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

The grading scale of NBA players

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

  • #16
    Re: The grading scale of NBA players

    Yeah Garnett is an A(See the ambiguity I was talkin about) any guy that gets a double double 6 out of 7 games is right up there. Plus I have always viewed KG as pretty clutch, I mean I can recall at least 3 GWers he has hit.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The grading scale of NBA players

      I don't see how you can put Nash and LeBron in group A and put Carmello and KG in group B. Carmello isn't quite as talented as LeBron, but he's far more clutch.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The grading scale of NBA players

        Originally posted by Eindar
        I don't see how you can put Nash and LeBron in group A and put Carmello and KG in group B. Carmello isn't quite as talented as LeBron, but he's far more clutch.
        Well, I almost didnt put Nash and LBJ in group "A", but I finally decided to add them. I think you can make a case that either of them dont belong up there just as easily as you can that they do.

        In Nash's case, he is a 2 time MVP of the league and is clearly by far in my view the best player at his position in the entire world. When you look at it like that, I just couldnt leave him off....thats why he was graded an "A" by me.

        LBJ was a tougher call, but I finally decided that his sheer enormous talent at such a young age, basically turning around a pitiful franchise in Cleveland, merited him being bumped up from a "B" to an "A".

        Just my opinion, of course.

        Tbird

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The grading scale of NBA players

          On the topic of Garnett, even though he is one my personal all time favorite players, I couldnt add him to the "A" list. I know this is all subjective and reasonable minds can disagree, but I just couldnt get past the fact that a player who has played as long as he has has only won 2 playoff series, and has been bounced out of the first round every year except one. A truly transcendant and spectacular superstar would be able to do better than that, in my opinion.

          I know Lebron hasnt done much in the playoffs yet, but I took his is relative young career into account when I made that judgment. Like I said, its all subjective, and reasonable people can disagree.

          Tbird

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The grading scale of NBA players

            Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
            On the topic of Garnett, even though he is one my personal all time favorite players, I couldnt add him to the "A" list. I know this is all subjective and reasonable minds can disagree, but I just couldnt get past the fact that a player who has played as long as he has has only won 2 playoff series, and has been bounced out of the first round every year except one. A truly transcendant and spectacular superstar would be able to do better than that, in my opinion.

            I know Lebron hasnt done much in the playoffs yet, but I took his is relative young career into account when I made that judgment. Like I said, its all subjective, and reasonable people can disagree.

            Tbird
            You aren't taking account how little help he has had is my guess.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The grading scale of NBA players

              Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
              On the topic of Garnett, even though he is one my personal all time favorite players, I couldn't add him to the "A" list. I know this is all subjective and reasonable minds can disagree, but I just couldn't get past the fact that a player who has played as long as he has has only won 2 playoff series, and has been bounced out of the first round every year except one. A truly transcendent and spectacular superstar would be able to do better than that, in my opinion.
              Basketball, for all of its individual glories, is still a team game. Every player you listed in "A" has a very good team (with the exception of LeBron, who has the good fortune of playing in the East). Give Jason Terry and Josh Howard to Kevin Garnett to help with the scoring load and he's going deep in the playoffs. In fact, he did have those type of players: Sam Cassell and Latrell Spreewell, and he made the conference finals, then genius Kevin McHale traded Sam for MARCO JARIC! I mean, come on.

              KG is better than Steve Nash. He always has been and always will be. You want to talk about making your team better? How about a 7-footer setting monster picks, grabbing twelve rebounds a game, playing outstanding defense and shouldering all the blame himself when you lose a game?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                The one thing that I have never really enjoyed about sports is when people feel the need to "categorize" players.

                I understand why it is done, but I just hate it. Whether it be on a internet forum or on ESPN, I dont think it does any good.

                Does it really matter if Lebron is in the "A" group or "B" group.

                At the end of the day I dont care if Lebron is above D.Wade, or if Iverson is below Artest, I would give a arm and a leg to have most any of these superstars on my favorite team. (I said most, I dont want that one guy I mentioned above back on this squad.)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                  I gotta put Shaq in the A group, but I am OK with where you have KG. Shaq is the hugest of huge, literally, impact players. He isn't as good or dominant as he used to be, and he has had some injury issues, but his impact is profound. His size causes unbelievable matchup problems for everybody. LA missed him more than they thought they ever would, and the difference of Miami without Shaq is glaring.

                  The ultimate A players are the Jordans, Birds, and Johnson's...dominant players in their own right...but who have the ability to make the rest of the team better.
                  When you're playing against a stacked deck, compete even harder. Show the world how much you'll fight for the winners circle. If you do, someday the cellophane will crackle off a fresh pack, one that belongs to you, and the cards will be stacked in your favor.
                  -Pat Riley

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                    Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                    On the topic of Garnett, even though he is one my personal all time favorite players, I couldnt add him to the "A" list. I know this is all subjective and reasonable minds can disagree, but I just couldnt get past the fact that a player who has played as long as he has has only won 2 playoff series, and has been bounced out of the first round every year except one. A truly transcendant and spectacular superstar would be able to do better than that, in my opinion.

                    I know Lebron hasnt done much in the playoffs yet, but I took his is relative young career into account when I made that judgment. Like I said, its all subjective, and reasonable people can disagree.

                    Tbird
                    I think this is where we agree to disagree. If you swap KG and Dirk, I feel that Dallas gets better as a team. I don't know if you can say the same about KG and Tim Duncan, because that team really is built specifically for the way Timmy plays (Boring as the day is long). But I think, given equal amounts of talent, KG would be the equal of Dirk or Duncan.

                    I enjoy the ranking, but I guess I just don't understand the criteria. You put KG in Group 2 because he's never been to the finals. LeBron hasn't either (I understand that LBJ is younger). You say that to be in group A, a player has to have no glaring holes in their game. Well, I think Steve Nash may break out in hives if he gets within 5 feet of defense of any sort. Honestly, the way you describe it, we don't currently have any "Group A" point guards in the league, with the possible exception of Billups, because while he's not fantastic at any one thing, he does everything at an above average level. Kidd was on that level, and I think Paul will be there within a year or two (Felton and Williams have a chance to get there, also), but I don't think there's a Group A point guard in the entire league right now.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                      KG is better than Steve Nash. He always has been and always will be. You want to talk about making your team better? How about a 7-footer setting monster picks, grabbing twelve rebounds a game, playing outstanding defense and shouldering all the blame himself when you lose a game?
                      In the way you're talking, that's an unfair comparison. You can't expect 6'3" Steve Nash to go out and set monster picks and grab twelve rebounds. He has height and size against him in that regard. It would be easier for KG to go out and average 10-12 assists like Nash, than it would be for Nash to go out and average 12 rebounds.

                      Now, if you look past stats and look at KG and Nash's impact on their teams, Nash obviously comes out on top. Nash has made his supporting cast look a lot better than they probably were. I mean, last year when Stoudamire went down they threw Boris freakin Diaw in at center and still won a crap load of games. Boris Diaw was a nobody prior to that. Try pulling that stunt with Jamaal Tinsley or any other average point guard and see how far it takes you.

                      KG might have the better all-around game, but Nash is better at making his teammates better while putting up good numbers himself. KG also has size on his side.

                      Also, I think Iverson should be on the 'A' list. Sure he isn't the highest percentage shooter, but look at HIS supporting cast over the years. Look at his supporting cast when he literally carried his team to the finals. I think even KG has had a better supporting cast than that. The only hole in Iversons game is his lower than average shooting percentages. Obviously that doesn't matter much to a lot of teams in the league because look at how many teams wanted to trade for him to help elevate their team to the top.

                      EDIT: I also agree with Birch. Shaq is an 'A' player, no doubt about it. Kobe wouldn't have a single ring without Shaq. Wade wouldn't have either. There's a reason why two of the greatest coaches in history wanted this man on their team.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                        I left off Shaquille due to his age, declining skills, and recent tendency to be injured. Clearly he used to be an "A", but he is not that same player today in my judgment.

                        I left Iverson off the "A" list because I dont think he makes his teammates better anymore, and I think his poorer attitude and "drama" that he brings to the table bring down his ranking to the "B" level. I also think the very nature of his game, i.e. being a very small shooting guard, makes his teams to have to built in an abnormal way in order to get the most efficient results from his play. You cant really have Iverson and build your roster in a normal way.

                        As far as my "A" list being hard to get on, that is the entire point. Being a megastar isnt the same as being a mere "star". Most of you wanting to add players I left off only proves the point the original broadcaster was trying to make, which is to say most people overrate talent in the NBA.

                        Just my opinion, as always.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                          Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                          I left off Shaquille due to his age, declining skills, and recent tendency to be injured. Clearly he used to be an "A", but he is not that same player today in my judgment.

                          I left Iverson off the "A" list because I dont think he makes his teammates better anymore, and I think his poorer attitude and "drama" that he brings to the table bring down his ranking to the "B" level. I also think the very nature of his game, i.e. being a very small shooting guard, makes his teams to have to built in an abnormal way in order to get the most efficient results from his play. You cant really have Iverson and build your roster in a normal way.

                          As far as my "A" list being hard to get on, that is the entire point. Being a megastar isnt the same as being a mere "star". Most of you wanting to add players I left off only proves the point the original broadcaster was trying to make, which is to say most people overrate talent in the NBA.

                          Just my opinion, as always.
                          If you leave Shaq off the "A" list because of declining skills, and Iverson off because he doesn't make his teammates better anymore, then shouldn't the scale be sort of the same for LeBron James? He hasn't lead his team very far yet consistently. He's the only one on the "A" list that's been in the playoffs only once. Nash has been there and had some great performances for several years, same with Dirk, and Wade has a ring as does Duncan and Bryant. Sure James hasn't been in the league that long, but that's also saying that he's not there "yet".

                          If I was going by your scale of keeping people off the "A" list due to declining skills, I'd also keep LeBron off that list because he hasn't done much in the playoffs yet.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                            Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                            I left Iverson off the "A" list because I dont think he makes his teammates better anymore,
                            Steve Blake scored a career high 25 last night for what it's worth.
                            Read my Pacers blog:
                            8points9seconds.com

                            Follow my twitter:

                            @8pts9secs

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                              Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
                              In the way you're talking, that's an unfair comparison. You can't expect 6'3" Steve Nash to go out and set monster picks and grab twelve rebounds. He has height and size against him in that regard. It would be easier for KG to go out and average 10-12 assists like Nash, than it would be for Nash to go out and average 12 rebounds.

                              Now, if you look past stats and look at KG and Nash's impact on their teams, Nash obviously comes out on top. Nash has made his supporting cast look a lot better than they probably were. I mean, last year when Stoudamire went down they threw Boris freakin Diaw in at center and still won a crap load of games. Boris Diaw was a nobody prior to that. Try pulling that stunt with Jamaal Tinsley or any other average point guard and see how far it takes you.
                              This, of course, is wrong. When you look at the numbers I don't think it holds that he makes all his teammates better. Does he deliver fantastic passes that lead to baskets? Yes, 12 a game. But the players are still finishing them. He hasn't done any magic spell that helsp Raja Bell hit 3 pointers.

                              And so you would counter with this classic line: "Everyone he plays with has career highs!" To that I would answer with the lovely and talented John Hollinger:

                              "-- Raja Bell had never played more than 28 minutes per game in any season, but played 37.5 in Phoenix. He was no better than in the previous two seasons -- believe it or not -- he just played a lot more.
                              -- James Jones had never played more than 18 minutes per game, but played 23.6 last season for the Suns.
                              -- Leandro Barbosa had never played more than 21 minutes, but saw 27.9 last season.
                              -- Boris Diaw hadn't seen more than 25 minutes per game, until getting 35.5 a season ago.
                              -- Shawn Marion had played more than 40 minutes per game on two other occasions, but on a pace-adjusted basis he was on the court for more possessions than at any time in his career.

                              So wait, they were on the court more than ever before, and they averaged career highs? Really? You don't say? "

                              I would rather have an all around awesome power forward like KG than a passing point guard like Steve Nash. A solid point guard and a dominant big man will get you further than the reverse.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                                Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
                                If you leave Shaq off the "A" list because of declining skills, and Iverson off because he doesn't make his teammates better anymore, then shouldn't the scale be sort of the same for LeBron James? He hasn't lead his team very far yet consistently. He's the only one on the "A" list that's been in the playoffs only once. Nash has been there and had some great performances for several years, same with Dirk, and Wade has a ring as does Duncan and Bryant. Sure James hasn't been in the league that long, but that's also saying that he's not there "yet".

                                If I was going by your scale of keeping people off the "A" list due to declining skills, I'd also keep LeBron off that list because he hasn't done much in the playoffs yet.
                                We are talking about the present. Shaq will never be an "A" player again, but LeBron is right in the thick of being an "A" player. Therefore, in the reality of today, Shaq isn't an "A" but LeBron is.
                                The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                                http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                                RSS Feed
                                Subscribe via iTunes

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X