Campaign for more emoticons

We need

and a strogg banana would be cool:

Thanks for that post, Glyn.

I’d only add that we could probably use a ‘give me strength’ emoticon, as well as a ‘check, please!’ :wink:

Where are the ‘i fart in your general direction’ and ‘we make castanets out of your testicles’ smilies?
Provision is sorely needed for the whole gamut of human emotions!

you’re mother was a hamsterrrrrr and your father smelt of elderberries!!! :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

This one may be useful at times:







I think we need more cowbell…

Wim! Good morning. More cowbell! Definitley :slight_smile:


To respect Paul’s likely Foing of Lenny’s and my posts, I refer without Quote-tagging to lenny’s post

Hi Lenny

The appropriate iconification of perception is IMO in its early stages. The emoticon rides on the notion that ''A picture can speak a 1000 words," however, when a particular set of pictures speak ten words each, we’re going to need at least 100.

In usage, the distinction between carrier and code can be used to creative effect.

For example, Paul W’s extensive use of custom-imported emoticons of huge size serves to individuate him amongst the members. They are seals of identity as well as of graphic representation of internal process.


Those laughing dogs you’ve used are from Pauls Forum
Use of 3 matches his typical use
Blinking Turtle could connect up with the process of ‘FOE-ing’
Paul most likely FOE’d me a couple of days ago
I hope he’s foed you, too.

Partly because that will mean he’s not trying to isolate you from my support whilst continuing to ‘see and dig’ at you. It will support his claim that he is seeking peace without agression on this forum.
Partly because If your, and my good or neutral intent toward him is to be established, it will not happen overnight. He has good reason to be cautious because you and he have long ‘bad’ history, he has minimal history with me, and I have long ‘good’ history with you. I heartily concur with the logic of his.
Partly because if I were Paul and I saw this, I would take this as confirmation that I am victimized, and would justify continuing avoiding what future possibilities of harmony there may be.


I suggest the following: When alledging that someone else is ‘kicking under the table’, it is crucial that the alleger either refrain from the same behaviour, or be fully explicit in them, and thus be a demonstration of process rather than just an application.

Demonstration takes whatever was ‘under the table’ and puts firmly and consistently ON the table, where all may see and understand, in which case ‘real’ issues, visible, become matters of management, and, at best, negotiation leading toward reconciliation - which betters not only the individuals but also the community, which thus ceases to be a war-zone in which occurs collateral damage, and leeching of activity from more worthy activities.

For example, elsewhere, I extracted your “Breathless and fist pumping” and placed it in a meaning entirely different from yours. The process of Narrow-quoting and recontexting’ is one of the patterns of strife on this forum. Paul’s done it, Kevin was a master of it, you’ve done it. Another pattern is to place ‘Own Context’ but without pinning down to quotes - I do that, though I am trying to learn the art of ‘ecological’ quoting.

These thinking preferences are neutral in and of themselves. It is by giving them their place at the table, that we can honour their positive qualities which are essential for humor, creativty and, the evolution of thought itself.

All the best
Glyn

No change

Sorry, my good friend, but I’m going to have to disagree with you here.
the laughing dog gif is not from his forum - it turns up in a quick laughing dog google image search.
Quote my post and you’ll see it’s from floridadude.
Anyway, assuming that he put you and I on ‘Foe’ - that certainly does not mean that he’s “seeking peace
without aggression”. It only means that he wasnt going to allow his poisonous tactics to be scrutinized by you,
so he did what a coward would do - first he micro edited your post in a transparent attempt to make it look like you said something that you did not say - then he put you on his Foe List so that he wouldn’t feel obligated to
respond to your attempts to work toward forum hygiene. You attempted to make him (and all of us) take a look at his own(our own) behavior - that made him squirm - hence his “Go Away!!” comments - then the foe list.
After putting us on Foe - he then proceeded to the ‘4 chords’ thread to call Larry and I “sycophants and Steely Dan wannabe’s which he finds hilarious”…seeking peace?

Now anyone who reads what Larry and I actually wrote would have to conclude that PW either doesn’t know what sycophant means, or he’s just doing what he always does and throwing another gratuitous dig - or perhaps both.

He then hijacked John’s Japan thread yet again with his charged political ranting and tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.
Seeking peace? When it comes to interpersonal relations on forums - peace is the last thing he’s interested in.
His PR is carefully calculated, though. He’ll say really nice things to certain people in an attempt to win allies,
and show what a swell guy he is - and he always puts lots of smile smilies in his posts. :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

I never posted in the “idiots on the forum” thread - where he began with schoolyard taunting and posting
of the laughing dog - then seemingly in the blink of an eye he began playing the victim.
My posting of the turtle and the dog is simply my visual way of saying that he’s a coward for putting you
on his foe list, and the dog is my own way of giving as good as I get.

I will promise you this: If he stops his under the table taunting of me, and otherwise stops his unprovoked
trolling (Paddy’s Day thread) Happy St Paddys Day (musical question) - Steinberg Lounge - Steinberg Forums and poisoning the forum with his breaches of forum rules ie political ranting and hijacking of threads, Then I will absolutely stay clear of him and make no posts towards him or about him.
I simply have -very- little faith that this will happen.

His eventual banning will most likely be the thing that’ll restore some sanity to this otherwise
excellent environment. If anyone thinks it improper that he should be spoken about while I’m on his foe list,
all I can say is - feel free to quote my entire post so he can have a look. I’m not saying anything I wouldn’t say
in his presence. Foe listing was -his- idea/(tactic). I hope I’m proven wrong on this, but foe listing was most likely
his first calculated move as he marches forward with his scorched Earth forum tactics.

I appreciate your even handedness, Glyn - and your willingness to call me out when you think it warranted,
and you certainly deserved my reply.

Lenny

I rest my case.

…and it’s far from being a dead horse.

For those who don’t know, when you put someone on your foe list, everytime your foe posts,
it shows up in your threadview as a thin gray line with a link that says ‘view this post’.
I think it’s an odd feature for a Foe list - the equivalent of asking ‘are you sure’ every time your foe
posts, but as has just been demonstrated, he’s reading the posts of his ‘Foes’.

What’s this all about? Old scores? Paranoia? Misunderstandings? For *ucks sake. The moderators must wonder what’s going on. Whenever I see English speaking / Anglo-American controversy and strife I always think of the Faulty Towers sketch where the German hotel guests, right at the end, shake their heads in disbelief and say “How did we lose?”

Indeed.

Dunno. I’ve got the Foe Feature running. I cannot see the two posts above yours. Just suggesting Emoticons here. I rather like the little Obama Smiley. :slight_smile:

here’s another favourite …

Hi Zebbie. Yes there is a long history and it’s about confronting a poisonous member. It’s a history you know nothing about, but the mods do, as he was banned from here, and snuck back in when they created this
updated forum. I’m sorry and I understand this stuff can be tedious for those not directly involved - much
as I felt about the mudslinging you were engaged in in the other thread - but I simply left it alone, as you might’ve here.

Yeah, very clever. and you suggested the very same emoticon twice - both times immediately after my post.

Once just after this post:

and again after this post of mine:

you’re not fooling anyone.

as I felt about the mudslinging you were engaged in in the other thread

I’m sorry Lenny, I’ve never engaged in mudslinging. Maybe you’re the poisonous one?

Yes, yes. I’m the poisonous one. When in doubt…it’s me. thanks for your concern and your contribution.
I thought it was you who was calling another member a troll and an idiot. Maybe I have you confused with someone else. If so then mea culpa.