posted
So that would be a no for you then? I suppose you're right - the thread did die for a reason.
I just know that my understanding of the ideas discussed in this thread have changed significantly over the past 18 months, and so it would be interesting to explore it again from my current perspective.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the thread "died" because the members then present felt that nothing more needed to be said. Yet the ideea remains, and I'm still here and interested in the subject.
How else could new and potential interested members could find this thread?
If nobody else is interested, it will die again, and I won't revive it before at least another 18 moths pass.
posted
That doesn't seem likely. I very much doubt that many newcomers search so assiduously.
I don't see a problem with bumping a thread you put a lot of effort into to see if it catches people's fancy. Surely, we've had other people do the same on other threads, many of which they hadn't put as much into as A has this one.
Is the problem people have really that he bumped this thread? It seems to me like something else is going on here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
JT, Your posts here seem to be much more ego-masturbation than A's. I honestly don't get why there's this problem with a single thread bump.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots of Hatrackers disappear (or lurk) for long periods of time. But A's history seems to indicate that while he wants others to participate in his thread, he doesn't do much participation in other threads.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can understand why that would bother people. I'm not sure I see if from the history that you posted - it looked to me like A hasn't been active for a while, but when he was, he seemed to participate in other people's threads just fine.
But, if that's the problem, could people at least say that that is the problem they have? Bumping threads is a well accepted practice here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, I really don't see your point. I was mostly gone for the last few months, and yes, I might be a bit "picky" about the topics I post in. Is that a problem?
Plus, please tell me how many new members would look for the term "egotheism". Or, what search does bring up this thread?
MrSquicky, thanks for your support, I really didn't think that bumping such a thread is a "faut-pas".
El JT de Spang, have I wronged you with something? If so, please say so and I'll present my apology.
Again, if there is a problem with my reviving this thread here, I'll "repair" the whole thing by deleting the thread entirely. Nothing lasts for ever, you know.
A.
PS: Participation in "my" threads was and is voluntary, as far as I'm concerned.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is the problem people have really that he bumped this thread? It seems to me like something else is going on here.
It was pretty clear that the problem was more than just mere thread bumping. It was with the specific form of thread bumping: "Y'know, just to see if anyone else wants to add anything to it."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, thanks for being here. I'd like to discuss furhter about this with you, but maybe for the moment the best thing would be to hold all "constructive" talk, and wait for the answer concerning the "revival" problem.
I wouldn't like to delete new and valuable things with this thread.
I wanted (and still want) to revive a discussion, not to just have things “added” to the thread.
You see, I was expecting someone to say, “Yes, go ahead, what’s new?” or something.
Anyway, my (EDIT) poor dominion on the nuances of English language might have brought this upon myself…
A.
PS: still waiting for the "verdict". Thanks. (the verdict will be clearly stated when a few more replies about how wrong I was to bump this thread come)
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, really. It's abundantly clear what JT was complaining about.
Whether his complaint is legitimate or not is a different question entirely (although I don't find your distinction between adding to the thread and reviving discussion to be compelling).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, initially I would have agreed with the annoyance, however in his final posts on this thread last year, suminomA distilled a succinct creed for his belief, after which no one had replied. Taking that into account, I would say it wasn't as anti-social as it seems on the face of it.
Then again, I've often been shown to be a poor judge of what constitutes social behavior.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: rivka, I really don't see your point. I was mostly gone for the last few months, and yes, I might be a bit "picky" about the topics I post in. Is that a problem?
I don't think so. But combine that with bumping a fairly old thread -- and without adding anything new yourself -- and I can certainly see why some people might see your participation as less than optimal. *shrug* I don't think anyone would have said "boo" if you had bumped it to add a new thought on the issue.
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Plus, please tell me how many new members would look for the term "egotheism". Or, what search does bring up this thread?
Since the search function can be used to search for words within posts of a thread, there are quite a few searches that would pull up this thread. (Examples: "belief(s)," "religious," "religion," etc.)
While I support the right of thread-starters to delete threads, I think your threat to do so is unnecessary histrionics.
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: You see, I was expecting someone to say, “Yes, go ahead, what’s new?” or something.
Then why not just put your "what's new" in your bumping post? IMO, that would do much more to stimulate discussion.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A, I gotta tell you, you are much better off having a conversation here about the topic of the thread if you think there is one rather than addressing people complaints prompted by your bumping it. There's no productive way to go for that latter one.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
suminomA was evidently not here during the Pledge not to Delete threads, so he wouldn't be aware of all that. I won't bump it, but if you wish to read it, suminomA, it's very recent in Dagonee's "Threads started by". (I go into such detail specifically to avoid dredging up the whole matter).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I was the first negative comment, suminomA, though it was elsewhere -- and perhaps it was unfair of me. I expressed my frustration in what seemed to be a rather self-centered action on your part (that of returning after a prolonged time of personal inactivity and, rather than see what might be going on here, instead bringing up your own pet topic from the depths of thread history to see if anyone here wanted to talk with you about what you want to talk about). I fully grant that my impression of your action is based on a number of assumptions, any or all of which may be false. I apologize for my part in it.
posted
Well, on the matter of the Zen master, I believe there is such a thing as a person being wrong, though the mind is very flexible in protecting a person from the knowledge that they are wrong.
Maybe.
Actually, this goes back to the heart of the impression that caused me to reject self-analysis (for my part).
There is a theory that used to be very influential on me having to do with meta-discourse, often called "the box" wherein the box is rationalizations that spring up to insulate us from our altruistic impulses. The box allows us to persuade ourselves that withholding aid from others is not only not bad, but actually good.
A common idea (and not an ethically transparent one) is the conundrum of giving to a beggar. "He'll probably spend it on drink/drugs." Or "I'm paying interest on debts, I don't really have money to spare." etc. These things may not be incorrect, but they insulate us from our altruistic impulses nonetheless.
Well, it's very tiring for me to think about.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, on the matter of the Zen master, I believe there is such a thing as a person being wrong, though the mind is very flexible in protecting a person from the knowledge that they are wrong.
Maybe.
Are you referring to the “zennish joke” that I presented earlier in this thread? Well, the way I see it, the point of the joke is not that a Zen master would say to anybody that they are right, whatever they’d say. The joke comes from having three people being right at the same time, even as it seems to be “impossible”. The explanation being that the first two were right on a PGK level, while the third on a CKG level (as we might define those levels).
So no, egotheism doesn’t claim that illogical statements (Logic being hopefully on CGK level) are “true”, but that they might be viewed as such on a personal level, where no-one but the self is the master. I’ve gave my arguments before (the “4 people society example”) why specific religious beliefs would fall on the PGK level.
quote:Actually, this goes back to the heart of the impression that caused me to reject self-analysis (for my part).
There is a theory that used to be very influential on me having to do with meta-discourse, often called "the box" wherein the box is rationalizations that spring up to insulate us from our altruistic impulses. The box allows us to persuade ourselves that withholding aid from others is not only not bad, but actually good.
A common idea (and not an ethically transparent one) is the conundrum of giving to a beggar. "He'll probably spend it on drink/drugs." Or "I'm paying interest on debts, I don't really have money to spare." etc. These things may not be incorrect, but they insulate us from our altruistic impulses nonetheless.
This is a difficult problem, as “helping” is a very delicate matter. How much help is helping and when does it become “bad” as in addictive or pointless or even harmful? All these are to be decided on each of the four levels of “knowledge” but it is quite possible that without having an “objective morality” defined (on CGK level) the matter falls rapidly towards the PGK. So egotheism doesn’t (can’t) actually give a solution, other than education. If one grows up in an egotistical (note: NOT egotheistic!) society, they would probably carry a “box” (as you presented it) with them by default. But while altruism might be “taught” (by positive example), it surely cannot be enforced, because that, in my opinion would produce more “negative response” then positive.
And this brings another point, epistemologically speaking: teaching/learning by live example in matters of comportment/conduct. (It is commonly noticed that children do as children see being done). So can one give “all the examples at once” and leave the “student” follow the one he/she chooses, or do we “have to always be good” so the children be “good” also? (This brings up the definition of “good” …)
I think that learning from positive/negative examples would be possible, yet the difficult point being this: presenting the examples without also making the judgment calls about “good and wrong” as absolutes. This sounds impossible even as I write it now.
But, the idea is this: give examples, as many as you can. (As a teacher) live by the set of rules of your choosing (and judging as “good”) and present the other options as examples from history (which surely contains enough “bad” from anyone’s POV). Now, give all this examples and let the “student” choose which to follow. And if the question arises (from the student): “Why are these examples to be seen as your way of life, and all the others just in history books?” then the answer could be: “Well, I, as an egotheist, have chosen these ones to be “good” and the others not worthy of following. Therefore I can only point to “history” for them. Which do you consider better? Why?” And then, a discussion with arguments and more examples could arise, avoiding “this is so because I say so and that’s it” approach.
posted
The funny thing about children is how they think they are following you when really they aren't. A child in the early stages of learning to wash hands, tie shoes, measure flour and other mundane activities have no idea why - either first or last cause- these things are done. But they imitate the motions as best they can perceive them.
I only read the inital definitions of the group knowledges, so I'm not really certain... when you speak of PGK, do you mean "truth" as you are defining it?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The funny thing about children is how they think they are following you when really they aren't. A child in the early stages of learning to wash hands, tie shoes, measure flour and other mundane activities have no idea why - either first or last cause- these things are done. But they imitate the motions as best they can perceive them.
Yes, and that is quite hard to avoid. You see, that’s why the “age” one should “become an egotheist”, meaning the point where one could/should make all those choices about “truth” and “value” is such a great concern and a main question in this debate. If I recall correctly, someone said here (but maybe elsewhere) that one can make a choice only when they understand what they are choosing about and why, not while they are in “imitation” mode. And that could be the answer to that question.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I only read the inital definitions of the group knowledges, so I'm not really certain... when you speak of PGK, do you mean "truth" as you are defining it?
PGK stands for “personal ground knowledge”, meaning the things and the way they are perceived at a personal level. While “do not kill” might be a RGK (Regional/Country) level rule, at a personal level anyone can decide otherwise on the matter. But then, that someone should exclude oneself from that particular Region/Country/society, as all actions still have consequences and there is a responsibility to be accounted for. Egotheism can’t make “do not kill” a CGK leve rule (even if I’d like it to be) but it sure does stipulates that if one has the urge to take lives, they have to do it in a society that endorses it. (And that piece of knowledge would be included in CGK )
So, to answer your question, the “truth” on PGK level is obviously decided/defined inside everyone individually, but by no means that implies that any such particular “truth” should be taken as such by everybody else, without any arguments and/or “solid enough proof”.
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: El JT de Spang, have I wronged you with something? If so, please say so and I'll present my apology.
Again, if there is a problem with my reviving this thread here, I'll "repair" the whole thing by deleting the thread entirely. Nothing lasts for ever, you know.
A.
You haven't wronged me or offended me, and no apology (public or private) is necessary or accepted. I don't dislike you. I just was irked by the bumpage and posted quickly to express that ire because I'm busy at work. Had I been less busy I'd have been able to post a followup going into more detail. Though rivka and Dag covered everything I would've said.
Plus I didn't have to deal with Hatrack's most annoying self-appointed sheriff! Double whammy!*
*I do not, of course, mean Papa. By the way, I never saw that Pop mentioned this anywhere else, so he's certainly not at all responsible for my post.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
El JT de Spang, ok. I’ve seen your post and I won’t reply to any specifics in it, not because I’m ignoring it, but because I understand that you are not interested in what I have to say, on topic or otherwise.
quote:Plus I didn't have to deal with Hatrack's most annoying self-appointed sheriff! Double whammy!*
I'm 85% sure you're not referring to me, but that wasn't a very nice thing to say.
Back to the point...
The thing about raising children is they are vacuums of knowledge, and if I am not attempting to transmit to them my values, they will absorb them from somewhere.
As for when someone becomes mentally independent, there is neurological basis for mid-twenties, in that the brain and the prefrontal lobes in particular, continue to grow until that point. Folks say 35 is another age at which people gain more perspective on lives. I heard that on a show about criminal rehabilitation once. It's also the minimum age to run for president.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The thing about raising children is they are vacuums of knowledge, and if I am not attempting to transmit to them my values, they will absorb them from somewhere.
Well put. That’s why egotheism, doesn’t just insist on "an education", but on the most complete education available. It’s only natural that a parent/teacher would like to see their own values passed on to the next generation, but the whole point of egotheism is NOT forcing (only) those views on them. Acknowledging what’s CGK and what’s on the other levels might help educating egotheistically
quote:Originally posted by pooka: As for when someone becomes mentally independent, there is neurological basis for mid-twenties, in that the brain and the prefrontal lobes in particular, continue to grow until that point.
I didn’t know that. Do you have a source for that information/study? It would be interesting to learn more about the “brain” life-cycle
quote: Folks say 35 is another age at which people gain more perspective on lives. I heard that on a show about criminal rehabilitation once. It's also the minimum age to run for president.
Well, every country has some age for those things. Do you agree that such a criteria (same age for everyone in a large group) is kind of “arbitrary” and not at all precise? I propose as an alternative an “aptitude test”, that is, a test to try and find out if one is “ready” (as in responsible enough) to make different types of decisions. If one is allowed to be a car driver only after some specific education and tests, proving their driving abilities, why not apply the same for “presidency candidates”?
- - -
BTW, pooka (but not exclusively), I have a question, as I don’t know if we touched very closely your first reply in the recent activity on the thread: Do you think that someone who learns (from new experience and/or knowledge) that some “truth” that they hold strongly before is “wrong” (in the light of the new “data”), that they should lose their trust in themselves and in their capacity of discernment, and therefore abandon the search of the truth on the PGK level inside?
posted
Hey, it's okay, so he doesn't like me. I'm better off knowing than going along thinking we're pals.
Of course the various ages at which people are believed to attain... what, maturity... are somewhat arbitrary, but I think they reflect the general observations of people over time. Of course, this is a General Ground Knowledge or... I'm not quite facile with the acronyms.
But I'm interested in the Family Ground Knowledge. There comes a point when one exits one's family of origin.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But I'm interested in the Family Ground Knowledge. There comes a point when one exits one's family of origin.
Believe me, I understand the interest. I had lo leave for an extended period my country of origin. That's one of the reasons why I defined those levels, and why I'm interested in all these questions.
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Before jumping to conclusions: Megan, do you take the side of JT?
And, what am I to do, blow the whistle on him? Is that how it works?
I don't take anyone's side. Quite frankly, I don't really care about the thread topic much at all. All I'm saying is that you don't have the right to say, "Leave this thread." And, IF JT has done something that violates the ToS, which I'm pretty sure he hasn't, then yeah, you'd blow the whistle. However, since I'm pretty sure he hasn't done anything that violates the ToS, then I think you'd be wrong to do so. If Papa Moose, who has been following this thread, thinks that what JT said was out of line, he'll say so. Otherwise, you can object to what JT said, but you can't order him to leave the thread. That's not your role.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said I disliked you, pooka. Just that I think you're an exceptionally poor judge of social cues (something you yourself have admitted more than once).
A, you can order whomever you like to do whatever you want, but I think you'll find you don't have that authority. But if you like looking like an over-sensitive blowhard by all means continue.
(below the text of the post, all the way to the right, is the whistle icon for 'Report Post'. Should you feel the need, I would imagine it would result in Papa telling me to play nice even though I haven't violated the ToS, and I would because I like him and don't want to make any more work for him. I'll leave you guys alone now, anyway, just in case.)
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Papa Moose, who has been following this thread, thinks that what JT said was out of line, he'll say so.
I wouldn't be so sure. Just because he thinks something is out of line doesn't mean that he'll think that pointing it out is necessarily the best course of action.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, true. But if it were out of line enough to deserve a whistle, and he caught it pre-whistle, I think he might step in. I'm not sure. I trust him to make that kind of decision; that's why he's the moderator.
Regardless, however, as JT said, A doesn't have the authority to order people out of the thread. He can object to, disagree with, the language used in the post, and that's about the extent of it.
Edit: Sure, A. Ignoring a post you don't like is always an option.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are under no obligation to respond to any post you don't want to.
Although it's generally best to at least acknowledge that you won't be responding, which you've done.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But I'm interested in the Family Ground Knowledge. There comes a point when one exits one's family of origin.
Believe me, I understand the interest. I had lo leave for an extended period my country of origin. That's one of the reasons why I defined those levels, and why I'm interested in all these questions.
A.
Ah, well that explains why a lot of people are failing to grasp why this topic is worth discussing.
I'm still catching up on what the topic was in the first place, since I didn't see it the first time around.
While I was at lunch I wondered if the level at which one's ground knowledge is significant probably depends on the type of person one is. Some people really need a family to feel fulfilled, and others do not. Some people need to be involved in civic affairs and not have a family that conforms to social norms (like Giuliani or Clinton). Some people just want to be normal on every level all at once and are likely to be neurotic as a result.
I think most methods of sorting people are more or less like cutting a pie. You can put the line anywhere, it is still a pie.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
mr_porteiro_head, Megan, thank you for your participation. I see that you have an honest intention to educate me in matters that I lack a lot of knowledge. I appreciate it.
pooka, take your time to read the rest of the thread, I hope you'll find enough interesting points and questions to continue this discussion.
posted
Since the original point of the bump was to get some new opinions, here's my two cents.
First, I want to check something--a prerequisite to egotheism would be that you have to accept the absence of any absolute truth in the world, right? (since the requirement for truth seems to be the number of people that agree on a given fact/statement/concept)
Assuming this is correct, I have to say that I'm not an egotheist, and that it would also be impossible to be an egotheist and a Christian (since Christians believe in absolute truth) and probably also impossible to be both egotheist and Muslim, Jewish, etc. (I can't say positively because I'm not as familiar with these religions)
Now let's see how I do with your main group of questions.
quote:Originally posted by suminonA:
1) Is egotheism a valid system of beliefs? Yes, I obviously think it is valid. Otherwise I wouldn’t bother to defend it.
2) What age is best for one to “become egotheist”? It is the age when one can take responsibility for his/hers beliefs/choices. When that person is strong/educated enough.
3) What sort of education is recommendable before “becoming egotheist”? CGK, RGK and FGK.
4) Is CGK a valid concept (i.e. does it exist)? Yes, I hope it is. Without that, everything is so much more difficult …
5) What could we include into the CGK? Logic, for starters. Mathematics. Physics. Science in general. History (i.e. all available versions). And as much more as we can.
6) Could we include moral values into CGK? I’d like to see that happen. But they should definitely be part of RGK at least.
7) Should we include any particular religion into CGK? No. There is no reason for it. Moral values do exist outside religion, at least at a RGK level.
What say you?
[edited for clarity] [/QB]
1) I guess technically that would depend on what you mean by "system of beliefs". I would say no, because it is, as was mentioned before, a 'meta-system' a way of governing people's actual belief systems (religious veiws). Or, to put it more harshly, it's a way of diminishing all religious beliefs and moral codes, almost to the point of non-existence.
2) I find this one a little tricky. The line between 'strong/educated enough' and 'ignorant' is so completely subjective that it boggles my mind. How much knowledge do you need before you are educated enough? What if the knowledge you need isn't available yet to mankind?
3) See above, but I'd like to point out that since the definition of all your BK's would be almost impossible to pin down, your answer doesn't seem to be of any real use.
I've got to run, but I'll try to get to your other questions later.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eowyn-sama, I think you’ve just made my day! Seeing some (new) real interest (pooka included) makes me able to pass beyond the shame of my previous mistake, and have some constructive debate here! Thank you for that.
Also, I’m glad you’re challenging my points, that way I have the opportunity to learn more as we debate.
Here we go:
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: First, I want to check something--a prerequisite to egotheism would be that you have to accept the absence of any absolute truth in the world, right? (since the requirement for truth seems to be the number of people that agree on a given fact/statement/concept)
Assuming this is correct, I have to say that I'm not an egotheist, and that it would also be impossible to be an egotheist and a Christian (since Christians believe in absolute truth) and probably also impossible to be both egotheist and Muslim, Jewish, etc. (I can't say positively because I'm not as familiar with these religions)
This was noted before, the fact that egotheism seems to promote “moral relativism”, and I can’t deny that 100%. It is the result of the “prerequisite”, as you put it, that “absolute truth”, even as it might exist as a Platonic concept, can’t be really known “absolutely”, and transferred from one human being to another, the first because we don’t posses all the possible data (yet) and the second because our language is far from perfect. Add to that the imperfection of us humans.
Yet, the egotheism tries to make the point, that, as we can’t agree on everything, we should look for the common ground and use it to our benefit, while accepting that on some matters there is no such common ground. So those matters should be left for others levels (i.e. Regional/Familial/Personal).
The fact that you as a Christian say clearly that at least you believe in absolute truth, answers the question whether all religions are compatible with egotheism. You are right that egotheism is not compatible with your personal system of beliefs. (That is not meant to be a judgment on the value of your beliefs!)
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: 1) I guess technically that would depend on what you mean by "system of beliefs". I would say no, because it is, as was mentioned before, a 'meta-system' a way of governing people's actual belief systems (religious veiws). Or, to put it more harshly, it's a way of diminishing all religious beliefs and moral codes, almost to the point of non-existence.
You see, I was afraid that it might sound like that, and if it does, I understand why there might be some aversion toward this debate. What I fear most is that people would take this as a subversive way to diminish the beliefs of others (whatever the “level” of such beliefs be).
It really isn’t my intention. I can only promise you that. I suppose none of you know me well enough to just take my word for it. Please have patience as I try to explain it.
The main point to take into consideration is that the PGK (personal ground knowledge) level doesn’t stand for the “leftovers” after the “valuable knowledge” was distributed on the other levels. Nothing more farther from what I try to say here.
I think (I choose to believe) that what happens on the PGK level really defines us as “conscious beings”, and therefore supersedes all other levels. That’s what I mean when I say that truth is to be found inside us.
But as this is an epistemological matter, the concern of egotheism is to what “common knowledge” would be, and how can it be taught to everyone, as we are also living among other “conscious beings” and we are not alone in this Universe. (If it were for us to be really alone, the only relevant part would obviously be PGK!)
And we saw that knowledge isn’t all “common ground” (CGK) but that there are (at least!) the four levels, adding RGK, FGK and PGK. So when we’re talking about ways of gathering/sharing knowledge (the intent of egotheism), we should concentrate on that, namely knowledge, and not “the truth” that one can or cannot see in it. (Knowledge outside, Truth inside!)
Well, this is getting rather long, so I’ll stop here for the moment. I will answer the other points you’ve raised, soon.
And I look forward to your next contributions (and feedback)!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
