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

Dunleavy or Granger?

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

  • #16
    Re: Dunleavy or Granger?

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    I voted Danny because despite his defense (which is overrated right now due to awareness) he struggles to impact games away from scoring, while Dun clearly is productive just by touching the ball every time down.

    Dun is almost always involved in some way, Danny typically is only involved if he is scoring.
    I don't think Danny's D is overrated, and some of us even underrate it!

    Untill now Shawne hasn't convinced me one bit as a future defensive stopper, while Danny has shown flashes of great defense.
    Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Dunleavy or Granger?

      Originally posted by Alpolloloco View Post
      Danny has shown flashes of great defense.
      I must have blinked.

      He's never impressed me for even a full quarter. Too many missed assignments and rotations, let alone his inability to really stop penetration. He just has too many possessions where he seems disinterested.

      As for the overall topic, I voted Mike. Like the 2nd Quarter against Atlanta or in New York a few weeks back, the team just explodes when he goes on his little scoring runs. I don't have any proof, but it seems like every time he makes a nice look to a cutter for a bucket and then, say, hits a three next time down, we heat up. Next thing you know dudes are getting deflections, MDJ is getting to the rim for a lay-in and then sticking one of those awkward, step-back 15 footers off the dribble that somehow goes in. Then other dudes start hitting threes and Quis or Jamaal start getting into the paint. Him doing well just sparkplugs the whole team.

      Now that I think about it, I say we trade Danny. Mike's quite a bit better than him, they play the same position, and we could get someone pretty good for Danny. Plus we have Quisy for a few more years to back up Mike, and Shawne is okay too.

      It's time.

      Trade the Gift.
      Last edited by JayRedd; 01-06-2008, 04:40 PM.
      Read my Pacers blog:
      8points9seconds.com

      Follow my twitter:

      @8pts9secs

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Dunleavy or Granger?

        Originally posted by kester99 View Post
        Danny has the most fouls of any Pacer....although on a per minute basis, Harrison, Diogu, Williams, Foster, Murph and O'Neal (in that order) foul at a higher clip.

        Just shows where Danny can continue to improve. We need both wings to be deadly.
        Maybe that's because on most nights Danny has to guard the opponents top SF or SG, so to me it's totally logical that he makes a lot of fouls.

        I aggree that we need both wingplayers to make their respective contributions (more) consistantly if the team wants to reach the play-offs let stand have even a shimmer of a chance of advancing in it.

        Regards,

        Mourning
        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Dunleavy or Granger?

          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
          I must have blinked. He's never impressed me for even a full quarter. Too many missed assignments and rotations, let alone his inability to really stop penetration. He just has too many possessions where he seems disinterested.

          As for the overall topic, I voted Mike. Like the 2nd Quarter against Atlanta or in New York a few weeks back, the team just explodes when he goes on his little scoring runs. I don't have any proof, but it seems like every time he makes a nice look to a cutter for a bucket and then, say, hits a three next time down, we heat up. Next thing you know dudes are getting deflections, MDJ is getting to the rim for a lay-in and then sticking one of those awkward, step-back 15 footers off the dribble that somehow goes in.

          Now that I think about it, I say we trade Danny. Mike's quite a bit better than him, they play the same position, and we could get someone pretty good for Danny. Plus we have Quisy for a few more years to back him up, and Shawne is okay too.

          It's time. Trade the Gift.
          Nah I'd rather trade Williams. Danny is a class act while Shawne already has a police record.
          Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Dunleavy or Granger?

            They both need to score for this team to be effective.......

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Dunleavy or Granger?

              Originally posted by Alpolloloco View Post
              Nah I'd rather trade Williams. Danny is a class act while Shawne already has a police record.
              Cool. Trade em both then. Mike's a lot better than either one.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Dunleavy or Granger?

                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                Now that I think about it, I say we trade Danny. Mike's quite a bit better than him, they play the same position, and we could get someone pretty good for Danny. Plus we have Quisy for a few more years to back up Mike, and Shawne is okay too.

                It's time.

                Trade the Gift.
                While Dannie is far from flawless and Mike is not as bad a defender as some make him out to be I still shrug about the thought of Mike having to defend the James, Bryants, Dengs, Ginobili's, Ray Allen's, McGrady's, Richardson, etc of this world.

                So, unless we get a top defender for Granger I really am hesistant of such an idea.

                But, maybe you are beying sarcastic, I'm not sure .

                Regards,

                Mourning
                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Dunleavy or Granger?

                  Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                  While Dannie is far from flawless and Mike is not as bad a defender as some make him out to be I still shrug about the thought of Mike having to defend the James, Bryants, Dengs, Ginobili's, Ray Allen's, McGrady's, Richardson, etc of this world.

                  So, unless we get a top defender for Granger I really am hesistant of such an idea.

                  But, maybe you are beying sarcastic, I'm not sure .

                  Regards,

                  Mourning
                  Nope. For once I'm not.

                  Obviously, Mike isn't gonna be our go to defender on the perimeter. We need to find someone else to do that. But it's not like we have anyone doing it now either. Danny's big and strong, but he's not much of challenge for the elite swing men in this League. (And please don't put ever put Jason Richardson on that list again.)

                  I just don't see much reason to extend Danny at, say 4 years/$50 million when we already have Dunleavy signed for less. You can't pay two SFs $10 million-ish per year. It's just dumb.

                  If we're so worried about defense all of the sudden, then get a PG that can help out. And maybe sign a SG. That would be novel. Danny for someone with a both-ways skill set of, say, Corey Maggette would be fine.
                  Last edited by JayRedd; 01-06-2008, 05:04 PM.
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:

                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Dunleavy or Granger?

                    Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                    Nope. For once I'm not.

                    Obviously, Mike isn't gonna be our go to defender on the perimeter. We need to find someone else to do that. But it's not like we have anyone doing it now either. Danny's big and strong, but he's not much of challenge for the elite swing men in this League. (And please don't put ever put Jason Richardson on that list again.)

                    I just don't see much reason to extend Danny at, say 4 years/$50 million when we already have Dunleavy signed for less. You can't pay two SFs $10 million-ish per year. It's just dumb.

                    If we're so worried about defense all of the sudden, then get a PG that can help out. And maybe sign a SG. That would be novel. Danny for someone with a both-ways skill set of, say, Corey Maggette would be fine.
                    Ok. Well not much to really disaggree with. Few points though.

                    I will aggree that Danny isn't a premier defender, but I would say he is by far the best what we have at the swingman positions in this role (though Rush seems to be doing pretty well defensively aswell as of late, can't see him playing more then 20 minutes a game unless it's forced because of say things like injuries).

                    Sure, he generally doesn't lock down the elite swingmen he faces, but they aren't considered elite for nothing so the group of players who actually CAN lock them down or slow them down considerably is going to be rather small.

                    I think Danny is also suffering from the fact that he a lot of times has to not only defend the opposing teams first offensive option, but is also expected to create a sizable offensive output himself (scoring). Then I think he can also become a better defender by a decent margin (but, maybe I am wrong here) to easily put him in the "good defenders" group. Players who don't lock down the opposing elite players totally, but can certainly slow them down or very frequently frustrate them into bad shooting nights.

                    Let Mike defend the players Danny is defending and I think those players have career nights against the Pacers more then often. I don't think he is awfull on defense, but nevertheless at best he still is average at that part of the game. I dunno getting back a good SG who could defend would make me consider moving Danny, but that player would have to be better then say a Luther Head or somebody like him.

                    Then you mention the contract issues. I aggree that it would generally be stupid to pay two of your players at the same position large amounts of salary. However, a lot of games they don't play the same position (logical because they play a lot of the time together)

                    And does this position of yours also mean dropping JO as he has an albatross contract, which is endangering our ability to resign any of our younger players at all, because we also have another player with a huge contract at the same position(s) he plays at in Murphy?

                    Offcourse, I would prefer to drop Troy instead of JO, but I doubt anyone in the league could be enticed to take that baite, while I still have some (verrrrry) slim hope for JO in that respect.

                    Regards,

                    Mourning
                    Last edited by Mourning; 01-06-2008, 05:27 PM.
                    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Dunleavy or Granger?

                      I think we should have traded JO like 12 months ago. But that's sort of beside the point.

                      To me, there's only three things that matter here: 1) Mike's better than Danny, 2) I believe Mike will continue to be better than Danny, and 3) we only need one starting SF.

                      So unless you think Danny is gonna be some 5-time All Star, it comes down to money and where to best spend your resources. Next year, we'll be paying a combined $16 million for Dun and Quis. Those two guys (plus Shawne, who's still on a rookie deal through 2010) are more than capable of playing 48 minutes at SF on a winning basketball team, IMO. And they can both play a little fill-in SG (while Shawne can maybe play some fill-in PF).

                      And since trading either Mike or Marquis is gonna be difficult (contract/soft reputation and injury history, respectively) and trading Danny would give us back a legit asset, why would we not just trade Danny for something we actually need?

                      Maybe I'm being a little hasty (I did just come to this conclusion five minutes ago), but it just seems to make sense. I just think Mike is better, and I'm not too too worried about the short-term fall-out of making our horrible perimeter defense slightly more horribler. And, presumably, the person we're trading Danny for would be a SG with at least as much individual defensive acumen as Granger.

                      As for stopping the elites, of course no one does that. Not Bruce Bowen, Gerald Wallace or Ron Artest. But a lot of guys make them work for their points. I don't think Danny makes them work much. He's not even close to other SFs like Richard Jefferson or Tayshaun. I'm guessing every elite perimeter player in the league licks their chops when they know Indy is coming up on their schedule. "Whew...I can drop 30 without tiring myself up for this upcoming West Coast road trip." I really wonder how many starting SFs he's actually better than defensively. As long as we pair Dunleavy with someone as good defensively as Jack or Ricky Davis, I don't think we'll see any drop off (and, hopefully, we will get someone significantly better than those two).

                      Age is the only reason I'd rather have Danny. But for the next 4-5 years, I expect Mike to stay better. He just has a lot more skills.
                      Last edited by JayRedd; 01-06-2008, 06:07 PM.
                      Read my Pacers blog:
                      8points9seconds.com

                      Follow my twitter:

                      @8pts9secs

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Dunleavy or Granger?

                        Hmm...this is an interesting thought. But what is the likelihood of TPTB trading Danny, a good guy who is slowly becoming the face of this franchise. Also, trading marquee guys over and over again shows a lack of vision.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Dunleavy or Granger?

                          Danny. JO seems to think he's huge (in bold).

                          I found the following quotes interesting but I didn't feel like starting another thread.

                          "Being a star in this league is a very difficult thing," said Jermaine O'Neal. "You're going to get special attention every single night. You've got to mentally focus in on what you need to do and you're going to have times when you don't feel physically up to par and that wears you down mentally. We need for him to find a way to get himself doing because we need him in a major, major way. …

                          "We have to help him; we have to boost him up because this is newfound territory for him. I know he wants to be a star in this league and we've got to do our best job to help him get to that position because when you get off to a good start the way he did, teams are really going to focus in on you and they're not allowing him to do some of the things he likes to do. He's going to be fine."

                          http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/preview_080106.html
                          Last edited by indyman37; 01-06-2008, 09:34 PM.
                          I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Dunleavy or Granger?

                            How about we just get Gene Wilder to transplant Duns hoops-IQ into
                            Danny and Danny's athleticism into Duns. Then keep 'em both !

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Dunleavy or Granger?

                              Danny and Dunleavy compliment each other in somewhat of an aspect in the game.

                              Dun can sumtimes create and feed the ball to danny on a break or danny would be the one driving the lane and when the defense collapse, kicks it out to mike for the open three.

                              on defense, i think both of them are both subpar, a lot of you say Grangers is a good defender, although he might be better than Mike, i still dont consider him a good defender.

                              i say equal
                              sigpic

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Dunleavy or Granger?

                                Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
                                How about we just get Gene Wilder to transplant Duns hoops-IQ into
                                Danny and Danny's athleticism into Duns. Then keep 'em both !

                                Ok. But which one of them gets the enormous schwanstucker?
                                And I won't be here to see the day
                                It all dries up and blows away
                                I'd hang around just to see
                                But they never had much use for me
                                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X