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

Vnzla81

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

  • Re: Vnzla81

    Originally posted by travmil View Post
    And I notice that they wised up and banned him too. He made it here longer than he did there. That should tell some folks that the admins here are beyond patient when he can't make it at two differnet forums. It's well known that I think they were too patient in his case but whatever. I don't get a vote.
    I think it was his second stint there lol. He was around as "OlBlu" a year ago or so.

    The picture was probably a dead giveaway.......

    Comment


    • Re: Vnzla81

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      I think it was his second stint there lol. He was around as "OlBlu" a year ago or so.

      The picture was probably a dead giveaway.......
      lol He somehow got on my Twitter and it blowing it up with dozens of messages.

      <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" lang="en"><p>Watch &quot;Artificial Fruit Soda Creates Cancer Causing By-Product...and Looks Like ****&quot; on YouTube - <a href="http://t.co/IJySBLVzDO">http://t.co/IJySBLVzDO</a></p>&mdash; olblueyez (@BTandKM) <a href="https://twitter.com/BTandKM/statuses/422815506786430976">January 13, 2014</a></blockquote>
      <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
      Last edited by McKeyFan; 01-13-2014, 03:57 PM.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • Re: Vnzla81

        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
        lol He somehow got on my Twitter and it blowing it up with dozens of messages.

        <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" lang="en"><p>Watch "Artificial Fruit Soda Creates Cancer Causing By-Product...and Looks Like ****" on YouTube - <a href="http://t.co/IJySBLVzDO">http://t.co/IJySBLVzDO</a></p>— olblueyez (@BTandKM) <a href="https://twitter.com/BTandKM/statuses/422815506786430976">January 13, 2014</a></blockquote>
        <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
        Lol, is that really him?

        Comment


        • Re: Vnzla81

          Doesn't look like him.
          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

          Comment


          • Re: Vnzla81

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            Doesn't look like him.

            I didn't think so either. It looks like he shares an affinity for sunglasses though.

            Comment


            • Re: Vnzla81

              OlBlu is without a doubt one of the weirdest dudes I've ever run into on the internet.


              Comment


              • Re: Vnzla81

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                I recently hit my 10 year mark. Hasn't my tenure kicked in by now? I doubt they'd want to take on the union if they banned me.
                Too late. I already lobbied to make this a right-to-post site.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Vnzla81

                  Originally posted by able View Post
                  @sollozzo: you are wrong in so many ways that for you to say "you don't understand" mean that you're telling me one of two things, either you truly don't understand/are to blind to see and to that I can only express pitty or you are an agent for Vnzla and he posts through you, which I can understand, but not appreciate.

                  What we tried to achieve with this banning, like we did with all the non-spam bannings around here, is to improve or restore the community feeling and posting with respect for what this board is known for throughout the world. Shwoing respect is not easy, being polite even harder, but still it is nice if we all try to be civilized in our postings, and this make this a place where you can come daily to read up on and discuss one of your favorite topics which in actual fact should you do this at home or in the local, might earn you a bad rep for never having anything else to talk about.

                  play nice

                  I have nothing else to say about it. I've expressed every feeling I have on the issue, and at this point I would only be fanning the flames. While I disagree with the banning, I do appreciate that multiple administrators gave me long honest replies while also allowing 5+ pages of open discussion on the issue.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Vnzla81

                    I agree 100% with count. I stayed out of the Pacer forum for the past while it was unreadable. Every thread turned into exactly what he stated in his post. I haven't read post of the Pacer board for the past while. It is frustrating it had to end this way, but it is for the better. I know I will start reading the Pacer threads again.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vnzla81

                      Regardless of where one stands, I have to think one thing many (all?) can agree on is how awesome it is that this thread be allowed to go 5+ pages. Other places it may have been shut down after one post, but I appreciate TPTB taking time to explain their rationale.

                      Now come on Pacers! I am so ready for the playoffs to start, and we still have half a season left to play.

                      GO PACERS!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vnzla81

                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        I agree. I always appreciated these posts.

                        Too bad that that he made a lot more of those other posts, though
                        This is disingenuous. (In my opinion) you were one of the main people who provoked vnzla and advocated for his banning. It's not a surprise that you two didn't get along--vnzla was almost as irrationally negative as you are irrationally positive, but the spare me the crocodile tears.

                        I've been around for a while, reading well before I signed up, and (in my opinion) Hicks has gotten a lot more rational and tolerant as a mod over the years, but I think it was a bad move to ban vnzla and I hope it can be reversed. He was a good counter-balance to the sunshine pumpers, had an OK sense of humor, and brought a lot to the board. If people who "couldn't stand him" used the ignore list as much as they talked about it, I don't think we would have had any problems.

                        Message boards where disagreements with the dominant view are discouraged are less interesting. Predictably, hoosierguy will be the next target of the masses, and if/once he gets kicked out, they'll find someone else to gang up on.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vnzla81

                          Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                          This is disingenuous. (In my opinion) you were one of the main people who provoked vnzla and advocated for his banning. It's not a surprise that you two didn't get along--vnzla was almost as irrationally negative as you are irrationally positive, but the spare me the crocodile tears.

                          I've been around for a while, reading well before I signed up, and (in my opinion) Hicks has gotten a lot more rational and tolerant as a mod over the years, but I think it was a bad move to ban vnzla and I hope it can be reversed. He was a good counter-balance to the sunshine pumpers, had an OK sense of humor, and brought a lot to the board. If people who "couldn't stand him" used the ignore list as much as they talked about it, I don't think we would have had any problems.

                          Message boards where disagreements with the dominant view are discouraged are less interesting. Predictably, hoosierguy will be the next target of the masses, and if/once he gets kicked out, they'll find someone else to gang up on.
                          I agree to a point. Look I like Vzl and though he brought some great stuff to the board. He just started to go overboard. I mean he kept saying we need to replace West with a younger guy. While his idea was fine and seemed brilliant it was impossible. Yet he kept saying it was possible and that we just over value West's intangibles. The fact of the matter was we were way over the cap and keeping West was the only option. Unless you consider signing a Carl Landry level player for MLE money an option (which shouldn't of been)


                          He kept saying sign Milsap trade for Varejoe the only problem was they were out of our price range and way out of it. He refused to believe that idea(even though it is a fact) and now takes all his frustration out on West who is living up to his contract with his play. Add in his intangibles he is a bargain. But like Count55 said the issue became he would ram his views down other posters throats and he never even understood or cared/ respected the other person.

                          I have no issue with Vzl like I said he is a solid poster if he didn't have people who take his bait. The board just suffered due to his posting he doesn't deserve all the blame, but he needed to go. I hope what you say isnt right in terms of the next poster being targeted. But chances are a new Vzl will pop up. I do agree I like people with different opinion than mine. Hell when I get hired as a coach I am going to hire people I disagree with. The only difference is they will respect me, and we will get better due to disagreement not just *****.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vnzla81

                            Somewhere V must be smiling. He's gone from the board but we still can't stop talking about him

                            There are a lot of thoughtful posts in here so I'll try to continue in that vein. To understand where I'm coming from, please note that I've defended V in the past when I felt that people were unfairly ganging up on him. I also hold unpopular opinions on occasion and generally think that they could use more of a voice on the forum. At some point though, I realized that it was more about V than about his views, because other darksiders could freely post their opinions without getting criticized nearly as much. I'd point to Bball in particular, who's probably the granddaddy of darksiders on the board.

                            What about V made him such a polarizing figure then? I submit that there are other posters who are more annoying, more likely to blow their own horns, and more likely to employ faulty logic in their arguments. No, I think what differentiated V was that he was *everywhere* - 5th highest post count did someone say? So he both held unpopular opinions, and was extremely loud about it. On the surface, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong about that, but if you think about it, it's somewhat akin to going inside a church and proclaiming loudly that there's no God to the worshippers. I'm not saying it's right for such a person to get lynched in that situation but he sure as hell is going to get some ugly responses. I think this explains in part the reception V habitually got - to a lot of people he's just an attention seeker, a troll, or simply a nut.

                            With that said, I think count55's post (intentionally or not) paints V unfairly as some sort of internet villain who's out to destroy the great community of PD with his trolling. I think count's description of V's effect on the forum is accurate; what he didn't articulate is that same vicious cycle probably worked on V too and hardened him in the process. I think V like a lot of us is just a dude seeking validation for his opinions on an internet forum. The critical responses he gets though, caused him to double down on his positions. When he's asked to be less negative (I assume he's been asked), he channels that into snarkiness instead. By feeling that the whole forum was against him, he turns that into victim syndrome.

                            While I can understand (I think) V's thought processes, the fact is the forum became a very bad place and right or wrong V was at the center of it. I'm not to going to sit here and criticize the mods for either being too lax or too strict either on V or V's critics. I've never moderated before (and have no wish to) but I suspect like with all things related to people management, it's nowhere near an exact science and there's no guarantee that any other path would have led to a better outcome. My view here is that the admins have done a great job for 10+ years; they have certainly earned the benefit of the doubt from us in my opinion.

                            In any case, I think the situation has gotten to the point where either V had to go or a whole bunch of other people had to go. (And apparently there are others who were already staying away.) From a pure numbers' perspective, V was the logical choice to go. From the point of view of being a good internet citizen, well no one is blameless in this affair I think, but V is certainly one of those who are deficient. And most importantly (for me anyway), the authorities who I trust say this is the right move, and I don't think there's any glaring evidence to say otherwise.

                            I think in the future after more time to dwell on his personal development, there might be a scenario where V comes back and becomes a valued forum member. I know I said I won't backseat mod but my impression of Hicks is that he's kind of soft-hearted actually and would probably entertain a genuine appeal, should one come. 'Til then, I think I've said everything I want to say about V.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vnzla81

                              Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                              Message boards where disagreements with the dominant view are discouraged are less interesting. Predictably, hoosierguy will be the next target of the masses, and if/once he gets kicked out, they'll find someone else to gang up on.
                              Sorry, but in my opinion this is disingenuous and a bit biased.

                              If what you said was correct, over the years I have been here (and I think I started reading for a year in 04 or 05 before I joined) TPTB would have banned hundreds, if not more, of the posters who were not "sunshiners". I will agree that people have been given a hard time for not pooping butterflies and roses. But you know what, and I can say this genuinely, I think more times than not it was all in good fun. Even when it was not, I think both sides understood they were rooting for the team, just with two different perspectives.

                              If what you said (and what you predict to happen) was accurate, then we would have a lot more banning's than we have had. With the exception of spammers, I remember Sassan, Earl (Lets please move on), and Jermaniac being perma banned. Recently OlBlu was perma banned, and even though he was a Redskins fan (was he, or just pretneinding to be, I honestly dont know), but he kind of brought that upon himself. So in a 7-10 year time frame 4 posters have been prema-banned, asked to never return. IMO if what you saying is accurate surely that number would be doubled...if not tripled....especially after some of the years we have had in the past (thank you Jim O Brien).

                              I will agree with one thing, though. And I am guilty of it myself. It almost seems rude to use the ignore feature (we are...or at least I have been...groomed from a young age not to ignore people) but in some cases I think it really is the best thing to do to keep the peace.


                              Comment


                              • Re: Vnzla81

                                Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                                This is disingenuous. (In my opinion) you were one of the main people who provoked vnzla and advocated for his banning. It's not a surprise that you two didn't get along--vnzla was almost as irrationally negative as you are irrationally positive, but the spare me the crocodile tears.

                                I've been around for a while, reading well before I signed up, and (in my opinion) Hicks has gotten a lot more rational and tolerant as a mod over the years, but I think it was a bad move to ban vnzla and I hope it can be reversed. He was a good counter-balance to the sunshine pumpers, had an OK sense of humor, and brought a lot to the board. If people who "couldn't stand him" used the ignore list as much as they talked about it, I don't think we would have had any problems.

                                Message boards where disagreements with the dominant view are discouraged are less interesting. Predictably, hoosierguy will be the next target of the masses, and if/once he gets kicked out, they'll find someone else to gang up on.
                                It is absolutely true that I replied to Vnzla more than anyone else and thus contributed to the pattern that count55 mentioned. I said it in my reply to him as well. I was the poster that took his initial bait too often. Most of the time I was the second step in the pattern that count55 mentioned.

                                However, I never advocated Vnzla's ban. I disagreed with the 30 day suspension and I disagree with this ban as well. I have made this position of mine known in both threads that revolved around this issue (the 30 day suspension was discussed in one of Peck's Odd Thoughts) and I have also discussed this with Sollozzo and other posters through PMs. I believe in free speech and as a mod I have never banned anyone either (and I sincerely hope that I will never be forced to do it).

                                You can blame me because I didn't ignore Vnzla and replied to his posts a lot. That is something that you can freely do. But saying that I advocated for his ban is untrue and unjust. I never advocated for this ban and I will never agree with it either. I just recognize that Hicks wasn't the one to blame for it.

                                I believe that disagreement is a vital part of a forum. Disagreements can enhance a discussion and only through disagreement can new views be born. It's exactly like p4e said. Disagreement is vital in life because it is creative.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X