quote:Human caused global climate change vs not. And, again, despite what yousay, there's a definite scientific answer to that one.
"Depsite what I say?" I didn't say anything about whether there's a definite scientific answer to that one. I said people dispute whether there is. That's undeniably true, but also irrelevant, because the point of my post was that there other issues associated with the question of whether a state legislature should mandate teaching a particular scientific area in public schools.
I'm not talking about the dispute "is x science or not?" I'm talking about the dispute "should x be taught in public schools?" They're different questions.
quote:Those are the only two I can think of that a voter might have in mind, thus, political disagreement. And on both of those, there is a correct scientific answer. Which does NOT answer the question of whether they should be taught in school. But if its "pick one," then there is a correct and an incorrect answer.
And it's not "pick one."
Whether X is valid science or not is only a threshold question as to whether - and how - X should be taught in public schools. There is no definitive answer.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But regarding psychology, it seems like we cycle through theories rather quickly in that field.
Why is linguistics not a high school subject?
I don't think I would count psychology as a science, or linguistics or sociology. I might be willing to go with soft science.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a difference between proof in the sense of rigorous scientific proof, and weight of testimony, as provided in courts by the "soft science" of qualified opinions and analysis of pschologists. These are often considered of sufficient weight to send people to prison--or exonerate them.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Whether X is valid science or not is only a threshold question as to whether - and how - X should be taught in public schools. There is no definitive answer."
Agreed. But whether or not X is valid science DOES have a definitive answer.
And, in political discourse, the questions abotu what should be taught in school tends more to be about whether or not X is valid science.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We cannot live our lives without the equivalent of "soft" science. There is no empirical "hard" science that establishes right from wrong, or whether God should be believed in or not, or whether friend X should be trusted more than friend Y, or whether peers should be trusted more than parents, or whether witness X in court is more reliable than witness Y.
If parents are not providing this training for their children, they are failing in their most important duty. Love that lacks this is betrayal.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: We cannot live our lives without the equivalent of "soft" science. There is no empirical science that establishes right from wrong, or whether God should be believed in or not, or whether friend X should be trusted more than friend Y, or whether peers should be trusted more than parents, or whether witness X in court is more reliable than witness Y.
This is fine. But what's your point?
Those 'soft sciences' mentioned would still, more than likely, meet the criteria to be science.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: What the hell is "Sharafat"?
Have I exposed myself as not having read the first link on this page?
No, she doesn't mention that in the first link. But it seems pretty clear to me (not yet having read the second link) that she's talking about Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whether X is valid science or not is only a threshold question as to whether - and how - X should be taught in public schools. There is no definitive answer.
You are kind of cherry picking your areas here. While "What should be taught in public schools?" doesn't have a definitive answer, "Should some subject, X, be taught as science in public school?" can have a definitive answer. Thus, contrary to what you said, there are some definitive answers in this area.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow - page 30 before serious thread drift happens? Is this a hatrack record for a non-game thread?
But, seriously, for those of us interested in election news, do you guys think you could start up a new thread?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I agree that demonizing should not be done. Dismissing? Sometimes.
And I just want to be clear, a person can have very good reasons for their position with it still being wrong.
For example: My child was mauled by a dog. My position is that all dogs should be destroyed. (I'm purposefully using an extreme example. I doubt anyone holds that specific position. But then again, I could be wrong.)
Do I have a good reason for holding that position? Certainly. But that doesn't mean my position is correct, or right.
If you dismiss the "anti-dog" person, you may never understand that, instead of being a dog hater, they are concerned for the safety of children. If the anti-dog person just dismisses the pro-dog person as caring more about dogs than about children, you may never find a compromise like leash laws or restricted areas in parks for dogs.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are kind of cherry picking your areas here. While "What should be taught in public schools?" doesn't have a definitive answer, "Should some subject, X, be taught as science in public school?" can have a definitive answer. Thus, contrary to what you said, there are some definitive answers in this area.
Well yes, if you take that sentence out of context. Here it is again:
quote:There aren't "definite answers" for science standards in public schools. There's far more to deciding what to teach in public school science classes than issues that have definite answers.
See, when read with the one sentence that followed it, it's clear what I meant.
Deciding what NOT to teach in public school science classes is not what I was talking about.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that it is a deeper understanding that, even if you don't agree with someone else, that their positions have value.
This is not always the case. Sometimes another person's position has no value at all.
Connecting this to OSC's article, though, the point is that while you may consider someone's opinion on one issue flat out wrong, and valueless, you should not consider all of that person's opinions flat out wrong and valueless. And that one of the problems with political discourse today is that those who don't toe the party line are branded as traitors. That basically means that to an extremist, every position held by the other side is valueless. And so we get situations where John McCain is branded a traitor and an impostor for *gasp* agreeing with Democrats on some points. I find it to be a point in his favor that he has, in the past at least, demonstrated that his convictions are his own and not based on a literal reading of his party's platform. The very thing that I consider a strength in him, though, had all sorts of extreme conservatives outraged.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure the conservatives will come back. They were just seeing how far you could tip the canoe before the other guy grabs the rails.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are kind of cherry picking your areas here. While "What should be taught in public schools?" doesn't have a definitive answer, "Should some subject, X, be taught as science in public school?" can have a definitive answer. Thus, contrary to what you said, there are some definitive answers in this area.
Well yes, if you take that sentence out of context. Here it is again:
quote:There aren't "definite answers" for science standards in public schools. There's far more to deciding what to teach in public school science classes than issues that have definite answers.
See, when read with the one sentence that followed it, it's clear what I meant.
Deciding what NOT to teach in public school science classes is not what I was talking about.
I'm not sure why that next statement matters. The sentence "There aren't "definite answers" for science standards in public schools." is false. There are definitive answers to some areas of this. It is exceding clear to me that Javert was referring to the ones that I also referenced.
I agree that there is far more to it than these definitive answers, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.
If you want to say that determining science standards as a whole has no definitive answer, that's fine. But that is very different from what you said and (and this is the important part) what Javert was talking about.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you are talking about global warming, and such things, you are talking about something that should be "hard" empirical science, but which may still be questionable, because the science is not being done right. Evidence is not being handled properly, contrary evidence is being ignored, etc. This is exactly the situation with evolution as well.
Whether variation in speciation is best explained by evolution theory, or by creation theory, should be empirically provable--examine the DNA in forerunner species (like perhaps wolves), and see if all the required genetic coding for Cocker Spaniels is already present, just waiting for certain genetic switches to be turned on or off to activate different portions of the DNA library of potential alternate characteristics. This must necessarily prove creation theory, since there is absolutely no way possible for unexpressed genetic traits to evolve by any mechanism, especially when unused genetic traits are often deleted completely from the genome when a specialized, subspecies variation is selected (for example, the jaguar is recognized to be at the "shallow end" of the genetic pool--thus you might breed down from a lion and get a jaguar, but you could never breed back from a jaguar and get a lion, since some of the original genetic information has been deleted in the jaguar).
Those who say you cannot prove evolution or creation are wrong. It is possible, with advanced gene-mapping techniques.
Since any rational system of statistical analysis has already proven that evolution cannot occur, and yet evolutionists refuse to accept the mathematical proof, perhaps positive proof that speciation occurs in harmony with creation theory will be suffient to prove the truth of the matter.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Texas isn't for a while yet, but has anyone looked at how their delegate process works? From the wikipedia page:
quote: The 126 state senate district delegates are selected through the primary based on results in each of the 31 state senate districts. They are apportioned based on the weight of the vote cast for the Democratic nominee for Governor of Texas, Chris Bell, in the 2006 general election, and for John F. Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election. This has the result of increasing delegates in African-American senatorial districts disproportionate to their population.[7]
I can see the logic behind proportioning your delegates based on the districts' turnouts in previous elections. However, this seems to set up another situation where one candidate gets the higher percentage of the statewide vote (and thus the media reports that as a "win" of the state) but the other candidate gets more delegates.
From what I've heard about the demographics of which districts have more or less delegates, it seems pretty likely that Clinton could win the popular vote while Obama gets more delegates. Which would set us up for another barrage of "See how undemocratic this is?" infighting. *sigh*
quote:"There aren't "definite answers" for science standards in public schools."
No, it's not. Those definitive answers aren't for science standards. They are for questions that, when answered, may help in defining science standards. But they fall short of doing so.
quote:It is exceding clear to me that Javert was referring to the ones that I also referenced.
It wasn't clear to me. I clarified. This caused him to clarify.
quote:If you want to say that determining science standards as a whole has no definitive answer, that's fine.
Good, because that's what I did say. That would be the point of the second statement: to clarify what could otherwise be an ambiguous sentence.
quote:But that is very different from what you said
No, it's not different than what I said.
Moreover, what I meant is the far more natural reading of the sentence "There aren't 'definite answers' for science standards in public schools." What you think I said - again, based on ignoring the context - would be a more accurate summary of "There aren't 'definite answers' related to science standards in public schools."
Again, I can see how the sentence standing alone might be interpreted as you read it. I don't see how you could honestly interpret it that way given the context of the next sentence.
I've clarified sufficiently at this point that continued insistence on your part would be dishonest.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Enig, I think that several of the primaries have been that way. The districting plays a significant role.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
this argument I think would go a long way to not having to even be arguable if schools didnt have this habbit of lying to students every year.
Year 1: Here is how it is. Year 2: We lied, this is how it actually is. Year 3: Repeat Year 2. Year 4: See Above. Year 5: See above.
College: Yeah the entirity of what was taught in High school is bogus, here is the truth but unfortunately so much politics has come into the issue that its warped your impressionable minds and now you can't get a decent job in the field ever because you now engrained the wrong thought patterns.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Enig, I think that several of the primaries have been that way. The districting plays a significant role.
iirc Nevada was, but it was very close in both popular vote and delegates awarded. New Mexico may have been too, but I can't think of others that were off the top of my head. Normal districting can have that result (just like the EC can in the general election) but Texas's weighting seems to go above and beyond normal districting. It looks like it could result in a much more dramatic difference between the statewide popular vote and the delegate allocation then we've seen so far.
posted
Dag, So we're clear, you actually agree with what Javert meant when he said that there are definitive answers in determining a science curiculum, yes?
That was the main area I took issue with. I saw no indication that you realized that you were refuting something he never meant to say.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Texas isn't for a while yet, but has anyone looked at how their delegate process works? From the wikipedia page:
quote: The 126 state senate district delegates are selected through the primary based on results in each of the 31 state senate districts. They are apportioned based on the weight of the vote cast for the Democratic nominee for Governor of Texas, Chris Bell, in the 2006 general election, and for John F. Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election. This has the result of increasing delegates in African-American senatorial districts disproportionate to their population.[7]
I can see the logic behind proportioning your delegates based on the districts' turnouts in previous elections. However, this seems to set up another situation where one candidate gets the higher percentage of the statewide vote (and thus the media reports that as a "win" of the state) but the other candidate gets more delegates.
From what I've heard about the demographics of which districts have more or less delegates, it seems pretty likely that Clinton could win the popular vote while Obama gets more delegates. Which would set us up for another barrage of "See how undemocratic this is?" infighting. *sigh*
--Enigmatic
My initial response to that is: Huzzah!
It seems this primary process has been, as a secondary issue, about exposing glaring weaknesses in the process which we use to create a nominee on the Democrats' side of things. Every state has some other wacky rules. Washington state is having a caucus or a primary tomorrow, I can't remember which, and they had one of those a week ago. I haven't a clue as to how the delegate apportioning works for that state. I know we have representative democracy in the Congress, but I think when it comes to presidents, and now presidential candidates, it's time to go to a direct election, either that or standardize and fix the process we currently use. Winner take all isn't fair either, as I think it disenfranchizes and stymies the people who come out to vote and lose. Their vote disappears in a puff if rulemaking, and has no effect on the process down the road, whereas a more direct process would still have their voice recorded.
The system was designed to create a frontrunner and winner very early on. But that obviously collapsed, and now momentum matters much less. States that generally have no say in the process, or where, quite frankly, people know their vote doesn't matter and just don't give a damn, haven't really had to pay attention to voting rules and fairness because they've never mattered, and now we're seeing the problem with that as every state falls under a microscope.
Clinton is going to have a hard time criticizing Texas' process and then saying Michigan and Florida still count. She can't have everything her way. Nothing about Michigan and Florida is fair for the people actually in those two states, or for Obama, who is underrepresented in the voting. If she wants to still beat that drum, she'll have to swallow goofy state rules. She doesn't get to cherry pick for her own benefit.
quote:Originally posted by scholar: To be honest, I don't see why we can't have a Muslim president. When I hear the Muslim complaint, my first thought is not, no he's not, but so, what if he is? Why couldn't a Muslim mak an excellent leader? As far as the war on terror, maybe his unique understanding of the "enemy" would lead to us coming to a resolution.
quote:...for if Obama once was a Muslim, he is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed. Were he elected president of the United States, this status, clearly, would have large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world.
I've been swinging back and forth this entire election between Obama, Clinton and McCain. I don't hate any of them. So, for me, I'm very interested in actually fleshing out the differences they all pose as the next President.
I don't seriously think Obama is a Muslim, but I'm worried about this if it's true. Can anyone shed some light on this "murtadd (apostate)" in Islamic law?
posted
It varies quite a bit. There was a thread about the general subject on the OSC side of the forum I started after reading a Weekly Standard article about Obama and Romney several weeks ago.
It seems to be considered inappropriate to opine that muslims believe apostates should be killed. In that context, it becomes rather difficult to determine to what degree it might be true.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hasn't he stated before that he was never at any time a Muslim? It's not like Jews where if your father or mother was one then you are too. If he says he was never a Muslim, then how can anyone pin it on him? I don't get it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: I don't seriously think Obama is a Muslim, but I'm worried about this if it's true. Can anyone shed some light on this "murtadd (apostate)" in Islamic law?
Don't know about the word, but from what I've been told (by both Muslims and ex-Muslims), the punishment for apostasy is death.
Or, rather, the punishment for being an active apostate is death.
A woman ex-Muslim I speak to online told me that if you lose the faith but never speak of it and never say anything against Islam, you shouldn't be put to death. Doing something like becoming Christian, however, might be worthy of the death sentence.
This is not saying, of course, that all Muslims agree with the order of death to apostates, any more than all Jews and Christians think their disobedient children should be stoned to death.
But it is what the book, and the fundamentalists, say.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So we're clear, you actually agree with what Javert meant when he said that there are definitive answers in determining a science curiculum, yes?
I'll repeat what I said earlier:
quote:Whether X is valid science or not is only a threshold question as to whether - and how - X should be taught in public schools. There is no definitive answer.
Which is in basic agreement with what Javert said when he said:
quote:There is criteria to determine what is and what is not science. Opinion is not an issue.
If something is science, it can be included in science class. The actual specifics, quantum physics vs. ecology for example, are opinion based.
I didn't mean to suggest that the entirety of the issue was non-opinion based. But certain sub-issues within it are.
I do take exception to the idea that people of good will can't disagree about whether a specific thing is science or not, because every categorization has entities that are close to the line. Creationism is not one of these edge areas, nor do those edge areas factor prominently into most public curriculum debates.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In case anyone is wondering whether Obama might be considered Muslim by virtue of his father being Muslim, the answer would be "no." You become Muslim by reciting a certain prayer a certain number of times. ShahadahPosts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It says "Click on the sponsor logo: to read this article and all of Salon for free". But there's no sponsor logo. Annoying.
Lisa, are you using Firefox with AdBlocker or AdBlocker Plus?
Nope. I'm using IE 6 on WinXP SP2.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: In case anyone is wondering whether Obama might be considered Muslim by virtue of his father being Muslim, the answer would be "no." You become Muslim by reciting a certain prayer a certain number of times. Shahadah
Although in Israel, if your father is Muslim, you're automatically considered Muslim for purposes of identification. Even if your mother is Jewish, believe it or not. Because the State of Israel is so desperate to be liked that they decided to go according to Islamic law rather than Jewish law.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Noemon, I had a chance to read your second link. Thanks for that, it was interesting.
Glad you found it interesting. I hadn't realized how old it was when I first linked to it. I wonder how here positions have changed since 2002 when the interview was conducted.
By the way, here is a video of the interview that that is a transcript of.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's not like Jews where if your mother was one then you are too.
Fixed that for you.
Thanks! Sorry. You know I originally had it that way and then added "father" in before I hit post because I second guessed myself.
Polls open in Wisconsin in I believe 10 hours. I don't think polls open in Hawaii for another day almost because they are so far behind (or are they way far ahead? I'm not always stellar with time zones outside the US).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant outside the continental US! I feel the same way about Alaska, if that makes them feel any better.
New numbers for Texas, and old, for some context:
February 14th - Hillary Clinton 54%, Barack Obama 38%, Undecided 9% Hillary Clinton 48%, Barack Obama 41%, Undecided 11% Barack Obama 48%, Hillary Clinton 42%, Other 3% Undecided 7%
CNN/Opinion Research Corp - February 17th - Hillary Clinton 50%, Barack Obama 48%, Undecided 2%
Take a look at where those undecideds from the previous polls went. They largely broke for Obama. Two points separate them with two more undecided and a plus/minus of four and a half. In other words it's a tie, and it could go either way. Analysis? Obama closed the gap in Texas. And I've been doing some more reading on Texas' funky, crazy as all hell apportionment rules. They look to largely favor Obama, which means even a split could give him a big boost, but they choose really oddly, with some delegates being chosen in June at the statewide convention. A third of them will be chosen at the caucus, which will take place directly after voting for the primary closes, and only primary voters are eligible to vote in the caucus. It's complicated, and it looks like it might take a day or two for us to really have a good look at what the results will be, and it'll be months before we know where all of Texas' pledged delegates even go. But I think we'll largely know at the end of the night or the next day who "won" the state. Clinton might have to do some spin to make it look like a numerical victory actually means she won, even if the delegates go more for Obama, just like in Nevada. But I think if it comes down to that, she's already lost. She played off her however many straight losses since Super Tuesday as meaningless because Texas and Ohio were her big wins. Now she's trying to make it sound like even those aren't uber important, but superdelegates and even her own staffers are calling them both must win states. If she has to try and win via spin and technicalities, she's lost. They have to be clear wins. You can't lost a dozen states in a row and then have one or two squeekers and then declare victory, not with that much pressure on those two states.
I think the next two weeks are going to be very interesting. Obama is already tied with her in Texas, and he hasn't really even campaigned there much, and that was a big gap he closed in just a couple weeks. After tomorrow, he has two weeks with nothing, and that's a lot of time to fundraise, and blanket Ohio and Texas with campaign stops and ad buys. Rhode Island and Vermont won't totally get lost in the shuffle. Obama has been very good at making smaller states feel important even if they are in the shadow of bigger states. Besides, last I heard he's winning Rhode Island and Pay Leahy has endorsed him in Vermont, and will be campaigning for him. Things could change wildly in those states in the next two weeks, and frankly I don't think what happens tomorrow will really effect it all that much.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Call it a character judgement, but I think no matter what happens in TX and OH, Clinton will find some way to spin it and stay in the race long after everyone else thinks it's over. But then, I didn't think Romney would step out so soon after Super Tuesday, so what do I know?
If I were running Obama's campaign, after Wisconsin I'd put a lot of effort into Ohio. It's a swing state and was crucial in the last election, so superdelegates looking at the bigger strategy are probably paying attention. Also, it'll have the results right away and in a much more clear-cut way than Texas will. With everyone talking about how these two are must-win states for Clinton and the possibility for a more vague definition of a "win" in Texas, I think losing Ohio hurts Clinton more in perception unless he can pull off a massive, obvious win in Texas. (This is in terms of Obama trying to end the race before the convention. To just stay in it a close split is fine in those states, of course.)
posted
For my own opinion, I think regardless of what happens in March, this won't go all the way to the convention. The latest I see it going is Pennsylvania in April, and that's going to be an awkward two months in between contests, but I think this'll be over soon.
Delegate wise, I think Texas is going to be much more important to Obama. Getting on the ground in Ohio is important for the General too, the headway he makes there will get paid back in a few months. But in reality, he doesn't have to pick and choose. He has tons of money and volunteers, he'll aggressively pursue both states, and frankly Ohio is the easier state, with a third of the major media markets that Texas has, Obama will blitz every one of them with ads while volunteers canvass the neighborhoods.
If she loses both, she might not have the option of not dropping out. Superdelegates, I think, will flock to Obama, from her own coffers and from the undecideds out there, and it might not push him over the top, but I think he comes away with a bit delegate lead over Clinton, and I think she'll face enormous pressure from the party's upper echelons to drop out, especially given that McCain will have his thing locked up by then. Three or four more months of Democrat on Democrat action will kill a lot of the momentum and advantage that this contest has created. If it ends in March, then these past few months will have done an incredible service to the party, the likes of which could never have been imagined a year or six months ago. But if it drags on, it becomes a net loss, and every superdelegate, above all, wants to win the White House. Prolonging the agony hurts the party, and loyalty to Clinton doesn't extend that far. It'll be even worse if he has a commanding victory in both states, I think her campaign will just implode.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree about Clinton hanging on by her fingernails even if she does poorly in TX and Ohio .
That's an interesting point about Ohio being more important in perceptual terms. Given the labyrinthine primary/caucus rules (which I am heartily sick of! This country is screaming for election reform) for apportioning delegates in TX which Lyrhawn just described, the results will likely slowly trickle in over 24-48 hours. Ohio should be much easier for the networks to call that night. So Ohio could be more important for that reason as well as the swing state thing you pointed out.
Assuming Ohio doesn't have Rube Goldberg-inspired apportioning rules as well.
quote:Washington State Democrats are also heading to the polls Tuesday to vote in that state's primary, but the results will have no impact on how the Washington state delegates will be distributed. The delegate allocation was determined February 9 when Washington state Democrats held caucuses. Obama won those handily over Clinton, 68 percent to 31 percent.
posted
The Washington Primary may be for local and state leaders, or something.
quote:No recent poling is available for the Washington Republican primary, which the state party uses to allocate nearly half of the state's delegates. The other half of the state's delegates were allocated according to the results of caucuses held February 9.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
