:rolleyes: seems to have become the standard response for posters with no really good arguments, who nonetheless feel a need to simultaneously increase their posting count and indicate that the previous poster is a complete looney, not worthy of debating.
Well, :rolleyes:.
There are some occasions where a :rolleyes: is wholly apropriate, such as when indicating sarcasm. But it’s not a universal panacea to the inability to write a coherent post.
(And let’s just say I think I can predict what the first answer to this post will be.)
Interesting thread. On my Board, we are having an “Official Deathwatch” on the rolling-eyed smiley, as its existence has offended me far, far too much. However, now I have a couple right-to-lifer’s who have said they will protest an execution of ol’ Rolly.
I may rehabilitate him into something less dangerous to society. A large part of the problem is his skin color. And Jesus, if that prior line was taken out of context…
We can’t get rid of :rolleyes: it server a useful purpose.
Like the time in some Pit thread when I mentioned that we should kill all the Mormons. I never assumed that my comment would have been taken literally given the context in which it was used. Boy, was I wrong. A :rolleyes: would have actually shown my intent.
:rolleyes: also does work as a response to a post that is actually too stupid for words. I don’t think that it is always a simple matter of using to pad a post count.
I don’t so much mind the rolleyes smilie as I do the damn smilie. I won’t even use it. There are a couple of posters that think everything they type is devilishly funny, and like to make sure that you know they think they’re funny (does that make sense?). Usually, the smilie is then accompanyied with a :d&r:, which is also entirely superfluous and unnecessary and redundant.[sup][/sup]
[sub][sup][/sup]Yes, I realize the contradiction of using all three of those words at the same time.[/sub]
:eek: :o 
;j :mad: :rolleyes: 
:wally 