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

All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    No, they did the absolute best offer they could do without paying the luxury tax.
    That's just flat wrong. They had options to cut more salary. Painful options, but options. Just because you wouldn't have taken those options doesn't mean they wouldn't have. We'll never know.

    Comment


    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      I don't believe that is true. After the initial offer was rejected, Lance bolted without giving the Pacers a chance to match or sweeten the pot. Lance said that once CJ Miles was signed "it was a wrap". IOW, he didn't go back to the Pacers to continue negotiations...and Bird even said he was shocked.
      I don't know if that's all true or not. Well, I believe that Lance didn't give the Pacers a chance to match. But I suspect it was because Jordan gave him a take it or leave it offer. Since the Mavs offer had fallen through and the numbers the Pacers were talking "didn't make no sense", I suspect he felt he had to take it. He got the shorter contract at a higher rate than the Pacers had offered in the 5 year deal. He couldn't chance losing that offer because there weren't any other suitors out there.

      I suspect Jordan knew the Pacers would match a reasonable offer. So he insisted that they not get a chance. But that's just speculation on my part, no more valid than any other speculation in this thread.

      Comment


      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

        Originally posted by Strummer View Post
        I don't know if that's all true or not. Well, I believe that Lance didn't give the Pacers a chance to match. But I suspect it was because Jordan gave him a take it or leave it offer. Since the Mavs offer had fallen through and the numbers the Pacers were talking "didn't make no sense", I suspect he felt he had to take it. He got the shorter contract at a higher rate than the Pacers had offered in the 5 year deal. He couldn't chance losing that offer because there weren't any other suitors out there.

        I suspect Jordan knew the Pacers would match a reasonable offer. So he insisted that they not get a chance. But that's just speculation on my part, no more valid than any other speculation in this thread.
        Just to correct my post a bit. I have to say I'm not sure Bird was actually shocked or said he was shocked. I think that was not a quote but an article written in the Star by Kravitz. Bird had only said he was disappointed. I think Kravitz said Bird was stunned. I do think Jordan worked hard to steal Lance...and Lance was rightfully in awe of MJ.

        Comment


        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          I don't believe that is true. After the initial offer was rejected, Lance bolted without giving the Pacers a chance to match or sweeten the pot. Lance said that once CJ Miles was signed "it was a wrap". IOW, he didn't go back to the Pacers to continue negotiations...and Bird even said he was shocked.
          Actually, this is exactly what I'm trying to say. The Pacers made an offer, Lance declined and didn't come back and the Pacers started searching for other options. Once again, it's just business.
          Last edited by Nuntius; 10-25-2014, 10:55 PM.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

            Originally posted by Strummer View Post
            Is this really a fact? Or are you speculating on the amount of the Pacers offer (if there was one). I haven't seen any actual numbers. I wasn't even convinced that a formal 3 year offer was made by the Pacers, only that numbers were mentioned. Numbers that "didn't make no sense" to Lance. What do you know that I don't?
            I was using the numbers that Kuq_e_Zi91 used in the following post:

            Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
            Lance made $3.4 million total in his four years with the Pacers. The difference between Charlotte's offer and Indiana's offer? Roughly $3 million total. I can't imagine that would appear to be a small amount of money to Lance when we're basically talking his entire career earnings up to that point.
            I don't have any more sources than you do but I figured that since Kuq_e_Zi91 used those numbers then he probably knows something that we don't.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

              Originally posted by Strummer View Post
              That's just flat wrong. They had options to cut more salary. Painful options, but options. Just because you wouldn't have taken those options doesn't mean they wouldn't have. We'll never know.
              If you're saying that "we'll never know" then why are some people so hell-bent on blaming this on the FO? If it's true that we'll never know (which is probably true, by the way) then how can either side be sure that someone is to blame at all?

              What I have been saying throughout this thread is that neither side deserves any blame for what happened. It's just the business side of the NBA. Teams approach Free Agents offering them contracts and the Free Agent picks the contract and the team that he prefers. That's how it has always worked.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                I was using the numbers that Kuq_e_Zi91 used in the following post:



                I don't have any more sources than you do but I figured that since Kuq_e_Zi91 used those numbers then he probably knows something that we don't.
                The roughly $3 million difference I spoke of was based on Lance's per year numbers in the Charlotte contract compared to the first three years of the Pacers 5 year contract. I don't want to rehash these arguments again, because they've been repeated and the contracts and caps have been broken down by wintermute, among others, repeatedly; they're in this thread somewhere.
                2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                Comment


                • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                  Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                  The roughly $3 million difference I spoke of was based on Lance's per year numbers in the Charlotte contract compared to the first three years of the Pacers 5 year contract. I don't want to rehash these arguments again, because they've been repeated and the contracts and caps have been broken down by wintermute, among others, repeatedly; they're in this thread somewhere.
                  I'm aware of that but in Candance's latest article Lance said that the Pacers indeed offered him a 3-year deal so I thought that you could be talking about those numbers.

                  Besides, I'm not the one that questioned the validity of the numbers you posted.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                    It's become clear to me that nobody's opinion is going to change no matter what information is revealed.
                    "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                    Comment


                    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      I'm aware of that but in Candance's latest article Lance said that the Pacers indeed offered him a 3-year deal so I thought that you could be talking about those numbers.

                      Besides, I'm not the one that questioned the validity of the numbers you posted.
                      Even if they did, the money per year still must have been less than Charlotte since we were up against the cap (why Lance says "they didn't make no sense" in comparison to Charlotte), which was due in large part to previous commitments (or more like failures to unload) to bench players like Copeland, Mahinmi and Scola. As Strummer posted above, the Pacers contract in the first year was capped at $6.9M if they kept Scola, which they clearly intended to. Giving Lance an exploding offer, then rushing to sign a player of CJ Miles' replaceable quality in the meantime was the "nail in the coffin" so to speak, at least in Lance's eyes. As he said in Candace's article, that pushed the Pacers even further against the cap and limited their flexibility to a near impossible degree where the Pacers would have to do some serious financial gymnastics to fit Lance in the budget.

                      This is from Tim Donahue (count55) from 8pts9sec with the numbers I posted above:

                      The $9 million Charlotte offers for next season is roughly $1.3 million more than Stephenson stood to make in the first year of the reported five-year, $44-million offer. The full deal will pay Lance about $3 million more over its three years than the Pacer offer.

                      We’ve documented the struggle facing Indiana in their efforts to re-sign for most of the past year. As expected, the biggest obstacle to re-signing Lance proved to be the luxury tax and the limited amount of money the Pacers could offer at the start of the contract. The starting salary of Charlotte’s offer is about a half million dollars higher than we identified in June as the practical peak the Pacers could offer as a starting salary.

                      In a league where billions of dollars are paid to players, a few million dollars can feel like a very small amount to interested third parties. However, it remains a lot of money in real terms – and to the situations of both Lance Stephenson and the Pacers.

                      For the player, the $3-million difference over the next three years is almost equal to what he was paid in the first four years of his career. Stephenson’s rookie contract paid him just over $3.4 million over its length. Last season, Lance was paid just over $1 million to start all 116 of the regular season and playoff games he played in for the Pacers. Contrast that with Evan Turner, who was paid more than twice that (over $2.2 million) for the 39 games (regular season and playoffs) he took the floor for Indiana.

                      For the team, the $1.3-million first year difference meant that Indiana would have had to find a way to reduce their payroll by almost $6-and-a-half million to get back under the tax. Further, even spending up to the tax threshold of $76.829 million would have represented a $7-million increase in their payroll from last season.
                      http://8points9seconds.com/2014/07/1...eal-charlotte/
                      2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                      Comment


                      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                        Originally posted by doctor-h View Post
                        The point is they did not make the best offer they could without paying the luxury tax. You have got to find a way to get it done and they could have. They just chose not to. You cannot let one of your best players walk so you can take care of Miles, Sloan or Scola. You have got to take a hard line and do what is best for the franchise's future especially when your that close. They will pay for this dearly in fan support, merchandise sales, season ticket sales, playoff appearance money and national recognition.
                        This is the point where people get accused of hate but Lance just isn't that special. IMO he wasn't worth the offer Larry put out in the first place. He's a solid starter but not worth 9 mil per year. I don't think the LT had as much to do with the offer given to Lance as what Larry thought he was worth did. It would have been wrong to pay Lance that much money IMO even if we were 15 mil under the tax. If it's a special player like Paul George you find a way to get it done. You don't have to find a way to get it done if it's the wrong thing to do.
                        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                        Comment


                        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                          Originally posted by cgg View Post
                          It's become clear to me that nobody's opinion is going to change no matter what information is revealed.
                          Because no matter what information is revealed, people will pick parts they agree with to confirm their opinions and refuse to believe the other parts because it doesn't fit their narrative. For example, the title of an article can literally be "I WANTED TO BE THERE" yet people will still post over and over again that Lance never wanted to be here. How can opinions change like this?
                          2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                          Comment


                          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                            Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                            Even if they did, the money per year still must have been less than Charlotte since we were up against the cap (why Lance says "they didn't make no sense" in comparison to Charlotte), which was due in large part to previous commitments (or more like failures to unload) to bench players like Copeland, Mahinmi and Scola. As Strummer posted above, the Pacers contract in the first year was capped at $6.9M if they kept Scola, which they clearly intended to. Giving Lance an exploding offer, then rushing to sign a player of CJ Miles' replaceable quality in the meantime was the "nail in the coffin" so to speak, at least in Lance's eyes. As he said in Candace's article, that pushed the Pacers even further against the cap and limited their flexibility to a near impossible degree where the Pacers would have to do some serious financial gymnastics to fit Lance in the budget.

                            This is from Tim Donahue (count55) from 8pts9sec with the numbers I posted above:


                            http://8points9seconds.com/2014/07/1...eal-charlotte/
                            I remember that article but thanks for posting it

                            As I said before, I'm aware of all that. I understand what you were trying to say that those $3 million probably felt more to Lance than they would feel to a seasoned veteran. But that doesn't change my argument. No matter how big or small this amount felt it still wasn't a big part compared to the rest of the salary he was guaranteed. It's not like Charlotte offered him 50% more per year. It was a relatively small improvement and if Lance really wanted to be here then he could have bypassed it.

                            Unrestricted FAs always have the final say when it comes to their future. They are the ones that are making the final choice. That's what I'm trying to say all this time.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                              Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                              This is the point where people get accused of hate but Lance just isn't that special. IMO he wasn't worth the offer Larry put out in the first place. He's a solid starter but not worth 9 mil per year. I don't think the LT had as much to do with the offer given to Lance as what Larry thought he was worth did. It would have been wrong to pay Lance that much money IMO even if we were 15 mil under the tax. If it's a special player like Paul George you find a way to get it done. You don't have to find a way to get it done if it's the wrong thing to do.
                              Lance's market wasn't great but it was definitely in the 9 million per year range. Dallas may have given him 10M/year. He's probably being overvalued and undervalued on this board. But we all will find out in just a couple years. I hope I'm wrong about him.

                              Edit: But I can buy the fact the Pacers were willing to risk him leaving. They would not have done that with Paul George and, at the time prior to Hibbert signing they wouldn't have done that with Roy. So, I actually agree that putting big money down on Lance is a riskier proposition than Paul and even Roy at the time he was looking like a stud. Still, I would bet on Lance being an excellent player we should have broken the bank to hang onto...at least matched Charlotte's offer whether or not it went into the LT because an NBA title was at stake IMO. But with full view now after PG's injury, it may not be that bad. By the time Paul returns I don't think West will be playing at the same level as he has....and he's already slowed a bit. So, the window for a title with this team...for those starters...is effectively closed. We will need a new PF and new SG.
                              Last edited by BlueNGold; 10-25-2014, 11:46 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                                The moral of the story....don't low ball a key player who has been one of the most productive yet cheapest players on your team. You don't low ball that guy on his first contract.
                                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X