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

Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

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

  • #46
    Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

    Sure this current group can do better defensively but to really show some improvement I think this team needs to get more athletic.

    One thing to remember is this is a different era. It is a guard dominate era of basketball. You need quickness to be good on defense. There are so many good perminter players that quickness is just a must.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

      Originally posted by rommie View Post
      Sure this current group can do better defensively but to really show some improvement I think this team needs to get more athletic.

      One thing to remember is this is a different era. It is a guard dominate era of basketball. You need quickness to be good on defense. There are so many good perminter players that quickness is just a must.
      Plus you can't touch, grab or push perimeter players like you used to, making them almost impossible to guard. if you go back and watch games from the 80's and 90's it is vastly different. In todays NBA you really do need really, really quick perimeter defenders and IMo quick and athletic interior defenders.

      If you can go back and watch the Knicks vs Pacers in the '94 playoffs. Watching Derek Harper and Haywood Workman play defense - in todays NBA each would be fouled out within 5 minutes of play.

      If you watch the really good defensive teams defend players or try to defend players like Chris paul or Tony Parker - they try and wall them off to cut off their penetration - one guy can't do it now. if this were 1994 those two players in particular would be less effective - and the the bigger stronger more physical players such as Jack would be more effective
      Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-22-2009, 04:09 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

        Boy, I just disagree with several things in this thread.

        First, while Jax is my all-time fave Pacer, I think Peck is wrong to say his defense was underrated. He was dreadful and couldn't stop even moderately fast PGs. Stoudamire's first year was just embarrassing (vs Best to FWIW).

        Second, I have been comparing Rush to McKey since Kansas and I stand by it from what I saw this year. He does a lot of things just like Satan, he helps himself make easier, smarter plays by reading the floor well.

        Third, I think we are overrating Reggie's defense. He got slagged so often that we learned to defend him, but still he was sub-par. He learned to put a hand in a face and try to guide players to the help, but he was awkward and gangly as a defender. He was more a product of the hands-on era than being decent defender.

        Fourth, when Bird got here the first thing he did was call on Rose to be a main defender. Later he slipped away from that, but in 98 he and McKey were the guys Bird sic'd on people and Rose met the challenge fairly well. As I recall a key issue in game 7 of the 1998 series was that Rose ended up in foul trouble and could no longer be the defensive point of attack.


        Ultimately I guess with all these adjustments I'd make I probably see the 98 era Pacers as still more defensively talented, but with some pretty gaping holes themselves.

        Lost in all this, especially for the 2000 team, was that they were incredibly efficient on offense. They were an elite shooting team, and jump shots at that more than transition or inside scoring. This allowed them to setup on defense much better.

        Also they were only the 13th best defensive team by points per possession. Their pace was midway at 93.1.

        This year's team just finished as 19th in defense, but 3rd in pace at 96.5. What this means is that while people see them as good on offense they actually aren't all that hot. They were slighly below league average on offense and ranked 17th despite the high PPG created by pace (also a cause for high individual statistical totals as well, such as 3PM by Danny and Troy). Even their adjusted FG% (to account for 3pt makes) left them at 13th.

        The 2000 Pacers were NUMBER 1 in offensive rating (PPPoss) and NUMBER 1 in adjusted FG%. They were the classic case of your best defense being a great offense, keep them on their heels so much that you don't have to fend off attacks yourself, ie transitions and breakdowns going the other way.

        Meanwhile they were a POOR TO creating team and a blah defensive rebounding team (also just terrible as an offensive rebounding team).

        Ultimately what all this shows is that maybe the issue with the 2008-09 Pacers wasn't defense so much as a crap, inefficient offensive system that left them on their heels way too often.

        I mean honestly I hadn't compared the numbers of this team to 2000 till just now, and as soon as I started looking at the numbers what I saw was what many of us said we'd see with a JOB team. Low offensive rebounding, early shots, high pace. And our concern, from the critics at least, was that the team didn't have the vet offensive weapons or monster level of expert shooters to play that way.

        Everyone hates me being on Carlisle's jock, but look, he ran out complex plays that nearly every player on the floor was capable of understanding and executing. The plan was solid and putting it with guys of Jax's caliber made it hum along. From Rik's post threat to Dale's pick ability, the PRE-PLANNED offensive strategy just tore teams apart and countered every solution they came back at it with.

        That's why you stick with him and let players learn to run those plays. Instead we got a run and gun offensive system that looks nice on the scoreboard but puts itself in a tough spot going the other way.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          Seth,

          I highly doubt Larry doesn't know exactly what Harter's role is. I think you and Bob are taking his comment too seriously.
          I'm not saying he doesn't know. I'm saying he DOES KNOW. And I'm saying his comments aren't from left field, it's something on his mind. He doesn't want to publicly call out the situation but IMO what's been cooking is that Larry has felt that Harter needs more input and JOB feels it's his show to run.

          It's classic. I've heard these exact comments from bosses and managers and other power players in company after company. No one is going to come out and tell the press (or workers) "it's on", but behind the scenes there is grinding.

          By talking about it Bird is telling us that defense is a topic that's been discussed, Harter's role has probably been discussed, and the roster make-up has been discussed. It's the fact that it has been discussed that surprised me.

          The irony in all this is that JOB needs athletes and yet he's the one that put full support behind TJ Ford's current ability as a defender. I mean if you aren't upgrading Ford's defense then I don't know what you are looking to fix. McRoberts is a much better athlete than Murphy and I didn't see JOB pushing Troy to the bench to get McBob into games either.

          I don't get that contradiction at all.


          And look, I wasn't really a Bird supporter, but he's winning me over. He's changed tatics with players I think (less press confrontations) and he's made several really great moves. I'm "choosing sides" simply because I think Bird is more on track than JOB. There were guys that could have been played or used differently and weren't.

          JOB's not wrong to say they need better athletes, but at the same time didn't Bird already go down that path and force the "better athletes" angle on Rick, which was a disaster. I think he's backing off that approach for a more sound "parts that fit" approach. Perhaps JOB doesn't agree.

          I mean it implies a traditional center, first off, and far less small ball. It was pulling teeth to get Roy some PT this year while you couldn't get TJ and Jack to play less than 70-80 minutes a night combined.


          At this point it's probably as minor as the Jack/TJ thing, but like that situation I think it's more than just some passing comment. There is something there. Either it gets resolved or it blows up, and we probably won't know till about JAN 2010 unless more comments creep out along the way.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

            Let's not forget that Bird pretty much threw Rick carlisle under the bus in Bird's post season press conference - so I think it is just Larry's way and I don't think there is as much there between Larry and Jim as many of you are reading into it.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              I don't think there is as much there between Larry and Jim as many of you are reading into it.
              Agreed. Obviously they seem to disagree somewhat about the defense, but this "conflict" seems pretty minor to me.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                I must be confused. I was under the impression we had a defensive coach and Dick Harter wasn't him.
                The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                  Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                  I must be confused. I was under the impression we had a defensive coach and Dick Harter wasn't him.
                  From what I recall from one of Jim O'Brien's radio shows - Lester Conner is more or less our defensive coordinator. And Jim said that Dick is more or less his sounding board - I am paraphrasing

                  let me say something else. All these assistant coaches were with Jim in Boston and Philly (except Dan Burke) - each of the other 4 were with him - so there must be a lot of trust there both ways. I doubt they would want to coach with Jim if he didn't give his assistants responsibility. And Dick was pretty much retired and thought that he would never return and in fact I think he said that he wasn't going to but when JOB got a job he couldn't refuse.

                  It is unusual for the same assistant coaches to follow a coach from job to job. Most of Phil Jackson's staff followed him from Chicago to LA. But Larry Brown has pretty much an entire new staff with him at each stop and that is more the norm. In fact most staffs turn over even while the head coach stays put

                  My only point is if Jim did everything himself as many seem to want to allege, I doubt these guys would feel such a loyalty to him
                  Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-22-2009, 05:05 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    At this point it's probably as minor as the Jack/TJ thing, but like that situation I think it's more than just some passing comment. There is something there. Either it gets resolved or it blows up, and we probably won't know till about JAN 2010 unless more comments creep out along the way.
                    I don't know that you can call it more than a hunch at this point, but I think Seth's onto something here.

                    There are clearly things Bird likes about O'Brien. My guess would be that he likes the emphasis on ball movement, O'Brien's high character, no-nonsense approach, the attention to fundamentals in practice, the team's overall effort level, and the individual player improvement he's seen over the past couple of years.

                    He seems to disagree with O'Brien strategically. I'd guess that Bird wants a more traditional lineup, a more efficient, slower paced offense, and a team that gives up fewer points.

                    What no one seems to have mentioned is that Bird seemed to indicate that a trade was a strong likelihood for this offseason. It's obviously not going to be like last year, but I do believe he's got more in mind than just getting rid of Tinsley.
                    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                    - Salman Rushdie

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      Ultimately what all this shows is that maybe the issue with the 2008-09 Pacers wasn't defense so much as a crap, inefficient offensive system that left them on their heels way too often.
                      How often was it the offensive system and how often was it the fact that someone individually blew a shot or turned the ball over?

                      I saw far too many open shots blown or bad individual decisions made (see, I don't really believe that JOB coached TJ to drive into traps so many times). There weren't that many times where the system was at fault (I'm not trying to open up discussion about end-of-game situations that worked or didn't). I think a better executed offense feeds the defense just like good defense feeds the offense.
                      BillS

                      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                        What are Dan Burke, Frank Vogel and Jay DeFruscio known for?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                          Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                          I don't know that you can call it more than a hunch at this point, but I think Seth's onto something here.

                          There are clearly things Bird likes about O'Brien. My guess would be that he likes the emphasis on ball movement, O'Brien's high character, no-nonsense approach, the attention to fundamentals in practice, the team's overall effort level, and the individual player improvement he's seen over the past couple of years.

                          He seems to disagree with O'Brien strategically. I'd guess that Bird wants a more traditional lineup, a more efficient, slower paced offense, and a team that gives up fewer points.

                          What no one seems to have mentioned is that Bird seemed to indicate that a trade was a strong likelihood for this offseason. It's obviously not going to be like last year, but I do believe he's got more in mind than just getting rid of Tinsley.
                          You can also look at last years draft. Rush and Hibbert could probably both be characterized as guys suited to playing more half court sets. Hibbert a offensive presence in the post and great screen setter and Rush as a guy who looks for his shot running off said screens.

                          The signs more and more point to Bird NOT seeing Obrien as the long term answer to coach this team, because truthfully he hasn't really been looking for players that fit his system.
                          "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                          - ilive4sports

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                            He may prefer other types of players, but that doesn't prove he isn't willing to work with those that aren't his preferred type. Honestly, weren't there some people who couldn't even see him using Roy Hibbert a year ago?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                              i am curious, if anyone knows - what is the link between larry and obrien? did larry just go fishing for a coach and come up with JOB or did he know him well beforehand? Of course I know JOB was coach of the celts after pitino left but by that time, larry was long gone and with us. i'm guessing that some of his old celts buddies referred JOB to larry, or dick harter, but does anyone know of a more solid link between these two guys, if there is one?
                              "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Kravitz: O'Brien's Fate Rests on Defense

                                Originally posted by Kaufman View Post
                                i am curious, if anyone knows - what is the link between larry and obrien? did larry just go fishing for a coach and come up with JOB or did he know him well beforehand? Of course I know JOB was coach of the celts after pitino left but by that time, larry was long gone and with us. i'm guessing that some of his old celts buddies referred JOB to larry, or dick harter, but does anyone know of a more solid link between these two guys, if there is one?
                                www.YellowPages.com

                                He looked under "coaches" and kept calling people until he got a "yes"....
                                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

                                Working...
                                X