posted
Fugu is an example of a Black Knight Clinton supporter. "Come back here you yellow bellied bastard! I'll bite yer knee caps off!"
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Clinton has anything up her sleeve, I think she would have used it by now. More to the point, I think we've already seen what she had up her sleeves.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The folks piling on katharina here are like the people who have a tantrum when somebody uses the word "literally" when they mean "figuratively"
Let's be clear: there was no piling on of kat.
Once she clarified her meaning, there was no further discussion about the word usage except for one clarification of my meaning - until she chose to repeat the statement that mathematically Clinton was out. She chose to dispute the issue and is absolutely as responsible for anything not being added to this conversation as anyone else who participated in it.
People disagreed with her. She also disagreed with people. Not only that, she ordered someone about because she didn't like the disagreement.
In my case, I had no way of knowing originally that kat did not mean that there was no scenario by which Clinton could win enough delegates to clinch during the primaries. Worse mistakes than that have been made about the delegate math.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only way to not know would be to ignore the rest of the conversation and/or assume the worst about me and then focus on the wrong part of my statement as a way to refute what I might be saying.
In other words, you got the social cues wrong. Sorry about that and bummer for you, but not my fault.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only way to not know would be to ignore the rest of the conversation and/or assume the worst about me and then focus on the wrong part of my statement as a way to refute what I might be saying.
Except I didn't refute what you said. I didn't try to refute what you said. In point of fact, the only comment I made about it was that Clinton is not mathematically out.
It's not even clear what "worst" you claim I'm assuming here. It's clear that many people think that the words you used meant that Clinton could not win a majority of the delegates. My correction and your subsequent response clarified the point. At that point, the exchange was a productive one - possible confusion had been averted. Yay!
You then chose to debate the point after the matter had been clarified. That social cue I picked up loud and clear. I took you up on the implicit offer that, rather than simply clarifying the potential confusion, you wished to discuss the word choice itself.
I responded with relevant, on point statements about your rationale for the usage. You did the same, until suddenly you decided that I was somehow being "inappropriate."
quote:In other words, you got the social cues wrong. Sorry about that and bummer for you, but not my fault.
In other words, you got the word wrong, corrected it on the same page ("mathematically highly improbable and would take an absolute miracle"), then decided to retract the correction later. Bummer. Not my fault, though. At least I'm nice enough not to order you about and speculate on your motives for doing so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, bite me. Go harangue Dags if you're tired of the discussion. ----
Dag: Eh. Bored now. ----
If it were possible to return to a discussion of the primaries, a new poll has the two statistically tied in Pennsylvania.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I was stunned when Charlie Gibson asked
quote: GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
Obama gave the standard Democrat response of 'fairness' and more or less the evil rich getting richer and that's not 'fair'. But then I was even more stunned when Gibson followed up with
quote: GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
I'm stunned by two things there. 1. The fact that Gibson is asking a dishonest question, and 2. That Obama failed to call him on it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a big if. He has to get it out via the same people that caused the problem in the first place: The media. His message is that media coverage, like the debate, is not substantive and focuses on silly personal attacks and gaffes, but for that message to get out, it has to get out via the same people he's really attacking.
That being said, I think he's right. But in fairness, it's hard to have a debate about issues when the candidates virtually agree with each other. I think the solution then becomes to talk about the things that no one else is talking about. Where are the questions on the environment? Education? Science and Technology? It's all about the economy, healthcare and Iraq. There are other issues too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to hear concrete, specific ways in which the candidates will work to restore the executive branch to "merely" one-third of the government. I think that's one area where the candidates have very different plans, and I'd like to get some of them on record.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of that, what person or organization is responsible, if any, for censoring or stopping the president from taking more power than he is entitled to, and why haven't they been doing their job?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only power in the government that can prevent the executive branch from overstepping its bounds is the legislative, and their only tool is impeachment. At least so far as I'm aware. I think the idea raised earlier of a fourth branch of government for this purpose is a good one, but it doesn't exist, and since all executive power (meaning, power to actually do things, rather than say things) belongs to the executive branch, only impeachment and a sense of honor and commitment to the Constitution prevents a president from doing whatever the heck he wants.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Congress. The Supreme Court. The Supremes have done more than Congress in this regard, as they have ruled against the administration in several cases regarding trials for captured Gitmo prisoners.
Congress, for whatever reasons, has let President Bush expand his own power beyond the usual contraints of the presidency.
Ultimately, though? Us. We voted him back into office, knowing his tactics and values and indifference to checks and balances. And we re-elected congressmen and representatives who enabled him. We failed to get angry enough to make any kind of impact on our elected officials.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: the question isn't the probability of a large number of independent events (not that state primaries are anywhere near independent). One big enough scandal is all it takes. The probabilities you are hypothesizing on by contest are all conditional on the revelations that come out about the candidates.
Alcon: I'm not a Clinton supporter. I'm not an Obama supporter either (or a McCain supporter). I'm slightly more inclined to vote for Obama than I am to vote for anyone else, at the moment.
Considering I have made not a single statement in the discussion of likelihoods supporting Clinton, your statement is an excellent signifier, I think, at what is really driving the urge to underestimate her chances: the overestimation of the chances of the choice one prefers. This is one of the most common biases in statistical thinking.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The legislature has quite a few ways to control an errant president, the most important of which is the purse. If the lege didn't fund his projects, they wouldn't happen.
The legislature can also investigate and subpoena administrative officials, but they've been a little lax on that front as well.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit: the question isn't the probability of a large number of independent events (not that state primaries are anywhere near independent). One big enough scandal is all it takes. The probabilities you are hypothesizing on by contest are all conditional on the revelations that come out about the candidates.
Absolutely. But what the number I calculated tells you is that for Hillary Clinton to win there has to be some big event that causes a major shift in the way people view the candidates. You were likely correct when you said that the probability of this happening is beyond mathematics.
However, I think if you looked at campaigns over the past century, you would find that the longer the campaign continues the less likely it becomes that big new revelations (including scandals) are going to happen. If Obama's got skeletons hidden in his closet, they must be very well hidden for them to have remained in the closet this long.
So even though we can't rigorously assign a probability to Hillary Clinton winning, I think we all know that her chances at this point are very low. In fact, she can't win the popular vote without some watershed event. So the probability of her winning is the same as the probability of that watershed event which isn't zero but at this point is almost certainly less than 5%.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, I think if you looked at campaigns over the past century, you would find that the longer the campaign continues the less likely it becomes that big new revelations (including scandals) are going to happen. If Obama's got skeletons hidden in his closet, they must be very well hidden for them to have remained in the closet this long.
Unless the Republican party machine has dredged one up in which case it would wait until Obama secures the nomination before leaking it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Alcon: I'm not a Clinton supporter. I'm not an Obama supporter either (or a McCain supporter). I'm slightly more inclined to vote for Obama than I am to vote for anyone else, at the moment.
Considering I have made not a single statement in the discussion of likelihoods supporting Clinton, your statement is an excellent signifier, I think, at what is really driving the urge to underestimate her chances: the overestimation of the chances of the choice one prefers. This is one of the most common biases in statistical thinking.
Really, I'm glad to hear you're leaning Obama. I seem to remember posts earlier in this thread in which you were ripping Obama a new one (a number of times) and in which you expressed preference for Clinton over Obama. I don't really care enough to go dig em up. As for the latter, eh, it's possible that my bias makes me inflate his chances. But I still think you're inflating Clinton's.
Clinton's survived plenty of big scandals. As had Obama. I don't think it'll be that easy to take out either one of them. I think Clinton's lack of chances reside quite simply in the numbers in that she has to pull off a miracle of voting.
Before Obama brushed it off people would have called the Wright thing a big scandal. Same for bitter-gate. Neither of these have killed him. In fact he's doing quite well thank you despite them. So I think you're very seriously over inflating the chances of a scandal big enough to take him down. And if we look at the straight up math statistically -- ignoring scandals -- then we're well with in the 95% confidence range of Obama winning. That's not to say it's not possible for Clinton to win, but it's pretty unlikely at this point.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think you missed the important part of that link, which is that Ron Paul is currently in second place. Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, I think if you looked at campaigns over the past century, you would find that the longer the campaign continues the less likely it becomes that big new revelations (including scandals) are going to happen. If Obama's got skeletons hidden in his closet, they must be very well hidden for them to have remained in the closet this long.
Unless the Republican party machine has dredged one up in which case it would wait until Obama secures the nomination before leaking it.
You mean unless the Republican machine has found something that the Clinton machine has not.
One aspect of this race that many have not considered thoroughly is that the length, rigor and rancor of the Democratic race is going to make it much harder for the Republicans to pull any surprises out of the hat. No matter which candidate emerges from the Democratic contest, it will be a candidate that has already stood up to public scrutiny.
That's a double edged sword. Right now it means that the Dems are doing McCain's work for him, but come this fall it could work the other way. The Rev. Wright "scandal" for example would have worked much more in McCain's favor if it had broken in October (assuming Obama gets the nomination). The samething could be said about "Bosniagate" if Clinton gets the nomination.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, I think if you looked at campaigns over the past century, you would find that the longer the campaign continues the less likely it becomes that big new revelations (including scandals) are going to happen. If Obama's got skeletons hidden in his closet, they must be very well hidden for them to have remained in the closet this long.
Unless the Republican party machine has dredged one up in which case it would wait until Obama secures the nomination before leaking it.
You mean unless the Republican machine has found something that the Clinton machine has not.
One aspect of this race that many have not considered thoroughly is that the length, rigor and rancor of the Democratic race is going to make it much harder for the Republicans to pull any surprises out of the hat. No matter which candidate emerges from the Democratic contest, it will be a candidate that has already stood up to public scrutiny.
That's a double edged sword. Right now it means that the Dems are doing McCain's work for him, but come this fall it could work the other way. The Rev. Wright "scandal" for example would have worked much more in McCain's favor if it had broken in October (assuming Obama gets the nomination). The samething could be said about "Bosniagate" if Clinton gets the nomination.
Indeed. I definitely think that if there was a skeleton in Obama's closet it would have been found by now, and if he secures the nomination I think the Republicans are going to have to focus on misstatements he makes rather then past sins.
I also think the Republicans are more adept at dredging than the Clinton camp is.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think you missed the important part of that link, which is that Ron Paul is currently in second place.
The wiki link lists Romney as "withdrawn", I thought he suspended his campaign. I don't remember whether Huckabee technically withdrew either. Does anyone have an update on that?
It only matters if McCain were to be shot or "caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy", but I suspect those two would be legal able to resume their campaigns in such and event.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also think the Republicans are more adept at dredging than the Clinton camp is.
I hope you don't consider that a plus for the republicans.
Certainly not.
quote:I don't know if republicans are more adept at dredging or not but it does seem that (at least in recent decades) they have been more adept at capitalizing on what they find.
Its sort of astounding that during the last election the republicans were able to make the candidate who actually served and was decorated in vietnam look worse than the one who pulled strings to avoid service .
This is precisely what I mean.
From what I can see, Democrats either choose not to, or are just not as adept at mud slinging as the Republican party. It's why so many debates have dealt with the question of, "What can you do when the Republicans unleash their machine?"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if republicans are more adept at dredging or not but it does seem that (at least in recent decades) they have been more adept at capitalizing on what they find.
Its sort of astounding that during the last election the republicans were able to make the candidate who actually served and was decorated in vietnam look worse than the one who pulled strings to avoid service .
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it just me, or is the order of the last two posts flipped? Black Blade quotes Rabbit's post, before Rabbit's post is posted... *is confused*
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ultimately, though? Us. We voted him back into office, knowing his tactics and values and indifference to checks and balances. And we re-elected congressmen and representatives who enabled him. We failed to get angry enough to make any kind of impact on our elected officials.
I'm very curious about your use of the word we. Along with very large fraction of the American people, I voted against him in the last election.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Is it just me, or is the order of the last two posts flipped? Black Blade quotes Rabbit's post, before Rabbit's post is posted... *is confused*
It's not just you. When I was posting the part that BlackBlade quotes in the first half of his post, I accidently hit post before I'd finished. So I opened my post and added a couple of lines.
While I was doing that, I noted that BB had quoted the first part of my post and so in order to not make BBs post seem a bit strange, I re-edited my post and then added the last part in a second post. Evidently while I was doing that, BB read the first edit edition and edited his post to comment on that part.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose I could go back and edit the first post, then delete the second post. That would fix BBs problem but make Alcon's post unintelligible so I'll just leave it alone. I've caused enough trouble with the edit button for one night.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ultimately, though? Us. We voted him back into office, knowing his tactics and values and indifference to checks and balances. And we re-elected congressmen and representatives who enabled him. We failed to get angry enough to make any kind of impact on our elected officials.
I'm very curious about your use of the word we. Along with very large fraction of the American people, I voted against him in the last election.
I think this is part of why people are so disillusioned with politics. Almost half of the country voted against Bush and that doesn't mean anything. Letters to congressmen don't mean anything, protests don't change anything. Because we have a democracy, the country we have is our responsibility, but ultimately we have no power to change anything.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Is it just me, or is the order of the last two posts flipped? Black Blade quotes Rabbit's post, before Rabbit's post is posted... *is confused*
It's not just you. When I was posting the part that BlackBlade quotes in the first half of his post, I accidently hit post before I'd finished. So I opened my post and added a couple of lines.
While I was doing that, I noted that BB had quoted the first part of my post and so in order to not make BBs post seem a bit strange, I re-edited my post and then added the last part in a second post. Evidently while I was doing that, BB read the first edit edition and edited his post to comment on that part.
Therefore I clearly cannot choose the glass in front of you.
But seriously that's a good description of a complicated process.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
How embarrassing for them. I mean, lets count some of the problems with that page. One, it says that Ron Paul has withdrawn. Do I have to convince you that this is flat out untrue, or are you already aware of that? Next, what about the primaries in possessions? American Samoa, for example, where McCain actually did get 9 pledged delegates.
So... let's see why the New York Times and the Washington Post disagree:
Alaska, where the Post says he has 3 delegates, none of which are unpledged, and the Times says he's got nothing. The official site says he has 3 delegates. It also says Ron Paul has 5, having beaten McCain there.
Arizona, where the Post says he has 53 delegates, none of them unpledged, and the Times says he has 50, noting that three Arizona delegates go to the national convention unpledged. I can't find anything on the official site to confirm or deny this.
California, where the Post says he has 158 delegates, three of them unpledged (which means 155 delegates if you're reporting honestly), and the Times says he has 158. The Times notes that three California delegates go unpledged, so this may be a typo on their part, which would mean that he has three fewer than the Times is giving him.
Michigan, where the Post says he has 25 delegates, none of them unpledged, and the Times says he has 6. The official site says he has 10, though it doesn't say how many of those are pledged. In any case, I can't fathom where the Post got 25 from.
Montana, where the Post says he has 3 delegates, none of them unpledged, and the Times says he has nothing. According to the official site, the delegates will be selected in June, so the Times is right again.
Nevada, where the Post says he has 7 delegates, three of them unpledged, and the Times says he has none. According to the official site, the Nevada state convention is on April 26.
New York, where the Post says he has 101 delegates, none of them unpledged, and the Times says he has 87. The Times says this is because 14 delegates go to the convention unpledged.
Utah, where the Post says he has 1 delegate, and none unpledged, while the Times says he has none.
Washington (state), where the Post says he has 16 delegates, none unpledged, and the Times says he has none. They note that the convention isn't until May 29-31, and even then, 3 delegates go unpledged.
Wisconsin, where the Post says he has 34 delegates, 3 of whom are unpledged, and the Times says he has 34 period
American Samoa, which the Post doesn't even mention, and the Times says he has 9 delegates from.
I couldn't find official word on all of these, but for the most part, it certainly looks like the Washington Post's page is ridiculously and incompetantly wrong.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Congress. The Supreme Court. The Supremes have done more than Congress in this regard, as they have ruled against the administration in several cases regarding trials for captured Gitmo prisoners.
Congress, for whatever reasons, has let President Bush expand his own power beyond the usual contraints of the presidency.
What can Congress do, other than impeach him and remove him from office?
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Ultimately, though? Us. We voted him back into office, knowing his tactics and values and indifference to checks and balances. And we re-elected congressmen and representatives who enabled him. We failed to get angry enough to make any kind of impact on our elected officials.
Actually, I don't think we were quite that aware of it in 2004. But even had we been, I know that I probably would have voted for him anyway. Given that the alternative was Kerry, I still think it was the best of two evil choices. The fact that the Democrats picked a rotten candidate definitely had a lot to do with Bush's victory.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That's a big if. He has to get it out via the same people that caused the problem in the first place: The media. His message is that media coverage, like the debate, is not substantive and focuses on silly personal attacks and gaffes, but for that message to get out, it has to get out via the same people he's really attacking.
True, that- for all three candidates. Good grief. Obama's pastor has said things from the pulpit some white voters might find disturbing? Hillary remembers a more dramatic entrance into Bosnia than may have actually happened? McCain might have had an affair with an intern, though no one has the wherewithal to do anything more than sneer suggestively at the idea?
Hmm... Don't care, don't care, annnnnd... Don't care.
There are people out there who still swear that Obama is a radical Muslim out to destroy this country from within... Maybe the media could actually try to inquire and inform on issues and records for a while?...
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I couldn't find official word on all of these, but for the most part, it certainly looks like the Washington Post's page is ridiculously and incompetantly wrong.
You've failed to take into account the fact that unpledged delegates can, in fact, pledge themselves to a candidate, and the Post accounts for this by "interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences."
Take Montana. It has three unelected delegates. We know who they are right now. And, it seems, they've all pledged support for McCain.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a story this afternoon on NPR about how some rule changes that Bush instituted in Medicare will cost Michigan billions of dollars 15,000 jobs, and half a billion in wages over the next five years because of restricted funds for the Medicare program here.
That's a huge issue. That's something that could decide which way Michigan votes. We have the worst economy in the country, highest unemployment rate, one of the worst housing markets statewide...and the national media is talking about gaffe after gaffe after gaffe. Why aren't the candidates being forced to go on record about issues?
The media needs a soft reboot, and they need to get over themselves. Most importantly? I think the 24 hour news network should die, or merge with C-SPAN. The fact of the matter is, there generally isn't substantive news to cover a 24 hour news day, there are way too many pundits to parse every issue, so it all gets beaten to death, passed around, seized upon, beaten again, until at the end of it we all marvel about how small it was to begin with. Why do we spend more time talking about the McCain family recipe book than we do about what happened on the floor of the Senate?
In many ways, we're still in a world where if the media doesn't report it, it doesn't happen. Most of America isn't as hyperpolitical as we are. I spend at least an hour a day reading all sorts of news sources and watching C-SPAN, but most of these things, important things, things that if the media made a big deal out of it people would be outraged, get buried because it's not sexy, and honest journalism has taken a backseat to ratings journalism where whatever sells the most ad dollars is the best news versus what actually serves the people the best.
The fourth estate, the news organizations, are supposed to be there to serve the people to a degree, to keep the government in check. It's what they've done for a couple hundred years. But they've been co-opted by business interests that couldn't care less about an informed population, especially when they benefit from the populace NOT being informed. The internet solves some of these problems, and I think in a 100 years, a full internet literate society will make up for a lot of the media's lackluster reporting, but for now? We're stuck with a CNN that cares more about Paris Hilton and the "bitter" debate than about legislation and real issues.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I couldn't find official word on all of these, but for the most part, it certainly looks like the Washington Post's page is ridiculously and incompetantly wrong.
You've failed to take into account the fact that unpledged delegates can, in fact, pledge themselves to a candidate, and the Post accounts for this by "interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences."
Take Montana. It has three unelected delegates. We know who they are right now. And, it seems, they've all pledged support for McCain.
And yet, there are many delegates that the Post counted for McCain where delegates haven't even been selected yet. Again, I think they're trying to determine the nominee, and that's not their job.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're trying to give you an idea as to who the nominee will probably be, which I'd say is within their purview (spelling?). If the Post were to say "McCain wins it all!" that wouldn't make it so. It's the RNC's process.
And how many delegates do they claim have been selected in states that haven't voted yet? The Republican primary has a small amount of superdelegates too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But ultimately, they're saying that McCain has enough pledged delegates that he can't lose. That's factually untrue, and it's their job to report the facts. If they want to add that they think McCain has it all but sewn up, that's fine. But they aren't saying that. They're saying that he has everything he needs. And other people (like Dag, for instance) are citing them. That's misinformation. It isn't the job of the press to cut short a campaign by declaring that someone has clinched it when he hasn't.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I think mathametical probabilities would pretty much dictate that McCain has cinched the nomination.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm very curious about your use of the word we. Along with very large fraction of the American people, I voted against him in the last election.
The American people as a whole. I voted against him both times
One of the most infuriating things was Bush was the way he announced he had a mandate from the American people because he won, even though it was damn near half and half both times.
The fact that the Democrats picked a rotten candidate definitely had a lot to do with Bush's victory.
Most definitely. If there had been a Democratic candidate with an ounce of charisma he/she would have walked away with it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most definitely. If there had been a Democratic candidate with an ounce of charisma he/she would have walked away with it.
Dean?
I think it takes a lot of courage to vote for charisma. I'm not sure that the electorate is long on courage.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
