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

utah has target jeff foster for a potenial trade

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

  • #76
    Re: utah has target jeff foster for a potenial trade

    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    What have we gained from it? Be realistic.

    -Bball
    Even though Im ready to have JO out of here now, he was a six time all star, had 3-4 really good seasons (best being 61-21). These seasons translated into alot of people in the stands. Im sure the Simons were very happy with that.

    But he is over the hill with those frail knees he runs on now.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: utah has target jeff foster for a potenial trade

      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
      Dude, let it go. Nobody wants to have this conversation with you any more.
      A friendly reminder not to speak for all of us.

      I want to hear BBall's observations and think they're germaine (pun intended).

      Let's not forget that had we not made that trade, we would have been able to spend many millions on another player or players. Who knows what may have been?
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: utah has target jeff foster for a potenial trade

        Originally posted by BoomBaby31 View Post
        Jeff Foster screams Utah Jazz type player. I'd see why they would want him. Plus with Lakers getting Gasol rebounding is going to be a concern for anyone facing them. I don't know who or what they would trade, I'm guessing draft picks and a filler. I doubt they trade any of their good guys.
        I could see Jeff helping any number of WC teams. Dallas looked like they needed inside help today. The Spurs are always a possibility. Phoenix? I dont know - maybe, and of course the title of this thread - Utah. Heck, I could even see him helping the Warriors.

        Jeff would fit really well in the high PNR offense of Utah. I'll say it again though - I would love to see him alongside Tim Duncan.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: utah has target jeff foster for a potenial trade

          Apparently I'm not doing a good job of tying my points together.

          IF JO would've panned out and turned into Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett then I'd understand the argument about what a great deal we got in trading -only- Dale Davis for him. JO didn't turn out to be either of those guys, nor did he turn out to be a franchise guy except in contract.

          I have to point out that Dale Davis wasn't an "only". It makes me mad to have DD's role and accomplishments reduced to an 'only'. He meant much more to the team than that.

          We traded an important cog for potential when we were actually a pretty good team. Then we put a lot of money into that player.... Hmmm sounds like the Bender deal! But I'm talking JO. We gave him the keys, hitched the wagon to him, tossed out players left and right to appease him, and we're a sub 500 team with declining attendance and with little salary cap flexibility and little chance left of moving him for anything much of value because we've let the NBA see exactly how far he's fallen and let them know Carlisle wasn't the problem.
          -
          Next up... The situation is almost entirely reversed now. The team can afford to trade away an important piece now because being important to a sub 500 team doesn't mean much in the bigger picture. Which brings us back to the Foster discussion.

          If we can trade Foster for potential at some needed positions, so be it.

          Third, if after some time it becomes clear that potential is peaking (and aren't where we need them to be) then we need to cut our losses and move on. Which should be true no matter how or when you acquired that 'potential'.

          If you're going to deal in the world of 'potential' then you have to be willing to move on, even risking that player to go off elsewhere, because you can't wait forever or else it will rip the team apart (Which is what we're trying to recover from but still haven't made the ultimate commitment).

          Anthem,
          I'm not going to sidetrack the thread further talking about Donnie's motivation in rebuilding on the fly, but I certainly see it differently than you do. (surprised? )

          -Bball
          Last edited by Bball; 02-03-2008, 09:14 PM.
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: utah has target jeff foster for a potenial trade

            Originally posted by jmoney2584 View Post
            And where does it say that the deal has "grown into Kirilenko for Foster and Murphy", I see that nowhere in the article.
            It was all speculation on my part.

            My thinking was that Utah wants to move an unhappey AK47 but since he makes 13.7 the only way they could get Foster from us is for us to add salary. Foster is listed at 5.7 so we would need to add on around 8 million in salary.

            Murphy is 9.2, Dunleavy 8.2

            I just thought that the Pacers would rather move Murphy rather than Dunleavy. Making the deal Kirilenko & filler for Foster & Murphy.

            Peck has a good point however, moving Foster & Murphy leaves so way too line at the 5.

            Replacing Murphy with Dunleavy & the deal still works according to Real GM, however, Utah already has Harpring & Krover. Dunleavy makes no sence for them.

            Bottom line is trading Foster/Murphy doesn't work for us & Foster/Dunleavy doesn't wotk for Utah.

            There might be a deal where all we move is Foster but I don't see it.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: utah has target jeff foster for a potenial trade

              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
              A friendly reminder not to speak for all of us.

              I want to hear BBall's observations and think they're germaine (pun intended).
              Didn't mean to. If you want to continue having this same conversation with him be my guest.

              Bball's a smart guy. Once upon a time my favorite person to read on the board. But he's absolutely fixated on Jermaine. There's literally nothing else to talk about... it's all been said. And yet again and again and again every thread and discussion is brought back to "Jermaine's a prissy showoff who wouldn't know a good basketball play if it bit him in the ***, and the people who disagree clearly only care about Sportscenter."
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: utah has target jeff foster for a potenial trade

                Anyone willing to trade Foster to Utah must know that is a major tank move. No one they have that they are willing to give up can guard the interior like Foster...not even close. BTW, that's why they want Jeff...to guard Timmy Duncan.

                But it does make some sense if you have a 3 or 4 year plan.

                The reason you trade Jeff now is because you are probably selling high with him right now. His value will not go any higher. You must also want both young talent for him in trade and are ready to tank RIGHT NOW and get high draft picks for a rebuild....all in anticipation of the boat anchor contract expirations (JO, Murphy, Tins, MDJ) in a few years....that will help resign this young talent...and might be useful to pickup free agents.

                Foster frees up a little cash for the moment to sign Granger to a long term contract. You show respect to Jeff by sending the good soldier to a nice place.

                You also need to keep in mind that Foster may start going downhill. By the time those contracts expire, Jeff will be certainly on the downhill swing and worth very little at that point.

                Yes, we all might have to hold are breath for a couple seasons...but we've already done that for 3. IMO, this is an awful move short term and a good or very good one 3 years down the road...

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: utah has target jeff foster for a potenial trade

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Anyone willing to trade Foster to Utah must know that is a major tank move. No one they have that they are willing to give up can guard the interior like Foster...not even close. BTW, that's why they want Jeff...to guard Timmy Duncan.

                  But it does make some sense if you have a 3 or 4 year plan.

                  The reason you trade Jeff now is because you are probably selling high with him right now. His value will not go any higher. You must also want both young talent for him in trade and are ready to tank RIGHT NOW and get high draft picks for a rebuild....all in anticipation of the boat anchor contract expirations (JO, Murphy, Tins, MDJ) in a few years....that will help resign this young talent...and might be useful to pickup free agents.

                  Foster frees up a little cash for the moment to sign Granger to a long term contract. You show respect to Jeff by sending the good soldier to a nice place.

                  You also need to keep in mind that Foster may start going downhill. By the time those contracts expire, Jeff will be certainly on the downhill swing and worth very little at that point.

                  Yes, we all might have to hold are breath for a couple seasons...but we've already done that for 3. IMO, this is an awful move short term and a good or very good one 3 years down the road...
                  That's my thinking as well. You don't want to have a fire sale with Foster but if his value is up and he can really net some otherwise hard to get pieces that appear to have a high ceiling (or are already pretty good) then you have to consider it. Even if it means a few more losses this season. Then again, maybe it balances out with a strengthened backcourt improving the team enough to equal or overcome our weakened front court.

                  And if trying to get better for 2-3 years down the road means making it harder to win now and getting a higher draft pick to go along with the development plan (and doesn't leave us RELYING on the draft)... then I'd call that a good thing for the long term. Afterall, that would be acquiring some value to wheel and deal with (not to mention a potential shot in the arm for fans to energize the fanbase).

                  -Bball
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: utah has target jeff foster for a potenial trade

                    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                    I've been looking at what other contenders in the west could offer. This works but I have no idea if it's a good trade or not. Jeff for Brent Barry and the rights to Tiago Splitter.

                    Barry's contract is expiring. ($5.4m) All I remember about Splitter is his name has been talked up quit a bit the last couple years.

                    Maybe SA would throw in the 2nd rounder they own of Houston's next year. (Miami owns our 2nd round pick next year)

                    Anyone think this would be a good deal?
                    i think splitter has a future in the nba. he was hyped up quite a bit as a rising star, but the reality now is that he's 23 already and still offensively challenged. on the plus side, he's a legit 7 footer with excellent defense, works hard on the glass, and has some post skills. i'd imagine that he'd eventually develop into a rich man's version of jeff.

                    the interesting thing about a san antonio deal is that they're slightly over the luxury tax after signing stoudamire while we're still slightly under this year. we would be doing the spurs a big favor if we take on an extra $1m in salary in the trade - say, by swapping francisco elson for david harrison.

                    the deal could like this:

                    jeff foster ($5.7m) and harrison ($1.3m) for brent barry ($5.5m), elson ($3m), rights to splitter, and spurs' 2008 pick

                    the spurs get foster plus they drop below the luxury threshold. we get expiring contracts plus assets that would be useful in a rebuilding situation.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: utah has target jeff foster for a potenial trade

                      As long as we're throwing around crazy trades:

                      Foster/Granger/Troy/Quis
                      for
                      AK-47/Millsap/Almond/Okur/NY#1/UT#1

                      We take their two big problem salaries (AK and Okur) and give them a young stud and future cog (Granger) and a workhorse (Foster). In return, we get two picks and two prospects. Plus they get Murphy. While there are very few players in the NBA that I'd prefer Murphy to, Okur is one of them.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: utah has target jeff foster for a potenial trade

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        Didn't mean to. If you want to continue having this same conversation with him be my guest.

                        Bball's a smart guy. Once upon a time my favorite person to read on the board. But he's absolutely fixated on Jermaine. There's literally nothing else to talk about... it's all been said. And yet again and again and again every thread and discussion is brought back to "Jermaine's a prissy showoff who wouldn't know a good basketball play if it bit him in the ***, and the people who disagree clearly only care about Sportscenter."
                        What confuses me though is why you are so fixated on him? Bball doesn't like J.O., you don't like Murphy so who cares.


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

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: utah has target jeff foster for a potenial trade

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          Apparently I'm not doing a good job of tying my points together.

                          IF JO would've panned out and turned into Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett then I'd understand the argument about what a great deal we got in trading -only- Dale Davis for him. JO didn't turn out to be either of those guys, nor did he turn out to be a franchise guy except in contract.
                          The KG-led Timberwolves were never any better than the JO-led Pacers, and often were worse. Both teams maxed out at single Conference Championship appearances.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: utah has target jeff foster for a potenial trade

                            jeff is all we got...why trade him for another sg/sf? L OL
                            "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: utah has target jeff foster for a potenial trade

                              Why do people act like Kareem Rush is the answer at SG? He's a career journeyman signed to a one-year contract. He'll most likely leave at the end of the season. He's doing nothing special this year and, at 27, has likely peaked. He's not a long-term solution, and as much as I like Dunleavy, with his defense, neither is he. C.J. Miles or Morris Almond could both be that long-term answer. I think Miles looks like a stud in the making. I'd argue he's a better player right now than Kareem Rush, and he's just 20 years old, two years removed from high school. He has pretty much the entire package. Shooting touch, size, athleticism, ball handling, defense, passion, a good attitude. Almond, too, has looked very promising. I saw him compared to Allan Houston. He looks like a huge scorer, in the mold of a Kevin Martin. Trading Foster for him would be a risk, but a risk well worth taking. Foster's good, but he's very overrated around here. This team is going nowhere fast, we need to worry about the long-term health of the team and not the immediate future.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: utah has target jeff foster for a potenial trade

                                I've looked over the Jazz and Pacers roster and there is no realistic trade that makes sense for the Pacers to accept.

                                I don't see the Jazz giving up Okur much less the Pacers taking him on. The Jazz need him as much as they need Foster. If anything....the purpose of getting Foster is to compliment both Okur and Boozer. As someone mentioned here before.....the only player that the Jazz would most likely part with to make salaries match ( short of gutting their bench ) is Harpring. Although they can put together some 5 player trade that does not involve Harpring....I don't see that realistically happening.

                                On the Pacers side.......if I had a choice of players....I would want Milsap ( cuz we desperately need a heavy duty rebounder ) and even go as far as throwing in Ike for Almond ( if that is even possible ). But realistically....outside of some deal centering around Harpring+Milsap for Foster....I don't see any deal that would make any sense for the Pacers.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X