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

Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

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

  • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

    I don't care if he has a gazillion dollars, a million is still a very steep fine. That he can afford it doesn't matter. Then tack on the 6-8 game 'suspension' and whatever that would mean financially.
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      I don't care if he has a gazillion dollars, a million is still a very steep fine. That he can afford it doesn't matter. Then tack on the 6-8 game 'suspension' and whatever that would mean financially.
      I hope one day that owners and players are treated equally and a player is fined a million dollars...
      Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
      I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

      Comment


      • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

        One of those changes would potentially apply to first-time DUI offenders. According to ProFootballTalk, a player "deemed legally responsible" for his first DUI offense would be hit with a one-game suspension and a fine of one game check.
        Under the league's current policy for substance abuse, a first-time offender generally faces a fine of two game checks, but no suspension.
        http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...-dui-offenders

        How does the player policy vs Irsay's reported punishment, fit into the "racist" argument?
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
          Regardless of the DUI part he was also carrying 29K in cash and had a bunch of drugs on him that also raises red flags to me at least.

          Then there's that dead woman in the house he bought for her.

          If his name was Jim Schmo instead of Jim Irsay yes I think this would've been handled differently. A black kid from Pike would be under the jail right now and not perceived as someone who needs help but a hardened criminal.
          1) It's not illegal to have $29,000 in cash on you. 2) What does the dead woman have to do with anything? There's nothing that ties back to anything in regards to Jim being pulled over high as a kite.

          And someone said above that they'd be put away for 5+ years if in the same situation ---- huh uh. Ain't happenin.
          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


          • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

            http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...more/10282707/

            Bob Kravitz exclusive: Jim Irsay opens up about alcoholism, addiction and more

            His eyes are clear, clearer than before. His posture, which saw him stooped over like an old man, is much improved. His complexion, once red and blotchy, has been replaced by a healthy looking tan.

            In his first extended interview since his DUI arrest in March, Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay remained circumspect about what happened that night and what he's been through since then. But he addressed several topics on the record with The Star, which may or may not shed light on his current state of mind as he deals with the ongoing disease of addiction, not to mention the chronic pain he feels in his hip and lower back as a result of old injuries and surgeries.

            "These diseases, both alcoholism and addiction, much like bipolar or depression and different illnesses, are still not seen as real diseases," Irsay said during a two-hour interview in his office Monday. "People shy away from seeking help because it's viewed as being somewhat morally off the path, that they've lost their way. I really think the disease aspect gets lost when you're talking about alcoholism and addiction; it's not like you're battling leukemia or a heart problem; it is that. But even in 2014, there's still this stigma.

            "...That stigma gets carried forward and it's unfortunate because people die and families get affected and people don't seek treatment. It's an unusual disease in the sense that the person has to diagnose himself. He has to realize that there's this genetic disease you have to deal with through treatment. My grandfather and father both died of the disease, and you realize you've spent a lot of time on this path. Certainly, I have. But with the disease, surgery and pain management can be very tricky waters."



            Irsay wouldn't get into specifics, but suffice to say, he believes that because of his significant pain issues he began to lose his way with pain medication. This is not very different from what's happened in the past, what happens with millions of people in this country who deal with chronic pain. One day, a single Vicodin does the trick. Down the road, it takes several Vicodin. And Oxycodone. And more. And next thing you know, you're in the throes of addiction once again.

            After attending rehab in several spots around the country in recent months, Irsay acknowledges he is still on some pain medication for his hip and back, but he's having it closely monitored by his doctors, who will eventually wean him off those meds if the pain abates. (Which might require surgery, but that's a different story.) He also has agreed to random drug testing with the prosecutor's office, with those results being shared with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's office.

            Meanwhile, Irsay says he has remained alcohol-free for more than a decade and continues to attend AA meetings around town and around the country.

            "It's all been a blessing, just being able to focus on my health and redouble the efforts on recovery,'' Irsay said. "It's been a long path. I still have chronic pain. But it was the good thing… In some ways, (going through rehab) is my greatest moment. It takes courage to try and overcome the difficulties you have. For some reason, it's seen as unheroic. When someone beats cancer, it's like, `Wow, that's so heroic,' but when someone has this illness, it's treated like you're a leper because that person is morally corrupt, and that's not the case.

            "... It's an ongoing thing in one's life when recovering from any disease. The disease never sleeps so you have to be proactive when dealing with it. But the journey is great because it forced you to grow spiritually. There's a lot of gratitude and spiritual growth. And it's rewarding because it makes you more virtuous when you have success."

            Irsay describes the meds he is taking for pain as "the least invasive from an addiction standpoint and the most helpful from an orthopedic standpoint."


            Of course, none of this answers some of the questions we wanted answered:

            What exactly happened the night he was arrested? Was he addled on pain medication? Why did he fail field sobriety tests? Irsay declined to discuss the details for public consumption. (Sorry.)

            What have his conversations with Goodell been like, and is there any credence to Adam Schefter's ESPN report that Irsay will be hit with a 6- to 8-game suspension and a $1 million fine? Again, he declined to discuss on the record.

            Will he reach a plea deal or fight to clear his name? At this point, that's still all up in the air and between him and his lawyer, James Voyles.

            There were other questions asked in his office Monday, but Irsay was understandably disinclined to answer them publicly. Two reasons: One, the case is still pending; two, recovery is a very private, personal thing.

            He did, however, shed some light on some other subjects.

            Like the 29 grand he had in his vehicle when he was arrested. Fact is, Irsay said, it's not unusual for him to have that kind of cash. Unafraid of making the point, he showed me a briefcase on his desk. When he opened it, I saw stacks and stacks of $100 bills.

            "I don't know why that was leaked to the press or what it had to do with anything," he said. "You're talking about someone who is extremely generous, and I say that humbly. That's the way I try to live my life and it has nothing to do with the law. What's been reported out there, there's been a sensationalizing about things that have nothing to do with the law. It shouldn't be an issue."

            He was asked what he would like to say to Colts fans who've been concerned about his welfare and his ability to run the franchise.

            "I'd say my focus is on the season, my focus is on making the Colts the best team in the NFL," he said. "I'm completely engaged and have always been engaged, even when I was in rehab. Your paper acted like my kids were running the team and I was in some kind of coma and that's just not the truth."

            Technically, his daughters stepped in to run the team in his absence. But Irsay said he was still very much engaged in the team's operations.

            "You don't tell a player you can't monitor your investments for a month," he said. "There's no way you're going to have a billion-dollar investment and never fail to monitor it for a period of time.

            "I would also say I'm deeply invested in continuing to make the Colts great. All my passion and efforts have been behind that. And I really appreciate all the support they've shown me writing letters, sending notes, people saying they wanted me to be healthy and ready to go, and that's where I'm at. I really appreciate everything. I've always felt like I had a personal relationship with fans. I'm not afraid to be emotional or vulnerable or humble. Mostly, though, I want to say that this journey we've been on, heading into another generation of greatness, I'm truly excited about this year and where we're at."

            I asked him if he felt he needed to apologize, to Colts fans, to the league, to anybody.

            "I don't think that's something I'll address right now," he said. "There are certain things I want to say that I can't say. We need to let the process go forward and I'll address that later. I'm a human being; if there's something I have to apologize for, I would, but at this point, it wouldn't be appropriate. It sets me up, like if you don't say you're sorry, then why aren't you saying you're sorry, and if you say you're sorry, then you must have done something wrong."

            On whether an owner should be held to a higher standard than a player:

            "Being an owner, I hold myself to the highest of standards. As a father, as a grandfather, as someone who by nature of their work has this public stage, my nature is to always take that standard seriously."

            But should Goodell come down harder on an owner than he does on, say, a player who is charged with a DUI?

            Irsay had an opinion, but not one he wanted to share with the public.

            After all of this, he turns 55 years old Friday.

            He smiled.

            "I'd like to think I have many good years left," he said.

            Comment


            • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

              http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...l-pushed-back/

              Irsay’s operating while intoxicated trial pushed back


              Colts owner Jim Irsay may get his court date pushed back, but he’s expected to have to face charges while his team is playing this season.

              According to the Indianapolis Star, Irsay’s court date on operating while intoxicated charges will likely come in late October or early November.

              His attorney asked for a continuance, and the D.A. is not opposed to the move.

              But before that one, he may have to appear at a conference involving the custody of two children who live with their mother in a million-dollar home Irsay paid for earlier this year.

              The case was brought by the ex-husband of the mother, who said he was concerned about the safety of the children in Irsay’s presence.

              “As a father, I do not want my children subjected to this type of behavior and lifestyle,” Greg Martin wrote in a letter to the court. He added that “money does not buy morals or self-respect.”

              The league has only said that Irsay was “under review,” as many wonder whether they’ll apply the same firm standards to an owner as they do players.

              The silence from New York as to whether that’s true seems deafening, but the delay at least gives Roger Goodell time to consider how to punish one of his 32 bosses.

              Comment


              • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                And here we go with the legal game. Postpone, divert, yada-yada.

                Eventually, it'll fade from view and he'll end up with next to nothing as punishment for the whole thing. Yeah - money can take care of things like this.

                Comment


                • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                  I hate to tell you guys this, but usually people get a slap on the wrist for first time DUI's. For example, I had a roommate in college who got a DUI, and I kid you not, blew over a .3. His license was suspended for 90days and he was sentenced to 40hrs community service. It turned into a group joke after a different friend was picked up for public intox/underage drinking and his sentence was pretty much everything friend#1 got, outside of the suspended license, and friend#2 was just stumbling his way home.

                  I've got a couple of other ancedotal examples from other friends/customers, as I work auto insurance. Hell, most of the time they give multiple offenders slaps on the wrist.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                    Yeah Irsay getting a slap on the wrist for a DUI is nothing new. Given the amount of people who get popped for DUI is just so high that the courts and jails would not have the capacity to hold them that long. It sucks because it feels like society does not take impaired driving that serious even though it kills thousands of people a year. Irsay got lucky that he did not hurt anyone, but him getting a slap on the wrist will be no different than your regular joe who gets their first DUI.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                      http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...to-october-30/



                      Irsay trial postponed to October 30


                      Colts owner Jim Irsay has received a two-month reprieve in a court of law. That may not matter much in the Court of Goodell.

                      Per the Associated Press, a judge has postponed from August 28 until October 30 Irsay’s trial on misdemeanor charges of driving while intoxicated and driving with a Schedule I or II controlled substance in his body.

                      For a player with a first offense, the NFL typically would defer the imposition of discipline until after the criminal case is resolved. With the NFL hoping to show that owners are held to a higher standard, Commissioner Roger Goodell possibly will impose a suspension or other discipline on Irsay before the start of the 2014 regular season. Adam Schefter of ESPN previously reported that league insiders believe a six-to-eight-game suspension will be imposed.

                      And while that indeed would amount to a higher standard for owners, the NFL has declined to address whether Irsay will be placed in the same substance-abuse testing program that applies to plays. If/when that ever happens, Irsay would be subjected to the same protocol of up to 10 urine tests per month, and eventually a one-year suspension, if violations would continue.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving


                        Comment


                        • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                          Colts owner Jim Irsay pleads guilty to impaired driving
                          Colts owner Jim Irsay will spend one year on probation after pleading guilty to driving under the influence.

                          During a change of plea hearing held this morning at the Hamilton County courthouse, Irsay entered a guilty plea for one misdemeanor charge of impaired driving stemming from his arrest by Carmel police on March 16. A similar charge was dropped.

                          A toxicology report in court showed Irsay had the painkillers oxycodone and hydrocodone" in his system during his arrest. Police records said officers "continuously had to support Irsay in order to prevent him from falling over."

                          LINK
                          Shall be interesting to see what Roger does to punish Irsay.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving


                            Comment


                            • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                              That seems about right to me.

                              It's worse than an alcohol-related DUI because (presumably) in this case the intoxicants were neither legally purchased nor legally possessed.
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment


                              • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                                He had prescriptions for the pills in question, which is why one charge was dropped.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X