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

Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

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

  • Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

    Posted: March 30, 2008

    They care, even if nobody else does. These Indiana Pacers are still playing, still trying, still caring deeply about what's left of their mostly dismal season, and don't dare suggest to them that tanking is really their best option.
    This was a couple of minutes after the Pacers' 123-115 home victory over the New Jersey Nets on Friday night. Players were showering and dressing, and most reporters stood around loitering, checking out an NCAA Tournament game playing on one of the TVs.
    "Turn on the Bulls-Hawks game,'' guard Travis Diener told one of the locker-room attendants.
    Bulls-Hawks?
    Who watches Bulls-Hawks, except maybe for the Bulls and Hawks themselves and possibly some degenerate gamblers with cash on the outcome?
    "Tell me again,'' I asked Diener. "Who do you guys want to win here?''
    Diener turned. "We need Chicago to win,'' he said.
    Yes, right. The Atlanta Hawks are in eighth place. The Pacers are 10th and the Bulls 11th. Sometimes you forget or, in my case, lose interest.
    I also wanted to ask Diener what was up with the facial growth he's been sporting in recent weeks -- puberty is such a special time in a boy's life -- but I had gotten caught up in the Bulls-Hawks action.
    Give the Pacers this much: They are still trying, even if trying isn't what's in the long-term interest of their franchise. They haven't gone in the tank, like Miami and New York and other franchises more concerned with their ping-pong ball allotment. They are still competing like the eighth spot is a holy grail of sorts. There are a number of players in this room who haven't sniffed the playoffs, players who want this chance, and are playing like it.
    That's commendable.
    Not smart, but commendable.
    Let's be honest here: The best thing that could happen is the Pacers go, say, 3-7 in the final 10 games, earn a spot in the NBA Lottery and take their chances.
    If they reach the eighth spot, that means a quick and relatively painless exit at the hands of the Boston Celtics. The Simons might like the postseason payday, and the guys in my business might enjoy a couple of days of eating in Little Italy, but for this franchise, the best option is the lottery.
    It's enough to make you wonder if it's best for Jermaine O'Neal, currently the world's biggest fashion model, to even bother returning down the stretch. On the one hand, it's important for future trade partners to see that O'Neal is healthy and productive. On the other hand, if he's healthy and productive, the Pacers might just follow up this latest 6-4 stretch with another nice run of 10 games.
    For those of you still living and dying with this playoff push, here is the breakdown:
    The Hawks, now eighth in the Eastern Conference at 32-40, finish the season with five games against teams .500 or better, with five games at home and five on the road. Currently, they're 21/2 games up on the Pacers.
    The Nets, who might be the biggest underachievers in the league, are a half-game ahead of the Pacers. (And essentially are ahead by one additional game because they own the tiebreaker.) The Nets are going to have it rough: After Saturday night's loss to Phoenix, they have eight games remaining -- three at home, five on the road and six against teams above .500.
    The Pacers are in 10th place, and while they're not dead just yet, they surely aren't feeling all that frisky. The schedule, though, looks friendly. They have nine games left -- five at home, four on the road and just three against teams above .500.
    Nobody cares? That's understood. And that's understandable. Combine some early-season off-the-court issues with injuries and a losing team, and there's not a lot to recommend this team.
    But this much should be said: They are giving it everything they've got. Mike Dunleavy keeps making his case for Most Improved Player. Danny Granger shows why he's the future cornerstone of this franchise. Troy Murphy, who's never been a personal favorite as a player, is emerging as an automatic double-double guy. And in recent games, Shawne Williams, who would be a junior on the current Memphis team, is starting to show what he's got.
    "We've had teams here before, they had a lot more talent, but they didn't play as hard as this team,'' center Jeff Foster said. "Our problem is, we just don't have enough talent right now.''
    Which is the point entirely. They don't have enough talent, and they are especially lacking when it comes to having the talent to defend. They don't have a soul who can guard the ball on the perimeter. And they don't have anybody who can patrol the lane.
    But they're trying. They truly are trying. They may just try hard enough, and play well enough, to screw up the whole thing and blow the lottery pick. For the sake of the franchise, you hope it doesn't happen. But for a bunch of guys who still care even if nobody else does, a spot in the postseason seems like an appropriate payoff.


    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...TS15/803300401

  • #2
    Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

    This is my comment...

    He complains and complains that we don't play well. Now he is complaining that we are showing some heart. You never want your team to tank. And coming from someone who "lost interest". Why even bother writing if you aren't interested? If that's the case let someone else write the stories on the team.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
      This is my comment...

      He complains and complains that we don't play well. Now he is complaining that we are showing some heart. You never want your team to tank. And coming from someone who "lost interest". Why even bother writing if you aren't interested? If that's the case let someone else write the stories on the team.
      Amen!

      Besides, there's not much difference between the 15th pick which is what we would have if we make the playoffs and pick 11 or 12 which is what we will probably have if we don't make the playoffs. So . . .

      Go Pacers!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

        I just view Kravitz as **** stirrer. He's never consistent on any view. He just likes the cause a stir, guess it sells papers.

        I care, I'm just on the fence as to what is best for the team.

        Getting lucky and getting a 1, 2 or 3 pick would be great, but I'm not very optimist for that to happen. So does it matter if we are the 9, 10, 11 or 12 pick? Could the playoff experience of getting beat 4 straight by Boston really help us? Would it help the guys to play in a few playoff games? some people thing it does. I just don't know what's best, I can't help but to still root for them to win.
        "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

          Just another way to keep the fans from heading out to the games. I'm sure without at least a little bit of the media interfering the team would have a little bit better of a reputation and more tickets being sold. Since the Colts have nothing to report on until mid-April, someone has to come up with something fast for the mouth-breathers to chew on and spit out.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

            Re-read his last sentence. I think this whole piece is a shaded compliment to the players. They haven't given up...they care...and he's saying so. I don't think it's a slap at the franchise at all.
            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

              I aggree with you, Geezer. He's definitely complimenting the players IMO. He just says that for the sake of the franchise it might be better (and I happen to aggree with that) to get a better pick. Sure now that it's bound to be a 11-12 pick the difference isn't that big with a 15th pick. Remember though that we had the virtual 8th and 9th pick shortly ago.

              Some are craving for Augustin others for Love and yet others for Thabeet. Well wouldn't it be nice to miss out on all three of those? Which might just happen now. Cool huh? Guess that was all worth playing four extra games where we get our asses handed on a silver plater . EJ is out of reach allready by now.

              Aside from that if we want to move up in the draft it's going to be a lot more "costly" now to do so and if we wanted to use or pick as a trading piece it's worth now is also a lot lower. So, yeah I happen to aggree with Kravitz on this.

              And for the people in denial... YES, I do think we lack talent, mainly on the defensive end.

              Regards,

              Mourning
              Last edited by Mourning; 03-30-2008, 07:26 AM.
              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


              • #8
                Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                Mourning-

                Very well put. You touched all the bases. The notion that there
                is no real difference between #9 or 10 and #15 is ridiculous.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                  Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                  "Turn on the Bulls-Hawks game,'' guard Travis Diener told one of the locker-room attendants.
                  Bulls-Hawks?
                  They haven't gone in the tank, like Miami and New York and other franchises more concerned with their ping-pong ball allotment. They are still competing like the eighth spot is a holy grail of sorts. There are a number of players in this room who haven't sniffed the playoffs, players who want this chance, and are playing like it.
                  That's commendable.
                  Knowing that these guys are trying makes me proud to be a Pacer fan. If the players want to make it, I'm not going to wish them bad luck just for lottery balls. Tanking is low-class, it was hilarious when Boston ended up not getting the #1 last year (even though the offseason worked out pretty well for them).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                    Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
                    Mourning-

                    Very well put. You touched all the bases. The notion that there
                    is no real difference between #9 or 10 and #15 is ridiculous.

                    I do agree with you, but it's not as ridiculous as you think.

                    2004

                    9) Andre Iguodala
                    10) Luke Jackson

                    15) Al Jefferson

                    I'm an avid Jefferson fan who so badly wanted a JO to Boston trade for Al. I firmly believe he's a future Allstar.

                    There have been draft years when 9, 10, and 15 draft picks were nothing of note.

                    2006 Draft

                    9) O'Bryant
                    10) Sene

                    15) Simmons


                    2003 Draft

                    9) Mike Sweetney
                    10) Jarvis Hayes

                    15) Reece Gaines


                    In the 2004 draft there were numerous players drafted after 15 that have become nice or quality players.

                    17) Josh Smith
                    18) J R Smith
                    19) Dorell Wright
                    20) Jameer Nelson
                    21) Delmonte West
                    22) Tony Allen
                    23) KEVIN MARTIN
                    28) Ben Udrih

                    With Udrih being a RFA this off season, I would love to see the Pacers go after him, but the Pacers won't use their MLE again this off season to go into the luxury tax. Really, I don't think the MLE could get Udrih anyway.

                    Where was Bird when McHale waived Udrih? What a pickup for cheap money!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                      "If" we trade JO that alone should bring back talent that will improve us significantly, maybe a 1st rnd pick also. Screw Krapitz... I wanna make the playoffs. Who knows if our 3's are falling we might pull a game or two out. It would be fun watching David vs Goliath. The players and teams make more money.
                      "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


                      • #12
                        Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                        1998 draft-

                        9. DIRK NOWITZKI
                        10. PAUL PIERCE
                        11. Bonzi Wells
                        12. Michael Doleac
                        13. Keon Clark
                        14. Michael Dickerson
                        15. Matt Harpring

                        Touche !

                        Obviously, it makes a big difference some years, others not so
                        much. But generally speaking, the higher the pick, the more value
                        it has as an asset.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                          Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                          This is my comment...

                          He complains and complains that we don't play well. Now he is complaining that we are showing some heart. You never want your team to tank. And coming from someone who "lost interest". Why even bother writing if you aren't interested? If that's the case let someone else write the stories on the team.
                          I don't see the article that way at all.

                          I see him commending the team on giving effort and having heart. Two thiings that not all recent Pacers teams have had.

                          I think sometimes people have such a dislike for the messenger, that they miss (or ignore) the message.
                          Last edited by Tom White; 03-30-2008, 10:27 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                            1998 Draft

                            1 - Michael Olowokandi
                            6 - Tractor Traylor

                            Touche!
                            PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                              The only thing a higher pick guarantees you is that you'll have more players to choose from. It mitigates (somewhat) the inherent risk of the draft by allowing you more choices.

                              On March 2nd, we all watched the 17th pick in the 2005 draft (Danny Granger) put up 27 pts, 9 rebs, 3 asts, a steal and a block, while three players drafted ahead of him in that draft (Ike Diogu, Charlie Villanueva, and #1 Andrew Bogut) combined for 17 pts, 14 rebs, 4 asts, and a block.

                              Both sides can come up with myriad examples of 8's being better than 15's and vice-versa. However, I would absolutely shocked if it could be demonstrated that in any draft in any sport in the history of man that the top 10 players taken actually turned out to be the 10 best players that came out of that draft. Can you honestly say that DJ Augustin is a mortal lock to be a better NBA player than Ty Lawson?

                              Given that uncertainty, don't you find it at the least distasteful and at the most outright slimy to backhand players who are only doing what our fathers taught us and what we as parents would teach our children to do: try their best and maintain a desire to win? And yes, it is backhanding. "Isn't it precious how they try? Just look at those poor, dumb *******s."

                              Many of the players in this lockerroom will be the core of this team for years to come. Next year's pick could be a key piece, perhaps even a difference maker (if we're extremely lucky), but he's going to have to rely on the players around him to optimize his impact. Isn't it a good thing that they're players who play hard and want to win?

                              [Edit: Naturally, I would love for the Pacers to have as high of a pick as possible, and of course, I would expect a first round matchup with the C's to result in a sweep. However, it is contrary to everything I have been taught and believe to go into the tank. I simply cannot get mad at a team for doing what we would expect it to do on any given night: play hard and try to win. It's the moral of all of the Faustian legends...if you sell your soul, it always turns out badly, despite what Charlie Daniels said. I mean, is Chicago really in any better shape than we are after 10 years into trying to "blow it all up"?)
                              Last edited by count55; 03-30-2008, 11:09 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X