I'm sure most of us have said it, or at least heard it.

"I didn't have a choice"

In nearly all cases where I hear this, I disagree. My sister is the reason I bring up this topic. Last year she finished her degree in teaching. She now plans to go to America (we live in Australia) in May or June to be a camp counsellor. She recently got a second job so that she could afford the trip, and be able to travel and have shopping money after the camp was over. About a week ago she complained to me about her full work day; working 9-5 in her first job, and then going straight to her second job until 8:30. My response was "welcome to my world". And her counter was "Yes, but you chose to buy a business", which seemed to imply she didn't have a choice.

In the past I've heard people complain about their lot in life, particularly with job satisfaction. Quite often when I come across this attitude, my response is to shrug and ask them "Why don't you quit then?" And then you get the "I don't have a choice" line.

In my sisters case, she chose to get a second job, because she wanted more money. She made a choice. Every choice has consequences. Usually we make a choice because the benefits we expect from that choice outweigh the negatives. It's not often that a choice is all upside. Working more means more money. It might also mean you are more tired, doing tasks you don't want, and losing time that could be spent with friends, hobbies, or other activities.

You always have a choice. Everything you do is the result of how you choose to act. That is not to say you are in control of everything that happens to you; if you happen to be attacked in the street by a mugger, or have your house broken into, that is an unfortunate consequence of someone elses actions. How you deal with those situations and how you feel about them is up to you. I might be butchering the quote, but I believe the maxim "Life is 10% what happens to you, and 90% how you react to what happens to you".

I'm going to tell you a true story about a guy named Roger*, who was a customer of mine. A couple of years ago we had a spate of rock throwings at car windscreens. To the best of my knowledge, Roger was the last victim of these criminals; they decided to stop when the rock they threw went through his windscreen, hit him in the head, suffered severe head trauma, causing him to crash and put him in a coma, fighting for his life. As you would expect, the community was very supportive. He regained consciousness, and has had multiple reconstruction and plastic surgeries since. Not long after he was initially released from hospital, he drove himself to our shop. He mentioned he had a new personalised plate, and sure enough when we looked out the shop window we saw his repaired car displaying this plate;

ROCK ON

Here was someone who had suffered a great deal of pain and hardship, but was able to laugh about the situation. You would expect many people to be bitter, angry and vengeful against those that had caused this hardship. In talking to him, he bore those people no malice. He just hoped they had realised their mistake and had become less selfish people. I believe we are all able to feel this way about situations like this; we just don't choose to.

I am partners with my parents in a small business, and my father and I work about 60-70 a week. It's not always intensive (work is where I do the majority of my Gamespotting) but it's still a lot of hours. Would I like to work less hours? Sure, and we are trying to adjust things so that we all get a few more hours off here and there, but the current course of action, the roster currently in place, has been a good choice. We have been paying off debt from a previous business gone sour, I've been able to buy a house and start investments, and we have grown the value of the business. Had we decided from the outset that we were going to try and work 40 hour weeks and employ more people, we wouldn't be where we are today financially.

I'm not suggesting you radically change your life just so you can say "Look! I can choose to do something!". Realising you have the power to choose is empowering enough.

* Name changed in the interests of privacy, as I have not sought permission to tell this story. This event occurred a couple of years ago, and these details are as best as I can remember them; apologies if there are any inaccuracies in this information.

I bought a CD recently by Mindless Self Indulgence, and it has this paragraph in the insert;

A warning for those of you lazy, self-absorbed and/or just plain inattentive parents; all the cencorship in the world won't make up for bad parenting. If your child is more influenced by our music than by mommy & daddy, both you and your offspring have much bigger problems than our lyrics. So before you go hauling us or any other artist into court, look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you did the best you could. Because if you're considering taking us to court, you didn't.

The above paragraph can easily apply to games too. Unfortunately, you do sometimes see bad parenting, or at least form an opinion about some parents. It's only natural for us to form opinions (even if they are misguided sometimes). I can't say I've ever really delved into the nature vs. nurture debate.

I think my parents did a great job in raising me, and I thank them greatly for it. I believe I am both mature and responsible. I certainly act immature sometimes; I like dirty humour and stereotypical humour, and my curiosity can border on the morbid side at times. However, I don't break stuff, don't steal stuff, or do anything to intentionally hurt myself, or other people for my benefit. And hey, I play video games and shoot dudes in the face. I'm far from a socially corrupt individual.

But maybe it goes the other way too. What I'm about to describe is second hand knowledge and I don't know the people involved, but it is a true account and illustrates my point. There was a teenager who was a hooligan. He was into theft, stayed out all night, vandalism, violence, etc. Apparently someone asked the parents how they could let their child get that way. Their response was that they had done everything they could, and friends of theirs backed them up as being good parents. Unfortunately since he had been given more freedom, he had turned to crime. So can you blame the parents in this case? By all accounts they really had tried to be good parents, leading by example. No parent can restrict their children from being exposed to the rest of the world forever.

It does seem there is a correlation between perceived bad parenting and youth crime. Of course correlation does not necessarily mean causation. If you see a misbehaving youth and the parents behaviour appears to fit what many would consider to be 'bad parenting', it is very easy to point to them as the factor that made their children that way. But what if the parents are model citizens? Then who is to blame? One could say society. I don't know.

I'm rambling a bit now; I didn't really have a point to make, just expressing some thoughts. So I will leave it there and let others discuss.

It's puzzle time! I've made some anagrams of some popular games for you to devise. If you don't know what an an anagram is, it is taking the letters of a word or phrase, and rearranging those exact same letters into another word or phrase. For example, Mood could be rearranged into Doom.

Here's a few clues and rules for my choices; if people are stumped, I might add some more clues.

3 Microsoft Exclusives EDIT : 2 of these exclusives are on the PC, but are exclusive to the Xbox 360 in the console market
2 Sony Exclusives
3 Nintendo Exclusives
1 PC Exclusive
Note that all of the above exclusives mean they have only been released on systems by those companies at this time (just covering my butt in case some are coming to another platform in future that I have not accounted for)
11 Franchises (Games that currently have at least one sequel already released). 9 are the original title, 2 have a specific non numbered subtitle
2 games based on movies, that do not have the same name as the movies on which they are based.
All of the games are relatively high profile games/franchises. They are all the English names. Any grammar present in the list below is not in the games name.

Here are some additional hints. Some games may be covered more than once in these clues.

The directors associated with the movie based games are John Woo and George Lucas.
There are two racing game franchises.
There is an RPG exclusive to the Xbox 360.
One action franchise released it 4th instalment last year, another action franchise has just released it's 4th instalment this year;
and yet another action franchise will release it's 4th instalment later this year.
This mascot has spines.
One game is being released this year with the same name it had over a decade ago, as well as a reimagining of the original.
One franchise usually releases titles in pairs; the listed title is one of such a pair.
One title was helmed by Ken Levine.
Chainsaws and shotguns and locusts made this game a hit.
Virus infection plagues this series.
One title takes it cues from Indiana Jones.
Two titles were built with co-op as a major feature from the ground up.
One franchise had 3 titles released on the NES, and another had 2.
A title released last year on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 took place in different times.
The PC exclusive is a MMORPG.

Feel free to respond with how many you could get, but I'd prefer it if people didn't post their answers so that others can attempt to figure them out without looking at others answers! So without further aduei, here are the 20 anagrams.

Very Dim Clay
A Bruise, Mrs Poor
Usurp a Bad Orient
Wafer or Gas
Alan Store a Net
Strum a Groin
He'd Fern Out a Sacred Trunk
A Dozen Leg Fled
I Caress Sadness
Attend a Frog Hut
Cede Hinge, Oh Ghost
Fly, Loud Cat
Forward Flat Crow
Acid Comb In Moon
I Do Mop A Monk Den
It Needs Liver
Sick Hobo
She'll Not Drag
Slow As Garter
My Raw Foot

Over the years technology improves, meaning developers can achieve more, like the leap from 2D to 3D, graphical achievements such as lighting and particle effects, and applying realistic physics. We've got things like the Euphoria engine powering realistic AI reactions in The Force Unleashed, where storm troopers will attempt to grab onto something if they are pushed around with the Force.

Due to many of the graphical achievements and improving AI (more complicated scripted responses may be a more accurate description for some games), some games strive for realism. The problem is, once a game reaches for realism, what does not reflect reality, or at least plausibility, stands out all the more. Hands up, who has played Super Mario Bros? Did you ever question why a plumber can break blocks with his head, why he was jumping on turtles, or why flowers made him shoot fireballs? No, because you weren't expecting anything approaching realism.

I was playing Assassin's Creed the other night, where the guards do react somewhat realistically to your presence. I was on a rooftop, and a guard was 2 rooves over. I was not hiding, was clearly in plain sight, but he could not see me. It wasn't until I crossed over another roof that he drew back his bow and told me to leave. Realistically he should have seen me and shouted at me before I approached if I was not supposed to be on the rooftops. On another occasion, I assassinated a guard, and then returned to the scene of the crime. Another guard was standing several metres away, while citizens approached the body and said their piece; surely the guard nearby should have been standing over his dead comrade until the wheelbarrow came to pick him up? These might not be game changing, but because the game strives for such realism in the guards' behaviour, it sticks out when they don't react the way we think people should.

As well as expecting a more realistic response from characters in games, our expectations for environment interaction is rising. We want to be able to shoot stuff full of holes. We want walls to crumble when our grenades explode next to them. If we shoot a car tyre, we want it to affect how it handles as opposed to taking 5% off the cars 'health meter'. If a vehicle explodes, we want debris to spread realistically. We want water to ripple when we throw stuff in it. If we see a fence, we want our character to be able to climb over it.

While some things stand out in the games that strive for some sense of realism, we can only take our expectations of realism so far before it gets silly. If you stood in front of a stationary guard in Assassin's Creed and sidestepped left and right for a minute, surely he'd be getting annoyed that you were mocking him? Certain responses are just too obscure to program for. If I get non-fatally shot in Call of Duty 4, why don't I leave the hot zone, go get medical help, and get discharged because I can no longer perform my duty? That level of realism obviously wouldn't be fun to play.

So how much do the little things matter to you? Which side of the fence do you sit? If part of your arm clips through a wall, do you put down the controller or do you keep blasting dudes? Do you cry foul if you can't shoot out tyres in a modern sandbox game? Does a part of you die when you realise that your characters hair is made up of a few polygons instead of individually rendered strands? Realism is all well and good to strive for. In the end, I just want to play good games, realistic or otherwise.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that many people have attempted telekinesis. Go on, don't be ashamed, you've tried to move things with your mind before, haven't you? Popular literature and film have taught us that telekinesis is pretty darn cool. The two main culprits are Star Wars (as portrayed with The Force) and various comic book characters. I haven't collected or read comics for about a decade; the only one I can remember offhand is Justice, who was in the New Warriors group and I think he had a different name before that (I wouldn't be surprised if you've never heard of them, I don't think they were a huge part of the Marvel stable). Then you've got stuff like Lord of the Rings; the battle where Sarumon binds Gandalf and has him spinning in the air comes to mind. Sure it's magic rather than telekinesis, but it's pretty much the same thing; the ability to manipulate your environment with your mind.

I tried it a couple times, just to see if I could. On the odd chance it is some latent ability residing in all of us, I guess I wasn't 'in the zone'. Have you ever looked at some of your fantasies, and tried to really ground them in reality? I don't mean believing they are possible, but imagining what it would be really like if they were? What would happen? So what would I do if I suddenly manifested telekinesis? The movies make out that it is really cool, but would it be?

First you would have to establish how it can be used. Is it an extension of your body? Or does it begin as a tiny dot somewhere in your field of vision and expand into the shape you desire? What are the limits? How much force can be applied? Does this 'field' have any other properties; is it affected by light, and thus appears, maybe as a shimmer, or maybe as some semi-transparent hue? Does the creation of this energy generate friction or heat? It's all speculative really. I'm going to go with an invisible field that extends from the body. If you could concentrate on a point and expand it, killing or destroying anything just becomes way too easy in my opinion.

The first thing I would try and do is not die. Really, this would have to be a pretty complex ability we are talking about here. When would it manifest itself? If this was something that you were born with, and the infantile mind is capable of using it (but in all likelihood not controlling it), I'd say your life expectancy is pretty small. If we believed in the 'expand from a central point' theory, you would probably inadvertently create a field somewhere inside your body and expand it, severely damaging some internal organs if not killing yourself almost instantly. Even with the 'extend' theory, without control it would be pretty dangerous.

So I would assume that this sort of ability would not manifest itself until puberty, or at some later stage of human development. But even then, you would still have to learn how it works. And let's face it, if you learned you had developed it (say by knocking a few things over and realising it was you), while you might see the potential, you would also be pretty scared by the lack of knowledge and understanding of how it all worked. One would assume it is much like using other muscles or developing skills; practice makes perfect.

Pat yourself on top of your head. Now imagine you leave your arms by your side, but you 'project' your telekinesis from your hand to pat yourself on top of your head (assuming you can; because this force is a part of you, maybe it would just absorb back into your body; who knows?). I'm going to guess that the use of energy in this case is going to be a lot more than physically patting yourself on your head. Let's take another example; imagine lifting a moderate weight above your head, enough that after a minute you are getting pretty tired and want to put it down. Now imagine projecting telekinesis to grab the same weight a couple of metres in front of you and raise it to the same height. Surely you would have to be using a lot of energy for that, if your body can even manage it. I don't know much about physics, but there would be a lot going on here.

Because ultimately, the energy expended is still going to be required to be drawn from your body. Much as your muscles can only lift a certain weight, I'm sure the further you project, the weaker those upper limits become. So if you want to be supercool and use your telekinesis, your food bill might go sky high. Assuming of course that telekinesis relies on the same energy that physical exertion requires. Maybe we would have to ingest something else. Maybe you discover you have this ability one day, and never see it again, because of some exotic food you ate that was heavy in a certain mineral or something.

Another scary thing to consider is whether this ability is prone to impulse reactions, and I would assume yes. Sometimes in certain situations, instinct takes over. What if you were suddenly scared, and you lashed out at someone with your telekinesis shaped as a sharp object? If I remember correctly, this is what happened to the character Justice; his father was abusive because he was a mutant, they got into a fight, and he lashed out and killed his father, and was convicted of murder. Some people move around when they dream; what if telekinesis manifested during these moments too? Maybe you would wake up to your bed ripped to shreds or you've 'punched' holes in the wall.

Obviously for movies and comics we suspend belief. Let's take a look at Spiderman. He lives in a major city of America, and is in the public eye. Sure, he has some superpowers. But do you really think an American Intelligence Agency couldn't locate and identify him? And do you really think they would be of the opinion "Oh, he's helping fight crime, let's leave him alone"? Hell no. They'd want to capture and study him. Why wouldn't they want to replicate these powers for super soldiers? And spider sense or not, they would have the resources to capture him.

You can bet the same would apply for anyone today if a government caught wind of someone who was actually using telekinesis. I'm sure any country with a modest intelligence agency would be able to track you down. Oh, your abilities might help a little, but I doubt they'd be any match for what they would throw at you. You would end up as either a guinea pig, or dead.

You know, now I think I'd be a little bummed if I found out I had telekinesis.

Race relations are the order of the day in Australia. Yesterday, the Australian government said sorry to the Aboriginal community for past grievances by previous governments, specifically in regard to the 'Stolen Generation'.

I'll admit freely to being largely ignorant of Australian history. However, a brief synopsis for those not familiar. The British began colonising Australia in 1788 AD, as they needed somewhere to send their convicts, due to overcrowding. Aborigines were already indigenous to Australia, and estimates predict they have been here for 40,000-50,000 years. Between 1869 and 1969, by government policy, Aboriginal children, usually of mixed descent, were taken from their families and put into foster homes and orphanages. These children are referred to as 'The Stolen Generation'.

My brief research for the above paragraph turned up something interesting. A wikipedia search of 'colonisation of Australia' redirects to 'History of Australia 1788-1850'. There is not a single mention of Aborigines or indigenous Australians in that article. The introduction of smallpox and other disease carried by the Britains killed off 50% of the indigenous population. Sure, wikipedia is not always a reliable source, but that seems significant enough to be included if you ask me...

But I'm getting a bit off track. My knowledge of Aborigines and their trials and tribulations since colonisation is minimal. I'm not here to give my opinion about whether apologising is right or wrong, as I don't particularly have one. Rather I had one of those moments where you question your own beliefs and actions. I've never thought I'm a racist. But am I right in that assessment? After all, I have only white friends. Is that evidence that on a subconscious level I may be racist?

First we have to establish what racism is. There are several dictionary definitions; I think the most appropriate in context of the topic is 'discriminatory or abusive behaviour towards members of another race'. I can rule out abusive behaviour. The definition of discriminate is 'to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, c1ass or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit'.

That's where things get tricky. Where is the line between respecting and appreciating the differences in race, and making assumptions or acting in response to racial stereotypes? Something that made me raise this question recently was during Christmas week. I'm not Christian, but my family celebrates Christmas in a typical commercial manner, and in our retail business, we usually wish people a Merry Christmas during that week. I served what appeared to be an Indian man, and I consciously decided not to wish him a Merry Christmas. I assumed there was a higher chance that he did not celebrate Christmas, or might even take offence if I mentioned it.

In that case, I did not want to offend him, which you could say is admirable, or good natured. So my distinction is that is not racist; I bore him no ill. But I'm also going to freely admit that a long time ago in the past I have been walking alone towards an oncoming group of Aborigines, and felt a little scared. I still bore them no ill, but stereotyping had created a sense of insecurity, a perception that there was an increased chance that they might inflict physical harm upon me than if the group had been white. Of course, nothing happened, I probably nodded and said hi as I walked by. Is that racism? I suspected there was an increased chance they would hurt me based on their race, and had an increased negative emotional reaction in response.

So where does racism begin? I bear no ill to anyone so long as they lead a moral life. While my current circle of friends is white, I'm certain I wouldn't deny inducting someone into that circle of friends because of their race. On the odd occasion I've caught myself thinking 'maybe I should try harder to have friends of different racial backgrounds'. If I have friends of other races, then I can't possibly be racist. But in that thought process, I'm singling out race as a reason to have them as friends. Is that racist?

It's all a bit complex really. I'm going to stick by me not being racist. Where is the line between respecting someone's racial differences and being prejudiced? I'm not sure. I think racial stereotypes (whether justified or not) are so ingrained in our cultures that until a new person we meet of that race deviates from it, it's our first point of reference. I just hope that moving forward I make a more conscious effort to judge people on their own merits.

What are your thoughts on the matter? Despite your best intentions, have you found yourself with thoughts that could be considered racist?

You go to the games shop. You see a game that you know just arrived today. The box art looks good. You pick it up, and read the blurb. The previews you have read about the game seemed promising. It seems like your type of game. You slap down some cash, and take that baby home.

You put the disc in your machine, grab the manual, and flick through it while the game loads. Once it gets to the start screen, you drop the manual, pick up the controller, and decide to just play through the tutorial. It eases you nicely into the controls; in fact you are surprised at how fluidly the game controls. The graphics are crisp, with a great artistic style. The accompanying music fits the tone of the game perfectly.

After playing for a few hours, you are suitably impressed with the pacing, enemy and level designs, and enemy AI. The gameplay mechanics are streamlined, and offers something that other games you've played in the genre don't seem to have.

You head over to a message board to post about your experience; perhaps other people have overlooked it, and you might convince them to give it a go. You lay down a few paragraphs about how much you have enjoyed the game so far. You head back to keep playing your new favourite game.

You check the message boards the next day, and you are a little shocked by a few responses to your message, such as;

"How can you possibly like this game? Your taste in games is horrible"
"Were we even playing the same game? Are you retarded?"
"Maybe you need glasses. I nearly clawed out of my eyes just looking at those graphics"

There are no games that will satisfy 100% of gamers. That's a given. What irks me about the above situation is not that someone else doesn't like the game you mentioned. What does irk me about the situation is that other people attack the player for liking the game.

My question to those people is; What do you gain from trying to turn someone away from a game that they are currently enjoying? Why can't you let them go on enjoying the game, even if it is something you don't personally like? If they are genuinely having fun, let them. By all means, respond to their fervour for the game with aspects you may not have liked, but there is no reason to imply they are not allowed to have fun, or that there is something wrong with them for doing so.

You can choose almost any game on Gamespot. If you check out the user reviews, there will be a range of scores. Unfortunately I can't find a link or identify the author of the line (I'm sure I read it on this site somewhere), but a quote I find rather relevant to the topic is "Every game is a system seller to someone". If they give the game a 9 out of 10 while Gamspot (or any review site, or any reviewer at all) gave it 6, let them have 9 out of 10 enjoyment.

Of course, the same applies to the reverse situation. There is no reason to insult someone because they don't like a game. Super Mario Galaxy was the best rated game of last year, and it was my personal favourite game of the year. Yet in some forums I've read, some people tried it and simply weren't interested or didn't like it. I don't think there is anything wrong with those people. They had their own personal game of the year, and garnered as much enjoyment from that title as I did Mario.

So my message in the end is; keep playing games you enjoy, and let others play the games they enjoy. That's the prime reason games exist; to be enjoyed.

Keep enjoying!

Video Gaming is a big business, as articles regularly tell us here at Gamespot; it's the biggest it has ever been and still appears to be growing. This also relates to a lot more marketing and promoting of those games. The standout game advertising campaign last year surely has to be Halo 3's, which cost somewhere to the tune of $10,000,000.

There are plenty of opportunities for downloadable content in games. While the occassional downloadable item is free, most cost a small fee. Conceptually I have no problem with this model. Developers have put extra work into the downloadable content, and deserve to be paid for it.

I see the potential for a melding of downloadable content and marketing. The concept is not new; the Halo Mjolnir mix download for the Xbox 360 version of Guitar Hero 3 is in fact the inspiration for this article. It was the perfect fit; it added gameplay to Guitar Hero 3, while providing a track promoting Halo 3's excellent music. A Master Chief character rocking out on the guitar might be asking a bit much, but it would have been icing on an already free cake.

By virtue of their design and gameplay elements, Guitar Hero and Rock Band offer an easy way to promote games with memorable music. However, I think there are certainly other viable options for cross promoting. Forza 2 and other car games are almost as accessible as the music games, as any game can be promoted via a car with a slick paint job.

Due to the gameplay and story elements in some games, throwing extra stuff in randomly isn't always going to work. Changing character models is probably the next easiest way to cross promote, as they generally don't change the gameplay. Sometimes it doesn't even have to make sense if it will turn out to be fun, or just downright funny. Imagine playing Crackdown with Sonic as the model when they go to promote the next Sonic game. Perhaps you would like to watch Master Chief dancing while you play Dance Dance Revolution.

In-house promotion is easy. Studios can promote their own upcoming games via downloadable content for their own existing games. They could also suggest promotion with other studios. Given the right synergy of products, this would be a win/win/win situation. The first studio gets to promote their upcoming game, the second studio has interest renewed in its already released game, and the gaming public wins because they get free content and new stuff to do. One would assume that costs involved would be payable by the company wanting to promote their upcoming product, accountable in their marketing budget.

Perhaps there could even be a way to limit the use of such content. For example, say there is a new Ratchet & Clank game coming out, and they decide to make some models to be used in Warhawk. However, they only allow those models to start being used online from 1 month prior to the new Ratchet & Clank game, and end it 1 month after its release. Anyone who wants to use those models is going to have to do so during that time frame, thus presumably generating more exposure at the time that it matters most.

I don't expect this will become a huge part of marketing games. Perhaps it will remain in the realm of the music games and 'proper' crossover games that are built from the ground up (Mario & Sonic at the Olympics, Super Smash Bros, Soul Caliber). There are certainly challenges to overcome in making such content reality, particularly licensing issues. Even if it did take off, I would not want to be saturated with this kind of content, or its impact may become diluted. However, I think the option is there for imaginative people willing to give it a try. It would certainly beat gamer pics and dashboard themes.

What is Weird Words? Read the foreword here.

Obfuscate
verb
1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear.
3. to darken.

I chose obfuscate because I have seen it used on the Gamespot website, including in a recent review, but was never quite sure of its meaning. You could say the reviewer obfuscated me by using the word obfuscate. The third meaning, to darken, is used in a visualcontext to indicate that objects are becoming unclear, and hard to discern. Some examples;

"Don't obfuscate the matter with meaningless details."
"The rain obfuscated the road ahead."
"Sir, you are the most obfuscating person I've ever met" Useful against those that always want to make everything complicated.

Enjoy your vocabulary!

What is Weird Words? Read the foreword here.

Pernicious
adjective
1. causing insidious harm or ruin; ruinous; injurious; hurtful
2. deadly; fatal.
3. Obsolete evil; wicked.

The sound of the word pernicious (at least to me) sounds pleasant, a striking contrast to its definition. Something pernicious is intended to harm, or perhaps be fatal. A pernicious virus is one that will cause considerable damage to the carrier, if not killing them. Defamatory remarks could also be considered pernicious if their intent is to undermine the credibility of another person, and ruin their reputation or otherwise be hurtful.

A good way to remember pernicious as part of your vocabulary is to mentally link it to viscious. They have meanings that may come up in similar subjects, and both sound the same; they wouldn't seem out of place in a rap. I would attempt one, but the effects could be pernicious against you. Some examples;

"Please stop these pernicious lies at once!"
"These pernicious weeds are killing the plants in my garden."
(Matter of factly in an online shooter when someone throws a grenade into a room full of you and your teammates) "Well that was pernicious"

Enjoy your vocabulary!