posted
His point is actually really bad, in that case, because eugenics was never that popular with scientists, only with politicians and the general public. Who, oddly enough, are precisely the same ones not accepting global warming these days. Curious, that. Do you think it might have anything to do with who has access to and understanding of the evidence, and who doesn't?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
or perhaps a combination of cynicism with irresponsibility. (I say this in the general sense, I by no means imply that anyone here falls in that category, except perhaps myself )
Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I'm very sympathetic about the people who didnt win, how the world reacts to global climate change is likely to determine how many hundreds of millions of people are violently killed over the next 100 years. A lot of people did some really noble things over the last year, but the greatest threat to world peace we face this century is climate.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like the genocide in Darfur? (Asking in responce to Paul's post, but others are welcome to answer)
My bad, Gore's Emmy was for his recreation of youtube. WHoops.
Haven't checked the Lombarg links yet (I'm about to go to bed), but thanks for providing them. I'll check them tomorrow (Or the day after... Monday's are bad for me.)
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh cool...the guy who invented the Internet won the Nobel prize for being the most famous Chicken Little in all history. Cool.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am baffled. Do you guys really think that Al Gore is a nuisance? Do you think he's detrimental to society? Do you think he hasn't done great things in his lifetime?
He isn't trying to undermine our political system, he isn't trying to scare us into a panic, he isn't trying to boost his ego by becoming a public figure through lies and skewed science.
He is trying to inform us of what he, and many others, believe to be one of the most pressing crises of this generation. He's educating, doing sound science, and expressing the opinion of a lot of people who have devoted their lives to understanding the climate, and how we 6.7 billion people can change our planet.
quote:Oh cool...the guy who invented the Internet won the Nobel prize for being the most famous Chicken Little in all history. Cool.
Where does this cynicism come from? Do you read the studies? Do you try to understand for yourself the issues at hand? Or do you listen to pundits and others who misrepresent for political or personal reasons?
posted
Boris, would you like me to go into a tiresome screed about how the whole "invented the Internet" meme does Gore a gross disservice, or are you responsible enough to do the research yourself?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gore never claimed to have "invented" the Internet. What he said was: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Creating…. Inventing…. Dang Tom you got him there….. So edit all quotes to Al Gore claims to have created the Internet. Sounds more spiritual that way anyhow! Also, can we change the chants to: Save the solar system now!!! Stop the sun from warming!!!!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man jay could have at least offered the illusion of having read my article fully but I guess not.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your article gave lame excuses about why global warming on Mars doesn’t matter. So I went with it anyway and said fine we can switch from just Mars to the whole dang solar system. But hey, I do agree that the facts here don’t matter. This issue is more about an ideology and control.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Furthermore, to claim that Gore's film states "what some what some people believed at that point in time" is a gross misrepresentation of both the film and the science.
It is? So when the film stated that sea levels would rise 7 meters how could it now be changed to only 40 centimeters? So did what people believe at the point in time the film was made now differ from what the consensus of scientists say today?
quote: Second, alright, I'm reading now about what the 11 supposed inaccuracies are, and from what I can tell, most of these claims are false. Frankly if the court agreed with all of these, I don't think they made a good call. I spend at least an hour every day reading global warming material, the Green news of the day if you will, and I see these same issues popping up constantly.
Why would the Green news of the day change anything except the gloom and doom of our dire future? Isn't that how they get people to buy their newsletters and products? Isn't that how they drive traffic to their websites? It's the same way the local news works too. Your children could die from this common household item. Tune in at 11 to find out how! I'm also a little perplexed at why questioning global warming is such a bad thing? I'm questioning the science when we hear dire things, such as ferocious hurricanes will be much more common, and they are not happening. I am NOT saying we shouldn't be doing things to decrease our dependence on oil, or do the simple things like switching to CFLs (although the mercury does bother me a bit). I'm glad things are being done to lower our overall energy use but I am not a fan of the "Tune in or die" tatic that is used with the enviornment. It would be very interesting for someone to do a study on predictions made vs what actually happened. I think that we, and Europe for that matter, should be helping countries like China (who will soon be the biggest CO2 emitter) install new cleaner technologies as they develop. I think we are doing a lot to reduce our pollution and we should also be helping countries who are using 'old' technologies in starting with new cleaner things.
(edited to clear up my last sentence)
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pagasus: You're closer to what I was trying to say.
Samp: Calling my opinions, "base" and, "pejorative" seems pretty ridiculous when the crux of your argument is in effect, "Eugenics wasn't supported by scientists! It was a sociological experiment drummed up by Christians!"
Um....nuh uh!
KOM: Eugenics was created by philosophers, and fleshed out by scientists. What evidence have you got that the vast scientific community did not support eugenics? I doubt eugenics was universally supported, but it was not the domain of politicians and the general populace. It was frequently referenced in scientific journals and papers, as well as taught in science textbooks. It was after WW2 that all references to eugenic support was discreetly erased. "Eugenics Quarterly" became, "Social Biology."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Creating…. Inventing…. Dang Tom you got him there….. So edit all quotes to Al Gore claims to have created the Internet. Sounds more spiritual that way anyhow!
Well, it takes a claim that's blatantly false -- as Gore did not invent the Internet -- and makes it arguably true, since Gore did take the initiative to create what is now considered the public Internet. It's worth noting that he was one of many, of course, but he was certainly one of its biggest cheerleaders and I don't think it's unfair of him to want some of the credit for its success. Given that the correct reproduction of the quote transforms it from an obvious lie to a fundamental truth, I think there IS a significant distinction in the wording that should be maintained if any attempt at fairness or accuracy is to be made.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I'm glad things are being done to lower our overall energy use but I am not a fan of the "Tune in or die" tatic that is used with the enviornment.
You get this vibe from the nightly / daily news, which embrace that "Tune in or die" tactic as if it's all they got. But you look elsewhere like some newspapers, some periodicals, and a few news channels that look at a topic for more than the time between commercials, you'll see some sound, rational discussions of environmental problems. As with everything, there is a range of extremes, and you can find "Tune in or die" if that's what you look for, but you can also find high quality reporting, analysis, and discussion.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: It would be very interesting for someone to do a study on predictions made vs what actually happened.
Although that would be a great chunk of knowledge to have, it is out of the realm of feasibility. One of the major points I'm trying to make is that we have to act with uncertainty. Uncertainty as in not knowing what our influence on our planet in 10, 20, 50, 100 years will be. And since there is no way to say without a doubt what the effects will be, we need to move on, use what we've got, and act. And again, don't go for the extremes: don't halt industry worldwide and try and save every fish and bird and tree, but also don't continue Business As Usual. Neither of these are rational, there is always a balance, but balance doesn't make nightly news.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was part of a long list of things that separated him from Bill Bradley. The question was not "who created the internet", but to give a list of important things Gore has done.
Gore's championing of funding for the internet is well-documented. It is accurate to say that without him, the modern internet might not exist at anything like its current scale with a decent probability. For one thing, he was an important co-sponsor of the bill that allowed commercial sites on the internet, a rather central part of making the internet huge.
Vint Cerf, who is inarguably one of the people who invented the internet in a literal, technological sense, thinks that Gore's contributions were large enough for him to be considered one of the creators of the internet, and has repeatedly defended Gore's statement as accurate.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought An Inconvenient Truth was a very sensible movie. I don't know if it's caused me to do anything different, though, because I don't know if I can do anything different.
That said, I hope this Peace Prize is a high enough honor for Gore that he'll stop being angry about having the election "stolen" from him.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Samp: Calling my opinions, "base" and, "pejorative" seems pretty ridiculous when the crux of your argument is in effect, "Eugenics wasn't supported by scientists! It was a sociological experiment drummed up by Christians!"
But the crux of my argument isn't that at all and if you think so, you're nuts or you're not actually reading my posts!
I am going to say it another time: What I am doing is pointing out the uselessness of trying to say that a a religiously driven 1930's social engineering project is a 'good parallel' to a modern-day meteorological science.
Now, you can read this statement over and over again. You can part it carefully with a fine-toothed literary comb. You can check every word in a dictionary. Then you can come back to me and admit that in no way whatsoever -- not here or in any of my other statements in this thread -- am I saying "Eugenics wasn't supported by scientists!" It is practically nonsequitorial to any of my actual counterarguments to your comparison.
I think in all fairness it would be easy for you to check, maybe even double check this, and be able to admit that perhaps you've spontaneously created a position which is not mine and that perhaps, perhaps it's not actually what I said.
posted
Anyone else seeing a Google ad for "Hard-hitting commentary and breaking news from Michelle Malkin, America's most influential conservative blogger?"
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp: You calling eugenics a religiously driven 1930's social engineering project is part of the problem. I'm sure there were religious arguments crafted to endorse eugenics but to single our religion is to give science a pardon. Eugenics was defended by science and its harsh measures often looked to science for legitimacy.
And exactly WHY is eugenics NOT a good comparison (or to use your words, "a useless comparison") to modern day meterology? It's not as if I called them the exact same thing. I merely pointed out that they are similar in that they both had congruent presentations to the general public. A few scientists writing radical papers on the topic, the media jumps on it, government heads spout off warnings, great thinkers champion the cause, big name scientific institutes back and promote it.
Bad genes can and are passed on, that is absolutely true. The planets climatology is changing, that is also completely true. But what we should do about it is what concerns me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I'm curious. How much do you know about the current state of climatology and global climate change? Where do you get your information from?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, I'm curious. How much do you know about the current state of climatology and global climate change? Where do you get your information from?
A few years ago I read State of Fear by Crichton which piqued my interest. This semester I am taking Environmental History of the US and much of our work dabbles in climatology. I was also required to reread Crichton's State of Fear for a Politics and Law class. I am currently going through his extensive footnotes/bibliography.
I'm writing a research paper on ecological developments and management of Yellowstone National Park.
Global climate change is admitably a relatively new serious interest of mine. I used to believe completely in global warming and all the horrific stuff it is supposedly going to cause, as in high school it was taught in my biology/environmental science classes.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Eugenics was defended by science and its harsh measures often looked to science for legitimacy.
EVERYONE with a "sciency" idea looks to science for legitimacy. That's hardly an indictment of science.
Eugenics was primarily an ideological issue. Long before we knew anything about genes, we understood the concept of selective breeding. The only thing science contributed was an explanation for why selective breeding works.
Just as there are scientists of every political stripe today, there were surely scientists who approved of applied eugenics and scientists who disapproved.
Science itself is descriptive. It simply explains the universe. Any advocacy of particular actions is *not* science.
"Saturated fats increase cholesterol" - Science "If you avoid saturated fats, your cholesterol level is more likely to remain low." - Science "Avoid saturated fats" - Not science
"We can eliminate undesirable traits through selective breeding" - Science "If we prevent carriers of genetic defects from breeding, the incidence of those defects will decrease." - Science "We should encourage humans to follow a selective breeding program" - Not science
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP: That is a good summation of the leap from science to non science. But I doubt scientists absolutely refuse to write out proper applications of the truths ther are describing.
I've little confidence that when eugenics was in it's heyday that scientists were screaming at people to stop trying to apply the science and to just simply know it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've little confidence that when eugenics was in it's heyday that scientists were screaming at people to stop trying to apply the science and to just simply know it.
I know there were scientists and religionists on both sides. I have seen no data suggesting that either group widely encouraged the practice. But, to the extent that anyone did encourage it, they were not acting as a scientist.
The theologians, philosophers, and preachers, however, did not step outside their roles to advocate eugenics. They performed their recognized task of prescribing morality, it was just a morality that we currently find repugnant.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fact, eugenics is pretty much as old as human society, and pervasive throughout its history. Most cultures of course have prohibitions against incest, and several US States still ban marriage even between third-degree relatives (first cousins). The Talmud explicitly endorses negative eugenics when it forbids marriage for individuals coming from families with perceived hereditary defects (e.g. lepers and epileptics), and positive eugenics by encouraging marriages with members of scholarly families (a bit self-serving from the highly educated Talmudic authors, for sure!). Greeks (not just the notorious Spartans, see also Plato and Aristotle) and Romans routinely and swiftly got rid of their “undesirables”, as many other cultures did (and still do) less officially and openly. More close to home, the decrease in the incidence of certain genetic diseases in high-risk populations (e.g. thalassemia in Sardinia and Cyprus, Tay-Sachs disease among Ashkenazi Jews) through voluntary screening and genetic counseling has been one of the most significant success stories of medical genetics, and enjoys wide public support and participation in the affected communities.
Even more problematic for the claim that “Darwinism” was critical and instrumental in the development of eugenics is the uncomfortable fact that eugenics was also openly embraced by opponents of evolution (the first eugenics sterilization laws in the world were passed in 1907 Indiana, hardly a hotbed of “Darwinists”). The most notable of these anti-evolution eugenics supporters was probably William J. Tinkle, geneticist and prominent Creationist. Tinkle taught at religious LaVerne College and Taylor University, and participated in the activities of the Deluge Society, the first “Creation Science” organization. He then joined forces with the “young lions” of Creationism, Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts, and with them he was one of the 10 Founding Fathers of the Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research.
Tinkle opposed evolution and Darwinian theory, but was an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics, and published several articles on the subject. In his 1939 textbook “Fundamentals of Zoology” he devotes a section to “The Need of Human Betterment”, where he laments the existence of “defective families” who “give birth to offspring like themselves” , producing “persons of low mentality, paupers and criminals in much greater ratio than the general population” [8, p. 130]. Negative eugenics via institutionalization seems to have been his preferred eugenic solution.
quote:Why would the Green news of the day change anything except the gloom and doom of our dire future? Isn't that how they get people to buy their newsletters and products? Isn't that how they drive traffic to their websites? It's the same way the local news works too. Your children could die from this common household item. Tune in at 11 to find out how! I'm also a little perplexed at why questioning global warming is such a bad thing? I'm questioning the science when we hear dire things, such as ferocious hurricanes will be much more common, and they are not happening. I am NOT saying we shouldn't be doing things to decrease our dependence on oil, or do the simple things like switching to CFLs (although the mercury does bother me a bit). I'm glad things are being done to lower our overall energy use but I am not a fan of the "Tune in or die" tatic that is used with the enviornment. It would be very interesting for someone to do a study on predictions made vs what actually happened. I think that we, and Europe for that matter, should be helping countries like China (who will soon be the biggest CO2 emitter) install new cleaner technologies as they develop. I think we are doing a lot to reduce our pollution and we should also be helping countries who are using 'old' technologies in starting with new cleaner things.
1. It's not all doom and gloom. If you kept up on the relevent current events, you'd know we're making huge strides in fixing the ozone layer, and that efforts are being made across the board to reduce CO2 emissions, and huge technological advances are being made in clean up tech, green energy tech, recycling tech, and advanced materials tech. There's a lot of great good news out there, but you can't be lazy about it, you have to find it. If all you're going to believe is the six o'clock news, then how can you blame scientists that you're too lazy to find out the truth from anyone but Brian Williams?
There's a lot of bad news out there though, and burying your head in the sand and saying "it's too much, so much that I suspect it can't possibly all be true...therefore none of it is true!" isn't going to solve anything. We have serious environmental issues that have nothing to do with global warming, and some that do. What I read every day isn't editorials or blogs, I read stories about environmental reports (good and bad), technology advances and announcements, and other relevent news. I don't know what you mean by buying anything. Unless you're somehow talking about energy efficiency as a scam, in which case you've left me baffled.
2. If you think "Tune in or die" is all there is out there, again, you aren't looking hard enough. You aren't paying attention except for a cursory glance at the topic. First of all, READ, don't view. Watching a news report on TV goes right to the part of your brain that registers an emotional response. Reading goes to the logical part of your brain that will tell you that though there is a serious threat looming in the distance, we're perfectly capable of handling it if we take swift action.
3. China is already the world's biggest producer of CO2, they overtook us earlier this year. And the DOE, in concert with other agencies, is already working on collaborating with the Chinese to reduce their energy use. But China is a mishmash of problems and solutions. They are pursuing geothermal and other renewables at an impressive pace (faster than we are in some areas), but they pollute at a prodigious rate as well. A lot of that they have to fix themselves, though more aggressive political leaning from the US and Europe could certainly help.
4. As an aside, I find it astounding that Republicans by and large are almost casually willing to spend a half trillion dollars in Iraq, for years with almost zero oversight as to what that money is being spent on, and how effectively the war is being fought, but when it comes to a few million here and a few million there for cleaner air and lower power bills, they balk and cry foul about treehuggers. It's utterly astounding to me. In that same vein, it's almost amusing that so many will "drink the koolaid" so to speak at a Pres. Bush press conference, but when a scientist publishes peer reviewed data, they balk and cry foul, as clearly he must be lying or grandstanding.
Where are your heads at?
You can question global warming all you want, there's nothing wrong with making sure we're all exact in our data, but don't get in the way of efforts to Green our country. Renewable energy is good for our health and our wallets. Reducing emissions is good for our health and our wallets. Living more sustainably is good for our health and our wallets. Those are the things we need to be doing now, and as a bonus, they just might stop global warming.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or, really, any of Crichton's other novels for whatever class would seem to fit. Heck, after I read "Jurassic Park" for Genetics 101, I really understood how we were able to bring dinosaurs back from extinction using fossilized mosquitoes. And then when I read it again for Cautionary Tales About the Dangers of New Technology, I abandoned my plans to work in biomedicine because, as Crichton so aptly demonstrated, Man should not dare play God!Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was also required to reread Crichton's State of Fear for a Politics and Law class.
*blink* That's like assigning Gone With the Wind to an American History class.
Your opinion is duly noted. Have you actually read the book Tom?
To be frank I think that's a pretty exaggerated statement.
Mr S: I forgot to ask, but in retrospect I imagine you can recollect why I might be hesitant to question what background you have on global climate change. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your opinion is duly noted. Have you actually read the book Tom?
I've read slightly more of it than I have Gone With the Wind -- which is to say, I made it halfway and skimmed the rest.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your opinion is duly noted. Have you actually read the book Tom?
I've read slightly more of it than I have Gone With the Wind -- which is to say, I made it halfway and skimmed the rest.
That's unfortunate. But at least you have read more SOF then I have GWTW, but frankly dude I don't give a damn.
I think the bibliography and lists of papers he read before writing the book are certainly worth looking into as many of them ARE proponents of global climate change. Alot of them do explain how localized cooling do not disprove global climate warming, it's not just a list of "people who agree with me."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Its hard to imagine crichton read much science before writing that book. really.
Well then you ought to extend the limits of your imagination, he clearly did. Or else he looked up a bunch of papers that he ought to have read but didn't and then pretended to have read it all. I find that less plausible.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Or else he looked up a bunch of papers that he ought to have read but didn't and then pretended to have read it all. I find that less plausible."
Judging by the contents of the book vs the contents of the papers, I find it much MORE plausible then that he read the papers.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Samp: You calling eugenics a religiously driven 1930's social engineering project is part of the problem. I'm sure there were religious arguments crafted to endorse eugenics but to single our religion is to give science a pardon. Eugenics was defended by science and its harsh measures often looked to science for legitimacy.
Then it's probably a good thing that I didn't single a religion [out], mm?
quote:And exactly WHY is eugenics NOT a good comparison (or to use your words, "a useless comparison") to modern day meterology?
Almost exactly the same thing that makes the Global Cooling scare patently a terrible comparison: one is an international scientific consensus reached through exhausting and exacting science, and one was a controversial and overhyped science which was more based in unscientific dogma and ideological social application.
As a bonus it's also uselessly pejorative. It's like saying "Hitler would have liked global warming theory, you know?"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And exactly WHY is eugenics NOT a good comparison (or to use your words, "a useless comparison") to modern day meterology? It's not as if I called them the exact same thing. I merely pointed out that they are similar in that they both had congruent presentations to the general public. A few scientists writing radical papers on the topic, the media jumps on it, government heads spout off warnings, great thinkers champion the cause, big name scientific institutes back and promote it.
Its not a good comparison because "A few scientists writing radical papers on the topic, the media jumps on it, government heads spout off warnings, great thinkers champion the cause, big name scientific institutes back and promote it." is not an accurate discription of Climate Change science. The greenhouse effect and its effect on climate have been known and studied for over a century. The recent IPCC report summarizes the work done by not a few scientist who published radical papers on the topic but by literally thousands of scientists who have published thousands of papers on the subject over the past half century. The conclusions made in the report are based on numerous studies that looked at the problem from many different angles. It includes all sorts of models, exhaustive measurements, ice core data, soil data, satellite data, tree ring data, ground temperature data, historic records and every other type of measurement anyone has imagined taking and they all say the same thing.
I given you directions to resources where you could learn the facts about climate change a dozen times. Have you even looked at any of those resources? If not, then you count as one of the many who won't bother to do the research because you simply don't want to know the truth on this subject.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to give people any crap because they had "State of Fear" pushed on them as a representative 'counterpoint' to anthropogenic global warming, but it's worth pointing out that the book didn't get very credibly far involving its upfront challenges to scientific positions.
It's .. er, 'credibility' was definitely not helped by its repeated hawking by Jim Inhofe and an award by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Heh. But seriously it had a boatload of dud science and misleading information.
I don't think that MC was being deceptive in his work and probably believes very strongly in his contrarian viewpoint against the idea of man-made global warming. But when the book was studiously reviewed it had just turned out that he'd chosen the wrong side based on limited scientific perception.
The absolute *best* counterpoint was from Pew and is worth reading:
quote:Crichton’s frank discussion of his subjective views regarding the issue of climate change provide important context for the novel itself. It’s clear that his personal opinions have shaped his portrayal of the environmental community as well as the science of climate change. That he opts out of leveling any of his criticism toward those who politicize science for the sake of dismissing climate change as a non-issue is disappointing. The one-sidedness of his novel and personal comments have actually contributed to further politicization of climate change science, enhancing a phenomenon that Crichton himself argues is ultimately dangerous. As a novelist, this is his prerogative, but the end result is a work of fiction that does little to educate while it seeks to entertain.
posted
Its a particularly sad state of affairs when people have more confidence in a what a Science fiction novel has to say about Global Warming than they do in the work of thousands of scholars and scientists.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'll check them tomorrow (Or the day after... Monday's are bad for me.)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
