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

Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

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

  • #76
    Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
    And for the record, I think it's a good thing to be out of control with energy.
    I may screw up the wording a bit, but the message is the same. John Wooden has a quote that you should be quick, but not in a hurry.

    You can be quick with actions, but you don't run around like a chicken with it's head cut off. There is a difference.

    Out of control isn't a positive, even if it's with good intentions.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      No, this is 100% not the case. I will be happy to record the Bulls game to DVD if need be, or have you over for the most unpleasant dinner/viewing either of our wives could imagine in order to make the case.
      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      Last night, though, I commented a number of times about Pacers who simply ducked out of the way when a shooter came toward them. Maybe this was finally an acknowledgment that they were out of position and knew it would just cause a foul, but it really looked like no one was bothering to challenge anything. THAT kind of defense bothers me.
      I believe I was excepting last night in regards to the bad half court defense, maybe I just wasn't clear. I agree with you that in the Bulls game we lost it in the half court. However, people are using the high scores in the blowout to justify lack of defense (the usual "high opponent score means you played bad defense") and I wanted to use those TWO games to say it wasn't so.

      I think I just didn't get the point across I was trying to make.
      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


      • #78
        Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

        Duke, I can agree that he's sometimes out of control. I will say that the Portland set of plays were all great examples of discipline and I think in the summer he showed that he could make quality plays rather than just energy plays.

        However, much of what Tyler does is all energy based. His base game isn't very good. You don't see him post up, show baseline, spin back, fake up, duck under for the easy jumper. You don't see him face up, crossover once and rise right up into a smooth jumper.

        So that's part of my issue. Josh's "out of control" play isn't really that out of control, certainly not more than Tyler's.


        But I do appreciate the point, you could cite plays, at least last year for certain, where he was doing almost as much harm and good. I even said so in some threads. At the time I liked that because I wanted them to use him as the physical disruptor, basically the role Tyler has right now.

        Like if a guy like Aldridge or Thomas gets going you sic the "nutjob" on them to blow that up, kill momentum, and then pull them back out. But he didn't get to do even that last year, and they sure did need it (and knew it because Bird drafted Tyler).



        I believe I was excepting last night in regards to the bad half court defense, maybe I just wasn't clear.
        My bad Bill.

        I do think it was worse than just the duck outs, and I'm guessing the main duck out you have in mind was Dahtay's odd one on Heinrich. My guess on that play was that he didn't want to give him the FTs and tried to fake the challenge in order to disrupt Hein, which obviously didn't work and doesn't exact make the DJ highlight reel.

        But my point is that it went well beyond that, and not just last night. I made the point on Roy the other day that he's clearly been leaving to double team the strong side ball-breakdown (PnR or just one on one) and leaves way too soon most of the time, making it easy for the ball to see it coming and pass behind him.

        It's a scheme that they've been taught, it's not just Roy doing it. We've had some defensive violations from it too. Maybe the scheme is sound and the implementation is just royally messed up right now, but it ain't good somehow.


        So that's no to the horrible debate dinner.
        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-30-2009, 03:37 PM.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

          Alot of the this excitement is it's the new young guy doing well, I'm talking about BRUSH end of last year, Roy the beginning of this year, TH now. We tend to not see the things as much they - don't do.

          I am guilty with Roy. I loved his scoring ability and it exceeded what I thought he could do. I wasn't until I go used to that happening that I was able to see how poor defensively he can be.

          Same with Tyler Hansbrough, I suspect. I love his physical style of play and how he knocks heads, so I'm pretty accepting of how much he gets blocked and his low FG % at this point. This will fade too, unless he improves.

          Same with McBob, maybe, but we'd have to see him get minutes first to even know what he can bring put in that situation. I feel like I really don't know what his game is yet, other than a high flier, nor can I figure out what weaknesses I'll be overlooking for awhile.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

            I wasn't impessed with Josh, a couple of dunks is supposed to impress me? He still looks lost, doesn't know what play they are running on offense, gets lost on defense. yes he plays with energy, but I was not impressed overall. But we'll see when he gets more time tonight

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              Like if a guy like Aldridge or Thomas gets going you sic the "nutjob" on them to blow that up, kill momentum, and then pull them back out. But he didn't get to do even that last year, and they sure did need it (and knew it because Bird drafted Tyler).
              Tylers the nutjob Rugby player, I love it.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                He still looks lost, doesn't know what play they are running on offense,
                You're assuming that they are running a play. Everyone on the team gets lost on offense. That's why they all stand around quite a bit.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  I think I just didn't get the point across I was trying to make.
                  And a post in another thread reminded me of the defensive thing I hate the most about this team.

                  TJ Ford will constantly come off his man to the ball handler, not because help is needed but simply to try to interfere with the ball. This of course leaves his man open and "hoop dere it is".

                  If I never see that again it will be too soon.
                  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


                  • #84
                    Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                    McRoberts made some nice plays but what did he do after his spurt? He comes back in with the Pacers up by 1 with six to go in the 3rd and the Bulls go on a 16-2 run the end the quarter, And how can you be so big and athletic and grab just 2 rebounds, if he gets 30m of run tonight with Murphy and Tyler out this game could get ugly with Memphis #3 in the NBA in rebounding and #1 on the offensive glass.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                      Josh benefit from what I think Peck talks about with Foster. I'm paraphrasing, but I think he said Foster would actually be a better player when he lost some of his athleticism and got older because he'd have to use his strength more and bang more.

                      I'm wondering if Josh can figure out how to use his athleticism in a controlled fashion and not depend on it, in a league of guys who are almost as or moreso athletic.

                      .........maybe that's not the right comparison, but my point is if McBob can get smoother and more physical and not just rely on jumping higher and athleticism, I think maybe he's a better player.

                      Again, I guess you need minutes to get smoother.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                        Originally posted by WetBob View Post
                        Fine, play all 3 of them. Play the youth!! It makes more sense then Murphy/Foster because this team isn't going anywhere this year anyway.

                        Plus, they aren't even worse off for it. Why does developing the young guys who will be here in the future, and tanking have to be considered the mutual?
                        X_______________

                        I would love to see the pracitce scrimmages, when you have TJ/Watson, DJones, Dun, Troy, and Hibbert/Solo vs. Price, Head, Rush, Tyler/McRoberts, Solo/Hibbert..

                        I know which side I'd bet on to win that scrimmage. I think they'd win a pretty high percentage. But we know JOB doesn't take anything from practice anyway. No wonder Iverson and JOB were a good match.

                        As for McRoberts. Personally, I don't think it has to be a McRoberts vs. Tyler thing. They really aren't similar players. Tyler's played well, he just needs to adjust for his shot. He's a better offensive player than McRoberts, but McRoberts is a better defensive player than Tyler. Still, I'd much prefer the PF rotation be Tyler/McRoberts...let's leave Troy on the bench, kay thanks.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                          Originally posted by Speed View Post
                          I feel bad for even taking this side, cuz I actually agree with you Seth, I want him to play and play well and I think he can.

                          It's funny, one of the first things I thought of watching McBob last night was, man I bet Naptown Seth is fired up to finally see McBob get some burn.
                          No, I love the debate dude, no apologies. Same to BillS, Duke, etc.

                          If it's sound and there are points, then I have to listen and mull it over. But the irony is that if the case being made last year and this was how you made it, then it's not that strong from the "don't play him at all" standpoint and doesn't get me fired up.

                          I'm only fired up by either they "fluke" or "so what, he's nothing special" comments. I don't say he's special, I say he's really young and keeps doing things that anyone with awareness sees and says "hmmm, I'd like to look into that".

                          I disagree about his physicality, he was physical last year too. That was part of his out of control play, it was very Tyler like.

                          I don't want to do too much more Tyler comparison because that's not my point here. I don't have this as some "Tyler vs Josh" thing, other than I simply wouldn't have drafted Tyler because they already had Josh.

                          And I was ripping on this all last year too, long before Tyler or Solo got here. Clearly Josh is more physical than Troy or Rasho or Baston or Roy, so they could have used him last year plenty and didn't. Look at the MPG Tyler is getting this year, that easily could have been used on Josh last year in a similar manner.


                          His rebounding last night, not high directly. But as I cited, he had 2 offensive boards and FGMs taken away by a foul on the Bulls during the shot and a goaltend by the Bulls. And he disrupted several other rebounds going against Ty and Noah, not exactly frontline duds themselves. Plus you see a lot of guard rebounds and some of those came from Josh denying the initial defensive board.

                          Plus while Ty had 13 boards himself, he also went 2 of 10 and a good chunk of that was vs Josh. Noah's 1 miss, the airball, was in the low post 1 on 1 vs Josh.

                          And the main point is that Josh's per36 stats were solid last year, and even then that was only 279 minutes. But last year you had 9.5 boards, 2 ast, 1.5 stl, 2 blk. To me he already showed last year that he has a well-rounded game.

                          His FG% has not been where it needs to be 44% last year, and you would like some more FTAs, but nothing on his stat board or in games really said "don't play him".



                          Look, I understand why they play Hans. You need to. I don't think the results have been this great discovery like people do, but the team isn't good and he's a young frontline player that needs a chance to play his way out of PT.

                          Roy, Rush and Tyler have had that. Sometimes the chain on Roy and Rush was early or oddly timed, but I can't say they haven't had a chance. The bigger issue is just the odd desire to avoid using McBob or Price.

                          This easily could be a Price rant were he not in his first year...and even still, lord help JOB if Price gets a 28 min run all at true PG and tears it up for 8 assists and a 1-2 3PM without dragging the offense to a standstill with his personal dribble drive show.

                          Where I am with Price right now is where I was with McBob last year. You get 25 games in and have a need (physical bigs last year, quality PG play this year) and you have a young player that seems to address that need, and you don't play them.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            I wasn't impessed with Josh, a couple of dunks is supposed to impress me? He still looks lost, doesn't know what play they are running on offense, gets lost on defense. yes he plays with energy, but I was not impressed overall. But we'll see when he gets more time tonight
                            Really? He was lost with the behind the head pass from the low post to Roy on the other low post? He was lost with the given and go to Head that Brad Miller kicked?

                            He was lost when 3 other guys were standing watching the Ford show and he came out to bail him out, and was then left to go 1 on 1 with Noah?

                            If all you saw was dunks then I don't know what you were watching. I just cited a hellava lot more plays than that.

                            Noah - airball, directly 1 on 1 with Josh. What was your feeling there?

                            Ty - clank to the side trying to dribble drive into Josh at the FT line, 1 on 1

                            Ty - airball trying to rise up on Josh

                            Ty - dribble drive to the lane vs Josh, loses the ball right to Josh for the steal

                            See, this is exactly my problem. Josh was one of the least lost guys last night, the guy that made a ton of plays, and I still have to read "meh, couple of dunks"?

                            They weren't even "dunks", they were both backdoor cuts from the high post at the start of the halfcourt set. Both were the team's FIRST move out of the halfcourt, not some breakdown by the Bulls created by a detailed play. It was all Josh's read with his PG (Watson I think, can't recall).


                            Buck, you will never see Josh as valid because you are already marginalizing every good play he made. Of course I can't prove a point if you throw out 10 plays and laugh off 2 others.

                            Other than all that, what have the Romans ever done for us.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              Other than all that, what have the Romans ever done for us.
                              Just don't mix me up with the People's Front for Josh, the Pacers People's Front, or the McRoberts Liberation Organization.

                              Tossers.
                              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


                              • #90
                                Re: Bulls vs. Pacers Postgame Thread

                                BTW, after all this ranting I'm about to be embarrassed a bit because I just don't see how Josh will be ready to go on a back to back after getting 28 minutes of burn the night before when he's been planted on the bench for weeks.

                                If Dun is playing his way into game shape then WTF is Josh doing? He should be dead tonight I think, and then JOB can put him back in a suit for 2 months having "proved" his point.

                                I expect a bad night tonight all around. You take a bad team and make them tired? It should be ugly. Thabeet might even get 3-4 blocks tonight.

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                Just don't mix me up with the People's Front for Josh, the Pacers People's Front, or the McRoberts Liberation Organization.

                                Tossers.


                                BTW, the crowds are starting to look and sound a bit like that afternoon matinee crowd. Frankly the entertainment is too. If only we could get Ford to run around with the PF chasing him till he has a heart attack.
                                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-30-2009, 04:24 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X