The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2004-02-19

    Can Isiah pull off another blockbuster?
    By Chad Ford
    NBA Insider
    Send an Email to Chad Ford Thursday, February 19
    Updated: February 19
    10:18 AM ET

    NBA Insider Chad Ford will be chatting live on today at 1 p.m. ET about
    the NBA trade deadline. Click here to submit your questions.

    This just in. . .

    Jerry West refused to confirm or deny the exisitence of the "so-called trade

    Danny Ainge was just sent a thank you note by Nextel Wireless.

    Juwan Howard, who has been traded in two of the last three trade deadlines, has
    gone into hiding. He was last seen with Chris Gatling, the patron saint of trade
    deadline deals.

    League sources say the Knicks are offering the Hawks an autographed photo of
    Isiah for Rasheed Wallace.

    Allen Iverson is already feeling disrespected by the 28 teams that haven't
    traded for him. "I'm not going to put up with it," Iverson said. "Our
    relationship is over."

    The Pacers promise to include Larry Bird in any Austin Croshere trade.

    Donald Sterling just sold his Clippers season tickets.

    Mark Cuban claimed there was a 99.9 percent chance that the Mavs won't make a
    trade unless they're offered Erick Dampier, Rasheed Wallace, Brian Grant,
    Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Kurt Thomas or anyone else for that matter.

    It's the trade deadline, baby. The crap coming from teams smells a lot like the
    Magic and the Hawks. The truth, as the Knicks have reminded us all season, is
    that good trades can still happen in the NBA. And sometime after the 3 p.m. ET
    deadline, we can all go to bed. . .

    Until then, ESPN Insider breaks down what is and isn't going down as we head
    into the homestretch. . .

    Nothing like waiting until the last minute

    The flurry of trades already this season has thrown conventional wisdom out the
    window. Normally, all of the really good deals don't happen until today. The
    thinking behind the theory is that as teams get more desperate and understand
    what offers are real and what aren't, the offers get sweeter.

    That may not be true this year. With so many blockbuster trades already going
    down, many of the would-be players at the deadline look a little weary. Offers
    that a team could've snagged a month ago are off the table because folks have
    moved on and made their trade.

    As of late, late Wednesday night, no trades were imminent. Several GMs were up
    late, still working the phones but, to my knowledge, nothing got done. That
    doesn't mean that talks won't heat up again this morning as teams slog toward
    the deadline, but it does mean that all of the really big stuff may be over.

    Here's what we do know.

    If Allen Iverson is traded, it will most likely happen this summer.
    The chances of superstars like Allen Iverson, Steve Francis or Kobe Bryant
    getting traded are slim to none at this point. If they need to be moved (and the
    Philly media is already pushing AI out the door), then the summer is probably a
    better time to weigh the offers.

    It's also pretty unlikely that we'll see Rasheed Wallace moved at this point.
    While Hawks GM Billy Knight is claiming that he's narrowed the field down to two
    teams, the three teams in the running for Rasheed -- the Pistons, Knicks and
    Mavs -- probably don't have what it takes to get a deal done now. The Pistons
    have the best chance, but as Insider first reported here on both Tuesday and
    Wednesday, they won't pull the trigger until they find someone to take either
    Chuck Atkins or Corliss Williamson off their hands.

    As of Wednesday, the Pistons were still talking with the Magic, Celtics and
    Bulls about deals for either Atkins or Williamson, but the hold-up is that those
    teams want the same first-round pick (the one Milwaukee owes Detroit) that the
    Hawks do to part with Wallace.

    Joe Dumars has a magical way of pulling of miraculous deals, but it's hard to
    see how they get both of them done together. If they can't, the team's priority,
    as we've been writing for weeks, is clearing cap space for Mehmet Okur.

    The other suitors have a bigger problem. King wants expiring contracts, draft
    picks and young prospects, and Dallas and New York have little of either. Unless
    they can get a third or fourth team to take some of their leftovers (Utah
    perhaps?) it's tough to believe that the Hawks will pull the trigger.
    What happens if the Hawks don't trade Wallace? Two things could happen. The team
    could decide it doesn't want the distraction and waive Wallace. After Wallace
    cleared waivers he'd be free to join another team, which would likely be the
    Knicks. The other solution is to hold onto him and try to work out a
    sign-and-trade deal this summer that gets Wallace more money than he'd get on
    the open market.

    The other prize that seems to be highly coveted is the Warriors' Erick Dampier.
    The team is trying to package Dampier with Nick Van Exel in an effort to get cap
    relief. The Knicks have the most interest in Damp, but again, can't offer the
    Warriors the relief they're looking for.

    Reports out of New York had the team offering Kurt Thomas, Dikembe Mutombo and
    Shandon Anderson for Van Exel and Dampier. I can't imagine the Warriors biting
    on that deal . . . then again, we are talking about the Warriors.

    Memphis has been after Dampier since this summer, but as Insider has already
    reported, the asking price is awfully high for Jerry West's blood. As of
    Wednesday night, the Warriors were asking for Stromile Swift, Jake Tsakalidis
    and Shane Battier for Dampier. That's a lot of young blood for a center with
    creaky knees.

    Detroit's interest in Dampier is more passing. The Pistons would try to use him
    in a larger three-way deal to get more cap space. Something could be worked out
    with Memphis here, but it would still likely cost the Grizzlies Swift and
    Battier at the very least.

    Despite reports to the contrary, a source in Indiana claims that the Pacers are
    not pursuing Dampier.

    Hot Zones

    If none of the big, blockbuster deals are likely to happen, what is going down?

    Right now you see a bunch of smaller names being floated as teams wrestle for
    cap space, or the missing piece in a playoff run.

    Insider takes a look at several trade "hot zones" that we'll be watching closer
    as the deadline gets nearer.

    Knicks: Even if the team can't land Rasheed or Dampier, we expect Isiah to make
    one more move before the deadline. Teams like Kurt Thomas, Frank Williams and to
    a lesser extent, Michael Sweetney. Isiah has even received inquiries on Penny
    Hardaway and Shandon Anderson. Isiah is always thinking out of the box and he's
    still not happy with his team.

    Sonics: GM Rick Sund sounds like a guy willing to make a deal. As reported
    on Insider on Wednesday, the team has talked to the Raptors about a Brent
    Barry-and-Vladimir Radmanovic-for-Donyell Marshall-and-Morris Peterson swap.
    However, as of late Wednesday, it sounded like those talks have stalled. The
    Sonics have also discussed a swap with the Grizzlies that would land them
    Stromile Swift and Jake Tsakalidis for Jerome James and Vladimir Radmanovic.

    The Sonics are still in the running for Juwan Howard as well, though that deal
    appears to be less of a priority. The Celtics have made a hard charge at Barry,
    but what they're offering, expiring contracts, doesn't really resonate
    considering Barry comes off the books anyway. If the Celtics were willing to
    offer Chris Mills and Chris Mihm for Barry and a salary drain like Calvin Booth,
    Seattle might just get interested.

    Pistons: Joe Dumars is motivated to get either Chucky Atkins or Corliss
    Williamson off the books. Armed with two first-round picks, you've got to
    believe the Pistons will come up with something.

    Celtics: Danny Ainge is working the phones, and he has two coveted pieces to
    offer -- the expiring contracts of Mills and Mihm. A league source claimed on
    Wednesday that the team was considering a couple of offers that would land it
    another point guard and a first-round pick. There is also talk about the Celtics
    swapping Mills for Malik Rose. It sounds like the talk about Juwan Howard coming
    there is pretty much dead.

    Blazers: The benching of Zach Randolph and fining of Qyntel Woods on
    Wednesday raised a few eyebrows around the league. Shareef Abdur Rahim got the
    start over Randolph after Randolph skipped practice. Randolph responsded by
    spinning a ball into Randolph. Cheeks got in a heated arguement with Randolph
    during a team huddle and was overheard saying the phrase "throw the ball at me
    like that". With Abdur Rahim now on board and Randolph not taking the change
    well, could Randolph be on the way out? Or alternatively, could the Blazers be
    interested in the offer the Sonics made to Atlanta. Would the Blazers be
    interested in Brent Barry, Vladimir Radmanovic, Jerome James and Ronald Murray
    for Rahim. Remember, a player can be traded again as long as they aren't
    packaged with another player going out. This deal works straight up for Rahim.
    The team would still like to move Dale Davis, Ruben Patterson and even Damon
    Stoudamire. The thinking early on was that Davis would be pretty easy to move,
    but the Blazers have hit stumbling blocks. Bucks GM Larry Harris said that he
    will not trade Toni Kukoc for Davis. The Blazers were also trying to get
    involved in talks with the Sonics and Raptors, but haven't gotten anywhere there

    The only team with interest in Patterson appears to be the Knicks, who have
    discussed a Shandon Anderson-for-Patterson swap. Stoudamire will be easier to
    move next year, though you wonder whether he might not be a bad fit on a team
    like Boston if the Blazers were to send out a No. 1 and be willing to swallow
    the last year of Yogi Stewart's deal.

    Magic: Juwan Howard, Gordan Giricek, Steven Hunter . . . actually anyone not
    named Tracy McGrady is on the block. Lots of teams are interested in Giricek,
    who also happens to be in the last year of his deal, but after that things begin
    to wane just a little bit.

    Sixers: Talking about trading Allen Iverson has dominated the air waves, but
    don't expect that to happen until the summer. More likely are trades that send
    Eric Snow or Aaron McKie packing. The problem is that their proposed
    replacements, including Juwan Howard, Malik Rose and Jerome Williams, don't
    really sound like huge upgrades.

    Bulls: By most accounts Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler and even Jamal Crawford
    are safe. The center of attention is on Marcus Fizer, whose contract expires
    this summer. The Pistons, Magic and Sonics have all been mentioned as possible

    Raptors: They've been busy trying to get something down. It seems like they've
    cooled to the possibility of landing Brent Barry and Vladimir Radmanovic or, in
    the alternative, Dale Davis and Radmanovic as part of a three way trade. The
    Knicks offered the Raptors Dikembe Mutombo on Wednesday if they were willing to
    be part of a three way deal that lands New York Rasheed Wallace. It's still
    unclear why the Raptors would want to help the Knicks do anything. The Suns are
    trying to get the Raptors to take Jahidi White off their hands and may be
    willing to give them a first round pick to do it. In every case, the expiring
    contracts of Michael Curry, Michael Bradley and Morris Peterson appear to be the

    Clippers: The team has been trying to get someone to take Melvin Ely off their
    hands so that they can get further under the cap to make a run at Kobe Bryant.
    Point guard Keyon Dooling is also available. Talks with the Bulls seems to have
    fizzled however.

    Nuggets-Jazz: Both teams have cap space, which allows them to facilitate trades.
    The Nuggets have received a lot of interest in Marcus Camby and Rodney White,
    but have been reluctant to pull the trigger unless something blows them away.
    The Jazz are trying to use their roughly seven million in cap space and the
    expiring contract of Keon Clark to land themselves another draft pick or
    prospect. The team has shown some interest in the Magic's Gordan Giricek. The
    Suns (for Tom Gugliotta and first-rounder) right now seem like the only legit
    contender. though the Jazz have the power to get involved in potentially any
    deal out there.

    Around the League

    Lakers GM Mitch Kupchak said he's actually received a few trade proposals that
    include Kobe Bryant. Here's his response. "Teams fish around," Kupchak told the
    L.A. Daily News. "My response is, 'No, we're not'. We're not going to break up
    the team. I wouldn't share any conversations I've had, but we have not received
    an influx of calls based on the perception that we're trying to move (Bryant) or
    that we would move him. And to me, that just verifies our position -- that why
    would you do that? Teams know we wouldn't do it."

    The Hawks waived Michael Doleac on Wednesday. The speculation has been that
    Doleac, if he clears waivers, will return to the Knicks. But he may not clear
    waivers. Two teams with room enough under the cap to assume his contract, the
    Nuggets and Jazz, both have interest in the center and may claim him.

    The war over the termination of Vin Baker's contract, which happened on
    Wednesday, is about to get ugly. The Players Association is in the process of
    filing a grievance and both the NBA and NBPA are digging in for a fight. Both
    sides claim that they're confident that they'll prevail.

    "We were advised we could move to terminate this player a year ago, but chose to
    give him what has amounted to a year of additional chances," owner Wyc Grousbeck
    told the Boston Globe

    NBPA spokesman Dan Wasserman had a different view. "With regard to the
    termination of a guaranteed contract, it doesn't matter if it's Vin Baker or any
    other player," said Wasserman. "The Players Association will contest this as
    aggressively and vigorously as possible. We expect to prevail as we have in
    other termination cases like this, such as those involving Latrell Sprewell and
    Nate Huffman."

    The issue is whether Baker's alcoholism prevented him from performing under the
    terms of the uniform players contract. The Celtics maintain that when a doctor
    failed to clear Baker for 10 consecutive games, that he had run out of chances
    and could no longer fulfill his part of the contract. The NBPA disagrees.

    Baker's agent, Aaron Goodwin, is claiming that a number of teams have interest
    in Baker and are lining up to sign him. If Baker was really unable to perform,
    why are so many teams interested in re-signing him?

    What both sides are really fighting about here is precedent. The league would
    love to establish a precedent for terminating guaranteed contracts when a
    player, because of substance abuse or lack of conditioning, makes himself unable
    to play. The NBPA obviously wants this nipped in the bud and claims that what
    the Celtics and league are trying to do is find a way to circumvent the
    guaranteed provisions of the CBA.

    All of this mess would be less sticky if teams weren't tripping over themselves
    to sign up Baker for cheap. You have to believe that Ainge and Grousbek are
    furious that teams aren't lining up in support of them.

    "It's unbelievable," one league source told Insider. "No one should touch this
    guy. It send every bad message there is. We should be lining up behind the
    Celtics here, but greed always gets in the way. Look at Eddie Griffin. We'll
    always take big risks for talent. But for Vin? I'm not sure the talent is even
    there anymore. If a team really does sign him, not only does it hurt the Celtics
    chances of prevailing, it hurts the league."
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you