quote:Originally posted by Aros: My work here is done.
Give me one good reason I should ever trust my words to your feeble care?
Duh, you shouldn't. Anything can be deleted at any time. The point is to have a discussion. Not to keep every word for posterity. If someone breaks the penis off the statue of David, or urinates on the Mona Lisa, I say throw them out with the trash.
Probably why I'm not the moderator.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck, you can't even get a thread deleted for links to nudity and offhanded ramblings about child promiscuity. Oh wait. . . .
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
You have just as much right to destroy our discussions as Thomas Jefferson has to hop into a time machine and nuke this continent down to a pool of molten glass.
But you know that. This was never about the discussions, this was your grand exit gesture, flipping everyone here off as you back through the door.
Because you knew if you did that that your reputation here was shot. You knew that the citizens of this particular community would not forgive you for the wanton destruction of our voices. That you are still here, posting with nasty little quips isn't a reflection that you believe you are right, just that you want to enjoy pissing on your grave until your bladder is all the way empty.
And I know that by talking to you at all I'm feeding the troll. So...I'm done now.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Thread jacking is a part of life. So there. I'll do whatever I want. Nanny-nanny-poo-poo.
You have just as much right to destroy our discussions as Thomas Jefferson has to hop into a time machine and nuke this continent down to a pool of molten glass.
But you know that. This was never about the discussions, this was your grand exit gesture, flipping everyone here off as you back through the door.
You're right. I was flipping a few people off. And I have the right to do it. I asked a few people nicely to keep it family friendly and I was derided for it.
Some people get insulting. Some people spend incessant amounts of time boiling down a cutting remark. I'd rather just hit the delete button.
Thomas Jefferson wouldn't nuke people. Nor would I. But if you peed all over the Declaration of Independence, and if the software gave him a delete button to push, he might just do it -- if only to teach you whelps a little respect.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I was reading that discussion. I saw what it actually was. I saw how different it was from how you are characterizing it here, and honestly the only thing i can tell you now is that the lesson you think you are teaching everyone here ... Isn't happening. You don't understand your own lesson.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: This isn't an 18+ board, is it Matt? Where's the line? If you create a thread, are you not able to draw that line?
No, you are not able to draw the line. That's what the moderator is for. If you think a post crosses the line, whistle it, and the person who's responsibility it is to make that decision will make it.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Do you want an honest answer or a facetious remark? Don't matter to me. It was my thread. I couldn't delete offensive posts, and the moderator wasn't about to step in. My purpose in starting the thread had been completed. And I wasn't about to put up with the trash it had become.
I wanted an honest answer, which is why I asked an honest question.
Your "don't matter to me" answer confirms my impression from the original thread. Your notion of chivalry is about your aesthetic preferences, not about consideration or respect for others.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I just hope they know their posts went to a happy place. I'll be hosting a memorial service this afternoon. There will be tears.
Do you want an honest answer or a facetious remark? Don't matter to me. It was my thread. I couldn't delete offensive posts, and the moderator wasn't about to step in. My purpose in starting the thread had been completed. And I wasn't about to put up with the trash it had become.
Should this evolve into a discussion of how much ownership and responsibility we have over threads that we start? Because the software just gave me this big delete button. . . .
You did not even mention that there were problems in that thread. There's always a change I'll see it myself, but if there was a real problem that you felt necessitated intervention, you should have said so.
Simply jumping to the delete option is disrespectful to everyone who posted in good faith. I'm not saying I'll stop you from deleting your posts, right now it's not against any rule to do so, but don't lay this on me or say that I was unwilling to step in, I didn't even know I might need to.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
In another article about dating, it has been (rather forcefully) pointed out that many traditional concepts of chivalry or Southern manners are outdated -- offensive even.
Is it truly sexist or misogynistic to: - Open a car door - Open a door to a residence or other building - Walk on the road-side of the sidewalk - Offer a lady a jacket - Help a lady with her jacket - Help a lady with her chair - Stand when a lady approaches a dinner table - Pay for the first date
What about more traditional daily chores? - Taking out the garbage - Doing "dirty" work (major digging, snow shoveling, changing oil, etc)
I didn't think that I'd be the only one arguing in favor of traditional manners. Most of the internet seems to agree with me. But posters on this site seem to think, rather than these being good manners, they are quite the opposite -- offensive. I agree that some old fashioned etiquette is outdated (ordering for your date).
I understand issues of equality . . . but is this just an issue of Hatrack hyperbole? Or would ladies truly be offended if a gentleman genuinely felt these to be matters of proper manners? Are we throwing out basic table manners while we're at it?
I'm certainly not arguing that chivalry should only apply when courting a girl. I open doors for everyone, regardless of sex. I stand when anyone joins my table. But where do we draw the line between carrying a heavy, nasty bag of garbage versus pulling out a chair. Is it sexist that many of us were taught that it was always better to err on the side of manners?
Conversely, I am CERTAINLY not advocating adopting these behaviors if it offends a lady. Only as a default. One wouldn't want to fight a lady, for example, if she feels awkward having a gentleman pay or open a car door.
If you saw an old man and an old woman sauntering to a car . . . he takes her hand, opens her door, helps her in. I can't help thinking this sweet. I can't imagine thinking ill of him, because she's a pretty little flower that can't enter a car herself. That really isn't the intention.
theamazeeaz:
quote:Um, I pointed out in a previous post that the word misogyny, which only you had ever used, is inappropriate.
Many of these things are patronizing.
Aros:
quote:No, the word "chauvinism" was used. I changed switched to misogyny, but the implication is the same.
Patronizing would infer an inherent belief that women are inferior (as would the other two terms). So, following traditional, etiquette makes this inference?
So, proper etiquette is now: - Don't offer to help carry anything - Don't open doors - Shrug off any discomfort that your date might be feeling - Make your date pay dutch
rivka:
quote:I would not be offended if anyone, male or female offered to do most of those things. UNLESS the implication was they were doing so because I was a delicate flower, or were themselves offended if I declined their offer of assistance.
Dan_Frank:
quote:
quote:So, proper etiquette is now: - Don't offer to help carry anything - Don't open doors - Shrug off any discomfort that your date might be feeling - Make your date pay dutch
This is Hatrack Hyperbole.
Most of the people arguing with you explicitly discussed how they open doors for everyone, are happy to pay for friends, etc.
I'm all for being courteous to people. I just don't think that the presence of a vagina is what merits that courteousness.
Aros:
quote:Hmm. . . .
Some of these I wouldn't naturally do for any woman . . . only one I was courting.
And I'd offer to carry things / take out the garbage for anyone if I was a guest or if they were (significantly) smaller than me.
But I would argue highly in favor that these are proper courtship behaviors, unless the lady makes it clear that they make her uncomfortable.
Dan_Frank:
quote:Ah. I don't know much about courtship behaviors. I was speaking about general civility towards other people, and whether or not that should be contingent upon genitals.
If it's specific to courtship, though... what's the appropriate behavior for a gay couple? Should gay men alternate on trash-taking-out and fight to be the first one to the door to open it? Should lesbians just live in filth and never open any doors?
Aros:
quote:Well, the other article was specific to courtship. That's why I was flabbergasted by some of the opinions.
And yes, in regard to gay couples, that's precisely what should happen. But lesbians will need to find a way to get food in and out, otherwise they'll starve.
Boris:
quote:
quote:Many of these things are patronizing.
How? Do you believe that people are opening doors for women because said door openers think that women can't open doors by themselves? Your use of declarative voice seems to suggest that you think that those acts are *objectively* patronizing in all situations. I don't think that is either a rational or objectively demonstrable view to hold.
I mean, to prove an action is patronizing, you must prove intent. If someone opens a door for a woman, the only way you can prove they are being patronizing is if they say, "Hey, sweety, you look pretty weak. I bet you need a big strong man to open this door for you." Which no one ever does. Because that would be blatantly sexist and a complete douchebag move.
Personally, I open doors for most people, but I do so because I can't stand walking behind people. I have opened doors for women on dates in the past, but I do so because I feel it's kind to do so. I open the door to the car for my mom because my dad fusses at me if I don't. My personal opinion on why to do kind things like opening doors and whatnot is that I should do them because I'm a person who is willing to expend my own energy to keep other people from having to. Not because I don't think they are capable of doing so.
On a related note, if I see a woman with lots of kids struggling to do something, I always try to offer to help them out with what they're doing, be it taking out trash, opening a door, or grabbing something off the shelf in the store (being 6'3" I get asked to do that a lot).
Parkour:
quote:Help people or treat people certain ways because it is nice or because that is how they want to be treated and you are willing to reciprocate.
Don't treat women with expected favors or courteous gestures because they are women.
Also remember that courteous gestures aren't actually courteous if it is in any way required that the person receiving this gesture is going to get sideways glances or any sort of refusal or rebuff from you if they do not accept this gesture. It is not courteous to refuse a woman when she desires to pay half the check.
kmbboots:
quote:What happens to that if you take gender out of the equation?
stilesbn:
quote:Are you in favor of tearing all barriers between sexes down then? So men behave exactly the same way towards women as the do men. Including all the less than desirable ones including the actions that happen in high school. Say fights, butt slapping, any other manner of survival of the fittest or pecking order? Sexual harassment would be impossible at that point since everyone would be acting the same way towards both genders. There is actually precedent there too.
Aros:
quote:
quote:[Help people or treat people certain ways because it is nice or because that is how they want to be treated and you are willing to reciprocate.
Don't treat women with expected favors or courteous gestures because they are women.
Also remember that courteous gestures aren't actually courteous if it is in any way required that the person receiving this gesture is going to get sideways glances or any sort of refusal or rebuff from you if they do not accept this gesture. It is not courteous to refuse a woman when she desires to pay half the check.
Rebuff? Did anyone presume to say that they would "force" courtesies? Wouldn't that kind of kill the point?
And I'd say that sex most certainly has something to do with it. Offering to carry my mother's groceries sends a much different sociological message than offering to carry my father's. In one, it implies politeness. In the other, weakness. These are age old gender roles / cues.
Men and women ARE different. As a man, I'd like to think that women can "have their cake and eat it too", accepting both equality and gallantry. Maybe some would like to bail on gender roles altogether. I guess I can understand that, as I'm a man who's a compulsive cleaner, I iron all my clothes, and I'm an avid cook. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in romantic, old fashioned manners.
kmbboots:
quote:Stilesbn, maybe you could cut out the obnoxious behaviour toward men while you are at it?
Tom Davidson:
quote:
quote:these are age old gender roles / cues.
Think about that for a moment. If you carry your mother's groceries, it is because you are polite; if you carry your father's, it is because you believe he is too weak to carry his own.
Now imagine for a moment you have grown up observing these age-old gender cues. Would it not be perfectly natural to conclude that the unvoiced implication is that not only do you believe your mother is too weak to carry her own groceries, but that society does not expect her to be strong enough to do so? That the default assumption is that she is in need of that assistance?
I see nothing wrong with women deciding that they do not care to accept these default assumptions. Let them be insulted by your offers to carry their groceries; are they not at least as strong as your father?
Rakeesh:
quote:I'm just wondering when exactly it was expected that men would be doing the dirty work domestically.
Dan_Frank:
quote:A lot of this stuff, while rooted in "women are delicate weak flowers," has also morphed into "men are gross menial animals."
The thing you're quoting is perhaps more an example of the latter?
Stilesbn has unintentionally hit on this too... when people hear "don't treat people courteously based on their genitals," the assumption is "treat women like crap, the same way society expects you to treat men."
That's why you so often get "You're saying you should never open a door for anyone or help anyone in any way ever? How monstrous!" replies.
It doesn't even occur to people that you're saying "Treat men and women with civility and courtesy, help them when it's appropriate, and don't condescend or patronize them."
Because treating a man that way indicates you think he's weak, because men should be treated like crap.
And treating a woman that way indicates you think she's manly, because women should be treated like glass.
They're both bullshit. Interrelated, but also different in key ways.
good goddamn i need to automate something to save every page i load on this site
uhh well that's good for now
i'm also going to cut ahead temporarily to the Welp He Called It award awarded to this post for Dan Frank
quote:Aros, is that post your way of signalling that you're uncomfortable with receiving criticism around this issue, and not interested in continuing a discussion?
posted
Everyone *did* post in good faith. In fact quite early on Aros himself began posting in bad faith, posing over the top examples and putting them into other people's mouths.
Spin what lies you like, Aros, the thread wasn't debauched or filthy or anything else like that. What it was was a bunch of people calmly and more or less politely discussing a complicated set of social topics and routinely rebutting your outdated, sexist notions but most of all not caring a whole lot if polite frank discussion offended your oh so very tended sensibilities.
No one was taking your implied claim as Taste Police Chief seriously. Ego couldn't handle it. Censorship followed.
The important thing to remember is that you've taught no lessons, except that you won't allow your ideas to stand on their own. You've taught no lessons, except that you shouldn't be trusted to be an adult. And you've scared off no 'trolls', because if anything if the situation were what you said it was, you've made things easier by showing yourself so fearful.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, yeah. Huge thread deleting tantrums that wipe out multiple threads just for the hell of it don't at all assert the kind of control and defense against trolls that he claims they do. To the extent that it's so obvious I cannot help but wonder if he is just lying again.
I mean, if 'trolls' were really so hostile and persistent with respect to him, well what do trolls want? They generally want a great big reaction that makes the person they're trolling look bad. Which is exactly what happened. If he was being so unfairly persecuted, not a single troll would be driven off by the deletions.
On the subject of the original thread, though, I hope that when you're teaching your daughter to expect and delight in 'chivalrous' (sexist) gestures from the world, you neglect to teach her the other behavior you professed in the thread: to throw a great big weepy hissy-fit if the chivalrous gestures aren't forthcoming.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I occasionally think that clear, rigid social rules exist solely so that people can feel ok about being assholes in contexts not obviously covered by those rules.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Foust: I occasionally think that clear, rigid social rules exist solely so that people can feel ok about being assholes in contexts not obviously covered by those rules.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Heh, yeah. Huge thread deleting tantrums that wipe out multiple threads just for the hell of it don't at all assert the kind of control and defense against trolls that he claims they do. To the extent that it's so obvious I cannot help but wonder if he is just lying again.
I think you're right. Your behavior has gotten worse. Oh well. The more you know. . . .
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for copping to being a transparent liar, Aros. It wasn't necessary because, you know, transparent, but it's the thought that counts.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's, like, more than 5 times you've repeated your assertion that Aros is a lying liar who lies a lot, in this thread. Are you trying to hit a quota?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. I'm sorry I'm being so mean to Aros. Hmmm. I don't know if I'm sorry enough to kill the thread in a fit of picque, but maybe I'm getting there.
Anyway, Aros has repeatedly made untrue claims about what was going on in the threads he deleted. When he does so, I'll point out he's lying. And let the words stay up there for people to decide whether I'm being unreasonable or not. If I 'teach a lesson', well, people will be able to see it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, You're not doing this to protect the forum or for any productive purpose.
You're jumping on Aros because you like jumping on people and being morally superior to them. He's given you an excuse. This behavior is selfish and juvenile.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Because I'm wearing my "judging people's transparent motives" clothes today) Aros, I'm not sure if you thought people would not respond with pretty much universal condemnation of your actions or what, but it seems pretty clear that things didn't go as you planned. I get the feeling that you have found yourself in a hole that you don't think you can get out of and have thrown up obviously false justifications and adopted a "Hey, I'm a troll" persona to somehow deal with this. I don't think that this is actually a good reflection of how you are.
You don't need to do these things. If you man up and admit that maybe your actions were not, in hindsight, what you should have done, you can actually restore a good bit of people's opinion of you. The Aros handle isn't burnt.
We all mess up, especially on things that we are emotionally invested in. If you handle your screw ups like an adult, admit them and apologize for them (especially if you learn from them moving on), I think you'll find that people respect you much more than if you try to deny that you ever messed up or try to dodge and minimize your error.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Replacing thread deleting with locking might be better; along with board software to have off topic posting moved to its own OT thread.
But I would rather have custom avatars installed first.
IP: Logged |
Well I certainly won't deny that I do get satisfaction out of jumping on *some* people over *some* matters. Even if I wanted to do so, it would be foolish because it's pretty obvious. You're quite mistaken that it's a general liking, though. For example, I disagree with say BlackBlade on a number of large and important issues (mostly involving the intersection of religion and society). Unfortunately for my example he's now a moderator also, so it's a bit fraught, but even in other settings on issues I consider very important but where I disagree with him, I don't jump on him.
I don't feel I do with anyone who doesn't attempt to seize the moral high ground-not just the high ground of 'here's why I'm right, and why it's morally important to be right' but the moral high ground of 'you're a bad person, and I'm in a position to say so'.
Anyway, I didn't say I was doing it to 'protect the forum'-I tend to regard such claims not as a proclamation of concern for the community's welfare, but rather an attempt to speak for everyone. I was doing it because he was lying, repeatedly, and since unfortunately I can't show the thread I'll simply say so.
To conclude, I do agree with you on a substantial bit of what you said. But I'll also take a page from Samprimary's book and note how difficult it can be to charge someone with enjoying moral superiority and then dress them down for personal character flaws.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: (Because I'm wearing my "judging people's transparent motives" clothes today) Aros, I'm not sure if you thought people would not respond with pretty much universal condemnation of your actions or what, but it seems pretty clear that things didn't go as you planned. I get the feeling that you have found yourself in a hole that you don't think you can get out of and have thrown up obviously false justifications and adopted a "Hey, I'm a troll" persona to somehow deal with this. I don't think that this is actually a good reflection of how you are.
You don't need to do these things. If you man up and admit that maybe your actions were not, in hindsight, what you should have done, you can actually restore a good bit of people's opinion of you. The Aros handle isn't burnt.
We all mess up, especially on things that we are emotionally invested in. If you handle your screw ups like an adult, admit them and apologize for them (especially if you learn from them moving on), I think you'll find that people respect you much more than if you try to deny that you ever messed up or try to dodge and minimize your error.
I tried to apologize. The whole incident was casual, without a whole heck of a lot of thought. Like if we were playing a board game, I threw up my arms and dumped the board. Screw it.
My reasoning basically being this . . . if trolls are going to screw up my thread, not actually read what was said, derail it into porn, name calling,and talk about child objectification, I'll just dump it and walk away. I don't want my name -- nor a worthwhile conversation -- associated with a lot of what went on in that thread.
Call me a censor. I don't care. I still feel I had the right not to have a decent, legitimate conversation wrecked in that way. If I start a thread and I have one or more juveniles wreck it, and new people will come in and judge myself or the community by it, I'll dang well delete it.
The link was part of my problem. I had no objection to the sidebar conversations, except for some of the child-related stuff that went on. I won't stand for that crap. And ridicule, cat calling, on top of the rest? Whatever.
Again, I truly apologize to people that were invested in that thread. And the other ones I deleted. But I don't have to put up with that crap. Frack, I've posted quite a few big threads, under a few names, since the beginning. I'd never seen so much disrespect and smarmy behavior.
I might leave. Haven't decided. But I probably won't post a thread under this handle for awhile. Next time, I should probably just contact the mod.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
the critical flaw in the Teen Boy Squad judgment of rakeesh is that it is possible (and it is in fact observably true here) to be both enjoying moral superiority accompanied with jumping on someone for offensive acts, and simultaneously — with no real conflict of interest or incorrect self-appraisal — be doing it with constructive intent re: a community, board, social group.
Rakeesh is straight-up getting up in Aros' grill and sure as hell is enjoying some moral superiority. He is also acting intentionally and constructively against both Aros' act and the subsequent, post-hot, captious and bogus rationalizations and sanctimonious claims that he's "teaching us a lesson" and will continue to do so using alts.
Anyway the Teen Boy Squad gives its thanks to the Domesticated Doormat Olds Squad for allowing it many chances in hatrack history to shine against their sclerotic, mincing, pliable nonaction and I am sure we all love and are having lots of fun with this sort of useless labeling? How many squads can we make!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I tried to apologize. The whole incident was casual, without a whole heck of a lot of thought. Like if we were playing a board game, I threw up my arms and dumped the board. Screw it.
I find this mind boggling. I can't imagine anyone dumping a board game in the middle of a game. My kids have been trained since they were 2 that to dump a game is disrespectful to the other players and if they do it no one will want to play with them.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I don't have a lot to offer to this discussion as A: I rarely post anymore and B: Did not post in that thread. And I will say that in the brief bit of lurking I've done over the past year or so, I've always enjoyed the presence of Aros. And I'll echo Scott's sentiment that on principle I can't find it in me to be offended that someone deleted a thread.
That being said, I wish the thread people are referring to was still around. My reasoning is more pragmatic than principled: I really really would have liked to have read it. Not for the nitpicking or snarking that such threads inevitably contain, but because I am working on some lectures at the moment that deal with precisely this issue and I would have loved to have read other peoples thoughts and opinions. Even the outlandish or crazy ones, but I also have an inordinate amount of respect for the minds and opinions of some people on this board.
So I guess my two cents boils down to urging potential thread deleters to think to yourself (general you, not specifically Aros or anyone), "Is there someone who might get some use out of this now or in the future?" And then maybe give a days warning or so, so that it can be saved for people like me. I get that if a thread is offensive or too far gone or personally insulting that it might still be the "right" thing for a person to do to delete it (debatable, but again, I can't find it in me to have a strong opinion on the subject. The benefits of lurking I suppose). I just really wish I could read that thread instead of people complaining about it's deletion. Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: So I guess my two cents boils down to urging potential thread deleters to think to yourself (general you, not specifically Aros or anyone), "Is there someone who might get some use out of this now or in the future?" And then maybe give a days warning or so, so that it can be saved for people like me. I get that if a thread is offensive or too far gone or personally insulting that it might still be the "right" thing for a person to do to delete it (debatable, but again, I can't find it in me to have a strong opinion on the subject. The benefits of lurking I suppose). I just really wish I could read that thread instead of people complaining about it's deletion.
That's a good idea. I already stated that I think I should have contacted the mod before deleting. But I think giving a warning might have been better. If only to allow myself a little time to cool down and to allow others to know that I was serious.
My only concern would be people reposting parts of the thread, especially out of context. Well, at least it wouldn't be my name slapped all over the thread.
Thanks for coming out of lurker-dom to post. Gave me something to think about.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before deleting which threads, exactly? As for taking some time to cool down, perhaps taking time to decide which self-serving version of motive was the real motive. So far it's been flipping the board in frustration, unconsidered reaction, a form of forum vigilantism to teach trolls a lesson, or a pointed commentary on the evils of frank discussion about public decency laws.
It can't be all of these things at the same time.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: You're making it extremely difficult for Aros to choose to do the right thing in the future.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
