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

Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this) :)

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

  • #61
    Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

    Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
    You're not blind or crazy Vnzla81. My brother and his friends make you look like a Danny Fanboy. I respect their opinions because they all played organized ball from middle school through college. You're in the minority here, but around the country I think you'll find quite a few people who agree with you that Danny's a good player, but a player with a lot of holes in his game.

    People can't seem to understand that we actually like Danny and think we can win with him, but we're gonna need Paul to learn to dribble and become a super star or we're gonna need to get a star PG.
    I don't think anybody is misunderstanding that. Obviously Danny has a whole lot of holes in his game, what hurts Vnzla's argument against Danny is when he is constantly trying to swap him straight up for guys who have just as many holes if not more.


    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

      I'm going to muddy the waters alittle with this post. I asked a question yesterday. I asked what season Granger was an Allstar. Since I got no response, I looked up Granger's career stats. It looks like his best year at 25 ppg was the 08-09 season, so I'm guessing that was his Allstar season. What I then noticed was every year since his ppg has dropped to 18 ppg this season. Granger's best season FG% was his rookie year at 46%. Since his Allstar season, his FG% has declined as well to 39% this season. You can make whatever you want out of these stats. Something or nothing.

      The reason I wanted to know was b/c it seems Hibbert's game has declined since it was announced he was going to be an Allstar, JMO. I wanted to see if there was some correlation to being an Allstar, and how they played afterwards. I would hope there isn't a let down in a Pacers players game after being an Allstar. It probably means nothing, but I was just interested.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

        Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
        You're not blind or crazy Vnzla81. My brother and his friends make you look like a Danny Fanboy. I respect their opinions because they all played organized ball from middle school through college. You're in the minority here, but around the country I think you'll find quite a few people who agree with you that Danny's a good player, but a player with a lot of holes in his game.

        People can't seem to understand that we actually like Danny and think we can win with him, but we're gonna need Paul to learn to dribble and become a super star or we're gonna need to get a star PG.
        You see I don't think anyone is in the minority with this opinion. I'm one of Danny's biggest defenders here and I will be the first to tell you that he has a lot of holes in his game.

        I will tell you he is not an elite player. There are times he plays like an elite player and there are times he plays like a 10th man but more often than not he plays on the upper side of a really good player.

        Vnzla & I both see the same thing we just come at it from different points of view. He sees everybody jumping on hand grenades to protect Danny from criticism & I see everybody rushing to throw hand grenades for unjust criticism.

        If my position has not been clear before let me make it so now.

        Danny Granger is NOT in the caliber of Durrant, Rose, James, Bryant, etc.

        Danny Granger is in the caliber of Iggy, Johnson, Deng, Gay, etc.

        At any point in time you could take the latter mentioned 4 players & add Danny and make an argument that at any given time one of them is better than the other but none of them is head and shoulders above the other.

        Danny is the best player on our team, a lot of people don't think he's good enough (which I'm about to address in my next post) so therefor every time he has a 6-20 game he is scrutinzed (which he deserves to be) but when he has a game like last night or like his game vs. the Wolves it is seen as an aberation.


        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          One good game and we crown him as the savior? and yes Kravitz 6 and 20 is more likely to happen.

          People here think I hate Danny, I don't, I just hate the way people overrated the crap out him, he is a good player in the mold of Deng, Iguadola, etc but he is best served as the 3rd best player in a championship team.
          This part of the argument is the one I have the most trouble with. Not that I disagree with the thought but the fact that people (not just you) make this statement as though this is Danny Grangers fault.

          He is our best player, why is it his fault that the Pacers have never been able to either trade for or draft a player that is better than him?

          In a couple of years I believe that George will surpass him and because of his perimeter defense I think he might be able to be better than Danny ever was (although I don't beleive he will score what Danny did during his 26ppg season but even I will admit that was inflated due to Satan's offense).

          I will always understand when someone questions his defensive intensity during a game, I will understand when they say something about shot selection, I will understand when they say he is not a good ball handler or a below average passer.

          But I will never understand the argument that it is somehow Danny Grangers fault that he is the best player on a team.
          Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 02-19-2012, 12:45 AM.


          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

            Kravitz misses the point. Yes, Granger is clutch. One of the most clutch players in this league. Yes, he's a good player.

            But his fault is not that he doesn't score a million points every night. His fault is that he's too lazy, too often, on defense, and takes dumb shots outside of crunch time.

            Look, I like Granger. Really. Contrary to my gripes, he's the perfect team player, he's clutch, he wins, he gets this team. But Kravitz acts like the only reason people get upset is because he's not Kobe. No. The reason people get upset is because he's shown he can be one of the top defenders at his position in the entire NBA, and then he only sporadically plays up to that level, when theoretically having this added talent around him should allow him to concentrate MORE on defense.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

              Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
              Kravitz misses the point. Yes, Granger is clutch. One of the most clutch players in this league. Yes, he's a good player.

              But his fault is not that he doesn't score a million points every night. His fault is that he's too lazy, too often, on defense, and takes dumb shots outside of crunch time.

              Look, I like Granger. Really. Contrary to my gripes, he's the perfect team player, he's clutch, he wins, he gets this team. But Kravitz acts like the only reason people get upset is because he's not Kobe. No. The reason people get upset is because he's shown he can be one of the top defenders at his position in the entire NBA, and then he only sporadically plays up to that level, when theoretically having this added talent around him should allow him to concentrate MORE on defense.
              In other words your mad that he aint Lebron James. Cause thats what you are asking for.
              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                Is it because I feel sensitive or is it because I get tired of reading the same thing over and over?

                I'm just saying to continually champion to trade Granger while he is playing well offensively for a guy like Monta who is just as bad if not worse defensively AND smaller doesn't make much sense to me.
                Danny hasn't been playing well offensively this year.

                People here sometimes are too sensitive to see the two sides of the deal, I explained this to Peck the other time, some people say that I think that Danny is crap because I want to trade him straight up for a guy who I think is better at everything but shooting threes, why would I think that GS would take that deal if I think that Danny has no value? I don't get it.

                Like I said before to me Monta is an step below guys like Rose and Westbrook, if you look at his numbers and production he is right there with them, right now he is rated as the 3rd best SG in the league after Dwade and Kobe.

                It could be perfect if we could send a bag of cheetos to GS for Monta but I know that's not going to happen, we have to send some value to get some value back and to me the only person that has that big of a value and makes sense for GS is Danny, I don't think PG or anybody else gets a deal done with GS(not trading Roy), they already have a rookie who they think is going to be good. Again is there is a way to get Monta without having to move Danny,PG or Hibbert I'm all for it.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                  Originally posted by Reginald View Post
                  This was a great, not good, article about Granger. Way to go, Kravvy! If we're going to be critical of players, be critical of the ones who deserve it:

                  Collison -- Streaky. A defensive liability. AJ Price played pretty much the entire 4th quarter vs. New Jersey because we couldn't risk DC being on the floor. He's had two games in which he's posted zero assists. Has played his way this season into well-deserved trade bait.

                  Hansbrough -- By any reasonable measurement, Psycho T has regressed since last season. "Scrappy" can only get you so far in this league. Misses more shots than he makes, flails and flops down the lane like a mean drunk, and the moment he puts the ball on the floor everyone in the arena just waits for the turnover.

                  Jones -- From his Duke pedigree to his cheap fouls, I hate almost everything about him.

                  Hibbert -- I realize this violates some unspoken commandment that "Thou shalt not speak ill of 55," but let's be honest for once. Have you ever seen a big man with that size and skillset who has no finishing move at the rim? If Roy is going up with a shot under the basket and is matched up against a defender with any physicality, that's a missed shot more than half the time. Yes, Roy has soft hands, a nice floater, and a sweet hook shot (when he's in rhythm), but a guy that big and that good needs to be dunking balls through defenders' faces. And what is up with his conditioning? Vogel had to pull him for most of the 4th vs. NJ because he looked like he was about to collapse from exhaustion. As Michael Grady says, "Roy isn't grabbing his knees during timeouts, he's grabbing his ankles."
                  You had me until the Hibbert section.

                  1. There was this skinny dude named Ferdinand (but preferred to go by his middle name, Lewis, Lew for short) that went to school out west someplace who ended up hanging around the league for 20 or so years who tended to shoot hook shots instead of dunking. He ended up setting a few records, including being the all time leading scorer in the league without dunking too many balls through defenders faces.

                  2. Roy did extensive conditioning and bulking up work which has been well publicized. Unfortunately, muscle tissue consumes oxygen at a high rate, which probably becomes difficult for Roy to maintain as an asthma sufferer.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post

                    Danny is the best player on our team, a lot of people don't think he's good enough (which I'm about to address in my next post) so therefor every time he has a 6-20 game he is scrutinzed (which he deserves to be) but when he has a game like last night or like his game vs. the Wolves it is seen as an aberation.
                    People just aren't seeing the long term though.

                    In a few years, I think PG will be the best player on our team. Danny will be one heck of a "second best" player.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      This part of the argument is the one I have the most trouble with. Not that I disagree with the thought but the fact that people (not just you) make this statement as though this is Danny Grangers fault.

                      He is our best player, why is it his fault that the Pacers have never been able to either trade for or draft a player that is better than him?

                      In a couple of years I believe that George will surpass him and because of his perimeter defense I think he might be able to be better than Danny ever was (although I don't beleive he will score what Danny did during his 26ppg season but even I will admit that was inflated due to Satan's offense).

                      I will always understand when someone questions his defensive intensity during a game, I will understand when they say something about shot selection, I will understand when they say he is not a good ball handler or a below average passer.

                      But I will never understand the argument that it is somehow Danny Grangers fault that he is the best player on a team.
                      The been the "3rd best player on a championship team" should not offend anybody, I just made that comment because sometimes I get the feeling that some people think we have the "next coming" in our hands, you know like somebody thinking that we have the next Reggie or something like that
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                        In other words your mad that he aint Lebron James. Cause thats what you are asking for.
                        And the award for Overreaction of the Year goes to...

                        Seriously no. I'm mad Danny doesn't give a better effort on defense. That's it. No one is saying he has to average 18 PPG and play amazing defense on top of it. We're saying he can play amazing defense, he's shown he can play amazing defense, and he needs to concentrate on playing amazing defense, because he doesn't have to spend it all on the other end of the court.

                        Basically Danny is the anti-Paul George from Vogel's quote in that article. Vogel says Paul spends it all on defense. Danny spends it all on offense. Danny just needs to be more balanced.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          Was Danny and the team playing better D or they were playing teams that were not firing in all the cylinders? Remember when I kept saying to wait few more games before crowning him DPOY? To me Danny has been playing the same D all year long, the only difference is that we finally got to play some real teams.
                          The discussion took place about 10-15 games into the season. So now you're position is that Danny really wasn't playing that good of defense, just 10-15 teams full of players who Danny guarded all had off nights for those numbers to arise?



                          Like I said, no substance. You throw crap out just to see if it sticks to the wall.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                            In other words your mad that he aint Lebron James. Cause thats what you are asking for.
                            You can repeat your line about how "the biggest problem with Danny Granger is that he isn't Lebron James" as many times as you want, which has been plenty already, but it's just as silly and inaccurate now as it was the first time.
                            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                            -Lance Stephenson

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                              Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                              Hmmm...
                              I think that little bobby just can't write a column without getting in a cheap shot. I'll need to see some better confirmation before I will believe it. Wish we had reporting in Indianapolis that I could believe.
                              Go Pacers!

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                                Originally posted by BobbyMac View Post
                                I think that little bobby just can't write a column without getting in a cheap shot. I'll need to see some better confirmation before I will believe it. Wish we had reporting in Indianapolis that I could believe.
                                Those wild and crazy Indianapolis Star reporters. Always fabricating stories without any truth to them.
                                Last edited by BRushWithDeath; 02-17-2012, 02:50 PM.
                                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                                -Lance Stephenson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X