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

Some Love for the Three

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

  • #46
    Re: Some Love for the Three

    And you're defense of not playing AJ was because "we don't know" and that he wasn't going to be a difference maker?

    Logic tells me if the coaching staff says he routinely out performs his competition in practice, and we see that when given time he out performs them during games, he should be the starter. Not the third string. Earl isn't a difference maker either, but he gets the starting nod, why? Doesn't practice as well, doesn't play as well, but is the starter. Makes perfect logical sense.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Some Love for the Three

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Can I ask what basis you're evaluating Roy and calling him "average?" The way you're using it seems like it's a slap in the face to Roy.

      If you compare Roy's numbers versuses his rookie year, they went up across the board. Usually when a player gets limited minutes, and has a pretty good shooting percentage, you really wouldn't expect the shooting percentage to go higher with more minutes, yet that's the case for Roy.

      He increased the volume of shots he took by 80% and his shooting percentage went up from 47.1% to 49.5%.

      I think he was just "average" because of the way he was used, not due to his play. I'm not saying that he's anywhere near being the best, but he did pretty damn well while bascially being used as a passer and a screener.

      Compared to the rest of the NBA, he was average last season. Did he get any all-NBA votes

      I hardly think what I am suggesting here is a slap at Roy. An average NBA center is pretty good.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Some Love for the Three

        That has nothing to do with his skill set, but everything to do with how he's being used IMHO.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Some Love for the Three

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          And you're defense of not playing AJ was because "we don't know" and that he wasn't going to be a difference maker?

          Logic tells me if the coaching staff says he routinely out performs his competition in practice, and we see that when given time he out performs them during games, he should be the starter. Not the third string. Earl isn't a difference maker either, but he gets the starting nod, why? Doesn't practice as well, doesn't play as well, but is the starter. Makes perfect logical sense.
          I watched every game and I thought Earl played better than AJ did last season. Earl was the better player. Defensively he was much better, knowing the NBA game he was much better, veteran leadership he was much better, just knowing how to play the NBA game he was much better. In two years from now i would expect and hope that Price is better, but not last season

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Some Love for the Three

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            That has nothing to do with his skill set, but everything to do with how he's being used IMHO.
            We disagree. At some point everything cannot be blamed Jim O'Brien. I mean if Roy makes the allstar in two years will some still blame Jim for him not making it sooner, or for holding him back for as long as he did.
            Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-26-2010, 04:20 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Some Love for the Three

              Again, I think Earl was better in the areas that experience makes you better, not ability. We're talking about ability here right?

              I've never had the positive view on Earl like you've had for the past couple of years. He's nothing special phsyically. He's a smart player, and he's going to minimalize mistakes, but in the end that's playing not to lose instead of to win. What he brings to the table might win you a few (one or two) extra games, if any.

              On head to head matchups with other starting PGs, he's more often times on the losing side. When you have a player that has better phsyical tools, and isn't a slouch with decision making, you should fully exercise that option. Not give him a shot, and when he exceeds expectations, put him back on the bench.

              This isn't about AJ vs. Earl. This is about how they're being used by JOb.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Some Love for the Three

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                We disagree. At some point everything cannot be blamed Jim O'Brien. I mean if Roy makes the allstar in two years will some still blame Jim for him not making it sooner, or for holding him back for as long as he did.
                You're right. Which is why I don't blame him for Rush not being more aggressive.

                But a center isn't a guard, nor is he a 3. He gets the ball when others decide to give it to him. As a guard, I was fully aware that they are at the mercy of me. I can make a pass around the perimeter a lot easier than I can feed it into the post. You have to actively make a post player part of the gameplan, and I don't feel like he was really ever a focus. A game or two here, but he was never established the way a post player needs.

                When Danny wants the ball, he can go out to the 3pt line, body up his defender, and stick his arm out to call for the ball. The passer can throw the ball two feet away from his target, and Danny can get the ball. Easy pass. I can make that pass. Roy doesn't have that option.


                I'm not saying that the players were purposely ignoring him. I'm saying they executed the gameplan, and Roy wasn't it.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Some Love for the Three

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  . We're talking about ability here right?
                  Here is my main point, My point is our offensive talent last season was really, really bad. We were extremely easy to defend and I cannot think of an offensive system that would have made our players good offensively. We had Danny and that was it. And danny is not someone who makes scoring easier for less talented players. We had no players teams had to double ever - Pacers were in the bottom 5 for sure in offensive talent

                  I was talking about last season specifically, not future ability or future talent.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Some Love for the Three

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    I watched every game and I thought Earl played better than AJ did last season. Earl was the better player. Defensively he was much better, knowing the NBA game he was much better, veteran leadership he was much better, just knowing how to play the NBA game he was much better. In two years from now i would expect and hope that Price is better, but not last season
                    AJ was arguably better in the first month he played. In March Earl was playing well, so AJ really didn't get the minutes (between 8-12 minutes instead of between 15-20 like January) so it's not really fair to compare that. But even for the sake of argument, I'll give you that Earl was a better PG in March. What's also not debatable, was that the Pacers were a better team when AJ was getting minutes, as opposed to when he was not. Whether that was because of AJ or because TJ wasn't there, we don't know (although AJ was quite often instrumental in wins...and a reason the team was competitive in close losses) but you can't debate it. Record with AJ as opposed to without is a ridiculous difference.

                    What wasn't arguable was that AJ was/is the more talanted PG and that the Pacers weren't makeing the playoffs and at some point, a team has to do whats best for the future.

                    And logic would tell us that Earl wasn't going to be in a Pacers uniform the next season, therefore we should see what AJ can do as a starter.

                    Playing Earl more than AJ wasn't nearly as bad of a move as taking AJ out of the lineup in favor of TJ, though.

                    I think the offensive system was a problem, but a part of that was because of the PGs we had. There was a reason AJ and Earl looked better than TJ in it. This system, IMO, gives a lot of discretion to the PG. There doesn't seem to be structure, but rather "do what you want." Better decision makers are going to look better. Especially when we add in the idea that JOB wants quick "first look" shots. How often is the ball really going to go into the post when AJ and Earl know that coach wants a quick shot, and he prefers threes. Wouldn't passing it to Troy be the option they are both going to chose? Now, it looks better than TJ's *dribble dribble dribble turnover* but still, quick shots..regardless of whether or not they are bad, are going to be thrown up..and if they are quick..they aren't going to be Roy's shots. Which is a problem, and shows a strategy error on JOB's part.

                    I think that players need more of a structure than JOB believes in. And that perhaps thats why he prefers playing vets..because younger players tend to need more structure. And I think the lack of structure REALLY hurts players like Rush and TJ.
                    Last edited by Sookie; 08-26-2010, 04:46 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Some Love for the Three

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      You're right. Which is why I don't blame him for Rush not being more aggressive.

                      But a center isn't a guard, nor is he a 3. He gets the ball when others decide to give it to him. As a guard, I was fully aware that they are at the mercy of me. I can make a pass around the perimeter a lot easier than I can feed it into the post. You have to actively make a post player part of the gameplan, and I don't feel like he was really ever a focus. A game or two here, but he was never established the way a post player needs.

                      When Danny wants the ball, he can go out to the 3pt line, body up his defender, and stick his arm out to call for the ball. The passer can throw the ball two feet away from his target, and Danny can get the ball. Easy pass. I can make that pass. Roy doesn't have that option.


                      I'm not saying that the players were purposely ignoring him. I'm saying they executed the gameplan, and Roy wasn't it.
                      Good players get open when they want to, Roy hasn't reached that level yet.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Some Love for the Three

                        Good thread.

                        I think it has been reached a plateau in regards to the amount of 3pt shots taken (1st graph - 3PA as % of FGA - it has stagnated in the last 3 seasons). For the first time in years, last season the league 3pt% didn't raise. This suggests teams are getting better defending the 3 point shot, which means the tendency to take more of those shots stopped. It's going to be interesting to see for how long this equilibrium point wil be sustained.

                        Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                        Also, the three O'Brien years have seen the team with the three worst league defensive rankings of the last 11, while seeing the three highest league pace rankings of those same years. There may not be a 100% causal relationship, but those factors are related, and they are also related to franchise success within the league. Pace rating tends to be inversely proportional to effective defense as well as playoff success from what I found, also.




                        If that correlation exists (pace rating to effective defense), it's a very tenuous one.

                        ----------

                        Personally, I don't see many differences between the Pacers under Jim O'Brien and Orlando under Stan Van Gundy in terms of identity and overall philosophy. The differences that exist are more a product of the talent gap between rosters - basically Howard being a better player than Hibbert (not only in the post but as the screener/rolling man) and Orlando having a very good pick'n'roll game, especially with Jameer Nelson - which ignites a very large part of their offense.

                        -----------

                        Roy Hibbert ended the season with a 22.2 USG% - the 2nd in the Pacers roster for every player with more than 1000 minutes played in the season, behind only Danny Granger. That's decent for a player with his current ability, even if it could be a little higher - but Hibbert's TS% is an unspectacular 53% + a relatively high 14% turnover rate.
                        Last edited by cordobes; 08-26-2010, 06:58 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Some Love for the Three

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

                          But those of you who complain about what the Pacers tried to do, what else would have worked better. What system would have matched better with the talent?
                          .
                          Honestly I think its sort of silly to think that no coach in the NBA could have done a better job than JOB with this team.

                          As much as I hate to admit it I think Larry Brown could have done a better job than JOB with our starting five.

                          Its easy to be critical but JOB just doesn't inspire our players to play hard. Do I blame the players or him? Looking at our players and their hard work ethic,,,, I blame him. I think the players are tired of playing "his kind of ball".
                          Last edited by Gamble1; 08-26-2010, 07:44 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Some Love for the Three

                            Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                            Personally, I don't see many differences between the Pacers under Jim O'Brien and Orlando under Stan Van Gundy in terms of identity and overall philosophy. The differences that exist are more a product of the talent gap between rosters - basically Howard being a better player than Hibbert (not only in the post but as the screener/rolling man) and Orlando having a very good pick'n'roll game, especially with Jameer Nelson - which ignites a very large part of their offense.

                            -----------

                            Roy Hibbert ended the season with a 22.2 USG% - the 2nd in the Pacers roster for every player with more than 1000 minutes played in the season, behind only Danny Granger. That's decent for a player with his current ability, even if it could be a little higher - but Hibbert's TS% is an unspectacular 53% + a relatively high 14% turnover rate.
                            http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...orlando-magic/

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Some Love for the Three

                              That's a great post, very worth reading.

                              Orlando runs a lot more PnRs. They got almost 1,500 shots out of PnR action, which accounted for about 22% of their total. The Pacers, on the other hand, only got about 800 or 12%.
                              Plus, Orlando creates large amount of shots for their spot-up jump-shooters off pick'n'rolls, kicking out the ball to the man of the helper, while the Pacers rely more on getting shots off swing passes.

                              The talent of the players makes a very profound impact on how teams end up creating their shots and especially on how effective they are. Orlando's transition 3s are much better than the Pacers mostly due to how fast Howard runs the floor, frequently forcing a perimeter defender to drop down with him. There's an article from Lakers' assistant coach Jim Cleamons in a FIBA Assist Magazine where he says that stopping those transition jump-shots was their first priority when game-planning to face Orlando in the finals 2 years ago.

                              The question of “how much” is a little fuzzier (and I’ll give that more attention in future project). The short answer is that O’Brien is almost certainly not using Hibbert as much as he should, but I don’t think that it’s as drastic as some might think. When he’s on the floor, he is not being ignored. His usage rate is pretty solid, and he’s getting over 11 post touches per 48 minutes, which is comparable to Al Jefferson and Tim Duncan, who get between 12 & 13 per 48.
                              Have you expanded on this already? Sounds like an intriguing topic.
                              Last edited by cordobes; 08-26-2010, 10:12 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Some Love for the Three

                                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                                Honestly I think its sort of silly to think that no coach in the NBA could have done a better job than JOB with this team.

                                As much as I hate to admit it I think Larry Brown could have done a better job than JOB with our starting five.

                                Its easy to be critical but JOB just doesn't inspire our players to play hard. Do I blame the players or him? Looking at our players and their hard work ethic,,,, I blame him. I think the players are tired of playing "his kind of ball".

                                1) I was specifically just talking about the offensive production - which is what this thread is about. Certainly Larry Brown could have gotten this team to play much better team defense and individual defense, so sure he could have gotten more wins out of this team, but that wasn't even close to the point I was making. I was only talking about an offensive system

                                2) And I was asking an honest question. I wanted to know if someone could tell me a different offensive system which would work better with last years team than the one Jim ran. No one has attempted to answer that question
                                Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-26-2010, 10:05 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X