posted
When someone is so utterly, stubbornly, and clearly wrong that it seems just ridiculous, what to do?
Is ridicule helpful?
I've done it many times. I have mocked, teased, and otherwise tried to ridicule people who I think are clinging stubbornly to a belief or an argument that has been thoroughly refuted. So while this might sound preachy I do think that I probably need the sermon as well.
I'm going to say no. What's left at that point is either trying another angle on reasoned discussion, or just dropping it. Just posting ridicule helps nothing.
Of course there are degrees. I'm not likely to jump all over someone who bemusedly notes some irony. I might not even notice it, particularly - and it's sometimes a relatively benign exit from a conversation (but not normally a good way to make sure the conversation progresses).
But sometimes I notice that when a certain critical mass of like-minded posters have lined up against the person they agree is wrong, there seems to be a temptation to deliver the written equivalent of a spitwad to the back of the head. Rather than repeat or extend or endorse the arguments against the person, which might at least serve as a sort of record of group opinion, this is more like "you suck and I'm laughing at you because you suck."
I intend to try to avoid this more than I have in the past.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whenever possible, if I'm not already involved in a thread by the time it reaches ridiculing someone, I simply avoid posting in it. See the current thread on Kent Hovind and the reaction to Ron's posts, for example. I've read most of it, but there's absolutely nothing constructive I could contribute to it. It's the old "if you can't think of anything nice to say..." adage.
In fact, I've yet to see an internet discussion on God, Christianity, or Creationism end well. Ever. I try and avoid threads dealing with them entirely.
If I'm already involved in a thread, then it's more tempting. But again, I really dislike arguing with someone until they reach the point where ridicule is the only response - I typically back down or leave when reason is substituted with repeated assertions. But I have mocked people before, and the memory makes me feel somewhat ashamed.
IMO, the biggest problem I see with this is all the people who hop on the bandwagon after it reaches that point who weren't involved in the main debate. Specifically in the Kent Hovind thread, by the time I stopped reading at the end of page 2, I noticed at least one person who joined the discussion only to make mean spirited, personal attacks against Ron after others had done the brunt work of making actual arguments. It brings to mind thoughts of vultures circling, and seems rather sad and cowardly to me.
I think if the person making the false assertion is dead earnest and isn't being an asshole about it, the best response is just to ignore it and move on. Mocking will just reaffirm that people of the opposite opinion really are petty and nasty, and do nothing but strengthen the false belief.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:When someone is so utterly, stubbornly, and clearly wrong that it seems just ridiculous, what to do?
When that happens, I think you should consider the possibility that they are right.
This happens all too frequently: Person X is convinced that Person Y is utterly, stubbornly, and clearly wrong. Yet, in the end, Person X is the one who is wrong, and becomes so wrapped up in trying to prove Person Y wrong that he or she fails to see a flaw in his or her own position. It's always the other person who seems stubborn and obviously wrong. Even more interestingly, often both Person X and Person Y think this about eachother at the same time. In those cases, at least one of the two must be mistaken about which of the two is "clearly" wrong in their position. Sometimes both are mistaken.
Ultimately, there are two reasons why a person may seem utterly, stubbornly, or obviously wrong... (1) There is something they fail to see which makes them wrong. (2) There is something you fail to see which makes them appear wrong when they aren't. In case 1, you can try helping them see what they fail to see, but if they still can't or refuse to see it then you are stuck. That's up to them. In case 2, you can always choose to try and see what you have failed to see before. So, given you never truly know whether it is (1) or (2), if trying to solve case 1 fails completely, you might as well focus on case 2.
Ridicule wouldn't really help in either case.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: ... Is ridicule helpful? ... I'm going to say no. What's left at that point is either trying another angle on reasoned discussion, or just dropping it. Just posting ridicule helps nothing.
Well, it is rare that it helps the argument or the other person. But it could bring comedy to you and like-minded individuals (and I say "could" because it depends on the skill and detachment of the person involved).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have often thought that the world would be much improved if there were some way to deliver a hearty, physical slap upside the head over the Internet. Of course this would not change anyone's mind, any more than it does off the net, but the possibility would force people to be much more polite, and probably segregate the drooling idiots even more than happens now, or else make them keep their opinions to themselves. I feel fairly convinced that the lack of religious debates off the internet is due largely to the possibility of physical violence; when people feel strongly but have no actual arguments to make, they can either agree to shut up, fight it out, or be physically separated. The Internet has the unfortunate side effect of enforcing the last solution without ending debate.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When someone is so utterly, stubbornly, and clearly wrong that it seems just ridiculous, what to do?
When that happens, I think you should consider the possibility that they are right.
You would love that, wouldn't you? Unfortunately no, that runs completely counter to human nature. Life is not an episode of Star Trek.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I like to think that I'm a halfway reasonable person. I do have enough empathy that I frequently go through the whole, "Well, if I thought 'x'..." exercise. The problem is that if the exercise leads to recognizing that "thinking 'x'" involves a willful disregard of a,b,c, and delta through sigma, my mind forcefully ejects the empathy exercise for fear that goo will pour out of my ears and I will commence drooling.
It's perfectly reasonable to hold onto one's beliefs firmly enough that one isn't swayed by the first wind blowing opposite. But when one shuts out all data that might lend one to change that belief, others are perfectly validated in recognizing that continuing to offer such arguments is a waste of time and energy. It's a bit like recognizing that while everyone else is trying to play tennis, one person is determined to play football. You can only be tackled so many times while trying to serve before you begin to feel a strong desire to move the offender to the bathroom so he can continue to practice blocking on the hand dryer while everyone else gets on with tennis.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I have often thought that the world would be much improved if there were some way to deliver a hearty, physical slap upside the head over the Internet. Of course this would not change anyone's mind, any more than it does off the net, but the possibility would force people to be much more polite, and probably segregate the drooling idiots even more than happens now, or else make them keep their opinions to themselves. I feel fairly convinced that the lack of religious debates off the internet is due largely to the possibility of physical violence; when people feel strongly but have no actual arguments to make, they can either agree to shut up, fight it out, or be physically separated. The Internet has the unfortunate side effect of enforcing the last solution without ending debate.
I imagine that trolls would be much more annoying (and effective) as a side effect.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think so; trolls are generally rather badly outnumbered. There's a reason we don't see RL trolls going about hitting people willy-nilly, effective as it would be in getting attention. Well, not outside kindergarten, anyway. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Eh. Some people are into moral relativity. Tresopax is into factual relativity.
I'm not anywhere near believing factual relativity. If factual relativism were true then I'd never have to bother considering the possibility I might be wrong.
I am into human fallibility though - meaning "people often think they are clearly, overwhelmingly, absolutely right when they aren't." And not just other people.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You never *do* consider the possibility that you are wrong- you just consider the possibilities that all other people might be wrong equally. Which is really annoying when you're talking about one case that is very sound, and one that isn't. If you don't notice yourself doing this, please, pay closer attention.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You never *do* consider the possibility that you are wrong- you just consider the possibilities that all other people might be wrong equally. Which is really annoying when you're talking about one case that is very sound, and one that isn't. If you don't notice yourself doing this, please, pay closer attention.
I typically consider the possibility that I am wrong. I'm doing it right now even - what leads you to believe otherwise?
And also no, I don't consider the possibility that other people might be wrong equally. Typically I consider the possibility than an argument is wrong much more carefully for seemingly sound arguments, since there is not really that much need to find futher wrongness in an argument that you already recognize as unsound.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah yes, Hatrack. The same old people arguing the same old things with the same old enemies. Gotta love it.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Typically I consider the possibility than an argument is wrong much more carefully for seemingly sound arguments, since there is not really that much need to find futher wrongness in an argument that you already recognize as unsound.
But what you were encouraging people to do was to consider that an argument they originally recognized as unsound, might be valid.
That's the difficulty. When we aren't just talking about issues of opinion, there are certain kinds of arguments that are clearly recognizable as flawed. What do you do when you explain this flaw to your opponent a dozen different ways and they just keep replying with the same argument without even addressing the flaw you've explained? At some point the situation becomes ridiculous and point that out seems like the most logical response.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could just compromise your strong beliefs and pretend to be a moderate....that would make you popular for being objective. Take solace in the fact that time will either prove you wrong or right. Watching the facts unfold in time is the ultimate arbiter of any debate. Unfortunately, history is malleable and the present is often spin.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Unfortunately, history is malleable and the present is often spin.
Uhuh. You know the person I trust the least in the neighborhood? The guy with shutters on all his windows and a big nasty dog in the yard. You're that guy.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You could just compromise your strong beliefs and pretend to be a moderate....that would make you popular for being objective.
quote:objective
you keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Do you want to be my enemy? I don't have one yet, but I'm accepting applications.
Based on what criteria?
Well I can't speak for Dogbreath, but I require all my enemies be lovable, its sort of a requirement of my religion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oooooo, an arch-nemesis. I want an arch-nemesis.
Plus my religion does say anything specific about loving your arch-nemesis. I think I've found a loop hole.
But, of course, an arch-nemesis would have to be a match for my brilliance, so I'm not accepting just anyone for the position.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Unfortunately, history is malleable and the present is often spin.
Uhuh. You know the person I trust the least in the neighborhood? The guy with shutters on all his windows and a big nasty dog in the yard. You're that guy.
You forgot the arsenal I have in my house.
Really, in my neighborhood I'm Mr. Fixit. Whenever anyone in a one block radius needs something, they knock on my door. I've replaced transmissions in the driveway for the elderly, given money to out of work neighbors and spent hours repairing computers...for free. Of course, progressives would argue the wealthy should be taxed for such things.
Progressive policies destroy charity and the individual work ethic. I suppose the current administration reduced the tax deduction for charitable contributions out of care for the needy.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I'll be your enemy! I've always wanted an enemy. Actually, what I'd really like is an arch-nemesis.
Awesome! I've never been an arch-nemesis before either, but I'll do my best to trip you up in my dastardly plots.
The job is pretty simple, if time consuming. Basically you need to vociferously oppose every single thing I say, and take advantage of any opportunity to express your thorough and undying hatred of my being. I realize this might be difficult when we agree with each other on a given point - in that case, simply try and make me look as much like an idiot as possible. As if my being on your side does the cause more harm than good.
I'll do the same for you of course.
You can have Tuesdays and mornings off.
Rabbit: Would you like to be a henchwoman? Or maybe a mad scientist? I am very lovable. Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Progressive policies destroy charity and the individual work ethic.
Even if it did, the progressive policies would still provide a greater benefit to the needy and be better for the overall quality of life of the citizens of the country.
And it also doesn't really do what you claim, so it is win-win.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prove to me the welfare policies of the United States have elevated the poor in the US over the past 40 years. Do you see pictures of Aushwitz style starving from the great depression? Prior to progressive compassion, were there inner city projects? What was the gang rate in 1950? Gangs kill more minorities every year than the KKK ever did.
This isn't purely racial...my mothers family is the epitome of white trash. I remember my slutty 15 year old cousin fighting with her mother about wanting to be grown up. To her, being grown up was getting pregnant, getting a government subsidised apartment, welfare check and foodstamps. By 16, she met her goal. She had a baby and a place of her own. She received the compassionate benefits of our society. Where did she learn what it was to be an adult? Her parent/parents didn't grow up and get a job and pay for anything. She knew that she could have an equal lifestyle to her mothers and be a free adult just for spreading her legs. Other kids realize their dad has a college degree.....life is relative. People in the projects of America are wealthy compared to half the world's population. The problem is, the one's living in the projects hate the one's living in the suburbs. (despite the fact they are paying for them)
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
[qipte]Do you see pictures of Auschwitz style starving from the great depression? [/quote]
Well no; how many such pictures do you see of today's poor, who are rather more likely to be obese? The relevant comparison is the death rate, and I assure you that it jumped during the Depression; cold, disease, suicide. Why even bring up Auschwitz?
quote:Prior to progressive compassion, were there inner city projects?
Projects, no. Slums, yes. Have you read "Psmith Journalist"? It's quite a good book on its own merits, but pay attention to the description of the slums. Wodehouse was by no means exaggerating.
quote:What was the gang rate in 1950?
What was the murder rate in 1920? You might be surprised. And the 1950s are a bad point for you to cherry-pick anyway, since it could easily be taken to show the merits of the New Deal.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for helping me prove my point. Today, to be poor is to be obese....wow. The poorest in our nation are the fattest in the world. The poorest in other nations are starving while the poorest in ours are fat. We sure are oppressing our poor and the evil rich capitalist American should pay for the oppressed poor obese American's insulin. Afterall, they're fat because they're oppressed????
The African kid would work all day for a bag of wheat.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thank you for helping me prove my point. Today, to be poor is to be obese....wow.
In any postindustrial nation, procurement of food is among the lowest budgetary concerns relative to other economic pressures due to its ready availability. The problem is that the cheapest available food is not very healthy and encourages obesity.
So it doesn't prove your point at all — assuming you even had one worth considering — because it just shows that you don't understand that poverty is a different issue between high income nations and low income nations.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't play the imbecile, please mal- you wear it too well. If you don't realize the implications of the obesity trend among minority and low income people, it can be explained to you. In brief, the growing availability and intensified marketing of high calorie food of low quality or nutritional value represents an exploitative relationship between the American consumer base, and the American Big Food industry, specifically Phillip Morris, Kraft Foods, General Mills, Tyson Foods, and their various subsidiaries, partners and parent companies (I am not quite sure how the corporate structures fit together).
Big Food companies spend large amounts of money on advertising in low income communities for foods that are cheap and of low quality, and the increased availability and marketing of these processed products has encroached upon the market for foods of higher quality. At the same time, Big Food companies also lobby in Washington, and acquire positions for their own consultants on committees such as in the American Heart Association and the FDA, and work to lower or eliminate standards for school food consumption and proper labeling of products, as well as consumer warnings and public education on food consumption. They do these things in order to sell large amounts of high calorie, low quality food to poor people. It's obviously not terribly complicated.
It is also not a great leap or an extremely liberal position to take, to say that Big Food in America exerts a great amount of pressure on the poor to consume unhealthy food in unhealthy portions. By working to cut off education, access to alternatives, and important information about their own products, the food industry does indeed exploit and, in a certain manner, oppress the poor through economic and political pressure.
In many ways the food industry of today has a similar relationship to the poor that the manufacturing industry had at the turn of the 20th century. It is no accident at all that Eric Schlosser and other documentarians of the food industry often invoke The Jungle in their writings about the food industry of today. The total lack of concern for the welfare of consumers leads big food in America to pursue a corporate strategy that endangers the welfare of the entire nation. Literally, mal, the food industry sells an insipid form of poison to the consumer base, in the pursuit of higher profit margins- they learned how to do it from Big Tobacco, and in fact many of the players are the same.
These facts do not require that you believe in them Mal, nor that my particular interpretation fits your Calvinist moralizing. The trends are quite clear, and the negative impacts of those trends are being felt in American health care, education, and national productivity today.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Prove to me the welfare policies of the United States have elevated the poor in the US over the past 40 years.
Prove to me that they haven't. And do it without relying on anecdotal evidence.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The problem is, the one's living in the projects hate the one's living in the suburbs. (despite the fact they are paying for them)
I think you need to start examining the deeply ingrained insecurities that you have about your position in life relative to others, and start healing the resentment you feel towards the people who clearly hurt you early on in your life. One thing that stands out in much of what you've said on this forum is the need that your personal accomplishments be recognized, and that you personally be acquitted of the stain of your birth into poverty. Interestingly, your circumstances haven't provided you with the slightest degree of compassion for anyone. You hate the rich as much as you do the poor, and it's painfully clear from the way you talk to those who received what you have had to work for, whom you cast in much the same light as those who have less, and have not achieved the level of success that you have. Comments that you have made to me and others, implicit accusations of an overly privileged life, reveal that insecurity. But anyone here with even a little more experience with me knows that I am not terribly insecure about my privileged life. I embrace the circumstances that have given me things I know not everyone has or can have, no matter how hard they work. Not everyone can be born into a life like mine, and I am happy that I was, as much as I wish that others could be.
But you mal. I think you hate the circumstances of your life- certainly you speak of your family with anger and derision. Yet none of that has imbued you with the slightest bit of compassion. Why *do* you give to charity so generously as you claim to? If those claims are not lies, why do you look upon the poor as unworthy of your concern, and yet look upon your charity as a sign of your piety and superiority over them? Why, I wonder, do you insist that only two mentalities exist- either victimhood, or moral superiority? This cognitive dissonance causes you to say some of the most shockingly callous things. I wonder if you realize how it looks to others.
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I'll be your enemy! I've always wanted an enemy. Actually, what I'd really like is an arch-nemesis.
Awesome! I've never been an arch-nemesis before either, but I'll do my best to trip you up in my dastardly plots.
The job is pretty simple, if time consuming. Basically you need to vociferously oppose every single thing I say, and take advantage of any opportunity to express your thorough and undying hatred of my being. I realize this might be difficult when we agree with each other on a given point - in that case, simply try and make me look as much like an idiot as possible. As if my being on your side does the cause more harm than good.
I'll do the same for you of course.
You can have Tuesdays and mornings off.
Rabbit: Would you like to be a henchwoman? Or maybe a mad scientist? I am very lovable.
Luckily, today is Tuesday, so I don't have to get started until tomorrow.
Say, do I get holidays, too?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and New Years. Thanksgiving and Independence Day if you're an American (I think you are), or 2 other culturally appropriate holidays if not.
Our first day of enemyship starts tomorrow. I'm pretty excited.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and New Years. Thanksgiving and Independence Day if you're an American (I think you are), or 2 other culturally appropriate holidays if not.
Our first day of enemyship starts tomorrow. I'm pretty excited.
posted
I'm your rival, it's my business to hope all your rotten teeth abscess and cause you endless amounts of pain. I mean that in the nicest way, of course. Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you're blaming the marketing? Maybe we should limit free speech. Afterall, cooking food from home, from scratch is not only cheaper, it's healthier.
I came from a poor family...hot dogs were a special treat reserved for barbeque days and holidays. Hot dogs and Kraft prepackaged foods were a special treat. Prepackaged garbage is not the cheapest...the poorest should avoid it. Unless of course they're too lazy to cook a loaf of bread or spend two hours cooking beans. The healthiest foods are the cheapest and the unemployed welfare mother has nothing better to do than cook a healthy cheap meal for her family. Of course, microwaving a McNugget only takes 30 seconds...cooking a frozen ground turkey casserole requires work.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: So you're blaming the marketing? Maybe we should limit free speech. Afterall, cooking food from home, from scratch is not only cheaper, it's healthier.
I came from a poor family...hot dogs were a special treat for barbeque days. Hot dogs and Kraft prepackaged foods were a special treat. Prepackaged garbage is not the cheapest...the poorest should avoid it. Unless of course they're too lazy to cook a loaf of bread or spend two hours cooking beans. The healthiest foods are the cheapest and the unemployed welfare mother has nothing better to do than cook a healthy cheap meal for her family. Of course, microwaving a McNugget only takes 30 seconds...cooking a frozen ground turkey casserole requires work.
I think it depends on education quite a bit.
I too grew up in a poor family, but country poor, not city poor. And poor mostly because there were 8 of us kids. My mom would buy several 50 lb bags of wheat every year from a local farmer, grind it herself and bake 5 loaves of bread a week. She and my dad also had a 1 acre vegetable garden, and my dad had a wealthy associate who was also a cow farmer give him half a cow every year. (which we stored in a freezer in the basement) My mom and my sisters (and myself, when I was old enough) would cook dinner every night, eat oatmeal or cream of wheat or cereal every morning, and a sandwich (pbj or egg salad) and a salad every afternoon. We'd recycle (because they pay you per pound in Minnesota), reuse every Ziploc bag about 5 times, put in storm windows, and do about everything possible to save money. And we got along all right.
But the thing is, both my parents have a college education, and they'd spend a good chunk of time every week planning and budgeting to make sure we'd come out on top. My mom would shop at bulk stores and was a coupon ninja.
A lot of poor folks (especially in the city) simply don't have those skills. It's not that they're too lazy to budget or cook, it's that they don't even know *how* to budget or cook. They've never had a meaningful relationship with someone who was responsible with their money. And you seem so resentful and condescending of these people who are, frankly, having their ignorance exploited, no, encouraged by predatory corporations. And not just as far as food goes, either. The banks and credit card companies are far from innocent in this too.
I personally believe the single most powerful solution to poverty is education. It doesn't just increase wealth, it reduces waste. A well educated person's dollar goes 3 or 4 times as far as an ignorant person's. Your solution seems to be ridiculing people for being uneducated and telling them to stop being lazy, which in my experience will only engender a greater distrust for education.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
My family comes from White Earth...I still get bags of wild rice in the mail for Christmas. The education when it come to food is passed down by parents. You and I were poor yet were fed well and succeeded...we had good parents. It is unfortunate that some daughters learn how to cook by pressing "1" then "enter". It is unfortunate that some boys don't even have a father to teach them anything about being a man and father.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: My family comes from White Earth...I still get bags of wild rice in the mail for Christmas.
Same here! My family is from Little Falls (well, Randall technically), it's about 2 hours se of White Earth.
quote:The education when it come to food is passed down by parents. You and I were poor yet were fed well and succeeded...we had good parents. It is unfortunate that some daughters learn how to cook by pressing "1" then "enter". It is unfortunate that some boys don't even have a father to teach them anything about being a man and father.
I think that's the point I've been trying to make - we're successful because our parents taught us the skills we need to survive. Sure you're smart, hardworking, and moral... but the reason you're that way is because of how you were raised. I think the main goal of socialism (at least what everyone here has been trying to argue) is to give that opportunity to *everyone*, not just those privileged to have been born into the right family. Via free education, community building and leadership training, free food, housing assistance... it's all about giving people tools to build their way out of poverty, the tools that their families didn't give them. Sure there will be people who exploit that like your welfare queen cousin. But that's their loss - for every one of them, there's a successful person who wouldn't have made it without help from the government.
I'm not sure why you think that's such a bad idea.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
