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

An answer for Fortaz......

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

  • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

    i wont dwell on this....because in the overall scheme of things im not sure how important it is....but....as ive stated...dale is my favorite pacer....of all time....including 31.....

    but i would respectfully disagree with u if ur actually telling me that u believe dale has only committed two fouls like ron committed on ben wallace that nite.....

    can i recall them and reference them like u...no...u got me.......but there were knicks playoff series alone where he committed two similar fouls in one game....let alone the series and his career...

    but like i said...i dont wanna throw a wrench in things....cause as u saw...i agree with u that dale would not back away...i said so...what i was saying is hpothetically if dale got a beer thrown on him after being in a bit of a melee already....i dont trust dale to not go after a fan in that instant....but this is pure conjecture...and somewhat irrelevant...and i dont wanna go backwards...

    Comment


    • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

      Originally posted by foretaz
      i agree one hundred percent...he has done many, many things that are just plain wrong...many of which were highly embarassing...to both himself as well as the pacers organization....and to make excuses in any way or to attempt to condone any of these actions in any way is ridiculous....

      i do believe ronnie is one of the most competitive individuals u will ever find-and u definitely want that in a player-but once again that is no excuse for bad behavior-NONE...
      i also think that the more intense a player is, the more apt he might be to 'lose it'...cause there is a very fine line between love and hate, good and evil....and i do believe that some of the things that enable ronnie to be such a great basketball player at times are the exact same things that cause him to do things that are simply reprehensible...one again-does this excuse it?? NOPE, certainly not

      i really think we are in agreement here...i really do...and its hard for me to believe that any person wouldnt be....but hey...nothing shocks me anymore...i suppose its possible that some thing this sort of behavior that he engages in from time to time is cool...lets face it...the world is full of people who find entertainment in highly questionable activities...so...who knows...


      Ok, there is nothing to address here. We agree & if every one else would just follow the same rule I think a lot of the anti-Artest people would back way way off. I'm not saying we'd go away altogether but for some of us it's the fact that some won't even aknowledge that the guy has problems & they impact (thanks Jay) the team. No need to beat this one to death, we agree.


      its interesting that u bring up scholastic sports...theres more to that than u might think....and ur right...it could definitely be characterized as poor sportsmanship...and giving a youngster a timeout to help him learn to appreciate the gravity of the situation...you might say this is a key, since this is done early in a persons life to hopefully mold him into a person that doesnt continue that sort of behavior as he goes on in life...and yes...if that youngster doesnt respond in the right way-there are instances where that player might be removed....however...i would tell u that this rarely, and i do mean rarely ever happens...because the whole idea is to train, educate, and make that person better....simply casting that problem aside doesnt do the individual much good or the society that he then is cast into....

      as far as it being criminal activity.....possibly...once again...in rare instances....though this comment strikes me as being a bit embellished in order to drive home the thought of just how despicable some of his actions are....breaking things and cheap shots, in rare instances could be criminal though highly unlikely....breaking plays...hardly criminal activity...proper behavior?? nope...but then again...i doubt there is an nba player alive that hasnt/doesnt break a play....once again i think this comment really points to a deeper issue and is much more about the behavioral pattern versus the actual act and whether its criminal like or not...
      ill once again say....his behavior issues that uve brought up and others that u havent are simply unacceptable...


      Ok, again I think we're on the same page. The only part I think we might be on a differant path on is the comment you made about training, educating & makeing the person better. Now if your talking about youngters coming up then you are 100% correct. I'm not sure though that it is the job of the NBA to make the person better. Train? Yes. Educate? Yes. Make a better person? I'd buy it, but then you'd have Rasheed Wallace or Charles Barkley or somebody esle saying they are grown men & shouldn't have to conform to a certain type of person. I think the best they can do is hope they improve as a person. Then this brings up another issue altogether. At what point in time does the assitance of one player become a detriment to other players? I'm sure we'll kick this around as time goes on.

      bad analogy...but then u basically say as much by the disclaimer 'I'm just trying to point out that being competative does not give you an excuse for bad behavior.'

      which i would note , is already developing into somewhat of a noteable pattern..

      as far as the incident itself goes....i always have a major problem when we decide why people do things....that we know what other people are thinking....in this case what a basketball player is thinking in the middle of a game....we simply cant know that...we may think we know that...but we dont...

      and i would tell u that the premise i mentioned earlier comes back into play here again...if...and i do mean if...someone doesnt like someone...are we gonna be very objective in what we might THINK that player is thinking....

      the whole notion to know why ron or any other player or human being does a certain act without having any knowledge of that situation other than what we are watching...well....i think u can begin to see where im going with this...as others have already done....a person who LIKES ron artest would probably have a much different take on what happened....

      heres my take on it....its the sort of play that happens in the NBA...none of us know why each specific instance takes place....you urself have said dale does things with an enforcer mentality sometimes...in the end its not really relevant why it takes place...not really-unless ur wanting to somehow make it relevant to another argument u want to validate-in this case not liking ron artest....it happens and there are rules in place regarding what will happen if this sort of action takes place...and ron, like many players(some of which u do like-dale davis, brad miller) have been disciplined for these sorts of actions....

      but these actions alone shouldnt be cause to condemn a player, because if so, ron would have a lot of company, a personal favorite or 2 of urs that i just mentioned would be joining him....

      and not that i should do this...but if brad miller does the same thing(and he has-dont shoot me im a purdue fan as well as a brad miller fan)to ak47 that ron did, how would u react??? nevermind...i only try to make the poiint that our personal feelings and mindset go along way in determing how we view these things....

      i will say this....if ur looking for reasons to not like ron artest...it wont be hard...i dont think the one that u just mentioned is a very good one....but there are many others that i would wholeheartedly agree with u on....ron has given anyone who wants to not like him more than enuff ammunition...no question...jay put up a list that im sure has been used quite often-plane issues-other things that we will get into more down this posts line...suffice it to say...i have zero problem believing theres not ample evidence to support rons behavior being very very inexcusable at times..


      Ok, let's take your theory as being correct. The theory is that since I am not a Ron Artest fan I will certainly react differantly to what he does than say what Uncle Buck does. I will concur with that & won't even dispute it in any way. In fact I think your right about that.

      Now since I've since I've admitted this I would like you to examine one thing.

      Cause & effect. What caused me to become a non-Artisian & what effect does it play in the way I view him.

      Surely you realize that I didn't just wake up one day & say "You know I need a Pacer to hate today so I think I will choose Ron". Even if you give me that do you think it was just a one time event or was it something more? Was it a pattern of events & behavior that I saw that I didn't like & thus turned me the way I am? & if that is the case then if I see a continuation of the same events & behaviors am I wrong for feeling the same way or am I just predisposed to picking on Ron because I don't like him.

      In other words which came first the chicken or the egg?



      ahhhhhhhhh....the fan part of all of this....very, very intriquing part to this whole drama....and im gonna go much more in detail about some of this in my aforementioned piece im gonna do regarding the FAN....

      there are a couple of types of fans....this is a pacers fan site...not a ron artest fan site...not a jo fan site...not a rasheed wallace fan site....

      and theres a certain part of me that believes a lot of what u say regarding ron and his behavior would be much more relevant(not to say its irrelevant) if this were a strictly ron artest fan site....but its not....yes...ron plays for the pacers...but i cant speak for u...but im a PACERS fan first and foremost...not a fan of any player first....i love dale davis...already said so...i loved darnell hillman....when some of these players we love go other places, we still follow them because we are a fan of that player....it only stands to reason we probably wont love or be fans of every player on the team....however, i do feel a certain obligation(many will disagree, i know) regarding the players i dont care for....like austin for one...

      the issue then becomes quite similar to a pistons fan coming to the pacers board-as which some do....its a confrontation waiting to happen...its really unavoidable....and sooner or later it will happen if two people are talking and one likes anything and one doesnt...
      the interesting dynamic to all of this is when u have fans of the same team who have differing viewpoints of the same player....which too, is unavoidable....you loved brad miller from what i can tell...u love david harrison from what i can tell...u love dale davis from what i can tell...well all it takes is one person to not agree...and they will have their own reasons which they feel are just as valid as u do for liking or disliking....

      u bring up sheed....sheed has a huge following...and a huge group of 'haters' as well....and the more controversial a player or human being is, the more passionate that debate between lovers and haters can be....but lets not shy away from the real issue...

      sheed has, like artest, done many things that are simply reprehensible....and now i will interject a new piece of info....there is hardly a player in the nba or a human being in general that hasnt....i could give u a list of things reggie miller has done that u could say the same thing about....but u already probably know them....and then a new debate takes place...that they arent as bad..or this...or that...it doesnt matter...its once againn about the mindset u go into something with....

      and u made it clear...ur not a fan of artest...and we know...and thats very very telliing...because what it says is...really...he will never get the benefit of the doubt from u....that goes true in anything in life....if we dont like something....we are as much sayiing we are prejudiced towards that subject....im sorry if u dont like hearing that...but thats the way that it is...and i think u know it....we can say that though we dont like something we can be objective.....hmmmmm....now just how hypocritical and naive is that statement when u really stop and look at it....

      the only other thing i would like to emphasize is this....whether its the team or the teams fans....any time something becomes more about the player than the team...theres gonna be a problem...which is what many of u that have a certain disdain for ron are constantly harping on-he brings down the team with his actions....well the same goes true on this board....and while its unavoidable to talk about individual players....its also not gonna be very constructive for the team if certain dislikes regarding certain players keep becoming the focal point-whether in the locker room or on this board....

      i hear u though...loud and clear...ur not a fan of rons...and u have a lot of reasons why-all related to his behavior....
      Ok, maybe it's just late at night or I'm just dense but I have no idea what you are trying to get at here. On the one hand you say we shouldn't focus to much on one single player (or at least that's what I think you are saying) & on the other hand you say that it's not very contructive for the team if certain dislikes regarding certain player keep becoming the focal point. That second statement makes Jay & myselfs point better than almost anything we've ever written. In other words one player can bring a team down.

      I'm with ya on that without question.

      Now as to the benefit of the doubt for Ron. Like I said above cause & effect. His benefit of the doubt with me ran out a season & a half ago. Does that mean that from this day forward I must hate Ron Artest & spit on any of his fans? No, obviously it does not. Like I told Since86 give me one season of no disruptions & I will pretty much go away. I still will always be leary of the guy but give me one season where I don't hear anything about Ron Artest other than how great of a job he did in shutting down his man or can you believe he led the league in rebounding (I can dream can't I) & I won't be on here offering up reasons as to why the team would be better without him.


      BTW, I'm just responding right now to post you directly made about my first post in the thread. I'm not going to take the time (right now) to address all of the side threads.


      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

      Comment


      • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

        Originally posted by foretaz

        this issue im not so sure about....i think it might be redundant , by in large, but the message i think im getting is that u didnt start disliking ron today or yesterday but some time ago....

        which tells me u then might possibly hold certain resentments because others didnt agree with u to the point that they didnt get rid of artest last summer....if so , hypothetically speaking the inference is the brawl wouldnt have happened and therefore the franchise wouldnt have been 'taken down'....

        im not really sure how u can say the franchise has been taken down...i do feel it definitely was jolted...and some damage was definitely done....i also feel like that is hardly all rons fault and it appears the owners of that franchise as well as the management of that franchise at least partially share that same viewpoint....however ron certainly qualifies for an easy whipping boy when it comes to finding someone to blame for anything that doesnt go right for teh pacers...whether its last years playoff loss in game 6 or the brawl or whatever it might be....hes one of the best players on the team with obvious issues -hes an easy target....which means very easy to dislike....

        so yes...u keep up bringing more reasons u dont like ron...and yes...as ive said with regards to the others....i agree one hundred percent that the sort of behavior that u describe is detestable...going after fans is never a good thing...getting into it with mel isnt a good thing....though most of these things u mention u also mention that they just reconfirmed what u already believed....which is another way of saying u didnt like him....cause as weve said...once u dont like someone...u will always be able to find reasons to dislike them...and ur viewing of him will always be from that context and mindset.....

        but i get it...u dont like ron....and u havent for quite some time now....thats the overall gist of this issue...and everything that happens once u made this conscious decision to not like him because of his behavior has reconfirmed that.....
        Again I just want to examine Cause & effect on this.

        BTW, as to the franchise being taken down let's just say this. The Pacers nationally had two things going for them, well three if you count Reggie.

        1. The general public had no idea who they were. If they played the Knicks or somebody then people would know but to the causal fan who only turn in when the big market team is in a deep playoff run they had no idea.

        2. Those who did know always thought the highest of our franchise & the words respect were almost always said when talking about the way that Walsh & the Simons have ran the franchise from a management standpoint & competative was the other word when they talked about the on floor product.

        Now virtually every casual fan knows our franchise & it ain't because Reggie Miller retired. Indiana Punchers is not just a local T-shirt, it's a national thing. I saw one at Reagan International airport in D.C. not but one week ago.

        Also, & bear in mind this is not my mindset but there are a lot of people who are Pissed off that Ron was involved (there I didn't just blame him) in ruining Reggie Millers last season & what some people considered his best chance at a title.

        Like I said I'm not of that thought but I know some who are.


        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

        Comment


        • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

          Originally posted by foretaz
          i would say he could quite possibly be the best talent to ever have been here...very much so...hes definitely not the best player theyve ever had at this point in his career...but hes very young...time will tell....

          as far as the need to get along....i agree one hundred percent....but there is one thing id like to interject here...no one person, despite what a lot of people might want us to blieve, is totally responsible for team chemistry....i know the cancer theory-but that theory always involves more than one person...usually a rift between two people with one coming out looking like a cancer....

          the whole team is responsible for getting along...and more importantly it is managements responsibility to make sure that they get along in such a manner that is conducive to winning...ultimately i hold management responsible for this...not the players...and getting rid of the player is not the answer though definitely might be an easy way out....though totally counterproductive in some cases..

          i liken it to this(and many of u will probably have something smart to say-im sure ) you have a classroom full of students....u have a teacher...u have a principal...etc....the roles are easily identified...you may have one student that appears to always be disruptive....kicking him out of school is typically not the answer...nor is sending him to another class....together the teacher, principal, and parents hopefully work on dealing with the problems so that all in the classroom will have an environment that is much more conducive to learning....in this case subsitute the parents with the actual player since they are adults...dont laugh...i know the irony...


          Again your into the let's make them a better person phase. I have no real problem with that but at some point in time the person has to be willing to be a better person.

          Also I couldn't disagree with you more if I wanted to about one thing. While one person cannot totally be responsible for team chemistry, one person can certainly be responable for ruining team chemistry.

          A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

          The fact that Ron Artest is such a damn good player is the problem. Do you think for one min. the Pacers would tolerat 1/8 of the stuff he does if it were Eddie Gill doing it instead? I think we can all agree they wouldn't.

          So this brings us to your next theory that it is managements problem to get everybody to get along. Well, great. Now how do you do that? Do you force them to sit in the showers & sing sea chanties? Team dinners? Bowling?

          I know that you don't dig Croshere but I think it's safe to assume (ok maybe it's safe to assume if you don't like Artest) that he isn't the only person in the locker room who feels like he did in that interview with the N.Y.Times. He said some very nice things about Ron, but he also said he didn't trust him (In not so many words)

          Here's the link to the story btw. http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...ustin+Croshere

          Now let's just play my game for a min. shall we? Let's assume that Austin is not the only person who feels this way. They all seem willing to try but at the end of the day they all feel the same way, if push comes to shove or in Ron's case he doesn't get the ball at the end of a game, that he will fold faster than a Japanese oragomi artist.

          How does management correct that? A seminar? A motivational speaker? Tony Robbins?

          Now let's take this one step further & say that Ron does do something to **** them off again. What should management do then?

          I guess what I'm getting at is that from the best of what I can tell they have done to Ron everything they can do to Ron & about the only person who I think has ever had any impact on Ron is David Stern. Love him or hate him I think we all can agree that Ron will never go into the stands again thanks to Stern.

          I said something to U.B. two seasons ago & he became all indignant about it but I think as time has gone on he now has to look back on that & think maybe I was right about it then. I said that the Pacers were afraid of Artest. I didn't mean physically, I meant in the sense that they did no know how he would react. I saw him do several things Carlisle's first year here that Rick said in the summer he would not tolerate, but Ron was given a very very long leash & it took all the way up to the N.J. game before we got a conduct detrimental to winning basketball suspension. Tough love was going to be the order of the day but with Ron I'm of the opinion that they didn't know how he would react (kick a gatorade cooler which I've seen him do more than once, throw a chair, wreck a locker room, etc.)

          But then again, I'm predisposed to think these things.


          im probably familiar with most of what u speak...though i wont pretend to know everything...but i think i know most of what ur alluding to...more reasons u really dont like ron and ones that in my eyes are much more valid in some respects than the one u like to mention with kirilenko for reasons i already stated...the issues ur referring to are real...and definitely very serious...

          I think since Mike is gone now it's safe to openly talk about this. Jermaine O'Neal told Mike Brown in the tunnel outside the locker room the day after the team was elimenated by Detroit in the E.C. finals (clean out the locker day btw) that Ron Artest needed to be gone. He said this in front of at least 2 other people & he was not quiet about it at all.

          Which brings me a question to you. What if that conversation had not been with Mike Brown but had been with Donnie Walsh & in that conversation the following words were said "I love being here, I love being a Pacer, I want to end my career here but I can't be on a team with Ron Artest. I would prefer it if you would trade Ron away but if you can't I would prefer to be moved on".

          Now let me ask, in my hypothetical question, if you were Donnie who would you choose? Now before somebody gets on here & tells me that they would have just told J.O. to stick it in his @ss because he was under contract please understand it doesn't work that way. Trust me on this, Ron has a huge fan base. It has grown by leaps & bounds since the suspension because he is now a martyr. But when this conversation went down Ron had his fans but J.O. had the vast majority of fans. All it would have taken would have J.O. to go public with some of the stuff & then people would have been all over the Pacers about Ron.

          I digress.

          Of course we all know about the plane fight, the locker room fight, the destroyed locker room in Mn. & the list goes on & on.

          At what point in time is enough enough.

          I now wish to turn the tables a little on you & ask you to examine yourself on this. Is it just possible that since you are a fan of Rons that you are predisposed to look beyond these issues? That you will hear what you want to hear just like I hear what I want to hear?

          Or is it only those of us on the Anti-Ron side of the fence that have this abilty?



          u see...when u interject that babysit comment...well....i dont think i even have to say....

          is it not possible that, given its well known ron is somewhat of a loner that he needs to be sought out by others to be made to feel like hes more part of the group...ron is not the first person in the world to not be outgoing when it comes to being part of groups....there are many people who are very uncomfortable and insecure when it comes to such environments....u may think that a bit comical...but its real...very very real...
          whether its fair or not to the other team members to put that responsibility on them...thats another issue...but ultimately management intervenes because its deemed to be in the best interest of the team...those that are good at mingling and getting along with others will be asked to do so with the ones that are not....in this case trying to bring ron into the fold so that he might have more of a support system is definitely a worthwhile and necessary action....rons problems and successes and therefore the teams successes are ultimately going to be determined a great deal by how his teammates support him thru some very difficult and complicated situations...

          and theres a very big difference between doing this to just be happy and content and doing it in an attempt to try to develop a closeknit almost family like support system, not only for ron, but for all....but ron is definitely the one biggest in need....though with s. jack, he might not be too far behind in needing that strong support system in the locker room....

          if u think that doing this brings the team down...well....it might be more time consuming and intense....but the potential results could be a very close knit team that is able to deal with most anything together....

          if u have a family member who is problematic...do u say its just not worth it to seek him out, even repeatedly? i guess some do....which doesnt speak well for the quality of that family...but many families will stop at nothing until that family member has indeed worked thru most of their problems and the result is a close knit family that is much better prepared to deal with whatever life might throw in their way....great relationships rarely come with out a price....usually the greater the price the greater the relationship....


          Ok to your suprise, I'm sure, I don't disagree with you. It was appropriate to bring Ron into the fold, so to speak. Some people are more outgoing than others & I have zero problem with the team trying to get him involved with them. But at some point in time, just like being a better person, the player has to want to be involved.

          But again, I agree it is the job of those who are outgoing to at least try with those who are not. However you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.


          once again....there are obviously serious issues with regards to his behavior and he has handled situations that arent to his liking....by that i mean he has made many mistakes....most of which i think he realizes only at a much later date....these all keep going back to ron's response mechanism....how ron responds to situations that he might perceive to somehow pose a threat to him in some sort of distorted way....

          i would tell u that these fake injuries that u speak of as well as the speaking out is a pretty basic, although immature, call out for assistance....rebelling in its most simple form is simply a plea for attention...in rons case it doesnt appear to be so much as a plea for attention as it does an alarm that there is an issue that is unresolved....
          I must really be getting tired. I have nothing to debate or disagree with on this point. Unresolved issues seems about right.


          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

          Comment


          • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

            Originally posted by foretaz
            ok...ill agree...if theres gonna be a single greatest player to ever play hes probably not it...not sure what that means..or the relevance....been alot of teams that have won titles without jordan-if that would happen to be ur choice...pick whomever...

            I know that sounds silly but you would not beleive how many times we have read over the last two years on here that not only would the Pacer not win a title without Ron, they wouldn't even be much above a .500% team. I kid you not when I say there have been a couple of people over time (not our faithfull PD members but some of the fringe) that would actually compare Ron to Jordan. But even reasonable thoughtfull posters can fall prey to some of this. Uncle Buck (who is the man btw) himself falls prey to this on occasion. When he says that the season ended on 11/19/04 it wasn't because of the turmoil, it was because without Artest he didn't beleive we were a very good team.

            I guess I just have always felt there are some players you can live without & Ron is just one of those IMO.


            this one uve received quite a bit of flack for...and i understand why...not sure this is really how u feel or if ur just trying to devalue ron in ur minds and others so as to be able to somehow prepare urself for moving on....also if u dont want him on the team and feel he should be traded im not sure that u could do that knowing or saying that u couldnt win a title without him....

            however the premise of this is probably a bit flawed....hes one of ur two best players....most everyone that ive ever seen , read, talked to or whatever believed that our title chances were officially eliminated when he was banished for the season....

            now u might argue that we could never win with him as long as hes a distraction....that i might buy...and yes u dont have to have ron artest to win a title....however....though u might disagree because of this personal dislike, the odds of winning a title for the pacers with ron artest are astronomically better than without him....and thats really what it comes down to....now...do the odds increase dramatically if hes somehow able to play without the behavior issues???? it would seem so...and thats ultimately what is strived for....

            i almost hate saying this....but remember...the bulls won championships with dennis rodman....and without dennis rodman....when they won he was still being dennis....and providing distractions and disruptions was a common place thing with dennis....in some ways the two are remarkably similar...and in others they are worlds apart....dennis was and is what he is....and had zero desire to be anything different....in fact he saw nothing wrong with how he was....ron appears to be different from that...he realizes how he is in some ways and its not too hard to believe he wants to get better....however doing it is much more difficult than saying it....but it is worth something...

            in short hes a top 15 player in this league...the best defensive player in this league...arguably an overall top 5 talent....and from the business side a steal of a contract....theres a whole lotta reasons u have for wanting him on ur team....any team with that caliber of player stands a much better chance of winning a title than without


            Ok, I guess I should have gone one more paragraph down before I talked about U.B. because you just did the same thing. Let's just agree to disagree on this I don't feel the season title hopes were ended on that night. An entire season of turmoil & injury's did in the season IMO, but you are entitled to yours.

            Now to the Rodman thing. Two huge huge differances.

            1. Michael Jordan was on that team & was the unquestioned leader on the floor, in the locker room & at practice. He was the most strong willed player to probably ever to play the game & Rodman did not cross any lines that Mike laid down for him.

            2. Phil Jackson allowed Dennis his rebellions as long as it did not take away from the team. Dennis never at the end of a game decided that he should take over on the offensive end, so Phil didn't have that problem.

            Now as to winning or not winning a title without Ron or with him. I'll say this, yes, if unencumbered by distrations & problems any team would want a Ron Artest. However when you take him you take the whole package so therefor you will get his distrations & problems. A mentally tough & strong team can over come this. Our team is not (by their own admission) this.

            As to being one of the best players in the NBA, I've never really questioned that. I don't know where he ranks in a top 20 list or anything like that because how do you compare him to what a center or point guard does. I will just say this. If T-Mac is a small forward he is a better s.f. than Ron, if King James is a s.f. then he is a better s.f. than Ron. That's it & if neither is a S.F. then Ron is probably the best S.F. in the N.B.A.

            But no matter how good he is if he can't get along with his team mates, follow his coach's instructions or not melt down in stressfull situaitons I would take a less talented player in his spot.


            when u dont like someone...u dont give them the benefit of the doubt...u have preconceived notions...as u have clearly defined....its almost like u want to say i told u so....though im really not sure how anyone can derive much satisfaction from that....

            I want to deal with this right here. It's kind of like being the one person in town who see's the wolves in the night. Everybody in town thinks you are nuts & an old cook, but once the chickens have been killed & others see the wolves you feel like a prophet & certainly wish others would have listened to you early on. Now while I'm not prophet I do wish people would have taken a hard look at him prior to this season. & yes to answer your question sometimes I do feel like saying "I told you so".
            if he breaks the play and calls his own number he will be the first player in the history of the nba to do that.... cmon....i know what u mean...but once again...if u wanna make it clear u dont like the guy , u have...but really...what allstar doesnt do this??? hell what non allstar doesnt do this...i will say this...as ron gets better...everything about him will get better....

            once ron and his teammates learn to trust one another, they will all get monumentally better...reggie said as much...and ron and jo have a ways to go in this department....maturing to the point where u understand u can help ur team by not doing everything sometimes is a tough one to learn...he is far from the first one to have to learn that lesson...and far from the first to have a tough time doing it.....one need look no further than michael jordan for a primo example of this....its a great players mentality that they can win it on their own when the chips are down....hell aj tries doing it...and hes no jordan or artest....its almost a given mentality at that level....the ones that mature thru that process almost always find greatness...

            is ron guilty as charged here? of course...why single him out? i know..i know...u dont like him..
            Why single him out????? Are you kidding me?

            I may be dumb here but honestly can you think of any one Pacer that has gone on his own in late game situations that went away from the called play other than Ron & maybe Jamaal? You can't compare J.O. on this because the play is called for him to shoot usually. You can have a problem with this if you want (I do btw) but you can't fault J.O. for going with the play. Do other players break plays? Of course.

            But none at such critical times in critical games.


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

              Originally posted by foretaz
              actually...mel daniels is bigger than he is.....but i dont think thats what u mean...

              this pretty much sums it up for me....and i truly hope u will really reflect on this last issue...

              you have effectively said that it doesnt matter what ron does he cant win with u.....if he backs away from ben wallace its because hes a bully and has nothing to do with him trying to do the right thing....and if he had went after ben, what would u have said-same ole ron more distractions, hasnt changed...

              [COLOR=Yellow]I'm dealing with this here because I don't want this to get lost. I would only have said same ole Ron because of the cheap bump he gave Ben. But other than that I feel (& of course have no way to prove) that I would have had zero problem with Ron punching Ben square in the jaw. In fact I feel as though my respect for him would have gone way up because then I would take my big bully theory & throw it out the window.

              Also again two can play this game. You basically are saying that no matter what Ron does he will always be forgiven by you & that you will overlook & condem his actions at the same time. But back on point I would have felt great if he went toe to toe with Big Ben.

              peck...and i mean this with all due respect....u ve made it obvious that u dont like him....i would propose or at least hope, that everything u outlined to me in this very well thought out post doesnt say that....what it has said is u truly dont like rons behavior at times....that u find it totally uncacceptable....u havent really told me or described to me how u dont like him....in fact by your own words he should be ur favorite....this is very telling....

              because ur basically saying i dont like the way ron responds or exercises judgement in certain scenarios....thats really what i take from all this...and its a far cry from not liking the guy...IN FACT
              what u have really done is identify whats truly the issue....

              U DO LIKE THE GUY...U LOVE THE GUY...HE SHOULD BE UR FAVORITE...but u cant allow urself to have a favorite that has behaved the way he has....and i understand that....i really really do....its like u have built this defense mechanism to keep from being hurt by ron any more...

              u quit giving him a chance a long time ago...u just couldnt risk it....cause u knew he would break ur heart...i mean he always does....and every thing that happens u just say to anyone that listens...'see, i told u so' i was right...wanting that validation that the decision u made was the right one-even though somewhere inside its not the one u want....

              i dont want to make this too deep....but at the same time, it seems very clear to me....i just couldnt understand and still cant understand how it is possible to have such disdain/hate for a basketball player even if they are guilty of inappropriate responses and poor judgement....

              but now we see its really not about that...its about putting our trust in someone and then having them let us down....and that can cause the venom to spew....

              so i would say this....and i began to touch on it in a post on this thread earlier...

              i understand how all of the events u described are uncacceptable...with most of them i agreed....however, i try to really understand why people do what they do...not just what they do....because peoples responses and reactions are very telling....

              some people are just a$$holes and d!cks....i really dont think ron falls in that category...and i dont think u think he does either...its very apparent that ron has deepseated emotional issues with regarding response mechanisms that come from way way back....its also pretty apparent that he needs to continue to get the help that he obviously has been getting since larry bird came on board....these issues arent easily resolved and definitely take some time....but if u look very very closely, and are truly objective...he has made progress...he really has....is he better?? hardly....will he have relapses? certainly....so that means more risks for those that choose to put a certain amount of faith in him...but really....is he a bad guy? no...you cant help but like tons of things about him...u know thats true....its called managed expectations....its about understanding all thats really goiing on...so u can better deal with it...not just us as fans but the players and organization as well.....
              having a proper understanding of what problems are go along way to helping deal with the ebbs and flows that they can create....being a fan and not having any idea at times, can be even more difficult...and i truly understand why people would simply not risk trusting him....

              but at the very least...dont hate him...because u reallly dont...u actually like so many, many things about him...you only hate some of his behavior patterns from the past...realize why he has done those things-that hes got some very deep seated problems with the way he sometimes processes things...and take consolance that hes working on making them better...though probably will never do so as quickly as we would all like, especially ron....trust me when i tell u...as difficult as it is on the organization and us fans....there is no one its more difficult for than ron....the pacers can just trade him away....the fans just can choose to hate him....ron has to live with his life and can only choose to try and work thru all those events that took place in his childhood that caused him to think the way that he does....
              [/COLOR]
              Plans change. That`s how I live my life now. Let`s please move on...


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                Originally posted by foretaz
                maybe ill think twice before i ask u another question

                seriously, let me try to summarize, maybe it will allow my head to quit spinning...

                what i really got from u whole response was this....
                deep down...u really like the guy...or at least really really liked the guy at one time...

                the reason its so personal for u is u allowed urself to trust him....to like him...to put faith in him....to put hope in him....

                and he let u down....he failed u...a number of times...

                so its much safer to not trust him anymore....and continually validate that decision by pointing out all of his continued behavioral issues...

                and its definitely not safe to allow that he might actually be improving, because that would mean that u would have to reconsider putting trust in him and that would be risky....

                so u would really just prefer to not hear anything that might cause u to question that decision or even revisit it...its much safer to just leave things the way they are....outwardly dislike ron and give zero chance for reversing that decision....

                and i wasted a ton of bandwidth figuring that out....and i hope u will at least consider not hating him...and more importantly really understand what appears to being going on with him...as well as ur 'relationship with him'...
                Oh no, I've been found out!!!!!!

                Ok all joking aside even you have to admit that was fairly deep, so deep in fact I don't even know how to answer it.

                Again I just want you to consider the fact that the things that I saw back then were still there before he was suspended for the year last season.

                But no matter what, have no fear, I am the one who has almost no choice. Ron Artest will probably be a Pacer for a good long while & that will give us years & years of debate over the subject.

                I had no predisposition to Ron Artest one way or the other. Jay knew far more about him than I did so when he came here I was just thrilled he wasn't Jalen Rose. But it wasn't my feelings that were at issue, it was his actions.

                Again I'll just say all he has to do is give me one good season where I don't have to hear about him & I'll back way down.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                  Ok, thus ends my official reply to your posts to me directly. I hope that I answered each of them as much as you wanted. I tried to be honest in my replies & while we certainly won't agree on all topics I certainly respect your opinion & your ability to actually type as much as I do in a thread.

                  I know there were a lot of side issues that were on this thread & others I want to address but for tonight I am going to have to bid a fond farewell (other than a quick post to Kstat I will make in a min.) to all.

                  I do apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I have litterally had the worst week at work I've ever had & that is saying something with what I do.

                  I know you spent a lot of time typing all of that & I do feel bad for not getting back to you sooner.

                  Please feel free to give me further replies to my replies to you.


                  Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                  Comment


                  • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                    Originally posted by Kstat
                    Peck, why is it you get so worked up because the Pacers MIGHT have had a chance to draft Jordan, when the Pacers DID have a chance to select Larry Bird, you you never mention it?
                    I'm not real sure I ever get worked up about missing on Sam Bowie (or Jordan for that matter) if you are reffering to my pic. at the bottom of the screen that really is more for information than anything else.

                    As to Bird. It's simple, Larry told Slick not to draft him because he wouldn't play here because the team could not afford him.

                    Thus leaving them with the problem of drafting a player who had a year of eligabilty left in college & who didn't want to be here to begin with. If I'm not mistaken back in those days Bird could have set out more time & just re-entered the draft (I could be wrong there).

                    But either way the Pacers took Roby with the 3rd pick & while that certainly ended up being a bad pick, at the time it probably was the best the Pacers thought they could get.


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment


                    • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                      IIRC, the Bird selection wasn't quite that simple or conspiratorial.

                      The Pacers at the time simply needed to draft a player who would come in immediately, they were really unable to use their picks to grab draft rights and wait a year for Bird to come out of college. Boston chose to do so.

                      I think the draft rights were retained for 3 years. If Bird had been drafted in 78 by the Pacers and they couldn't come to a contract agreement when he finished college in 79 he would have had to sit out an extra year after the final college year before being eligible for another team in the season after that. He would have played his last college game in spring of 79 and not play an NBA game until at least fall of 81. This would have really hurt his ability to negotiate a big rookie contract in summer of 1981 when the Pacers' rights expired.

                      It is true, however, that the ownership at the time was not going to spend any more than they had to, even to bring in a player that would fill MSA.

                      Have I said recently how much I love the Simons?

                      [edit - corrected years, if drafted in 78 he would not have been free of rights until summer 81).
                      BillS

                      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                      Comment


                      • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                        We were having "save the Pacers" telethons. They needed warm bodies to keep the franchise from folding/ moving.

                        Its easy to look back and say they should've taken Bird and waited on him, but they were in "survive next season" mode.
                        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: An answer for Fortaz......

                          Guys, both Slick & Bird have said that in a pre-draft conversation that Bird asked if the Pacers could afford (X) amount of $$ for his contract & Slick had to tell him no. So he told him not to draft him.

                          Now you could argue that the Pacers should have drafted him anyway but like you pointed out they really needed bodys on the floor & Robey was fairly popular at the time from being a star at Kentucky. Yes in hindsight it was horrid but at the time....

                          If you fault the team for that then you also have to fault Walsh for not selecting Bryant in the draft since we skipped him as well because he told us not to draft him.


                          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                          Comment


                          • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                            Originally posted by Peck
                            Guys, both Slick & Bird have said that in a pre-draft conversation that Bird asked if the Pacers could afford (X) amount of $$ for his contract & Slick had to tell him no. So he told him not to draft him.

                            Now you could argue that the Pacers should have drafted him anyway but like you pointed out they really needed bodys on the floor & Robey was fairly popular at the time from being a star at Kentucky. Yes in hindsight it was horrid but at the time....

                            If you fault the team for that then you also have to fault Walsh for not selecting Bryant in the draft since we skipped him as well because he told us not to draft him.

                            In retrospect that was quite a favor he did us, huh?
                            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                            Comment


                            • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                              Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                              We were having "save the Pacers" telethons. They needed warm bodies to keep the franchise from folding/ moving.

                              Its easy to look back and say they should've taken Bird and waited on him, but they were in "survive next season" mode.
                              i was at the pacer telethon.....i was a youngster at the time and begged, pleaded, and nagged my dad till he took me.....now dont laugh....but i gave my piggy bank to nancy leonard, while throwing a small fit and semi-embarassing my dad for not buying season tickets...

                              Comment


                              • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                                Originally posted by Peck

                                Ok, that was rambling. Let me try & clarify. What you saw with the Bonzi Wells post was more of issue # 1 with me. I was trying to counter the Ron Artest army (& they know who they are don't you Suaveness ) by just injecting my thoughts into the debate. Maybe I shouldn't do that & it's something I'll think about & see how I feel about it.

                                BTW, Suaveness knows that was meant in fun or at least I hope he does.

                                How did you know about our army>!?!? I thought it was topsecret??
                                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X