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

Did Chuck Person kill the Pacers?

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

  • Did Chuck Person kill the Pacers?

    This guy speaks as if Rifleman is the anti-christ..

    http://basketbawful.blogspot.com/200...te-part-3.html
    1
    Probably the best reason to watch back then
    100.00%
    1
    A solid player with obvious weaknesses
    0.00%
    0
    A waste
    0.00%
    0
    basketbawful.com- The best of the worst of professional basketball. And there's a lot of it.

  • #2
    Re: Did Chuck Person kill the Pacers?

    No, but Jay will kill you when he reads this.....

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Did Chuck Person kill the Pacers?

      Ack! Private poll!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Did Chuck Person kill the Pacers?

        He was R.O.Y. in 86-87. Could drill it from deep and was the beginning of the move to respectability. So whats wrong with "The Rifleman"
        "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
        Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Did Chuck Person kill the Pacers?

          Damn, %37 from the floor, %41 from the FT line and %10 from the arc?

          Person had one crappy series.....

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Did Chuck Person kill the Pacers?

            It's all about timing ... Chuck was a huge part of what got the Pacers off. He deserves his props.

            I'll never forget what he did for our team, I'm pretty sure of that!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Did Chuck Person kill the Pacers?

              Oh, man. This is gonna be nasty.

              Hide the women and children!
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Did Chuck Person kill the Pacers?

                May as well paste the articles. It's a 4-part series.

                Friday, February 03, 2006

                The Pacers we love to hate: Part 1
                Here at Basketbawful, we love the Indiana Pacers. To us, the Pacers are like that secret crush you harbored all throughout high school. She was smart, funny, and oh-so cute, but she always seemed to be dating somebody else. When she broke up with her boyfriend during Senior Year, you thought your chance had finally come. But she told you she needed some time to "rethink" things, and then she ended up dating that ******* with the mullet just because his parents had money and bought him a new car. *****. Anyway, she managed to break your heart a thousand different times in a thousand different ways, but you never stopped secretly watching her at night, usually perched in a tree across the street from her house, thinking "what if...?".

                And that's how we feel about the Pacers. We watch, we hope, we cry when that hope is devoured in the whirling jaws of fate. But as much as we love the team, once in a while they pick up a player we can only love to hate. So begins the first installment of a four-part series in which each member of the Basketbawful staff will rail on the former or current Pacer we most despise who's not named Ron Artest.

                He was slow, couldn't shoot, and I hated him
                by Mr. P

                Mark Jackson.

                I hated him. Yeah, he's the 2nd all-time assist leader in the NBA, but I still hate him. He could run a slow, half court offense, but to me, there were other issues involved. He was slower than spit. I remember old clips of Mark trying to guard Isiah Thomas and Mark was out of the screenshot almost everytime. The one play that really sticks out in my mind was Isiah taking the ball from top of the key, blowing by Mark to get to the base line, then blowing by Mark again one his way back out to the top of the key, then blowing by him again for a layup. And during that whole sequence, it seemed like Mark was always somewhere behind Isiah. Mark Jackson was just slow...and slow point guards just dont seem like the "prototypical" point guard to me.

                Another thing that just irked me about Mark was that "point to the hoop with my thumb" thing he did before every freethrow. I mean, c'mon, what the hell was the point of that? I could understand him doing it everytime if it really helped his freethrow shooting, but the guy only shot 77 percent for his career!


                What the hell?!

                But the biggest thing that made me hate him the most was that ****in' JACKSON JIGGLE. Watching him look at the crowd, pout his lips, lean back and shake his shoulders in celebration for scoring a whopping eight points a game made my hatred for him grow. God, I just wanted to clothesline him when he did it.


                Dick.

                # posted by Basketbawful @ 1:24 PM

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Did Chuck Person kill the Pacers?

                  Friday, February 03, 2006

                  The Pacers we love to hate: Part 2

                  Our continuing series continues as the Basketbawful staff explains how you can love the sum of a team's parts while still hating some of those parts.

                  It was a good idea at the time
                  by The Statbuster

                  The Pacers were fresh off nearly being swept by the Knicks in the 1st round, allowing 108 ppg to one of the league's worst offensive teams. It was obvious the Pacers D had more holes than the plot of Big Momma's House 2. Something had to be done.

                  Detlef Schrempf was demanding more money every year, and was understandably frustrated with a Pacers post-season slump that would make Kevin Garnett cringe. Donnie Walsh popped two pimples at once and shipped Cocktail Schrempf off to Seattle for a name I quickly learned to despise...Derrick McKey.

                  On paper, McKey had plenty of upside. McKey was young, had posted consecutive 15 and 6 compaigns, great feel for the game, and played D...only if the Pacers knew his best years were already behind him.

                  This picture represents the only time McKey
                  ever actually played defense for the Pacers.

                  Derrick McKey played with the intensity of Ned Flanders. His talent kept him in Larry Brown's favor, but Mckey would sleepwalk for minutes at a time. At one point, he averaged nearly 4 turnovers a game, an insanely high number for someone who doesn't score, rebound, or put the ball on the floor.

                  McKey enjoyed postseason success in the following years, despite his worst efforts. Fans had the pleasure of watching this drowsy peanut-head put up increasingly anemic numbers while the long-gone Detlef made trips to the All-Star Game.

                  Derrick McKey will probably be best remembered by non-Pacermanics for forcing a late turnover on Michael Jordan in the '98 playoffs, forcing a Game 7 against the Bulls. The replay clearly showed McKey's "clutch stop" was Jordan tripping on McKey's foot. McKey once again reaps the benefits of simply being there.

                  And that head. That freakish head.

                  It's freaky. Trust us.

                  # posted by Basketbawful @ 3:35 PM

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Did Chuck Person kill the Pacers?

                    Monday, February 06, 2006

                    The Pacers we love to hate: Part 3

                    Even die-hard basketball fans can fall in love. Whether it's with your wife, a long-term girlfriend, or just the Lieutenant Uhuru-shaped plush doll you bought at that last Star Trek convention, most of us have experienced the burning desire to be a part of something bigger and better than ourselves.

                    It's that very same sense of hopeless longing that inspires us to follow a our favorite sports team, even in the worst of times. But, as with any love affair, the fan-to-team relationship can be a double-edged razor blade that slits the wrists of your hopes and dreams. Your girlfriend may be the bootylicious goddess of your darkest fantasies, but she might also hate your friends and throw your porn collection in the trash. So yeah, you can love someone or something without necessarily loving everything about them.

                    And so we continue to rip on our most hated former Pacers.

                    A legend in his own mind.
                    by The Almost Fan

                    Chuck Person was supposed to be a savior of sorts for the Indiana Pacers. After a relatively distinguished career at Auburn (in which he averaged almost 20 points and 8 rebounds a game over four seasons), he was selected fourth overall in the first round of the 1986 NBA Draft. He came out gangbusters that first year, averaging 18.8 points and 8.3 rebounds a game, winning the 1987 Rookie of the Year award, and leading the Pacers to a more-than-respectable 41-41 record...a 15-win improvement over the previous year's dismal 26-56 campaign. Considering that he was chosen after other more well-known college phenoms like Brad Daugherty and Len Bias (who died less than 48 hours after getting drafted by the Celtics), he far exceeded anyone's expectations for him.

                    But here's the problem: he never got any better.

                    All things being equal, the Pacers should have improved drastically over the next few years, what with Person and the infusion of quality players like Reggie Miller, Detlef Schrempf, and Rik Smits. Instead, they just got progressively worse, going 38-44 and then 28-54 in the two seasons following Chuck's rookie year. The light began to shine during the 1989-90 season when the team finally racked up a winning recod (42-40), but they were promptly swept out of the playoffs by the eventual champion Detroit Pistons. In that series, Person averaged 13.3 points per game while shooting 37 percent from the field, including a horrific 1-10 from beyond the arc (his supposed specialty). It wasn't just the Piston defense, either; he hit only 41 percent of his freethrows too.

                    The team took a step back in 1990-91, winning only 41 games. But they snuck into the playoffs as the seventh seed and pushed a much better Celtics team to the limit, losing in the final seconds of game 5 by the score of 124-121. That series was Chuck Person at his absolute best. He led the team with 26 points per game, shooting 53 percent from the field and an amazing 54 percent from downtown. He even improved on his notoriously bad freethrow shooting, hitting 81 percent from the charity stripe. Every game, even the losses, seemed to feature some incredible feat by Person -- ridiculous fade-away rainbow shots, three-pointers in the face of tenacious defenders, improbable 35-foot bombs to beat the buzzer -- highlighted by Game 2 in which he scored 39 points and hit on a then-record seven three-pointers. Chuck abused Larry Bird throughout the series, talking trash and announcing to the media that he, Chuck Conners Person, was now the "greatest basketball player in the world." It took a truly legendary peformance from Bird, who returned from a concussion in Game 5, to hold the Pacers and Person off down the stretch.

                    Big things were expected from the Pacers in 1991-92, but they regressed again, going 40-42 and drawing the Celtics in the first round for the second year in a row. The Celtics were without Bird and starting point guard Dee Brown, but the Pacers couldn't capitalize and got swept. The general consensus was that the Pacers were the better team but they either underachieved, or choked, or both. In truth, the Pacers biggest problem was Person, who averaged only 17 points on 40 percent shooting. He had guaranteed a victory before each game, but except for a 32-point outburst in Game 2, he simply didn't produce. What's more, his rebounding and defense were atrocious: he averaged only 3 rebounds while his Celtics' counterpart, Kevin Gamble, lit him up for 21 points and 6 boards a game.

                    By the time the final horn sounded in that series, Chuck had come to symbolize everything that was wrong with the Pacers. He didn't play defense. He didn't post up or take it strong to the hoop, which meant he rarely got to the line. And even when he did get fouled, it was usually a wash since he was a below-average freethrow shooter. His rebounding dropped dramatically after his rookie year, falling from 8.3 in 1986-87 to only 5.3 in 1991-92. Moreoever, he seldom showed the drive and effort it takes to succeed in the NBA. He didn't dive for loose balls, he didn't take charges, and many times he seemed to sleepwalk through entire games, unless he was facing a superstar like Bird, Charles Barkley, or Michael Jordan. Unless he had a compelling one-on-one matchup "worthy" of him, he just didn't seem to care.

                    To top it all off, Chuck like to talk. A lot. He talked junk to everybody: opposing players and coaches, referees, ball boys, even his own teammates sometimes. To make it even worse, he particularly delighted in doing this on the road, which usually fired up the other team and their crowd. And who knows how many games his lackadaisical attitude and overactive jawbone cost the Pacers over the years? Not surprisingly, Chuck was traded to Minnesota before the 1992-93 season. And while he still had a couple productive seasons left in him, that was pretty much the death knell of his caree. And the Pacers? The post-Person era has been kind to them. Within three years of his departure, the Pacers had back-to-back 50-win seasons and made it to the 7th game of the Eastern Conference Finals twice. They've been a top-tier team ever since, even though Ron Artest has tried to single-handedly destroy the franchise.

                    And so ends the Story of Chuck, my least favorite Pacer. He was best known as "The Rifleman," and he lived up to that nickname, leaving the NBA in pretty much the same way he entered it: as a man capable of incredible displays of long-distance shooting and little else. What a waste.
                    # posted by Basketbawful @ 10:28 AM

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Did Chuck Person kill the Pacers?

                      I hate Jax as much as the next man, but saying he couldn't shoot is idiotic.

                      As for Derek, we all know I worship Satan.

                      And, while I have no problems with Chuck the player, every game that I see Chuck sitting on his hands I have more problems with him as a coach.

                      So, for part 4, is Peck writing about Reggie?
                      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Did Chuck Person kill the Pacers?

                        I don't care what anybody says. Chuck was like the run-up to Reggie's glory years. No way Chuck kills us. Rookier of the year. Dr. Jack. Whatever. GO PACERS!!
                        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                        -Emiliano Zapata

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Did Chuck Person kill the Pacers?

                          His rookie year was great.. I remember him at one time trying to guard MJ!
                          I was there the night he won the game against Milwaukee with that 40 footer or whatever it was. My friend was yelling "Chuck Person for President!" all the way to the car.
                          After that year he just wasn't the same in my eyes. All the talk went to his head and his game suffered in all ways but shooting as I remember it (I'll leave the ever present stat-looker-uppers to set me straight on that).

                          Edit: He was NOT even close to successful on defending MJ. I mention that only to show that he had a willingness to try anything to help the team and had a coach willing to let him in Dr.Jack.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Did Chuck Person kill the Pacers?

                            You guys are just mad that the Steelers won the Super Bowl and want to bring Jay back down to Earth. Excelent.
                            Play Mafia!
                            Twitter

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Did Chuck Person kill the Pacers?

                              The Rifleman for Secretary of Defense!
                              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                              -Emiliano Zapata

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X