individuals is proportional to the number of their acquaintances, the smallest percentage of authorities is required for a controlled consensus in a scale free network. This study shows that the dynamics of public opinion varies from community to community due to the different degree of impressionability of people and the distinct social network structure of the community. Keywords: Public Opinion, Complex Network, Consensus, Agent-Based Model Introduction In recent years, a large number of agent-based models have been built in order to explore consensus and opinion dynamics. For example, the pioneering papers of Galam and Moscovici ( 1991a ; 1991b ) proposed the first consensus models based on Ising model. Axelrod ( 1997 ) built an agent-based adaptive model to study the dissemination of culture and revealed that local convergence could generate global polarization. The Snazdj model ( Stauffer 2001 ; Stauffer 2002a ; Stauffer 2002b ) and rumors model ( Galam 2003 ) can also be cited as seminal models in this area. In addition, the research on complex networks, driven by the groundwork of Watts and Strogatz ( 1998 ) and Barabsi and Albert ( 1999 ), has become a vibrant area in academia. Many physicists and social scientists apply networks theories and methodologies in a variety of social issues (e.g. Watts 2002 , Jones and Handcock 2003 , Stauffer and Meyer-Ortmanns 2003 , Galam 2002 , Amblard and Deffuant 2004 , and Tassier 2004 ). However, there are so far few agent-based models that formulate opinion dynamics by combining theories of complex networks. In this study we are primarily interested in how the dynamics of public opinion formation performs in the context of complex networks. For instance, our study is interested in determining whether: People choose to applaud to stand or just keep sitting at the end of a brilliant concert; senior undergraduates choose to get a job, or enroll in graduate school either at home or abroad; people do or do not jump on the bandwagon when a new fashion appears ( Leibenstein 1950 ). Although the opinion of an individual seems to be trivial, the aggregation of them (that is, the public opinion) is indeed worth being studied because new properties at a system level arise out of the interactions at an element level ( Holland 1998 ). We deem that figuring out the driving factors behind these decisions or choices may shed new light on understanding the mechanism of public opinion formation. Sociologists regard the formation of public opinion as the result of social interactions and communication ( Powel 1951 ). It is noted that public opinion formation is distinguished from collective decision making in many studies (e.g. Moscovici and Doise 1992 ). Therefore public opinion formation is not defined by either discussion or persuasion that attempts to achieve a consensus or the principle that the minority should subordinate to the majority. Instead, in public opinion formation, individuals' opinions only reflect the wills of themselves mainly because it is impractical for thousands of people widely spread in a vast (i.e. countrywide) area to come together to discuss specific issues. Based on this comparison, we summarize the common characteristics of public opinion formation and propose a simple model for public opinion formation without persuasion. It does not aim at an exact description of reality. Instead, by doing some crude approximations, the model focuses on highlighting essential features of an otherwise very complex phenomenon. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we introduce the factors affecting public opinion formation. In section 3, we give a basic description of our model and a detailed analysis of its simulations. We offer concluding comments in Section 4. Factors affecting public opinions In order to fully understand the complexity of factors that attribute to public opinion formation, we contextualize the discussion of the model by proposing a theoretical framework, in which the roles of individual attributes, environmental influences and information flow are examined. The framework serves as the underpinning of our model when constructing parameters and hypotheses. Individual attributes In any social system individuals are diverse and complex. We rely on Jager's ( 2000 ) definition of the micro-level driving factors of human and we assume that the following individual attributes affect the formation of individual opinions: Value orientation. The value orientation, defined as preference for a particular distribution of outcomes for oneself and others, is an important behavior-determining factor in social systems ( Messick and McClintock 1968 ; McClintock 1978 ). For instance, idiosyncratic preferences inculcated in each person by the culture, lead a person to be personally inclined to opt, for example, for a positive rather than a negative attitude ( Amaro de Matos 2004 ). Needs. People make decisions to meet their various needs: subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity and freedom ( Max-Neef 1992 ). The combination of needs and the opportunity of fulfilling these needs results in a level of need satisfaction, which motivates individuals to pursue certain opportunities. Ability. People have physical, financial, and social resources that are governable to meet their needs. People's ability to use these resources determines their behavioral control over various opportunities. People consider their available resources comprehensively and make benefit-and-loss analysis with given limitations (of computation, of information, and so on). Emotion. People make choices not only by evaluating the consequences and their probability of occurring, but also and even sometimes primarily at a gut or emotional level ( Bechara 2004 ). At high emotional intensity, there are discontinuous "jumps" in the behavior ( Bosman et al 2006 ). Personality. Extraversion and agreeableness are personality factors affecting the behaviors of individual decision making ( Koole et al 2001 ). Other factors, like risk preference, are also important. A risk-taking individual may be adventurous in the process of making choices, while a risk-averse one is cautious when taking actions. Environmental influences Human existence cannot be separated from the environment where human beings live. In this study, we divide environmental influences into two levels: Macro-level environmental influences include technology, economy, demography (population), institutions and culture ( Vlek 1995 ) and thus affect individual behaviors. Even in a setting of no direct interaction between individuals, there is a chance that the individuals face significant and perhaps even coercive social pressure to conform ( Amaro de Matos 2004 ). A leader, a societal majority or other non-tangible factors, may influence the direction of everybody's attitude. For example, individuals may decide to buy Coca Cola rather than Pepsi Cola simply because they are big fans of one movie star who likes to drink Coca Cola. Global or top-down control is often used when building a multi-agents model. What we mean by top-down control ( Sanderson 2000 ) is not to manipulate the rules of individual behaviors, but instead use global information to govern. Alfred W. Hubler ( 2005 ) demonstrated the advantage of considering both patterns of information process -- bottom-up and top-down, in comprehending the emerging patterns and dynamics. Although he demonstrated his theory through a model of the competition of plant seedlings for sunlight and water, it remains applicable and relevant to how society functions. Micro-level environmental influences are defined as the interactions between neighbors or acquaintances at a local level. Neighborhood effects carry significant influences on many behavioral outcomes, such as criminal activity, drug and alcohol use, childbearing out of wedlock, schooling and church attendance ( Case and Katz 1991 ). Local interactions models in economics highlight how agents' preferences, information, choices or outcomes are directly affected by other agents' behavior and are not, as commonly believed, mediated primarily by markets ( Conley and Topa 2003 ).These local interplays are subject to individuals' expectations and from their long-term learning and adaptation ( Holland 1996 ). At this point, we do not think the issue of public opinion formation falls into the field of game theory, because traditional game theory often assumes that players have knowledge of the entire environmental structure and of other players' decision making process ( Sato et al. 2004 ). Information flow Flow is considered a fundamental concept in complex adaptive systems. Three types of flow are identified: material flow, energy flow and information flow. Nevertheless, not all flow presents simultaneously in a single system. For example, in Holland's echo model ( 1996 ), only material flow and information flow coexist. Since in the context of public opinion formation, few elements of material flow or energy flow are observed among individuals or between individuals and the environment, in our study, we merely take into account information flow. In order to fully imagine information flow, it is often depicted visually through its topological properties, which ultimately helps us understand the pattern of information flow. On the largest scale, the collectivity of individuals (e.g. a community, a city or a nation) can be viewed as a giant network; within this giant network, a "link" is the acquaintanceship between two persons. In fact, research shows that the topological properties of a social network considerably affect its function and overall organization ( Vazquez et al. 2004 ; Weisbuch et al. 2005 ). Small world networks can be highly clustered, like regular networks, yet they have small characteristic path lengths, like random graphs ( Watts and Strogatz 1998 ). Scale-free networks differ from lattices by the inhomogeneity of connectivity and by their smaller diameters. In social networks, the characteristic path length refers to the total average length of shortest paths between two individuals. If the network structure of a community is parallel to a regular network, information transferring tends to be slow within the neighborhood; if it is parallel to a random network, information travels rapidly and widely; if it is analogous to a small world network or a scale free network -- such as the collaboration graph of film actors ( Watts and Strogatz 1998 ; Barabsi et al. 1999 ), information can also diffuse rapidly, yet most information diffusion takes place within a limited neighborhood. Furthermore, the information flow in public opinion formation should be distinguished from informational cascade that has been observed in a number of conformity models ( Bikhchandani et al 1992 ; Kawaguchi 2004 ). An informational cascade occurs when it is optimal for an individual, having observed the actions of those ahead of him, to follow the behavior of the preceding individual without regard to his own information ( Bikhchandani et al. 1992 ). The problem of utilizing informational cascade models to explain public opinion formation is three-fold. First, in public opinion formation decisions do not have to be made sequentially. Second, in public opinion formation, people do not ignore choices of those behind them. Third, people in public opinion formation can change their opinions every moment during the process. The model To visualize the problem of public opinion formation in a simple manner, we develop a simple computational model. It aims, by making crude approximations, to discover certain essential aspects of opinion dynamics. Our model is based on two hypotheses: The social environment is homogeneous for everyone. In other words, each agent shares the same macro-level environment. No discussion and persuasion are considered in the process of public opinion formation. By making this hypothesis, we distinguish our model from collective decision models. Basic descriptions We consider a population of N (For clarity, N=900) interacting agents. Many earlier models, such as the Ising model ( Galam and Moscovici 1991a ; Galam and Moscovici 1991b ), the Sznajd model ( Sznajd-Weron and Sznajd 2000 ), the compromise model ( Ben-Naim et al. 2003 ) and the constrained voter model ( Vazquez et al. 2003 ), focus on quantifying agents' evaluations on a given issue, using either a discrete or a continuous variable. Our study is concerned with the options agents choose rather than how agents evaluate possible options. For simplicity, we concentrate on a case of three options; three is the minimum number that gives non-trivial results and yet permits us to explore the dynamics of the model. Let s j,i be a Boolean variable to denote the choice of agent j upon option i (i = 1, 2, 3). For example, s 20,2 =1 means that agent No.20 is in favor of option 2, and s 20,1 and s 20,3 should necessarily be equal to 0. As discussed in Section 2, individuals have different private incentives. In a very large population, it is not feasible to describe the different individual incentives. Luckily, such manipulation is also unnecessary because our model aims to examine not only the interactions between individuals and the environment, but also the influence of different social network structures on model behaviors. Undue emphasis on detailed description of the diversity of agents does not help us to meet our primary objective, to explore the mechanism of the model. In this study, the distribution of private incentives is modeled by a probability density. We define a random variable t i , ranging from 0 to 1, and t i follows uniform distribution. Vector T = (t 1 , t 2 , t 3 ) denotes the intrinsic evaluations on each option. Opinions of individuals in a heterogeneous society evolve under the influences of acquaintances. In previous models (e. g. Laguna et al. 2005 ), agents are distributed in a hierarchy of different authority levels. Here we equip each agent with a continuous variable v i , measuring the influence on other agents when its choice is i . We assume that v follows a uniform distribution in [0, 1] in small world and random networks. However, we consider two hypotheses -- uniform distribution or proportional distribution with respect to the distribution of v in scale free networks. We assume the influence parameter in small world and random works follows random distribution instead of proportional to the number of acquaintances for two reasons. First, a random distribution of the influence is inherent in the generating processes of small world and random works. Unlike the preferential choices in scale-free networks, agents establish their connections in a random way, and thus agents do not consider the influence of others when establishing a connection. Second, a well-connected agent may not be the person who has great influential power. For example, film stars know and are known by a lot of people; however, their acquaintances (e.g. their fans) may not agree with the opinions of these film stars on issues like health care reform or anti-terrorism. In this case, the connectivity of an agent has little to do with his or her influential power. In contrast, scale free networks distinguish themselves from other types of networks by the key feature of preferential attachment ( Barabsi and Albert 1999 ). Preferential attachment addresses the point that new vertices attach preferably to those who are already well connected. In reality, people are willing to be known by influential persons. The connections are established "purposely" rather than "randomly". As a result, those influential individuals are by and large also well-connected. Therefore, we model another scenario besides uniform distribution in which the influence parameter in scale free networks is proportional to the number of acquaintances. At the beginning of the simulation, agents initialize their choices based on the evaluation vector T. In other words, each agent goes for the option upon which he/she places the highest evaluation. In the following steps, agents interact with each other by exchanging information. Each agent receives decision signals from its acquaintances, and then calculates the weighted average value, which is used to formulate the influence of the environment. Let vector H = (h 1 , h 2 , h 3 ) denote the environment influence of every opinion. The mathematical expression of h is: (1) where agent j connects with agent i . Figure 1 presents an example to show how to compute the environment influence. Agents balance their desire to provide an honest signal of their intrinsic preferences against the pressure to conform, and then get the total utility function, U . U is the conclusive variable for agents to switch their choices within each simulation step. The expression of U is given by Cobb-Douglas function ( Cobb and Douglas 1928 ): (2) The indices ? and 1-? are elasticity coefficients of environment influence and intrinsic factors, respectively. To examine the dynamics under a variety of information diffusion structures, we consider four types of complex networks: regular, small world, random and scale-free. We use the method of Watts and Strogatz ( 1998 ) as a reference and we treat the collection of agents as a ring of n vertices, each connecting with k nearest neighbors, and then a regular network has been constructed. We choose a vertex and the edge that connects it to its nearest neighbors in a clockwise sense. With probability p ( p =0.3), we reconnect this edge to a vertex chosen uniformly at random over the entire ring, with duplicate edges forbidden; we continue this process, circulating around the ring and proceeding outward to more distant neighbors after each lap, until each edge in the original network has been considered once. We do this until we get a small world graph. Increasing p until p =1, all edges are rewired randomly and then the graph itself becomes a random graph. As for the construction of scale-free networks ( Aleksiejuk et al. 2002 ), we start with a full-connected network with m (m < 30) vertices. Since m is far smaller than N, how the m vertices connect does not affect the topology of the whole network. Then, additional N- m nodes are added as follows: each new node is linked to k existing nodes, with a probability proportional to the number of connections that these existing nodes have. When the new link happens, it increases the number of connections by one for both nodes. The algorithms of network construction can be found in Appendix 1. Results Our model aims primarily at shedding light on two questions. First, what equilibrium characteristics does the system demonstrate as the network structure changes? Second, to what degree will the model dynamics be altered once we add some macro control to the model? In the first step (t=0), each agent initializes their opinions based upon interior evaluations. The evaluation is generated by a random number [0, 1]. They compare evaluations among three options and then exercise choices. Agents with the same choice form a group. The collectivity of agents who are in favor of one option is called the install base ( Gandal 2002 ) of this option. To minimize the disturbance of the install base on system dynamics, each option has roughly the same number of supporters in the initial state. We suppose that the influential factors of an agent follows uniform distribution in four types of networks as mentioned above. To minimize the disturbance from the initial states of agents, we run models using the same data in terms of influential factors and interior evaluations. Starting at the initial configuration, the model proceeds in a way as shown in Appendix 2. Computational modeling allows great flexibility in implementation of timing and process. To demonstrate how timing can be implemented, we consider two updating procedures: random and sequential. By sequential we mean agents update opinions in a serial order from No. 1 to No. 900. At first, we take it for granted that sequential updating is more likely leading to a consensus than random updating. By simulation, however, we find that in both cases, this conjecture cannot be validated for the differences of model dynamics are not sufficiently significant. The simulations under a regular network can be seen in figure 2. We varied network types and observed similar test results for 30 runs each case. Even in the case of sequential updating, agents consider both anterior and posterior information in terms of decision signals, which is the critical difference from the information cascade model ( Bikhchandani et al. 1992 ). Figure 2 . Comparison of two information updating mechanisms. Here, both simulations are run under the situation that the average connectivity is 30 and ? is 0.5 with a regular graph. The left two graphs are lattices in which the color of each cell represents the opinion of one agent. The right two graphs are the evolving curves of public opinion. In the rest of this section, all simulations are done in a way that agents update opinion states randomly. In regular graphs, we find that no matter how ? changes, there is always opinion fragmentation. Even if we increase the value of ? up to 1 -- that is, the behavior of agents is thoroughly subject to the environment influence, global consensus still fails to appear. We also remodeled the standing ovation problem ( Miller and Page 2004 ) using the Swarm platform, and got similar results: there is no global consensus in auditorium. This is because regular graphs have long characteristic path lengths, which narrow down the scope of information diffusion. Nevertheless, simulations associated with the three other types of networks report different results. We adjusted the value of ? as well as the average connectivity (AC) of the graph, and ran the model 30 times for each combination of ? and AC to compare outcomes under different scenarios (see Table 1, 2 and 3). CPL in the tables denotes the average of characteristic path length for 30 runs. The statistical data denote the average numbers of opinions (ANO) in stable states. The data within parentheses are the standard deviations of ANOs whereas no parenthesis means zero standard deviation. As shown in each table, a higher AC follows a smaller CPL, which promises a higher efficiency of information diffusion. Notice that under some combinations of AC and ?, ANO are not integers, indicating multiple outcomes for runs. For instance, when AC is 30 and ? is 0.7 within a small world graph, the number of opinions in a stable state can be equal to either one, two or three. Recall that the initial states of all agents have been predetermined for each run, so this uncertainty can be traceable to nonlinear factors endogenous in a deterministic system. In other words, the random process of network construction, ungoverned by exterior conditions, attributes to the multiform of results. For the combinations in which the standard deviations are not equal to zero, an unequivocal prediction of the number of opinions seems to be impossible. We refer to these combinations as sensitive areas. Two salient features are found in these tables: (1) as AC and ? increase, ANO decreases from 3 to 1. This suggests that systems with higher AC and ? are more likely to conform and reach a global consensus (It is worth to be noted that Amblard and Deffuant ( 2004 ) find the same phase transition with a different model and they further suggest that the consensus results more from the redundancy of links than from the average shortest path. However, the latter can also be considered as an indirect indicator of the redundancy). (2) Sensitive areas exist in all three networks. The difference among the three tables lies in that the average number of opinions in table 1 is equal to or larger than that in Table 2, and both of them are equal to or larger than that in table 3.Yet, the difference is not remarkable. It may be explained by the fact that one topological character may be shared by a small world, random and scale-free networks. All three networks have similar characteristic path lengths given the same average connectivity. However, a relatively small CPL does not necessarily follow a small ANO. Figure 3 shows us an example to the point in a random graph (?=0.7). When CPL equals to 2.65 with connection being 6, the result of ANO is 3; in contrast, when CPL equals to 2.65 with connection being 30, the result of ANO is 1. Based on this observation, we argue that it is sometimes problematic to use the characteristic path length as the single parameter to predict the number of opinions when reaching equilibrium. Figure 3 . Comparison of equilibrium between two connections with the same characteristic path length in a random network The control, handling, and possible manipulation of information are now major issues in social organizations including economy, politics, defense, and even in fashion and personal affairs ( Galam 2003 ). Hence, our model considers the role of authoritative individuals in the general public. We define authoritative individuals as agents with influential factors larger than a given threshold (for example, v i > 0.85 in this model). Our purpose is to examine on what condition agents follow the opinions of authorities and which type of network facilitates an expected consensus most effectively. We designed the experiment as follows: based on the same initial state as above simulations (here ? = 0.7), we fix the opinions of agents with the highest influential factors as option A (blue-colored in Figure 2 and 3). Notice that even by doing this, option A still has an disadvantage in terms of the number of its supporters, compared with option B and C. Therefore, it is reasonable to claim that the positive network effect ( Katz and Shapiro 1994 ) of an installed base doesn't account for the success of option A provided that A dominates the public opinions at the end. Suppose that the influence of agents follows uniform distribution, we write down the minimum percentage of authorities (MPA, also an average for 30 runs) required to reach an equilibrium where all agents go for opinion A (Table 4). That is, the opinion of the general public is consistent with that of the authorities and thereby the result turns out to be exactly what has been expected. By comparing MPA of small world network and random network in table 4, we uncover some interesting results: (1) MPA in random networks is smaller than the counterpart in small world networks. That is , in order to reach a controlled consensus of opinion A, a social network with a random structure needs a relatively low proportion of authoritative individuals. On the other hand, in a small world structure agents in random networks can effectively exploit their authorities to impose their opinions on others, regardless of the actual value of their opinions. (2) As AC increases from 10 to 50, MPA in small world and random networks descends notably at first. After reaching a lowest point, however, AC goes up slowly. A possible explanation of this tendency might be that a relatively higher AC facilitates the diffusion of authoritative opinions. Nevertheless, when agents have too many connections with other ones, they are overwhelmed with information from both authoritative and non-authoritative individuals. As a consequence, the role of authoritative opinions is compromised due to the disturbance from non-authorities. This situation calls for a higher MPA for the purpose of generating the expected equilibrium. We have unfolded here the tendencies of the dynamics of public opinion, and not an exact quantitative determination of any data. In scale-free networks, we find that MPA refuses to fluctuate with AC. Because the probability of finding a highly connected vertex decreases exponentially with its connectivities ( Barabsi and Albert 1999 ), most authoritative agents by random selection are not in the position of hub nodes (hub nodes have the highest connectivity). Low connectivity of authorities frustrates the diffusion of their opinion, and hence, a higher MPA is required for a global consensus of opinion A in scale-free networks. Besides random distribution, we also run the simulations under the hypothesis that the influential factor of an agent in scale-free networks is proportional to its connectivity. The results of MPA are shown in the parentheses of table 2. Under this assumption, agents with the highest influential factors are exactly those with the highest connections. The opinion of authorities can be diffused to the largest extent. Consequently, a quite small percentage (1%) of authorities can sway the systemic equilibrium. Conclusions In this study, we summarize three factors affecting the formation of public opinion. They are individual attributes, environmental influences and information flows. We present an agent-based model where conforming behavior may lead to homogeneity or segregation into distinct groups. By exploring the dynamic characteristics of systemic equilibrium with different elasticity coefficients of the environmental influence, mechanisms of information updating as well as network topologies, we gain some important insights. In the regular geometry of social relationships, the system manifests itself by local consensus and global diversity. When the social relationship is modeled by small world networks, random networks or scale-free networks, however, the result is sensitive to elasticity coefficients of the environmental influence and the average connectivity of networks. Ultimately, the higher the average connectivity of the network is, the fewer opinions remain at the end. During the simulations for certain average connectivity, sensitive areas are discovered unexpectedly. The system in sensitive areas presents determinate randomness so that the number of opinions when reaching equilibrium remains uncertain. We also find that it might be misleading to predict the number of surviving opinions merely based on the characteristic path length of the network, since a short characteristic path length may possibly accompany with a low average connectivity, which determines the systemic dynamics more directly and essentially. We examine the role of information control, and find that few individuals with the highest influence, namely authorities in this paper, can sway the balance of outcomes. In a social structure of small world networks or random networks, increasing the average connectivity facilitates the diffusion of authorities' opinion. However, in the process of decision-making, people will be subject to disturbances from non-authorities. While a moderate average connectivity may be preferable for the public to form a specific opinion in small world or random networks, the role of authorities in a community with a scale-free structure remains immune to the change of the average connectivity. Provided that the influence of individuals is proportional to the number of their acquaintances in scale-free social networks, the smallest proportion of authorities is required to reach a controlled consensus. Our findings address the extent to which a community would reach a consensus on certain issues. The findings suggest that different communities exhibit different dynamics that is attributable to the different degree of impressionability of people and the distinct structure of the social network of community. To conclude, we have presented a simple model of opinion dynamics which is able to reproduce some of the complexities the social reality. The model may be generalized to a large spectrum of social, economical and political phenomena that involve conformity effects. But more thoughts and studies should be performed before getting to a clear proposal scheme. One limitation of this study is that we don't address the question how much the results are sensitive to the initial even distribution of intrinsic preference types. The preliminary results reported here suggest many avenues for future research. For example, in real life not every person is open-minded and ready to change opinions. Therefore, it would be interesting to introduce stubborn agents into the model. In addition, we can also take into account the scenario in which mutually connected agents share similar preference and form groups or strata. Appendix 1: the algorithms of network construction Small world network: Define a 2-D array, crunode[][], as the adjacent matrix of the network; Initialize crunode[][] by the regular network; For each vertex i For each vertex j connected with i Generate a random number, p, in [0, 1]; If p is smaller than the probability of rewiring, then Break the link between i and j; Select a vertex randomly and connect it with i; End_if End_for End_for Random network: Initialize crunode[][] by the regular network; For each vertex i For each vertex j connected with i Broke the link between i and j; Select a vertex randomly and connect it with i; End_for End_for Scale-free network: Let d be the number of links that new vertexes are to be added in the net. Let k be the number of links that one vertex connects with others. Construct a regular net with 2*d vertexes. For the vertex i 2*d : size Do Select an existing vertex from 0 to i-1 randomly, marked by v; If v has not been linked with i, then Calculate the probability that i connects with v If p(k) is larger than the generated random number in [0,1], then Connect i and v; Increase ki and kv by one. End_if End_if While ki is less than d End_for Appendix 2: the process of updating For each agent i: Let utility[] store the utility of agents toward different choices; Let propensity[] store interior evaluation. Let influence[] store the influence from agents connecting with i; Let b be the psychological weight for balancing interior preference and outer influences. For each agent j connecting with i: For each decision modality k: If the decision of agent j is k, then increase the value of influence[k] by agent j's weight; End_for End_for For each decision modality k: utility[k] = (influence[])b (propensity[])1-b; End_for Update the state by comparing utility[k]. End_for VLEK C A J (1995). Technical versus socio-behavioral solutions to environmental problems: psychology's unexploited potential. Extended version of an invited lecture for the Environmental Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association, presented in New York


Away From The Numbers Lyrics AWAY FROM THE NUMBERS - Paul Weller Things are getting just a bit too cosy for me; I see people how they see me Gonna break away and gain control You free your mind, you free your soul I was the type who knocked at old men; Who together at tables sit and drink beer; Then I saw that I was really the same, So this link's breaking away from the chain. Away from the numbers - away from the numbers Is where I'm gonna be - Away from the numbers - is where I am free And I'm sick and tired of my little niche, Gonna break away and find what life is And all those fools I thought were my friends They now stare at me and don't see a thing; Till their life is over and they start to moan How they never had the chance to make good [ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/jam/away+fr\\... ]