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

We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.

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

  • #31
    Re: We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.

    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
    The Pacer HAVE TO pay top dollar for a starting 5 and underpay for their bench players.
    Bingo. Its why Foster's last contract was such a crime. Its why four years of guaranteed money (and above the vet's minimum) for D. Jones was stupid. Its why a multiyear seven-figure contract for a risky project like Stephenson is nothing better than an expensive gamble. Take out the last two, and you don't even have to blink at the idea of overpaying a little bit to keep the starting C that you've been building around.

    I don't agree with most of your assessment of George Hill except for one point. I still would rather he become the starting SG, perhaps alongside Collison, than the starting PG. But he's definitely a starting-quality guard, we just don't have clue what we're really going to do at the SG spot yet. I don't think Hill is overpaid, but the Pacers' backcourt is still in need of help.

    We've been doing this for 20 years now - overpaying for bench depth and then we get in a playoff series as a lower seed and find out that our starting five just isn't good enough -- so who cares about bench depth at that point?
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.

      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
      Bingo. Its why Foster's last contract was such a crime. Its why four years of guaranteed money (and above the vet's minimum) for D. Jones was stupid. Its why a multiyear seven-figure contract for a risky project like Stephenson is nothing better than an expensive gamble. Take out the last two, and you don't even have to blink at the idea of overpaying a little bit to keep the starting C that you've been building around.

      I don't agree with most of your assessment of George Hill except for one point. I still would rather he become the starting SG, perhaps alongside Collison, than the starting PG. But he's definitely a starting-quality guard, we just don't have clue what we're really going to do at the SG spot yet. I don't think Hill is overpaid, but the Pacers' backcourt is still in need of help.

      We've been doing this for 20 years now - overpaying for bench depth and then we get in a playoff series as a lower seed and find out that our starting five just isn't good enough -- so who cares about bench depth at that point?
      I agree so much with the highlighted part, bravo.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.

        Lance is six-figure, not seven, AFAIK.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          Lance is six-figure, not seven, AFAIK.
          Shamsports says it was a 4/3,360,000 deal. Says he's due $870,000 this year and $930,000 next. Both unguaranteed.

          Regardless, it's still extremely inexpensive relative for the NBA.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Shamsports says it was a 4/3,360,000 deal. Says he's due $870,000 this year and $930,000 next. Both unguaranteed.

            Regardless, it's still extremely inexpensive relative for the NBA.
            exactly, complaining about a guy making less than $1M is insanely stupid, imho at least. Pacers are going to have cap space problems, to be sure. But Lance and his contract are not going to have anything to do with it.

            The kind of contracts that will cause problems are the ones like poster here want to offer guys like Mayo or Humphrey or whoever. 8, 9, 10 million per year type contracts are the ones that kill cap space, not 870K contracts or even contracts like Dahntay's.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.

              It doesn't matter where you spend the million. Overpaying your 12th man by 870k or 930k (like that is materially different than "seven figures") is the same as overpaying Hibbert by about a million. You fill out the end of your roster with vet-minimum players or second round picks after you take care of your main players. You should never end up fretting over the contract to your starting C because an extra million (being spend on the end of the bench) puts you closer to the luxury tax.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.

                You say to round out your roster with second round players, which is exactly what they did with Lance.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.

                  Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                  I have no doubt getting Blair into the organization would help us resign him but I see it as a marginal difference that his 3rd down the list. Money and floor time matter most to a young FA and I doubt you would disagree with that.

                  My question to you is simply this. To what end? Adding Blair at his premimum price won't matter much to a small market team like the Pacers. He certainly won't level the scales in favor of the Pacers in the East. He won't put them 2nd in the East and he certainly won't change the outcome of a Heat/Pacer series.

                  The Pacer HAVE TO pay top dollar for a starting 5 and underpay for their bench players. This is of course assuming that Simon won't go into the LT but maybe I am wrong about that. I certainly don't think he will stay in the LT IMO. Would you disagree with this?

                  The biggest bang for the buck is in smart draft picks. Plummle wasn't a smart draft pick. Hansborough wasn't a smart draft pick. Splitter was a smart late first round draft pick. Hill was a smart late first round draft pick.

                  I suggest we follow the model of the Spurs in drafting AND letting guys go when they can be replaced by future draft picks. In a lot of ways the Spurs simply bait a hook with their expiring draftees and get even more value for them by trading them away.

                  The Pacers with the Hill trade took that bait when they should have been the ones like the Spurs getting more value out their own picks and replacing them with other cheaper options.

                  I wanted to believe early on that the Hill trade was a smart move but I can't bring myself to believe that anymore. Trading away 3 guys one of which should have been a lotto pick just wasn't worth Hill.

                  We could have signed him this season IMO and still had 3 assets in Lorbek, Kahwi, Davis Bertanss. Even if guys like JT say that we run the risk of not being able to sign him from the Spurs or he would have been traded,,,OK. Lets assume that does happen. My response to this is SO WHAT?

                  You lost out on the opportunity to overpay for 6th man who can play some pg minutes but is really a sg. The Pacers still don't have a solid point guard and they could have overpaid for OJ Mayo to replace that lost opportunity in signing Hill.

                  So here is my last thought before I stop rambling on and on. IN order for the Pacers to build a contender they need to build up their assets (draft picks/talent) and make smart trades that improve the starting 5 and solidify the bench.



                  Right now we have overpaid for Hill and now the suggestion is to do the same with Blair.. NO thank you.

                  Hmmm, 1 mil for Blair is overpaying, but 3 mil for Hansbrough is fine! I've never said the Pacers had to re-sign Blair. I'M LOOKING FOR HELP THIS YEAR! If Blair worx out and IF the price is right re-sign him. If not, let him walk.

                  Please point out where the Pacers can get a player from another team for less than 1.1 mil at a position of need, b/u PF, with Blair's ability and production? The cost I'm talking about to of get Blair is a 2nd/Stanko and 1 mil. Bird traded 3 2nds for James White and gave him a 2 year guaranteed contract then was cut prior to training camp, and you are worried about the cost of Blair? Lets not forget the Pacers traded for John Edwards at 1.1 mil then cut/waived him. 1 mil isn't something that the FO under Walsh ever worried about throwing away, but you are? I'd get upset with your thinking if it wasn't so laughable.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.

                    You don't pay second rounders and vet minimum players a million bucks a year. But even if the dollars are similar, you don't lock 'em up for four years. And you don't need to give 13, 14, or 15 guaranteed contracts (the old Donnie Walsh way of managing a 12 active player roster.) We have a better idea who is going to be in street clothes this season (or never taking their warmups off) vs. who is going in the rotation.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.

                      If giving Lance less than 1 mil per year, for two years guaranteed and two years non-guaranteed is one of the bigger problems to comlain about when talking about salary issues, then I'd venture to say that it's a petty thing to be squabbling over.

                      Lance eating up 1mil per year isn't going to make or break your ability to re-sign a guy like Hibbert. It's small potatoes.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.

                        True. But Lance plus Pendegraff plus Jones and suddenly you're at a shade under $5 million for guys that you hope never are forced into the game during meaningful minutes. That's 9% or so of the cap right there on guys wearing ties or their warmup jackets all night long.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.

                          9% of your cap for 25% of your roster is a pretty good trade off, if you ask me.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            Hmmm, 1 mil for Blair is overpaying, but 3 mil for Hansbrough is fine! I've never said the Pacers had to re-sign Blair. I'M LOOKING FOR HELP THIS YEAR! If Blair worx out and IF the price is right re-sign him. If not, let him walk.

                            Please point out where the Pacers can get a player from another team for less than 1.1 mil at a position of need, b/u PF, with Blair's ability and production? The cost I'm talking about to of get Blair is a 2nd/Stanko and 1 mil. Bird traded 3 2nds for James White and gave him a 2 year guaranteed contract then was cut prior to training camp, and you are worried about the cost of Blair? Lets not forget the Pacers traded for John Edwards at 1.1 mil then cut/waived him. 1 mil isn't something that the FO under Walsh ever worried about throwing away, but you are? I'd get upset with your thinking if it wasn't so laughable.
                            For one I don't believe the Pacers can get Blair for just Stanko or a second round pick and I have stated before that I would be more than willing to do this.

                            What I find funny is that your pointing to one mistake of Birds (James White) as if that should automatically prove that Blair wouldn't be as bad as a mistake and therfore justifiable.

                            I respect your opinion JT and I am not just blowing smoke here. The only reason I would want Blair is if the Pacers could resign him on the cheap. Thats around 3 million IMO and that would be a steal. Do I think its plausible or likely? No I do not just like my reasoning of resigning Hill was not a net gain when you factor in what it took to get him and what he is signed for now AND how the Pacers will use him.

                            In order for Blair to be a part of the puzzle of a contending team he has to have a reasonable contract because he is nothing more than a backup bigman and somewhat average at that.

                            Now let me ask you this are the Pacers contending this coming year? My answer to that question is no. As of right now they are behind the Nets (without Dwight) and the Heat IMO.

                            So having Blair for one year and accomplishing a second round exit means very little to me. I would much rather keep the draft pick and let Hans expire or trade him away in some package with Collison that upgrades the starting 5.

                            I believe we ultimately have the same goals for the Pacers but we differ on how to get there which is why I make a big stink on topics like this. Blair makes us playoff contenders but not championship contenders unless he is on a cheap contract and the Pacers improve the starting 5.
                            Last edited by Gamble1; 07-11-2012, 04:43 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              9% of your cap for 25% of your roster is a pretty good trade off, if you ask me.
                              I am fine with paying 9% as long as it goes to player with potential which is why I differ from Chicago J on this in regards to Lance. Djones and Pendgraph though I see very little potential there and so I don't see the point on some of those signing especially when Brush was on the team during the Djones signing.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                9% of your cap for 25% of your roster is a pretty good trade off, if you ask me.
                                That could be true. But this is also 9% of the cap for 0% of the rotation, and to me that is the kicker.

                                Right now the Pacers have about 81% of the cap tied up on the starters, which will go up further when Paul George's contract is up. And another 11% in the sixth, seventh, and eighth men (Collison, Tyler who are both due for pay raises soon, and Plumlee if he's actually going to be in the rotation?!??!??). So that leaves about -1% of the cap for the 9th through 12th men. And perhaps another backup big if Plumlee isn't going to be any more ready than Pendegraff.

                                Clearly, Stephenson's contract in isolation is less of a concern if the Pacers aren't already saddled with D. Jones and Pendegraff. But they're clearly overspending on the guys that look good in suits, which which has been a long-term problem.
                                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                                And life itself, rushing over me
                                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X