For those of you who deny there is an addiction:

Maybe I'm not understanding this board completely. I play Everquest and there are times when I play it for many hours during the week. There are times when I go weeks without playing because I simply don't feel like it. Why does someone else's definition of "addicted" apply to me or anyone else?

For me it's pretty simple. I enjoy the game because it entertains me. Am I sick because of that? Sure, there are days at work when it's been such a bad day, I just want to come home, eat some dinner and log on to "escape" the day. Does that make me a freak?

I think there are a lot of people that enjoy the game and play it a lot... and in the end, I believe if you compare the number of hours some people spend playing EQ to others that plant their butts in front of the TV right after work or school there probably won't be a huge difference. So, where is the website for TV addicts? Or for that matter, book addicts... I know a few people that come home from work and curl up in a chair and "escape into the world of their book." Do they have an addiction that needs to be cured as well?

Just trying to figure out exactly what the point of this board is, though I keep seeing the same quote posted over and over again about how it's a place for addicts to come and get help... that just doesn't mean anything to me.

Thanks

Thorney Witt 62 Rogue
Sanineo Jova 56 Druid

Wow.

An "Economics" proffessor.

Stats on time played.

My hat's off to you, Kruziyoohoo, you have discovered the answer. We can all go home now.

**Where we go one, we go all**

Quote:Sucks for all you EQAs in denial though ...

There's a difference between obsession and addiction.

ummm ok, I work a full time 40+ hours a week job, own a home, manage to pay all my bills on time, spend time with my boyfriend & family and still have a bit of time for EQ (including weekends) ... and because I play somehow I'm addicted?

KruiziGrrl has been one of the more reactionary anti-EQ posters on this board. Fortunately, it seems she is beginning to understand how to positively leverage her credibility by researching the subject. Educating herself as it were. If she keeps it up, she'll soon discover that the majority of credible opinion (psychologists/psychiatrists not economists) indicates that becoming addicted to EQ makes about as much sense as becoming addicted to cheesecake.

Please keep up the good work KruiziGrrl.

Sadly, what KruiziGrrl does not understand is that it takes time to become learned, and to develop a particular depth of thought unique to those who frequently exert themselves to learn more and more. You can't feign education when there's a sore lack of knowledge. Counterfeit scholars are only kidding themselves. The happiest thing KruiziGrrl's done for itself in a long time is to be working its way out of such a sorry distinction and becoming ineptly clueless.

KruiziGrrl, How much time do you spend on the internet? On this site?

The article KruizziGirl is quoting is based on a report compiled by Edward Castronova, an Economics Professor at California State University, Fullerton.
Here is a link to the report from which the information in Kruizzi's quoted newspaper article was drawn:

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/deli...tid=294828

To zoom directly to the information of import regarding the survey:

Quote:I posted the "Norrath Economic Survey" (NES) on my website on August 17, 2001, and sent a message to two popular Everquest bulletin boards announcing the survey's existence and asking for respondents. The survey was open for about 48 hours and yielded 3,619 responses. Since it is not random, this cannot be a representative survey of Norrath's population. However, the direction of bias is fairly easy to identify. The respondents are those who take the time to read fan site discussion boards, and therefore they are more serious Everquest users.This is a direct quote from the survey report; as you can see, the survey was sent to all of two popular Everquest BBS's and was only open for 48 hours. With a sample base of approximately 3600, from a rather narrow demographic, the survey can easily be said to be based on the experiences and opinions of those most seriously involved in Everquest. When you consider there are over 400,000 Everquest subscribers, even accounting for those who have 2 - 6 accounts, one could say the survey respondents make up perhaps 1-2% of the Everquest population.

Based simply on who responded to the survey, I think it's fair to estimate that the majority of Everquest players are not quite as serious about, or involved in, the game as those who replied to the survey.

Sionach An'Talamh, Retired Outrider

That is even weaker than it seemed.

Hmmmm

**Where we go one, we go all**

*thinks of a phrase*

Comes up with :

Lies, **** lies, and statistics!

I used to love my stats lessons at school

NOT a good idea to use statistics, anyway. Because there are some interesting ones working against you.

There are 26 times more people ADDICTED to alcohol than the entire POPULATION of Everquest players.

So maybe you anti-EQ people have completely misplaced your efforts. You should be going to anti-alcohol addiction sites.

In the United States, there are 44 deaths PER DAY, on the average, resulting from alcohol use. There has NEVER been a death as a result of someone playing Everquest in the entire 4 years it has existed.

So go somewhere and complain about an IMPORTANT and ACTUAL problem, and leave this place of mediocre significance.

That is my line! (Mark Twain)

Think about all the man hours someone waits at a stop light in their life time or has to wait in a line some where. If your spent an average of 5 min a day waiting in line of at a stop light over 35 years that is 1062 hours and if you take the eq membership in to account that works out to be 530 830 000 hours. WOW that is alot of man hours. Think how many Empire State builds you could build with that. Come on ya can toss numbers around all ya want , I don't think there are many people that are addicted to standing in line or waiting at stop lights so the numbers there mean nothing. How many hours do people listen to music, read a book , watch TV, or do anything that they like to do as a hobby or past time. Just because there are people that do not like or can not understand why anyone would like that kind of past time does not make it evil or bad.
So I was wondering if these people that are described as addicted have withdrawal symptoms, once they are away from EQ do they still have cravings now and then to hop on EQ and have that craving to look forward to for the rest of their lives ?
Really this entire topic is very very sad. Seems to me that there are people that will not take ownership for their own part in lives problems and look for something to take that ownership for them and that is the truly sad part.

Grummpy Oldman High Priest

So how many hours do people spend in front of TV? When i'm sitting around with nothing to do, I play EQ. To each their own. If something comes up, I log off. Just because you play, doesn't mean you are addicted. You just need to learn to manage your time.

I agree with Cyreldor.

I play EQ fairly often I guess. I'm in the 10 to 20 hour a week category. But I can't count the times I've mashed (the instant-exit) when a good TV show came on, a friend came over, or just to participate in a conversation.

Go to our I Need Help thread, and post your story there.

I don't want it to get lost, in this General Discussion section...

I think there is an addiction issue. That does not mean all or most EQ players are addicted.

I drink alchohol and am not an alchoholic, and that does not disprove alchohilism.

If you want an example, read Ben Stein's story about his son.

Could not get him off EQ, playing secretly at night, finally sent him across country to a boarding school without games.

Arch Mage 60, Master of the epic elemental magics, collector of robes

Someone asked why someone else's definition of addiction applies to him. Let me say this about that:

There is ONE, and ONLY one, definition of "addiction" that counts, and that's the definition used in medical schools and in the medical community. No one else's definition matters.

The problem that most of us who react badly to this concept have with the premise of it is that by assigning qualities of addictiveness to EQ, or any other game for that matter, you are effectively taking the responsibility for a person's actions out of the person's hands and putting that weight on something to which it does not belong. You're creating an excuse which can blind the sufferer to what the problem actually is. It would be much easier for someone to excuse the fact he lost his job and his wife on his addiction to playing a GAME than it would be for him to admit he screwed up, that he let his priorities get way out of whack, or that he has some kind of mental or emotional itch that the game he plays scratches. It's a cop-out, and that's why we don't like it.

I'd heard only vaguely about the thing with Ben Stein's kid. I won't fault Ben for doing what he thought was in his son's best interest. That's his job as a father. He doesn't want his kid playing video games, that's his call, not mine. But again we're back around to confusing an addiction with an obsession, and they're two different things.

Pet, you're right that that doesn't disprove alcoholism, but that, in turn, doesn't prove that games are addictive. Addiction has a specific definition. It is very similar to obsession, and they often look the same, but they are NOT the same thing medically. An addictive substance CAUSES the problem in the person. Cocaine addicts continue to use cocaine because cocaine itself is addictive. There may be reasons for why a person used cocaine in the first place, but ANYONE can become addicted to it because the substance itself is addictive. If you force cocaine into someone's body enough times, they WILL become addicted to it. Obsessions don't work that way. Someone becomes obsessed with something because of another problem, be it emotional or mental. An obsessive comulsive who cleans constantly doesn't clean because he's addicted to cleaning; he cleans because he's obsessive compulsive. The obsessive compulsiveness is the problem, not the cleaning.

It may be nothing more than semantics, but semantics are important.

Tino

Edited by: Tinollan at: 1/13/03 12:11:38 am

I agree that the word "addiction" should not be applied in many cases. However in our society, that word is thrown around a lot and will continue to be said on this forum. I would like to direct everybody to Diggo's post in the All About Olganon section regarding the use of the word.

That being said, there are many people out there who do play compulsively and can show addiction-like tendancies toward the game. A good example of this is logging on when you don't really want to, but feel like you must for any given reason.

It is also my belief that when a compulsive gamer tries to stop playing, he or she does go through a period of what I like to call "detox". I know this happened with me and a lot of people I know. It is a period of time when you first stop playing and you feel out of sorts, if you will, with the rest of the world or real life. You may or may not feel compelled to play, but you havent quite "reconnected" with the real world yet. But this feeling does eventually fade the longer you are away from the game. I am not saying that everybody experiences this detox, but many do in fact have these feelings.

So while we may not be talking about a "true addiction", I feel that compulsive gaming can be dangerous and disruptive to the gamer's life and their family and friends. And while addictions and compulsive behavior are different, they have a lot of similarities. And unfortunately in a lot of cases, the results are the same with lives that are disrupted in some way.

Tosha

Again, it's a limitation of our vocabulary that leads to our using the term "addiction" when referring to obsessive, compulsive gameplay. It's just really the best word to use other than stating "obsessive/compulsive gameplaying," until we, or someone else coins something different.
Whether there is a physically addictive component or not is really irrelevant to the people involved, because while the causes may be different, the effects are quite similar.

And even though alcoholism is hereditary (in terms of one's propensity to become physically addicted to alcohol) wouldn't you say that the person probaby has some underlying mental condition that causes him to start drinking excessively in the first place, just like with obsessive/compulsive gaming?

I have no problems with the strict definition of words, but we must be careful not to get so focused on the definition of addiction, that we lose sight of the problem. I think that certain physical addictions and psychological ones share many similar causes and effects...all of them, unfortunate.

Ron

Ron Jaffe AKA Diggo McDiggity
eMail: eqaddict@cfl.rr.com
Discussion Board Administrator
Everquest player from July, 1999 to April, 2002
Over 4,900 Hours Played

I have logged in when I really didn't want to, but for me, that particular aspect is done from a sense of responsibility. I am the leader of my guild. Other people have put their trust in me. It's no different from being the captain of your adult-league softball team. You made the commitment, now you have to live up to it.

That being said, I do not have many of the responsibilities that other people have. I do not have children. I am a student. I do not have a job to worry about (I don't need a job). Most days I have several hours to myself. I have the luxury of not having to worry about harming my personal relationships.

Ron, how does one deal with a problem when one doesn't use the correct term to describe the problem? If you call it an addiction you will treat it as one, and if the problem isn't truly an addiction, then you aren't truly treating it.

Being inaccurate is easier, but this isn't about easy; it's about effective. It is more effective to identify and treat the problem accurately than to not.

Tino

Well, good question. You will notice that I rarely use the word addiction and that many of the terms associated with true chemical addiction that used to be on our site have been changed within the past month or so. I will generally use excessive, compulsive and obsessive when referring to 'too much' online gaming, as those words are more accurate I believe. Even Liz has been slowly weaning the term addiction from her vocabulary.
I think as this site continues to mature and the phenomena of excessive, compulsive gameplaying is more widely recognized, it will probably grow to be more associated with obsessive, compulsive behaviors than with addictions. Perhaps that's where it should be.

But even with smoking and alcoholism, those activities have obsessive compulsive behaviors also, in addition to the chemical dependency part.

The root of all these problems is probably similar, as are the effects. But whether one drinks to forget his problems, or raids in Norrath to forget his problems, the effects of too much of either activity are quite similar.

Ron

Ron Jaffe AKA Diggo McDiggity
eMail: eqaddict@cfl.rr.com
Discussion Board Administrator
Everquest player from July, 1999 to April, 2002
Over 4,900 Hours Played

When you look at all of what cigarette addiction is, it's obvious that it is not impossible to be addicted to a video game, or anything else for that matter.

I agree games are not as addictive, and far fewer folks are addicted, than say to booze. Notice booze is drunk by close to 100% of the population, (I'll accept 50-75% too, but I still can make this point) but only a wee percentage of drinkers get addicted.

I'm gettin' to my point... have patience.

Smoking is highly addictive and close to 100% of smokers are addicted. See crack, heroin etc., same story. Pot is addictive too but not very, and is considerably more addictive than booze, but not more than a few percent of pot-smokers have a hard time quitting, and even the addicted have an easy time getting rid.

Now, I'm a-gonna make my point using cigarette addiction.

Smoking is a 3-aspect addiction. Each aspect is an addiction in itself. The first is the chemical addiction. It's like being addicted to tea, Coca-Cola, or coffee. You get headaches the first two days after quitting then the addiction is over. That's it. The second aspect, habit, is a tricky little dickens that can catch you off guard even 20 or 30 years later, but won't keep you addicted beyond the first few months or year. It only makes you habitually light up when you hop in the car, pour a coffee, have a beer, curl up on the sofa, or if someone hands you a butt, etc.

Now the dilly. The third aspect is the killer addiction. It is the real addiction to smokes and is most like the addiction to a video game, sex, gossip, gambling, or any other Skiner-Box example you can come up with. This is what they mean by addiction being a pathological form of learning. It's the trick you use to train a dog. It's a powerful weapon. This is the aspect known as the psycological addiction. It's what makes you want to smoke when you see someone smoke, when you get a little hungry, get a little sad, get a little happy, a little sex, a little emotional, a little mad... If you ever tried to quit and noticed you eat more, that's not substituting food for a smoke, that's NOT substituting a smoke for food. The difference is that non-smokers will wait for dinner, but a smoker will take a puff when ever the urge strikes. Then when you pack in the smokes, you snack each time you want a puff. Years of rewarding yourself with the smokes drives this in hard and you LEARN to smoke.

Craving after 11 months, 1 day and 8 hours, but who's counting? :X

Odien

I'm giving my last post a second think. I don't believe you can get as addicted to a video game as to cigarettes. However I think you can get addicted enough that you'll play until you realize you should stop. A video game doesn't give you a physical "high" to keep you around but it does have it's draw. I'm sure you'd never get so addicted to a game that the addiction will always be there.

Odien

No matter how "obvious" you say it is, Odien, I disagree. I haven't seen anything compelling to lead me to believe that video games are addictive. They're easy escapes for people who can't cope with their lives, and they have patterns which cater to goal-oriented people or those with various psychological disorders, but I don't find them to be anything more than that.

We live in an age where we over-diagnose. Pharmaceutical companies CREATE illnesses so they can prescribe drugs for them. There has been a big rush in recent years to prove that there is some sort of female sexual disorder that we can take drugs for. The makers of Viagra have been working very hard to find this elusive "feminine impotence" so they can start marketing more cures for it. Not surprisingly, they haven't found anything, other than the fact that too many men aren't doing it quite right and too many women are letting men think they are.

If you think you're addicted, that's all fine and good. If you feel you have a problem, you MUST get help. Thinking you're addicted to something is a good sign that it's having an unhealthy effect on your life. However, don't jump too quickly to diagnose others.

Lisa

Well, Lisa, I agree games are not addictive, I shouldn't be saying they are... I should be saying that you can get addicted to anything, er, at least I believe so. If the game itself was addictive, it would be a chemical or something that causes a chemical reaction.

A psychological addiction shouldn't be dependant on what the object is. It could be olives - bells - anything, given the training. (Odie drools at the sound of bells) I don't think you could get easily addicted to yellow traffic lights, but with a random switch and a few twinkies, I'd like to try it.

My point is that I believe that you can be addicted to anything, like lab rats can get addicted to sugar water, and morons can get addicted to General Hospital (that poke meant in fun: I'm a "soap-aholic"). Actually, in my view, you'd never get addicted to a soap.

I agree video games are easy escapes, but if they weren't enjoyable, nobody'd play and therefore nobody would have a problem with them. I'm not sure about whether the compulsion to play is from an inability to cope with ones life, however I am sure that some folks are prone to physical and/or psychological addictions more than other folks. Someone with psychological disorders may tend to be obsessive but not necessarily addicted, nor necessarily not addicted. Addiction is a separate disorder from obsessive.

Umm, I do not diagnose anyone, not even myself, except I claim to be a cigarette addict. I especially don't claim to be addicted to any video games. I certainly enjoyed EQ, but had to break it off when I realized that I'd go to too far a length to play. When the prices took a near 50% hike, I almost brushed it off... yeah I can afford, but when I thought about it SOE/Verant was able to push us around at will and wasn't too apologetic about it.

BTW, regarding ~we live in a society that tends to over-diagnose~, yeah, I agree. There's even a diagnosis for a disease that makes us shy - go figger - there's a drug for it.

Anyway, I don't expect to sway your opinion about what constitutes an addiction. Likely yours is an informed opinion. Mine comes from watching too much TV. What-ev... addiction is not a one-dimensional problem and there can't be a simple explanation. Heckers, look at alcoholism yet again... it's a disease as well as an addiction, and the effect of the disease is to keep you addicted for the rest of your life.

But I do loves to spout off anyway

Odien.

Joke-time, to quack you up.
A duck walks up to the counter at a drug-store and slaps a lip-balm on the counter. The clerk asks "Will that be cash or charge, Duck?" "Neither, just put it on my bill."

G'nite

"But even with smoking and alcoholism, those activities have obsessive compulsive behaviors also, in addition to the chemical dependency part."

Ok. That's true. That still doesn't mean you can treat one the way you treat the other. Stevie Wonder is blind. Ray Charles is also blind. Stevie Wonder has been blind since birth. His blindness is because there's something wrong with his eyes. Ray Charles was born with sight. He used to be able to see. But *his* blindness is psychosomatic. He witnessed his father being shot to death, and his brain turned his eyes off. They never turned back on (or at least this is what I have been told). Both suffer from the same disability, but for vastly different reasons. You couldn't attempt to treat Stevie Wonder's blindness the same way you'd try to treat Ray Charles'.

The point is that when you're dealing with psychology, looks can be deceiving. It may look like a duck and it may quack like a duck, but that doesn't mean it *is* a duck. They may look the same and have the same effect, but that doesn't mean they are interchangeable or that they can be treated in an even remotely similar fashion.

When I said "you," I was using the universal "you." I didn't mean YOU specifically, Ron. I tend to use "you" that way a lot. I tend to leave it up to the individual reader to determine if he/she fits into whatever I'm describing. When I'm saying something to someone in particular, I name names.

Tino

I am glad you are sticking with us.

I will be getting back to you.

I got side-lined. I broke my ankle on Saturday.

Liz

Quote:We live in an age where we over-diagnose. Pharmaceutical companies CREATE illnesses so they can prescribe drugs for them. There has been a big rush in recent years to prove that there is some sort of female sexual disorder that we can take drugs for. The makers of Viagra have been working very hard to find this elusive "feminine impotence" so they can start marketing more cures for it. Not surprisingly, they haven't found anything, other than the fact that too many men aren't doing it quite right and too many women are letting men think they are.

Here come nurse Adrie

While I do agree that in alot of cases, there is much over diagnosing going on, the doctors are just as much to blame as the drug companies. Remember that they do get a "kick back" for prescribing certain meds.

However, I strongly disagree over the issue of feminine impotence. It is a very real diagnosis that has actually been ignored for way too long--even in a sexually liberated country such as the grand old USA Just because a woman's pleasure (culmination) cannot be measured as in the way a man's can, does not mean that it does not exist. In fact, many medications that many, many, many women take aggravate the situation even worse; case in point: hormonal birth control, cancer medications, headache medications, and the like. Even childbirth has a marked decrease in libido (and for more reason than just fatigue). If you like, I can support all of this by the number of women who have such diseases and the sided effects of listed meds, but I think you really get the idea

Women's health has been ignored for way too long. Even in Freud's time (not that long ago), women who had trauma of post rape (what we now call PTSD) were told that it was eithr "just in their head", that they "made it up," or that the images of what they said happened were really just "an underlying manifestation of what they secretly desired." No wonder women had bedroom issues!

Also of note is that, when a medication is tested, nine times out of ten, it is tested on male subjects and not women. This is particularly disturbing in heart medications, as women were frequently thought to be a low risk for heart attacks....and now what do we do when we do not know how women react to the medications?

So I guess what I am trying to say is, I really do not think it is over diagnosing, in some cases, it may be making up for lost time. We have a saying in nursing and that is, just because you dont see it, doesnt mean it isnt true. So, if a patient comes in complaining of something, we believe them and treat as requested. It is very hard to dx something that we cannot see...and good old insurance companies will not cover meds unless a dx is made.

There is no Addiction, because online games are not even interesting in the first place.

And I congratulate your job of speaking for the masses.... now one wonders if the games suck how do they stay financially viable?

Quote:Remember that they do get a "kick back" for prescribing certain meds.
Sorry taking a detour here, but what you are referring to is blatantly illegal. If you find it going on, please report it to the Federal Trade Commission and/or your local US Attorney's office. Any pharmaceutical sales rep. that engages in anything close to this is going to get their head handed to them on a plate. Ask one of them how many classes and seminars they've been to in the last 12-15 months regarding this topic

"For example, in October 2001, TAP Pharmaceuticals agreed to pay $875 million to resolve civil and criminal complaints by the Department of Justice over the manner in which TAP was marketing and promoting the drug Lupron."

Although the TAP case was especially aggregious and infamous, the illegal activities included providing free drugs and rebates to physicians, free vacations to physicians, gifts to physicians, etc.

Art by Culurien GoldleafEscaped from the Skinner Box 20 October 2002

Soprena,
Great point. Here comes the thread hijack LOL

Have you ever been to the doc's office and he gave you "samples"? They come at no cost to him, and in fact it is reported to the pharmaceutical company if/how many times he/she has prescribed a certain medication.

Hospitals, who are in danger of losing grants and insurance funding, are usually really great about this. Private practices, however, often fall through the cracks.

/thread hijack off

We have one Dr. close by who typically gives us the entire course of medication in the form of samples, like a 14-day supply of antibiotic. I love that. Saves me $15-30 copay. Saves his uninsured patients a lot!! Nothing illegal about this at all as far as I know.
What is illegal is for the drug companies to give compensation (cash, $$$ for 'consulting', free trips to exotic locations to hear a speech about a new drug, golf outings, TV's and VCR's) to physicians in return for actual or hoped-for prescription writing in their favor. Free samples are fine so long as they are given to the patient for free. Free pens and pads of paper and post-it notes are still OK I think.

In the TAP case, the TAP reps gave free and low cost samples to physicians knowing and intending the physician to sell the drug (the drug was a once every month injection) to the patient (billing the insurance company at the retail price).

Sorry for perpetuating the hijack but this is a topic of interest to me

Art by Culurien GoldleafEscaped from the Skinner Box 20 October 2002

Soprena,
I knew what you meant I was referring to the ones who include the "samples" in the cost. Look on your billing statement sometime; maybe you dont get charged for it, but they are charging the insurance company.

Good exmaple of this is Diflucan, antifungal med; one pill. You think, "Great, one pill, and dont even have to get charged for it or have to haul over to the walgreen's to get it!"

Wrong. Check the coding on your bill, or ask what the coding is. Often it is disguised under "materials", "stock" or, one time I even saw "bandages". With someone with no wound. /boggle

Since you like this topic so much, here is a great topic for you to chew the fat on with me. I was told that the hospitals charge the OB/GYNs for use of their operating rooms. The OB/GYN of course factors that in to his cost.

However, you will then get a bill from the hospital for using the OR as well as "supplies", in addition to room charges (usually at least a few hundred a day, not factoring in that luxurious air mattress).

This checked out: I drug up my old bill for when I had my daughter and sure enough I was charged for the operation (3K--for an hour procedure) and then for the room (about 2k).

Now tell me who is over billing! Gasp.

Lets chat more in another place shall we? I got lots of stories

~~Adrie

"There are 26 times more people ADDICTED to alcohol than the entire POPULATION of Everquest players.

So maybe you anti-EQ people have completely misplaced your efforts. You should be going to anti-alcohol addiction sites."

yes, many people in the us are addicted to things other than video games, true. alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, narcotics, etc. most of these things, once having been recognized as addictive or problematic to society were then regulated by the government.
perhaps we should start writing congress to get government imposed restrictions on video games and game marketing.

one more thought on the matter.
perhaps people who play eq incessantly really are losers, for they always seem to think there is nothing to do in spare time then play eq or watch tv.
either that or they lack any motivation, social skills, sex drives, imagination and creativity

Your list of other addictions is amusing, here are a few more.

Cheesecake
Ice Cream
Sex
Shopping
Parfaits (May be the best tasting things on the whole **** planet)
TV-Watching
Playstation/x-box/cube
Video Arcade Games
Golf
Computer Games
Fishing
FastFood
Hunting

If you can't tell the difference between my list and yours, I'll gladly elaborate. Let me know.

Edited by: Wolvar at: 2/25/03 12:57:22 pm

Let's see, how many years has alcohol been around???How many years has grapes that produce wine been around?
Way before Christ, and wine is talked about in the Old Testament.

How many years have video/computer/on-line games been around? Since the 1980's?? Give it a couple of more years, and I am sure the numbers will catch up.

There are many other groups/sites for other addictions. There was none for video/computer/on-line games. This is a self-help group for people helping each other recover and heal from problems resulting from compulsive game playing -be it gamers, or their family and friends.

Quote:perhaps we should start writing congress to get government imposed restrictions on video games and game marketing.Would you like to help us get started? This is going to get worst before it gets better, and just as with drugs and alcohol, some games have a more "addictive nature" than others.

Thanks for your interest and support.

Look at this site please

www.netaddiction.com/reso...aindex.htm

BTW, if you check the link: Books, there is an interesting info on a book on internet addiction: "Caught in the net" by Kimberly Young.

Laima

I've said this elsewhere on the site, but it bears repeating: my job as an addict is first to reconcile myself to God by overcoming my addiction ONE DAY at a time and secondly to take the message of freedom to those still struggling to leave whatever game addiction is holding them back.

Stats are useful academic information and may find their way into my book (I have started writing since quitting my habit) but don't help me in my struggle. Furthermore, anyone NOT addicted or who does not believe he/she has a problem CANNOT be helped by my knowledge.

Just for today, I haven't played a computer game. I have however:

a.) Had a good night's sleep (for a change).
b.) Spent time at church, operating the audio visual system.
c.) Had a cup of coffee while discussing politics with some friends.
d.) Washed the car.
e.) Chatted with my neighbours.
f.) Had a yummy lunch with my wife.
g.) Done some gardening.
h.) Gone for a long walk on a beautiful spring day.
i.) Sat on my front porch listening to birds and watching the sun set.
j.) Read my Bible.
k.) Sent an email to a new friend who is interested in discussing religion.
l.) Posted some stuff on this marvelous site.

Those are the most important stats. Amazing what a guy can do with an extra 10 or 12 hours a day. I think I'll go build a skyscraper tomorrow. Any takers?

Peace.

I'll help!