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

Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

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

  • #16
    Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

      Teaching what the Bible says, just because the Bible says it, will never, ever be science, nor should it be taught in science class.

      That having been said, I'd like to point out that not everyone who entertains the concept of intelligent design is religious.

      Meanwhile, on this concept of natural selection being about selecting the best or eliminating the worst, I need to do more reading and thinking to have a strong position on this, but I will say this: On the surface, I think the idea that it's really just eliminating the weakest makes a lot of sense to me.

      Like the thoroughbred horses, survival isn't just about one factor, such as how well you can run. It's factoring in all things that could kill you, and then seeing how well you can survive despite all of those factors. If their lungs are weak when it comes to disease, then that's pushes them further down towards weakest (versus up towards strongest) when it comes to survival capability. That makes sense to me.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
        .

        In the debate we saw what Young Earth creationists really, really think. They believe in vegetarian lions and an Earth that younger by THOUSANDS of years than the known, verified age of its oldest-living tree! And for most thoughtful people, there's just no way that makes any sense.
        You weren't there!! How do you know they weren't vegetarians??

        I think the "you weren't there" argument is really just child-level debating. Not being there doesn't prove or disprove anything, unless the young earth people were there themselves.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          , on this concept of natural selection being about selecting the best or eliminating the worst, I need to do more reading and thinking to have a strong position on this, but I will say this: On the surface, I think the idea that it's really just eliminating the weakest makes a lot of sense to me.
          In most scenarios selecting the best or eliminating the worst are two sides of the same coin. An adaptation may help you avoid death by predation, thus the effect on the population is eliminating the worst among you, and it can help you successfully compete for limited resources to maintain your health and strength through the entirety of your reproductive years, allowing you to produce maximal numbers of offspring (which has the population effect of selecting the best)

          If you look at the evolutionary tree of falcons, for example (shown here: http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/2010/...edtreefig2.jpg) , you see as you progress toward the modern forms of top predatory falcons some amazing adaptations that resulted in the keenest eyesight in nature. Higher densities of rods and cones, more retinal ganglion cells, even two fovea rather than the one that we have, to process twice as much visual information, 3 sets of specialized eyelids, it goes and on. Their visual system is highly complex and greatly refined over their evolutionary neighbors such as kites and vultures.

          Over countless millions of generations of hawks and their ancestors, did each of these gradually accumulated changes help them avoid prey better, thus eliminating the worst? Yes. Did they allow them to become better hunters and establish new niches (selecting the best). Yes.

          I'm hard-pressed to think of adaptations that do not have some of each.
          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


          • #20
            Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

            Originally posted by Merz View Post

            I think the "you weren't there" argument is really just child-level debating. Not being there doesn't prove or disprove anything, unless the young earth people were there themselves.
            That was very odd indeed. Plus he kept mentioning the outstanding "creation research" that was going on, sort of begging the question as to why they were directing efforts toward things that certainly happened "while we were not there" and thus must be beyond all comprehension.

            And it also begs the question as to whether he believes things like, oh, whether Abe Lincoln existed, whether there was a civilization of ancient Greeks, whether there have been ice ages, whether supercontinents have split and drifted apart, etc. I surmise that he accepts most of these things as facts (though they are not in the Bible!) even though he wasn't there to see them happen, which seems to be a mysterious barrier to understanding. At least when it is convenient!
            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-06-2014, 04:17 PM.
            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


            • #21
              Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

              Please do not lump the Young Earth crowd in with Christians who do not believe as they do. (I don't know but I suspect the YE numbers are a very small part of Christianity).
              For a different slant
              http://philvischer.com/random-though...e-post-mortem/
              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                BTW...regress all creatures back to their original form and what do you have? And from where came that?
                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                  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


                  • #24
                    Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                    Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                    BTW...regress all creatures back to their original form and what do you have? And from where came that?
                    we don't know for sure!

                    Lots of people (on my facebook feed anyway) made fun of Bill Nye for saying "We just don't know the answer to that yet!" to a couple of questions, but as you know, geezer, it is an awfully poor scientist who claims to know more than what is taught by the data for the experiments designed so far to answer the question! We say "I don't know" all of the time, and it is what makes us design new experiments. We don't fill in the gaps based on a favorite book or expectation.

                    Certainly one can make intelligent guesses based on what you do know to be true, as long as you don't pass those speculations off as the gospel truth (no pun intended, well sorta).

                    Evolution per se is really only concerned with how life diversified from the first organism, but it is still a worthwhile question to as "what was first?"

                    Here's what Andy Knoll of Harvard said on PBS's Nova awhile back:

                    What do you think was the first form of life?


                    It's pretty clear that all the organisms living today, even the simplest ones, are removed from some initial life form by four billion years or so, so one has to imagine that the first forms of life would have been much, much simpler than anything that we see around us. But they must have had that fundamental property of being able to grow and reproduce and be subject to Darwinian evolution.


                    So it might be that the earliest things that actually fit that definition were little strands of nucleic acids. Not DNA yet—that's a more sophisticated molecule—but something that could catalyze some chemical reactions, something that had the blueprint for its own reproduction.


                    Would it be something we would recognize under a microscope as living, or would it be totally different?


                    That's a good question. I can imagine that there was a time before there was life on Earth, and then clearly there was a time X-hundred thousand years or a million years later when there were things that we would all recognize as biological. But there's no question that we must have gone through some intermediate stage where, had you been there watching them, you might have placed your bets either way.


                    So I can imagine that on a primordial Earth you would have replicating molecules—not particularly lifelike in our definition, but they're really getting the machinery going. Then some of them start interacting together and pretty soon you have something a little more lifelike, and then it incorporates maybe another piece of nucleic acid from somewhere else, and by the accumulation of these disparate strands of information and activity, something that you and I would look at and agree "that's biological" would have emerged.


                    In a nutshell, what is the process? How does life form?


                    The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet...
                    there's more here:
                    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evoluti...ife-begin.html

                    So most likely nothing existing right now really corresponds to that first life, IMO, other than it likely had something similar to RNA.

                    Another possibility might be prions (proteins able to cause their own replication, and people debate whether they should be called life).

                    Since all of what we call life is nucleic acid-based, though, IMO the more likely ancestor is something more like some of the more simple viruses (though likely with RNA, before DNA evolved, or even with some type of pre-RNA). Viruses have snippets of DNA, though they have a few other things too like a protective protein coat an lipid deposits, which likely evolved over time. Retroviruses are RNA-based, come to think of it though, so a much more primitive form of any retrovirus I know about could have been one of Earth's first bone fide residents.
                    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-06-2014, 05:29 PM.
                    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


                    • #25
                      Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      In most scenarios selecting the best or eliminating the worst are two sides of the same coin. An adaptation may help you avoid death by predation, thus the effect on the population is eliminating the worst among you, and it can help you successfully compete for limited resources to maintain your health and strength through the entirety of your reproductive years, allowing you to produce maximal numbers of offspring (which has the population effect of selecting the best)

                      If you look at the evolutionary tree of falcons, for example (shown here: http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/2010/...edtreefig2.jpg) , you see as you progress toward the modern forms of top predatory falcons some amazing adaptations that resulted in the keenest eyesight in nature. Higher densities of rods and cones, more retinal ganglion cells, even two fovea rather than the one that we have, to process twice as much visual information, 3 sets of specialized eyelids, it goes and on. Their visual system is highly complex and greatly refined over their evolutionary neighbors such as kites and vultures.

                      Over countless millions of generations of hawks and their ancestors, did each of these gradually accumulated changes help them avoid prey better, thus eliminating the worst? Yes. Did they allow them to become better hunters and establish new niches (selecting the best). Yes.

                      I'm hard-pressed to think of adaptations that do not have some of each.
                      So aren't we saying the same thing, but just making different conclusions, then? You have a species, they randomly get X or Y sets of traits within the species, and while X can't cut it in a given environment, Y can, or in another scenario both can, but Y is better suited to prosper than X because it sees its prey better or whatever. In other words, you start with N number of different types of versions of the same species, and their environment slowly weeds them out until only the ones best suited for it remain, while factoring in how hospitable the environment already is (which, if ideal enough, could allow for weaker editions of the same animal to stay alive too because there's plenty of food, not many predators, etc.). But ultimately it boils down to random variations, with ultimately some being better suited to stick around than others, and what eventually happens is the less-suited ones die out, hence the worst go away.

                      I mean are you suggesting there's some mechanism that notes the needs of the animal and then re-adjusts the DNA of the species so that the next generation is slightly more appropriate to the environment its parents lived in?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                        we don't know for sure!
                        If you don't know, then how is it possible to argue that it cannot be some sort of creationism?
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                          In a nutshell, what is the process? How does life form?

                          The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet...
                          Isn't this really the correct answer ??

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                            Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                            I'd be highly skeptical of those poll numbers. Darwinists/atheists are notorious for loading polls in their favor. I'd love to see a list of voter I.P. addresses.

                            I remember a time when every single book on Amazon.com which challenged the Darwinist position was rated 1-2 stars, with most of the votes coming from people who not only didn't read said book, but very likely couldn't read it due to illiteracy. Amazing took care of that, thankfully.



                            I side with evidence, not popular opinion, and the evidence says the blind watchmaker view of evolution is wrong. Random mutation is destructive, not creative, and natural selection is a culling process, not a designer mimic. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.
                            Just wondering why you feel the need to turn these kind of possibly productive threads into you trying to use fanciful logic to destroy others beliefs while promoting your own agenda?

                            You have some very legitimate things to say, that's for sure, but the way you do it isn't going to sway anyone because you just make yourself look like a

                            Probably best not to go that far

                            who wants to put down everyone else's position on everything.Your OPINION is not the only one, and should not be treated as such.
                            #LanceEffect

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                              (responding to Hicks)

                              on the last point, no.

                              I think we only differ in that yes, the changes might help you cut it better in your environment, but the changes might also help you prosper in an entirely new, yet nearby, niche. A place where your predecessors couldn't have coped at all, if you go back far enough (and this is gradual).

                              Like land mammals finding themselves in a semiaquatic environment and (over eons) evolving into the whales of today. Whales are not better adapted to live on land than their (probably) feral pig-like terrestrial ancestor (maybe Andrewsarchus mongoliensis?), so they in no way became more fit for (at least what was once) the niche that their ancestors found themselves in. They ARE instead adapted to live in an entirely different niche altogether. So one species evolved in different directions for different purposes to thrive in different nearby niches. Seems like a blend of both "this helps me to not go extinct here" and "this helps me get over there and do something TOTALLY different"
                              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


                              • #30
                                Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                                Originally posted by khaos01207 View Post
                                Just wondering why you feel the need to turn these kind of possibly productive threads into you trying to use fanciful logic to destroy others beliefs while promoting your own agenda?

                                You have some very legitimate things to say, that's for sure, but the way you do it isn't going to sway anyone because you just make yourself look like a gigantic dick who wants to put down everyone else's position on everything.Your OPINION is not the only one, and should not be treated as such.
                                Yes. This.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X