posted
I am officially a curmudgeon now. The astronomer who agreed with my points the most on CBS tonight was an ancient bemonocled blustery british blue-blood, Sir Harumps!-a-lot.
Even the aged Bob Schieffer made fun of him.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is Minerva taken as an astronomical-body name? 'Cause Athena totally needs her own planet. She's the goddess of wisdom and crafts and she sprung full-grown--with battle armor on--from her dad's head. Tell me that's not awesome. Plus she totally pwned Poseidon when they were competing to see who would get Athens: they were supposed to try to give a useful gift to the citizens of the city, and whoever's gift was more useful would get it named after them and stuff. All the sea god could come up with was a lame salt-water stream. She created the olive tree--food, fire-fuel, and wood all in one. Now that's a mythological character to invite to your birthday party. (Don't bother with Dionysus, he'll throw up on your couch and annoy Apollo with badly sung drinking songs. Trust me.) Err...what were we talking about?
Edited to add: And I'm never attending one of Eris's parties. Her idea of a great party favor is the Golden Apple of Discord--and then making her guests fight over it. Athena and Hera wouldn't talk to Aphrodite for years, and then there's that whole stupid "Who gets Helen" Greek-Troy tiff their Fairest Goddess pageant judge set off. Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A planet named Diana? People would probably associate it more with the Princess than the goddess.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dunno Magson, it doesn't quite scan right...
Yeah, Diana would be cool. All hands for renaming, say, Saturn? (Come on, naming a planet after Chronos and not one after Artemis? Who's cooler? Who's got more myths with her in it (hint from the pronoun there)? Who's an awesome virgin hunter goddess who tricked her dad into letting her not marry? Hello?)
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyone who really wants to memorize the names of the moons of our solar system (all right, it was fifth grade, I had nothing better to do) can just stick to memorizing the major ones; same with the planets.
Sixth grade. Think we might be distantly related? I never imagined that there was anyone else in the world as obsessed with moons as I was.
Good luck naming them all now, there are at least 90 of them in the solar system. And there will be too many planets to name as well if we start calling everything a planet instead of a pluton or a planetoid, or an asteroid.
Hmmm. Let's give the same title to:
1. A lump of rock orbiting the sun, close range, tight elipse, good sphere.
2. A giant ball of gas 1,000 times larger than that, with its own 20 or so moons.
3. A rogue moon which moves in and out of the orbits of the gas giants and doesn't exactly follow the plane of the ecliptic, and which, by the way, is one of probably dozens like it.
4. Non-uniform large asteroids which never formed into planets because of the Jovian gravitational influence, having no atmosphere or techtonics, and being a good 1,000th the size of the inner planets.
We should call all these things by the same name?
But hey, I've always thought that Jovian and terrestrial bodies should have different names as well. Jupiter is as like the sun as it is like Earth, and probably more so.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:3. A rogue moon which moves in and out of the orbits of the gas giants and doesn't exactly follow the plane of the ecliptic, and which, by the way, is one of probably dozens like it.[emphasis mine]
Boy! there's stretching an arguement. Pluto crosses the orbit of Neptune, one of the "gas giants". It comes nowhere near to crossing the orbits of any of the others.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's still a valid argument, regardless of the number of other orbits that Pluto crosses. Those four groups of bodies have very little in common with each other; doesn't it seem a little odd to use one word to cover such dissimilar things?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
When my kid wants to know what the word "semantics" means, I will refer him to the astronomy classes he will have been, or soon will be attending.
edit: I personally am in the drop Pluto as a planet camp and use another planet as the basis for the planetary designation camp.
I really don't mind 5th grade astronomy being 1 planet easier than possibly 8 planets harder in the next 20 years.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Nobody in the IAU except Mike Brown wants the names Xena and Gabrielle.
Sounds like you're taking it a little personally there, theamazeeaz. Are you in the IAU?
I wish. I do get paid to do Astronomy, but I am still a student. I do know someone there in Prague, but she does work with galaxy structures and goes to completely separate presentations. The IAU meets every year to present papers and such. Oddly enough she didn't know that the IAU was looking at the planet issue, not being one of the "crazy planetary people".
The statment I made was based on the comments of one of my professors. He studies asteroids and has discovered some neat stuff about their properties. I asked him what he thought about the object and the name Brown had given it and he was rather mad. KBOs (Kuiper Belt Objects) and Asteroids are discovered often enough that the IAU has ground rules about how they are named. I don't know them off the top of my head, but one convention he mentioned was the that a less significant KBO would be unceremoniously assigned the name "Brown." As a minor planet person, Brown knows exactly how the IAU works, and what bothered my professor was that he did not respect the conventions and promoted himself and his planet names to the media. I'm also under the impression that my professor isn't the only person who feels this way. There's slightly more to it than that, but the conversation took place several months ago and I don't remember everyting that was said.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You DID suggest that the name Xena was after the TV show...
Well, more specifically, I mentioned the show after Xena and Gabrielle had already been mentioned as candidates Mike Brown wanted.
But I did like the show (for awhile, anyway.) Something self-consciously cheesy about it and Hercules in the mid 90s.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say we get rid of all the names. Names are too freaking troublesome to remember.
What'm I, training for Jeopardy?
Let's do like I do with high school acquintances and coworkers in other departments; when I need to refer to them, I point in their general direction.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could see dividing those four groups into different categories: solid planets, gas planets, and planetoids. A planetoid is different from an asteroid in that it has the "enough gravity to pull itself into a sphere" idea.
That would distinguish mercury from Jupiter well enough, and distinguish Pluto/Charon/Ceres from the other 8 planets (4 solid, 4 gas) well enough.
So, solid planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars; gas planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune; planetoids: Pluto, Charon, Ceres, Xena (or whatever its new name will be - I submit Pan, since it's small and troublesome).
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I'm glad that Pluto is a pluton. And I don't mind that there are more classifications of bodies in the solar system.
Anything that increases the amount of wonder in our univers is a good thing.
*warining: this post may not reflect the actual opinions of the poster
I'm glad that polysemy is a shortcut to philosophical revelations.
Anything that increases the amount of wonder in our universe is a good thing.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: It's still a valid argument, regardless of the number of other orbits that Pluto crosses. Those four groups of bodies have very little in common with each other; doesn't it seem a little odd to use one word to cover such dissimilar things?
Does every word have to name an extreme specific? I mean, "mammal" covers an incredibly wider range of dissimilar things and no one squabbles about that. Why shouldn't planet be able to cover the range of things it would cover under the proposed definition. It's still a useful term. If you need further clarification, there are additional words you can use. "Pluton" is one of them, if you want to differentiate those from the general class of "planets". "Gas Giant" is another. I won't say that there are no legitimate gripes against the proposed definition, but the fact that it is broad enough to refer to more than one sub-class of object isn't one of them. (IMO)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Does every word have to name an extreme specific?
I didn't say that they do.
quote: I mean, "mammal" covers an incredibly wider range of dissimilar things and no one squabbles about that. Why shouldn't planet be able to cover the range of things it would cover under the proposed definition. It's still a useful term.
The question is, what traits are most important to determining whether or not something is a planet? Does this new definition include those traits while excluding other traits? I'm really not sure, to be honest; I'm still kind of waffling. But it does seem to me that it's better than the previous definition, which seemed much more arbitrary.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it does seem to me that it's better than the previous definition, which seemed much more arbitrary.
That's because it was rather arbitrary. The issue is that there never really was a "previous definition", at least not in the scientific sense.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could see dividing those four groups into different categories: solid planets, gas planets, and planetoids. A planetoid is different from an asteroid in that it has the "enough gravity to pull itself into a sphere" idea.
Cool--except: what is it that distinguishes "solid planets" from "planetoids"?
People: whales, humans, moles, bats, and platypuses (platypoda? Thanks Lost Boys) are all considered mammals, yet they have little enough in common with each other--they all have hair and they all have breastfeeding-capable females. Yet no one throws a fit because it's hard to memorize the names of all the mammals or because the classification is so arbitrary-seeming.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, mammals are a division of a far larger classification system - first Animal, then Mammal, then further divisions. Planets don't have such a system.
I could see "Planet" being an umbrella term such as "spherical thing that orbits a star" - with further subdivisions beneath that. I'd say that Mercury through Mars have similar enough characteristics to warrant a subclassification. Jupiter through Neptune do too. Pluto, Charon and the other KBOs all share common characteristics which may or may not include Ceres in their subdivision.
If a scientific definition is to be made, there need to be further categories, I think.
I would support [ha ha, like my say matters one iota] a very broad definition of planet (such as an object having enough gravity to pull itself into a ball), with further categories such as "a ball composed of a hard crust and molten core", "a ball composed of mostly gas and liquid", "a ball composed of hard rock without a molten core", etc.
Would this be so out of line? It seems to follow more closely the Kingdom-Phylum-etc model of Biology.
Edit: Doesn't Star Trek have planetary subdivisions - e.g. a Class M Planet? Do planets have classes, or is that something ST made up whole cloth?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Star Trek technically made it up, but based on information from the Jet Propulsion Laboratories.
I did some research on the planetary classifications for a game I'm writing, and it seems that most people actually accept the Star Trek (Class L, Class M, etc...) listing above anything else, especially considering Star Trek's list is based on information provided by the JPL.
I spent hours looking for a JPL-hosted page with related information and couldn't find one that was satisfactory.
Besides, the Star Trek list is so much easier to work with, at least from a gaming standpoint. Situations where planets are in doubt don't come up, because the writer/game designer doesn't put themselves in to that situation.
In my game, every Class L is the same, every Class M is the same, etc...
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the wiki breakdown of rock planets, gas planets, and ice planets. Of course, within each, there could be further subdivisions for better accuracy of classification (for instance, a rock planet with liquid water v. one without).
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: What does the label "planet" have to do with the amount of wonder in the universe?
Most people learn little more of astronomy than the names of planets in our solar system, the moon, and the sun. We don't learn a lot about asteroids, moons of Jupiter, comets, or other celestial bodies. We do learn planets.
Every chunk of rock we recognize oribiting the same sun as ours makes the universe seem a little closer, and our planet seem a little less alone.
That, to me, is wonder.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:3. A rogue moon which moves in and out of the orbits of the gas giants and doesn't exactly follow the plane of the ecliptic, and which, by the way, is one of probably dozens like it.[emphasis mine]
Boy! there's stretching an arguement. Pluto crosses the orbit of Neptune, one of the "gas giants". It comes nowhere near to crossing the orbits of any of the others.
No, I should be more clear: I'm thinking of how we we are going to categorize other planets in other solar systems, which are likely to have similar planets which don't follow the ecliptic and don't have tight eliptical orbits. Your right, its only neptune, but what about all the objects in the galaxy that do the same thing? There are probably millions.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He thought he'd been raised on a planet all along, but then it was discovered that it was tiny compared to the gas planets and so now he was raised on a large asteroid partly covered in water.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, does anyone know when the word "planet" began being used to include Earth? It's root means "wanderer" and was first used to describe objects which did not follow a sun/moon/stars like progression across the sky, but appeared to wander back and forth among the stars. At that time, Earth was probably largely considered the center of the universe and so it would have been absurd to consider Earth a "planet". I imagine even after a heliocentric model was widely accepted, it was still at least some time before Earth was routinely referred to as a "planet".
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: What does the label "planet" have to do with the amount of wonder in the universe?
Most people learn little more of astronomy than the names of planets in our solar system, the moon, and the sun. We don't learn a lot about asteroids, moons of Jupiter, comets, or other celestial bodies. We do learn planets.
Every chunk of rock we recognize oribiting the same sun as ours makes the universe seem a little closer, and our planet seem a little less alone.
That, to me, is wonder.
So why not just redefine "planet" to include all the asteroids, comets, and Kuiper Belt objects in the solar system? Bam! Instant wonder.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or expand what most people learn about to include asteroids, comets, moons, and Kuiper Belt objects in our solar system. Or include more science fiction in school reading curricula. Insta-Wonder (tm)--New, expanded version, now with three more planets!
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gwen: Or expand what most people learn about to include asteroids, comets, moons, and Kuiper Belt objects in our solar system.
posted
As well as my scenario above, where the COG or barycenter hovers at the boundary of a primary (I was thinking of a near circular orbit), there are two other scenarios (at minimum) that argue against the barycenter loci being part of the definition of planets, listed by CNN. The moon's orbit is increasing. Billions of years from now, the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system will be outside the Earth, and the Moon will not be a moon.
And CNN's second possibility: a system with a highly elliptical orbit could have the barycenter in the primary part of the orbital period, and outside of it in other parts of the orbit, causing the secondary object to be variously defined as a moon and a planet in every orbit!
No, it's just not central to the definition of moons and planets, and leads to more problems than it fixes.
quote: It gets stranger.
Astronomers expect to find hundreds of Pluto-sized objects in the outer solar system. If one has a satellite that is round, and which has a certain eccentric orbit -- meaning the two objects come very close together at one point and then diverge greatly -- then the barycenter could dip inside the larger object during part of the orbit, Laughlin explained.
In such a case, the smaller object would be defined as a moon part of the time and a planet the rest.
A vote on the new definition is scheduled for August 24 at the IAU meeting in Prague.
quote:Originally posted by Gwen: Or expand what most people learn about to include asteroids, comets, moons, and Kuiper Belt objects in our solar system. Or include more science fiction in school reading curricula. Insta-Wonder (tm)--New, expanded version, now with three more planets!
Yeah, but we can stick with discovering ACTUAL planets to increase our wonder. Astronomers now know of or suspect the existance of hundreds of extrasolar planets near our own solar system. That is plenty of wonder to me.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but again, what counts as an ACTUAL planet? As the person in the link I posted points out, the four gas planets are totally different from Mercury, Mars, Venus, and Earth, but we insist on putting them in the same category (regardless of size differences! and atmospheric differences! and the actual makeup of each planet! and the existence or non of rings!) as "planets" when it would make just as much or more sense to follow his plan:
quote:We all know that the only real planets — the big ones that accreted from the solar disk right at the beginning — are Jupiter, Saturn, Nepture and Uranus. They're self-accreting bodies that aren't massive enough to undergo fusion and that formed in orbit around a star. OK? That's a planet.
Naturally you're biased: you live on Earth after all. But I have to tell you, these days we have this theory called the heliocentric model that holds that Earth isn't the centre of the universe. Guess what? Earth isn't a real planet, either. It's just a ball of rocky left-overs that didn't get its fair share of gas when the accretion disk was still swirling. Indeed, the same goes for Mars, Venus, and Mercury. These tiny rocks (Earth, the largest, is barely a thousandth the mass of Jupiter) orbit in the wrong darn place, far to close to their primary star to have any hope of hanging onto a volatile envelope of hydrogen and a bit of helium. In fact, I think it's about time the IAU bit the bullet and admitted that these dwarfish rocky cores are just that, and introduced a new category, "failed planetary nuclei", to define the rocky Earthlike bodies of the inner solar system.
Given that the "Plutonoids" are believed to be mostly condensed gassy stuff, we can (subject to confirmation) then redesignate them as "failed planetary atmosphere fodder". The asteroids and small KBOs can then be allocated to one group or the other, or a fourth, catchment category: "irritating little [deleted]". And the rationalization of the solar system is done.
It'll be so much easier to teach kids the names of the planets when we've pruned them back to four!
Why not? If we're going to demote Pluto, and not recognize Charon as a planet, then why not go all the way with a much more logical model?
And as far as the moon/planet thing goes: yes, it'll be inconvenient to define moon in such a way that it's possible for certain bodies to be planets through some of their orbits and moons through the rest, but that's just the way the cookie gets stomped on and completely obliterated. Charon, at least, is a clear-cut case in the moon/planet controversy, because it consistently orbits around a point outside of Pluto's planetary sphere.
Actually, the coolness of having half (or a third or a fourth or two-fifths) of a planet is sure to increase children's senses of wonder about the universe. It's like the elementary-school trick of "how many fingers am I holding up" when one of the fingers is a thumb (and therefore apparently not a finger or something). You'll be sure to have every school-attending person in America (at least) knowing that piece of trivia.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gwen: Yes, but again, what counts as an ACTUAL planet? As the person in the link I posted points out, the four gas planets are totally different from Mercury, Mars, Venus, and Earth, but we insist on putting them in the same category (regardless of size differences! and atmospheric differences! and the actual makeup of each planet! and the existence or non of rings!) as "planets" when it would make just as much or more sense to follow his plan:
quote:We all know that the only real planets — the big ones that accreted from the solar disk right at the beginning — are Jupiter, Saturn, Nepture and Uranus. They're self-accreting bodies that aren't massive enough to undergo fusion and that formed in orbit around a star. OK? That's a planet.
Naturally you're biased: you live on Earth after all. But I have to tell you, these days we have this theory called the heliocentric model that holds that Earth isn't the centre of the universe. Guess what? Earth isn't a real planet, either. It's just a ball of rocky left-overs that didn't get its fair share of gas when the accretion disk was still swirling. Indeed, the same goes for Mars, Venus, and Mercury. These tiny rocks (Earth, the largest, is barely a thousandth the mass of Jupiter) orbit in the wrong darn place, far to close to their primary star to have any hope of hanging onto a volatile envelope of hydrogen and a bit of helium. In fact, I think it's about time the IAU bit the bullet and admitted that these dwarfish rocky cores are just that, and introduced a new category, "failed planetary nuclei", to define the rocky Earthlike bodies of the inner solar system.
Given that the "Plutonoids" are believed to be mostly condensed gassy stuff, we can (subject to confirmation) then redesignate them as "failed planetary atmosphere fodder". The asteroids and small KBOs can then be allocated to one group or the other, or a fourth, catchment category: "irritating little [deleted]". And the rationalization of the solar system is done.
It'll be so much easier to teach kids the names of the planets when we've pruned them back to four!
Why not? If we're going to demote Pluto, and not recognize Charon as a planet, then why not go all the way with a much more logical model?
And as far as the moon/planet thing goes: yes, it'll be inconvenient to define moon in such a way that it's possible for certain bodies to be planets through some of their orbits and moons through the rest, but that's just the way the cookie gets stomped on and completely obliterated. Charon, at least, is a clear-cut case in the moon/planet controversy, because it consistently orbits around a point outside of Pluto's planetary sphere.
Actually, the coolness of having half (or a third or a fourth or two-fifths) of a planet is sure to increase children's senses of wonder about the universe. It's like the elementary-school trick of "how many fingers am I holding up" when one of the fingers is a thumb (and therefore apparently not a finger or something). You'll be sure to have every school-attending person in America (at least) knowing that piece of trivia.
The idea of a planet first came about because people wanted to name the five objects that moved with respect to the background stars: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. It was quite awhile before humans figured out that those "stars" were all moving around the sun- as were we.
Telescopes brought us the ability to see fainter objects and we (okay Galileo) discovered moons around planets besides our own, asteroids and yet more planets. Not to mention a whole host of fainter stars, galaxies and nebulae.
Of course the gas giants are different from the other planets. That's why we call the gas giants Jovian planets and the other ones terrestrial planets. Plutons is a new catergory for icy space junk. That's how we differentiate the size.
The category planet means the object Orbits A Star and fusion didn't happen. So the gas giants are planets because they failed as stars (so they are NOT stars) and orbit our sun. The terrestrial planets are planets because they orbit our sun. The IAU wants to define plutons as planets because they are a cut above space junk, being round. Mars's moons and most Asteroids (clearly not Ceres) are too small for their gravity to make them round. Planet= BIG thing that goes around the sun. Everything smaller- Asteroids, etc. are space junk that happens to orbit the sun by itself. We've got at least 43000 named Asteroids and we've got to draw the line somewhere.
Moons are defined by the fact that they orbit planets which orbit the sun. It's not a size thing as many of the larger moons of the gas giants are bigger than the smallest planet (the cool chart I have that shows which ones are bigger or smaller is only accessible at school http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/Moons/MoonsSolSys.html has the best info I can find. Ganymeade, one of Jupiter's moons is bigger than both Mercury and Pluto). I have never heard of any body naturally orbiting a moon. There is a moon Dactyl which orbits the asteroid Ida.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
CNN posted a story yesterday in which the only thing they said is that the Moon will eventually become a planet. And "eventually" means in several billion years, enough time for the moon to recede and the center of rotation to be outside of Earth's mass.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theamazeaz: I agree with all that. My point was, if the reason why Pluto shouldn't be a planet is because it's different from Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune in a few points (different shape of orbit, really small, and partly made of ice), and the reason why Ceres and 2003 UB313 shouldn't be planets is because they're small and it'll be too hard to memorize all the planets, any of those reasons could be used to draw the line at only Jovian planets being considered planets: Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Earth are really small, comparatively speaking, and have a rather different makeup, and it'll be easier to memorize planets when there's only four of them. Yet no one's (seriously) calling for the removal of Earth from the planetary category, mainly because we live on it. And the point about size is that size shouldn't (in my opinion) be a defining point in the controversy; just because Pluto is smaller than Luna doesn't mean it's not a valid planet, any more than Ganymede being larger than Mercury (interesting information!) makes Mercury less of a planet. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if anything in the asteroid belt is large enough to be spherical, it's a planet. (Although not necessarily one that'll last very long.) So my definition of planet would be something like Planet=ROUND thing that goes around a star.
And won't the definition we come up with for our solar system apply to others, too? If we define planet as "something that goes around the primary that is larger than Luna and has an orbit like the other planets" (ignoring the obvious circularity of trying to figure out which of the space junk going around the primary counts as a planet in order to define the other planets), we might end up excluding a planet with an orbit more like the first nine planets of our solar system just because more of the planets have a Pluto-like orbit. Hmm...
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure if anyone linked this yet, but I read this article today. I spose it has a little more detail than previous statements. Anyway, I would be very sad if Pluto were demoted. It's always been that little planet just barely hanging on to our MVEMJSUNP System. I can't imagine us saying, Now, now, Pluto, run along and play with the asteroids, you're not wanted here.
Haha, I think it's time I went to bed... I'm getting emotional over Pluto's planethood!
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
