Endimion17
International Hazard
Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline
Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second
|
|
Smileys and avatars
I think I'm not the only one who noticed there is some considerable time wasted explaining the sarcasms, puns and jokes because this forum doesn't
have a normal set of smileys.
What's up with 8 smileys? It isn't enough.
There's a huge difference between forums with tons of stupid, obtrusive shit from "smiley central" described in this awesome rant post at Blogspot, and forums with a nice set of convenient ones like     and others.
Please don't make me explain why this is neccessary.
It's 2011, for god sake. I agree allowing IMG code in the signatures would be horrible (that's why I hate gamer forums), but seriously, eight smileys?
WTF?
The same goes for avatars. Avatars can be a neat little 50x50 px pictures with up to let's say 10 kb per piece. They create user's visual identity and
don't slow down the browser. If someone is annoyed by that, he deserves a facepalm. 
Going through the SM threads is like flipping electrical bills in 1955 Great Britain ugly concrete flat, while watching one national BBC channel on a
black and white small tube TV, wearing an ugly gray suit.
It's too slow because our brains prefer images over words. We associate actions with identities. You can't do that with just words.
Even then, written words that are visually appealing will tend to be remembered and associated at a higher rate.
It's easier to remember stuff when there's something visual backing it up. That's what demonstration experiments are for, remember?
Avatars become a distraction only if they're huge both by size and volume. Smileys are annoying if they're disgusting and/or can be posted without any
limits (10 per page is the standard limit).
So don't say that "avatars and smileys" distract, because they don't. They're essential for modern forums, especially when you've got people from all
over the world that can get "lost in translation" and English phrases.
I'm all for the politics where the contents should be more important than the looks, but there aren't any looks here to begin with.
Nice set of smileys and unlocked decent avatars would be what Beatles or Monthy Python were for GB. A breeze of fresh air.
[Edited on 13-10-2011 by Endimion17]
|
|
|
gutter_ca
Hazard to Others
Posts: 173
Registered: 7-6-2010
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored at work!
|
|
Ugh, smileys annoy the living shit out of me. Maybe just be more expressive?
|
|
|
hkparker
National Hazard
Posts: 601
Registered: 15-10-2010
Location: California, United States
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Personally, I'v liked the simplicity of the SM layout. No pictures in signatures has been kinda nice and simple. I'm happy with how SM looks right
now, its clean and gets the point across. But that's just my opinion.
My YouTube Channel
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature." -Michael Faraday
|
|
|
Endimion17
International Hazard
Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline
Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second
|
|
It's like you guys didn't even bother to read the first post.
|
|
|
gutter_ca
Hazard to Others
Posts: 173
Registered: 7-6-2010
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored at work!
|
|
Or maybe we just totally disagree? I don't want any forum I visit to look like myspace.
|
|
|
fledarmus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 187
Registered: 23-6-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
And like you didn't bother to read the response.
I happen to disagree with you over everything you said in your first post except that it's easier to remember stuff when there's something visual
backing it up. In your opinion, avatars and smileys aren't distracting; in mine and apparently in gutter_ca's opinion they are both distracting and
annoying. They are an excuse to be rude, and then say, "oh, but I included a smiley face so it doesn't count." They are certainly not essential for
modern forums.
If any visuals need to be added to the site, please make it useful visuals like line drawings of equipment, molecular structures, or mathematical
formulas. Those would be much more helpful here than 27,000 more ways to be cutesy when you write.
Just my opinion, and I'm just a houseguest here. If I didn't like the way the place was run, I wouldn't hang around.
|
|
|
gutter_ca
Hazard to Others
Posts: 173
Registered: 7-6-2010
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored at work!
|
|
Also, in my opinion, it's just lazy writing. Scientists the world over use English--it's the "official language" of science. Figures and schematics
back up info; smileys just encourage a lack of writing skill.
|
|
|
dann2
International Hazard
Posts: 1523
Registered: 31-1-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What we want around here is some more 'scowlies'
F*%k the smilies (excuse my frence, as they say) 
There is plenty with the 8 IMO. 
English is best (American we will put up with  )
@Endimion17 Why is there any need for any more smilies? 
I think I speak for the vast majority of people on this board when I state:
If THAT 'smiley' (which is shown as the second 'smiley' in the first post, it's green and has two things in it that rotate for approx. 180 degrees)
ever makes it to this board then 99.9% of the regular posters WILL leave and never come back.
IN FACT, I HAVE ONLY ONE THING TO SAY REGARDING THE WHOLE IDEA OF INTRODUCING MORE SMILEYS AND MY STATEMENT REGARDING THIS MATTER IS ATTACHED FOR THE
KIND ATTENTION OF ALL AND SUNDRY.
GOOD NIGHT.
Dann2
|
|
|
Endimion17
International Hazard
Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline
Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second
|
|
Have you actually ever participated on a message board other than SM, excluding the kitschy gamer forums and other special purpose forums that allow
200x200 avatars and limitless smileys?
You are making a fallacy. It's both a straw man and slippery slope.
It's a straw man because I've never said anything in favor of ridiculously ugly forums. In fact I've said the opposite.
And it's a slippery slope fallacy because few smileys and simple, small avatars won't turn this into a Hello Kitty fan pit. You're blowing it way out
of proportion.
Here's an example of a decent usage of avatars and forums.
link
How can anyone say this is revolting?
You're completely ignoring the fact that language is a very complex system that simply can not reduced to written words only. For god sake, emoticons
exist for the sole purpose of reducing that negative effect. Do you hate emoticons, too?
I don't know why are you expecting anyone to use advanced English. Yes, English is the official language of science, but that doesn't include wits,
puns and jokes that loose so much when written down.
What are you, a robot? I don't get it. Why are you so revolted by the notion of SM becoming a place that doesn't look like something a dot-matrix
printer in a nuclear power plant operator room would expell out in a case of an emergency procedure?
There's a huge gap between the example in the link and revolting, heavy-load kitch that distracts people.
If you hate anything except letters, why don't you use MS-DOS?
Personally, I find 8 visual themes to be unnecessary. This is the highest number of visual themes I've seen on a message board.
But OK, who cares.
Gosh, it's like I'm talking to people trapped in 1975.
@fledarmus: The Chemistry LaTeX set would be a nice touch.
[Edited on 14-10-2011 by Endimion17]
|
|
|
hkparker
National Hazard
Posts: 601
Registered: 15-10-2010
Location: California, United States
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
?... no, I just disagree. Yes I have been active on other forums.
Sure language is complicated, mostly of communication is body language, yea I've heard the statistics, but almost all of the time I come to SM is for
scientific discussion. Pretty strait forward, no need to really emote.
My YouTube Channel
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature." -Michael Faraday
|
|
|
Bot0nist
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 15-2-2011
Location: Right behind you.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Streching my cotyledons.
|
|
Agree. I love the neat simplicity of SciMad. It's a welcome refuge from the oversaturation of media bombardment, plus the lack of "extras" makes it
easier to get what I come here for. Knowledge and scientific discussion. No frills needed IMHO.
U.T.F.S.E. and learn the joys of autodidacticism!
Don't judge each day only by the harvest you reap, but also by the seeds you sow.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17  | | Have you actually ever participated on a message board other than SM, excluding the kitschy gamer forums and other special purpose forums that allow
200x200 avatars and limitless smileys? |
Have you participated in online discussions before the existence of
the web? I have. For years. They were just text. Principally email lists and Usenet. Worked fined. Emoticons that are visual arose from
text-punctuation version. If you feel you can't emote well enough, use those. They still work.
Personally, I prefer this forum exactly because it's not an arbitrary social hangout that happens to talk about science. It's a science forum that
incidentally spawns some hanging out. The difference is enormous. Social groups tend to fragment along ideological, age, class or other lines. This
board has not fragmented exactly because these are not the subject matter here. By restricting the kinds of interaction that are normative here, it
allows people who would otherwise not talk to each other to interact. This is a peace-making activity, because these kind of cross-links knit civil
society together and deter the tendency to fragment into mutually exclusive and mutually hostile groups.
Therefore, I find the suggestion to encourage expressive power for things not common to science to be actively undesirable.
Let me put a very fine point on this for you. Living in the Balkans, suppose you were to start a Balkans-specific regional chemistry forum. Would you
actively encourage people to add their flags of affiliation and pictures of their martyrs to their signature blocks, to encourage personal expression?
|
|
|
fledarmus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 187
Registered: 23-6-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17 |
Have you actually ever participated on a message board other than SM, excluding the kitschy gamer forums and other special purpose forums that allow
200x200 avatars and limitless smileys?
You are making a fallacy. It's both a straw man and slippery slope.
It's a straw man because I've never said anything in favor of ridiculously ugly forums. In fact I've said the opposite.
And it's a slippery slope fallacy because few smileys and simple, small avatars won't turn this into a Hello Kitty fan pit. You're blowing it way out
of proportion.
Here's an example of a decent usage of avatars and forums.
link
How can anyone say this is revolting?
You're completely ignoring the fact that language is a very complex system that simply can not reduced to written words only. For god sake, emoticons
exist for the sole purpose of reducing that negative effect. Do you hate emoticons, too?
I don't know why are you expecting anyone to use advanced English. Yes, English is the official language of science, but that doesn't include wits,
puns and jokes that loose so much when written down.
What are you, a robot? I don't get it. Why are you so revolted by the notion of SM becoming a place that doesn't look like something a dot-matrix
printer in a nuclear power plant operator room would expell out in a case of an emergency procedure?
There's a huge gap between the example in the link and revolting, heavy-load kitch that distracts people.
If you hate anything except letters, why don't you use MS-DOS?
Personally, I find 8 visual themes to be unnecessary. This is the highest number of visual themes I've seen on a message board.
But OK, who cares.
Gosh, it's like I'm talking to people trapped in 1975.
@fledarmus: The Chemistry LaTeX set would be a nice touch.
[Edited on 14-10-2011 by Endimion17] |
First, let me say that I agree completely about the Chemistry LaTeX set! I find that very helpful! As for the rest of your post though...
Wow, thanks, I always love participating in a calm discussion where the other participant takes such a condescending attitude about my opinions. Gee,
where were you in 1975 when I didn't even have access to facebook? /sarcasm
See, no smiley necessary.
Yes, I've participated and do participate in many active message boards, some of which have amazing numbers of smileys, embedded images, and full
avatars, and some of which are text only. And yes, some of them are even kitschy gamer sites. There is a place for everything and the internet is a
very big place.
No, I'm not impressed with the link you posted. First, it gives no flavor at all of the board itself, and second, I happen to find it ugly and
trivial. No offense intended. Revolting may be too strong a word, but reading back through this thread, I don't see that word or anything having the
same connotations used by any writer except yourself.
No, I'm not ignoring the fact that "communication" (not language) is a very complex system that does not rely solely on words. However, "language" is
a single method of communication, and there are in fact languages that rely only on words. Scientists have been developing a language relying only on
words and figures for hundreds of years, and the language has developed the precision and nuances required for exact communication of scientific
knowledge. Learning to use the language of science is (some might say unfortunately...) one of the barriers to joining the living tradition of the
scientific community.
"What are you, a robot?" Ah, I see, that must be one of those condescending insults that you so desperately require a few dozen extra smiley faces to
tone down so that in my inability to understand your written language I won't take offense. But see, if you weren't calling me names, you wouldn't
need the smileys to guide my poor understanding of your written English.
Oh wait, let me fix that last paragraph... 
I do appreciate the points that you are trying to make. You would like to see the board more colorful, less formal, and more social. Tastes differ,
and yours is certainly a popular taste. I find the way you've presented your opinion highly offensive, however, and the barely concealed contempt that
you've shown for any opinion except your own... (I'm sorry, what was that? Oh, it wasn't concealed at all, much less "barely" concealed? Sorry, I
stand corrected) is extremely annoying. Surely you could have made your points without being deliberately insulting, even without a multitude of
smiley faces and emoticons?
Once again, let me put this disclaimer in place - I have nothing to do with the operation, maintenance, or design of the boards, and certainly
wouldn't expect the operators, maintainers, or designers of this board to care at all about my opinion. I do get very personally offended, however,
with people who assert that anybody who does not agree with their opinion must be seriously defective, regardless of what their opinion is and whether
I happen to agree with it. That has no place at all in civil discourse, much less in scientific discourse. And there is no sarcasm emoticon required
in that statement.
|
|
|
Endimion17
International Hazard
Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline
Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes | | Have you participated in online discussions before the existence of the web? I have. For years. They were just text. Principally email lists and
Usenet. Worked fined. Emoticons that are visual arose from text-punctuation version. If you feel you can't emote well enough, use those. They still
work. |
Before the Web? No. But I've used Usenet. I'm not a "youtube child" if that's what you're implying.
Yeah, it worked fine, because it works fine in its domain, which was few people and random, rare posting in the nineties.
You can't compare Usenet to modern forums.
Have you used a typing machine? I have. But nowdays I use printers because it sucks to be dependant on correction fluid and indigo-papers.
Have you used telex system? Why don't we all use telex system anymore? Old baud modems?
Why are we using graphical interface operating systems?
Your arguments are flawed because you defend something you like, and I'm defending something that's generally helpful.
Why do we have personal message system AKA U2U? We all have e-mail adresses. There's no immediate need for personal messaging, yet it's a nice touch.
I'm always for a sense of measure, though.
Somehow I think most of you freaked out while concentrating on the smileys. Standard sets (8 pieces is not standard) are normal parts of every modern
forum, that's a fact, but ok, they're not extremely important.
Maybe it wasn't so obvious from my first post, but I think avatars are of greater importance. There are no visual identities here. OK, not everyone is
a visual person. I am, and "text only" is very difficult for me to follow as I have difficulties catching up and creating links in my brain.
I'm actually one of those morons that uses the search form before posting and reads huge old threads, and I can tell you that it's a freaking pain in
the ass when I have to browse through piles of text without hardly any visual reference.
If you're a not a visual person and don't mind living in a gray world of one font texts with hardly any formatting, that's fine, but why bashing a
proposition that's simple in its nature, and would be used optionally? Forums usually have an option to display or hide avatars, so
it there's someone who gets a seisure when he/she sees a 50x50 photo, everything is cool.
I'm always for options.
Holy shit, like I've came here with a proposition to turn SM into a Barbie land with unicorns and screaming, pink Comic Sans fonts...
I just want simple avatars to browse the threads more easily.
| Quote: |
Personally, I prefer this forum exactly because it's not an arbitrary social hangout that happens to talk about science. It's a science forum that
incidentally spawns some hanging out. The difference is enormous. Social groups tend to fragment along ideological, age, class or other lines.
This board has not fragmented exactly because these are not the subject matter here. By restricting the kinds of interaction that are
normative here, it allows people who would otherwise not talk to each other to interact. This is a peace-making activity, because these kind of
cross-links knit civil society together and deter the tendency to fragment into mutually exclusive and mutually hostile groups.
|
Well I disagree. There are groups. I'm new here and I've managed to see there are lots of groups formed.
There are Ents, there are n00bs, there are outkasts, there are organic-people, pyro-freaks, there are crackpots, there are nutcases, there are Nazis
(which would be banned long time ago if I was in charge). The structure is not differentiated like with general style forums (I have extensive
experience on the matter from years of moderating a science section at one huge board), but it's not all homogenous as you'd like to be.
| Quote: | Therefore, I find the suggestion to encourage expressive power for things not common to science to be actively undesirable.
Let me put a very fine point on this for you. Living in the Balkans, suppose you were to start a Balkans-specific regional chemistry forum. Would you
actively encourage people to add their flags of affiliation and pictures of their martyrs to their signature blocks, to encourage personal
expression?
|
No offense, but that's one of the most stupid things I've ever read on SM.
How the hell is that even remotely similar to the option of putting an avatar under the general forum rules?
Are you trolling or just trying to offend me by pulling the "one of the war-obsessed part of the world" card?
How would you feel if I started bashing you on a national level?
I feel like a sick chicken on a farm that gets poked to death by other chicks because it's not uniform as they are.
| Quote: Originally posted by fledarmus | First, let me say that I agree completely about the Chemistry LaTeX set! I find that very helpful! As for the rest of your post though...
Wow, thanks, I always love participating in a calm discussion where the other participant takes such a condescending attitude about my opinions. Gee,
where were you in 1975 when I didn't even have access to facebook? /sarcasm
See, no smiley necessary. |
FYI, I hate FB and do not own an account there. I'm completely out of the whole "FB experience". Surprise, surprise... (do you feel the juices in your prefrontal cortex circulating harder, and your n.opticus bulging? I hope so.)
/sarcasm is a nice touch. But hardly anyone uses that at SM, so that's not an argument.
| Quote: | | Yes, I've participated and do participate in many active message boards, some of which have amazing numbers of smileys, embedded images, and full
avatars, and some of which are text only. And yes, some of them are even kitschy gamer sites. There is a place for everything and the internet is a
very big place. |
Great. Now compare those communities and you might find an interesting correlation.
| Quote: |
No, I'm not impressed with the link you posted. First, it gives no flavor at all of the board itself, and second, I happen to find it ugly and
trivial. No offense intended. Revolting may be too strong a word, but reading back through this thread, I don't see that word or anything having the
same connotations used by any writer except yourself. |
And any SM screenshot gives a flavor? Toilet paper has more flavor than SM!
That screenshot is actually part of one successful thread on science documentaries where people post links to the descriptions of series they've
enjoyed watching, recommending them and discussing the pros and cons of each.
| Quote: |
No, I'm not ignoring the fact that "communication" (not language) is a very complex system that does not rely solely on words. However, "language" is
a single method of communication, and there are in fact languages that rely only on words. Scientists have been developing a language relying only on
words and figures for hundreds of years, and the language has developed the precision and nuances required for exact communication of scientific
knowledge. Learning to use the language of science is (some might say unfortunately...) one of the barriers to joining the living tradition of the
scientific community. |
So anyone on the planet wanting to experience SM in its fullest, toilet paper taste, must learn the American lingo, and scientist have to be experts
on the subject?
I personally know several people responsible for discoveries (or working on the subject of) way more important than the things that anyone here has
ever realized, and they speak English worse than I do.
BTW, is this an international forum dealing with homemade chemistry, or an "American homemade chemistry forum"?
| Quote: |
"What are you, a robot?" Ah, I see, that must be one of those condescending insults that you so desperately require a few dozen extra smiley faces to
tone down so that in my inability to understand your written language I won't take offense. But see, if you weren't calling me names, you wouldn't
need the smileys to guide my poor understanding of your written English.
Oh wait, let me fix that last paragraph... |
So "robot" is nowdays name calling? I must write that in my Borat-style reminder notebook for better understanding of the U, S, and A. /sarcasm
| Quote: |
I do appreciate the points that you are trying to make. You would like to see the board more colorful, less formal, and more social. Tastes differ,
and yours is certainly a popular taste. I find the way you've presented your opinion highly offensive, however, and the barely concealed contempt that
you've shown for any opinion except your own... (I'm sorry, what was that? Oh, it wasn't concealed at all, much less "barely" concealed? Sorry, I
stand corrected) is extremely annoying. Surely you could have made your points without being deliberately insulting, even without a multitude of
smiley faces and emoticons? |
When you say "more social", I tend to think you're using that word in a connection with the myspace/facebook fandom.
I use "more social" in the terms of "less like irc/usenet".
I'm pointing that out because I get the feeling everyone is trying to flood this thread with assumptions I'm a 50MB GIF hello kitty maniac. You can
imagine why would someone be defensive in that situation.
I saw what happened with earlier similar attempts. Bashers united, that's what.
The main issue that bothers me are the avatars. They're a standard part of modern forums (if 1998 is modern...) with an option to turn them
off. If someone doesn't want to look at them, he/she can turn them off and no one is offended by that blasphemous "other than the text" feature.
| Quote: | | Once again, let me put this disclaimer in place - I have nothing to do with the operation, maintenance, or design of the boards, and certainly
wouldn't expect the operators, maintainers, or designers of this board to care at all about my opinion. I do get very personally offended, however,
with people who assert that anybody who does not agree with their opinion must be seriously defective, regardless of what their opinion is and whether
I happen to agree with it. That has no place at all in civil discourse, much less in scientific discourse. And there is no sarcasm emoticon required
in that statement. |
I'll repeat, if I wasn't ambushed like a sick chicken on a farm, maybe I wouldn't react so defensive.
You seem to enjoy the notion of SM as almost a leisure, ancient Greek phylosophy school in a summer park, but from my experience (and watching how
others are treated), this is usually not a better place than most gamer forums with n00b bashers. Except there are no hideous huge avatars and tons of
smileys... and heavy, big signature images.
I rest my case. I don't care about the smileys, as I wouldn't like to see anyone getting a seizure.
My final plead is to turn on the small avatar option (50 px, ~10 kB), under the general netiquette rules applying, of course. That's
the minimum I can ask, to spare me/others getting a headache while browsing old threads and memorizing, connecting stuff.
The thread can be locked now.
p.s.: and LaTeX would be great, too.
|
|
|
gutter_ca
Hazard to Others
Posts: 173
Registered: 7-6-2010
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored at work!
|
|
I fail to see how avatars would "give a visual reference" to any subject here.
I participate in one of the most-used forums on the 'tubes, fark.com. Lots of image posting, but NO smilies or avatars. Click on peoples' profiles
if you feel the need to see if they have a pic up.
|
|
|
DerAlte
National Hazard
Posts: 779
Registered: 14-5-2007
Location: Erehwon
Member Is Offline
Mood: Disgusted
|
|
FFS (English abbreviation) NO Smileys. Keep them for Farcebook, Twatter and other juvenile sites.
Der Alte
|
|
|
Rogeryermaw
National Hazard
Posts: 656
Registered: 18-8-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
if you haven't the basic intelligence to read, comprehend, interpret and carry out synthesis instructions without pretty pictures to cut through all
that pesky reading, it's time to step out of the lab.
illustrated guides are okay for putting together a barbecue grill, but they only serve to reduce a persons' ability to understand the written word.
the pictures give you a set of conditions that are acceptable for a given process. they don't tell you what to do if things go wrong or accelerate out
of control. you get that from a good understanding of a complete set of WRITTEN instructions.
if you think emoticons are the wave of future communications, you should watch idiocracy. if humanity wont drop its "color by number" bullshit and
respect proper learning again, that's how we will all end up.
|
|
|
Neil
National Hazard
Posts: 556
Registered: 19-3-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Sm has lots of flavour; it tastes like learning, and vulture killing K3wls, but mainly like learning.
Smiley faces are god awful annoying crap for people who think a threasaourus is a dinosaur.
Even worse, they attract people who rite l1k3 th15 and then b4 u kn0w 1t.....    you have to wade through shit to find a kernel of useful datum.
|
|
|
gutter_ca
Hazard to Others
Posts: 173
Registered: 7-6-2010
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored at work!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Neil | Sm has lots of flavour; it tastes like learning, and vulture killing K3wls, but mainly like learning.
Smiley faces are god awful annoying crap for people who think a [bold]threasaourus[/bold] is a dinosaur.
Even worse, they attract people who rite l1k3 th15 and then b4 u kn0w 1t..... you have to wade through shit to find a kernel of useful datum.
|
Uh...
|
|
|
Neil
National Hazard
Posts: 556
Registered: 19-3-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
...thesaurus... awww fail.
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
