I am not religios, however I realize that the guidlines, rules, and structure that our nation is founded upon are very important.
These rules are being ignored as people are becoming more self-absorbed. Familly is taking a back seat to self. As people relize that there more than likely is no God to hold them acountable for there actions, they act as if no one is. Instead of Holding themselves acountable, exersizing self controll, they just let there inhibitions go wild.
Now, this doesn't sound all bad on the surface, people stop being bound by represive rules, they can be innocent, care free, wanton. They don't have a shadow of an eternall hell wieghing over them. However, There is a reason for the rules that religion enforces. It is what seperates us from animals. Careless, impulsive acts of instant gratifcation have devastating consaquences.
Children being born out of wedlock, S.T.D's, drug adiction, and abortions are just some of the hideous ramifications that simple irrisponsibility has wrought on my generation.
We need the order religion sustaines in our society, However we need another way of convincing people to believe it. I just don't want anyone to start replacing what works with what sounds good (can't remember who said that, but it makes a whole lot of sense). I just don't want people lied to, and I don't wan't people to behave like wild animals.
Anyway, I won't make ya stumble through this horrible, public edjucation produced, spelling and wrighting anymore .
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Any particular preference in religions?
Sorry, better judgement kicking in.
-Trevor
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
Come on man.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Children being born out of wedlock, S.T.D's, drug adiction, and abortions are just some of the hideous ramifications that simple irresponsibility has wrought on my generation.
Sadly, humans have been irresponsible for thousands of years, whether they were religious or not. It is not just a feature of this godless generation.
[ December 04, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
No, it's a completely valid question.
Christian?
Catholic
Baptist
Protestant
Methodist
LDS (I assume they get grouped here)
Etc.
Islam? Buddihsm? Shintoism?
If you think we need to have a return to our religious roots, please help specify which religious roots you mean.
[ December 04, 2004, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You mean a "let's agree to disagree" approach?
"Well, I think you're wrong and will burn in Hell for being a pagan or a heretic, but I respect your right to turn your face from our Heavenly Father's divine will and cast yourself into the flames of Oblivion and Damnation" sort of approach?
Which sounds a tad snarky, but Eternal Punishment is a fundamental theme for a fair number of religions and one of the quickest ways to Eternal Punishment is to not worship in the particular faith's mandated methods.
If mankind could just learn to "agree to disagree" and not bring a bag of charcoal briquettes to the discussion, life would be a lot simpler all the way around.
-Trevor
Edit: And let's not even wander into the "well, I'm torturing and mutilating your flesh, but I'm saving your soul from Eternal Damnation so I'm really doing you a favor. What? No, no need to thank me - just try not to bleed on my new shoes. Leather doesn't handle stains very well, after all."
[ December 04, 2004, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Children being born out of wedlock, S.T.D's, drug adiction, and abortions are just some of the hideous ramifications that simple irresponsibility has wrought on my generation.
The problem isn't religion, the problem is faith. If you took faith in Jesus Christ as your savior out of Christianity, you keep all of the responsibility, everything will be alright.
In my esteem, faith is inessential to civic moral life, and when it's introduced as a requirement, it waters everything else down. I think that more people feel the tug of responsibility than have faith.
Religion is about responsibility, by definition. Christianity is about Faith, and the government can and ought try to get people to undestand religion, that's what MADD, DARE, and all of the other PSAs are about. That's religion, it's just not Faith-based.
_______
quote:If you think we need to have a return to our religious roots, please help specify which religious roots you mean.
It's not about returning to a single organized religion, it's about understanding religion-- divorced from faith-- then letting people add or discover anything their heart calls for, including faith.
It's the pre-faith groundwork that needs to be explored and remembered. Religious freedom does not mean ignorance as to what religion is.
The only people who don't understand responsibility are sociopaths, and anyone who understands responsibility understands religion because they are the same thing.
Faith and religion sometimes go together, but I think that we have forgotten that they are essentially different.
[ December 04, 2004, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I'll bite - how does religion inherently include responsibility, by definition?
Unless you mean a devotion or committment to
quote: 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
None of which implies the religious practices are particularly family-oriented or civic-minded.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ok, could you provide your definition of religion for purposes of this thread?
-Trevor
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Ok, could you provide your definition of religion for purposes of this thread?
This is the problem discourse. It's not my definition. It's not your definition. It's what the word says. Not what Webster says the word says, but what word says.
Re: again, or concerning
Ligere: bind or tie. The word still exists as ligament.
Religion is remembering the binds which tie us. And when you negate this bond, you are negligent.
Responsibility:
Re: again, concerning sponere: pledge, call
To attend the call or pledge. That's why priests and missionaries are said to answer the call.
We are throwing these words around, and placing significance on them as if we get to make up what sense they make.
Faith is not tied to religion or responsibility. That we have divorced religion from its sense and wedded to faith is one of the roots to a bigger political problem. Religion is not a thing that's subject to organized faith.
For example, understanding what it is to be a mother is understand the binds which tie you to your child and answering the appropiate call regarding those binds. It's a nice coincidence that the Christian faith also calls attention to a mother's responsibility, but that responsibility does not depend on Faith. A mother's responsibility is clear upon understanding those unseen bonds which and answering the calls which go along with being a mother, regardless of faith.
[ December 04, 2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
A word's etymological history does not have any bearing on the word's current definition and its immediate usage.
quote: Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back
However, I am reminded why I should never try to post in these threads.
-Trevor
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:A word's etymological history does not have any bearing on the word's current definition and its immediate usage.
I don't know how you get to say that. We are not talking about usage, we are talking about what a thing is. I could use a Stradivarius as a crow bar, and that's fine, but if I keep using it as a crow bar without looking and thinking on it, well then, it's perfectly possible that I will forget what it is. When what is at stake is Stradivarius, it's a small issue, but we are talking about ignoring religion, and I don't think we should be so casual about it.
[ December 04, 2004, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Religion is a tangible thing? Something we can easily quantify and describe and clarify in no uncertain terms?
Words are fluid and dynamic, much like language which is, of course, the point. The history behind a word has little or no bearing on the meaning of the word which can change from generation to generation.
Whereas a crowbar is still a long bit of metal usually used for physical labor and occasionally settling arguments while a violin is wooden, expensive and puts people to sleep.
You will note that while the first definition listed is technically a correct one, I'm going to guess that not everyone reading this post either knew that or realized it.
And that's a lot closer to being technically correct than trying to define a word by using the etymology behind it.
-Trevor
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:And that's a lot closer to being technically correct than trying to define a word by using the etymology behind it.
When did technically correct deemed by a dictionary become the truth of what a word says? Can I blame Clinton for this?
quote:Religion is a tangible thing? Something we can easily quantify and describe and clarify in no uncertain terms?
It's a thing. But what does being tangible have to do with being a thing? Hatrack is a thing. I can't hold it.
The bonds between family are not tangible, and we shouldn't expect them to be, they don't give themselves to the five senses, but really, very little that is important does.
Words maybe be fluid, but the things they refer to aren't, and if you pretend that they are, you are making a claim that they are empty of content. If people start calling me a fifteen year-old girl, it's possible, but I think we lost something. It may be harmless, but when people start expecting me to have periods-- because fifteen year old girls have periods-- then we are just confused.
That's kind of like what happened with religion. The word was sloppily merged with something that doesn't belong to it, Faith, and this gives rise to all sorts of queer expectations.
It happens with brand names and acronyms all of the time, and some people think it's happening with marriage.
[ December 04, 2004, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I so thought this thread was going to be a serious discussion of our relatonship, followed by a kind, gentle let-down that would still leave me crushed, crying, and broken. After consuming all the ice cream in the house straight out of the carton, I would stare longingly at pictures of you until my friends came and dragged me out and plyed me with alcohol to help me forget you.
Oh well. I don't think I have any ice cream, anyway.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But it has been established that you have alcohol. So let's skip steps one and two, and combine steps three and five.
Party at ElJay's!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I want to be ElJay's friend.
I'll bring the chocolate ice cream and the copy of U2's "With or Without You".
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sadly, String's observation of current society is being proved by the terrible, I say terrible, behavior of these jatraqueras..or should I sad tartraqueras?
*purses lips* *puts hands on hips* *turns stern, disproving look on frivolous young people indulging in sinful alcohol and ice cream*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*contrite* Clearly, Katie and I need to get some religion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*contrite* But Stormy, I'm religious about ice cream.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Well, it looks like I missed the party at my house. I am very, very sad about this. But Storm...
quote: Children being born out of wedlock, S.T.D's, drug adiction, and abortions are just some of the hideous ramifications that simple irrisponsibility has wrought on my generation.
Tell me which of these hideous ramifications are gonna be brought about by ice cream and booze? If you can't, you're welcome to come over, too... katie's bringing chocolate ice cream, and I have all the ingredients for a batch of white-chocolate frozen custard. I can probably have it in the ice-cream maker by the time anyone gets here...
(And kat, you're already my friend. )
:turns up the music:
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*takes a large bowl of chocolate ice cream and makes a mega milkshake*
But, haven't a lot of these things been a result of a too strict social morality?
I think we need a new religion, the old ones are too corrupt...
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Irami:
quote:If people start calling me a fifteen year-old girl, it's possible, but I think we lost something.
Did we lose something when we stopped using 'girl' to refer to a child of either sex?
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Before I respond, I want to make certain I know what you're saying. Are you saying that lack of religion is why we have these problems in society? Surely you realize that there are plenty of people who don't tie their morals to religion...
space opera
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote: I so thought this thread was going to be a serious discussion of our relatonship, followed by a kind, gentle let-down that would still leave me crushed, crying, and broken. After consuming all the ice cream in the house straight out of the carton, I would stare longingly at pictures of you until my friends came and dragged me out and plyed me with alcohol to help me forget you.
quote: No, it's a completely valid question.
Christian?
Catholic Baptist Protestant Methodist LDS (I assume they get grouped here) Etc. Islam? Buddihsm? Shintoism?
If you think we need to have a return to our religious roots, please help specify which religious roots you mean.
The particular Religion does not matter. They all make up a story to justify telling people how to live. No current religious text is without moral as well as factual flaw, but if we all respect the goal of religion, than we can weed out the good from the bad, and learn from some of thier mistakes. Aside from some major social injustices, we would all be better off if we returned to a value system like the one we had in the fiffties. Like not getting divorced after every major fight, or by actually marrying the person we have a child with. Those are just some examples, amd of course are not without exception.
quote: Sadly, humans have been irresponsible for thousands of years, whether they were religious or not. It is not just a feature of this godless generation.
Not true, Divorce rate, The number of S.T.D.'s in cases and variations are at an all time high. Abortion has never, at any other time been socialy exceptable. Every great society that has fallen has seen a rise in deviation from religion I.E. responsibility shortly before it fell apart. I just hope we can learn from our mistakes, but sadly I don't think we ever will.
[ December 05, 2004, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: String ]
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote: Before I respond, I want to make certain I know what you're saying. Are you saying that lack of religion is why we have these problems in society? Surely you realize that there are plenty of people who don't tie their morals to religion...
We need more of them.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
String, can you prove your STD rate claim? The info I've seen, particularly among young people in this country, suggests that STD rates, have been going down/plateau-ing recently.
Bok
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
What does it matter if they have leveled off in the last 5 years? The bottom line is that would not be a problem if was not for the cultural changes that have taken place in the last 30 years.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Except that they WOULD be a problem... STDs have been around for thousands of years. AIDS is a new one, but others have long been a problem.
I'd be more concerned if you could point to any evidence that suggests selfishness really is becoming more of a problem. I'd argue, though, that selfishness has been in decline for almost two decades now. Volunteering is up. Violent Crime is down. The percieved value of parenting is up. Drug use and smoking is less acceptable. Even driving gas-guzzling SUVs is now considered more shameful.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's not the fault of cultural changes. Things like that have been going on for ages. For example, Oedipus Rex comes to mind. It seems to be the weather of things for the most part. Ads have been done telling people to have safe sex, at the same time folks will advocate teaching abstinence only. They have the same goal, but their different methods seem to almost unravel any sort of effective change. What we really need to do is get it together. None of this right wing, left wing crap. We need to evaluate what works whether it comes from the left or the right and then do it. Teach abstinence, but also teach people how to use contraceptives and be prepared, give them truthful information. Raise children to be confident and intelligent. Stop focusing on things that don't matter like homosexuality and focus on things that do matter. There has to be a certain amount of yielding and breaking on both sides is what I think...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I'd argue, though, that selfishness has been in decline for almost two decades now. Volunteering is up. Violent Crime is down. The percieved value of parenting is up. Drug use and smoking is less acceptable. Even driving gas-guzzling SUVs is now considered more shameful.
I'd bet that a lot of that is "fashion" moreso than increased altruism.
Frankly, human nature always seems to come up with new evils to replace the ones that become unacceptable. And all too often, those evils start out as great advances that will liberate humanity from the limitations of the past.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Volunteering, dislike of drugs, parenting, unwillingness to commit crime, and environmentalism are not "fashion" any more than premarital sex, drug adiction, and abortions are fashion.
[ December 05, 2004, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, but it's likely that a lot of people doing those things do so not because of a deep recognition of their necessity but because other people are doing it.
It's great that these things are getting done. But without the underlying widespread change in mores, the next new causes will replace at least some of these in the popular consciousness.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Not true, Divorce rate, The number of S.T.D.'s in cases and variations are at an all time high. Abortion has never, at any other time been socialy exceptable."
Amazingly, every single one of these sentences is false.
The divorce rate is declining from a recent peak, STDs are actually considerably less common now than they were even a hundred years ago, and abortion has been -- if not socially acceptable (and I'd argue that it's still not socially acceptable NOW, given the relatively small number of women I know who tell their mothers when they've had one) -- certainly permitted and even winked at in the past.
In other words, every single one of your claims about the decline of societal structure is hystrionic, if not outright false.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
String needs a little theory.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Of logic and reason, String is afraid not.
-Trevor
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Definitely knot.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Did we lose something when we stopped using 'girl' to refer to a child of either sex?
I think so. Whether that is something that ought to be cast off, is a different debate. It's when you mix and match and only pay attention to context that gets you in trouble.
The problem is that words refer to a thing, and when they don't arise from the thing, the word doesn't matter.
It's tempting to forget that words are bound to a thing, and when we divorce the words from that thing, and wed it to context--like I did with the words divorce and wed-- we do a little bit of damage. Hopefully, the solemn commitment in marriage will survive my felicitous metaphor, but it's worth being careful.
Some people call this damage creativity. But it's risky business when you start putting all that is good in the world at stake.
I think the difference the between good writers and stylish writers is that good writers have a clear perception of the thing to which they are writing. Stylish writers have great ear for context and metaphor. I don't proport to be either, but think I know it when I see it.
Octavia Butler jumps out at me for clear-sighted perception of the thing. I guess since this started out as a political thread, Barack Obama's DNC speech showed a clear understanding of the thing, and that was especially hard considering that the things were the American People.
A person's meaning, which comes from the german mein, which has the sense of mine. In other words, a person's imposition or mying of a thing is not the same as a clear-sighted sense of the thing.
[ December 05, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:In other words, every single one of your claims about the decline of societal structure is hystrionic, if not outright false
Ouch. My bad. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But it's risky business when you start putting all that is good in the world at stake.
If you believe this, you're a conservative at heart, Irami. The ideological differences are what you consider to be of value, not how you would cultivate and risk value.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've always thought that the real difference between liberals and conservatives, as the terms are applied modernly, is not that one is willing to take more risks than the other, but rather that the former's definition of "good" is more provable. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I always the difference was that one was based on how the world should work, and the other is based on how it does work.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The problem with that definition, kat, is that no one can agree on which one of those two groups has it right. Whereas I think everyone can agree that the liberal definition of "good" is more universal than the conservative definition of "good." Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, they can't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Which would be fine if the world worked as it should.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:but rather that the former's definition of "good" is more provable.
Both sides would say their view is more provable. They'd just differ on what counts as proof.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, of course. But the important thing is that they're wrong, and I'm not. Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Anyway, I won't make ya stumble through this horrible, public edjucation produced, spelling and wrighting anymore
For a rant on lack of personal responsibility, I found this last line to be particularly funny. I went to public school too and can spell, write, and do math fairly well. So I don't think the problem is public schools.... Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:You believe this, you're a conservative at heart, Irami. The ideological differences are what you consider to be of value, not how you would cultivate and risk value.
It seems that their way of thinking about traditional institutions is inappropriate. Kat, I want to think about it, keep everything that is good, change what is bad, and too many conservatives want to keep what works and throw out everything that doesn't work, and predicate this on a suspect standard of results, necessarily without thinking. (For example, oil money goes to all the wrong people, but it's what we do, it's the way we live, and it works, who are those pesky liberals to tell us any different.)
It's funny, when one group of conservatives want to teach Faith in schools, and the other wants to take out everything that can't be easily tested with a scantron, we know there is a problem.
Education as faith and calculation, two sides of the same coin, crowd out thinking about what in the world calls for thought(which is everything important). And what I see of American conservatism is eagerness to reach for that fake coin. "Realists" love the existence of "idealists" because they vaildate each other, and neither have to think. And for me, that's American conservative politics, faith and an efficiency graph. That's ignoring everything good in the world. The pious engineer who goes to church and designs widgets, and really has not thought well about the peril and dignity that goes along with either. ___________
I'm going to take a little out on Jesse Jackson, to show that it happens on both sides. He wants to save black youth from jail by getting them into protestant churches. If you don't think about this, it sounds fine. If you don't think about the impropriety of using Jesus as leverage, for the sake of some other good, that's fine. If you don't think about the impropriety of basing expectations concerning public conduct on something as essentially private as faith, that's fine. If eternal salvation is a bargaining chip in the great horse trade of life, then that's fine. I don't know if any divinity worth its holiness should be worshiped for the sake of some other good. Instead of turning to thinking and talking about the rights, responsibilities, and duties we have as Americans to each other, we to give them Jesus and hope that faith in Him does the thinking for us, and forget what that presupposes about faith, education, law, responsibility, thinking, and duty. In addition, there is a strange side-effect in how much faith actually absolves us from our responsibilities, by misdirection.
__________________________________
There are two Kennedy quotes I wish Bush would think on:
I wish Bush spoke with this kind of conviction about oil independence. The closest he comes to this resolve is when he is talking about killing other people.
quote:We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
And Kennedy had a way of framing religion as that which as a way for us to roll up our sleeves and get to work:
quote: “With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
That's what you get when you reject the wooden nickel of ideology vs. realism, a clear-sighted look at the world, and he was right.
[ December 07, 2004, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
kat, I think your saying would be more accurate (as a caricature at least) if it stated that generic liberal philosophy is based on what "could" work, while generic conservative philosophy is based in what "has" worked.
I don't think anyone really knows how things are "currently" working to a high enough degree to attribute that to either side. Or rather, you can't really analyze the now, it's a moving target of billions of factors. You can really only base a philosophy on extrapolation (liberal), or recollection (conservative), both of which can be/are wrong, to some degree.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I think your saying would be more accurate (as a caricature at least) if it stated that generic liberal philosophy is based on what "could" work, while generic conservative philosophy is based in what "has" worked.
Hmm...okay, I agree with that.
------------
Irami, every time you talk to me about religion, I know you're repeating an argument framed for someone else, because you argue against things I've never said and don't believe. It makes me feel like you don't really listen to what I'm saying. Maybe you are speaking to the audience and not directly to me, but just so you know, that's why I won't discuss it.
[ December 07, 2004, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The ideological differences are what you consider to be of value, not how you would cultivate and risk value.
I don't think you can split the two up. Let's say the issue is a husband's fidelity to his wife.
I think you ought to cultivate that from thinking on and understanding what husbands and a wives are, period. Those are more than just words.
If fidelity comes from being scared of any penalties, on earth or after, we have a problem. How we cultivate a sense of responsibilty is as important as the actual responsibilities one is aware of. It's not arbitrary, and it's not faith, and that's why everything is at stake in education.
quote: think your saying would be more accurate (as a caricature at least) if it stated that generic liberal philosophy is based on what "could" work, while generic conservative philosophy is based in what "has" worked.
I think this is the same problem. We are talking about what works, what does the job, as opposed to what is called for. When we speak in terms of what works or what could work, we are making the moral claim that efficiency and effects are what matter. An extreme example is those parents who give their infants booze to stop the kids from crying.
Pledging fealty to what has worked or what could work is a commitment that doesn't seem appropriate. One ignores the issue and reaches for a stock solution(be it faith or efficiency), the other ignores the issue and reaches for invention for the sake of invention(bad science fiction). They both ignore the problem as that which calls for thought, and that the solution is derivative from the problem. Both of the approaches look to the solutions first. It speaks to the false distinction I spoke of in previous posts.
[ December 07, 2004, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote: For a rant on lack of personal responsibility, I found this last line to be particularly funny. I went to public school too and can spell, write, and do math fairly well. So I don't think the problem is public schools....
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)