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

NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

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

  • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    Exactly.

    Shame on Bird for using this excuse, it sounds like a spoiled kid who didn't get to have donuts for dinner. He's got the same cap limits as all the other teams, and VERY few (like 1-2) are willing to go over the new lux tax. Or is Mark Cuban the epitome of an owner who won't pay to win since he's trying to avoid the massive salary penalties of the next tax.


    In fact, which teams were over the LUXURY TAX last year or this year or any of the prior 5 years. Let's get the official list so we can fairly compare Simon's methods with all the other teams. If he's so cheap then we will see 7-8 teams "trying to win" at the very least, and really more if you want Herb to stand out on the cheap side.
    Cuban was not trying to avoid anything he was trying to get Howard/Dwill.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      EJ wanted to come here that's the difference, you take the risk when you have a potential star that want's to be a Pacers, hell, even Crawford said NO to the Pacers, explain to me how you are going to convince stars players to come here? we have the money and a good team and not even a 38 years old Nash wanted to play here.
      And I don't believe EJ is a no-brainer given his injury history. If signing Roy to the max and having him stay the same would cause people to talk about how stupid and/or unmotivated to win Walsh & Simon are, what does signing EJ to the max to wear pretty suits behind the bench do?

      There's a point at which you assess the risk as well as the reward. The last time we mistook the risk the team imploded.
      BillS

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

      Comment


      • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Cuban was not trying to avoid anything he was trying to get Howard/Dwill.
        As I recall he didn't get far enough under the cap to sign either one outright at the max, did he? Certainly not to get both.
        BillS

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

        Comment


        • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          I think they are better off moving to another city if
          they expect people to attend games and actually pay for a few seats from time to time.

          I assume that's what you really meant to say.

          If there is one NBA fanbase that has no room to talk about spending and expectations from ownership, it's the Indy NBA fanbase. The attendance to results ratio was the worst in the NBA by far, and it was the same last year after Vogel took over. You signed West and Hill (kinda) which is about as much as you could do to make a splash last year, and that got you bottom of the barrel attendance.

          I used to dread the Pacers moving, but now I don't see any reason to stay.


          By the way, don't you love how Bird complains about ownership and small-market ownership, but then says "oh, I'm too old to get into ownership myself" despite being younger than most owners. How convenient that he doesn't want to put himself in Simon's shoes.

          If Simon is doing such a crap job then why doesn't Larry go find all this free cash and show Herb how to run a team in Indy the right way.

          Larry - put your money where your mouth is, and maybe get 10K-15K of your devotees to show up 41 times a season too.

          Comment


          • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            Kobe, Lebron, Ray Allen, Nash are not coming here, EJ wanted to come here that's the difference, you take the risk when you have a potential star that want's to be a Pacers, hell, even Crawford said NO to the Pacers, explain to me how you are going to convince stars players to come here? we have the money and a good team and not even a 38 years old Nash wanted to play here.
            This....

            I think the EJ thing played a huge role in Birds departure. Not sure if its the money/risk thing or the not signing offer sheets to Restricted Free agents that ultimately was the stumbling block. We may never know. I almost tend to believe its the latter, because from a business standpoint, while a risk given his injury history, the fact u have a local boy who ur basketball people may believe is a legit star in the making and would certainly help at the box office...well its hard to see Simon rejecting such...especially given his history....so it seems like it might be more a matter of principle...ala the RFA issue...

            The other thing that hasnt really been mentioned I dont believe is...I believe i read somewhere that Bird took a reduction in salary from 3 million to 1 million when he stayed on last year. Maybe the reigning executive of the year wanted his prior salary reinstated and Simon balked.
            The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

            Comment


            • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

              =BillS;1475870]And I don't believe EJ is a no-brainer given his injury history.
              That's you opinion and I respect that but I disagree.


              If signing Roy to the max and having him stay the same would cause people to talk about how stupid and/or unmotivated to win Walsh & Simon are, what does signing EJ to the max to wear pretty suits behind the bench do?
              Re-signing Roy won't be stupid, re-signing Roy and staying with the same team is stupid in my opinion, now if we are looking to have a second round exit ceiling, yeah go ahead and stay with the same people.

              Regarding EJ nobody knows how healthy he is, I'm pretty sure teams do a body check before signing him or something like that.



              There's a point at which you assess the risk as well as the reward. The last time we mistook the risk the team imploded.

              We took a chance on many crazy characters in one team at one time, this is way different.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                As I recall he didn't get far enough under the cap to sign either one outright at the max, did he? Certainly not to get both.
                Yep he was trying to get both, I think he had a deal with a team for them to take on Marion's contract.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                  I have a feeling that playoff games and winning season records might just be enough and the more I think about it the more that sounds like the 90's to me.
                  Said the Utah, Seattle, Miami, New York fanbases.

                  Clearly when they lost games to the same team's Indy was losing too it was a sign that "just getting to the Con Finals more than anyone else is good enough for us".

                  Give me another 90's run any day of the week. I'm sorry your Ferrari F40 didn't come with On-Star, but my standards just high enough to understand why it bothers you.



                  Jesus Peck. I mean I guess if 6 titles is enough for Mike then go ahead and play baseball for 2 years. I don't know, I guess Jordan just didn't have the will to win 8.

                  The old "if they didn't win it all it mean they weren't fielding an elite team" chestnut that just won't die the appropriate death it deserves.

                  The Dodgers and Orioles and Rangers and Red Sox and Yanks have all thrown tons of money at rosters, and MOST OF THE TIME those teams have come up short....just satisfied with a good season record apparently. I mean the Yanks beating Boston or the Ranger, the Marlins beating the Yanks, the D-backs beating the Yanks - that had nothing to do with them being better and everything to do with the Yanks just being unwilling to spend what it takes to win it all.


                  If you are in the Con Finals or Champ Series or Finals or World Series or AFC/NFC CG or Super Bowl and you lose YOU STILL WERE GREAT. Especially if you do it EVERY FREAKING YEAR.

                  It's insulting to the idea of winning itself to treat FIVE ECF/1 Finals in 7 years as "satisfied to just be pretty good". How many teams have played 5 potential series winning games in the Con Finals in the last 20 years, and that's with the Pacers JOB run. 4 times the Pacers played to go to the Finals and lost, they started 48 minutes away from being in the Finals 4 freaking times.

                  That laughs in the face of "just happy to be here".

                  Comment


                  • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    We can't even get the intelligent hard core fans on this message board to agree whether signing Roy to the max is a good idea or cap hell. How can it be such a no-brainer?

                    Huh? 128 members of this forum voted on this very question, and 92% voted in favor of keeping Roy. That seems like pretty strong agreement to me. I don't think I've ever seen such a lopsided poll on this forum in regard to such an important question.

                    http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...r-sheet-to-Roy

                    Comment


                    • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      Cuban was not trying to avoid anything he was trying to get Howard/Dwill.
                      Cuban has said outright that he wants no part of the luxury tax. He was making a run to get DWill to replace Kidd and almost did it, but that wouldn't put him over the lux tax and it's not adding a piece, it's REPLACING a piece.

                      DWill is better, but that's still like letting Granger walk to sign EJ, and that's different than this situation.

                      Comment


                      • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                        A good owner in the NBA listens to his front office. If your current Executive of the Year tells you we need to get Eric Gordon to push this team to the next level.....well you should probably listen to him.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


                        • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          they expect people to attend games and actually pay for a few seats from time to time.

                          I assume that's what you really meant to say.

                          If there is one NBA fanbase that has no room to talk about spending and expectations from ownership, it's the Indy NBA fanbase. The attendance to results ratio was the worst in the NBA by far, and it was the same last year after Vogel took over. You signed West and Hill (kinda) which is about as much as you could do to make a splash last year, and that got you bottom of the barrel attendance.

                          I used to dread the Pacers moving, but now I don't see any reason to stay.


                          By the way, don't you love how Bird complains about ownership and small-market ownership, but then says "oh, I'm too old to get into ownership myself" despite being younger than most owners. How convenient that he doesn't want to put himself in Simon's shoes.

                          If Simon is doing such a crap job then why doesn't Larry go find all this free cash and show Herb how to run a team in Indy the right way.

                          Larry - put your money where your mouth is, and maybe get 10K-15K of your devotees to show up 41 times a season too.
                          Are you kidding me? you think that people are going to magically start to show up after years and years of the clown of JOB? the Pacers are lucky they get as many people now.

                          To me they haven't fulfill their promise, 5 or 4 years ago they told us about this great plan that was going to give us cap space so we could bring players and do this and do that and so far they haven't done s***, now this year they are going to tell us how successful this off season was when they get to re-sign Roy and get another bench player, I'm sorry if I don't get excited about that.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                            In two seasons the Pacers went from 32-50 (a winning % of 39%) to 42-24 (63.6%) and apparently the Pacers aren't making strides fast enough. Go figure.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              Huh? 128 members of this forum voted on this very question, and 92% voted in favor of keeping Roy. That seems like pretty strong agreement to me. I don't think I've ever seen such a lopsided poll on this forum in regard to such an important question.

                              http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...r-sheet-to-Roy
                              But many of the ones voting "yes" expressed concern about the amount and the effect it will have on signing other players. It really wasn't like a "yes" vote in the poll equated to "without reservation". The very idea that there is a DISCUSSION, and that many of those people would themselves sign Roy but would not freak out if Roy is NOT signed, is what makes it a reasonable disagreement rather than a good move/stupid move dichotomy.

                              My problem is that not signing Roy is being treated as the basketball IQ equivalent of not signing LeBron or Dwight or Kobe (without some sort of context all of which would be clearly stupid and cheap moves). There ARE other things that could be done with that money that would bring as much benefit at some point as signing Roy would bring.

                              Not signing Roy would be a very public statement that there is SOME other purpose for the team's future. I mostly fear that the Pacers organization will fail to COMMUNICATE that purpose, as always, which will leave people absolutely convinced that Simon is a cheapskate and that the team should just go away because they'll never ever compete again.
                              BillS

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

                              Comment


                              • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                Cuban has said outright that he wants no part of the luxury tax. He was making a run to get DWill to replace Kidd and almost did it, but that wouldn't put him over the lux tax and it's not adding a piece, it's REPLACING a piece.

                                DWill is better, but that's still like letting Granger walk to sign EJ, and that's different than this situation.
                                He want's not part of the luxury tax unless he has Dwill/Howard/Dirk in the same team, do you think he decided to screw another possible year for a championship just because he wanted to avoid the luxury tax? no, Cuban wanted a big 3 in Dallas and he was willing to pay the price for it.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X