In a nutshell, a mother listened in on her 14 yo daughter's phone call with her (apparently) thug boyfriend and heard of a crime the boy commited. She told the police and the boy was give (from other news sources that I looked-up) 9 mos in prison. The Washington court has ruled that the TEENAGERS had an expectation of privacy on the phone, and the mother violated their freedoms.
WTF!! OK, so when do I, as a parent, lose the right to protect a MINOR from harm? OOOH boy. I really look forward to discussing this. I bet there are some very strong opinions both ways.
-------------------- As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. Posts: 1679 | From: Illinois | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't make sense. That's a state law that needs to be changed. It is quite possible that that is what the law says, but no one anticipated it being used against parents. If that is what it says, then the court should not be making up exceptions on its own and should apply the law as written. Changes in statutes is a matter for the legislature. Like I said, the law needs to be changed.
Listening in by a mother would not be a 4th Amendment violation, so there is no Constitutional issue, so changing the law would not create a Constitutional conflict.
-------------------- "I've argued in front of every judge in this state, often as a lawyer." Posts: 1021 | From: Northwest Indiana | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That law is BS in the highest. I am so glad my kids are on their own. Parents can respect their kid's privacy all they want (just as we did), but if you suspect your little rascals are up to mischief, it is your responsibility to find out about it. It is your home, your phone, and they are your kids. You need to know who they are hanging around with, if the parents are going to be home, and if drugs and/or alchohol is *being served*. You can do this and still have an excellent relationship with your kids. And, no, there are no guarantees.
And the parents of today's teenagers? Especially 12-15 year olds? If they are wearing a hemp necklace, they are smoking dope or are on the brink. Period. OK?
RangerDog
-------------------- Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish Posts: 2036 | From: Virginia | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RangerDog: And the parents of today's teenagers? Especially 12-15 year olds? If they are wearing a hemp necklace, they are smoking dope or are on the brink. Period. OK?
Are you being serious??
-------------------- "There is no constitutional right to sleep with endangered reptiles." -- Carl Hiaasen Won't somebody please think of the adults! Posts: 8254 | From: Florida | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish Posts: 2036 | From: Virginia | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I bought hemp necklaces for our girls this summer.
I guess I shoulda just gotten them dime bags and saved the trouble.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RangerDog: And the parents of today's teenagers? Especially 12-15 year olds? If they are wearing a hemp necklace, they are smoking dope or are on the brink. Period. OK?
If they're wearing jelly bracelets does that mean they're having sex, too?
Four Kitties
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
The ruling was not against the mother--it was agianst admitting her testimony. The law in question was enacted in 1909.
quote:The act provides that it is unlawful for any individual to 'intercept, or record any:'
{p}rivate communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication.
RCW 9.73.030(1)(a) (emphasis added). Evidence obtained in violation of the act is inadmissible for any purpose at trial.
According to the Seattle Post Intelligencer
quote: Federal wiretap law has been interpreted to allow parents to record their child's conversations. But Washington privacy law is stricter. Washington is one of 11 states that requires consent from all parties involved before a conversation may be intercepted or recorded.
"The Washington statute ... tips the balance in favor of individual privacy at the expense of law enforcement's ability to gather evidence without a warrant," Justice Tom Chambers wrote in the unanimous opinion.
That right to individual privacy holds fast even when the individuals are teenagers, the court ruled.
-------------------- The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Posts: 4255 | From: Sacramento, CA | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Based on the text of the statute, I don't know that the court had any choice but to decide the case the way it did. I don't like it when Courts go making exceptions and rewriting statutes.
That being said, now that this result of the law has been identified, it may be time for the legislature to revisit the issue. Parents should be able to listen in on their kids. Whether they should choose to do so or not should be a family issue, and not one governed by the state.
-------------------- "I've argued in front of every judge in this state, often as a lawyer." Posts: 1021 | From: Northwest Indiana | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lawguy, I'm a layperson, but I have to agree with you. The law, as written, does not give an exception for a parent listening in on a minor child. However dumb that is, it is the law. Now it is time for folks to get together to re-write it, or amend it, or whatever it is that they do.
-------------------- Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength; loving someone deeply gives you courage. Lao Tzu Posts: 1544 | From: Northern California | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lawguy, you may be best to defend or reject my opinion here. I have understood that the supreme court (US) has ruled that lockers in schools are not subject to privacy laws, and may indeed be searched. Further, student media is subject to approval by the schools and not subject to free speech rights.
In that vein, it would seem that other laws imposed to protect the general publics rights may not necessarily translate to minors when being dealt with en loci parentis (is that the correct term? 'In place of the parents')as in school, and especially when being dealt with directly by their parents.
Of course that may be too sweeping of a statement ( laws imposed to protect the general publics rights may not necessarily translate to minors)to make by the courts, in that then protection from beating, torture, etc. would not be available.
-------------------- As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. Posts: 1679 | From: Illinois | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- All posts foretold by Nostradamus.
Turing test failures: 6 Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Dogwater: Lawguy, you may be best to defend or reject my opinion here. I have understood that the supreme court (US) has ruled that lockers in schools are not subject to privacy laws, and may indeed be searched. Further, student media is subject to approval by the schools and not subject to free speech rights.
In that vein, it would seem that other laws imposed to protect the general publics rights may not necessarily translate to minors when being dealt with en loci parentis (is that the correct term? 'In place of the parents')as in school, and especially when being dealt with directly by their parents.
Of course that may be too sweeping of a statement ( laws imposed to protect the general publics rights may not necessarily translate to minors)to make by the courts, in that then protection from beating, torture, etc. would not be available.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have your answer.
School lockers are not owned by the student and therefore the student isn't entitled to an expectation of privacy. I would think that a similar argument might be made for an adult's desk at work - the owner of the building (or company) owns the locker (or desk) and has the right to enter it. The question is whether the parent (or school, as in your example) has the right to conduct wiretap operations without the knowledge or consent of the child, and at what point does he/she have the right to do that? What if she overheard her daughter speaking and then listened in? Would that constitute propable cause? Would she be justified in doing that? Should the laws be changed to allow for that, and if so, how?
As far as school newspapers go, the school is often the one putting up the money to print the paper, the school logo is on the paper (thus it could be argued that anything said in the paper will reflect of the school), why shouldn't they have final say in what they publish? That isn't censorship, it's editing. School also have the responsability to create an environment that promotes learning. If a student's clothing distracts from that atmosphere (either slogans on t-shirts or the amount of exposed flesh or any other means) isn't it the school's responsibility to control these distractions?
-------------------- Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!
posted
The issue is this. Under the 4th Amendment right against illegal search and seizure, the rules are different than under specific statutes. Under the Constitution, there is no right of minors to be free from their parents listeing to their telephone conversations. However, we are dealing with a state statute which makes such a right.
Generally speaking, the Constitution sets a limit of what essential rights cannot be taken away. However, a state may, by statute or its own constitution, give greater rights. The Federal Constitution just sets a minimum limit.
The Supreme Court seldom speaks on state law issues, but sticks to federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the 4th Amendment, but what they say about that does not affect how the state law is applied. As long as the state law provides as much or more protection, the Supreme Court will stay out of it...usually.
-------------------- "I've argued in front of every judge in this state, often as a lawyer." Posts: 1021 | From: Northwest Indiana | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lawguy: That being said, now that this result of the law has been identified, it may be time for the legislature to revisit the issue. Parents should be able to listen in on their kids. Whether they should choose to do so or not should be a family issue, and not one governed by the state.
But it seems to me the issue isn't whether or not a parent can listen in on his child's phone conversation, but whether the content of that conversation can be introduced into evidence in a criminal case against a third person.
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Pogue has a good point. But if the law states that she has the right to monitor the phone conversation, should that be introduced as evidence? My understanding of laws like this revolve around a person's expectation of privacy, if the law makes an exception to parental monitoring, the third party no longer has an expectation of privacy.
-------------------- Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!
quote:Originally posted by Pogue Mahone paints it black:
quote:Originally posted by lawguy: That being said, now that this result of the law has been identified, it may be time for the legislature to revisit the issue. Parents should be able to listen in on their kids. Whether they should choose to do so or not should be a family issue, and not one governed by the state.
But it seems to me the issue isn't whether or not a parent can listen in on his child's phone conversation, but whether the content of that conversation can be introduced into evidence in a criminal case against a third person.
Pogue
You are exactly right. That is how the issue came to court. However, the statute makes it illegal to listen in regardless of the later use of the knowledge gained thereby.
-------------------- "I've argued in front of every judge in this state, often as a lawyer." Posts: 1021 | From: Northwest Indiana | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a question. Parents are liable in civil cases for damages that there children cause, right? And I seem to remember hearing that in some states parents could be charged in some types of criminal activity done by their children, that they should have prevented. Is this correct?
If it is, then what if you hear a kid talking about a minor crime that they were going to commit? In WA could you do anything? Could this be used as probable cause for the police if you reported it? Or, what if the kid was talking about say a Columbine type shooting or another murder? Could the police legally do anything if you reported it?
Posts: 22 | From: Alberta | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Washington's Privacy Act is indeed rather encompassing. It's a misdemeanor to open and read a sealed letter, for instance. Period. No exceptions. On the otherhand, it's OK for a building owner to listen to or record the calls or conversations being made by burglars currently in the building.
On "Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device" there is an exception.
quote:wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.
I love the hostage part. Anyway, presumably, a conversation about a plot to blow up a school could be recorded and would be admissable in court. The problem, of course, would be, how did Mom or Dad know that the kids would be talking about bodily harm? OK, they could have innocently picked up an extension, not knowing the kid was on the line and overheard "I'll bring the guns." But otherwise, the statute prohibits them from listening in on calls randomly.
-------------------- The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Posts: 4255 | From: Sacramento, CA | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RangerDog: And the parents of today's teenagers? Especially 12-15 year olds? If they are wearing a hemp necklace, they are smoking dope or are on the brink. Period. OK?
If they're wearing jelly bracelets does that mean they're having sex, too?
Four Kitties
My 12yo eats Count Chocula, and we all know what THAT means.
On the subject of listening in on conversations on the phone- isn't that a but... outdated? I mean really- I just read my kid's e-mail...
-------------------- "My Very Educated Mother Just Said Uh-oh! No...Pluto..."~ Steven Colbert Posts: 3256 | From: Somewhere in Ohio | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a libertarian type but I still think its a poor law. The kid is living in the parents home, using the parents phone serivice, and as others have said the parents could be held responsible for their child's criminal activies or involvement (well, more the parents of the other kid could be held responsible since he was the on commiting the act... but still the adult, IMHO, had the right to know). I don't think there should be an expectation of privacy when using either a cordless phone or making/receiving a call in ones parents' home. I know, from both living at home and from living with multiple roomates how often other people accidently pick up the phone when someone else is on the line. No reason to listen in... although, if the first thing I heard was "going to kill River in her sleep" when I expected to hear a dial tone I think I'd have to listen a bit longer.
From the article: "The daughter had taken a cordless phone into her bedroom and closed the door. In another room, her mother pressed the speakerphone button on an extension, listened in and took notes."
As I mentioned before is there and expectation of privacy on cordless phones? After all there have been cases when such things like cordless phones and baby monitors were accidently intercepted (along with cases where people intentional listened in). It also states that the mother "took notes" so it does not seem like a premeditated idea to "bug" the phone... she didn't have any recording devices set up. I think she just stumbled upon information concerning a crime and tried to help bring the person responsible to justice. To bad the laws are written the way they are. Its also ashame that the child herself wouldn't testify against the criminal. If she was my kid she would be so grounded and I'd be so disappointed in both myself and the child for her lack of values.
-------------------- "The question for joining the protected forum for real magicians should be:
What is the use of women?" Steve W. from JREF's 'This is no fun' Posts: 7622 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wish I would've thought of this excuse when I was a child. One time, when a few friends were at my house for a sleep over, we decided to have some fun with the phone book. We still thought it was cleaver to call people named "Upjohn" at 2am and ask "Are you up John?... Go back to bed.". I pitty anyone named Booger although when such a rare find is discovered you have to call. If you find a Joe call and ask for Bob, then appologize for picking the wrong booger. Sadly we didn't even get to talk to the Jesuses of find a number for Dick Trickle before my parents caught us. I've mentioned before that the phone makes a fairly quite beep before it rings for incoming calls... well, it also makes that sound when someone makes an outgoing call. My parents picked up the phone heard us on the line and we caught a bit of hell over it. While I wasn't happy with them ending our phone privledges for the evening I don't think our privacy rights were violated. Even if it hadn't been for the phone beeping they have a right to pick up a phone in their own home IMHO.
-------------------- "The question for joining the protected forum for real magicians should be:
What is the use of women?" Steve W. from JREF's 'This is no fun' Posts: 7622 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jason Threadshochet: What are the 10 other states?
"5 The other states are: California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. Bast, supra, at 869 n.313."
[Carol M. Bast, What's Bugging You? Inconsistencies and Irrationalities of the Law of Eavesdropping, 47 DePaul L. Rev. 837, 843 (1998).]
posted
If you ask me, teh persons right to privacy doesnt extend to other property. THe parents own the phone line and pay the bill. THats why we can have internet blocking software to prevent kids from accessing porno (at least thats the idea...). YOu dont hear kids complaining that the softweare is a violation of privacy. THis is just the same thing.
If the kid wants an expectation of privacy, she should get - and pay for her own line. ThHen teh parent has no right to butt in. Of couse she is a minor - the courts could argue that the right to over hear a conversation is based on the kids safety but thats another thing....
Not only that, the child knew that their was an extension with a speakerphone.
It also deals with the idea of preventing a crime from taking place. THe parent has a right (if she had a reason to believe that her kid was being exposed to such things) to inform the Police of a crime waiting to happen, it doesnt matter if she had her ear to her kids door, it would be neglegent not to know and the parent could be considered neglegent...
Ok, thats all i can think of right now. ANything else should be in rantidote.
-------------------- W.W.F.S.M.D? But this image of Bush as some sort of Snidely Whiplash tying the fair maiden to the railroad tracks is beyond the pale. - Joe Bentley Posts: 2311 | From: Minnnesota | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Ametrine
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
Something that occured to me while reading this thread. Would it matter to the courts if the mother had a reason to listen in on her daughters telephone conversations? If the mother had reason to believe that her daughter was engaged in conversations of a criminal nature over the phone would that hold up in court as appossed to the mother listening in on conversations just because she was being a snoop? (In other words for no reason at all)
I can assume the latter since the boyfriend is getting a new trial.
IP: Logged |
posted
I so completely disagree with this decision on just about every level. If this decision stands, what rights do parents have in regards to overseeing the activities of their children???
1. The child was a CHILD. A minor. The parents have responsiblities for raising that child. Heck, in most jurisdictions parents must replay damages done by their child. Parents, IMO, have the right to know every single thing said, done or kept by their child. I don't agree that parents should necessarily excercise this right--taken to extremes it will really mess up their kid. But I certainly think they have the legal right.*
2. It was THE PARENTS' house. Their phone. Their phone bill. I do not think any child has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" while living someplace they do not own, or using a phone they do not pay for.
I actually think this applies to anyone, regardless of age. If I am in someone else's house and use their phone, I don't think I have a legal reasonable expectation of privacy. Listening in would be beyond rude. Waaaaaay beyond rude. I'd be upset and angry, probably. But I think it should be legally admissable. I have an expectation of privacy on my own phone, on a public phone and on a hotel phone. But not on someone else's private phone.
ULTRAGOTHA
*I want to make clear, here, that I am not advocating that a parent should do this. Only that they have a legal right to; and that a minor has no legal expectation of privacy from his or her parents. Parents who routinely don't give privacy to their kids are doing their kids a great disservice. But they aren't breaching any law.
No, don't let's get started on notification laws for abortion for minors, please.
-------------------- A Lie can run around the world before the Truth can get its boots on. - Terry Pratchett
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. - Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Posts: 2495 | From: Connecticut | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
cstam1979
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
From the way the article read I would say that the girls mother premeditated this. I mean after all she did turn on the speakerphone and had a pen and paper ready. I can see listening in if the daughter has given her mother some reason to distrust her. Otherwise no the mother had no reason the listen in on her daughter. Mom might pay the bill but she does not own the line just the phone connected to it. The line is owned by the phone company mom pays for the convenience of it in her home. I think the girl should expect some privacy on the phone. Her mother unless she had a reason had no right to butt in.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if I really believe it (the eavesdroping) was premeditated. If she had a speaker phone it would be much easier to have a tape recorder as well (it would provide much better evidence). I keep a pen and pad by my phone (there are always occasions where you need to write down information) so I don't really think that's unusual. Also, as I and others have mentioned, the parents could be held legally responsible for the actions of an underage child. I think that alone should give them the right to know what's going on.
I'm not saying that I personally think that a kid should have no privacy at all (even at age 5 my son's room is basically his own). If someone (a friend of the family or something) comes over and wants to take a look at the florescent yellow walls decorated by Sesame Street characters they have to ask for his (my son's) permission. I decorated it, I'm sorta of proud of it, I own the home but it is still his room and it will not be entered against his wishes... or atleast his knowledge (if I have reason to suspect something I'm going in but he'll know it).
In some places not reporting a crime (or plans to commit a crime) is a crime. I would be disappointed if my child knew about a wrong doing and didn't report it. Perhaps I just have a different value system... but I can't stand idle by when I perceive an injustice is being done. And before anyone ask, no. I don't go out looking for issues (in fact my first thought is often "oh crap, what kind of mess have I gotten myself into this time). Although there are times in life (at least in my own life) that one witnesses people harming others. I think it is best, for society, for these people who endanger (or threaten to endanger) others to suffer the greatest penalty posible (in most cases). Even if it screws up my own life for a while... I think the time and psychologcal involvement of a victim or witness is often over looked.
-------------------- "The question for joining the protected forum for real magicians should be:
What is the use of women?" Steve W. from JREF's 'This is no fun' Posts: 7622 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueStar: How about reading your kids diary, is that ok?
I suppose a diary could be considered a "sealed message", same as a letter.
Also, something I wanted to point out: Even if there was an exemption for parents eavesdropping on their children, what about the person on the other end? According to that law, you need permision from both parties to listen in.
Posts: 2352 | From: California | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The judges had very little leeway. They basically can only look at "what does the law say?" and "was the law followed?" They were only ruling on the admissibility of this woman's testimony, not what rights do parents have over minors. The law was explicit: you can't intercept, or record any private communication transmitted by telephone uness all parties agree (there are exceptions for law enforcement things and journalism--if you know you are talking ot a reporter, you have implicitly given consent). The judges found that there was nothing in the law that exempted minors or parents. The law says your phone call is private, period.
The next thing was to note that the law also says if you learn something by eavedropping on a phone call, it is not admissible as evidence. So they ordered the mother's testimony thrown out. That's the crux of this story.
It's also important to note that this is a Washington state law, not a federal law.
As for the diary, it's not a letter under this law. The privacy act is all about intercepting and divulging private communication, not private writign. For instance, a "sealed message, letter or telegram intended for another person."
-------------------- The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Posts: 4255 | From: Sacramento, CA | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think, under most circumstances, parents should read their chidren's diaries.
But I firmly believe, under almost any circumstance, they have a right to read them.
cstam, the phone line is paid for by the parents. IMO no one, not even an adult visiting the house, should have a legal expectation of privacy when using someone else's phone.
Wiretapping, yes.
Listening in on MY OWN phone. No.
-------------------- A Lie can run around the world before the Truth can get its boots on. - Terry Pratchett
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. - Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Posts: 2495 | From: Connecticut | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Another article explains that the problems include the fact that the police encouraged the mother to record the conversation to use as evidence against the boyfriend.
quote: The police had gone to the girl's mother and asked her to keep her eyes open for evidence. The mother then listened in on the conversation and recorded what was said. The evidence was obtained in violation of the state's privacy law, so it wasn't admissable.
I don't read this and the law posted by Kathy as the parent is prohibited from listening in on her child's conversation. The problem is that the parent recorded the conversation -- at the request of the police -- without a wiretap warrant or informing the parties that they were being recorded. It's illegal in WA and not admissible regardless of who the people involved are. I don't see anything that says parent's can't listen in on kids' phone calls.
Did I miss something?
-------------------- Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread. Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sara at home: Did I miss something?
Yes, possibly.
quote:(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:
(a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;
I think the idea is that listening on the speaker phone would be "intercepting" the comunication.
Posts: 2352 | From: California | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
WTF!! ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
