Talk:Smiley (disambiguation)

Untitled

An editor who wrote on Smiley (disambiguation)

Smileys are sometimes referred to as graemlins.

may have meant the reverse, i.e., that "smiley" can mean a graemlin, in which case it may belong on the page, if verifiable.
--Jerzy•t 00:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Reality: Smiley Faces & Emoticons

Having had previous posts and footnotes deleted, I can only say that the originators of both of these art froms have been dismissed without the respect owed them.

I'm quite sure that given sufficient time, someone will find a Smiley in great great grandmom's letters to either her children or her grandchildren.

The heart that showed up in the New York Times in 1953 had long since been used in great great grandmom's post cards, letters, and general notes to her loved little ones. So had the "hugs & kisses," which most likely far predate Smilies and Emoticons. And great great grandmom, along with the whole line of grandmoms, grandops, moms and dads, were simply dismissed out of hand by those who "borrowed their artwork" for their own mostly selfish purposes. Plagiaristically trying to copyright and/or patent trademark grandmom's personal letters and pictographs; I don't think so.

Just as we're all certain that "Have a nice day" was formerly or exactly the same, nothing more than a good wish, "Have a good day," and many others far predating the "nice day," and often said in sarcasm by modern day users, rather than with "best wishes" as it was in grandmom's day.

Why is there such a tendency to proclaim some single person is responsible for the things that belong to children? Perhaps because it's like taking candy from a baby. Perhaps the imagination of adults simply loses its magic that it once had in childhood. Perhaps because it's just as easy to steal from grandmom as it is to steal from a baby. In any case, sheer logic states 100% that such artwork cannot be singularly ascribed to any recent person; history will defy this to the end.

And in dismissing the discussion, those who "borrow" ideas from the very young and the very old, simply show that they have blocked out all possibility of truth solely for personal gain; they "covet," as Hannibal Lector would say.

And Hannibal the Cannibal should know what he's talking about, he spent a great deal of time at Enoch & Shephard Pratt writing about "the intellectual cannibals" of this world. Thereafter, someone got rich writing about him as if he were an entirely fictional character. Hannibal himself was cannibalised and spit out into the media as "a creation" by so-and-so.

Technically, taking wrongful credit is an act of Copyright Infringement. Therefore, deleting the idea that the aboriginal authorship rested elsewhere, serves the interest of the copyright infringers of this world. And, going along with how Lector reasoned it out, it serves the first act of the covetor and reveals that covetor for what he or she is. It's a rather brilliant psychiatric test for those who fall right into its trap.