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

Pacers mentioned in Shaq derby again - Not offering JO

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

  • Pacers mentioned in Shaq derby again - Not offering JO

    Meanwhile, Kupchak is sensing the end of the free-agency period, the organization fearing Bryant will not re-sign if O'Neal is on the roster come Wednesday, the first day free agents can sign new contracts.

    As of Thursday night, NBA sources said, the Dallas Mavericks, Indiana Pacers and Miami Heat were making the strongest pushes to acquire O'Neal. The Mavericks' Dirk Nowitzki, the Pacers' Jermaine O'Neal and Heat's Dwyane Wade were not part of any offers, insiders said, and it is possible the first team to come off its untouchable player gets Shaq.

    Still, said one Laker official, "There are opportunities for us."

    http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...adlines-sports
    Mickael Pietrus Le site officiel

  • #2
    Re: Pacers mentioned in Shaq derby again - Not offering JO

    I really don't like Shaq, but if we can unload our bad contracts for him, it might be worth a shot. Then we can let him walk at the end of the season and clear a buttload of capspace for FAs.

    Cro, Pollard, Foster, and Al for Shaq?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Pacers mentioned in Shaq derby again - Not offering JO

      I have a feeling Shaq may become a Knick. They're one of the few teams with enough bad contracts to make a deal. If the Lakers become desperate to re-sign Kobe, that means taking virtually anything they can get for Shaq.

      Then Sheed signs with the Knicks.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pacers mentioned in Shaq derby again - Not offering JO

        If that happened, Isiah would be considered a genius.

        And I can go back to hating the Knicks guts with utmost passion. Not that I don't now, but they suck anyway.
        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pacers mentioned in Shaq derby again - Not offering JO

          Isiah can't pull that off.
          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pacers mentioned in Shaq derby again - Not offering JO

            Any team has the possibility of landing Shaq. It's just a matter of how many air traffic controllers are going to die in the process.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Pacers mentioned in Shaq derby again - Not offering JO

              L.A. Lakers trades: C Shaquille O'Neal (21.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 2.9 apg in 36.8 minutes)
              L.A. Lakers receives: PF Mike Sweetney (4.3 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 0.3 apg in 11.8 minutes)
              C Dikembe Mutombo (5.6 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 0.4 apg in 23.0 minutes)
              C Kurt Thomas (11.1 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 1.9 apg in 31.9 minutes)
              SG Anfernee Hardaway (9.2 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 2.3 apg in 27.6 minutes)

              Change in team outlook: +8.7 ppg, +11.0 rpg, and +2.0 apg.

              New York trades: PF Mike Sweetney (4.3 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 0.3 apg in 11.8 minutes)
              C Dikembe Mutombo (5.6 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 0.4 apg in 23.0 minutes)
              C Kurt Thomas (11.1 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 1.9 apg in 31.9 minutes)
              SG Anfernee Hardaway (9.2 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 2.3 apg in 27.6 minutes)
              New York receives: C Shaquille O'Neal (21.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 2.9 apg in 67 games)
              Change in team outlook: -8.7 ppg, -11.0 rpg, and -2.0 apg.

              TRADE ACCEPTED

              Due to L.A. Lakers and New York being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. L.A. Lakers and New York had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.[/b]

              There are tons of trades that could be worked out between these two teams. NY has a lot of high salary contracts.

              Knicks' new roster:

              C - Shaq/Mohammad/Trybanski
              PF - Sheed/Thomas/Harrington
              SF - Anderson/Ariza
              SG - Houston
              PG - Marbury/Noris/Williams

              They would need to beef up the 2-spot, but damn.

              Lakers' new roster:

              C - Thomas/Mutombo
              PF - Sweetney/Cook/Douthit
              SF - Walton/George
              SG - Bryant/Hardaway/Rush/Vujacic
              PG - Payton

              The Lakers only currently have 9 players under contract, and Fox is likely to retire, so they will need to fill in at the 4 and 1.
              [edit=15=1089386967][/edit]

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Pacers mentioned in Shaq derby again - Not offering JO

                Originally posted by btowncolt
                That would be an awful trade. Why would they pass up Lamar Odom and probably Caron Butler or Jamer Nelson plus Brian Grant and Malik Allen for THAT? or even Artest, Harrington, Pollard, Croshere, and maybe Jones? I don't want to claim that the Pacers probable offer is the greatest, but it's certainly better than the Knicks.
                Well, yeah...IF those offers are on the table. If not, then the Lakers have to take what they can get, and the Knicks have enough high-salary contracts to make it work.

                At this point, everyone knows the Lakers are desperate to unload Shaq, and are going to try to rip them off in any way possible. And there's little LA can do about it.

                Isn't Jameer in Orlando?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Pacers mentioned in Shaq derby again - Not offering JO

                  After looking at the trade proposal again, this would probably work better for both teams, to shore up some weaknesses:

                  L.A. Lakers trades: C Shaquille O'Neal (21.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 2.9 apg in 36.8 minutes)
                  L.A. Lakers receives: SF Tim Thomas (14.7 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 1.9 apg in 31.6 minutes)
                  C Kurt Thomas (11.1 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 1.9 apg in 31.9 minutes)
                  C Nazr Mohammed (7.4 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 0.5 apg in 20.1 minutes)
                  PG Moochie Norris (3.5 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 1.8 apg in 12.8 minutes)
                  Change in team outlook: +15.2 ppg, +8.5 rpg, and +3.2 apg.

                  New York trades: SF Tim Thomas (14.7 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 1.9 apg in 31.6 minutes)
                  C Kurt Thomas (11.1 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 1.9 apg in 31.9 minutes)
                  C Nazr Mohammed (7.4 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 0.5 apg in 20.1 minutes)
                  PG Moochie Norris (3.5 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 1.8 apg in 12.8 minutes)
                  New York receives: C Shaquille O'Neal (21.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 2.9 apg in 67 games)
                  Change in team outlook: -15.2 ppg, -8.5 rpg, and -3.2 apg.

                  TRADE ACCEPTED

                  Due to L.A. Lakers and New York being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. L.A. Lakers and New York had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

                  Knicks' new roster:

                  C - Shaq/Mutombo/Trybanski
                  PF - Sheed/Sweetney/Harrington
                  SF - Anderson/Ariza
                  SG - Houston/Hardaway
                  PG - Marbury/Williams

                  Lakers' new roster:

                  C - Thomas/Mohammad
                  PF - Thomas/Cook/Douthit
                  SF - Walton/George
                  SG - Bryant/Rush/Vujacic
                  PG - Payton/Norris

                  That's much more balanced.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers mentioned in Shaq derby again - Not offering JO

                    Originally posted by btowncolt
                    That still blows for the Lakers. Even with the situation they're in, Dallas, Indiana, and Miami would beat that offer in a heartbeat.
                    Just curiously, what do you think those three teams are willing to throw LA's way?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers mentioned in Shaq derby again - Not offering JO

                      L.A. Lakers trades: C Shaquille O'Neal (21.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 2.9 apg in 36.8 minutes)
                      L.A. Lakers receives: PF Brian Grant (8.7 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 0.9 apg in 30.3 minutes)
                      SF Lamar Odom (17.1 ppg, 9.7 rpg, 4.1 apg in 37.5 minutes)
                      SF Caron Butler (9.2 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 1.9 apg in 29.8 minutes)
                      Change in team outlook: +13.5 ppg, +9.9 rpg, and +4.0 apg.

                      Miami trades: PF Brian Grant (8.7 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 0.9 apg in 30.3 minutes)
                      SF Lamar Odom (17.1 ppg, 9.7 rpg, 4.1 apg in 37.5 minutes)
                      SF Caron Butler (9.2 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 1.9 apg in 29.8 minutes)
                      Miami receives: C Shaquille O'Neal (21.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 2.9 apg in 67 games)
                      Change in team outlook: -13.5 ppg, -9.9 rpg, and -4.0 apg.

                      TRADE ACCEPTED

                      Miami's new roster:
                      C - O'Neal
                      PF - Allen
                      SF - FA?
                      SG - Jones
                      PG - Wade

                      Laker's new roster:
                      C - Grant
                      PF - Odom
                      SF - Butler
                      SG - Bryant
                      PG - Payton

                      That's even more balanced, at least for the Lakers.

                      Not that the Heat would offer that, but I think that's the best deal that the Lakers could see at this point, at least from the three teams involved in this 'derby.' Three guys who can automatically come in and start. And that don't need the ball, but can be good compliments. We won't give them 3 guys who can come in and start, and I doubt NY would either.

                      I bet at this point, if Miami is serious in going after Shaq, they have to be stuck on what they can offer to NOT have to give up all three of those guys. If they could keep just one of those three this trade suddenly looks pretty good from their standpoint. Wade/Shaq looks like a pretty good 1-2 punch at this point in the East, homecourt for sure.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers mentioned in Shaq derby again - Not offering JO

                        If it really is down to us, Dallas, and Miami, I hope none of us give in to trading JO, Dirk, or Wayde, forcing LA to submit to a lesser offer. Probably ups our chances.

                        The Pacers with the "O'Neal Bros."?

                        Of course, if we do this we HAVE to sign somebody to fill up the whole left all over the place

                        Actually, let's take a look.

                        Let's say we give them Artest, Harrington, Pollard, Croshere, and Fred Jones.

                        Tinsley/Wright (AJ?)
                        (S.Jackson?)/Miller
                        Bender (ahhh!)/J.Jones
                        J.O'Neal/Foster
                        S.O'Neal/Foster

                        You know, as terrifying as JB as our starting 3 may be, if we have both O'Neals in our front court, and add Jax to our backcourt, it ain't gonna matter.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers mentioned in Shaq derby again - Not offering JO

                          LA has also said they'd prefer to trade Shaq to the EC so they will only have to face him twice a year. The only EC teams Shaq has said he would resign with next year are Orlando and Miami.

                          So I imagine LA would have to think Dallas' offer was MUCH better than an EC team's before they'd trade him inter-conference.

                          There there's the Pacers. LA might feel we have the best offer among EC teams, but if Shaq won't guarantee that he'll resign here is it worth it for us to make that trade?

                          I guess it just depends on who we'd be giving up. $25M worth of players is a lot of depth to give up, but it would make us major players in FA next year (for what it's worth).
                          "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                          -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers mentioned in Shaq derby again - Not offering JO

                            Originally posted by Shade
                            Just curiously, what do you think those three teams are willing to throw LA's way?
                            That was my Miami offer, I don't know what Dallas can offer of value right now. Finley and Stackhouse are two that Cuban would love to include, but LA couldn't want both of them... maybe whichever one they might think they could put at the 3 (or slide Kobe there?). The deal would have to include Walker, and I'm sure LA is thrilled with that inclusion.

                            Let us predict that the offer was Walker and Stackhouse (younger with 1 less year on contract than MF) -- along with that Dallas would either have to include Christian Laettner, Tariq Abdul-Wahad or Danny Fortson to get the salaries close to matching.

                            Ah, here's a new catch -- Stackhouse can't be traded again until Aug 24, and you bet that if LA trades Shaq it will be before then. Maybe even before July 14th to prove to Kobe he can re-sign there.

                            So it's Walker and Finley? You can't add another big contract to that without taking another back from LA (maybe Payton, solving Dallas' want for a veteran PG, hehe). Walker, Finley and Howard matches up with Shaq. I think that's the best offer that Dallas can make (w/o Dirk of course).

                            So, best case trades that LA could get w/o getting one of the 'untouchables':

                            Dal: Walker, Finley Howard

                            Mia: Grant, Odom, Butler

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Pacers mentioned in Shaq derby again - Not offering JO

                              http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1836585

                              "ESPN's Stephen A. Smith reports that any deal involving O'Neal could also involve a third team since the Pacers or Mavericks have been involved in these discussions, but that nothing is imminent."

                              hmmm... how might we be involved as a third team in a trade between Miami and LA?
                              "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                              -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X