Announcement

Collapse

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:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
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 NBA.com.

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

NOW ARE MY BEARS LEGIT?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: NOW ARE MY BEARS LEGIT?

    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
    Huh?

    I don't think you know what those things ("run the football", "good D") mean. Because the Bears haven't been good at either of those things for a couple of decades.
    did u watch the 06 season or any season b4 last year??? with tomas jones we were a running football team for a long time. with orton we ran the football and played D so idk what u are refering to. But ever since we got jay we have been a throwing team.

    Comment


    • Re: NOW ARE MY BEARS LEGIT?

      Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
      did u watch the 06 season or any season b4 last year??? with tomas jones we were a running football team for a long time. with orton we ran the football and played D so idk what u are refering to. But ever since we got jay we have been a throwing team.
      Jones was only there for 3 years. A long time is 3 years?

      And his stats show he ran for 1,000 yards or more in 2 of the 3 years, with less than 10 TDs in each of the 3 years.

      While that is good, it isn't exactly lighting it up.

      Comment


      • Re: NOW ARE MY BEARS LEGIT?

        Originally posted by Stryder View Post
        Jones was only there for 3 years. A long time is 3 years?

        And his stats show he ran for 1,000 yards or more in 2 of the 3 years, with less than 10 TDs in each of the 3 years.

        While that is good, it isn't exactly lighting it up.
        we have not been a throwing team in forever. That is all i am saying we have always be a run first team.

        Comment


        • Re: NOW ARE MY BEARS LEGIT?

          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
          did u watch the 06 season or any season b4 last year??? with tomas jones we were a running football team for a long time. with orton we ran the football and played D so idk what u are refering to. But ever since we got jay we have been a throwing team.
          I live here but try to avoid watching the Bears just as I tried very hard to avoid watching the Colts when I lived in Indianapolis. I've had Sunday Ticket since about '94 and think its the greatest invention of all time.

          Anyway, in 2006, the Bears were ranked #15 in rushing offense. That was the season after Bettis retired, so the Steelers were a disappointing #9 in rushing offense.

          Working my way backwards, as I'd like to find a time the Bears were a top-five rushing team... Or if I can't find that, a time where they were as good as the Steelers... I'll bet I've got to go all the way back to the Walter Peyton era.

          #8 in 2005 (Steelers were #5).
          #25 in 2004 (Steelers were #2).
          #18 in 2003 (Steelers were #31, this was the year of the "Tommy Gun").
          #32 (really!) in 2002 (Steelers were #9).
          #17 in 2001 (Steelers were #1).
          #21 in 2000 (Steelers were #4).
          #26 in 1999 (Steelers were #10).
          #17 in 1998 (Steelers were #7).
          #16 in 1997 (Steelers were #1, again).
          #16 in 1996 (Steelers were #2, damn that Terrell Davis guy...).

          Before that, Jerome Bettis was still playing for the Rams. So that's far enough back into the past.

          So with the exception of the dreaded Tommy-Gun season, you just haven't been close to the type of running game the Steelers have had.

          Do we have to do this for defense, too?

          Going back to 1992, when Bill Cowher, Dom Capers and Dick LeBeau brought the 3-4 Zone Blitz to Pittsburgh, and looking at Total Defense by total yards:

          1992: Steelers #13, Bears #17.
          1993: Steelers #3, Bears #4. (note that the Vikings were #1, Packers #2, Bears #4 and Lions #6. The NFC Central defensive stats may have been inflated due to the divisions' lack of offense.)
          1994: Steelers #2, Bears #13.
          1995: Steelers #3, Bears #19.
          1996: Steelers #2, Bears #12.
          (Note: Dick LeBeau leaves to be the DC then HC in Cincinnati)
          1997: Steelers #6, Bears #12.
          1998: Steelers #12, Bears #14.
          1999: Steelers #11, Bears #29.
          2000: Steelers #7, Bears #16.
          2001: Steelers #1 (more heralded Ravens #2), Bears #15.
          2002: Steelers #7, Bears #25.
          2003: Steelers #9, Bears #14.
          (Note: Dick LeBeau returns to Pittsburgh)
          2004: Steelers #1, Bears #21. Steelers go 15-1, lose in AFC Championship.
          2005: Bears #2, Steelers #4. So you're finally ranked higher. Steelers win Super Bowl XL. You can have the #2 ranking.
          2006: Bears #5, Steelers #9. With a respectable defense and a super-weak NFC, you qualify for the Super Bowl under the controversial rule that guarantees the NFC winner a berth in the big game, no matter how weak the NFC is.
          2007: Steelers #1, Bears #28. Uh... ouch.
          2008: Steelers #1, Bears #21. Steelers win Super Bowl.
          2009: Steelers #5, Bears #17.

          That's a total of ten top-fives in the past 17 seasons for the Steelers, compared to 9 seasons where the Bears were in the bottom 1/2 of the league.

          I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop insulting the Steelers running game and defense by comparing them to the lousy Bears.
          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

          Comment


          • Re: NOW ARE MY BEARS LEGIT?

            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
            I live here but try to avoid watching the Bears just as I tried very hard to avoid watching the Colts when I lived in Indianapolis. I've had Sunday Ticket since about '94 and think its the greatest invention of all time.

            Anyway, in 2006, the Bears were ranked #15 in rushing offense. That was the season after Bettis retired, so the Steelers were a disappointing #9 in rushing offense.

            Working my way backwards, as I'd like to find a time the Bears were a top-five rushing team... Or if I can't find that, a time where they were as good as the Steelers... I'll bet I've got to go all the way back to the Walter Peyton era.

            #8 in 2005 (Steelers were #5).
            #25 in 2004 (Steelers were #2).
            #18 in 2003 (Steelers were #31, this was the year of the "Tommy Gun").
            #32 (really!) in 2002 (Steelers were #9).
            #17 in 2001 (Steelers were #1).
            #21 in 2000 (Steelers were #4).
            #26 in 1999 (Steelers were #10).
            #17 in 1998 (Steelers were #7).
            #16 in 1997 (Steelers were #1, again).
            #16 in 1996 (Steelers were #2, damn that Terrell Davis guy...).

            Before that, Jerome Bettis was still playing for the Rams. So that's far enough back into the past.

            So with the exception of the dreaded Tommy-Gun season, you just haven't been close to the type of running game the Steelers have had.

            Do we have to do this for defense, too?

            Going back to 1992, when Bill Cowher, Dom Capers and Dick LeBeau brought the 3-4 Zone Blitz to Pittsburgh, and looking at Total Defense by total yards:

            1992: Steelers #13, Bears #17.
            1993: Steelers #3, Bears #4. (note that the Vikings were #1, Packers #2, Bears #4 and Lions #6. The NFC Central defensive stats may have been inflated due to the divisions' lack of offense.)
            1994: Steelers #2, Bears #13.
            1995: Steelers #3, Bears #19.
            1996: Steelers #2, Bears #12.
            (Note: Dick LeBeau leaves to be the DC then HC in Cincinnati)
            1997: Steelers #6, Bears #12.
            1998: Steelers #12, Bears #14.
            1999: Steelers #11, Bears #29.
            2000: Steelers #7, Bears #16.
            2001: Steelers #1 (more heralded Ravens #2), Bears #15.
            2002: Steelers #7, Bears #25.
            2003: Steelers #9, Bears #14.
            (Note: Dick LeBeau returns to Pittsburgh)
            2004: Steelers #1, Bears #21. Steelers go 15-1, lose in AFC Championship.
            2005: Bears #2, Steelers #4. So you're finally ranked higher. Steelers win Super Bowl XL. You can have the #2 ranking.
            2006: Bears #5, Steelers #9. With a respectable defense and a super-weak NFC, you qualify for the Super Bowl under the controversial rule that guarantees the NFC winner a berth in the big game, no matter how weak the NFC is.
            2007: Steelers #1, Bears #28. Uh... ouch.
            2008: Steelers #1, Bears #21. Steelers win Super Bowl.
            2009: Steelers #5, Bears #17.

            That's a total of ten top-fives in the past 17 seasons for the Steelers, compared to 9 seasons where the Bears were in the bottom 1/2 of the league.

            I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop insulting the Steelers running game and defense by comparing them to the lousy Bears.
            im just talking about are philosophy not how good we were i liked watching hard nosed footbal like pittsburg plays.

            Comment


            • Re: NOW ARE MY BEARS LEGIT?

              Then you must hate watching the Bears?

              Cade McNown
              Rick Mirer
              Jim Miller
              Kordell Stewart
              Rex Grossman
              Brian Griese
              Jay Cutler

              You've been searching for your "franchise QB" for 15 years.
              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

              Comment


              • Re: NOW ARE MY BEARS LEGIT?

                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                Then you must hate watching the Bears?

                Cade McNown
                Rick Mirer
                Jim Miller
                Kordell Stewart
                Rex Grossman
                Brian Griese
                Jay Cutler

                You've been searching for your "franchise QB" for 15 years.
                and about 20 more LOL all suck lol

                Comment


                • Re: NOW ARE MY BEARS LEGIT?

                  I think Cutler could be their franchise QB, but the thing is, every time he drops back to pass I cringe, and I don't give a damn about the Bears. I don't know if it's the offense or the strategy or what, I just don't ever feel comfortable with a pass he throws.
                  Super Bowl XLI Champions
                  2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                  Comment


                  • Re: NOW ARE MY BEARS LEGIT?

                    Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post
                    I think Cutler could be their franchise QB, but the thing is, every time he drops back to pass I cringe, and I don't give a damn about the Bears. I don't know if it's the offense or the strategy or what, I just don't ever feel comfortable with a pass he throws.
                    he has the tools but not the smarts last week he didnt check down at all and looks like he expects to get sacked. He hit the checkdown good week one idk idont think he will ever figure it out

                    Comment


                    • Re: NOW ARE MY BEARS LEGIT?

                      How many times do I have to say Jay Cutler=Jeff George?


                      Comment


                      • Re: NOW ARE MY BEARS LEGIT?

                        Jeff George had much better O-lines than Cutler ever had.

                        If you put pressure on Cutler -- like most QBs -- he struggles. Its not that Cutler is dumb, he's plenty smart for a QB. Its that he doesn't have time.

                        Grossman wasn't the problem either. In spite of the Bears' revolving door of "franchise QBs", the lack of skill at QB hasn't been the problem.

                        With their lousy O-line, crappy receivers, and lack of a legit running game, it doesn't matter who is playing QB. Greg Olson in a great TE, though.
                        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

                        Comment


                        • Re: NOW ARE MY BEARS LEGIT?

                          That's what I was trying to get at last night, but I was drunk.

                          Cutler is good, but he has no line, and when your best WR is a kick returner things are going to probably not be so good....
                          Super Bowl XLI Champions
                          2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                          Comment


                          • Re: NOW ARE MY BEARS LEGIT?

                            Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post
                            That's what I was trying to get at last night, but I was drunk.

                            Cutler is good, but he has no line, and when your best WR is a kick returner things are going to probably not be so good....
                            yes we should have traded for randy moss or vincent jackson.

                            Comment


                            • Re: NOW ARE MY BEARS LEGIT?

                              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                              Okay, ignoring the hyperbole of my "50%" comment, I'm tired of arguing with you. Argue with Nielsen.

                              (Pretty sure Tom posted the original article back in training camp.)

                              The Cowboys have a 23% lead over the second-place Steelers. That's a huge lead for this type of index, where one "should" start with an assumption that each of the 32 teams have an equal chance of popularity (or an equal 3.125% share).

                              http://playerpress.com/articles/1133...arity-rankings

                              Here's the original... I knew I had it somewhere.

                              http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/...sure-rankings/

                              http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...782758620.html


                              #1 on national TV, #1 on the internet. Maybe its not 1/2 the total quantity of NFL fans, but a 23% lead over the Steelers and a (100-70)/70 = 3/7 = ~50% (I suck at simple math) lead over the #3 NY Giants.

                              It ain't close.
                              The real question is how many are fans of the Cowboys when they are winning and are no where to be found when they are losing?

                              The Redskins have annoyed the hell out of me in recent years, but that is one thing you can say about our fan base. We may get upset, and we may even harass our owner and beg him to sell the team, but the fans keep showing up EVERY game and they keep giving the man money.

                              No whether that is loyalty, stupidity, or a little bit of both......that is a different story

                              Comment


                              • Re: NOW ARE MY BEARS LEGIT?

                                The Cowboys have two different fan bases. Actual Cowboys fans, and there are a lot of them, and people that only pay attention to the NFL when the Cowboys are winning.

                                Those are, of course, the same people that only pay attention to the NBA when the Lakers are winning, etc.

                                There is an astronomically large number of those front-running fans.
                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X