# General > The Literature Network >  We want more emoticons!

## Nikhar

Ok... I think we need more emoticons. We've been stuck with the same ones for such a long time.

So, sign this petition by writing in your name.

If the officials don't agree, I'm ready to begin a revolution!  :Tongue:

----------


## Maryd.

Yay, more emoticons... Can we have one that cuddles... I am all Mwah-ed out. :Ladysman:  :Ladysman:

----------


## soundofmusic

Yes, I asked for more several months ago; I believe admin said the problem was a matter of space...Daniel, and I think, Maxi gave me some good safe sites to download; but I can't figure out how to use them with the forum...Can anyone help me?

----------


## hoope

Yea i agree with you guys with need some new ones ! 
I don't use the emoticons mostly coz i can't find the ones that i like or suits ! 
Hope for more to be added  :Smile: 

i add my name with you all  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## stephofthenight

agreed

----------


## Admin

didn't I add like a few hundred a year ago?

----------


## DanielBenoit

> If the officials don't agree, I'm ready to begin a revolution!


Revolution yes! LIT-NETTERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

----------


## Maximilianus

> Yes, I asked for more several months ago; I believe admin said the problem was a matter of space...Daniel, and I think, Maxi gave me some good safe sites to download; but I can't figure out how to use them with the forum...Can anyone help me?


This is what I do: I mostly use Firefox with an add-on called Kolobok smilies that displays a sidebar with a list of different categories. You pick the category, and double click on any smilie you like when writing your post. I'm not sure if it's available for other browsers but I will find out in short.




> Yea i agree with you guys with need some new ones ! 
> I don't use the emoticons mostly coz i can't find the ones that i like or suits ! 
> Hope for more to be added 
> 
> i add my name with you all


I often have the same problem. That's why I do what I mentioned above. Anyways I support the petition, because I guess not everyone has my smiley resources    




> didn't I add like a few hundred a year ago?


I often have more than a hundred emotions and I bet I'm not the only one... Would I be in constant pain that needs a graphical expression?

----------


## Admin

Okay, I know when I'm beat, I just added like 80.

----------


## Niamh

you know... this emoticon  :Incazzato:  has always been one of my favs!  :Biggrin:  glad to see it!!! 
and this is funny! :Ack2:

----------


## papayahed

You guys are good. I've been asking for a new couch for the mod lounge for ages now!!

----------


## BienvenuJDC



----------


## papayahed

Allll riiiggghhhttt. I'll have to get a plastic slipcover for it, Niamh is forever spilling stuff. :FRlol:

----------


## Maximilianus

> Okay, I know when I'm beat, I just added like 80.


Great! Thank you!  :Cornut:   :Hurray:   :Party:   :Cheers2:   :Yesnod:   :Thumbsup:

----------


## Janine

I second that! I love the new little crazy guys! 80 new ones? Wow, thank you *Admin.* 
This place is moving up. I was also a little bored with the old ones; these new ones look like a lot of fun. I will probably be using this one a lot  :Smilielol5:  since I tend to get a little hysterical at times.  :Willy Nilly:

----------


## Maximilianus

> I will probably be using this one a lot  since I tend to get a little hysterical at times.


Yes you do  :Smilielol5:

----------


## Janine

> Yes you do


Yes, you seem to know me so well...also I say this a lot - Yikes! and now there is a cool emoticon  :Yikes:  for the expression.

I think there's a lot of confrontational threads which will be using this one:
 :Beatdeadhorse5: ....haha 'beating a dead horse'...that one really cracks me up! :Smilielol5:  :Rofl:

----------


## stephofthenight

> :
> ....haha 'beating a dead horse'...that one really cracks me up!


Thats terrible, how is humor found in that?

----------


## Niamh

> Allll riiiggghhhttt. I'll have to get a plastic slipcover for it, Niamh is forever spilling stuff.


hey for the last time! That wasnt me!  :Willy Nilly:

----------


## Maryd.

I am :Frown:  because there is no cuddle emoticon... How can I express my love for everyone, without a cuddle? I ask you? :Toetap05:

----------


## Nikhar

Thank you admin!!!!!!! yayee! :Banana:  :Party: 

But you submitted so easily! I wanted to go on a revolution.

And guys...you are forgetting to thank someone else too. You ask who? Er......like someone who began the petition?  :Toetap05:

----------


## Maryd.

Thanks to my special friend - Sir Nikhar... Mwah to you.

----------


## Nikhar

> Thanks to my special friend - Sir Nikhar... Mwah to you.


yayee  :Ihih:

----------


## Haunted

> I am because there is no cuddle emoticon... How can I express my love for everyone, without a cuddle? I ask you?


come dear.......
 :Grouphug:

----------


## mona amon

Great new smilies! Thanks Admin!  :Hurray:   :Cheers2:   :Cool:

----------


## qimissung

:Biggrinjester:  :Troll:  :Crazy:  :CoolgleamA:  :Party:  :Thumbsup:  :Drool5:  :Hurray:  :Boxing Smiley:  :Lurk5:  Yeah for the new smilies. I know I can be much more expressive with these little guys! Admin: :sifone: :Angel Anim: Enough said.  :Smile:

----------


## Maximilianus

For personal reasons, this is the only one I'm never going to use:  :Beatdeadhorse5: 

... but that's another story...




> Thanks to my special friend - Sir Nikhar... Mwah to you.


I second this  :Thumbsup:

----------


## Janine

> Thats terrible, how is humor found in that?


*steph*...no, you took me wrong. I don't really find it humorous or would venture to ever use it myself; but the saying cracks me up...because I can imagine some threads on this forum where the subject gets beat to death....and no one says anything until the issues are been hashed over at least 20 pages into the thread. Some even have been shut down. I would actually imagine some horse lovers, such as yourself, would definitely be offended by that one. When I first saw it, I thought 'what the heck is this one?' - then I saw the saying and it dawned on me. It really isn't funny; you are right about that. Literally speaking, beating dead horses would be horrid.




> For personal reasons, this is the only one I'm never going to use: 
> 
> ... but that's another story...
> 
> 
> 
> I second this


Yes, that one is a bit strange. If you look at it, it's not even an emoticon, or is it? I thought they all had to resemble smilie faces; but then again there, are a few that don't. hummm...have to think on this awhile...definition of emoticon.... :Confused:

----------


## Maximilianus

> *steph*...no, you took me wrong. I don't really find it humorous or would venture to ever use it myself; but the saying cracks me up...because I can imagine some threads on this forum where the subject gets beat to death....and no one says anything until the issues are been hashed over at least 20 pages into the thread. Some even have been shut down. I would actually imagine some horse lovers, such as yourself, would definitely be offended by that one. When I first saw it, I thought 'what the heck is this one?' - then I saw the saying and it dawned on me. It really isn't funny; you are right about that. Literally speaking, beating dead horses would be horrid.


What you meant is clear to me Janine. I hope it is for others as well. Thank you for making your point clearer  :Nod: 




> Yes, that one is a bit strange. If you look at it, it's not even an emoticon, or is it? I thought they all had to resemble smilie faces; but then again there, are a few that don't. hummm...have to think on this awhile...definition of emoticon....


Technically, a smilie would be a face doing gestures and representing an emotion, while emoticons are graphics of other kinds, also representing emotions. So, a smilie would be a type of emoticon, though in practice both terms are used indistinctly to mean the same thing  :Thumbsup:

----------


## Janine

> What you meant is clear to me Janine. I hope it is for others as well. Thank you for making your point clearer


Thanks *Max,* you know I would never beat a dead or for that matter an alive horse. I love horses! As you can see I just mean I could picture some of our members using that because it would perfectly describe some endless discussions on various contraversial subjects.  :Incazzato:  I am sure they could use that one also! 




> Technically, a smilie would be a face doing gestures and representing an emotion, while emoticons are graphics of other kinds, also representing emotions. So, a smilie would be a type of emoticon, though in practice both terms are used indistinctly to mean the same thing


I really love this  :Willy Nilly:  Willy Nilly guy!

----------


## Maximilianus

> Thanks *Max,* you know I would never beat a dead or for that matter an alive horse. I love horses!


Welcome. I love them too. That's one of the reasons why I'll never use that emoticon (I have another which is a secret).




> As you can see I just mean I could picture some of our members using that because it would perfectly describe some endless discussions on various contraversial subjects.  I am sure they could use that one also!


Yea, I know, "to beat a dead horse" is a common expression, though not the most fortunate 




> I really love this  Willy Nilly guy!


Very funny  :Biggrin: 
I like this one:  :Sleep:  and this one too:  :Ciappa:  (both things that I should be doing more often)

----------


## Virgil

I'm an old fuddy-duddy. I liked the old ones.  :Wink:

----------


## Maximilianus

Virgil is a traditionalist. In my case, I never have enough  :Tongue:

----------


## Janine

> I'm an old fuddy-duddy. I liked the old ones.


 You said it not me....how true how true...now I have a new nickname for you FD.  :Iagree: 




> Virgil is a traditionalist. In my case, I never have enough


Enough what? Ladies? ....hahaha

I liked the emoticons you picked out...although the second one makes me  :Blush2:

----------


## Maximilianus

> Enough what? Ladies? ....hahaha


I only need one... if you mean what I think you mean....  :FRlol: 




> I liked the emoticons you picked out...although the second one makes me


 :FRlol:

----------


## Janine

> I only need one... if you mean what I think you mean....


As they say, "when it rains, it pours!"  :FRlol:  Too much of a good thing can prove problematic at times.... :Rolleyes: 





> 


 Party time! That second one reminds me of an incident at my son's wedding. Must you remind me. :Shocked:

----------


## Maximilianus

If you say so, dear... it must be true  :Tongue:

----------


## stephofthenight

> Welcome. I love them too. That's one of the reasons why I'll never use that emoticon (I have another which is a secret).


Maxi has a secret?

And I understand what you where saying, it just has no literary purpose, and really does not belong as a emotiocon. If i where to join today and see that I would not stay. Honestly I hardly ever get on anymore because it almost seems like litnet is saying its ok to beat a horse, and show images of it for literary humor... just my personal feelings on it...

----------


## Maximilianus

> Maxi has a secret?


More than one  :Brow: 




> And I understand what you where saying, it just has no literary purpose, and really does not belong as a emotiocon. If i where to join today and see that I would not stay. Honestly I hardly ever get on anymore because it almost seems like litnet is saying its ok to beat a horse, and show images of it for literary humor... just my personal feelings on it...


It must have been that the emoticon slipped through and no one noticed until you pointed out. I don't think anyone here agrees with animal beating. I'm sure it was unintentional.

----------


## Scheherazade

All right, I think I will move right in and bring some perspective into this non-discussion.

Nobody on the Forum - nor does the smiley in question - means to condone animal beating; what is more, in my very humble non-moderator opinion, to look at it in that way is rather superficial and somewhat dramatic.

The saying "beating/flogging a dead horse" means that "a particular request or line of conversation is already foreclosed or otherwise resolved, and any attempt to continue it is futile." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flogging_a_dead_horse 

So, it does not advocate a perverse and cruel liking for having dead animals beaten; on the contrary, it emphasises the futility of such an effort. Similarly, the smiley is also used for this very purpose: sometimes the same discussions/arguments are repeated one too many times on the internet and only the expression "beating up a dead horse" defines their futility.

Truth be told, I know I will be using that particular _a lot_ here on the Forum as, being an internet user for 15 years and a member of this Forum for almost 6 years, I feel like I have seen and heard it all.

 :Beatdeadhorse5:

----------


## Admin

Imagine if we had a "pissing into the wind" emoticon?

----------


## Maximilianus

I understand Scher's explanation. It was what I was trying to say, though with less eloquence. Well, Scher is an Olympic runner and I cannot reach her yet  :Tongue:   :Wink:  As for the "pissing into the wind" emoticon, I humbly believe it should be added to see what happens. A whole new line of debate may surely arise, as people will never cease their hunger for talking  :Tongue:   :Biggrin:

----------


## Janine

> Imagine if we had a "pissing into the wind" emoticon?


 :Rofl:  That's a good one!  :FRlol: 




> Truth be told, I know I will be using that particular _a lot_ here on the Forum as, being an internet user for 15 years and a member of this Forum for almost 6 years, I feel like I have seen and heard it all.


I agree with you...it's not a literal thing at all...just a joke of sorts and the futility of it is key to the fact it is not being condoned. And your last statements are what I had imagined....I bet you have seen and heard it all. 

So as not to offend anyone here I will post this one  :Banghead: ...could be interpretted "beating a brickwall to death" or "beating your head against a brick wall"...which we seem to be doing in here right now over the said subject of the 'abused' dead horse.

----------


## Maximilianus

> So as not to offend anyone here I will post this one ...could be interpretted "beating a brickwall to death" or "beating your head against a brick wall"...which we seem to be doing in here right now over the said subject of the 'abused' dead horse.


Oh My, now I see why I have this terrible headache!  :Ack2:   :Crazy:

----------


## The Comedian

I know I'm in the minority here, but I find the new emoticons annoying as the really hot place down below. Admin, I know you can't please everyone, so I'm not asking for any change or whatnot, just that, man they tend to make a page look awfully cluttered. But I supposed over-use of anything will do that.

----------


## Janine

Geez, as they say "you can please some of the people part of the time"...something like that and now I forget how the rest of the saying goes - but I'm sure everyone has heard it and knows what I mean...

----------


## Nikhar

One of the reasons I wanted emoticons was to convey my messages properly. When I write something, it does not have the same effect as you don't know the way I meant it. Emoticons make it all so much simpler.

I just remember once how someone completely misunderstood me and all of it just because, I forgot to use ' :Tongue: ' emoticon.

----------


## MarkBastable

> I know I'm in the minority here....


You may be, but I'm there with you.

A year ago, another forum to which I contribute developed a glitch that meant it couldn't display smileys. I posted the following, which seems relevant to the current thread...

------------------------------


It's been a tough week. I had to go to go to the middle of nowhere - Leeds, for God's sake. Actually, not Leeds. A town near Leeds. The _outskirts_ of nowhere.

But as I sat there in the soulless armchair in my soulless hotel room contemplating the consistently dull room-service menu - no-soul food - there was one happy prospect to divert me from the possibility of lying on the floor with my head in the minibar seeing whether I could drink the entire contents before my lips froze stiff. I was delighted to whack up the wi-fi on the laptop and log in here confident that, due to a fortunate technical circumstance, I would see no smileys.

Emoticons have only one thing in their favour - and that's the word 'emoticons', which is a clever little coining. It's just a pity that such a crafty word is wasted on such an artless and dumb collection of simple-minded mini-graphics.

What are they for, smileys? Those who defend them act as if they were a vital component of the ability to express oneself clearly on the page. They bleat that in cyberspace no one can hear you smile, or wink, or frown, or stick your tongue out and wiggle your fingers with your thumbs in your ears. 

That's true. It's been true of the written word for five thousand years. Do we believe, then, that from the day the first flattened papyrus reed was dried in the sun until, say, 1991, no one had ever been able to tell whether what they were reading was supposed to be funny, or sad, or a bit of a josh, or an expression of sympathy, support, disagreement or semi-serious outrage? 

No. The written word can do all that without the aid of little yellow faces to give the reader clues as to the writer's intention. That's what writing is _for_.

Well, yes - say the smilophiles - but emoticons are only for, like, the Web. No one would use them them in serious writing - like business e-mails, or fiction, or an article for an e-zine. 

Actually, people do. I had an employee fired for doing it only last week. But if it were true that there are types of writing in which smileys aren't appropriate, then we've developed a two-tier system of quality for the written word. 

There's writing that matters - where the words are carefully chosen in order to express meaning with clarity and the polite assumption of literate intelligence on the part of the reader. That's the stuff without the smileys. 

And then there's unimportant, slapdash, what-the-hell writing, where the sentences needn't be too carefully crafted because they are covered with fatuous yellow grinning faces that help the reader guess what the hell it's all supposed to convey - because, understandably, they might not be able to decipher the meaning from the sloppy prose alone . 

The smiley, in fact, does have a use, it seems. It's a coded way of the writer saying, _Reader, I don't care about you enough to actually bother writing this well_.

My objection to smileys, then, is that they provide an excuse for scrimping on the effort put into writing. You don't have to think too hard about how your words come over on the page because the smiley will show what you mean. 

I think that that's a cop-out in the short-term and a damaging habit in the long-term. The way to get good at writing the big stuff well is to write everything well. The way to make every sentence count in a novel or an essay or a letter to your loved ones is to make every sentence count in your note to the milkman, your responses to your friends' blogs, your contributions to the on-line forum. Emoticons mitigate against that constant practice by making laziness easier and more acceptable.

Am I making an incredibly big deal of smileys? Well - the smileys are just an example of a wider concern. The question really should be, am I making an incredibly big deal of this whole thing about putting focussed effort into writing of any kind?

And the answer is - yes, you bet I am.

----------


## Nikhar

> You may be, but I'm there with you.
> 
> A year ago, another forum to which I contribute developed a glitch that meant it couldn't display smileys. I posted the following, which seems relevant to the current thread...
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> 
> It's been a tough week. I had to go to go to the middle of nowhere - Leeds, for God's sake. Actually, not Leeds. A town near Leeds. The _outskirts_ of nowhere.
> 
> ...




Well, so you basically mean that while conversing, I should basically use "Oh man, I am laughing so hard because the last statement you made was so funny." instead of simply using  :FRlol: 

Well, I don't think smilies were ever made to substitute the "words in literary works". They have more been used to display expressions while conversing.

One of my friends a few days back messaged me, 'Twilight on Star Movies' and I replied wow!

Now, what does that wow signify? "Amusement, excitement?"
No, I was being sarcastic. Now "wow :| " does imply sarcasm and not merely "wow!"


Edit:-

Oh and another thing, 




> There's writing that matters - where the words are carefully chosen in order to express meaning with clarity and the polite assumption of literate intelligence on the part of the reader. That's the stuff without the smileys.


Now, maybe I'm going a bit far-fetched but in your post, you italicized two words "for" and outskirts". Now, why? To express the emphasis? Shouldn't you have done that via your words (by carefully chosing them in order to express the meaning with clarity) rather than employing to cheap means such as _italicizing_.

----------


## MarkBastable

Italics I'm okay with. On the other hand, I think there is no hell too horrible for those who overuse exclamation marks. Keep it to two or three per million words and you're probably safe from eternal damnation. Any more than that - it's brimstone time.

----------


## Nikhar

> Italics I'm okay with. On the other hand, I think there is no hell too horrible for those who overuse exclamation marks. Keep it to two or three per million words and you're probably safe from eternal damnation. Any more than that - it's brimstone time.


Okay with Italics, why? Even that compromises with the facts you stated in your original post...

----------


## MarkBastable

> Okay with Italics, why? Even that compromises with the facts you stated in your original post...


Because writing is a representation of language. And italics are part of that representation - they represent syllabic stress. 

Emoticons are illustration. They're explanatory pictures.

And the test of the difference, I think, is to read examples of each out loud.





I'll eat almost anything, but I'm not putting _that_ in my mouth.

I'll eat almost anything, but I'm _not_ putting that in my mouth.

I'll eat almost anything, but I'm not putting that in _my_ mouth.

I'll eat almost anything, but I'm not putting that in my mouth.  :Eek2: 


The emoticon doesn't do the same job as italics, because it's not a representation of anything specific to language.

However, the question I'd ask is, if you were writing a novel, would you use emoticons? If you would, then I guess you've taken them on entirely as part of written language, and who can say you nay?

But if you wouldn't then you probably think that there are times when they are appropriate and times when they aren't - and so all we differ on is the 'when'. For you it's 'sometimes'. I'd say it's 'never'.

----------


## Janine

Oh, lighten up...we are not writing novels here...we are simply conversing. Who would ever think a simple thread discussing emoticons, would cause such contraversy. It was nice of *Admin* to take the time to add them by request. If anyone doesn't like them, then don't have to use them. They are only a tool to be used with discrimination. I think in the Birthday and party type threads they are totally valid...or any other light conversation...such as profile messages, PM's, etc. It's not like people are posting their poetry or short stories with emoticons dispersed within the text. They are only in place to have a little fun at times and lighten things up.

----------


## billl

I have definitely seen cases where the use or absence of a smiley or a wink makes a difference. Of course, it might've been possible to write those messages in a way that made the emoticon unnecessary, but I think it might've also resulted in sentences that suddenly broke the conversational style and tone of the "conversation."

Here, we often find group of people in a forum's thread (people with varying degrees of familiarity) sometimes typing back and forth with a frequency more like talking at the bus stop than via pre-internet written correspondence. A letter between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would never have simply been three words long, e.g. "Oh, yeah, right," yet this sort of remark might very well occur here. Sometimes, these conversational snippets can benefit from emoticons, because necessary tonal and body-language cues are otherwise absent. Should we stop online chat altogether? Or make ourselves suddenly go through contortions as the specters of sarcasm and rudeness close in?

That being said, I am going to (not just sit, but) stand firmly on the fence, because it maybe is a bad habit to get into--not just using emoticons, but the general idea that text is the same as regular conversation. I think online chat, forums, and phone text messages end up being the primary means by which a lot of people get their writing practice, these days. And that's too bad.

Emoticons are fine if we're trying to make sure that a delicate back-and-forth between strangers (in front of a bunch of other strangers) doesn't turn into some sort of minefield of miscommunication, but they contribute to a rather coarse illusion (of physical presence) that can maybe steer people away from ideas and their orderly expression. In a way, emoticons are like the stitches in Frankenstein's imperfect, rag-tag skin, allowing an imperfect construction to shamble forward, human-like, compelling for all of its oddity and incompletion. But a truly beautiful child, rich with seamless complexity, comes together of a piece, and is no illusion at all.

I like lengthy and thought-out posts, now and then. Sorry if this one needed another week of work.  :Yesnod:  :Toetap05:

----------


## Virgil

Just a request. Can we return the old wink smile. This one  :Wink:  is impotent.  :FRlol:

----------


## Maximilianus

I liked Janine's and billl's respective posts. I very much agree with both. As usually, billl amazes me with his eloquence.




> Just a request. Can we return the old wink smile. This one  is impotent.


I like this one  and this one  .... but I'm not sure if they are impotent  :Tongue:   :FRlol:

----------


## Nikhar

> However, the question I'd ask is, if you were writing a novel, would you use emoticons? If you would, then I guess you've taken them on entirely as part of written language, and who can say you nay?


To this, I already had answered




> Well, I don't think smilies were ever made to substitute the "words in literary works". They have more been used to display expressions while conversing.





> I have definitely seen cases where the use or absence of a smiley or a wink makes a difference. Of course, it might've been possible to write those messages in a way that made the emoticon unnecessary, but I think it might've also resulted in sentences that suddenly broke the conversational style and tone of the "conversation."


My sentiments exactly.


@Virgil...

Impotent...lol  :FRlol: 


Oh sorry...maybe I should have said...Hey Virgil, you know I'm laughing so hard because the last statement where you used the word 'impotent' was very funny. And now I'm winking at you.

----------


## Maximilianus

> One of the reasons I wanted emoticons was to convey my messages properly. When I write something, it does not have the same effect as you don't know the way I meant it. Emoticons make it all so much simpler.
> 
> I just remember once how someone completely misunderstood me and all of it just because, I forgot to use '' emoticon.


I've just read this, and I agree. It's the same reason why I use them. I dislike being misinterpreted, and then going back to clarify, when it's better to make oneself clear from start. My humble opinion.

----------


## Nikhar

> I've just read this, and I agree. It's the same reason why I use them. I dislike being misinterpreted, and then going back to clarify, when it's better to make oneself clear from start. My humble opinion.


I do agree so much. I'd hate someone to think me to be a troll when I was trying to be an elf.

Nah...bad similie.  :Goof:

----------


## billl

Thanks Max!, and I apologize to Janine and Nikhar for not mentioning my agreement with them and then making most of my post a mere restatement of what they had said. And my apologies to MarkBastable as well, for piling on and then retreating to a cautious balance, with his timely protests allowing me to take such a stance between the empowering and limiting poles of technological development.

----------


## Heathcliff

Great... They are a little confusing.

Are we seriously that emotional?

Oh well. They are pretty awesome.

----------


## Maximilianus

> I do agree so much. I'd hate someone to think me to be a troll when I was trying to be an elf.
> 
> Nah...bad similie.


Then you may benefit from  and  .......  :Biggrin: 




> Thanks Max!, and I apologize to Janine and Nikhar for not mentioning my agreement with them and then making most of my post a mere restatement of what they had said


Don't worry about that billl. We all have the right to express ourselves with our own lexicon. Even after others have reached the same conclusions with their own.




> Are we seriously that emotional?


I'm sure I am  :Smile:

----------


## Heathcliff

So many possibilities. Although they will be so hard to remember, you'd have to go in and click them each time.

----------


## Maximilianus

> So many possibilities. Although they will be so hard to remember, you'd have to go in and click them each time.


Well... that's one of the smiley realm's drawbacks. We need good memory to recall about each one, and they can be quite many

----------


## Nikhar

Your new favourite Max?

----------


## Maximilianus

Could be... let me think  ... Yea! until I get a thing for another one  :Biggrin:  ....... hmmm, but which one will be next?

----------


## Nikhar

Oooooh...I see

----------


## Heathcliff

Come on, there are six I like.
 :Wink: 
 :Wave: 
 :Biggrin: 
 :Rolleyes: 
 :Rofl: 
 :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Nikhar

Can someone please add this to the collection? 

I'll be needing to use that very often.  :Tongue:

----------


## Maximilianus

Good choices, Nik and Heath

----------


## Heathcliff

Yes. Of course.

How do they add them anyway?

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> All right, I think I will move right in and bring some perspective into this non-discussion.
> 
> Nobody on the Forum nor the smiley in question means to condone animal beating; what is more, in my very humble non-moderator opinion, to look at it in that way is rather superficial and somewhat dramatic.
> 
> The saying "beating/flogging a dead horse" means that "a particular request or line of conversation is already foreclosed or otherwise resolved, and any attempt to continue it is futile." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flogging_a_dead_horse 
> 
> So, it does not advocate a perverse and cruel liking for having dead animals beaten; on the contrary, it emphasises the futility of such an effort. Similarly, the smiley is also used for this very purpose: sometimes the same discussions/arguments are repeated one too many times on the internet and only the expression "beating up a dead horse" defines their futility.
> 
> Truth be told, I know I will be using that particular _a lot_ here on the Forum as, being an internet user for 15 years and a member of this Forum for almost 6 years, I feel like I have seen and heard it all.


This manages to miss the point completely. We all know the expression and recognize it as intended by the emoticon. The point is that offering a visual depiction of it among others *that are meant to be amusing* is neither funny nor respectful of horses dead or alive.

----------


## Babbalanja

> This manages to miss the point completely. We all know the expression and recognize it as intended by the emoticon. The point is that offering a visual depiction of it among others *that are meant to be amusing* is neither funny nor respectful of horses dead or alive.


Her explanation, in fact, addresses the issue directly by stating that _to look at it in that way is rather superficial and somewhat dramatic._ Perhaps you simply don't want to admit that she's absolutely correct: you're overreacting in this instance.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## MarkBastable

Can we have one for 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater'?

----------


## Niamh

*As the purpose of this thread was to get more emoticons, which has been achieved, it has served its purpose and is now closed.*

----------

